Discover more from Accountable SCV
Hindman smugly puts her ignorance on display for all to see
Rebecca Hindman made the most laughable public comment last night, proving she will talk right out of her hindquarters, or she is just a lousy liar and at one point claiming she wants to "help" Anna. This may come as news for Hindman, but words have definitions, especially regarding laws like the brown act. So we thought we would HELP Rebecca Hindman understand why she is really bad at this and should probably stop talking.
Hindman starts off her word salad by claiming that Anna Griese held a public meeting at a Starbucks, which is impossible since a public meeting, as defined by law, requires public notice to be posted in a public spot at least 48 hours before the meeting is scheduled. So instead, Anna had a private meeting with some parents, which she is allowed to do.
A meeting, as defined by the Brown Act, is "any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body" (§ 54952.2 (a)
Hindman smugly puts on display for all of Santa Clarita to see that she knows of the Brown Act but has never read it and will not let that fact stop her from pretending she is an expert. She made the embarrassing claim that it would have been a Brown Act violation if another board member had walked into Starbucks. 😂 Sorry, Rebecca, but the crux of the definition for what is considered a meeting is having a Majority of the board member all in one place; this means three. If you didn't read that with the same smug tone that Hindman did last night, please read that again to get the proper effect.
Two board members can get coffee together at Starbucks or happen to be at the same grocery store at the same time, which is not considered a brown violation. Hindman would have known this if she had read the Brown Act instead of trying to bend reality to fit her narratives.
“The bigger topic and what people should be talking about is: Do we have the right resources for all of our students? Do we have the right tools for our teachers and staff? Are we adequately equipped to handle various safety (concerns)?” ~Anna Griese comment from the Signal
At no point did Anna ever “admit to breaking board policies” to the Signal because she didn’t break Board policies. Her only quote in either Signal article was questioning the district’s safety protocols, you know, doing her job.
Hindman talking about laws is as coherent as Charlie Kelly on Always Sunny In Philadelphia; we were waiting for her to start rambling about bird law. We don't even know what to say about the gibberish about disclaimers on her Facebook page and how it violated a couple of laws. Then goes on to slip up, calling the private meeting a private meeting and not a public meeting, then making up fake rules that Anna and Jason Gibbs must give disclaimers before they talk to anyone. We wonder if Hawkins gave these made-up disclaimers when she showed up at a Starbucks to recruit Casandra Love to become one of her next bosses. Nothing at all unethical there.
Hindman further embarrasses herself by claiming that Anna needed to get her comments to the Signal and the letter approved by the district, a wholly fabricated premise pulled out of thin air. Ms. Hindman has this misguided idea that board members cannot hold individual opinions. Besides, Griese would have had to violate the brown act to get the made-up board approval that Hindman thinks she needed. This is why we have boards: people with differing viewpoints can decide what is best for the district. Hawkins has no say over what an individual board member does; I know this fact really bothers a control freak like Rebecca Hindman, but those are the breaks.