The Beverly Hills Unified School District (BHUSD) Board has responded to a cease-and-desist letter that was delivered to the board at its Sept. 9 meeting.
The cease-and-desist, issued by attorney Daniel Lifschitz, who is a parent of a BHUSD student, alleges that in its recent activates during public meetings, the board has violated the Brown Act.
The Brown Act governs public meetings and conversations about issues affecting the public among elected officials with the goal of ensuring transparency.
In its Oct. 1 response, the board, represented by attorney Joseph R. Sanchez of Best Best & Krieger, LLP, said that it “respectfully disagrees with [Lifschitz’s] characterization of the events in question and [Lifschitz’s] interpretation of applicable law” and that it “has not violated the Brown Act’s public comment requirements.”
In his cease-and-desist letter, Lifschitz argued that the board violated the Public Comment Obligation (PCO) of the Brown Act by “substantially chang[ing]” agenda items after public comment had been closed.
Lifschitz specifically identified recent discussions about standards-based instruction, a resolution to combat antisemitism and a mandate to display the Israeli flag at BHUSD facilities that was quickly reversed due to safety concerns. Noting that the PCO limits the board’s ability to act on agenda items without sufficient input from the public, he argued that the community has been “robb[ed] … of any opportunity to address what the board actually votes on.”
Citing California Government Code Sections 54960 and 54960.2, Lifschitz invoked his right to take legal action to stop the board from violating the PCO going forward.
In its response, the board argued that the Brown Act doesn’t require public comment to be reopened after agenda items are modified during board discussions, and that the items referenced by Lifschitz in his letter were sufficiently described in agendas as to allow the public to be adequately informed.
“Legislative bodies retain the fundamental right to deliberate, debate, and modify proposals during properly noticed meetings … agenda descriptions need not include every detail of potential action, provided the description reasonably informs the public of the subject matter under consideration,” the board’s response states.
Replying to the board’s response in a statement to the Courier, Lifschitz addressed applicable case law, specifically Preven v. City of L.A., which was decided in 2019. The board in its letter said that “The Preven decision does not establish a general rule requiring renewed public comment whenever agenda items are modified during the same meeting.”
“The response from the board’s counsel is disappointing, as it both misapprehends the relevance of the Preven decision and effectively writes out the ‘substantially changed’ clause from Section 54954.3,” Lifschitz said in his comment to the Courier. “I will liaise with counsel on the matter to see if escalation can be avoided and take next steps as appropriate.”
Tensions have run high between the board and the public in recent years. In March, Board Members Sigalie Sabag and Russell Stuart were served with notifications of an intent to circulate recall petitions against them. Prior to that, members of the community flooded board meetings to protest decisions to place longtime Media Director Romeo Carey on administrative leave and to reassign El Rodeo Elementary School Principal Sarah Kaber and Vice Principal Kevin Painter, and following the resignation of former Superintendent Dr. Michael Bregy.
In its response to the cease-and-desist letter, members of the board said that they would carry on with their conduct as it stands.
“The board will continue to conduct its business in full compliance with the Brown Act,” the response reads, “while preserving its ability to engage in meaningful deliberation and consideration of the matters properly before it.”
