Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines to ratify district payment for outside counsel representing a trustee's workplace harassment claim
Summary
After a lengthy, often emotional debate over conflicts of interest and the district's duty to protect employees and trustees, the board voted against a motion to pay outside counsel to represent Board President Stephanie Serrano in a workplace harassment matter.
Get email alerts on the Governance Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Hacienda la Puente Unified School District Board considered a request to ratify an agreement to retain Jeremiah Graham to provide legal representation for Board President Stephanie Serrano in a workplace harassment matter and to process payment from district funds.
Supporters argued the retainer provided necessary workplace protections for a trustee who said she had been the target of harassment and that in-house counsel was overwhelmed or conflicted. "This is for the district's legal compliance to protect me from workplace harassment," a trustee supporting the item said, adding that prior efforts with district counsel had been delayed.
Opponents raised ethical and legal concerns about using public funds to pay outside counsel who would represent an individual trustee rather than the district and noted the potential for conflicts of interest and the possibility that outside counsel might pursue claims against the district. Trustees asked whether the retainer and scope of representation existed in writing and whether a contract should be reviewed before any payment.
Legal staff told the board that a contract covering the new scope (workplace harassment representation) did not yet exist and cautioned that if a subsequent conflict-of-interest finding were made the contract could be void. After extended discussion about procedure, scope and the district's obligations, the motion to ratify payment failed on a 3-2 vote (yes: Serrano and one other; no: three trustees). Meeting minutes show dissenters cited the risk of exposure of district funds and the need for formal conflict review before approving such payments.
The board did not approve processing payment; staff said that contract and conflict-of-interest questions would need to be resolved before any future authorization.

