The Ventura County Board of Education must follow the law by appointing the next county schools superintendent in full public view.

The Ventura County district attorney is watching, The Star is watching and so is the public.

We remind the county board that this is not a game of semantics. The state's open-meeting law states clearly: "It is a misdemeanor for a member of a legislative body to attend a meeting at which action is taken in violation of the Brown Act, if the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows (or has reason to know) the public is entitled."

The Brown Act's chapter 6 is also exceptionally clear: "Care must be exercised to analyze the status of the individual involved in a closed session subject to the personnel exception. If the person is not an employee,' all action must be taken in public session. The Act defines the term employee' to include an officer or an independent contractor who functions as an officer or an employee, but shall not include any elected official, member of a legislative body or other independent contractors. (§ 54957.) In no case does the term employee' include elected officers or persons appointed to fill a vacancy of an elected office."

Very clear

There is nothing ambiguous about the law requiring the Ventura County Board of Education to make its appointment of a superintendent in public. That includes the process by which a county superintendent of schools is appointed.

Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten agrees.

The county Board of Education attorney wrote a ludicrous e-mail to county Superintendent of Schools Charles Weis on April 22, stating: "In my opinion there is nothing contained in the Ralph M. Brown Act which prevents the Board from considering the appointment of your (Charles Weis) successor in closed session, insofar as no action is taken. I am aware of no authority which would preclude the Board from holding a closed session to consider the process of appointment of the vacant superintendent position."

Although the Board of Education attorney wrote an e-mail to Superintendent Weis that he disagreed with his view that the discussion of his successor should be held in open session, he wrote that, "out of respect" for Superintendent Weis, he would not "agendize consideration of the appointment to fill the pending vacancy for closed session."

The board attorney's galling opinion, shared by Board President Chris Valenzano, that the board can legally discuss the superintendent's appointment in closed session, along with the board's actions up to placing a closed-session item on Monday's agenda, is why Superintendent Weis expressed his concern that the board would try to proceed with an illegal meeting Monday. In an e-mail to the county board, Superintendent Weis called the closed session "a veiled attempt to circumvent the open meeting act," by considering matters related to appointing his successor.

Item on agenda

The closed session item is listed on Monday's agenda as:

"D. CLOSED SESSION

"1. Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 — One Potential Case."

Star reporter Cheri Carlson reported Thursday that Superintendent Weis said he is suspicious of the closed session because it was put on the agenda after Mr. Valenzano abandoned his original request to discuss the superintendent appointment in closed session.

Sadly, we all need to be suspicious.

We commend District Attorney Totten for highlighting the portions of the Brown Act relevant to the appointment of a new superintendent and for his commitment to enforcing the law that protects the public's right to know.

We also commend Trustee Mary Louise Peterson, who told The Star she would walk out of an illegal closed meeting and report any Brown Act violations.

The preamble to the state's open-meeting law eloquently states: "Public commissions, boards, councils and other legislative bodies of local government agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created."

The Ventura County Board of Education is on notice that the public is watching and demands the discussion of how it appoints a superintendent and the appointment itself to be conducted in full public view.