Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Representation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts revision to board legal representation rule after public and auditor comments; one abstention recorded
Summary
Board Rule 1.18 revisions on legal representation were approved by the committee after public comment raised concerns about narrowing access to records; the vote was recorded as 4 ayes, 1 abstention.
The Long Range Planning Committee approved revisions to Board Rule 1.18 (Legal Representation), following presentation by the Office of Accountability and Efficiency and public comment expressing concern the changes could limit employee and public access to information.
Matt Chase of the Office of Accountability and Efficiency described the draft language as part of the same review that produced item 2.12, intended to standardize how privileged and confidential information held by the board is handled. "This was done in concert with the board's legal counsel, the office of board governance, members of the administration," Chase said.
Public commenters again criticized the draft language. Deb Kuether said the district already invokes attorney-client privilege too broadly and urged the board to define what constitutes "confidential" in the policy. Theresa Falleron told the committee the change looked like an attempt to shift review of requested board-held privileged or confidential information to the city attorney and retained counsel, and she encouraged more precise definitions.
Paul Geib, the district’s chief auditor, spoke to the committee about the need for auditors to preserve independence and access to information. "When we're talking about restrictions on information... I do have to be independent of the administration," Geib said, adding that if an auditor encounters potentially privileged information he would pause and seek guidance so that information could be used in audit work where appropriate.
Director Garcia moved to approve the revisions to Board Rule 1.18. The secretary called the roll; the motion passed with four ayes and one abstention. The committee’s record shows Directors Garcia, Gokul Gandhi, Jackson and Chair Zomberg voting aye and one abstention recorded.
The committee’s action included no immediate changes to staffing or budgets. Members and public commenters requested that legal counsel provide clearer definitions about privilege and confidentiality in follow-up guidance.
