"Under the Brown Act, California's open-meeting law, the board president is required to verbally announce the facts and circumstances related to anticipated litigation before going into closed session."

State of California Government Code Section 54956.9 provides a safe harbor here. In particular, 54956.9(g) states in part:

"Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the legislative body of the local agency shall state on the agenda or publicly announce the paragraph of subdivision (d) that authorizes the closed session. If the session is closed pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed, unless the body states that to do so would jeopardize the agency’s ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage."

While the article later clarifies the obligation to announce "... the paragraph of subdivision (d) that authorizes the closed session", there's no obligation under the Government Code, at least to my knowledge, to disclose the "facts and circumstances related to anticipated litigation", as the article first states.

@JA, the agenda notice was specifically for §54956.9(d)(2), which reads:

(2) Facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, an accident, disaster, incident, or transactional occurrence that might result in litigation against the agency and that are known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts or circumstances shall be publicly stated on the agenda or announced.

Seems pretty clear that they needed to state the "facts and circumstances" in this case. This code section overall is as clear as mud, but once narrowed down to just this clause, it is reasonably clear. Sounds like they got bum advice from their lawyers (what else is new?).

[Portion removed due to inaccurate citation of the code section.]

@JA3 - "Nowhere in §54956.9 is an obligation imposed to disclose facts and circumstances..."

End of §54956.9(d)(2) reads: "... which facts or circumstances shall be publicly stated on the agenda or announced."

Am I missing something? Keep in mind that it says "stated on the agenda OR announced" - so it wouldn't necessarily appear on the published agenda (though probably would have to be in the minutes? Not sure).

[Post removed.]

"Godfrey said the district agreed, at the family's request, to sign a tolling agreement, in which the district waives its right to claim that any litigation should be dismissed due to the expiration of a statute of limitations, which would have occurred this month (two years from the date of the alleged assault.)" Given the tolling agreement, the District appears to rely on §54956.9(e)(3), not §54956.9(e)(2), as I think you're implying. §54956.9(e)(3) states as follows: "The receipt of a claim pursuant to the Government Claims Act (Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code) or some other written communication from a potential plaintiff threatening litigation, which claim or communication shall be available for public inspection pursuant to Section 54957.5 ." If the District relies on §54956.9(e)(3), then the District is not obligated to disclose the facts and circumstances (since there is written communication from a potential plaintiff and such communication is available to the public upon request).

Honestly, in my head every time I see PAUSD in the news, The Benny Hill Song aka Yakety Sax playing over and over again. They have become a meme


I'm no longer mad, but rather marking the days when my child is no longer beholden the the PAUSD train wreck

GOV § 54956.9

"(g) Prior to holding a closed session ...shall state on the agenda or publicly announce the paragraph of subdivision (d) that authorizes the closed session."

"(a) ...holding a closed session to confer with, or receive advice from, its legal counsel regarding pending litigation ...(d) ...litigation shall be considered pending when ...(2) ...based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.

(e) ...“existing facts and circumstances” ...(2) ...that might result in litigation against the agency...shall be publicly stated on the agenda or announced...."

GC § 54956.9(f) and (g):

"(f) Nothing in this section shall require disclosure of written communications that are privileged and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).

"(g) Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the legislative body of the local agency shall state on the agenda or publicly announce the paragraph of subdivision (d) that authorizes the closed session. If the session is closed pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed, unless the body states that to do so would jeopardize the agency’s ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage."

Are you guys like dueling legal briefs?

"dueling legal briefs"
Wow, the image that brings to mind.

Oh wait, you mean piles of paper.

@JA3, you make a good point about whether they could or should have relied on (e)(3), but it appears they did not. Maybe the document didn't specifically "threaten litigation"; maybe the lawyer screwed up (he made not have even seen the document, since it was probably handled by a litigator, not the Brown Act adviser). In any case, they did not make the document available for inspection or say it was privileged (not clear why a standstill agreement would be privileged anyway, but they didn't claim it).

I'm not sure why you are avidly defending the district when they are saying they just did it wrong and taking action to correct it. I am glad that they just admitting they made a mistake and fixing it, which is a pleasant change from their past M.O. and a hopeful sign.

Yet another missed opportunity to be transparent for the School District and School Board. Why not just err on the side of transparency? Wondering what the downside would have been. In the meantime, actions speak louder than words.

How about PAUSD owning up to its non compliant behavior and not forcing these victims/families to sign nondisclosure agreements? How about PAUSD coming clean and starting fresh, actually showing a commitment to complying with the anti discrimination laws, instead of doing things seemingly to keep things quiet, like not announcing the Cozen final report has been posted on the PAUSD website at the time it was posted, and now maybe not properly noticing this potential lawsuit, which would seem to lead to no one knowing it is happening? What is the import of all these actions? To try to keep things quiet?

Unfortunately, PAUSD will only change its behavior towards discrimination and sexual harassment/assaults when it loses a big lawsuit.

Ironically, the costs will eventually be passed onto the parents to pay for the settlement. Hopefully, the administrators can be sued personally. That would be another way to change their culture.

@BP,
Only if it loses a big lawsuit and the community finally decides to get legal assistance that isn't trying to encourage an adversarial relationship with families to increase their bottom line. Who makes money in an expensive lawsuit? The lawyers on both sides.

This can be avoided by created systems for handling complaints Collaboratively, and for supporting families on an equal footing with misbehaving admins, such as creating an office of ombudsman that doesn't answer to the district office but rather works for the city and is physically located outside 25 Churchill.

Hey, school board. This district still does not have processes in place for honestly and correctly and efficiently answering records requests. You are required to both answer requests (note: a letter falsely claiming to have filled the request is not the same thing) AND HAVE PROCESSES TO DO SO. The district cannot keep saying it's too hard, or oops we goofed again, for deliberately avoiding the creation of processes to be transparent.

Kathy Jordan: "How about PAUSD ... not forcing these victims/families to sign nondisclosure agreements?"

It may be the family's lawyer who is advising his client not to talk.

Regardless, you can ask PAUSD for the information after the matter is resolved.

"Where final action is taken with respect to ... settlement agreements and other specified records, the public may receive copies of such records upon request" Web Link

"Once the claim or litigation is no longer 'pending,' ...the public may obtain copies of ...documents concerning the settlement of a claim that are not shielded from disclosure by other exemptions...subject to disclosure under the public interest exemption balancing test [are] court records of a settlement between the insurer for a school district and a minor sexual assault victim" Web Link

Disgusting behavior. Hope student' parents will manage to achieve justice and the court will properly punish the perpetrators.

Now, how do we get them to start correcting flagrant records law violations?