Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter says SFUSD meeting notice was not posted; district counsel says Brown Act posting requirements were met
Summary
During public comment at the March 4 SFUSD special meeting, Bernice Casey said the meeting notice was not posted in advertised locations. General counsel responded that the meeting had been posted physically and on BoardDocs more than 24 hours in advance.
Bernice Casey, a remote public commenter, told the San Francisco Unified School District board at its March 4 special meeting that she had not seen the meeting notice posted in the district’s calendars and typical physical locations and submitted screenshots to the board.
Casey: “The notice of this meeting was not posted at all the locations that you post the meeting. It wasn't in your calendar. It wasn't in the year‑long calendar for the school year,” she said.
General counsel, responding during the public‑comment period, told the board it is the district’s understanding that the meeting complied with the Ralph M. Brown Act’s posting rules. The counsel said the agenda had been posted physically at locations where the district normally posts meeting materials and had been posted on BoardDocs “in excess of the 24‑hour minimum,” and that staff believed the posting occurred on Friday, giving more than the minimum notice.
The board did not take formal action on the matter at the session. President Kim thanked the commenter and moved the meeting on to the budget study session; the session concluded with staff continuing to present budget material and the board scheduling follow‑up next week.
Context: The Brown Act (California Government Code) requires public agencies to post agendas in advance of meetings; the exchange in public comment centers on whether the district’s routine posting procedures were followed for this special meeting.
