Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brown Act Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents accuse Pasadena Unified board of Brown Act breaches, demand probe as Don Benito closure cited
Summary
Public commenters at the Pasadena Unified School District board meeting accused the board of violating California's Brown Act, questioned spending on litigation and the proposed closure of Don Benito, and asked for a legal investigation and Brown Act training; the board later directed the superintendent on agenda item C1 and took no action on C2.
Public commenters at a Pasadena Unified School District board meeting on Aug. 19, 2024 alleged the board violated California's Brown Act, urged an investigation into the district's actions around planned school closures and litigation spending, and demanded increased transparency.
A public commenter who identified Elizabeth as the first scheduled podium speaker recounted her son's experience at Don Benito, urged the board to keep small schools and questioned district priorities. "Ustedes no siguen las reglas," the commenter said, accusing the board of failing to follow procedures and asking, "¿Qué hicieron con los 900000000?" (a claimed figure raised by the commenter that was not verified in the meeting record). The commenter also said outside consultants unfamiliar with local schools were being paid and criticized plans to close Don Benito.
Don Janissen, who spoke during public comment, told the board it must "recognize these Brown Act breaches" and said members who engaged in the conduct should step down. Jonathan, who introduced himself as representing more than 200 neighbors, urged the board to take responsibility for Brown Act violations, to commission an independent legal inquiry and to make the results public. He also asked that trustees receive Brown Act training so the community can see decisions made transparently.
Speakers repeatedly connected the alleged procedural lapses to broader concerns about student welfare and fiscal stewardship. One speaker said closures harm students who already endured the pandemic and recent wildfire smoke, and several asked the board to prioritize students and preserve neighborhood schools.
Board leadership responded with a procedural recess to go into closed session. After returning, the presiding officer announced that the board had given direction to the superintendent on agenda item C1 and that no action was taken on agenda item C2 before adjourning. The board did not provide further detail about the substance of the direction on C1 during the public report.
The meeting record shows repeated public demands for (1) a transparent accounting of district expenditures on litigation, (2) an independent legal review of alleged Brown Act breaches, and (3) Brown Act training for trustees. The claims in public comment were assertions by residents and were not verified or rebutted on the record during the meeting.
The board meeting was adjourned after the announcements; no formal vote on the alleged Brown Act violations was recorded.
