The Brown Act "prohibits serial meetings that are conducted through direct communications, personal intermediaries or technological devices for the purpose of developing a concurrence as to action to be taken." (Web Link So this would be a Brown Act violation if being serially informed of a donor's identity is part deliberating about some particular action -- for example, deciding whether to accept the donation.

So as long as the board has the option to reject a donation, then being serially and secretly informed of the donor's identity seems like a clearcut Brown Act violation.

"Gunn Dad" illustrates the perils of trying to do legal analysis without actually reading the law. SB 1732 amended the Brown Act in 2009 to explicitly permit staff members to inform individual board members of facts, so long as staff members did not inform board members of the views of other board members. See Web Link

If "Gunn Dad's" view were correct, *any* oral communication from a staff member to more than one board member (or city council member etc.) that touched on a topic within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body would be a violation of the Brown Act if not reduced to writing or shared with the public, even if it didn't share the views of other board members. That's exactly the opposite of what the Brown Act says.

So, the board wants to change the name of two middle schools because it was discovered that they supported Eugenics, but they also want to accept money without knowing who is giving it to them?

[Post removed due to misstatement of the board's action.]

@Mom, bad news - the board voted explicitly to NOT find out who the Addison donor is. They don't know; we (the public) don't know. The rule they proposed was too convoluted for me to understand, but the motion Godfrey made was crystal clear - don't learn the identity of the Addison donor.

If you want the district not to accept anonymous donations this is easy, no policy required. Of course, then you don't get a badly needed renovation at Addison School.

@eagle, except for the $60 million remaining on the $390 million bond, plus whatever the next bond is, there's hardly a penny for renovations. We are literally one of the richest districts in the state. We can't plead poverty as the reason we do things. I would be happy to see the district (us taxpayers) pay for more modest renovations now or later in exchange for knowing where the money comes from.

Parent of 2 says, "I would be happy to see the district (us taxpayers) pay for more modest renovations now or later in exchange for knowing where the money comes from."

Yes, that's exactly the tradeoff and the board majority disagrees, they would rather accept an anonymous $15 million donation than turn it down. Voters have the opportunity next year to decide if they agree assuming that Dauber and Godfrey run for re-election. I think most people will agree with the tradeoff the board made but it's a political question.

I will step and take the money if that will help this situation.

Godfrey made that motion because the district has been working with that Addison donor for years and began the relationship with the expectation that s/he would remain anonymous. Godfrey's motion, I believe, just grandfathered that donor into the old law. It seems it was an act of good faith since we entered into this relationship with a policy that said the donor did not need to reveal him/herself.

[Portion removed due to misstatement of action taken by school board. The board approved on a 3-2 vote a policy allowing the acceptance of future anonymous donations.]

Legal Eagle, thanks for the update about the 2009 amendment. P.S. The Brown Act does not prohibit communication involving "more than one board member", it only prohibits communications that involve a board majority.

Board members can have reasonable disagreements on the policy of accepting or rejecting anonymous donations. That's appropriate and what Boards are for. But let's not pretend there is a legal impediment to the policy. The policy is legal, as is just taking the money, as is turning down the money. This is not a dispute about the law. It's a policy difference among board members.

Let's review:

Ken, Terry, and Jennifer voted to allow the district to continue to accept anonymous donations with the restriction that the board will have to vote in open session each time and will have the opportunity to know the identity of the donor.

Melissa just wants to take the money with no process and no opportunity to know anything about who it's from.

Todd wants to turn down the money, even if it is badly needed.

Voters can decide which position is best.

@even more legal of an eagle, I think you have it partly right. Dauber, Godfrey, and Dibrienza (I'm not on a first name basis, as you seem to be) voted that the superintendent and board members could keep something secret (the name of the donor) by sharing it verbally among themselves and agreeing never to write it down (which would create a public record) or telling anyone else - basically a conspiracy to keep it from the public and evade the Public Record Act. They seemed to think this would be ok because, well, there was MONEY involved, so principles were a secondary consideration.

Collins said that approach was "clever" but "too close to the line" and voted against it. He might have the position you say (I don't know), but that's not what the vote was on. (BTW, we are a pretty well-off district, with property values in the billions, so I'm not sure when donations would be "badly needed" - but I suppose it could happen. It does seem that whenever someone offers money, no one ever feels like, "no thanks, I don't really need it.").

Baten Caswell, I'm not sure what her view was, aside from she wanted to accept money from donor-advised funds and she voted against the policy.

You may be an experienced Brown Act and CA-PRA lawyer, I'm not sure - but it seems to me until something like this is tested in court, it isn't clear whether it is legal or not. So the jury is still out (literally!) on whether this approach would stand up.

Calling a policy that carefully complies with the law a "conspiracy" is sloppy. A conspiracy is when you violate the law and evade the consequences, not when you comply with the law on purpose. Same thing with the "spirit" of the law mentioned in the editorial. Just say, "the policy is legal but I don't like anonymous donations." And the idea that anything that hasn't been subject to a court case is in some hazy gray area is silly. Actually, the jury is not out because there's no case.

Legal Seagull --

Does Collins want to turn down anonymous donations across the board? It seems like you really understand his position. I know Ken asked that during the meeting but I didn't hear Todd's answer. Did you?

If people can donate to PiE anonymously, how is that different than donating to the District?

Pie is a private foundation, the district is a public agency; the brown act and the public record act don't apply to pie. I don't know if Pie takes donations where they do not know the identity of the donor or not. Stanford for instance says they do not. Note that reporting a gift from an anonymous donor (ie you withhold the donor's name) is different from taking a gift where you don't know who the donor is.

@hoover parent, would your prefer to call it a "scheme"? How about a "plot"? Dauber seemed to indicate that no lawyer had reviewed the policy (he offered to have it reviewed), so I'm not sure if it is legal or not. That is interesting by itself, that the committee spent a year on this, came up with something pretty novel, but never even asked a lawyer to look it over. Sounds like they haven't learned much from their title ix experience.

I'd prefer the word "policy" since that's what it is. As pointed out already this policy seems completely compliant with the Brown Act. No one has made any actual case that it isn't.
I would like to know where Collins is on anonymous donations. If that's what this is really about I would like to know.