The Brentwood Union Free School District Board of Education voted Aug. 11 to authorize legal defense and indemnification for named current and former employees and several board members in a lawsuit titled William King Moss III v. Brentwood Union Free School District, docket number CVD-25-4008, and to accept a law firm designated by NYSER to represent the district.

The board's resolution cites Education Law section 38 11 and Public Officers Law section 18 as the statutory bases for providing defense and indemnification and says the district does not waive rights to challenge aspects of the legal action, including service of process.

The motion to approve the defense and indemnification specifically names former employee Richard Loeschner; current employees Wanda Ortiz Rivera and Meredith Foraker; and board members Eileen Felix, Cynthia Saffery, Julia Burgos, Hassan Ahmed, Maria Malave, Brandon Garcia and Eileen Harmon. The resolution directs that a law firm designated by NYSER represent Brentwood UFSD and the listed individuals "both individually and in their official capacities," according to the text read into the record.

Board of Education member Julia Burgos moved the resolution; Board of Education member Eileen Harmon (recorded elsewhere in the meeting as making motions) was recorded as second during the roll, and board discussion did not record any votes against the motion. The presiding official called for voice votes; members responded "Aye," and no noes or abstentions were recorded on the motion as announced at the meeting.

Earlier in the special meeting the board voted to suspend the order of business for the session under the district's Policy 2350 to address the matter. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn at 5:48 p.m., which passed by voice vote.

The board read the resolution into the record during the special session and placed the designation of outside counsel with NYSER subject to the terms and any insurance or statutory limits referenced in the resolution. The resolution language also states the district "does not waive any rights that it may have to challenge any aspect of this legal action, including, but not limited to improper service of the legal action."

No additional discussion or public comment about the underlying allegations was recorded in the portion of the meeting captured in the transcript; the board's actions recorded on the agenda were procedural approvals to provide defense and designate counsel.