Mendocino Unified School District Board of Trustees The Mendocino Unified School District Board of Trustees (Board), an

The current Board Bylaws reaffirm Brown Act provisions. Response (Mendocino Unified School District): We agree that aspects of the Board Bylaws uphold part of the Brown Act.

With the assistance of district staff personnel, the Board violated the provisions of the Brown Act and their bylaws numerous times during the past year in each of the following examples. Response (Mendocino Unified School District): We deny that the Brown Act and board Bylaws were violated numerous times. a. Proper meeting notice requirements. Response (Mendocino Unified School District): On some occasions the detailed address of the meeting location was inadvertently omitted. There was no intent to exclude anyone. b. Public access to Board meetings. Response (Mendocino Unified School District): We deny that the public was ever denied access to any Board meeting. c. Failure to distribute or publish results of closed meetings. Response (Mendocino Unified School District): We deny that when required there was ever a failure to distribute or publish results of closed meetings.

No adverse affects on the operation of the District schools have been identified relating to alleged improper hiring practices. Response (Mendocino Unified School District): We agree that there have been no adverse effects of the operation of the District schools since there have been no improper hiring practices.

A memo dated August 31, 2000 to the Superintendent from the Board acting Chair, relieved the Superintendent of certain responsibilities without stating cause. These duties were reinstated verbally by the acting Chair on September 7, 2000 and in writing on September 15, 2000. The Grand Jury cannot find any reference in Board minutes prior to the issuance of the memo by the acting Board Chairman authorizing the memo. The acting Chair’s actions are direct violations of Board Bylaw 9200. Response (Mendocino Unified School District): We disagree with this finding. 1) Copies of the memos referred are not attached and therefore, one cannot be certain which memos are referenced and 2) the meaning of the finding is not clear. We assume that the memo referred in the first sentence was a suggestion from a facilitator which was made in an attempt to resolve a dispute between the Board and the former Superintendent. The former Superintendent did not agree to the proposal and therefore, no action was taken of the proposal. According the Government Code 54957.(a) (3) (B) “If final approval rests with another party to the agreement, there was no agreement by all parties, the agreement itself was not finalized and thus was discarded. As the relief of duties never occurred, there was nothing for the Board president to reinstate. Subsequent to the meeting, the Board chairperson in casual conversation did explain to the Superintendent that nothing had changed. The Superintendent asked for such a statement in writing and the board chairperson gave it to him. As there had been no action taken by the Board there was not a violation of Board policy.

Since the Grand Jury investigation began, the Board has conducted three public forums. These forums were intended to better acquaint the local community with Board operations, policies, and procedures, and to gain community comment and understanding. Response (Mendocino Unified School District): We agree with the finding.