Lawyer Problems and Jewish Hatred (but I repeat myself)
Terrorist Propaganda Leads to Violent Ends
Before Sarah Milgram—a young Jewish woman from Kansas—was gunned down by a radicalized “anti-zionist” terrorist last week, she spoke out against hateful antisemitic graffiti at her high school. Dehumanization and the reflexive hatred so many Americans are now primed to feel whenever they hear a certain name or phrase are incredibly dangerous. We are just now starting to see the results of radical ideological indoctrination in American children.
As I stated last night, I remain deeply concerned that the same rhetoric expressed by the murderer of Sarah Milgram and Yaron Lischinsky has been expressed in our own district boardroom, and no one outside the Jewish community seems to notice.
So, while I would love to pretend all is well and happy and loving and kind, that is not the case. There are ugly and evil elements at play in our education system, and our district is absolutely not immune to them. I refuse pretend otherwise.
PVPUSD is a Government Agency—Not a Private Business—and Must Conduct Itself As Such
A lawyer for a public agency is a public servant, compensated with taxpayer dollars. While an elected governing board holds the attorney-client privilege with respect to privileged discussions, this does not mean that every discussion with public agency attorneys is confidential, privileged, and must be conducted behind closed doors. In fact, if there is no legal justification for having closed door discussions about a matter, doing so violates the Brown Act.
The concept of a private law firm advising a government agency is strange but has become commonplace in California. My first five years of law practice were spent at Richards Watson & Gershon, advising and litigating on behalf of public agencies from a private law firm. Cities and special districts would select a partner from the law firm to act as their city attorney, and the city attorney would attend all council meetings and provide real time guidance on the parameters of the law to enable elected members of the council to make policy decisions in compliance with the law. A lawyer on the dais also guided parliamentary procedure and ensured compliance with procedural requirements in voting and record keeping, among other things. The job is challenging, but a competent attorney is experienced, prepared, and can handle public questioning.
Sometimes a city attorney would be stumped with a specific question in a specialized area, and would respond with “let me do some research and get back to you.”
We know the law firms approved in the district’s RFQ process are capable of doing this kind of work, because we specifically stated in our Request for Qualifications: “counsel will be required to attend open and closed sessions in person or virtually,” and all respondents were required to answer.
So why are we now being told that our lawyers will not “do a public advisement of the board on a policy at the dais,” and even if they did, they won’t answer questions in public? As I stated last night, this is unacceptable.
The First Amendment is not Top Secret—Every Government Official Must Understand its Parameters
The First Amendment restrains the government from impeding free speech. The government “shall make no law” abridging the freedom of speech. It seems simple enough, but First Amendment jurisprudence is one of the most complex areas of law and requires careful attention to nuanced court decisions interpreting the constitutional provision.
When a school board makes policy, the board must consider (1) what the local community needs and wants and (2) the parameters of the law within which the board is required to act. When writing policy, the board needs to understand what is restricted by law, and what is allowed under the law. The board must understand the areas of flexibility where policy decisions can be made by an elected body, and what areas are dictated by legal mandate.
NONE OF THIS IS CONFIDENTIAL. In fact, it is critical for elected members of a public agency and public citizens to understand what can and cannot be done within the parameters of existing law. In my experience as a lawyer for public agencies, and in my observation of public agencies over the last 15 years, this is done routinely by competent attorneys during public meetings.
It is not done, however, in our own district and many others in California. We are repeatedly told that legal guidance to the public agency is privileged and confidential, and therefore everything our lawyers say is secret and can never be shared. At best, this leads to frustration and wasted time. At worst, this is used as a pretext to conceal all policy decisions regarding controversial issues, cutting the public out completely from a decision-making process that is quite literally the people’s business.
Every time I’ve asked for a public discussion about our district’s concealment policies, the antisemitic yearbook article, and the publications policy revisions, I’ve been told “no.” It is unclear to me whether this refusal to publicly discuss controversial issues is driven by the attorneys or by the district.
We need to be able to discuss policy changes in an open public meeting and ask our lawyers “is X legal? What does the law require us to do here? What are the legal considerations we need to make when determining the policy choice here?”
It is false to say that this conversation cannot be had in public. A refusal to give advice in public suggests to me the lawyer is incompetent. As I stated last night, “I remain astounded that an attorney advising a public agency is refusing to come to a public meeting so we can discuss why certain policy recommendations are being made and I'm flabbergasted that that's the level of competency that we're dealing with.”
I also am troubled that instead of demanding that we receive competent legal advice, the district is coming to the attorney’s defense and showering her with praise. This is not a kumbaya circle. This is the very serious work of running a 150 million dollar public agency with over 10,000 students, hundreds of employees, and tens of millions of dollars in contracts.
As I said last night, “I am frustrated as an elected official that we have to keep having this discussion. Two and a half years in we're having the same discussion.”
I was outvoted 4-1 in my proposal to discuss termination of the law firm for failure to provide competent legal advice and repeated violations of the Brown Act.
You might be wondering: Why is she so mean? I ran for this position to improve the district so that I can entrust my own children to the public schools where I chose to buy a home. I’ve got one and a half years left to do that, and therefore I act with urgency and honesty at all times because I am not gunning for re-election, higher office, or popularity. I just want to fix this district. I am incapable of fakery and I loathe incompetence and having my time wasted. I long to be soft, but alas, I am not.
When the executives of an entity with a 150 million dollar budget prioritize kindness over competence and refuse to engage in due diligence and holding contractors accountable, the children are the ones who suffer. I will continue to be direct and honest in my efforts.
We Might Discuss Compliance with Title IX, FERPA, and PPRA
I proposed a public review of the district’s policies and practices to ensure compliance with federal laws, namely Title IX, FERPA and PPRA in light of all of the federal investigations dropping in California. I want a public discussion because the pattern and practice of the district upon receiving my inquiries into these areas is to cover and defend the work the attorneys have done behind closed doors. The federal government has incentivized private individuals to sue districts for fraud under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act when districts accept federal funds while violating federal laws. If the district is not going to publicly and transparently come into compliance with federal laws, then the district needs to make sure it has something in writing from its attorneys indemnifying the district in the event the district is sued under the False Claims Act.
As always, this is just one lady’s opinion. I don’t speak for the board and no one else speaks for me.
