The Lumberjack



Students Serving The Cal Poly Humboldt Campus and Community Since 1929

Tag: brown act

  • Letter to the Editor: HSU Did Not Violate California Law

    Letter to the Editor: HSU Did Not Violate California Law

    A letter from HSU’s vice president of Enrollment Management

    A letter from Humboldt State University Vice President of Enrollment Management Jason Meriwether follows:

    Wednesday, April 22, 2020

    James Wilde, Editor & Reporter
    Grace Caswell, Editor & Reporter
    The Lumberjack Newspaper
    Humboldt State University 

    Dear James and Grace,

    Please accept this letter (also enclosed) in response to the Lumberjack Article titled, Humboldt State Violated California Law by Requiring Registration for a Public Meeting, which was published on April 16, 2020.  

    While you were copied on a series of emails to me, and thus, on my responses, there are still a few important facts that I believe you will find useful in the wake of the April 16thstory.  Since my email was the source of the quotes by me in the article, I never had an opportunity to answer a couple of fundamental questions as you prepared for your story.  As such, I ask you to please consider the following:

    The University did not violate California Law.  

    When I received the original email, which copied numerous parties, Vice President Dawes and I took immediate action to verify that HSU was not in violation of the law.  This included going into consultation with other university stakeholders, including legal counsel.  This consultation reassured us that no violation of policy or law was taking place.  

    In particular, I urge you to please review the actual requirements of the Bagley-Keene Act.  First, please review a guidance document provided by the State’s Attorney General which outlines the scope of Bagley-Keene.  Most pertinent to this issue, the Bagley-Keene requirements at issue apply only to meetings of a statutorily defined “state body” (Section 11121) that do not apply to the informal meetings hosted by VP Dawes and me.  As explained in Section 11121 and in the guide from the State’s Attorney General, the sessions that were hosted do not fall within the scope of Bagley-Keene, which, based on guidance from legal counsel, means this law does not apply and was not broken.  

    With respect to the Brown Act, which was also referred to in the series of emails and in your article, this statute applies to local government agencies and essentially stands as a counterpart to Bagley-Keene, so to speak.  The California State University, in particular Humboldt State, is a state agency, which does not fall under the Brown Act.  Because Humboldt State, as a part of the CSU, is not subject to the Brown Act, legal counsel has advised us that the law was not broken.  

    Why did we add a public link to the originally scheduled presentations?

    We did so to eliminate any perceived barriers to participation.  As quoted in the story from one of my emails, “the entire point of the meetings was to be transparent.”  

    While we were fully aware that we were compliant with the law and that no persons were being barred from the meeting, the very notion that we were trying to keep people out, even though it was false and based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, compelled us to add an extra way to view the meeting.  In our perspective, if any person felt uncomfortable or interpreted the registration function as a barrier, then adding the extra link made sense.   In total, over 300 members of the university, media, and local community attended both meetings, and not a single person was excluded.  The zoom webinar function was not sought out as a barrier, but as the best way to allow so many people to receive the information at hand.  Registration for this meeting was not like a conference presentation or an event with limited access or hidden behind a paid wall.  Many instructors and students are using zoom for class and the majority, if not all, meetings and presentations are held over zoom.  We sent the information out to the entire campus, it was posted on the public events website, and we did not deny access to anyone.  Simply stated, because we could not have a meeting in the Great Hall or KBR, a zoom meeting appeared to be the best option to make sure that this important information was shared with the campus.   

    To be candid, the public webinars were not an attempt at secrecy.  Any notion to the contrary is simply false.  In our belief, these sessions were about being honest with the campus and sharing data that impacts everyone.  Making the report and data available online and readily sharing it with the media, students, faculty, and all interested parties was also necessary.  Personally, I can assure you that it would have been easier to not conduct public presentations about such a negative set of projections, but in fact, the public presentations were the right thing to do.   

    The first person to receive a copy of my report was a journalist from the Lumberjack who received the report even before my first public presentation to the University Senate.  The Senate presentation was also via zoom and on the same day I met with the student journalist.  This information has been presented to Associated Students, the University Senate, the University Planning and Resource Committee, and in two public meetings.  The report has also been cited by the media and directly provided to reporters who requested it.  These actions do not align with any intention to violate the law or fail in transparency.  

    In conclusion, I am committed to the voice of students through journalism, which I believe has been demonstrated during my first year at Humboldt State.  That commitment will not change.  To that end, my commitment to providing facts, information, and access to student journalists has also been demonstrated.  Accordingly, I ask that you please review the information and facts above and please weigh against the information that was provided to you and the information that was published in the article.   

    Thank you for your consideration.  

    Sincerely Yours,

    Dr. Jason L. Meriwether

    Vice President of Enrollment Management

    Humboldt State University

    Ralph M. Brown Act
    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9. 

    Bagley-Keene Act’s Section 11121 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=3.&title=2.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article=9.

    Attorney General’s Bagley-Keene Act Fact Sheet

    https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/bagleykeene2004_ada.pdf

  • Humboldt State Violated California Law by Requiring Registration for a Public Meeting

    Humboldt State Violated California Law by Requiring Registration for a Public Meeting

    HSU briefly required registration for two public webinars as a security measure

    Update, April 22: Humboldt State Vice President of Enrollment Management Jason Meriwether penned a letter to The Lumberjack, making the case that HSU did not violate California law. Read it here.

    Editor’s note: Grace Caswell is a student in Journalism Department Chair Vicky Sama’s media law course. Almost the entire staff of The Lumberjack has also had Sama as an instructor in journalism courses.

    Humboldt State University hosted public meetings via Zoom to inform the public about its projected enrollment decline and budget cuts April 13 and 15. However, as a security measure protecting the university from “Zoom bombings,” HSU enacted mandatory registration requirements prior to entering the meetings in violation of California state law.

    “Zoom bombings” describe a new term for an infiltration or hijacking of a Zoom session with the intent to harass and disrupt the session. With an increase in Zoom users, from 10 million in December 2019 to more than 200 million in March of 2020, Zoom CEO Eric S. Yuan released a statement April 1 detailing additional measures being taken to enhance Zoom security over the next 90 days.

    HSU Vice President of Enrollment Jason Meriwether claimed HSU has experienced Zoom bombings and enacted the registration as an additional security measure. The additional measures required the public to respond twice via Google forms before being sent the Zoom meeting invitations, basically giving the administration, a government body, the power to sift through and deny public access.

    An approved registration screen for one of HSU’s enrollment and budget webinars held April 13 and 15.

    HSU Chair of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication and media law professor Vicky Sama alerted and engaged with HSU administration, specifically Meriwether, on the violations being committed.

    “Using ‘security’ reasons to require the public additional registration to access a public meeting on the people’s business does not satisfy the openness and liberties that our Constitution provides,” Sama said in an email. “In addition to violating state law that I explained in my earlier email.”

    “The unintentional message is that some people are not welcome and/or we at HSU don’t want the public to know what is going on.”

    Vicky Sama, HSU journalism chair

    Sama said the additional requirement for the public to register prior to receiving an invitation was tantamount to reviewing their qualifications.

    “The email did not justify the registration nor did it outline its purpose, raising suspicions that the university doesn’t want certain people to attend or know what is going on,” Sama wrote. “The unintentional message is that some people are not welcome and/or we at HSU don’t want the public to know what is going on.”

    Specifically, HSU’s actions against the public violated the Brown Act and Bagley-Keene Act. Both California state acts provide assurance of rights to the public. Sommer Ingram Dean, staff attorney for the Student Press Law Center, explained how these security measures directly conflict with both acts.

    “Section 54953.3 of Brown says ‘A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a legislative body of a local agency, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance,’” Dean explained in an email.

    “Section 11124 of Bagley Keene says ‘No person shall be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a state body, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.’”

    Sommer Ingram Dean, staff attorney for Student Press Law Center

    Additionally, Dean cited the Bagley-Keene Act and the measures it provides ensuring the public’s rights.

    “Section 11124 of Bagley Keene says ‘No person shall be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a state body, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance,’” Dean wrote.

    Sama informed Meriwether of the illegal activity violating both the Brown and Bagley-Keene Acts April 13, citing the specific sections mentioned above. In response, Meriwether continued with the registration in place and adjusted the meetings by offering public links.

    “Since this issue was just raised today, it appears to me that the best thing to do is to move forward with today as planned,” Meriwether said in an email. “We will also explore hosting a third event. We will provide both the option for registration and the public link for the already scheduled event on Wednesday. The entire point of having these events was to be transparent.”

    Since then, the links to the April 13 and 15 meetings went public. However, the concern more surrounds HSU’s decision to filter through the public’s right to access a public meeting regarding matters directly impacting them.

    The registration requirement, Sama wrote, amounts to intimidation and goes against the spirit of openness and transparency, and “reeks of sneakiness.” In a time of crisis, government bodies can use the mirage of security to deny the public their right to voice their opinions. Ultimately, it can amount to an abuse of power against the public.