When a student commission met in closed session with a college employee, it violated state open meeting laws, a media law expert said.

Jim Ewert, general counsel at the California Newspaper Publisher’s Association, believes the April 8 meeting violated the Brown Act in that there was no public notice and the majority of the committee met to conduct business, which includes to hear, discuss, or deliberate issues.

The Commission of Judicial Review met with Associated Students of DVC President Sam Park and Student Life Office student activities assistant Amelia Fitzgerald. The commission was formed by ASDVC to review complaints about club activities. Because ASDVC has to follow open meeting laws, its commissions do, too, according to Ewert.

According to Park, the Student Life Office made a sudden request to speak to the Commission of Judicial Review to discuss student-sensitive issues, some of which arose from the purpose of the commission. He was called in at the last moment.

“This was a meeting established by the Student Life Office, so it wasn’t something that JRC (Commission of Judicial Review) or myself were planning to meet,” he said. “If (the commission) was planning to meet, then yes, we have to notify the public.”

However, according to the Ralph M. Brown Act, “where matters are not subject to a closed meeting exception, the Act has been interpreted to mean that all of the deliberative processes by legislative bodies, including discussion, debate and the acquisition of information, be open and available for public scrutiny.”

Ewert believes this meeting violated the act, which was originally created in 1953 as a way for the public to gain access to meetings of local government agencies.

“This was a meeting established by the Student Life Office, so it wasn’t something that JRC (Commission of Judicial Review) or myself were planning to meet,” he said. “If (the commission) was planning to meet, then yes, we have to notify the public.”

But student life coordinator Sara Larkin explained via email that the meeting was informational, which discussed leadership positions between a Student Life staff member and students.

“It’s our understanding that this type of meeting is not subject to the Brown Act,” she said.

Park interpreted the situation as a meeting with students that dealt with student issues, which revolved around students’ rights to privacy.

Commissioner Neema Monfared explained that while he was fine with the press being at that meeting, he doesn’t feel closing it violated the Brown Act, as it was unofficial.

“In regards to school policy, it was a private discussion between the Student Life Office and five individuals of the public,” he said. “So because there was no action taken… and no decision was made, to my understanding it was not a violation of the Brown Act because it was not an official meeting, it was similar to friends meeting to discuss a topic.”

However according to Ewert, it is “legally irrelevant” that decisions were not made. If the majority of the commission discussed business, the meeting should have been open to the public.