In an act of possible negligence, the Academic Senate may have violated California’s open meetings law -the Ralph M. Brown Act- setting off a whirlwind of confusion and denial.

In the senate’s Sept. 28 meeting, Dr. Peter Haslund presented a letter in rebuttal to a highly controversial opinion piece written by Logan Morrison called “Perspective on skipping class,” published in the Sept. 21 edition of The Channels.

The column offered insight on how to cut class and get away with it. Haslund expressed sadness for the author, saying poor morals and lying are a very serious fundamental issue to faculty.

In the meeting, as recalled by The Channels beat reporter Jared Blankenship, it was proposed that the article be used as an introduction to a joint meeting with the Board of Trustees centering on student success.

The purpose was to show the challenges of student apathy that teachers face everyday, Haslund said. The issue sparked an eight-minute discussion.

The discussion was not listed on the original agenda, a document outlining all allowed discussions and action items, sent to The Channels 72 hours before the meeting. The Brown Act calls for the agenda to be posted in a public place so interested parties can plan to attend. Because the item was not on the agenda neither Morrison nor a representative of The Channels was present for Haslund’s presentation.

“I was shocked,” said Tracy Chamberlin, editor in chief of The Channels. “I still don’t understand why it didn’t occur to them we should have been there. I expected more of them.”

Haslund’s presentation is classified as an information item and therefore does not need to be listed on the agenda. However, the ensuing discussion violated the Brown Act.

The act states that, “no action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.”

The incident spurred a second discussion at its meeting held Oct. 5 after the senate discovered that they may have broken the law. In a lengthy discussion, the senate brushed off the accusations.

“If we have a tendency when anything comes up to start talking about it, that is what we do,” said Academic Senate President Kathy Molloy.

Senator Tom Garey said the senate contacted the Instructor’s Association lawyer who said the senate acted within its legal limits. Garey said the attorney referenced a section of the act, stating that members of the senate may briefly respond to people exercising their right to public testimony.

However, the information item was not introduced by a person exercising their right to public testimony; it was introduced by an active senator.

Tom Newton, general council for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said the act of discussing an information item is a clear violation when the item is presented by a member of the governing body.

“It seems to me that they should just fess up; it happens every day,” he said. “It’s goofy. Just get over it and say you’re sorry. This law has been on our books for 50 years it’s time to take it seriously.”

Using the logic of the Instructor’s Association’s lawyer would mean any information item proposed by a senator could be discussed without being put on the agenda, added Newton.

Newton said the seriousness of this violation occurs when members of the public are not given the opportunity to voice their opinions, or in this case defend themselves, because they were not made aware that a discussion on an issue of their interest is going to take place.

Chamberlin believes she falls into the category of affected parties.

“I am in no way defending Logan’s piece,” said Chamberlin. “However, I am not an agent of censorship; I am an agent of free press. Logan had every right to write what he did and [Haslund] had every right to respond.

Haslund downplayed the discussion, saying that open dialogue following an information item is common practice in the senate.

“Technicalities may have been breeched,” he admitted. “If there was in fact an error it was a technical one and it was unintended.”

Possible changes in the way the senate does business have been discussed. Dr. Jack Friedlander, executive vice president of Educational Programs, said it’s not fair to assume senators are familiar with the Brown Act. He said that he will look into possible Brown Act informational seminars to familiarize senators with the law.

“You want to allow [the senate] the freedom and flexibility,” he said. “But you want to have it done so in a way that doesn’t violate the Brown Act.”

“We’ll take a short review [of the Brown Act],” concluded Haslund. “We have taken repeated precautions. We want to be sure that are not in violation.”