The Brentwood Union Free School District Board of Education on Dec. 19 approved routine personnel appointments and two separate resolutions to provide legal defense and indemnification in litigation brought by William King Moss III.

After a series of procedural motions, the board approved certificated and noncertificated personnel action reports. The consent items were moved and passed by voice votes with motions recorded in the minutes (for example, a motion to approve certificated personnel was made by Julia Burgos and seconded by Brandon Garcia).

The board then considered two related resolutions under Education Law §3811 and Public Officers Law §18. The first (D1c) authorized a law firm designated by NYSER to represent former employee Richard Loeschner and current employee Katie Lasky, collectively identified in the resolution as Brentwood UFSD defendants, in the action titled William King Moss III v. Brentwood Union Free School District. The resolution states the district does not waive rights to challenge aspects of the legal action, including improper service. The motion was made by Julia Burgos, seconded by Maria Malave, and approved by voice vote.

The board approved a second, broader resolution (D1d) to provide legal defense and indemnification to named current and former employees and board members — including Wanda Ortiz Rivera, Meredith Foraker and several trustees listed in the resolution — in the same litigation. The motion was seconded by Hassan Ahmed and passed by voice vote.

District staff emphasized that the resolutions are limited by the language in the motions: defense is being provided under statutory authority and the district "does not waive any rights" to contest aspects of the litigation. No roll-call tally with member-by-member votes was recorded in the transcript; outcomes were announced by voice as approved.

The board also affirmed a superintendent's hearing decision following an executive-session review; the motion to affirm was moved by Cindy Saffery and seconded by Hassan Ahmed.

The decisions came amid extended public comment on the underlying dispute. The district repeatedly declined to discuss the matter in public, saying the matter is pending before the commissioner of education and is therefore subject to litigation confidentiality. The board adjourned at approximately 9:21 p.m.