Seth Rosenblatt

Seth Rosenblatt

Both lauded and maligned—and perhaps occasionally violated—the Brown Act has been an integral role of California politics for over half a century. The Ralph Chiliad. Brown Act, oft referred to equally California's "open up meetings law," was first passed in 1953 to ensure that work of publicly elected bodies was done openly and transparently. Information technology also remains i of the most disruptive pieces of legislation, particularly for "apprentice" politicians such every bit school board members, considering of its non-obvious provisions and multiple exemptions.

The California School Boards Association'south annual conference has multiple sessions every twelvemonth devoted to explaining the Brown Act to school board members (and CSBA publishes a 63-page volume to explain the law), but even attorneys specializing in the area disagree on the application of some of the law's provisions, particularly in the modern era.

The intent of the law is articulate and largely not in dispute: Public bodies should not deliberate behind closed doors but rather allow the public to witness their "thinking process" in how they come to decisions. The law centers on provisions stating that a majority of the members of whatsoever elected body must deliberate in public with an agenda that is posted and available publicly in advance of such coming together. In that location are many specific requirements and some exceptions (including for matters such as litigation, collective bargaining, and student discipline), only practically it means that I, every bit a member of a 5-person school board, cannot meet with two or more of my colleagues behind closed doors to hash out policy. This would, by its nature, hide the deliberations of a majority of a body which has the power to make public policy.

The human activity too prohibits "series meetings," deliberations that happen asynchronously by person A talking to person B, and then B talking to C, etc., or A becoming a "hub" by separately talking to B and C. One of the more than confusing provisions (especially for members of the public) prohibits elected officials from discussing in a public meeting items not included on the posted agenda. For example, members of the public may comment during a meeting on whatever topic that wasn't on that meeting'southward agenda, but a lath member cannot substantively reply to that annotate—this would effectively create a "back-door" way to add together a topic to a public coming together without giving observe to the community that such topic would be discussed.

As I wrote in my post describing the supposed "inefficiencies" of authorities bodies, these openness provisions make the determination-making process slower and more frustrating to some (both elected officials and the public), but I believe that nigh people believe this is an acceptable price to pay for that transparency. And my experience is that most elected officials, despite the occasional incidental or unintentional violation of the Brownish Act, take it very seriously.

The principal problem with the Brown Human action is that it was created in an era where advice vehicles were much more than express and it was easier to hide from the public eye. In 1953, just about half of U.S. households endemic a television (and only a scrap more that even owned a telephone), therefore equally a practical matter the but way the public could interact with their elected officials was through these periodic in-person meetings. Of form, the earth has changed, and the advancement of communication technology has allowed the states to craft policy leveraging these communication vehicles while actually advancing the spirit of the Brown Act.

We tin preserve the essence of the Chocolate-brown Act to ensure transparency and openness but also update it to recognize that school boards (and other elected bodies) have the opportunity to leverage multiple communications tools, including social media, in a very powerful way that would really increment customs involvement and transparency. Most Brown Human activity attorneys suggest school boards that it is not immune for a schoolhouse board member to phone in to a board meeting (while they are traveling, say) unless they mail service the agenda where they are located and brand information technology accessible to the public (tough to practise if you're talking in your car, by the way). This is too a vestige of an former era: How does my phoning in from halfway across the country deny the public'southward right to attend the board coming together back in my district? If anything, it makes my participation and deliberation more public.

Some other example is social media. Information technology's ironic that board members collaborating on a public forum (Twitter, blogs, etc.) is a violation of the Chocolate-brown Deed despite the fact that this is immensely more open, transparent and accessible than forcing people to get to a board meeting! For instance, my fellow board members won't likely ever comment on whatsoever of my EdSource Today manufactures out of a fear that more than one other lath member doing then would unintentionally create a "serial" meeting, violating the Brown Act despite the fact that expressing one's views on EdSource is as transparent every bit it gets! Using modern tools, we tin go much further than the old epitome of "show up to a meeting and make a comment."

Imagine the means that community members—even those without kids in schoolhouse—could participate in discussions and become information if we broadened the definition of a "public meeting." We could have modernistic electronic forums to disseminate information—and collaborate—on tax measures, structure projects, school boundaries and many other topics, as well every bit provide improve ways to work with community partners and get feedback from parents (or students).

But I don't desire to oversimplify the challenge of updating the Brown Act. For instance, a "chat" on e-mail isn't truly public unless it'south posted for all to encounter; same with Facebook, unless it's on a public page. But blogs and Twitter are truly open for all to see, and at that place are many other means for meetings to happen virtually with board members and the public non in the same concrete room.

I too appreciate that a completely open electronic forum may not necessarily exist the most effective mode to collaborate with a very large group! But despite not having all of the answers, I know that more methods of communication and collaboration will continue to announced. Engineering science will march on despite our restrictions on its use, so now would be as expert a time equally whatsoever to examine what a new Brown Act for the 21st century would look similar—ane that not only preserves the spirit of openness only, by recognizing the powerful tools in front of us, actually enhances information technology.

•••

Seth Rosenblatt is a fellow member of the Governing Lath of the San Carlos School District. He also serves as the president of the San Mateo County Schoolhouse Boards Clan and sits on the Executive Commission of the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Sustainable Schools Task Force. He has two children in San Carlos public schools. He writes frequently on issues in public education, including in both regional and national publications too as on his ain blog. In his business organization career, Seth has over 20 years of experience in media and technology, including executive positions in both start-up companies and large enterprises in positions beyond finance, marketing, business organisation evolution, engineering science and general direction. Seth currently operates his own consulting house for technology companies focused on strategy, marketing and business evolution. Seth holds a B.A. in Economics from Dartmouth College and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business Schoolhouse.

To get more reports similar this i, click here to sign upward for EdSource's no-cost daily electronic mail on latest developments in instruction.