Since stories detailing what appeared to be Gavilan’s mismanagement, inappropriate and possibly illegal use of Measure E bond funds were published, allegations of serious violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act have been made by Gavilan Trustee Tony Ruiz. Last week Ruiz alleged that the Gavilan board violated the rules for a closed session and took a secret vote on redistricting for future elections. I support district elections, but if the allegations are true, it is the worst kind of backroom dealing and it also means they had something to hide.
More than three-and-a-half years ago the Gavilan board and president knew that the district may have been in violation of various Voting Rights Act laws concerning minority representation. A records review reveals there was a flurry of preliminary activity on the subject in 2011 and early 2012 including the contracting of a consulting firm to study the issue.
The board’s March 13, 2012 agenda, prepared and approved by the president, called for a redistricting workshop and injected the idea of including a closed session “if the material to be discussed warrants a confidential discussion with the Board’s attorney.” After that everything changed; there is almost nothing on redistricting in the board’s public documents for the remainder of 2012, all of 2013 or 2014 to date. The subject that had generated so much interest and a contract simply disappeared from public view; no report or actions were noted in either open or closed sessions. If the district failed, over the years, to take timely action to correct violations, that might be a reason to hide the results of a study.
The allegations certainly require investigation by the county district attorney and Civil Grand Jury and the investigations must include actions by both the Gavilan College Board of Trustees and the college president; what did they know and when did they know it? The comments put forward so far – that closed session cannot be discussed or that a public vote would have happened eventually – do not hold water. The information from an illegal closed sessions is not protected as confidential and making a backroom deal, especially a secret vote, only to confirm it at a later public meeting, can’t possibly be permissible.
The Brown Act exists to ensure that the public is aware of what their elected officials are doing. It requires that closed sessions – those excluding the public – be restricted to specific circumstances; changing the district’s voting process is not one of them. Even when a closed session is authorized, the subject must be posted on the agenda, secret votes are banned, and the board must report their actions. If Mr. Ruiz’ allegations are true, all those public protections were violated, and it appears violated with intent.
President Dr. Steve Kinsella is not on the board and therefore cannot be held directly responsible for any closed session discussion or vote; he says he only supplied information implying that he had no idea what they were doing with it. However, if the session took place as described by Ruiz and/or involved a consultant, this is hard to believe based on the words of his March agenda broaching the idea of closed sessions. If he had reason to believe they were acting illegally, he had an obligation to take action.
The investigating agencies should keep that in mind when they look into the extent of this arrangement including testimony from the consultant who evaluated the districting arrangements. Who did they discuss it with, where, and when?
These are not merely technical violations of obscure laws, if confirmed they go to the heart of representation and integrity.
