001Good evening everyone. Tonight's special meeting of the board of education is called to order at 5:00 in open session. Roll call, please. >> Miss Armstrong, >> present. >> Miss Stewart, >> present. >> Miss Cron, >> present. >> Mr. Critfield, >> present. >> Miss Garza, >> present. We have requests addressing agenda items. Um, we want Yeah. Um, we want the public to know that the board and superintendent will listen carefully to each public comment. However, we will not respond during the meeting. The superintendent or a designated representative will contact the parent, guardian, and or community member if the comment warrants follow-up. While meetings of the governing board are not public meetings, they are open to the public. Individual speakers will be allowed three minutes to address the board and the board will limit the total time
002for public input to 21 minutes per board bylaw 9322.2 unless otherwise waved by the board. At this time, can I please have John Paul Dreer come to the set? >> Good evening. >> Happy new year to everyone 2026. Um, I know it seems like we have a lot of the same um, close session items listed. Sometimes some organizations list them as like placeholders. Sometimes it's more specific to a case number or a student um, number. Um, so I'm just curious, maybe uh, staff can uh, reach out to me later if these all four will be discussed. If um I'm concerned if it's a placeholder, then we're not really sure what's going to be on the agenda. Some things aren't always um discussed if it's a just a placeholder. Um, also when we look at 3.1
003Student Matters Education Code 35146 and 48918C, um, I hope that all board members will look at the students, um, through the lens of restorative justice, that they each have a chance to come back to a regular school. Um, or they they could have a chance, maybe they made a mistake. um can they come back and redeem themselves and give uh restitution and rehabilitation to whatever they have done so they can go back into the regular classroom in the future. Um thank you very much. Uh have a great um close session and I will be see you back at 6 pm. Happy new year. >> Thank you Mr. Dreer. At this time, the board will uh reconvene to a um sorry, will adjourn to close session. Open session will resume approximately at 6 p.m. Thank you.
004We now reconvene to open session at 6:16 p.m. to resume regular order of business. At this time, I will reopen the public comment period. Mr. John Paul Dreer, would you please come to the stand podium? >> Happy New Year again. Um, President uh Garza, you inspired me. Uh, you asked a question of how we could help schools and it's like is to donate to the schools that I want to donate. I made a donation tonight to one of my alma modders, Albert Baxter. I challenge all other alumni to uh donate to the B USD educational foundation um to their alma directly to their alma mater. I think that would be appropriate. I appreciate these updated changes in the bylaws. When I was on the Srias College board of trustees, uh I oversaw the Srias College
005uh foundation and each year we also received um independent audits um of the accounting of the foundation and I look forward to looking at those uh reports um and to improve upon them and also to if you could advertise when the meetings are. you do a really good job advertising when the schoolboard meetings are. Um, but what about when the personnel commission or the uh foundation meetings are so more more people in the public can attend and understand uh how they can get involved since we're having trouble uh getting people on the foundation. Um we need to do more outreach I believe. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Dreer. >> Uh board clerk synthron will provide an update on close session topics. Thank you, President Garza. Um, the topics discuss discussed in close sessions were
006labor negotiations and public employee discipline dismissal release. No reportable actions was taken in close session. Thank you. >> Thank you, Clerk Cintron. Uh, tonight I'll lead the audience in the pledge of allegiance. Please stand and place your right hand over your heart, please. [clears throat] Ready? Begin. We have two major action items this evening. Let's begin with item 6.1. Approval of amendment to B USD Education Foundation bylaws. Does the board have any questions or comments? >> Do I have a motion to approve this item? >> You have that motion. >> Second. Roll call, please. >> Miss Armstrong, >> I. >> Miss Cron, >> I. Mr. Cridgefield, >> I. >> Mrs. Garza, >> I. Our last major action item is 6.2 resolution the amend to amend the regular board meeting times. Does the board have any
007questions or comments? >> Um I do I just want to put it on record. Um, I understand why um we probably need to change it to five o'clock, but I was really I I'm really just thinking about our parents, really our staff that I know it's only 30 minutes, but if we could still handle business really really quick because, you know, they really don't get any extra compensation for staying late on these meeting nights. So, I don't know. I mean, I understand, but um you know, as as a as a member of the board, I just really want to consider our staff for when for when we do have these meetings. And to be honest, and it's true, we really just only been having these meetings at 4:30. What? For how long? A year or
008two? So, we used to have the meetings at five at five o'clock, right? So, I don't know. I just, you know, I just want want to let you guys know we, you know, because sometimes it is difficult to get here at 4:30, but um at the same time, my heart goes out for the staff. you guys work hard and it's it may add it may add longer to your your work day on these nights, but this is where we are. I just want to just say that. Thank you, board member Armstrong. Anyone else? Um, not hearing anyone else. Um, do I have a motion to approve this item? Yes. So moved. Thank you. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Miss Armstrong. >> I. >> Miss Cron. >> I. >> Mr. Critzfield. >> I. >>
009Mrs. Garza. >> I. Thank you everyone. Now we move on. At this time, um, I will hand it over to Dr. Simon to introduce our next item. >> Thank you so much, President Garza. As we embark on this new chapter of leadership under your presidency and every presidency thereafter, the board will begin with a meaningful refresher on Robert's rules of order, a reaffirmation of your shared commitment to fairness, clarity, and purposeful deliberation in all that you do. I will now turn it over to our general counsel, Mr. Sura, to lead us in the presentation. Thank you, Mrs. Uh thank you, Superintendent Simon. Uh this evening we're going to take a look at some of the rules uh under Robert's rules of parliamentary procedure. Um there will be a mix of some Brown Act aspects as
010well and then uh also a look into uh Rosenberg's rules of parliament parliamentary procedure and why they might be more beneficial for the board to adopt moving forward. Uh, with that being said, we'll go ahead and uh get this underway, I think. No. Uh so normally uh when I do this kind of refresher course it's generally a two-hour course but uh it'll be a lot more condensed um just because the depth of information will not be as great due to the fact that you know we're looking more high level and kind of getting into some of the basics of it. So with that being said we'll start with Robert's rules of order and how it kind of got started. So once upon a time there was a young officer within the US Army. Um and
011as most good stories start it was a church matter and he was asked to preside over a meeting of a church. Well that meeting turned into literal chaos open warfare within the church. And so he made a promise that he would figure out a way to maintain order at these meetings and provide guidelines for individuals and how they would be able to act, be heard, and keep things civil. So as a result, Robert's rules of order were developed in 1876. And in looking at that, these rules were developed about 150 years ago. Throughout that time, they have been modified. things have been changed, but the general premise has remained the same. So, with that being said, this kind of gives you an idea of the structure of not just the Robert's rules, but how boards
012have to comport themselves. And above all, you have the California Constitution and state laws. And this is again in dealing with open meetings for public agencies and elected bodies in the state of California. Below that you have local charter and ordinances. This applies more to municipalities, but within a a school or a district, you would look at board policy. Um, below that, council and board policies. These are more internal things such as council handbooks or board member handbooks. And then at the bottom, you have Robert's rules, which is your parliamentary procedure. So in theory it is the least authoritative among the four. However, it is the most important in terms of how meetings are actually run. So we'll start with the role of the chair. Um in cities this would be the mayor. Obviously in
013boards of education it would be the board president. Under Robert's rules the board president is more of a facilitator. Their job is to make sure that the meeting moves forward at an efficient pace. They enforce and maintain decorum which is actually really important for the Brown Act as well because as we'll get into later, violations could lead to some pretty serious consequences. And one of the the less spoken rules is that they do actually protect the rights of the minority within that body to be able to be heard and to speak and to have that productive dialogue. So from that we'll go into kind of the underlying foundation of of how a emotion works, how items are heard and and what the life cycle is. So generally when an item is brought up, it's introduced
014by the board chair or in this case the president. Uh a motion is made, a second is requested and hopefully received. And once that is done, the president actually should restate the motion that's been made. Then it can be opened up for for dialogue and discussion. Once that is done, the chair calls for the question, which is basically the vote and then announces the uh outcome of that vote. Again, this is very structural. It's very formatted. However, every agency adopts variations to these rules and kind of does it whatever way works best for them. But this is the general outline of the life cycle of emotion and how it should work. Now there are four categories of motions under Robert's rules and as you see them main motion, subsidiary, privileged and incidental. Uh main motion
015is actually the least important of all or I shouldn't say the least important but um it gets addressed last. Any subsidiary motion would be before the main motion privilege before the previous two and incidental um is to be decided immediately. So to give you an example of what a subsidiary motion would be, that would be a motion to amend to refer to committee. Um these all must be voted on before the main motion. So if someone makes a motion to approve an item and someone makes an amended motion to approve but exclude uh a portion of it, that amended motion must be voted on prior to the main motion being undertaken. Uh privileged motions are more along the lines of adjourning a meeting, uh taking a recess. These are things that must be addressed immediately.
016So even if you're in the middle of a motion or an amended motion and someone asks for a recess, if the chair acknowledges, um that would have to be dealt with first and then once you come back from recess, you can continue taking on the business. And then incidental are the highest priority. They're basically your point of order questions that need to be answered immediately um in order to resolve whatever the issue might be. This could be something along the lines of if the room is too loud or too noisy and someone can't hear, they would ask for a point of order. They would ask the chair to address the noise in the room and as such you would take that action immediately. So there's actually quite a few other motions that fall within these
017categories. Uh but as we'll get into later, Robert's rules or parliamentary law is a very very complex area. Um and there's a lot of nuances. So these are the basic ones that generally will help you get through a meeting uh in the most expeditious manner possible. This is kind of a bit of a cheat sheet um for Robert's rules. I provided uh additional ones as well just to provide you with some um different motions, different things that can be asked. Really what Robert's rules is, it's the rules or the playbook to how a meeting is run, what a member of that body can and cannot do and the order and things uh the order of things and how they must be done. So if you look at for example um previous question also known as
018uh to call the question that's a subsidiary motion that would be taken before the vote on the main motion. Um it's not a debatable item. So once someone calls the question a vote must be taken and you requires twothirds majority in order to force the vote on the main item and suspend all debate. Um other amendments such as or other motions such as referring it to committee again whatever category of motion that it falls within that one is debatable. So that one can be discussed prior to the vote and would require only a majority in order to pass. Um there are a lot of games that are played uh in larger bodies such as the state legislature or Congress. Uh and they do have full-time parliamentarians that are there because again this does get very
019complex. Um but there's ways to kill motions without actually taking a vote on the motion such as tableabling it, postponing indefinitely, referring it to committee. It's it does become a lot of gamesmanship in larger bodies and that's why they have a certified parliamentarian there to be able to make sure that the rules are followed um in accordance with Robert's rules. So, we're going to go a little bit into how the Brown Act overlays with Robert's rules and why at times the two are incompatible. uh which is kind of what makes Robert's rules difficult, a bit antiquated and you know why I would also recommend that the district possibly look at the alternative which is Rosenberg and I'll explain that in a little bit. So the main crux of the Brown Act um I believe this
020statement is actually very powerful. The people of the state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. What this basically is saying through the Brown Act is that the people are in control. The people are the ultimate deciders and whatever bodies they create and representatives they elect, they should always have control over or at least should be uh able to hold those bodies accountable. So with that being said, this is kind of the difference between Robert's rules and some of the rules that the Brown Act implements. Uh under Robert's rules, the assembly is supreme. So the body rules above all. Under the Brown Act, the public is the one that is in control. Public
021business and the public. Um you can c you can add items to an agenda by two-thirds vote under Robert's rules. You cannot do that under the Brown Act except for very very narrow exemptions and we'll get into some of those examples later. Um, under Robert's rules, public speaks when the chair decides. So the chair actually or the president is um given a lot more authority under Robert's rules. Um, but under the Brown Act, the public actually speaks before any of the the board members. That's generally done through public comment. Robert's rules again, you can caucus in private. Congress does this all the time. Um, whatever party, they'll take a break, they'll go into caucus, they'll come back, uh, and they'll take votes. In a board of education setting or a city council setting, you can't
022do that. You can't just take a break, meet with a majority, and then come back and vote. So again the rules under uh Robert's rules don't generally apply to some of the aspects of local governance because again the body is only five members or seven. If you look at a state legislature you know I believe the assembly is 80 the senate's 40 congress you know 435. So yeah larger bodies different rules and again this was created specifically for larger bodies. Uh, you also have the 72-hour rule, which means you can't take action on an item that was not posted on an agenda 72 hours before that meeting. Um, Robert's rules, they have a section for new business, which if you recall, we did incorporate um into the agenda that this board was at, but it
023was in a different way. New business was an opportunity for board members to propose items to be addressed at the next meeting, but technically under Robert's rules, those items could be addressed at that same meeting. Again, in conflict with the Brown Act and not really applicable. Uh, one of the other things that the Brown Act allows for is public comment, the ability for the public to provide input on items. Um, again, there have been some changes to uh to this rule as well, such as SB uh 1100 back in 2022, which did allow the presiding officer, in this case, the president, to remove individuals from the meeting that were being actually disruptive. Now, the term actual disruption is is a bit loaded. There's a lot of um legal argument behind that, but the general portion
024of that is if they're disrupting the ability of the board to conduct the public meeting, um it's a judgment call, but you can ask that they be removed from the meeting, actually stop the meeting until the individual is removed and then resume once uh that has been completed. But again, public comment is an innate right under the Brown Act that allows the public to provide input that includes criticism. Um, that also includes some pretty vulgar comments. Uh, I think many of you have kind of seen other public agencies that have been subject to this. Uh, there have been some some very um distasteful things that have been said, actions that have been taken, but again, they do have first amendment rights and it allows them to to do those within reason. Again, it's not an
025unlimited right. The other issue uh that arises with the Brown Act that does not exist under Robert's rules are the idea of a serial meeting. Uh there's two main ways that this happens. One is termed daisy chain, which is basically in a five member body. uh one member emails another and then that member who received the email passes that along to another member and now you have three individuals that have discussed uh agency business outside of an open meeting and that would be a violation of the Brown Act. Uh the other way is the hub and spoke where one member acts as a conduit between two others. Um again, information is shared and passed outside of a public meeting and that basically leads to a violation of the Brown Act. Um one recommendation always is
026that if there is an email um that is provided to all board members, never reply all to that email. Reply back individually to either the superintendent, myself, or whoever the individual that sent that email is. that allows conversations to be kept separate so that in no way does one me member know what the other member is thinking or they can't influence uh the other members through communication outside of an open meeting. So those are the two main ways. Obviously there's others. Now with the advent of social media um the recommendation is do not reply to posts made by other elected officials from the same board as that could you know create some issues. Um but yeah, it it does get pretty nuanced, but in large those are the two main ones to to look out
027for. Um Brown Act also allows for close session, which I guess in a way would be similar to a caucus, but again very narrow. There's only a few areas under which uh an elected body can go into close session. Um, but even once you go into close session, you do have to report out after. If no action is taken, similar to today, you just report that no action was taken. However, if action is taken within close session, such as a settlement agreement is reached and approved by the board, you do have to report out the terms of that agreement in the public meeting once you reconvene to open session. So, it does create an ability for the board to be able to go into close to discuss things uh in close session, but ultimately at
028some point it does get reported out. Uh this kind of goes into some of the consequences of violating the the Brown Act. Um basically, as I've stated before, um anyone can sue for pretty much any reason. One of the remedies is that if you do get sued for violating the Brown Act, the action taken can be uh nullified and voided. Um and basically you have to retake that item up again and do it in the correct manner. Uh other civil remedies, they they can sue for attorney's fees if um the cure and correction is is found to be legitimate or upheld by the court. Um and then the most severe consequence of all is obviously the criminal penalties. um you can be charged with a misdemeanor if you willfully u violate the Brown Act and
029do so in a manner that you know rises to that level of of being a misdemeanor. Uh generally a district attorney is charged with prosecuting these these matters. Um and it's a decision that lies within that office. It's very rare that you ever see uh anyone prosecuted for violating the Brown Act, but it has happened before and serves as a constant reminder that these rules are are not, you know, just there to be there. They are enforceable and they are to be taken seriously. So, I spoke earlier about um an alternative to Robert's rules, and this is just kind of some of the uh the distinction between the two. So, Robert's Rules is about 716 pages long. Um, most of my law books were range from, you know, 250 to to 400. Did have a
030few that were a thousand, but we won't talk about those. Needless to say that in 700 pages, there's a lot of information that you can put in there. So, that goes to show you the scope of Robert's rules and how intricate it really is. Um, I can tell you there's probably no local agency that I know of or have ever heard of that, you know, goes strictly by by Robert's rules. And again, because of the Brown Act, you can't even implement Robert's rules as they are written. Um, Rosenberg's rules, it was actually written by a California judge for the purpose of helping local agencies um, get through their meetings efficiency efficiently, much like Robert's rules was intended to do. but it was made for a more modern time. It's about 10 pages long, covers the
031basics, um, and really does make it a lot easier to navigate meetings and not have to get into a lot of the nuances found within Robert's rules. Also, the difference within uh, the two is that in Robert's rules, the president is more of a neutral party. They don't really get involved in debates. They kind of stand back. Their function is to run the meeting and ensure orderly decorum. However, in Rosenberg, uh they are active participants, which they should be because again, you're a body of five and the president is also a participating member in that body. Um so you take a more active role. You're allowed to engage in debate and discussion, provide your opinion. Uh so it does mirror more the reality of of what a board of education or a city council would
032would undertake. Uh, friendly amendments is not something that you can do within Robert's rules because there are no such thing as friendly amendments. It's either an amendment or it's not. Um, if it's an amended motion, you have to vote on that. However, under Rosenberg, people can propose friendly amendments and the person that made the motion in the first place can accept those and then you vote on that uh amended motion without voting on the amendment uh prior to. So it actually does allow for more flexibility uh and discussion. If something during discussion comes up that you know changes the opinion of the original motion maker, they could actually amend their motion and and you can take a straight vote on that uh amended motion without having to go through that entire process. Also, when we
033looked at the different categories of motions under Robert's rules, they're all in ranked precedents. Under Robert or Rosenberg rules, you can actually have uh up to three motions at once. So, it does allow for more flexibility. You don't have to go through that entire process. You actually can propose different ideas and pick one and go with it. So, again, it does add for a lot more flexibility and to be perfectly frank, a bit of efficiency as well. So this is again some of the the differences um kind of why Robert's rules doesn't really fit local government. It was designed for parliamentary bodies um larger numbers of members. Uh I love that line uh who don't trust each other and need rigid rigid rules to prevent chaos. Um if you look at any larger body such
034as Congress or or you know the state legislature or any other body of that nature the truth is yeah there is a lot of mistrust there's a lot of gamesmanship uh there's a lot of strategy their budgets are much bigger and they they get to rely on more people to kind of engage in that sort of gamesmanship. Uh city councils school boards are not like that. It's generally five to seven individuals. They generally know each other because they live in the same community. Um they generally have similar spheres of influence and it really does kind of impact or hinder the ability of such a body to work together. So again, some of the the benefits of of Rosenberg um and kind of why it fits better with um a local agency such as a school
035district um or a uh or a city council. And again, my recommendation is always for efficiency, allowing the board to work more cooperatively, more collaboratively uh in moving the business of the public and in this case uh the community and its students forward in an efficient manner. So these are uh just couple things on kind of conflict of interest and a reminder for for the board. Abstensions work in one of two ways. Um obviously you can abstain from a vote at which point you're not voting in the affirmative but you are present for quorum. But there's also this uh concept of recusing yourself from a vote. If for example you have any financial interest in an item that is before the board um you would be conflicted from voting on that item. So you'd actually
036have to recuse yourself from the vote. Well, what does that mean? It doesn't mean that you can take an abstension vote. You actually have to leave the room um prior to the item being discussed during the vote and you can only come back after. you're not allowed to participate in any way, shape, or form um on the decision- making of that item or even try to influence any of the board members in uh in that item being discussed. and SB1 1439 that went into effect a couple years back increas or decreased the threshold or created a threshold actually if you receive $250 from a party involved in any type of business before the uh the board or uh a council you become disqualified from that vote. So you'd have to recuse yourself from that vote.
037And actually that timeline works not only a year before the vote but a year after as well. So, it's on both ends of of the receiving of that fund. So, it has created some problems. There have been some legal challenges to uh to that law currently playing out in court. But as it stands right now, the safest thing and and my recommendation would always be if anyone gives you or donates to your campaign an amount of $250 or more or greater than $250, uh, and it's within that one year, either before or after, just go ahead and recuse yourself, play it safe, and you won't need to worry about any issues that might come up after the fact. So, we'll go through a couple uh brief situations. uh scenarios and kind of give you guys
038an idea of how they would play out in uh in the real world. So, scenario number one, you have a member of the public that begin shouting personal insults at the city managers and refuses to stop when they're 3 minutes are up. What does the chair do? So in this case I will tell you that because of SB uh 1100 you do have to give a warning first. So before you remove someone they have to be given a warning and if they refuse to um end their behavior or address their behavior then you can remove them. Um but I would draw your attention to the scenario. It does clearly state that when their three minutes are up. So if they're doing that within their three minutes, yeah, they, you know, pretty much very difficult to
039uh to stop them at that point, but once their three minutes are up, you definitely can take action. Yes. >> Are you taking questions right now or after? >> Whenever you want. This is open forum. >> So for the Oh, great. So for this particular one, I know you said you wait three minutes, but and then is it per meeting? >> So you don't have to wait three minutes. Um, this is specifically talking about if they're up there for public comment. Yeah. And they're within their three minutes, then they can do that. If their three minutes are up and they continue speaking and they won't stop, >> that's when you can give them the warning. And if they don't stop, then you remove them from the meeting. Unless you get a restraining order from that
040individual, which I will tell you is very very difficult. >> Um they can come back meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting and pretty much Yeah. until again a court is willing to restrain them from showing up to those public meetings. >> So if you give them a warning and they just stop, they're allowed to stay and >> behave. Yeah. uh they would have still have to behave. >> Um if you give them a warning and they stop then um but then they continue on later, they've already been given the warning. They can be removed. >> Even if they continue just being part of the audience or they have to be at the podium. >> Even if they're part of the audience. So just because you're you're not at the podium, that does not give
041you any right to yell, shout, or interrupt the meeting in any way. But again the term actually disruptive behavior um does have a certain threshold. So if someone is being disruptive um again I would always advise that you just let me know and I can always provide that cover for you. Whatever decision you make um basically it would have some legal cover tip. >> Okay. I'm going to be very specific. >> Okay. disruption, cell phone ringing, >> not really considered actual disruption. Um, >> more than one call. >> Again, um, it's not a a a red line in the sand, so to speak. >> Okay. Okay. >> You just take it based on the facts that are presented. If they're doing it on purpose >> in order to disrupt the meeting, then yeah, they can
042be removed. >> If it's accidental and it happens two or three times and stops, then obviously it it wasn't intentional. A lot of it is what is the intent behind that individual. Are they looking to disrupt the meeting or is it more accidental or incidental and they correct the behavior. >> Yeah. I was asking based on the scenario. >> Yeah. >> So my question was like intentional. >> If it's intentional then yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All righty. Uh, scenario number two kind of deals with the uh the Brown Act issues, right? You get an email from a resident. They're talking about potholes. Um, in this case, we'll relate it to council member. They hit reply all and basically agree to uh to fund the repairing of the potholes. Council member B replies all
043and says, "No, we're not going to fund it." I'm pretty sure everyone's aware that would be a violation of the Brown Act because you've now engaged in providing opinion on an item outside of a public meeting. Um, it's not just that those two council members have seen it, it's that it's been replied all and the entire council has seen it. Now, take the same scenario and council member A replies, but only council member A and council member B on that email thread. Would that be consideration be considered a violation of the Brown Act? No, because there's only two. There's not a majority there. However, what you would run into a problem is now you're basically um telegraphing your vote before that votes actually come before the board. So, that's that's a separate issue. You never
044want to tell someone that you're going to vote a certain way before that vote is taken. And that could be an example of a warning. So, got a warning there. It wouldn't be intentional though, so you wouldn't be able to to remove that u individual. Thank you for for the live action. Appreciate it. Um, so yeah, again, everything is is very nuanced. It's all fact uh specific. So something that would appear to be on its face uh a violation might actually not be and something that would not be considered a violation might actually be. So that's the issue with uh most of the law is it's all left to interpretation and the wording and and the construction of that statute or that law really does make a difference in how it's enforced. Uh, situation three,
045scenario three, and again, councils and and school boards can be intertwined in terms of the Brown Act because they pretty much all fall within the same scope of the Brown Act. Um, you have three council members attend a retirement party for a fire chief. They sit us at the same table and joke about the new budget proposal. Uh, is this a violation? So generally it wouldn't be because three of you can gather at a social setting and it's not a problem. But the moment you start talking about city business or district business, yes, it does become a violation. So that is that is the issue with with the Brown Act is that it really doesn't provide it provides some exceptions, but then there's exceptions to exceptions. And so because city business in this case is
046being discussed outside of a public meeting um even in a joking manner it could still influence the vote of other members. So because of that it's generally prohibited and I see some some wheels turning and you know some some memories are coming back. So yeah, it's it's one of those things where it the truth is it happens a lot more than than people think. Um it's pretty common place, but again the Brown Act is pretty uh cut and dry when it comes to these kind of issues. So always be mindful. I think that's the importance of kind of going through some of these refreshers is that oftent times once you get into the the dayto-day people tend to uh to forget and so having that constant reminder is always a good thing. Um not because
047anyone's looking to to get you or anything like that but it's just good practice in general. >> Yeah. >> Sorry I have a lot of comments. Okay. So for this particular scenario and yes the wheels were turning. So thi this particular scenario kind of rings a bell for me because uh board members weren't talking about the budget but those around us were talking about the budget. Is that a gray area? Because we didn't give any information. We didn't have an opinion. We just kind of smiled and pivoted and >> Yeah. Like but but you're saying like it still violates. >> No. No. Cuz in this scenario, it's the council members that are talking about the budget. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. If it's other people around talking about it, again, that's not an issue because
048in that scenario, you're not the one providing any opinion and you cannot control the actions of of other individuals. You can control your own actions. Therefore, the three council members that are there should not be talking about the budget because again, they're prohibited from doing so because of the Brown Act. Uh if other people happen to be in that area and they're complaining about it, you're an elected official. You do have to hear out your constituents and the things that they say. So, that's fine. Um but you can't respond much like public comment, much like some of these other things. You just cannot give your input or try to sway your colleagues in any way. Can I ask a so in the previous scenario you said uh with the reply all email if you voice
049like your stance on a specific issue how does that relate to social media if somebody posts um hey this is how I feel about this thing >> and your reply is >> no no no just on there's not without liking a comment or commenting on it just knowing that that person's because same with an email [clears throat] they're just seeing that stance. How does that translate to social media if they're they still see the same information? >> So again, you do still have a first amendment right. Um but this is an area of law that is often being litigated. um as of this point, if you as a council member or you as a board member, um speak on an issue that you know you're you're very passionate about and you put that information out
050there, you're allowed to do that. Again, I would always caution that is it the best thing to do? Maybe not, but you're allowed to. What you can't do is have another board member reply or like or comment on that post. that's where you will start to run into trouble. >> So, absent any type of other intervention from another colleague, uh, regardless of if the business is before the board, um, around that same time, you can still post whatever you want. >> It just would not be good practice to do so. It would not be good practice to voice an opinion prior to a board meeting because again like I said this area of law is actively being litigated all the time. It can be perceived that you are doing so to attempt to influence your
051colleagues. Um especially if they're, you know, your friends or they have access to your social media. Um, it could be seen as you extrajudiciously, you know, talking about an item and attempting to influence your colleagues outside of an open meeting. >> And you would say that's more the case before the business is taken up. Yeah. As opposed to after. >> After the fact is a little different because the business has been decided. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, so this one kind of goes to the the 72-hour rule. um storm causes a tree to fall um 24 hours before a meeting. It's not on the agenda, but the city manager wants a vote to remove the tree. Can you add it to the agenda? >> Yes. >> And in fact, you can. Um if there's
052if there's items or or issues that come up after the agenda has been posted and they are um either an emergency or um the council would not have had knowledge prior to their occurrence by twothirds vote, you can add emergency items to the agenda. Um but again, very narrow, very tailored for specific types of items. Uh cannot be used broadly or indiscriminately. Uh, the last one, um, goes back to the SB1 1439. Developer applies for a zoning change, donates $500 to Council Member Smith's campaign last year. Council member Smith makes the audacious claim that he can remain impartial in that vote. Would he be disqualified from that vote? >> Yes. >> Yeah. If it was received within the last 12 months, they can be. Um, and again, this has actually been tried before. There's there's
053a current uh current case that's going, but someone tried to claim that they could remain impartial. It's not really about impartiality. The Senate bill basically um made it more of a deacto thing that no, once you receive money, you cannot be impartial. Um, so it's not really an argument of can be or can't be. It's set more about the timeline. Was it 12 months in a day? Was it 11 months and 15 days? That's what they start to argue over now. So, I mean, at this time, I'll just go ahead and uh open it up to any questions. Again, this was more of a a highle overview of some of the more intricate components of Robert's rules, Brown Act, and so on. Um, I have provided each of you with some of the uh general
054cheat sheet for motions and and kind of things of that nature, the voting thresholds, uh, the categorization of those motions. But moving forward, I would uh I would put to the board a recommendation that um an item be considered at a future agenda or a future meeting to uh perhaps change from Robert's rules to Rosenberg and allow a lot more um flexibility and ease in actually dealing with items that come before the board and remove a lot of the complexity that comes with Robert's rules. again um a system that was designed for a larger body uh and not specifically for local type governments. >> Thank you. >> Do any questions? >> Sorry. Um All right. So, sounds good. Uh but like with Rosenberg's rules, so uh there's you don't need a second for a motion.
055>> No, you still need a second. I just chat GP2 because it's optional. >> Um, >> so I get that it's more flexible. I could see that being a real pro. Um, but it does seem like we'd need like a if the board were to move in that direction, like a full training because I know it's much more condensed and simplified, but there are things that we might be used to that are not present under that that system. um even something as like like calling for the motion. There is no calling for the question under that set. So, you know, I think there are things in Robert's rules that could help. Um I know it really depends on uh the board dynamics and and how things are going. And I think ideally Rosenberg's probably is
056a lot better, but we'd have to just navigate that and make sure we're all trained up on the tour using it. uh same because I could see uh a moment where maybe we're using a little bit of both unless we're like fully transitioned and trained. >> So I I can tell you for example the city of Anaheim has its own its own developed rules of decorum for meetings. Uh they're a charter city a little bit different circumstance but they actually develop their own rules. So the reality is um any council that you look at and the way they operate, they generally tend to take bits and pieces and do what works for them. Um the goal here is to run an efficient meeting um that is done in accordance with the law, Brown Act, California
057Constitution, so on. um but not to overly make things overly complex to where the business of the public is not being conducted because everyone's bogged down on procedural issues. So with that being said, yeah, you're you are correct. Rosenberg has some some benefits. Naturally, it would have some drawbacks, but the board is always available or able to kind of craft within that its own um system and how it uses it and basically allow for that efficient um meeting to be conducted. The so in our board bylaws does it name uh Robert's rules as our selected governance? >> I believe I believe it does because you generally have to call out >> you know what what rule system you're using. >> Okay. So in in your hierarchy, it kind of went like a parliamentary procedure, then
058board bylaws, and then up the state. Uh but so not using whatever system you agree on the board with the board is kind of against the bylaws. >> Yeah. So that's why you'd have to if you were to decide to say, for example, move to Rosenberg, you'd have to amend the board bylaws to be able to do that. Got it. Cool. Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Yes. >> Board member Armstrong. >> Thank you. Um I'm just saying I didn't you know what I I participate in two bodies um that uses you know Robert's rules of orders and we have the parliamentarian there. Um, but you know what? I I' I've just realized that and I wonder why we would suspend the rules so that we could adopt some of some of Rosenberg's thing because
059so we could actually in in I'm just saying instead of adopting Rosenberg by itself, we can always, you know, vote to suspend the rules and add whatever rule we want to be honest. >> Yeah. The only difficulty with that is you'd be going through 700 pages of rules that you want to suspend. >> I mean, but a as as they come up. As they come up. I'm just saying because I'm like, wait, wait a minute. We do that. That's Rosenberg. That's Rosenberg. So, I'm, you know, I'm thinking >> Yeah. And and again, the the issue with with Robert's rules is you would need that parliamentarian there to basically tell you, can this rule be suspended? What the um you know, processes for doing that. And you know at this point I I am going through
060my certification for um >> parliamentarian certification. Yeah. >> Um >> and it it is complex. Um you know it's almost like kin to taking the bar. There's so many rules, so many different nuances to it that um you know, to me it's shocking that a lot of boards end up taking actions and and making decisions and there's no one there to really guide them through how they can and cannot do that because again, if it gets challenged, you have the possibility of the action being voided, paying attorneys fees, um you know, million different things that can happen. And that slide was specific to to Brown Act. But even within, you know, a board, if you're violating your own rules, then where's the legitimacy in the decisions that you're making? >> Yeah. All right. Well, I've
061been using a mesh. I've been using using both of them intertwined, but the organizations are a lot bigger. So there there there you go. >> I would say I'll be studying on a budget. If you can hire a full-time parliamentarian, that would be great, but that's not a reality for almost any school district. >> Anyone else a comment question? >> Um, yeah, one more. Can you explain uh or you know, with Robert's rules, when you have a an amendment to a motion, um, it almost seems more uh simple to Okay. knowing that you have to take that before the motion in case there's any changes. But with Can you explain how friendly amendments would work, especially if there's multiple I just I could imagine if there's like multiple ideas on how to make a motion
062better or more suitable, it might turn into where like you have say three at the same time with no real structure on which one to take first. It does it all just go back to the chair and the chair picks which one? >> So it wouldn't be that the chair necessarily picks which one. uh it would be the individual that made the motion because they're the ones that have the authority on that motion and that's what they're asking for a vote on. So, let's say, for example, you make a motion to approve an item. Um, and then someone offers a friendly amendment to approve the item. Um, but also add in that, you know, you're going to contribute 10% more than the original motion called for. And you say, "Oh, okay." Someone else chimes in
063said, "I'd like to do a friendly amendment. I'd like to increase it by 20%." Well, whoever made the motion can choose to accept which one. of the friendly uh amendments that you know they're basically looking for and then ultimately the vote would be on whatever the initial uh maker of the motion decides you know that they accept. So you don't have to take a vote on each individual amendment. The person who made the original motion can accept one and you take a vote on that. >> Got it. >> So that's where the efficiency comes in because you're no longer required to have three votes. Goes down to one. But also the uh when you're allowed to gain consensus on a on a motion before you take a vote. So it's not like a surprise vote
064at the end. It's you can go around and see if everyone's cool with it before you take a vote. >> It it does allow for more consensus building. I think that's part of the point of of Rosenberg is focus more on consensus building as opposed to straight votes. >> Okay. I I want to I want to add also that sometimes the maker of the motion could also deem that the amendment is not friendly and which would cancel it out. So you know you can say no that's not friendly. So because I've been through that too. So >> also a followup I is when you're making um a motion and then a friendly motion happens are you allowed to have discussion? >> Yes. >> During the mo like during the motions given >> or do we
065Okay. And then and that's with this one but under Robert's rules we can't do that. So, under Robert's rules, let's say a motion is made. >> Yeah. >> Um, at that point, if there's a second, you would open it up for discussion and someone brings up an amended motion, >> right? >> You can no longer talk about the main motion. You're now fixated on the amended motion, >> right? >> And then someone else makes another type of motion. Now, you have to go to that one because it takes precedence over the other two. So, realistically, that's how sometimes the the system gets gamed. People bogged down the procedure by adding so many things that you now have to work backwards to try to undo what was done, >> right? And then so then Rosenberg's is
066discussion and person who did the motion is allowed to pick what friendly >> if it's a friendly. If it's if it's deemed friendly, then you go back to, >> you know, an amended motion, but again, it caps it to three. So you can't go like Robert's rules, you know, this endless chain of of different motions and whatnot. It caps it at three. >> And we as the person that wants discussion, we can mention any one of those friendly motions that happen. >> Yeah. And again, following rules of decorum, you still have to be acknowledged by the chair or the president, right? >> Um but yeah, you you can propose this. >> I like it. um [clears throat] when in terms of public comment um so how we do it now is more aligned with Robert's
067rules but I I think I saw for Rosenberg it's before each item >> no so that's even in Robert's rules you can do it before each item um that's just a choice that you make as a body whether you allow public comment all at once at the beginning covering you any item on the agenda or not on the agenda and the speaker gets three minutes. Um you could also cap as was discussed prior certain items to a total amount. So in this case the district has it at 21 minutes. Um under Rosenberg you don't have to do it on each item. It's still up to the board as to how they proceed with that. Um it's more of just the construction of the agenda as opposed to um you know some of the the other
068rules such as motions and whatnot. >> Cool. Any other questions, comments? Okay. I do have a question with the emergency item scenarios. What is the threshold? What are the requirements to deem an item an emergency item? >> Uh so there's actually specific statutory language on that and I can send you uh that language um after the meeting if you'd like. I don't recall it off the top of my head. Um but basically it is narrowly tailored to deal with issues that are pressing before the board that um authority needs to be given to staff to be able to handle those matters and those issues, you know, arose within the 72 hours uh prior to a meeting where it wouldn't have been on the agenda. It it can't just be some random item. Oh, you know,
069we got asked for a donation, for example. Um, and we just found out about it. It's it's not really a pressing item, so you couldn't you couldn't use that rule to uh add it on to the agenda. >> Yes, please. And thank you. >> Any other questions, comments, colleagues? >> I think we're good. Um, now that we've had this presentation, would you colleagues, would you like to have some time to look at these at home and then um maybe if you can just give Andrew a text or a call, let him know how you feel about going forward with either Robert's rules of order or Rosenberg's. >> And and if the board would like, we could always bring it up as a discussion item. >> Okay. um at some future agenda um have open you
070know dialogue regarding which system would be most beneficial for the board um and the district and yeah there's no need for for any decisions to be made at at any point yet. >> Okay, sounds good. Thank you so much Mr. Sura. We really appreciate all of your knowledge and guidance. Okay. Um I think yeah, we've already done everything. So if there is no objection, this meeting is adjourned at 7:15 until the special board meeting to be held Wednesday, January 21st, 2026.