Board members debate protocols after letter implied entire board requested meeting; members ask staff to return with clarity on use of board name and attorney‑s

Board members spent part of the July 14 meeting discussing when and how the Board of Education’s name, letterhead and counsel may be used after a stakeholder letter was circulated saying an item had been sent “at the board’s request.” Trustees asked staff to return with a clarified protocol for use of the board’s name and for attorney communications that reference the board. Why it matters: Board communications that imply the full board’s endorsement can create public confusion and legal risk. Trustees want consistent procedures so that individual advocacy does not appear to be board action. What trustees said - Member Rita (identified in roll call as Member Rita Fernandez Liu / referenced in discussion as “Member Luft”) said she had met with a provider, that the meeting was a personal request not a board directive, and emphasized she uses letterhead to reflect her role as an individual trustee when appropriate. (Public discussion, July 14.) - Several trustees said an attorney had sent a letter to a city council that used language implying the law firm represented the San Bernardino County Board of Education; trustees said they were not consulted before that letter was issued and asked staff to clarify how counsel can reference the board in external communications. (Public discussion, July 14.) Board direction and next steps Trustees asked staff to bring board‑protocol language back as a future agenda item and recommended a short workshop or review so trustees and staff agree on: when individual board members may speak publicly, how the board name and letterhead may be used, and how outside counsel should describe its representation. The board did not adopt a formal policy at the meeting but requested follow‑up and indicated it will place the item on a future agenda.