Friday, March 13, 2026

PUSD Governance Workshop Exposes Board’s Uncertainty Over Its Own Rules

A Pasadena Unified Board of Education workshop intended to sharpen meeting procedure instead laid bare deeper uncertainty over how the board governs itself, as trustees openly disputed rules, questioned prior interpretations and asked for legal follow-up on several core practices.

What began as a training session on meeting discipline repeatedly turned into a debate over whether the board’s own protocols are clear, workable or even consistently followed.

The Thursday evening study session, led by facilitator Marisol Avalos, Ed.D., a registered parliamentarian, was designed around scripted role-playing exercises meant to help the board practice enforcing its meeting protocols. Trustees were told the session was “not a critique of individuals” and that past disagreements would not be revisited.

Instead, the facilitator said, the goal was to “build fluency and shared responsibility around how meetings are conducted.”

But the exercises quickly surfaced fundamental disagreements — about the superintendent’s right to speak during board deliberation, about whether information items allow any trustee discussion at all, about how “sweep” votes work, and about whether the board can seek consensus on future agenda items at the end of a meeting without violating the Brown Act.

Superintendent’s role in advocacy sparks early clash

The sharpest exchange came before the first scenario even began. Trustee Michelle Richardson Bailey challenged the facilitator’s guidance that the superintendent should not speak during the advocacy phase of board deliberation — the portion of the meeting when trustees state their voting positions.

Bailey said she had been told minutes before the session that Board Protocol 4 barred the superintendent from engaging the board during advocacy. She said she did not see that prohibition anywhere in the protocol or the board’s bylaws.

“This is not my first rodeo and I have never experienced that between a superintendent and a board,” Bailey said.

Board President Tina Fredericks said she treats advocacy as a phase reserved for voting members, and that since the superintendent does not vote, the superintendent does not participate. Fredericks acknowledged, however, that the protocol contains no explicit prohibition — only silence on the matter — and said she exercises chair discretion.

Dr. Avalos said the superintendent could raise a hand and say “point of information,” and the chair could then choose whether to recognize her.

“I just wanted to make sure that the interpretation of this protocol is not being taken out of context, because that’s what was happening,” Bailey said.

Bailey later asked whether stopping the superintendent from speaking constituted a violation of First Amendment rights. Dr. Avalos drew a distinction between a “point of privilege” and a “point of order,” and reminded the board that at the moment in question, they were in the advocacy phase.

Trustee Scott Harden suggested the issue could be addressed by being more explicit in the protocols in a future session.

Appeal process draws skepticism

Trustee Patrice Marshall McKenzie raised concerns about the appeals process under the board’s parliamentary rules. When the facilitator explained that a trustee could appeal a ruling by the chair and the full board would then vote on the appeal, McKenzie questioned the logic of asking the same body to adjudicate a procedural dispute it may not have the expertise to resolve.

“If in fact someone feels the need to make an appeal, that is because they do not believe that sufficient information, knowledge, expertise lives in the body to adjudicate the outcome,” McKenzie said. “So we’re going to rely on the same body to give us a higher level of information on the outcome. That seems to me very counterintuitive if someone has an appeal.”

Dr. Avalos maintained that the process follows standard parliamentary procedure: the chair rules first, and the body can override by majority vote. Fredericks suggested the board could define a different appeal process and add it to its protocols at a future meeting.

Information items protocol unclear

Trustee Kimberly Kenne repeatedly pressed the facilitator on where the board’s rules define how information items — agenda entries posted for updates only, with no discussion or action — should be handled. Kenne said she could not find a protocol or policy governing information items and noted the board routinely allows discussion and questions during presentations.

“I can’t find a protocol or a policy that says this is how information items are handled,” Kenne said. “So that’s why I’m asking.”

The facilitator pointed to the board’s agenda preparation guidelines, which give the superintendent and board president authority to designate items as informational or action. But Kenne noted the board’s actual practice has been to allow trustee comments and questions on student board member reports and other presentations, and she cautioned against retroactively labeling that discussion as deliberation.

“I just think there’s a slippery slope where someone decides that’s a deliberation as opposed to we’re just talking,” Kenne said.

Fredericks agreed the issue needed follow-up.

‘Sweep’ votes prompt request for legal opinion

The session’s third scenario involved what the board informally calls a “sweep” — bundling multiple action items into a single vote. The facilitator noted the term appears nowhere in the board’s bylaws, protocols or Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, which the board follows.

When Dr. Avalos said a single trustee’s objection should be enough to break a sweep and force individual votes — similar to how one trustee can pull an item from a consent calendar — a district staff member said clarification was needed and that a written legal opinion would be requested from the district’s counsel.

Kenne also raised a procedural concern about sweeps: that bundling non-consent action items skips the steps required under Board Protocol 4, including staff presentation, public comment and board inquiry.

Future agenda items debate dominates final scenario

The longest and most contentious exchange concerned how trustees request future agenda items — a seemingly routine end-of-meeting practice that the facilitator said could constitute an unagendized action if trustees form consensus.

Dr. Avalos told the board that seeking agreement from colleagues on whether to bring back an item amounts to taking action, which the Brown Act requires to be properly noticed on a posted agenda. She said the board’s process should be limited to individual trustees announcing they plan to submit a written request.

Kenne pushed back, citing the Brown Act’s own exception allowing board members to “take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda” without prior agendizing. She said the board’s existing protocol — Board Protocol 2 — also allows trustees to raise new ideas at regular meetings and seek concurrence from the full board.

“Saying that our current process is wrong is not correct, and we can certainly change to a new process if the whole board agrees, but we’re not there yet,” Kenne said. “So I don’t think we should start implementing a new process that we haven’t all agreed to.”

Trustee Bailey agreed, saying the board should not restrict items from being placed on agendas and that the president’s role should be one of transparency, not gatekeeping.

“We should not restrict anything from being placed on an agenda,” Bailey said.

Fredericks argued the written submission process gives the superintendent time to evaluate the staff impact of new requests and plan accordingly. Dr. Yarma Velázquez sided with Kenne and Bailey, saying the existing end-of-meeting process protects trustees who want to raise potentially controversial items that might otherwise be ignored through the written submission channel.

Velázquez argued that limiting trustees to written submissions creates a channel where requests can be disregarded. “Sometimes if you want to propose an item that might be controversial, it forces you to announce, ‘I will send an email,’ because otherwise the email is ignored,” she said. The existing verbal process, she said, “helps protect a minority or a dissident view or an unpopular view from actually getting a chance of consideration.”

Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Blanco said she would check with legal counsel on the question.

What’s next

The facilitator said she has been categorizing trustees’ pre-meeting questions to help distinguish governance questions from operational ones, a document she plans to share with Blanco, Fredericks and Velázquez. She said most trustee questions qualified as governance-related, with some drifting into operational territory.

Kenne asked whether the analysis meant certain questions would be off-limits. Dr. Avalos said no questions were prohibited, but that the categorization was meant to help prioritize which questions need answers before a board vote and which could be addressed separately.

Fredericks noted the session may be the board’s last governance training for a while, citing difficulty scheduling all members in April.