Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Brown Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents demand answers on alleged Brown Act violations and delay in Sobel Group report
Summary
Multiple community speakers urged the board to 'cure and correct' alleged Brown Act noncompliance involving a personnel-status change and payments for a former superintendent, and several asked the district to release the Sobel Group investigation report; speakers requested the board place these matters on a future agenda for public review.
A succession of public commenters used the Board of Education meeting April 9 to press the district for transparency and legal corrective action after what they described as improper personnel decisions.
Longtime resident Jeff Vandervoort said he submitted a formal Brown Act demand under California Government Code section 54960.1, alleging the district changed a former superintendent’s personnel status from resignation to retirement and paid medical benefits on that basis without a properly agendized board vote or a reported closed‑session action. “Expenditures are happening without lawful board approval,” Vandervoort said, and he called on the board to stop further benefit payments and place the matter on a future agenda. He asked the district to provide supporting documentation showing how the change was authorized.
Following Vandervoort, Daniel Hacking and other residents reiterated similar concerns and asked whether staff followed protocols required to spend public funds, why multiple board-approval dates appear in personnel paperwork, and whether staff had direction to issue payments without a public vote. Hacking said he and others could find no record of a vote in public minutes and urged the board to cure and correct any Brown Act violations.
Les Cohen raised questions about the status and expected public release of the Sobel Group’s investigation into a separate matter involving a former board member; Cohen asked when the community would have access to the completed report, noting earlier assurances that the report would be largely available with limited redactions. The board president and superintendent said they expected the report to be completed in April and pledged to provide the board a copy with appropriate redactions.
Board members acknowledged the concerns, said counsel was reviewing the Brown Act questions and that staff would work to provide the documents requested, and offered to agendize the items if any board member requested them. The board did not take formal action on these public comments during the meeting.
