Briggs narrowly avoids violating Brown Act

Eleanor Briggs, center.

1TVPAC Team

If it wasn’t for the advice of legal counsel, Jonathan Pearl, at the April 17 meeting of the Murrieta Valley Unified School Board, trustee Eleanor Briggs might have moved full steam ahead with a Brown Act Violation. 

Briggs, along with board president Nick Pardue and trustee Christine Schmidt, tried to pass a resolution supporting state legislative bill AB89, which had died in committee April 1. Since the bill no longer existed, Briggs tried to reword the resolution to support the “federal interpretation of Title IX.”

The Brown Act promotes democratic transparency by ensuring public access and opportunities for public comment. During the meeting, Briggs’ revisions ultimately changed the entire item. Since there was no time for public review, the new resolution would have been subject to scrutiny according to the Brown Act. 

“I do think the differences between the amendments are substantial,” Pearl said. “What the resolution as amended does, instead of tying to just AB89, ties it to how the federal government currently interprets Title IX.” 

Pearl did not see the amendments before Briggs made the motion to change the resolution at the beginning of the meeting. 

“It was my understanding that the change to the resolution was simply eliminating the reference to AB89. That’s what I heard,” Pearl said. “I just took it on faith that the only change was just striking AB89.  There is significant redlining through the resolution. It is truly a substantial amendment to the resolution.”

Briggs acknowledged that she was probably out of order, but still tried to wriggle her way into keeping the resolution with different language.

“I may have been out of order,” Briggs said. “Rather than submitting that as the amended motion, can I just strike AB89 on this one?”

Pardue also tried to shove through the changed resolution despite the Brown Act warnings from the district legal counsel.

“As I read it, the topic has not changed that much,” Pardue said. “The agencies are different, but aside from that, the gist of this resolution is mostly to speak to the board’s standing alignment with these ideas. I’m not sure that would change that much.” 

“I do think it is a Brown Act issue,” Pearl responded

After repeated warnings about a possible Brown Act violation, the board ultimately voted to remove the agenda item. Pardue said they will bring the changed resolution back before the board at the next meeting.

The board’s next meeting is scheduled for Thursday May 8 at 5 p.m.