Nga Dinh’s May 29 Guest View, “Did MHUSD violate open-meeting laws?” raises important questions about transparency and public participation. Those questions deserve thoughtful consideration. However, the article’s conclusions rely more on assumptions than on the facts presented.
The article’s central claim is that parents were denied a meaningful opportunity to advocate on behalf of a teacher. Yet the meeting’s published agenda proves otherwise.
The agenda expressly informed the public that members could address the Board on closed-session agenda items immediately before the Board adjourned to closed session. It also stated that agenda items must be addressed when the Board considers them.
In addition, the agenda provided instructions for submitting a speaker’s request form, and encouraged written communications to the Board.
These are not insignificant details. They are the mechanisms public agencies use to balance public participation with the confidentiality required for personnel matters. Based on the agenda’s published instructions, the public was provided notice and an opportunity to address the board before closed-session deliberations occurred.
Assumptions are not evidence
The article states that District officials “would have known” a particular matter would be discussed, that deliberations had been “effectively finalized,” and that parents were directed to attend only after “critical deliberations” had occurred.
Yet no evidence is offered for those assertions. No emails are quoted, no statements from District officials are cited, and no evidence is presented showing that anyone intentionally misdirected parents or sought to prevent public participation.
Notably, the article acknowledges that parents were uncertain whether to attend at 5pm or 6pm. Yet the agenda itself explained that members of the public could address closed-session agenda items before the Board entered closed session.
The article never explains why that published instruction was insufficient or why interested individuals could not attend the noticed public comment opportunity.
The privacy dilemma
The article also leaves unanswered a fundamental question: What exactly should district officials have done differently?
Its apparent premise is that district officials should have effectively disclosed that a particular teacher’s employment status would be discussed so supporters could organize and advocate before deliberations occurred.
Yet that expectation conflicts with the purpose of closed-session personnel protections. School districts generally cannot publicly identify confidential personnel matters in advance simply to facilitate public campaigns for or against a particular employment decision.
From procedures to politics
Perhaps the most revealing portion of the article appears near the end. After discussing alleged transparency concerns and possible Brown Act violations, the author pivots to the upcoming school board elections and urges voters to consider what kind of leadership they want moving forward.
That shift moves the discussion beyond meeting procedures and into electoral politics. Readers are invited to draw conclusions about the integrity and fitness of current board members even though no court, the District Attorney, or any oversight body has found that the Board violated the Brown Act or acted unlawfully.
Voters absolutely have the right to evaluate elected officials. But those evaluations should be based on established facts, not allegations; on evidence, not assumptions; and on findings, not speculation.
Facts Matter
There is a significant difference between advocating for clearer communication and accusing public officials of intentionally undermining public participation. The agenda provided notice of the closed session, identified the statutory authority for that session, provided opportunities for public comment before closed-session deliberations, and invited written communications in advance. Those facts should guide the conversation.
Public trust is strengthened not by speculation, but by evidence. Before concluding that the Board acted improperly, the community should insist on facts rather than
assumptions and on verified findings rather than political narratives. Accountability is essential. So is fairness.
Armando Benavides
Morgan Hill
