Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laguna Beach public speakers press board on transparency, meeting decorum and alleged record tampering
Summary
Dozens of residents criticized the school board’s transparency and meeting management, accusing the board majority of selective access and alleging missing audio and interruptions at prior meetings. Several speakers called for investigations or policy changes; trustees debated but took no investigative vote at this meeting.
Dozens of residents used the public-comment period at the Laguna Beach Unified School District board meeting to demand clearer rules for public engagement, to call for investigations into alleged disruptions at prior meetings and to criticize what they described as selective enforcement of board policies.
At least 20 public-comment cards were reported at the start of the meeting. Keta Brown opened the comments by congratulating district communications staff while challenging the board on who is allowed to speak and why; she said the board’s actions “created more distrust and skepticism of the board majority,” and urged the trustees to reexamine their motives.
Shaheen Shaikh Bridal, president of Families Unified for Education Laguna (FUEL), said Acting Superintendent Jeff Dixon had been scheduled to present a neutral, public “District Finance 101” webinar but was told to cancel at the direction of President Dee Perry. “Blocking Mister Dixon from a neutral, nonpartisan discussion about school finance was deeply disappointing,” Shaikh Bridal said, and she quoted board policy she said assigns public-engagement responsibility to the superintendent.
Several speakers accused other meeting attendees of disrupting public comment at a prior meeting and asked the board to enforce civility rules. Michelle Manda requested a formal investigation into comments made about her at the February 13 meeting and asked that procedures be established for removing disruptive attendees. “I request a formal investigation to clear my name and address the false accusations made against me,” Manda said.
Kate (public speaker) told trustees she reviewed the official recording of a previous meeting and said the audio was missing during a 90-second stretch in which an escalation occurred; she called the gap “deliberate censorship” and said the missing audio could violate the Brown Act. Board counsel and several trustees responded during the meeting by describing the limits on regulating photography and recording under the Brown Act, stressing that the body may intervene only when recording or other behavior actually disrupts proceedings.
Several union and community speakers urged the board to move forward with the acting superintendent’s contract; others asked the board to create consistent, public procedures for the president, superintendent and staff to reduce confusion about who may speak to the public. The board declined to initiate any investigatory motion during this meeting but directed staff and counsel to review related policy and to return with clarifications at a future meeting.
