Friday, June 12, 2026

PUSD Rejects Brown Act Challenge to Vote That Set Stage for School Closures

District legal counsel concluded trustees did not violate California’s open-meeting law in adopting Resolution 2852 — a finding that answers a formal demand from a member of the public and likely forces critics to decide whether to sue

The Pasadena Unified School District said Friday that its legal counsel has concluded members of the Board of Education did not violate California’s open-meeting law in connection with the board’s December 11, 2025, approval of Resolution 2852, the measure that established enrollment guidelines for district schools.

That resolution plays a key role in possible school consolidation proposals.

The district announcement, emailed to the public school community Friday morning, discloses the district’s response to a “cure and correct” request — the step state law requires before a lawsuit seeking to void a public agency’s action.

“On May 15, 2026, a member of the public submitted a request to cure and correct, alleging Brown Act violations, culminating in the December 11, 2025 approval of Resolution 2852,” the district said in the statement.

“The District’s legal counsel reviewed the allegations, responded to the request, and concluded that the members of the Board of Education did not violate the Brown Act,” the statement said.

The district’s statement also cited the Brown Act’s treatment of communication among members of a governing body.

“The Brown Act allows board members to communicate with each other so long as a majority of the Board does not exchange comments/positions on a particular topic. PUSD has a seven-member board, therefore, up to three board members may engage in conversation outside of a public meeting,” the statement said.

“Legal counsel found the evidence does not support an allegation that four or more board members exchanged comments/positions on the same topic outside of a board meeting,” the statement said.

The Brown Act, California’s open-meeting law for local legislative bodies, prohibits a majority of a body’s members from using “a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries” to discuss, deliberate or take action outside a public meeting on business within the body’s jurisdiction — communication chains commonly known as serial meetings, under Government Code Section 54952.2.

The cure-and-correct demand is the enforcement mechanism set out in Government Code Section 54960.1, which allows any person to challenge an action allegedly taken in violation of the act.

A written demand generally must be submitted within 90 days of the challenged action, the agency has 30 days to cure or correct it, and a demanding party that is dissatisfied with the agency’s response — or receives none — has 15 days to take the matter to court, according to the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit that publishes guidance on the law.

The district’s legal counsel’s determination addresses the allegations but not the specific remedy sought in the demand.

A June 9 letter to the board reportedly warned that litigation would follow unless the board rescinded Resolution 2852 by June 14, the demand at the center of the dispute.

This morning’s statement follows the board’s June 11 special meeting, at which the board announced it had voted 4-3 in closed session to authorize release of “a media statement regarding allegations of Brown Act violations by a community member.

” The closed-session item was listed on the meeting agenda under the law’s anticipated-litigation provision and described as a response to a “Request to Cure and Correct Under the Brown Act.”

Resolution 2852, titled “Establishing Optimal School Sizes,” was approved on a 4-3 vote and set minimum, optimal and maximum enrollment guidelines for district schools. It also directed the district to engage independent outside expertise for enrollment projections, facilities analysis and scenario modeling, and gave the superintendent authority to begin analyzing potential consolidations.

The four trustees who voted for the resolution — Board President Tina Fredericks, Trustee Scott Harden, Trustee Kimberly Kenne and Vice President Yarma Velázquez — are the members opponents accuse of coordinating to secure the votes.

Opponents allege the four communicated through emails, text messages and undisclosed meetings ahead of the December 11 vote, and warn that potential legal action would include subpoenas for phone records, written discovery and videotaped depositions of the four trustees.

Fredericks and Harden, whose seats are not on the 2026 ballot, each face a recall effort, while Kenne and Velázquez face re-election.

Fredericks has separately rejected that account, saying in a written statement that her actions amounted to lawful due diligence on a difficult policy question driven by the district’s declining enrollment, half-empty campuses and a $30 million to $35 million budget gap. She characterized her pre-contract conversations with a consultant as the kind of information-gathering the public should expect of elected officials.

Although the district’s statement did not name the member of the public who submitted the “cure and correct” request, it is thought by many have been sent by Warren Bleeker, an attorney, recall advocate and district parent.

The board’s next scheduled action comes June 25, when trustees are set to adopt the district’s 2026-27 Local Control and Accountability Plan and annual budget.