Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Closed Session Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Solano County Board of Education convenes closed session over potential charter-school facility dispute
Summary
The Solano County Board of Education approved its agenda at a special 5 p.m. meeting and moved into a Brown Act closed session to discuss potential litigation involving a county-authorized charter school occupying a second facility without board authorization; the board later reconvened with no reportable action.
The Solano County Board of Education met in a special session at 5:00 p.m., approved and adopted the meeting agenda, and then convened a closed session under the Ralph M. Brown Act to discuss potential litigation related to a county-authorized charter school occupying a second facility without board authorization. The board later reconvened and the clerk announced there was "no reportable action taken in closed session."
The meeting opened with the presiding officer (referred to in this transcript as the Chair) calling the session to order and directing the clerk to take roll. The clerk called each trustee by name—Trustee Dunn, Trustee Coleman, Trustee Cheek, Trustee Collin Thompson, Trustee Dean, Trustee Lavelle and Trustee Sharp—and each answered present. The Chair then asked for approval and adoption of the agenda; a motion was made and moved by Trustee Sharp and was seconded by another trustee (the transcript does not clearly identify the second by name). Trustees present were recorded as voting in the affirmative, and the motion carried.
Before adjourning, the Chair disclosed the purpose of the closed session and stated it was to "discuss the potential for litigation due to the Solano County Board authorized charter school occupying a 2nd facility without the Solano County Board of Education," citing the Brown Act as the authority for the closed session. When the meeting returned to open session, a staff member stated, "There was no reportable action taken in closed session," and the meeting was adjourned.
Why it matters: closed sessions about potential litigation can signal disputes over governance, charter authorization or facility use that may later result in filings or public action. The board’s public disclosure of the closed-session purpose and the later statement that no reportable action was taken are consistent with the Brown Act’s requirements to identify the general subject of closed sessions and to report any required actions after reconvening.
What happened next: the clerk noted a brief technical pause for configuration after adjournment.
