D.A.'S OFFICE FAULTS BOARD'S SECRET VOTE.

Byline: Karen Maeshiro Staff Writer

LANCASTER - The Antelope Valley Union High School District board violated the state's open meeting law when it used secret ballots to select someone for a vacant board seat, the District Attorney's Office said.

At its April 10 meeting the board cast two preliminary ballots, the first whittling down the list of applicants from 12 to four and the second reducing the number from four to two. Of the two finalists, trustees voted and picked parent Donita Winn.

``The ballots and tallies were kept secret from the public and the results of the two preliminary ballots were not released or otherwise made public,'' wrote Deputy District Attorney Terry Bork of the Public Integrity Division in a letter to board president Wilda Andrejcik. ``Trustees violated the Brown Act ..., effectively deciding to take for themselves `the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.'''

The board met in special session the following week to ``remove the cloud that exist(ed) from the previous meeting'' and reaffirm Winn's appointment, district officials said.

Prosecutors have decided not to file charges against the district.

``We declined to file criminal charges or take other actions at this point because they moved to cure and correct those problems in a subsequent meeting on April 18,'' Bork said Friday. ``Their actions brought them into arguably substantial compliance with the (Brown Act), although belatedly.''

The Ralph M. Brown Act is the state law that specifies when public bodies like school boards and city councils are allowed to conduct business behind close doors, primarily when discussing litigation, personnel matters, union negotiations, real estate transactions and, for school boards, student discipline.

Andrejcik said Friday that the board did not violate the Brown Act.

``We went to our attorney and the attorney said we did exactly what we are supposed to do. We don't know where (Bork) is getting his information,'' Andrejcik said. ``We were told what we were doing was proper and all right.''

Bork said his office investigated the matter in response to complaints received from the public.

Bork criticized the board's April 18 meeting to reaffirm's Winn's appointment. ``While the decision to revisit the selection was a wise one, the process employed was, again, flawed,'' Bork wrote in his letter.

``The board voted to `ratify and affirm' its previous action in electing Ms. Winn. However, as noted above, those previous actions were unlawful. Rather than `affirm' its unlawful action, the board should have withdrawn its appointment of Ms. Winn, and then taken each of the preliminary and final votes again in public, permitting public scrutiny as the pool of candidates was narrowed from 12 to four, and then from four to two, and then from two to one,'' Bork wrote.

Bork also criticized Superintendent Robert Girolamo, who has advised the board on Brown Act matters.

``We also note that the district's superintendent has taken it on himself to advise the board about Brown Act compliance, notwithstanding the fact the district's general counsel has been present at some meetings. This decision, and his flawed advice, has subjected the trustees (and himself) to the possibility of criminal prosecution,'' Bork wrote.