Laguna Beach board appoints Jeffrey Dixon acting superintendent amid public calls for transparency

The Laguna Beach Unified School District Board of Education voted in closed session to appoint Mr. Jeffrey Dixon as acting superintendent, the board reported at the public meeting. Board members said they intend to convene a special meeting on Jan. 16 to consider naming an interim superintendent to lead a permanent search process.

The nut graf: the appointment resolved an immediate legal-capacity concern but did not end public criticism about how the board handled the transition. Many parents and community members used public comment to demand transparent procedures and formal adherence to the Brown Act and Education Code during the superintendent search.

Board counsel Tony DeMarco told the board that certain administrative functions must be performed by someone in the superintendent role and that having an acting superintendent in place reduced the legal risk of “stuff could fall through the cracks.” He described an anticipated sequence: the acting superintendent would carry day-to-day responsibilities until a contracted interim (typically a retired superintendent) could be hired to run the full search.

Clerk/administrative staff later corrected the record on a closed-session report: Mrs. Weber said a written report had been filed and posted in the minutes, noting that an earlier oral summary at the prior meeting had been incomplete.

Public comment at the meeting was lengthy and sharply critical. Shaheen Shaikh Sadal, who said she is a parent and an attorney, urged the board to follow the Brown Act and cited several Education Code and Government Code provisions she said preclude a board member from exercising the superintendent’s duties directly. “No, a board member cannot sit in the seat of a superintendent,” she said, citing Ed. Code sections and Government Code provisions about incompatible offices and conflicts of interest.

Several parents and alumni warned that perceived secrecy and “jamming” actions on the agenda had cost the district credible candidates and undermined staff morale. “Transparency isn’t just a promise, it’s a specific process,” parent Meredith McMahon said while urging formal community involvement in the search and suggesting outside training for the board on the Brown Act.

Board members debated optics and legal advice. One board member defended having a designated person available in the district office during the gap in leadership to answer staff questions and avoid legal exposure; others said that choice aggravated community concerns about governance and process. Counsel said the board has authority to delegate certain administrative tasks to district officers, but not to individual board members serving as superintendent.

Votes at a glance - Closed session: appoint Jeffrey Dixon as acting superintendent pending selection of an interim superintendent at a special meeting on Jan. 16 — vote reported 5 to 0 (outcome: approved). - Closed session: termination of employment of district employee number 7000-02410 — vote reported 5 to 0 (outcome: approved). - Approval of corrected minutes and consent calendar items — routine approvals recorded as passed during the meeting (no detailed roll-call tallies provided in public record).

Next steps the board announced: a special meeting on Jan. 16 to consider an interim superintendent and a public, staff- and community-engagement process for a permanent search. Multiple public speakers asked the board to post all related separation agreements and public-record documents and to schedule Brown Act training for board members and the community.

No formal selection of a permanent superintendent was made at the meeting; the board said it will receive applications, consider professional search firms and seek more public input before hiring.