Board debates residency rule after trustee’s move; bylaw amendment moved for second reading

Trustee Jackie (speaker 7) asked the board to place a first reading of a proposed amendment to bylaw 9.2.23 that would clarify that a change of residence after election or appointment “does not automatically create a vacancy,” allowing a duly elected trustee to serve a full term absent resignation, recall, or another vacancy cause.

“Having that in there is more stricter than the law,” Jackie said, arguing the proposal would align local policy more closely with statutes. She asked the board to treat the item as a first reading so it could return for a second reading and possible adoption later.

Opponents argued the bylaw currently mirrors state law and that local policy cannot be less strict than Education Code requirements. A board member (speaker 1) told trustees that “the law says you cannot be a member of the board if you do not reside in the district” and urged following existing rules to avoid legal exposure. Legal counsel (speaker 4) clarified that first readings are ordinarily discussion-only and that the board had requested formal legal advice on the issue.

After extended debate — which included references to Government Code section 1770 and Education Code section 35107 and exchanges about timing and motive — the board voted to bring the amendment back for a second reading and action at a future meeting rather than adopting changes tonight. The motion was placed on the agenda for further consideration and will return to the board for a second reading.

The discussion included sharp personal exchanges and repeated calls from several members and public commenters to “follow the law,” while others urged restraint and noted recall as an existing remedy. The board did not adopt the bylaw amendment at this meeting and agreed to revisit the matter on a later agenda.