I’ve received some negative feedback about my previous post, Arts Council Director Resigns. Some objected to my use of the word “resign,” which wasn’t used in the most recent ACLB Board meeting or in their subsequent press release. Also, the reference to “fiscal insolvency” was, according to one person, inaccurate. Finally, in the original article the publisher added this two sentence paragraph: “The resignation comes on the heels of recent fiscal insolvency and allegations of Brown Act violations. Both of these stories were first reported by the lbpost.com.” This paragraph was described as delusional, self-congratulatory, and implying a causal connection between the articles I published and Joan’s departure.
I feel the need to answer these criticisms, and alleviate any confusion that may exist. Joan is resigning her position as Executive Director. Her resignation may be motivated by her desire to retire, but she’s still resigning. In the 3rd paragraph of my previous post, to place the resignation in the appropriate context, I included a statement which identified her as retiring. I stand by my statements, and the headline, as fair and accurate reporting.
The second paragraph, which I understand caused some consternation, was not written by me. Robert Garcia, of the Long Beach Post, Inc., insisted on adding it. I helped Robert with the wording to avoid the implication that any causal connection existed between Joan’s resignation and the articles. I believe that no implication, or direct connection, exists. [Note: I just noticed that someone from lbpost.com changed my article, and removed the line about the previous articles.]
In the original article about the Brown Act violations, Chief Assistant District Attorney Heather Mahood declined to offer any opinion about the cause or intention behind the Brown Act violations. Heather acknowledged speaking directly with Joan about the Board’s obligations under the Brown Act in the Summer of 2006, and claimed to have sent Joan the standard 2 page summary, titled “The Brown Act: Avoiding The Pitfalls”. Joan denied receiving it from her.
Heather declined to offer any justification or cause for any violations. She did say, when I described the circumstances of the meeting, and the language of the agenda item Joan used to justify adherence to the Brown Act’s public comment requirement, that it did not fulfill the requirements of the Brown Act, and that the meetings were operating outside the strict rules of the Brown Act.
I actually felt uncomfortable with the word “allegations,” because I felt that the violations were well documented in past agendas, substantiated by off-the-record interviews with several board members, and actions to address these violations were taken just prior to the publication of the article I wrote. I’m not a lawyer, but with Joan having spoken with Heather, having been sent the document, and waiting two years to comply with the rules of the Brown Act, I am not able to conclude that the violations were simply “unintentional oversights” as some have characterized them.
Lastly, the phrase “fiscal insolvency” was a direct quote from an email from Joan. I asked her why the staff layoff took place, and she wrote “To avoid fiscal insolvency.” Prior to the layoff, the organization was in a state of fiscal insolvency, with far more expenses than cash or income. In last month’s treasury report, it was even suggested that, without the drastic measure of cutting staff, the organization would not be able to meet its existing obligations for the current fiscal year.
It is always the desire of those under scrutiny to spin reporting to reflect the facts in the best possible light. That does not, however, always serve the public’s right to know. In the Brown Act, it states, “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
I would encourage the ACLB Board of Directors to step up and create a new vision for the organization, one that’s more responsive to the needs of the community, one that has an active engagement with the public, welcomes dissent, and demands participation from its board members. Open up, invite more light, and start focusing on the best the ACLB has to offer. Use this opportunity to bring the community together so that the next Executive Director is more deeply connected to the people of Long Beach.
As time passes, the ACLB will find itself harder pressed to justify its existence. Only by becoming relevant, by establishing a broad base of public support, will it be sustained.