Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance And Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County board hears legal briefing on roles and responsibilities; public raises Brown Act and law-firm conflict concerns
Summary
County trustees heard a 70-slide presentation from attorney Barbara Ginzburg about the statutory division of authority between the county board and the superintendent. Public commenters responded with accusations about Brown Act complaints, contracts and ties between the superintendent and outside counsel; trustees asked staff for follow-ups on disclosures and packet availability.
Attorney Barbara Ginzburg of Atkinson and Adelson told the San Bernardino County Board of Education on July 13 that county boards have a narrowly defined oversight role and that day-to-day operations, staff hiring and many budget activities fall within the county superintendent's statutory authority.
Ginzburg, who presented a packet of roughly 70 slides, summarized the county board's primary duties (financial oversight, programmatic oversight and certain appellate functions) and warned trustees not to 'encroach on areas that are clearly by statute within the authority of the superintendent.
'The board of education is really an oversight function,' she said, listing examples in which the superintendent has exclusive authority, including management of county office employees and administration of the superintendent's budget. She also noted procedural thresholds the board should expect to see, such as being provided with interim fiscal reports and seeing any budget revisions that would expand the approved budget ceiling.
The presentation prompted extended public comment that directly challenged the choice of presenter and raised conflict-of-interest questions. Several members of the public alleged the presenter's firm and the county superintendent have ties to a joint personnel agency (Inland Personnel Council, IPC) and the outside law firm AALRR, and urged the board to place pending Brown Act complaints on the agenda. One commenter said the complaints had 'sat ignored' for seven months and called for greater transparency.
'The Brown Act requires that the legislative body as a whole discuss the Brown Act violation,' a commenter said, and later accused trustees of letting one member keep complaints off the public agenda.
President Gwen Rogers and other trustees thanked the presenter and asked staff to ensure future agenda packets include the presentation materials. Deputy county counsel Jolina Grider told the board that the presentation had been properly listed on the agenda under the Brown Act; she said packet assembly concerns should be directed to staff.
Trustees pressed for follow-up details on several legal and fiscal questions raised during the presentation, including when consultant contracts over $25,000 must be brought to the board for review and whether the board can set a different salary for an incoming superintendent before that person takes office. Ginzburg said the statute requires the board set the superintendent's salary and that, according to attorney general opinions, the board may set a different salary for a new superintendent provided the change is made before the new term begins.
The board did not take formal action on the presentation but directed staff to provide requested attachments and additional clarifications at a later meeting.
