Page One

The Berkeley School Board may have violated a state law governing public meetings when it voted March 21, to approve a new “small learning community” program at Berkeley High School, according to one expert.  

The agenda for the school board’s Wednesday meeting listed, as one of several action items, a motion for “approval of the on-going study of the Berkeley Academic Choice/International Baccalaureate Program for the Fall of 2001 at Berkeley High School.” 

The board voted against the approval of the “on-going study” Wednesday, but then, in a separate motion, voted to approve the implementation this fall of the Academic Choice Program. 

Berkeley School Board President Terry Doran told the Daily Planet last week that he believed members of the public who are opposed to implementation of the Academic Choice program did not attend Wednesday’s meeting because it was not indicated on the meeting agenda that there would be a vote for implementation of the program. 

“The board did not have the benefit of a group of parents and staff who had a different opinion of what was coming before them,” Doran said. “That disturbed me.” 

School boards and other local legislative bodies are required, under California’s Ralph M. Brown Act, to post agendas with brief descriptions of every item to be discussed or transacted at a meeting at least 72 hours in advance. 

The purpose of the requirement is to help interested members of the public determine if they want to monitor or participate in the meeting.  

If the description of an item on the agenda is misleading it can constitute a violation of the Brown Act, said Terry Francke, general counsel for the California First Amendment Coalition.  

In the case of the Berkeley School Board agenda, if the Academic Choice item was misleading to the public it could be “grounds for a serious complaint,” Francke said. A member of the public could demand a “cure or correction”, he added, requiring the board to suspend any action on the item until “the community had a chance to react to an implementation proposal” for Academic Choice. 

The board would then have to vote on the question of implementation again, Francke said. 

Doran declined to comment of the question of a Brown Act violation Monday, saying only: “I was much more disturbed because we were given a recommendation at the last minute.” 

Other board members admitted to being somewhat perplexed by the question of whether a Brown Act violation did indeed occur. 

When an action item is considered by the board “the language often changes” before the board actually votes on the item, said Board Director John Selawsky. 

“Usually the staff makes a recommendation and then the board has the freedom to make a motion different than the recommendation,” said Board Director Joaquin Rivera. 

Rivera said he thought there was adequate notification for the public, since the agenda clearly indicated that the Academic Choice program would be “discussed” at the meeting. 

“At this point, if it was (a Brown Act violation) we’ll just put it back on the agenda and vote again,” Rivera said.  

“The votes are there.” 

The Board voted to approve the Academic Choice program for implementation in the fall of 2001 by a vote of four to one, with Doran the sole vote against approval. 

Academic Choice would create a school-within-a-school for 90 juniors and 90 seniors at Berkeley High next fall, and would expand the following year to include sophomores. Student accepted into the program would be encouraged, with the support of a dedicated network of teachers, to take a number of the most rigorous and advanced classes offered at the school.