Past and present school board leaders are raising concerns that the newly elected Laguna Beach Unified School board majority potentially violated California’s open meeting law – the Brown Act – during the process of hiring a new superintendent.
The new three-member school board majority are pushing back against those concerns, saying they didn’t violate the state’s transparency law and their predecessors left a leadership vacuum needed to be quickly filled.
Two former elected officials and two current board members in one of Orange County’s top performing school districts say the new board majority tried to circumvent the process of replacing the superintendent by lining up a candidate before any public discussion.
Peggy Wolff, a former district board member, said in a phone interview Tuesday that she is concerned the new majority have been discussing and making decisions outside of public meetings – something the Brown Act prohibits.
She points to an effort by the majority to offer Joanne Culverhouse, a former La Habra School District superintendent, the role of interim superintendent without public discussion or debating it with the other two members of the board.
“They’re aware they have a majority, but they still should engage the other board members with information processes. That’s why we hold public meetings, so everyone has a voice, even if you disagree with it, even if you vote differently. The point is to say, here we are in the public doing our business,” Wolff said.
Board President Dee Perry – a majority member – said in a Wednesday phone interview that she never spoke to Culverhouse before the meeting or other board members about her and said the former board left the district in a tight spot.
“We would have no superintendent because the outgoing board did not really leave us a succession plan,” she said. “We could select a search firm, which means we’d have to look at different firms, interview them, select one, and then we could interview their candidates and that seemed like it would take much too long.”
While the majority voted to offer her a contract last month, officials now say Culverhouse has declined that offer following the December meeting.
The board meets at 4:30 pm this afternoon to discuss how best to handle the leadership void.
Increasing Concerns Surrounding Transparency
The concerns being raised by some current and former board members stem from alleged secret conversations the new board majority had with each other – all before their first meeting on Dec. 16.
Newly elected board member Howard Hills said he spoke to Culverhouse about the superintendent role after hearing community support for her – before the election results were certified.
“My conversations with her were not in my capacity as a member of the board, because I wasn’t on the board at that time,” he said.
Hills, a majority member, added that he talked to Sheri Morgan – a candidate at the time and now a newly elected school board member – but not the other board members including Perry.
“Even though we were not yet bound by the Brown Act, we made a decision to voluntarily restrict our conversations just to the two of us, so that even if we were subject to the Brown Act, we would be in compliance,” Hill said.
The Brown Act prohibits a majority of the board from discussing district business directly or through intermediaries outside a public meeting.
Hills has also denied violating the Brown Act in letters published on local newspapers and community forums like Laguna Beach Independent and Stu News Laguna and argues that former board members are trying to mislead residents.
“The people that are making these accusations about Brown Act violations, they’re connecting dots that don’t connect, and they’re letting their imaginations run wild and and they’re making accusations that are not based on fact or evidence,” he said in the interview.
Morgan, the third majority member, said in a Wednesday email that Culverhouse was not lined up for the interim position before the December meeting, but many district parents supported her.
“All members of the Board received a letter of interest from Dr. Culverhouse at the same time at 4:00 on December 16th regarding her interest in becoming the interim superintendent before the meeting that started at 5:30,” Morgan wrote.
“Given the intensity of her name being amongst the community at large, when she forwarded her letter of interest in the position it was an excellent option and worthy of moving quickly to ensure we had a continuation of leadership.”
Morgan also said Board member Joan Malczewski spoke to Culverhouse before the meeting.
“Dr. Malczewski did indicate in the December 16th meeting that she had reached out to Dr. Culverhouse before the December 16th meeting which would be acting on behalf of the Board and that does violate Brown Act and Board policies,” Morgan wrote.
Malczewsk, who did not respond to a request for comment or emailed questions Tuesday, lambasted the process to pick Culverhouse at the Dec. 16 meeting.
“If I was going to pick a process that would absolutely be out of the question – it’s the one that played out,” Malczewski said. “It wasn’t transparent, it wasn’t inclusive of the whole board, and it didn’t give people a chance to review one candidate’s information, or possibly two.”
Wolff isn’t the only one with concerns of Brown Act violations.
Ketta Brown, another past school board member, also said the board majority violated the Brown Act to line up Culverhouse for the job either through serial meetings or daisy chain emails – which the law prohibits.
“All you got to do is watch the meeting,” Brown said in a Wednesday phone interview. “The obvious ploy to play fast and loose with the Brown Act and cut out two duly elected board members from a process as important as how to choose a superintendent, was unethical and insulting.”
Both Brown and Wolff have raised concerns about potential Brown Act violations by the board majority in a joint letter published on the Stu News Laguna website.
So has current school board member James Kelly.
In an email Wednesday, Kelly said he raised transparency concerns around the rush to pick Culverhouse without thorough conversation at the Dec. 16 meeting and knew nothing about her.
“Transparency and adherence to open meeting laws, like the Brown Act, are critical to maintaining public trust in our governance,” he wrote.
The concerns about the process of hiring an interim superintendent come after the previous board voted unanimously at the Nov. 21 meeting to enter a separation agreement with former Superintendent Jason Viloria effective Dec. 31, 2024.
Will a Board Member Take the Reins?
While school board members are expected to again discuss hiring an interim superintendent behind closed doors, they’re also expected to consider granting a board member limited authority to help administrators run the daily operations of the school district until an interim is hired.
Wolff and others are raising concerns that this could be a conflict of interest if a board member is directly involved with spending public funds.
“Why are they tampering and trying to be administrators when we have three assistant superintendents who can take on the role till an interim is found?” Wolff said.
Brown said the board’s responsibility now is to pick an interim superintendent and then permanent superintendent and not take over administration work of the district.
She points to a board policy that prohibits board members from taking an administrative role unless agreed to by the board as a whole.
Hills said they have consulted with the Board’s counsel if it was possible to take such action and points to a section of California education code, arguing that “if there is no superintendent, then the board has the responsibility for administration of the district.”
The education code states:
“The governing board of any school district may execute any powers delegated by law to it or to the district of which it is the governing board, and shall discharge any duty imposed by law upon it or upon the district of which it is the governing board, and may delegate to an officer or employee of the district any of those powers or duties. The governing board, however, retains ultimate responsibility over the performance of those powers or duties so delegated.”
Kelly said he’s against appointing a board member to temporarily help run district operations, calling it inappropriate.
“Board members are elected to provide governance and oversight, not to assume operational control of the organization they oversee,” he wrote.
“Assigning administrative duties to an elected official, who inherently holds influence over public perception and district funds, blurs the line between governance and management, undermining public trust and accountability.”
Hosam Elattar is a Voice of OC reporter and corps member with Report for America, a GroundTruth initiative. Contact him at helattar@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @ElattarHosam.