The Marin County Civil Grand Jury will have to wait to learn whether it will be granted access to information it seeks on the Sausalito Marin City School District’s desegregation settlement.
Marin County Superior Court Judge Stephen Freccero listened to arguments from all sides but rendered no decision during a 90-minute hearing Tuesday on a motion filed by the state attorney general’s office and the school district to quash the grand jury’s request for subpoenas. He has up to 90 days to issue a ruling in the case.
State Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the settlement agreement with the school district in August, nine months after his office accused the district of intentionally creating a segregated school at Bayside Martin Luther King Jr. Academy in Marin City.
On Sept. 30, the civil grand jury, an investigative arm empowered by the local judiciary, issued subpoenas to several individuals involved in the settlement talks. The jury is also trying to obtain written communications between the attorney general’s office and district staffers as well as written communications between trustees, school administrators and their attorneys that is related to the settlement talks.
Freccero began the hearing by calling into question the assertion by the attorney general’s office that issuance of the subpoenas would violate the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches. Calling that “a rather extraordinary argument,” Freccero said he didn’t see how granting the subpoenas would interfere with the attorney general’s enforcement of the law.
Christine Chuang, a lawyer with the attorney general’s office, responded, “There are still ongoing discussions between the district and the state. This matter is still ongoing.”
Assistant County Counsel Jack Govi, who represented the civil grand jury, said that was just a smokescreen. Govi said all the state is doing now is monitoring the execution of the settlement agreement.
Freccero also posed tough questions to the civil grand jury. He questioned whether it has the authority to demand access to information that would normally be protected by attorney-client privilege and the Brown Act.
The grand jury’s request appears to be an attempt to call into question the decision to enter into a settlement agreement or the terms of the agreement, he said. He cautioned that is has no legal right to do either.
That is not the grand jury’s intention, Govi said. He said the grand jury is interested in the settlement negotiations because often information related to the wrongdoing leading up to the settlement is discussed.
The grand jury has already conducted an extensive investigation that included pouring over available documents and interviewing witnesses. Govi said, however, when it comes to determining who the culpable parties are, “They came up short.”
According to the attorney general’s office the district’s discriminatory behavior stretched from 2013 to 2018. Govi noted that the district had a number of different board members and more than one superintendent during that time. He said the grand jury is seeking to determine who was chiefly responsible for the years of alleged systematic racial discrimination.
“Nobody knows exactly what happened,” Govi said.
Keith Yeomans, an attorney representing the school district, said the state’s complaint against the district is a matter of public record.
“There is nothing to suggest any individual wrongdoing,” he said.
January 7, 2020
Marin Independent Journal
By Richard Halstead
No comments:
Post a Comment