1 of 4

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

State of California 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN 

Attorney General 

______________________________________

OPINION :

: No. 97-414

of :

: November 10, 1997

DANIEL E. LUNGREN :

Attorney General :

:

ANTHONY Da VIGO :

Deputy Attorney General :

:

______________________________________________________________________

 THE HONORABLE MIKE THOMPSON, MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE

SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following question:

 Where the board of trustees of a school district has formed a committee, known as the

district liaison council, consisting of eight representatives from the community, seven employees of the

district, and one student, to interview candidates for the office of district superintendent and to make a

recommendation to the board, are the sessions of the committee held to perform such delegated duties

required to be open to members of the public? 

CONCLUSION

 Where the board of trustees of a school district has formed a committee, known as the

district liaison council, consisting of eight representatives from the community, seven employees of the

district, and one student, to interview candidates for the office of district superintendent and to make a

recommendation to the board, the sessions of the committee held to perform such delegated duties are not

required to be open to members of the public. 

ANALYSIS

 We are advised that a school district's board of trustees ("board") has formed a committee,

known as the district liaison council ("council"), to interview candidates for the office of district

superintendent and to make a recommendation to the board. The council consists of eight representatives

from the community, seven employees of the district, and one student. We are asked to determine whether

the sessions of the council held to perform its delegated duties must be open to members of the public. We

conclude that the council's sessions may be closed to members of the public.

 In addressing the issues presented, we will examine the open meeting requirements of the
2 of 4

Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, §§ 54950-54962; "Act") Footnote No. 1 applicable to "legislative bodies" of

"local agencies." Section 54953, subdivision (a) provides:

 "All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and

all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency,

except as otherwise provided in this chapter."

A school district is a "local agency" as defined in section 54951:

 "As used in this chapter, `local agency' means a county, city, whether general law or

chartered, city and county, town, school district, municipal corporation, district, political

subdivision, or any board, commission or agency thereof, or other local public agency."

Not only is a board of trustees of a school district a "legislative body," so also may be a committee formed by

a board of trustees. The term "legislative body" is defined in pertinent part in subdivision (b) of section

54952 as follows:

 "A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether

permanent or temporary, decision making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution,

or formal action of a legislative body. However, advisory committees, composed solely of the

members of the legislative body which are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not

legislative bodies, except that standing committees of the legislative body, irrespective of their

composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by

charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for

purposes of this chapter."

Here, inasmuch as the council was created by formal action of the board, and is not composed of any

members of the board, it is a "legislative body" for purposes of the Act. (See Joiner v. City of Sebastopol

(1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 799, 803-805; compare, 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 34, 36 (1985).) Footnote No. 2

Accordingly, the meetings of the council must be open to members of the public as required by the Act.

Although the council's meetings must be convened in open session, what does the Act mandate with respect

to the council's delegated duties of interviewing candidates for the office of district superintendent and

discussing and arriving at a recommendation to be made to the board?

 Section 54957 provides:

 "Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the legislative body

of a local agency . . . from holding closed sessions during a regular or special meeting to

consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a

public employee. . . .

 "For purposes of this section, the term `employee' shall include an officer or an

independent contractor who functions as an officer or an employee but shall not include any

elected official, member of a legislative body or other independent contractors. . . ."

We first address the issue whether the phrase "to consider the appointment" includes the interviewing of

candidates, reviewing resumes, discussing qualifications, and arriving at a decision prior to the actual

appointment. The purposes for holding closed sessions under the terms of section 54957 are to foster candid

discussions by members of the legislative body concerning the qualifications of staff or prospective staff

members without subjecting the latter to public embarrassment. (See San Diego Union v. City Council (1983)

146 Cal.App.3d 947, 955; Edgar v. Oakland Museum Advisory Com. (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 73, 76-77; 78

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 218, 221 (1995); 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 153, 155 (1980); 61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 283, 291
3 of 4

(1978).) These purposes would be served by allowing closed sessions for interviewing candidates, reviewing

resumes, discussing qualifications, and arriving at a decision prior to the actual appointment. (See Joiner v. 

City of Sebastopol, supra, 125 Cal.App.3d at 801; 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at 222; 75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.

14, 18-19 (1992); 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at 36.) Footnote No. 3

 Thus, the board, as the appointing body, would be entitled to hold closed sessions in

interviewing candidates and reaching a decision when appointing a district superintendent. Do the terms of

section 54957 extend to committees with no powers of appointment? In 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 112, 115-117

(1984), we concluded that when an advisory committee is conferring with counsel "in the proper course of its

duties," it is entitled to meet in closed session under the Act's pending litigation exception. Similarly, here, as

long as the purposes of section 54957 are served, we believe that its provisions extend to committees that are

duly constituted and performing properly delegated duties that would otherwise be covered by the statutory

language. In the present situation, it is undisputed that the council has been duly constituted as a committee;

the council has also been delegated the duties that would otherwise be covered by the terms of section 54957.

 Finally, we note that a district superintendent is an "employee" under the terms of section

54957. (See also Lucas v. Board of Trustees (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 988, 990; 50 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 532

(1976).) Footnote No. 4

 Hence, the council's sessions held to interview candidates for the office of district

superintendent and to arrive at a recommendation for the board come within the closed session provisions of

section 54957. This conclusion is not inconsistent with our conclusion in 46 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 34 (1965), in

which we determined that a closed session may not be held where selected members of the public are allowed

to attend. (Id., at p. 35.) In the matter presently considered, no "members of the public" will be in attendance,

only members of the legislative body itself and the candidates for the office of district superintendent.

Footnote No. 5

 We conclude that where the board of trustees of a school district has formed a committee,

known as the district liaison council, consisting of eight representatives from the community, seven

employees of the district, and one student, to interview candidates for the office of district superintendent and

to make a recommendation to the board, the sessions of the committee held to perform such delegated duties

are not required to be open to members of the public. Such closure allows the council members to candidly

question the candidates as to their qualifications and to freely discuss each's qualifications without subjecting

the candidates to public embarrassment. 

* * * * *

Footnote No. 1

Undesignated section references herein are to the Government Code. Return to text

Footnote No. 2

In Joiner v. City of Sebastopol, supra, 125 Cal.App.3d 799, the court considered whether a particular advisory committee 

was a "legislative body." Here, the council is a "legislative body" without question. Return to text

Footnote No. 3

The Act has special rules for discussing the compensation of officers and employees. (See §§ 54957, 54957.6.) Return to 

text

Footnote No. 4

In 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 34, supra, we addressed the distinction between an officer and an employee for purposes of the 

open meeting laws then applicable to state agencies. Here, it must be conceded that the district superintendent is an

"employee" for purposes of the Act. Return to text

Footnote No. 5

It may also be observed, for example, that witnesses may attend closed sessions to present factual information to the

legislative body; they would not be present as "members of the public" but rather as percipient witnesses. Return to text
4 of 4

Return to the 1997 Published Opinion Page

Return to the Opinion Unit's Home Page

Return to the Attorney General's Home Page