Facing significant public pressure, the Manhattan Beach Unified School District unanimously voted last week to rescind the censure of board member Christine Cronin-Hurst.
The board had previously voted to censure Cronin-Hurst at its June meeting over her alleged disclosure of confidential information from a closed-session meeting of the school board. The closed session meeting, which Cronin-Hurst did not attend, took place June 1, and concerned the principal rotation plan implemented by the district at the close of the last 2015-16 school year.
Cronin-Hurst appeared at a meeting at Grandview Elementary on June 2 where the plan was discussed. The principal rotation scheme was ultimately approved at the board’s July meeting on a 4-1 vote, with Cronin-Hurst dissenting.
Combined with the censure, approval of the plan over initial parent objections created a tense atmosphere in the district over the summer. At Cronin-Hurst’s request, the Los Angeles County District Attorney examined whether the board itself had violated open meeting laws by holding the closed session meeting June 1 to discuss the principal plan. The DA concluded that it likely had not, and that even if it had the violation was “cured” by the June 14 public meeting.
Problems were amplified when comments from Board president Ellen Rosenberg, vice president Jennifer Cochran, and Clerk Karen Komatinsky were captured on video after the conclusion of a special morning board meeting in July. The three were chatting and, after inquiring whether the live stream service had been turned off, referred to opponents of the principal rotation plan as “diehards” and “mean girls.”
In censuring Cronin-Hurst in June, the board had relied on a portion of the Brown Act prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information “acquired by being present in a closed session meeting.” In an advisory to the school board board, the DA’s office said that, because Cronin-Hurst had not been present at the closed session meeting, “clearly” no violation could have occurred. The letter also stated the Brown Act creates exceptions for disclosures that offer “an opinion concerning the propriety or legality” of a board action.
Rescinding the censure garnered unanimous approval from the board, who expressed a desire to move on from the issue, and focus on the two school bond measures that the community will vote on in November. (Board member Bill Fournell was not present at the meeting.) But in announcing their votes, Cochran and Komatinsky implied that they believed the original censure was merited, despite the letter from the district attorney.
“Confidentiality is a really big deal to me, personally and professionally,” Komatinsky said, citing her personal experience working in the field of human resources.
Board members recounted being flooded with emails about the issue, and dozens of parents and residents came to the meeting to address the issue. Public opinion tilted heavily toward rescinding the censure, and comments regularly connected the issue to the principal rotation issue.
Monica Wood, a teacher at Grandview who was present at the June 2 meeting, told board members last week that Cronin-Hurst appeared before parents and staff at a time when everyone felt “blindsided” by the plan.
“Christine was thrown — she was thrown, she did not volunteer — into a storm of questions,” Wood said. “As always she stayed calm. She stayed positive. She did not, did not, disparage the board’s position.”
In seconding the motion to rescind, Cronin-Hurst said that that the censure had been “damaging, personally and professionally,” and questioned whether there had been adequate training for board members on confidentiality questions. Although the original censure referred to “knowing” violations of the Brown Act, Cronin-Hurst said that in her three years on the board there had been “no formal Brown Act training” until very recently.
The board held a special meeting devoted to Brown Act on the morning of Sept. 29.
