What was particularly unusual was that the resolution mentioned was not attached to the agenda, and instead a note was included in the staff report letting the public know that the attachment would be made available at the meeting prior to the discussion. 

The Outpost reached out to Micalyn Harris, executive assistant to the superintendent, who told the Outpost that the document was not public, because the board was also discussing the item during a closed session earlier in the meeting. 

“Depending on the board’s determination out of those confidential discussions, they may or may not decide to take action,” Harris said. “And if they do decide to have a conversation outside of closed session and take action on that item, those documents will be available for the public.”

The board did do what it promised, and after taking public comment and holding the closed session meeting, the resolution – which has since been posted to the agenda and can be viewed here – was printed and made available to those attending the meeting. Those who were able to read the resolution learned that it authorized the Eureka City School Board to exchange the Jacobs Campus, an eight-acre property estimated at a value of $6 million, for 3553 I Street, a tiny home on an 1/8 of an acre lot south of Harris. The party entering into the exchange — “AMG Communities-Jacobs LLC” – also agreed to pay the difference in value, $5.35 million, to the school district in cash. 

Later in the meeting, about an hour or so after the public was finally able to view that resolution agreement, the trustees enthusiastically approved it. 

That part was no surprise. This mystery private developer offered the school district a whopping $1.35 million more than the CHP had for the Jacobs property, plus that small piece of land, which the board says is needed for housing district staff in the future. As one board trustee said during the meeting, it was a “no-brainer.”

However, some community members were not too happy with the board’s decision and felt there was a lack of transparency when the board decided not to make the resolution public until right before it was planning to vote on it in open session

In an attempt to ease some of the public’s concerns, Harold Freiman, the school district’s hired attorney, conferenced into the board meeting following the closed session discussion. Freiman explained, similarly to what Harris had said, that California’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act “allows the board to go into closed session to discuss real estate agreements and transactions… and documents that are related to those closed session discussions are not required to be made public.”

But this is where things get tricky: The board also posted an open session item related to the property exchange. For open session items, the Brown Act does require that the related documents be made available to the public. Technically, the board did make it available to the public, but only at the meeting, when most would argue that it did not provide ample time for anyone to review it before the vote was taken. Freiman did not speak on the open session item.

David Snyder, an attorney and executive director at the First Amendment Coalition, explained to the Outpost that documents like the resolution are required to be made public either 72 hours before the meeting, or whenever it is given to all or the majority of all of the board members.

“If a writing is a public record related to an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting of the legislative body of a local agency and is distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body of a local agency by a person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting of the body less than 72 hours before that meeting, the writing shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to paragraph (2) at the time the writing is distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the body,” Snyder sent in an email last week, quoting Government Code section 54957.5(b).

But what about the fact that the resolution was also part of the closed session meeting, for which the board was not required to post the documents? Snyder explained that in a situation like this, where two legal requirements contradict one another, the government entity should default to the interpretation that grants the public the most access — which, in this case, would have been publishing the resolution prior to the meeting. 

“When it comes to the Brown Act, the default is to the broader interpretation,” Snyder told the Outpost in a phone conversation last week. “Under the California Constitution, when there’s a conflict like that, the government entity should default to the interpretation that grants the public the most access. In my opinion, in this case they should have defaulted to posting the resolution.” 

But why would the school board’s attorney advise the board that the resolution didn’t need to be posted if the law implies otherwise? The Outpost made several attempt to reach Freiman for clarification, but has not heard back.

To find out exactly when the board was given access to the resolution, the Outpost reached out to multiple board trustees, most of whom did not respond. The only trustee who spoke with the Outpost, Jessica Rebholtz, said that she could not comment on the issue, and would only say on the record that she “agrees with the process of the board and supported the board in its decision.”

With the board not talking, the Outpost again reached out to Micalyn Harris for more information. We left a voicemail asking when the board received the resolution. Harris emailed a response later that day, saying “The Board will issue a statement if and/or when the District is in escrow. The Board’s action at the Board meeting last week simply authorized the District to enter into escrow and we have no additional information to provide at this time.” 

The Outpost replied to the email, asking again if Harris could tell us when the board received the resolution. Again, the question was not answered. A few hours later, Harris sent out a press release from Eureka City Schools, entitled “Eureka City School Board Adheres to Brown Act Regulations in Real Property Negotiations in Relationship to the Jacobs Property.” The press release states that the school board “is committed to transparency and accountability in all its operations, particularly in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open meeting law.” It goes on to, once again, explain why the board was permitted to discuss the resolution in closed session, and does not address our question of when the board received the resolution. You can read the full press release here. 

So, getting anyone to tell when exactly the board received the resolution has been difficult. Maybe they received it right before the closed session meeting and had time then to have a robust conversation about it? Well, that would likely violate the Brown Act for a couple of reasons, Snyder said. For one, that would mean that the board received the document before the public. Even though it was only about an hour before, Snyder said that it should still have been available to the public at that time. 

Secondly, this means that the board likely had conversations about the resolution that should have taken place in public. Snyder explained that although the Brown Act does allow for closed session meetings related to property negotiations, a closed session “may only be held for the limited purpose of instructing the legislative body’s negotiator on price, payment terms or both.” (Government Code section 54956.8.)

That means that if the board discussed anything beyond the price and payment terms, including asking general questions about the impacts on the community or the school district, that would be a violation of the Brown Act.  

Let’s just say then that the board did access the resolution at the same time as the public — right after the closed session meeting.  

“That would be unseemly,” Snyder said. “It would not provide a whole lot of time for them to consider the document.” 

Eureka City Councilmember Kati Moulton, who represents Ward 2, which includes the Jacobs Campus, told the Outpost that she felt the board’s actions lacked transparency and didn’t give the public adequate time to be involved in the process. 

But what’s done is done, Moulton said, and now she wants to focus on the future of the property. Moulton recently posted plans to hold a town hall meeting for the community to discuss what they would like to see be built on the site. When a previous survey was taken, the California Highway Patrol office ranked very high on the list of preferences. But now that doesn’t seem to be a possibility. 

“The last time a survey was taken it was by the South Eureka Neighborhood Alliance,” Moulton told the Outpost, adding that at the time the dilapidated buildings were still erect and people were desperate to have anything there instead. “I think opinions have probably evolved, and I’d love to get people’s perspective.” 

When the City offered to buy the property it planned to use it to develop housing, and many people are under the impression that developer who bought the property plans to use it for housing. Some have speculated that “Housing for All” proponents or Rob Arkley, its financial backer, might have some involvement in the sale. When reached by the Outpost, Arkley’s spokesperson denied that he had any involvement, though she added that he was “pleased to see the potential the former Jacobs property may have for middle income and working families.”

So the future of the Jacobs campus is still uncertain, and we seem to be left with more questions than answers. What did the board discuss in that closed session meeting? Who is behind “AMG Communities - Jacobs,” and how do they plan to use the site? Will the site be used for housing development? And, if so, what does this mean for the “Housing for All” initiative? 

At least for now, even if the City does not own the Jacobs Campus, it does still retain control over the property’s zoning, which limits what can and can’t be built there. Moulton said that she is still hammering out the details of the town hall, but that it will be held sometime in January 2024. And because many people in the neighborhood and the city will be impacted by what happens with the Jacobs Campus, Moulton feels that the public should be given more of an opportunity to weigh in than it was given before the board meeting.  

“There’s a reason we’re supposed to post these things ahead of time,” Moulton said. “If you want to have public engagement, people need to be given a chance to review the documents and have some thoughts.”