Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustee requests changes to minutes prompt board discussion about record accuracy and public trust
Summary
A trustee asked that the July minutes be amended to correct attributions and wording, saying existing text misattributes remarks and harms public trust; other trustees cited recordings as the official record and declined to reopen the vote.
At the August 2025 meeting a board member requested formal amendments to the July minutes, saying several passages mischaracterized her remarks and that some language improperly attributed comments to the entire board.
The member asked that a passage on board‑member reports be changed to show that a statement about a bill (AB 1390 as read in the minutes) was a statement attributed to an assembly member’s staff rather than the requesting trustee’s opinion; she also requested a correction on how a remark about “campaign season” was attributed. She asked for a new paragraph stating that a letter to the city of Upland had been sent on behalf of the county board and county superintendent without board briefing or approval and that she did not approve use of her name.
During discussion Vice President McCracken said the meetings are recorded and that the recordings are available if there are questions about the minutes. The requesting trustee said she believed the minutes were being deliberately altered and that this risked public trust. The board subsequently approved the minutes as presented, with recorded votes showing four ayes and one abstention on the adoption motion.
Board members later reiterated that the Brown Act limits the board’s ability to discuss non‑agenda matters but said they hear and take public concerns seriously. The item raised questions about how the county office prepares and reviews minutes and about access to recordings and board correspondence; staff committed to clarifying where meeting materials and board correspondence are posted and to supplying requested links to trustees.
Outcome: The board approved the July minutes as presented (vote recorded in the meeting: 4 yes, 1 abstention). The requesting trustee’s suggested edits were not adopted at that time; trustees and staff discussed ensuring public access to recordings and meeting materials to allow members and the public to cross‑check the minutes against source audio/video.
