The Board may have made mistakes in use of closed session agenda postings but not the
mistake that I believed. I had thought they were using discussion of the Scott-George
litigation for closed sessions and they were not. They were consulting with legal counsel
to discuss possibility of a Dobbins litigation against the district. That is a situation
authorizing closed session under the Brown Act.

I believe I have detected a violation of the Brown Act by the Board. There was no basis for holding in executive session Monday’s meeting of the subcommittee of three board members to assembly a report regarding the possible censure of Board Member Dobbins.

The Brown Act states reasons to hold executive session but does not cover assembling a report. Discussing litigation unconnected to Board Member Dobbins’ possible censure clearly had no place in Monday’s meeting, was not under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction and was an obvious ploy to hide from public view the process of discussing Board Member Dobbins’ possible censure.

The Board has employed censorship in its censureship effort. It has made a mess of a messy situation wereas there was wisdom in just letting go of the issue. And, the Board has put itself at risk of an unnecessary lawsuit. A future Board meeting on this subject may well be a subject covered under the Brown Act for executive session if the Board must discuss a litigation arising out of its actions in this matter. Then the Board’s pursuit of this matter would not just be a joke but an ironic joke.

What a joke!