Trustees Uduak-Joe Ntuk and Vivian Malauulu declare that “[f]rom approximately July 2020 until December 2020, Trustee Sunny Zia has consistently refused to recuse herself from regular and special meetings in closed session that related to her and former Superintendent-President Reagan Romali’s conduct.” (Ntuk Decl. ¶ 3; Malauulu Decl. ¶ 3.) Given the conclusory nature of this evidence, it does not satisfy Petitioner’s [LBCC's] burden of proof to show the necessity of writ relief...Petitioner has since dismissed that part of its writ claim which asserted that Respondent [Zia] had a duty to recuse herself from closed session discussions relating to Romali...In this context, Petitioner’s conclusory evidence does not prove that Respondent refused to recuse herself from Board discussions pertaining specifically to her...

In [an Oct. 21, 2020 letter, Zia stated] "I am willing to recuse myself from Board discussions only to the extent the law requires it and where the same conflict of interest standards are applied to all members of the Board equally..." As noted, Petitioner [LBCC] has dismissed that part of its recusal claim. For all these reasons, Petitioner does not show that Respondent’s statements and actions prior to the January 14, 2021, Ex Parte Hearing support a finding that Respondent has demonstrated an unwillingness to recuse herself from any present or future Board closed session meetings that discuss investigation findings or potential legal action against Respondent.

Petitioner contends that "[d]espite agreeing to recuse herself at the ex parte hearing, on January 14, 2021, Respondent [Zia] refused to recuse herself from the January 27, 2021 Zoom closed session meeting in which the Board intended to discuss matters involving Respondent...Petitioner raises a factual issue, which is disputed by Respondent.

Trustee Ntuk declares: "At the beginning of the January 27, 2021 regular meeting of the Board, Trustee Zia refused to recuse herself from the closed session meeting wherein she was advised the discussion would be about her conduct. Trustee Zia refused to logout of the Zoom closed session meeting. Because of Trustee Zia’s outright refusal to recuse herself, I directed our IT Administrator to cancel the Zoom closed session meeting and create a new Zoom closed session meeting without her being allowed to log on."..Trustee Malauulu makes a similar statement. (Malauulu Decl. ¶ 4.) While this declaration evidence is relevant, the court finds it conclusory and not particularly persuasive to prove either that Respondent refused to recuse herself as required by law, or that there is a present need for a writ...

At the ex parte hearing, Respondent’s counsel represented on the record that Respondent agreed to recuse herself from any closed session meetings which discussed Respondent’s alleged misconduct or potential Board legal action against Respondent...Absent evidence that Respondent did not honor this agreement at subsequent Board meetings, the representation by Respondent’s counsel supports a finding that writ relief is not necessary.

...Petitioner nonetheless asserts that [s]ince the January 27, 2021 closed session meeting, during Board meetings Respondent has failed to comply with parliamentary procedure, interrupts other Board members, raises her voice when in disagreement, speaks out of turn, and engages in other disruptive conduct."..Petitioner’s contention that Respondent has been "disruptive" at subsequent Board meetings is irrelevant and raises First Amendment questions that need not be adjudicated by this court. Petitioner does not seek a writ preventing Respondent from being disruptive at Board meetings or failing to follow parliamentary procedures...

...Weighing the evidence, the court finds that Respondent’s [Zia's] opposition substantially undermines Petitioner’s [LBCC's] position that Respondent refused to recuse herself from closed session discussions pertaining to her at the January 27, 2021, meeting or at subsequent meetings. This evidence also shows that a writ is not necessary at this time...

Given Zia’s public position she was not legally obligated to recuse herself but was doing so voluntarily, Petitioner’s concern that Respondent would refuse to recuse herself in future closed sessions involving the investigation concerning her is not without some reasonable basis. Nonetheless, the court accepts Respondent’s concession regarding her conflict of interest, and based on her previous recusals and intent to recuse herself on these items in the future, a writ is not necessary.

For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner does not satisfy its burden under section 1085 of showing the necessity of writ relief. The [LBCC] petition is DENIED.

Sponsor

What's next? The LBCC Nov. 17 Board of Trustees agenda includes the following closed session item:

"Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation per Gov. Code Sec. 54956.9(a) LASC Case No. 20STCP03604: Long Beach Community College District v. Sunny Zia."

Developing.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.