After having to recently respond to an Orange County District Attorney’s Office inquiry about alleged Brown Act violations with its recent superintendent change, the Laguna Beach Unified School District is now facing two more inquiries into board actions.
Read more US civil rights agency moves to end demographic data collection after 60 years
Community members have also lodged concerns with the ACLU, which sent the school district its own letter inquiring about potential Brown Act violations regarding response to an April community protest, and last week, the Orange County Board of Education informed the district that its Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team is doing an independent review of the district’s financial records in response to concerns raised.
The financial review launched by the county Department of Education follows a process established by state law and comes after requests from Laguna Beach community members, Superintendent of Schools Stefan Bean said.
“We are moving forward with the process in cooperation with Laguna Beach Unified Superintendent Dr. Don Austin,” Bean said in a statement. “We share a commitment to transparency, accountability and maintaining the public’s trust.”
According to Bean, the review will look at some of the issues raised during public comments at LBUSD board meetings this year, including employee health benefit contributions, related contracting decisions, and the appropriate use of district resources.
District staff members and families have been arguing they’ve had no voice with the board since Sheri Morgan, now school board president, and Howard Hills were elected in 2024 and formed an alliance with Dee Perry to dominate the conversation and agenda in the district, alleging there have been repercussions for those who speak out and distractions from classroom learning.
There was a large community protest in April
But Morgan said all the actions the board has taken since she’s been on the board have been made “methodically and carefully to protect the district.”
“I’ve made a point of saying I want to do things correctly,” she said this week, adding that while some of the recent inquiries are “noise,” she takes the investigation by the county education department seriously. “I want to do things focused on the school and the community. I’m not making shortsighted decisions without weighing all the angles, consulting legal and looking at the education code.”
The district has already responded to the query received from the District Attorney’s Office.
The June 17 letter signed by a senior deputy district attorney asked how the board proposed to address allegations that there had been Brown Act violations when trustees agreed during a May meeting to cut ties with the then-superintendent and two days later named a replacement at another special meeting. The DA’s office had received several complaints, the letter said, also referencing a copy of a “Cure and Correct Demand” letter addressed to the school district that had been provided to the office.
Read more Hybrids boom as EVs fall out of favor, even in California
The Brown Act requires local public agencies to publicly deliberate on all but a few topics, such as real estate negotiations and personnel matters that necessitate closed-door discussion, and take action in open, public forums to ensure transparency.
“No cure or correction is necessary because there was no violation of the Brown Act at the May 12 or May 14 board meetings,” the school district’s response to the DA’s Office said.
At the specially called May 12 meeting, a board majority — in a 3-2 vote — reached a mutual agreement with Jason Glass, who had been superintendent since July 2025. At the May 14 special meeting, the trustees appointed a new superintendent, Don Austin.
“The Brown Act does not prohibit consideration and/or approval of a bilateral, written separation agreement and general release at a special meeting,” the district’s response letter, dated June 25 and signed by the district’s legal counsel, said. “That’s what lawfully happened on May 12.”
The board did not “terminate or release” Glass and no unilateral action was taken, the district letter added.
At the May 14 meeting, the school board announced Austin as the choice for superintendent by a 3-2 vote, but the district’s response to the DA’s Office said his salary and terms weren’t discussed at that time. As required by law, the board reported out in public session that Austin’s employment agreement would be considered and voted on during the board’s next open session on June 4.
Austin began his job at the district on July 1.
The school district’s letter concluded that the district “is fully committed to Brown Act compliance and believes that all applicable Brown Act requirements were followed in both open and closed session.”
An OC District Attorney’s spokesperson did not return an email asking for comment.
District spokesperson Anakaren Ureno said Monday that the district will respond to the ACLU within the required 30 days and will comply with the independent financial review by the Orange County Board of Education. She also said that the district has received no response from the DA’s Office and no request for additional information.
Read more Appeals court upholds White House adviser Peter Navarro’s contempt of Congress convictions