One of the most important things I have learned from studying school board governance is that poor governance rarely announces itself and will usually show up under a much nicer name: responsiveness, urgency, efficiency, transparency, and community input.

I have spent the last couple of years watching Laguna Beach Unified board meetings, reading agendas, and trying to understand how an idea becomes a district decision. Somewhere along the way, the California Education Code and board bylaws became recreational reading. This has done very little for my social life (thank you to my friends and family for listening to my newfound knowledge), but it does satisfy the part of me that wants to know how public systems are supposed to work, where authority ends, and why certain procedures were put in place before someone decides they are inconvenient.

As summer break begins, LBUSD is heading into another superintendent transition, a new budget cycle, and a board election in November. We do not yet know the full field of candidates, but before the mailers arrive and everyone discovers a passionate commitment to transparency, it seems worth deciding what the job actually requires.

What kind of school board would serve this district well?

We do not have to answer that question on instinct, since California law provides a solid framework. The California School Boards Association offers guidance, and LBUSD already has policies and bylaws that define responsibilities. Other districts have built governance systems that Laguna Beach can learn from.

The harder part is finding trustees who believe those rules still matter when they slow down something the board wants to do.

The California Education Code gives school boards broad authority. Section 35010 places school districts under the control of a governing board. Section 35160 gives boards wide latitude, provided their actions are consistent with the law and the purposes of public education. Section 35161 allows boards to delegate responsibilities while still holding ultimate accountability.

That authority belongs to the board collectively, but it does not make board members district administrators.

The board governs through policy, budgets, contracts, goals, superintendent hiring and evaluation, bargaining direction, accountability systems, and public votes, while the superintendent and staff run the district. Education Code Section 35035 identifies the superintendent as the board’s chief executive officer and assigns responsibilities involving implementation, budgeting, staffing, financial reporting, and carrying out district plans.

Essentially, the board sets the direction, the superintendent carries it out, and then the board monitors the work and evaluates the results.

This arrangement is not complicated, but it can quickly become messy when individual trustees act as though they have their own chain of command. Staff should not have to sort through competing instructions, and the public should not have to guess whether a decision came from the board, the superintendent, a site administrator, or one notably persistent trustee.

An engaged board should ask difficult questions, demand reliable information, examine budgets, evaluate the superintendent, and push for better results without taking over the work. The line gets crossed when trustees begin deciding which employee should handle a task, which vendor should be selected, which venue should be used, or which public complaint should be assigned to staff immediately.

For LBUSD, that distinction stopped being theoretical this year.

In January, the board introduced a change to Bylaw 9322, which controls how meeting agendas are developed. The existing language called for the board president and superintendent to work together, but the revision gave the board president final approval.

That may sound like a small procedural adjustment, but it wasn’t.

No history of repeated agenda failures had been presented to explain why such a change was necessary. At the time, Dr. Jason Glass said the existing system followed normal practice and that he had always had a productive working relationship with the board president—until a disagreement arose over one particular agenda item with the new board president, Sheri Morgan.

Staff, both employee unions, and hundreds of written and in-person public comments opposed the change. The majority moved forward anyway.

Agenda control is easy to dismiss as board policy minutiae until it determines which issues make it onto the dais and which decisions the board can take into its own hands.

The revised bylaw was passed on February 12. That same meeting included a lengthy discussion about the graduation location, and the item returned for action at the board’s very next meeting on February 26.

I am not claiming that the bylaw change caused the graduation vote, but the sequence shows why the change mattered. Almost immediately after the board president gained final agenda authority, a decision traditionally handled at the school-site level was brought to the full board for a vote.

Glass told the board that graduation locations had historically been site decisions and recommended leaving the matter there. Dee Perry also said she wanted it to remain “a site decision,” while arguing that community concerns deserved more attention.

That was a reasonable concern. Families should be heard, and students should be consulted. If the process was too narrow, unclear, or closed prematurely, the board had every right to ask questions and require something better.

It could have directed the administration to explain how the initial decision was reached, gather broader feedback, set clear criteria, and return with a recommendation.

Instead, Dee, along with Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills, voted to move graduation to the Irvine Bowl.

The board did not improve the site-level process—it replaced it.

That is the difference between oversight and management. Oversight would have required a better decision-making process, while management was the board selecting the venue itself.

Once public pressure is sufficient to bring an operational decision to the board, the same reasoning can be applied to transportation, facilities, staffing, discipline, communications, curriculum, or student services. A board does not have to make every decision itself to prove it listens; sometimes, listening should lead to a better process, not a board takeover.

The same preference for a desired outcome over a clear process has appeared in the board’s handling of superintendent appointments.

At the new majority’s first meeting in December 2024, the board voted 3–2 to direct staff to prepare a contract for a specific interim superintendent candidate. That effort fell apart when the candidate declined.

In May 2026, forty-eight hours after approving Glass’s separation, the same three-member majority voted to appoint Dr. Don Austin as the permanent superintendent without presenting a new public search process.

The circumstances were not identical, but the pattern is hard to miss. In both cases, the majority identified the person they wanted and attempted to move directly toward a contract. The December 2024 effort failed because the candidate said no. On May 14, 2026, the candidate said yes.

I have already written in detail about Austin’s appointment and the Orange County District Attorney’s request for answers, so I am not going to rebuild that full timeline here. The point I am making here is simpler: policies, bylaws, notice, consultation, and equal access to information matter most when the people with the votes already know what they want.

Howard Hills offered a very different view at the June 4 meeting, saying the board could appoint a superintendent “any way the board wants to do it and any time.” He was stressing the breadth of the board’s legal authority, and that authority is broad, but authority is only the beginning of the question.

A responsible trustee should also ask whether the process is fair, whether all board members have the same information, whether the public has been given an honest account of what is happening, and whether the decision will still look credible once the immediate excitement has passed.

Having the legal power to do something does not automatically make it wise. Moving quickly does not mean the work was carefully considered, and a policy does not lose its value because following it has become inconvenient.

A district that prides itself on excellence should be looking for the best way to govern, not treating the legal minimum as an impressive achievement. Of course, governance is about much more than the controversies that fill meeting rooms.

California’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) requires districts to assess achievement, attendance, facilities, school climate, family engagement, course access, staffing, special education, mental health, safety, and whether different groups of students are being well served.

Good trustees should be able to ask whether a program is working without trying to redesign it from the dais. They should be able to recognize a disturbing result without turning one number into a districtwide catastrophe, and they should also be willing to look honestly at areas that need attention rather than hide behind LBUSD’s overall reputation.

Being a strong district does not mean every decision is strong or every student is getting what they need.

Labor relations require the same kind of judgment. Support for teachers and classified staff is not measured by appreciation posts or friendly comments during meetings. It shows up in bargaining priorities, workload, staffing, compensation, benefits, communication, and whether the board respects the people who actually do the work.

Trustees need to understand the district’s financial position, retention challenges, staffing needs, and long-term obligations. They should give clear and lawful direction to the bargaining team while avoiding side promises, public freelancing, or informal efforts to influence negotiations outside the established process.

A person can genuinely care about teachers and still be terrible at labor relations. Caring is important, but knowing how the process works is also important.

The board’s relationship with the public requires a similar balance.

A board meeting is not an open-ended town hall. The board has an agenda to complete, decisions to make, and legal requirements to follow, but public comment is still part of the meeting’s real work. It is not a formality everyone has to sit through before the important people begin talking.

The community does not get to direct staff or control every decision. At the same time, these are public schools, and the public has every right to question how they are being governed.

Trustees need ways to hear from people without assuming that the fullest room represents the entire community, but they also need to avoid the opposite mistake of treating criticism as an annoyance or a threat.

Public opinion is information, and it belongs in the decision alongside law, data, professional expertise, student needs, and financial realities. The board then has to explain what it decided and why, especially when the answer is not what the loudest group wanted.

None of this works well without the right temperament.

Trustees will disagree. That is normal and often healthy. The issue is whether they can disagree without making every conflict personal, ask hard questions without humiliating staff, and accept a vote without spending the next several months trying to undermine the result. They also need to resist the urge to turn every complaint they agree with into a direct assignment for the superintendent.

Winning an election also does not make someone an instant expert in finance, instruction, law, facilities, transportation, labor, special education, and every other corner of district operations. There is nothing wrong with admitting you need to learn something before deciding it.

Humility is not a side benefit of this job; it is part of being competent at it.

Other districts offer useful examples. Ohio’s Cleveland Metropolitan uses goals and guardrails to distinguish between the outcomes the board monitors and the operational boundaries staff must follow. Washington’s Issaquah uses written expectations and public monitoring reports. Virginia’s Fairfax County has invested in explanations that help the public understand complicated decisions.

None of this is revolutionary; it is simply more organized than waiting for a controversy and then deciding where the boundary should have been.

LBUSD already has some of the right pieces. The district uses public bargaining proposals, fiscal disclosures, hearings, and ratification procedures.

Those processes can feel slow and tedious when everything is moving smoothly. Their purpose becomes much easier to appreciate the moment someone wants to bypass them.

This is the foundation I plan to use when evaluating future board candidates.

Can the person explain the difference between governance and management without giving a vague answer about “leadership”? What would they do after losing a vote? When should the board defer to professional staff? How should the board respond when the loudest public demand conflicts with legal obligations, budget realities, student needs, or a staff recommendation? Do they believe adopted policies still apply when those policies slow the outcome they prefer?

Those answers will tell us far more than another campaign statement about transparency, excellence, or putting students first. Nearly every candidate will claim those values. The revealing part is what they do when those values pull in different directions.

Some warning signs are easier to spot.

A candidate talks much more about what the board is legally allowed to do than about when restraint is appropriate. Policies and bylaws suddenly become flexible whenever they interfere with a preferred outcome. The candidate promises to fix operational problems without showing any understanding of the board’s actual role. The superintendent is discussed as though each trustee personally supervises the position.

Other warning signs are quieter. A candidate uses the word transparency constantly but cannot explain confidentiality or public-meeting law. One isolated data point becomes the entire story of the district. Uncomfortable information is dismissed because LBUSD remains strong overall.

I will be listening closely to how candidates talk about staff. Praise is easy, but respect shows up in how someone discusses workload, morale, bargaining, professional expertise, and the limits of their own authority.

Poor governance has a very good publicist: role confusion becomes responsiveness, an incomplete process becomes efficiency, and meeting the legal minimum becomes transparency. The label changes, but the underlying habit remains the same: use the power first and explain it later.

My children are at the beginning of their time in this district, so I am less interested in who wins a board argument this month than in whether LBUSD remains stable, trusted, and well run for the next decade.

I am looking for trustees who understand the law and use their authority responsibly. I want people who value public input without allowing whoever fills the room to govern by volume, who provide serious oversight without directing day-to-day operations, and whose support for staff lasts through bargaining season.

I also want transparency before decisions are made, not only after the result has been announced.

Before deciding whom to support, I want to know whether candidates understand the responsibilities of the role and have the judgment to exercise them well.

Laguna Beach will be better served by a board that can work collectively, respect professional roles, follow its own processes, and keep the district’s long-term health in view.

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

Sources

• California Education Code: 35010, 35035, 35160, and 35161

• California School Boards Association: Board Roles and Responsibilities

• LBUSD Board Meetings and Public Records

• Governance examples:

  • Cleveland’s Goals and Guardrails

  • Issaquah’s Governance Policies

  • Fairfax County’s Governance Manual.

On January 22, I put my young kids to bed and turned on the school board meeting from home.

As a parent, I had already spent months watching meetings, reading agendas, talking with other parents, and trying to understand what was changing inside Laguna Beach Unified. I had also promised my husband I would be selective about attending board meetings in person because we have two littles, full-time jobs, and, theoretically, interests and activities outside school board governance.

So that night, I planned to stay home.

Then I listened to Board Member Howard Hills speak to Superintendent Jason Glass, a tone I found condescending and unnecessarily combative, during a discussion about who could place items on the Board’s agenda.

I got in my car and drove to the meeting.

Howard was still talking when I arrived, which, for once, worked in my favor.

The exchange was not the beginning of my interest in the district, but it was the moment I realized how easily important details could disappear. A few changes to a board bylaw could reshape who controls the agenda, yet most families or community members would never have the time or desire to read it.

Frankly, “school board bylaw” is the kind of phrase that makes a normal person’s eyes glaze over.

But for what was happening to our district, the details mattered, and I wanted somewhere to keep track of them. A week after that meeting, I started A Public Record for Laguna Schools.

There was no plan, as I basically expected a few friends and neighbors to read it, perhaps share it in a parent chat, and maybe people could return when they needed context.

Since then, many more community members have found the site, including people who do not know me personally. So this seems like a reasonable time to explain who I am and where I am coming from.

My husband and I chose to purchase a home in the Laguna Beach Unified School District before we were married or had children. He wanted to live near the beach, and I wanted a small, high-performing public school district. So this was the best of both worlds.

I grew up in a similarly sized town with excellent schools and highly educated teachers. I valued being in a district where children did not disappear into a massive system, staff knew families, and parents could meaningfully advocate for their children.

Even before I had a child enrolled in LBUSD, I paid attention, even if from a distance. I asked neighbors about their experiences, followed the pool debate, and appreciated the district’s investment in academics, athletics, the arts, mental health, and the whole child.

As my oldest approached school age, I began following the district more closely. During the 2024 election, I was concerned by some of the rhetoric about schools, the Board’s role, and the expectation that trustees should intervene in operational matters.

When the results came in, I had the distinct feeling that much of the community had been despondent, and it was time to get people to pay attention.

I started talking with other concerned parents. Someone invited me into a group chat where parents, retired teachers, and community members shared meeting information and tried to grasp what was happening and what the ramifications could be. Some people in that chat later helped form Families Unified for Education in Laguna, or FUEL.

My first introduction to formally writing about district issues was a letter to the editor that was published in April 2025, after I felt the public conversation about LBUSD’s test results was missing important context. I continued writing letters when complicated district issues were reduced to a few talking points, but the format left little room to follow the questions in great depth wherever they led.

Since FUEL has become a recurring question for me, here is the uncomplicated answer: I often agree with the organization. I am not on its board, and I hold no position within it. FUEL does not have a membership card-carrying program, and I receive its emails like anyone else.

No organization, trustee, teacher, staff member, union, or community group directs or approves what I publish. Most people do not know what I am writing until it appears, including my husband!

However, People do reach out to me, sharing experiences and suggesting subjects they believe deserve attention. I am still considered “new” by Laguna Beach standards, so I have also received an extensive education in who has been fighting with whom since approximately the creation of Laguna Canyon Road.

I appreciate people trusting me, and want to iterate that I do not publish something simply because someone tells me it is true. I do not want this site to become a home for rumors or anonymous accusations. Information needs to be supported. Even when I have a hunch that something is happening, instinct is not evidence. However, people are significantly less subtle than they believe, so I find it easy to follow the breadcrumbs.

I am also open to correction. If I get a fact wrong or miss important context, I want to know. My perspective is mine, but the facts still need to hold up.

And by the way, I do have a perspective or “bias.”

I am a mother whose children are just entering this district, not on the cusp of leaving it. I studied political science because I genuinely enjoy understanding how systems of government work, even when the people within those systems seem determined to make it difficult.

I grew up in a politically active family where people spoke frankly and debated openly about all kinds of topics. I care about equality, mental health, strong academics, small classes, athletics, the arts, and whole-child development. Those values influence what I notice and what I believe deserves attention.

That is bias in the basic human sense: I have experiences, priorities, and opinions. Everyone does.

I am not a trained journalist, and A Public Record is not a traditional newspaper. I write from my own point of view rather than disguising it as a “watchdog” publication or perfect objectivity.

That does not give me permission to invent facts or to omit context that changes the story purposely. I will always try to be fair, and fairness requires representing the information honestly and correcting the record when necessary.

People are free to disagree with my conclusions. They are also free to start their own Substack, website, or Instagram account. In fact, several already have. I welcome more people paying attention, particularly if it means more people read agendas and attend meetings.

I started writing because there is a lot about LBUSD worth protecting.

The district offers small classes, after-school opportunities, plenty of AP courses, transportation accessibility, athletic programs, visual and performing arts, mental health support, and even a valuable partnership with the Boys & Girls Club that goes back generations. Teachers and staff also do an enormous amount of work that most families never see.

I will say, my child loves the bus so much that it outranks me.

The district also faces declining enrollment, aging facilities, challenges with tech approach, leadership changes, and governance decisions that may affect it for years to come. My children are at the beginning of their time here, so I have a long-term interest in how those issues are handled.

I am hopeful that what I cover broadens over time. I want to write less about board issues and more about teachers, staff, students, programs, and the parts of the district that families may not see. I also want to help parents understand systems that can feel unnecessarily complicated.

And I promise, I think about things other than board bylaws.

This is not a temporary campaign project, and I look forward to sharing issues well past November. The district will still matter when the ballots are counted, and my children will still have many years ahead of them in LBUSD.

So that is the basic introduction to A Public Record for Laguna Schools.

I am a parent who cares deeply about public education, governance, and the community my children are growing up in. I have a point of view, and I do not hide it. I also take seriously the responsibility to corroborate information, avoid spreading rumors, and correct factual mistakes.

You do not have to agree with everything I write, but at least now you know who is writing it.

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

On Tuesday, May 12, Laguna Beach Unified’s board majority voted to approve Dr. Jason Glass’s separation less than a year into his four-year contract.

A superintendent who had just moved his young family here was suddenly on his way out. Staff and teachers still had to walk into classrooms the next morning, while students still needed adults to be steady. Families were left trying to understand what had happened, while the board seemed ready for everyone to accept the outcome before it had even explained the process.

Now the Orange County District Attorney’s Office has asked LBUSD to respond to Brown Act complaints tied to Dr. Glass’s termination and Dr. Don Austin’s hiring.

The board wanted the community to move on, but the timeline did not.

At the May 12 special meeting, the board went into closed session and emerged with a 3-2 vote approving Dr. Glass’s mutual separation agreement. Howard Hills, Dee Perry, and Sheri Morgan voted yes. Jim Kelly and Joan Malczewski voted no.

Two days later, the closed-session agenda listed public employee appointments, including the acting, interim, and permanent superintendents. Many people expected the board to discuss temporary leadership following Dr. Glass’s departure and begin the search for a new superintendent.

Instead, Sheri announced that Manoj Roychowdhury would serve as interim superintendent and that Dr. Austin would become the next superintendent of Laguna Beach Unified.

The reaction in the room was immediate. After days of rumors, concern, and public pleas not to remove Dr. Glass, a permanent successor was being presented as a completed decision.

Joan later described what happened from inside the board.

“I was not informed at any point that Don Austin was a candidate,” she said at the June 4 meeting.

She had been “given a motion with no prior information about Don Austin” and had “no information that negotiations had been ongoing.”

If a sitting trustee did not know Dr. Austin was under active consideration until a motion appeared, imagine how the announcement landed with everyone else.

Forty-eight hours separated the removal of one superintendent from the appointment of another. No recruitment timeline had been presented. The public had not seen the selection criteria, candidate qualifications, evidence of candidate review, or an open-session explanation of how the district’s superintendent search process applied.

For a board majority explicitly elected on transparency, it was an extraordinary amount of public darkness.

During public comment on May 12, one parent noted that Dr. Glass had not even been given “a full school year.” She called him “thoughtful, measured, student-focused, genuine, and highly qualified,” then asked the board to “choose stability for our children and the amazing teachers and staff who support them every day.”

A man who spoke next said he had talked with Dee the day before. According to him, she had previously described Dr. Glass as “a great and honorable man, a man of character who could do great things for our district,” and still believed that. He also said Dee agreed when he called the way Dr. Glass had been treated by certain board members “utterly disgusting.”

Then he said Dee had implied she was “powerless to stop what was happening.”

Powerless? Dee Perry is an elected trustee. Her vote supplies the majority.

The same commenter told her that if she felt powerless to stop something she believed would harm the district, “then you should resign.”

I had also pleaded with Dee before the vote. I wrote privately and asked her to consider the damage LBUSD would absorb by removing a superintendent so early in his tenure. My concern was larger than one employee. It included staff morale, leadership stability, family confidence, and the future of the district my children attend.

Her response acknowledged Dr. Glass’s strengths.

“I agree with you that Dr. Glass is intelligent, capable, and caring, and I am very sorry this has not worked out,” Dee wrote.

She referred to “difficult circumstances that are confidential,” then added: “I know it looks like I am not listening, but I am. If you were in my shoes with inside knowledge, I wonder what you would do?”

There may be confidential personnel information that the public cannot see, and I am not asking Dee to disclose it.

But that question makes me wonder whether all five trustees received the same material information through the same proper process before they voted.

According to a public commenter, Dee felt powerless despite continuing to regard Dr. Glass as honorable and capable. In her message to me, she pointed to inside knowledge. Later, while discussing Dr. Austin, she said she had been “a little bit in the dark” but was “thrilled” when she learned he might be available.

Those explanations deserve scrutiny because her vote carried the outcome.

Did every trustee receive the same confidential information about Dr. Glass? Was the full board included equally in any lawful closed-session discussion? How did the district move from separation to permanent replacement so quickly?

Why did Dee support Dr. Austin’s appointment while describing herself as partly in the dark about how it came together?

Those questions are no longer only matters of public trust and board governance. They are now part of a formal legal challenge.

The challenge is called a Cure and Correct Demand.

Under the Brown Act, a written demand allows a public body to address an alleged violation of the open-meeting law before a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the action is filed. It is neither a court ruling nor a finding that a violation occurred. It presents specific actions and alleged defects to the agency and requests a response.

The demand sent regarding LBUSD questions the board’s actions at the May 12 and May 14 special meetings. It challenges the 3-2 vote to appoint Dr. Austin, any approval or implementation of an employment agreement, and related actions involving negotiation, appointment, compensation, or contract terms.

It also questions the missing public process. According to the demand, the public was never shown a recruitment timeline, a defined search method, candidate qualifications, selection criteria, evidence of candidate review, or a public explanation for bypassing the district’s adopted superintendent-search procedures.

Another allegation concerns whether the agendas gave adequate notice of the full scope and intended finality of the board’s actions. The public did not walk into May 14 expecting a permanent superintendent appointment to be announced as a done deal.

The requested cure includes rescinding the appointment and related actions, properly re-noticing the recruitment and selection process, and publicly disclosing the process used to appoint Dr. Austin.

To be clear, these remain allegations that LBUSD now has an opportunity to answer.

But the legal questions developed after the meetings. The public’s reaction began in real time.

Before the May 14 meeting, families, staff, students, and community members gathered outside Thurston because they already understood the ramifications of a sudden superintendent departure.

Much of the organizing came from moms using ordinary networks: texts, neighborhood chats, school pickup conversations, phone calls, and friends telling friends. There was no elaborate operation behind it. People showed up because what happened on May 12 felt abrupt, unclear, and, most of all, deeply wrong.

Inside the meeting, public commenters criticized the board, and the audience cheered in support. Sheri interrupted those reactions.

“This is a business meeting,” she said. “This is not a rally. It is illegal to rally on campus.”

The sentence captured the problem perfectly. A majority that campaigned on public engagement had removed a superintendent, prepared to announce his permanent successor two days later, and then treated visible support for criticism as something to control.

Howard Hills, of all people, should understand the principle.

He has publicly insisted that when someone out in public claims to know what a trustee knows or should know, the trustee has “the right to state corrections.”

Fine. But then the standard runs in both directions.

Board members may defend themselves from the dais. Families may criticize them in front of the audience and at public meetings. Speech rights do not become less important when the speech is loud, well-organized, or deeply inconvenient to those holding power.

The First Amendment cannot function as a personal umbrella for elected officials and a rain delay for everyone else.

There is a special condescension reserved for mothers who notice things. Quiet participation earns the label “engaged.” Visible anger becomes “emotional.” Organization suddenly triggers lectures on tone, decorum, and safety.

After May 14, the story began shifting away from the superintendent transition and toward the people who protested it.

“Safety” became the new frame. President Morgan said the district was investigating the events of May 14. At least briefly during the June 4 meeting, yellow-and-black retractable belt stanchions separated the board area from the public beside a sign reading, “No public access beyond this point.”

Families were exercising their right to criticize elected officials and participate in public life. Police were present, and no citations, arrests, or documented unlawful conduct have been issued.

If records document a specific safety incident, release them. Any law-enforcement contact, investigation, security change, legal review, consultant work, or cost connected to May 14 should be disclosed.

The public should not have to fund a fog machine.

At the June 4 meeting, one speaker rejected descriptions of protesters as “out of control,” “hateful,” or an “angry mob,” along with claims that Dee had been assaulted, pushed down, blocked, or intimidated.

She described families with signs, pom-poms, and chants participating in a protest that was “visible,” “energetic,” and “peaceful.” She also read what she described as Dee’s email from the following morning: “No one pushed me or anything. It was just my knee and fear of being shoved. My fault. I really appreciated your assistance.”

Should the district possess evidence to the contrary, it should produce it. Vague safety language cannot substitute for records.

As another parent explained, “Trust is not built that way. It’s built through transparency during process, not explanations after the fact.”

The June 4 discussion made the original process look worse.

Sheri defended the sudden superintendent appointment by pointing to the superintendent search conducted the previous year. Dr. Austin had reportedly participated, she said, and there was no “statute of limitations” or “expiration date” on that search. Starting over would be fiscally irresponsible because the prior process cost more than $50,000 and took four months.

Joan explained why a process still mattered. It protects against bias, generates better information, safeguards the institution, clarifies governance roles, creates buy-in, and protects the person being hired.

She then returned to the central problem.

“I was not informed at any point that Don Austin was a candidate.”

Joan said she had no prior information about him, no knowledge that negotiations had been underway, and no notice that a start date had been discussed.

“So I’m very curious,” she said. “Who made that determination and why?”

Then came the sentence that deserves to sit on its own:

“Somebody is making decisions and negotiating on behalf of the board with no direction from the board.”

The public record does not yet identify who initiated the discussions, who conducted negotiations, or who decided the prior search could be revived without first bringing the question to the full board.

What it does show is that no new public search process or open-session explanation had been presented. Dr. Austin was suddenly available. A start date had apparently been discussed. A motion appeared. Three votes were there.

Joan and Jim shared they had been left outside the process. Dee said she had been “a little bit in the dark.”

A school board is supposed to act collectively, not through a process that leaves elected trustees learning about a permanent superintendent candidate only after a motion is placed before them.

The question is not only who voted yes.

Who was moving the pieces before the vote happened?

Howard responded by saying people had gotten into the habit of alleging Brown Act violations and that determining a violation was “far more complicated” than commenters suggested. Dee called Dr. Austin a great candidate and said she was thrilled he was available.

Neither response answered Joan.

And now the Orange County District Attorney’s Office has written to LBUSD’s attorney.

Its letter does not find a Brown Act violation and expressly says the office is not opining on potential violations “at this time.” It does say the OCDA received numerous complaints alleging Brown Act violations connected to Dr. Glass’s termination and Dr. Austin’s hiring. The office also received the formal Cure and Correct Demand concerning the May 12 and May 14 meetings.

A senior deputy district attorney in the Special Prosecutions Unit asked LBUSD’s attorney to provide the district’s proposed course of action within seven business days.

For once, the questions have moved beyond public comment silence.

I am relieved the DA’s office has asked the district to state its proposed course of action, even though I do not know how the legal issues will ultimately be resolved. The community deserves clearer answers than the board majority has provided.

How did Dr. Glass’s separation happen? How did Dr. Austin’s appointment come together? Who held discussions, negotiated terms, or made decisions? Were all five trustees given the same information before voting? Which actions, if any, must be cured or corrected? How much public money is being spent reviewing the rally instead of explaining the decisions that caused it?

This board majority repeatedly pushes the legal and practical boundaries of governance, then acts surprised when the community notices. Policy becomes flexible when it is inconvenient. Closed session absorbs decisions the public cannot reconstruct. Transparency arrives after the vote, dressed as explanation.

Three votes can produce an outcome. They cannot manufacture legitimacy.

Dee has a particular responsibility here. She is the longest-serving trustee and knows how a superintendent search and lawful board process should work. Confidential information may have influenced her May 12 decision, but uncertainty about what would come next should have led her to slow the process.

She voted with Howard and Sheri on May 12, seconded the motion to appoint Dr. Austin on May 14, and voted with them again on June 4.

Claims of powerlessness or being “a little bit in the dark” lose credibility when the same vote keeps making the outcome possible.

The board can still release records, explain the timeline, publicly answer the Cure and Correct Demand, and disclose the cost of any investigation, legal review, security response, or consultant work connected to May 14. It can tell the community who knew what, when they knew it, and whether all five trustees received the same information before decisions were made.

Dee still has a choice about the legacy she leaves behind: she can be the trustee who broke with the majority before more damage was done, or the decisive vote that enabled its actions when it mattered most.

She cannot continue wielding power while claiming she has none when the consequences are unfolding in real time.

The third vote is what makes these actions possible, and with every decision it enables, the stakes grow.

History will remember who had the power to stop it and who chose not to.

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

Despite what you may have heard, Laguna Beach Unified and Palo Alto Unified did not officially swap superintendents.

LBUSD pushed out Dr. Jason Glass, then hired Dr. Don Austin, the former superintendent of Palo Alto Unified. A few weeks later, Palo Alto selected Glass as its next superintendent.

It is not a formal trade, but it sure feels like one. And that makes the comparison hard to ignore.

When Austin was announced in Laguna Beach, the district leaned hard on his Palo Alto résumé. The message was not subtle: LBUSD had landed a superintendent from one of California’s top-ranked school districts. Board President Sheri Morgan called the hire a win for Laguna Beach.

Then, the same school district that had been used to validate Austin turned around and chose Glass.

So now the question is not just who Laguna hired, it is what Laguna thought it was buying.

At the March 6, 2025, superintendent search meeting, LBUSD named values and desired qualities for its next superintendent. They were not framed as a single, clear, defining priority, but rather as a broad composite: experienced, ethical, student-centered, collaborative, innovative, communicative, humble, and able to work with a divided or newly configured board.

Howard Hills wanted proven executive experience and a demonstrated record of success that could be explained, sustained, corroborated, and substantiated. He also named ethical high standards.

Jim Kelly wanted someone “sane, even-handed, and collaborative.” Dee Perry wanted someone who truly cared about students and staff, had a record of success, understood how that success happened, and did not have a “really big ego.” Joan Malczewski emphasized communication, accessibility, empathy, engagement, vision, innovation, and collaboration.

Sheri Morgan said she wanted humility, innovation, out-of-the-box thinking, honesty, collaboration, and someone who understood that LBUSD schools are not a “little bubble,” but part of a larger community.

So, when Morgan later suggested the criteria stayed the same, the obvious question is whether Austin clearly met that same profile.

After everything that happened at Palo Alto Unified, does Austin’s full record match the values LBUSD said it wanted? Proven experience, yes. But what about steadiness? Collaboration? Humility? Staff trust? Communication? The ability to work through board tension without becoming part of it?

“From the #1 school district” is a résumé line, not an answer.

Palo Alto appears to have been clear about what it wanted in its next superintendent: a leader who listens, rebuilds trust, supports students and staff, and understands the needs of the whole community. PAUSD also has a publicly stated commitment to LGBTQ+ students and inclusive school environments.

That makes Glass’s selection notable. Glass has been a visible education leader on student inclusion, whole-child development, and LGBTQ+ student rights. Palo Alto did not seem confused about what kind of leader it wanted.

Which raises the question Laguna Beach School Board still has not fully answered: what kind of district are you trying to build?

When Glass was selected by LBUSD, the public rationale aligned with the search profile. Dee Perry said Glass had championed student-centered learning, innovation, and whole-child development. The district pointed to experiential learning, early college access, innovation and instruction, and artificial intelligence. The search was described as a four-month nationwide process. Perry emphasized the Board was “100% behind Dr. Jason Glass.”

That statement did not exactly age well.

The public pitch for Austin focused more on experience, rankings, prior ties to Laguna, and familiarity with the community. Those are not meaningless; Austin has real experience throughout California and was once the principal of Laguna Beach High School. His children even attended LBUSD schools.

But experience is not the same thing as values. A résumé is not a vision. And “he came from the #1 district” gets more awkward when the #1 district immediately hires the superintendent Laguna paid to leave.

The contract comparison does not make this story cleaner.

At the June 4, 2026, meeting, the framing around Austin’s contract seemed to suggest LBUSD had negotiated a less expensive agreement than Glass’s. That may work if the comparison stays narrow and mostly first-year, as Glass’s Laguna Beach contract included visible recruitment costs: relocation, temporary housing, and mentor support.

But Glass moved his young family across the country into one of California’s most expensive housing markets. He had every right to negotiate those terms, and the Board had every right to reject them. Instead, they approved his agreement 5-0.

So if we are going to talk about Glass’s contract, we should also talk about the Board that approved it.

Over the full four-year structure, Austin’s LBUSD agreement is not cheaper.

To note, health benefits are excluded because the public does not know which plan or coverage level either superintendent selected.

Glass’s contract had the obvious first-year recruitment costs. Still, Austin’s contract has quieter costs built into the structure: a higher base salary, a recurring annuity contribution, and optional paid days.

The daily-rate comparison is sharper.

Austin is paid more per required workday because his salary is spread over fewer required days. His agreement says he receives no vacation days, which sounds disciplined until you notice his required work year is already 21 days shorter than Glass’s.

Austin’s agreement also allows up to five additional paid workdays each year at his current daily rate, which adds about $10,044.64 per year, or $40,178.56 over four years. If his salary is increased or if additional paid days beyond those five are ever authorized, the cost will rise even further.

That comparison is especially hard to ignore, given that teachers and classified employees are looking at a 1% raise in 2026-27 and some healthcare premium increases that will eat into that gain. If staff is being asked to absorb that reality, LBUSD should be able to explain why its superintendent contract needed a $450k salary, a 4% annuity, fewer required workdays, and optional paid additional days.

The Palo Alto comparison adds one more twist.

Glass’s proposed PAUSD agreement has a lower base salary than Austin’s LBUSD agreement. However, PAUSD’s contract also recognizes the real cost of recruiting a superintendent into a high-cost area: housing support, moving expenses, paid transition days, and, like Austin, annuity and optional additional paid days.

So the story is not “Glass had more perks, and Austin did not,” it is that superintendent contracts hide costs in different places. Glass’s contracts show the cost of recruiting someone into an expensive community. Austin’s LBUSD contract shows the cost of paying a higher salary over fewer required workdays, with recurring add-ons.

The leadership stories are just as intertwined.

In Laguna, Glass’s exit felt board-driven by the constant employee-review items, the public tension, the healthcare audit blame-shifting, and the speed of his separation. All of that created the impression of a superintendent being squeezed out.

In Palo Alto, Austin’s exit had a different texture. His tenure included strong district performance, but also repeated public controversy and strained relationships. His departure looked less like a sudden collapse and more like a relationship that had worn down.

Now Laguna has Austin. Palo Alto has Glass. So yes, this means I will be watching closely at both performances this year.

Which superintendent can stabilize a board? Which one can keep staff? Which one can build trust? Which one can improve student outcomes without reducing children to test scores? Which one can protect whole-child development, inclusion, and the daily experience of students and staff?

And for LBUSD, the more immediate questions are simple.

If the search criteria stayed the same, how did the Board evaluate Austin against the qualities it named in March 2025? Where was the public discussion of collaboration, humility, staff trust, student-centered leadership, communication, and the ability to work within a strained governance environment? Did LBUSD weigh the end of Austin’s time in Palo Alto against those criteria, or did the “#1 school district” label do most of the work?

Laguna Beach did not just hire a résumé; we hired a leadership style, a history, and a contract.

If the LBUSD Board believes Austin is worth more than Glass over the long term, it should say why plainly. Not just that he came from Palo Alto, or that he knows Laguna, or that he is experienced.

What problem was he hired to solve?

What values are he expected to protect?

How will our Board measure success beyond rankings, optics, and politics?

Because the district LBUSD used to sell Austin just chose Glass. If the #1 school district picked up our ex, Laguna residents are allowed to ask what Palo Alto saw that our own Board chose not to keep.

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and the issues affecting our schools easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the time, research, writing, and platform costs required to keep this information organized and accessible. I am deeply grateful for anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way, and the site will always remain fully accessible to all community members.

Subscribe now

After everything that has happened in our school district over the past few months, it is worth revisiting where this all began: the current board majority’s first superintendent transition.

Some may point to November 21, 2024, when the old board approved Jason Viloria’s separation agreement, as the start of that transition, but really the roots go back much further.

The transition began during the 2024 school board election campaign, through public comments, debates over the pool, and repeated claims that Laguna Beach Unified had become too closed off, too administration-driven, and too dismissive of community input.

By the November election, LBUSD was already in a political trust fight. It was not just about the pool, academic data, bylaws, public comment, or even the superintendent. It was about whether the community trusted the district’s leadership structure at all.

Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills ran against that structure. Morgan argued LBUSD had become too top-down, transparency was at an all-time low, and the old board had adopted a weak-board posture. Hills spent years criticizing LBUSD governance, legal interpretations, bylaws, understanding of the Brown Act, and the balance of power between the board and administration. Their message was simple: LBUSD’s governing culture was broken.

At the center of that debate was Superintendent Jason Viloria. Supporters saw him as a stabilizing leader with strong district outcomes; critics saw him as the symbol of an administration-led system that had become too insulated from community concerns. By 2024, criticism of district governance and of Viloria had become closely linked, allowing the conflict to build over time. At the March 14 board meeting, Sensible Laguna co-founder Steve McIntosh criticized district messaging, cited academic data to argue LBUSD was failing students, and spoke of recalling the board, taking back the district, cleaning house, and making a change at the top. The pool controversy then became the clearest symbol of whether the district was listening.

Speakers accused leadership of refusing to compromise, while Morgan tied the issue directly to district leadership and argued it was time for change.

Other disputes included facilities planning, community distrust, and student-related controversies, which were folded into the same broader narrative. By September, the divide was clear: supporters framed the pool as an investment in students and families, while critics focused on cost, transparency, and responsiveness.

So when people describe the superintendent separation as something that suddenly appeared after the election, they skip the very obvious context. The campaign was not only about policy disagreements; it was about replacing a governing culture.

Morgan and Hills won, joining Dee Perry to form a new 3–2 majority. Before the new board was seated, the outgoing board acted.

On November 21, LBUSD board members voted 5–0 to enter into a separation agreement with Viloria, ending his contract effective December 31. The district later said the decision was not based on performance and was intended to minimize disruption while allowing the incoming board to select leadership aligned with its vision.

Was it elegant? No. Was the timing fair game for criticism? Sure

But the cartoon villain version of November leaves out the reality of what was coming. For Viloria, the main target of Morgan and Hill’s campaign, having him stay on so the new majority could spend its first weeks humiliating him or firing him publicly would not have made the district more transparent. It would have made the district uglier, more unstable, and more personal.

So really, the outgoing board gave the incoming majority the leadership opening it had campaigned for. It removed the superintendent who had become the center of the political fight, avoided an immediate public firing battle, created a vacancy, and gave the incoming board the power to appoint an interim, run a search, and hire a superintendent aligned with its vision.

The majority keeps describing November as the thing done to them, but November handed them the opening they wanted.

The real story is what they did with it.

For context, a superintendent’s departure has two tracks: the temporary leadership bridge and the permanent superintendent search. A permanent search is supposed to create legitimacy. It should show the community that the board did not start with a preferred candidate and work backward.

An interim appointment is different because a district cannot sit around for months waiting for a permanent search to finish. Payroll, contracts, board agendas, staff direction, family communication, and daily operations still have to happen. That is why districts often appoint an internal acting superintendent first: someone already inside the system who can keep the district functioning. At the same time, the board develops the long-term plan.

But “interim” does not mean “anything goes.” Even a fast process should be clean. The board should identify the need, decide whether it wants an internal acting superintendent or outside interim, give trustees equal information, discuss candidates only after the process is clear, report out any action, and bring any employment agreement back in open session. A good interim process calms the district.

The new LBUSD board majority did the opposite.

The November 21 decision has also been criticized as a possible violation of California’s newer superintendent protections, but that argument overlooks timing. Education Code § 35150 applies after the first convening of the newly elected board. On November 21, Morgan and Hills had not yet been seated, and the new board had not convened.

A more specific concern involves reporting procedures. The open session began with “no report out of closed session,” yet it was announced later that there was a 5–0 vote to separate from Viloria. While the later written report was the legal minimum, questions about the process are reasonable. November was politically contentious and imperfectly handled, but it was not the event that most clearly tested the new majority’s governance approach — that came on December 16.

It was Morgan and Hills’s first meeting as trustees and the first major leadership decision facing the new board. Viloria’s departure was already scheduled for December 31, and the agenda included discussion of the interim superintendent process.

Rather than discuss the process publicly first, Hills immediately moved to advance closed session ahead of that discussion. Trustee Joan Malczewski objected, arguing that the board had not yet publicly addressed basic questions: whether it wanted an internal acting superintendent or outside interim, how candidates would be considered, what criteria would apply, or whether the interim could seek the permanent position.

Hills argued the board needed to move forward with appointing an interim superintendent, and Morgan attempted to cite legal authority for the closed-session discussion. But the disagreement was less about legality than process. People argued that transparency required the board to establish and discuss the process before considering candidates.

Malczewski then raised concerns that potential candidates had already been contacted before any public process had been discussed. Trustee Jim Kelly also objected, noting that moving the closed session forward delayed public comment. The motion nevertheless passed 3–2, with Morgan, Hills, and Perry voting yes and Kelly and Malczewski voting no.

After the closed session, the board reported a 3–2 vote directing the preparation of an employment agreement with Dr. Joanne Culverhouse as interim superintendent, effective January 1.

Culverhouse’s qualifications were not the central issue; the controversy centered on process. Kelly said he did not know Culverhouse and felt the board had been presented with a preferred candidate. Malczewski said she expected a discussion of the process first and would have preferred multiple candidates or, at least, broader board review.

Again, the board did not need a full permanent search to appoint an interim, but it did need a clean process. Instead, the majority started with a person and worked backward.

Then Culverhouse withdrew. The public record does not tell us her private reasoning, but the public effect was clear: she did not become the face of a process that had already lost legitimacy. From the outside, stepping away looked like the integrity move.

The majority moved quickly, split the board, and failed to make an appointment. The district still needed leadership.

On January 9, the board unanimously appointed Dr. Jeff Dixon as acting superintendent. Dixon was already serving within the district and provided an immediate operational bridge while the board prepared for a permanent search.

By January 23, speakers cited more than 70 written comments in support of Dixon and described him as qualified, respected, and trusted. The interim leadership question had largely been resolved, but the December controversy continued to shape perceptions of the superintendent search.

Leadership Associates became part of that discussion because of Culverhouse’s affiliation with the firm. Questions persisted about who had been contacted, when conversations occurred, and whether the board had followed a shared process or begun with a preferred outcome.

As the permanent search moved forward, Malczewski emphasized that community acceptance and trust would be essential. By March 2025, the district was gathering input, extending surveys, and hosting community sessions, all steps intended to build legitimacy for the eventual selection.

The distinction between November and December matters because it shows what changed. Under the old board, critics were loud and sometimes furious, but the district still largely functioned with the proper guardrails in place. The superintendent managed the district, so staff were not constantly pulled into board politics. Meetings were not perfect, but they were more efficient and less consumed by board-member interference in operations.

The new majority inherited a working system and treated the vacancy as permission to centralize control.

Viloria became a campaign symbol. For critics, he represented the old governing structure; for supporters, he represented continuity and district success.

Regardless of perspective, turning a person into a recurring political weapon is ugly, and it does not help students.

The separation agreement allowed Viloria to leave without being dragged through a public firing spectacle. From my perspective, the outgoing board may have spared the district an even more damaging public fight.

The principal figures eventually moved on. Viloria entered school-leadership consulting. Dixon later joined Newport-Mesa Unified. Culverhouse continued her work with Leadership Associates.

LBUSD was left with the damage, and that damage came from choices.

That is why Dr. Don Austin’s recent appointment process may feel familiar. Of course, Culverhouse was considered during an interim transition, while Austin was selected as permanent superintendent after the district had already completed a prior search.

Despite those differences, both situations raise the same question: when an experienced administrator is approached through a process the public has not fully seen or understood, what responsibility does that administrator have to insist on transparency and legitimacy before accepting the role?

The key distinction came afterward: Culverhouse ultimately did not remain attached to the appointment while Austin did.

December 16 continues to play a part with this board majority because it was the first public demonstration of how they would exercise power. The campaign had emphasized transparency, accountability, community voice, and governance reform. Many people argue that placing closed session ahead of a public discussion on the district’s most important leadership decision sent the opposite message.

That is why “it was legal” is not enough for many observers. Legal authority and good governance are not always the same thing.

The majority started with control, not trust.

And that became the template of many major decisions.

In LBUSD’s proposed 2026–27 budget materials, one line immediately stood out to me.

The Budget Overview shows planned spending dropping from about $93.49 million to $90.15 million. Certificated salaries increase from about $35.57 million to $36.10 million, classified salaries increase from about $13.22 million to $13.58 million, and combined, salaries increase by about $892,000.

Employee benefits go down.

They decrease from about $21.60 million to $21.45 million, a drop of roughly $145,000. The budget shows certificated salaries up 2.1%, classified salaries up 2.7%, and employee benefits down 0.7%.

That is what sent me down the rabbit hole.

I know school district budgets are mostly people, as they should be. Public education runs on teachers, aides, counselors, office staff, custodians, specialists, nurses, administrators, and the people who keep the system functioning every day.

In California, roughly 80% of current school spending goes toward staffing and LBUSD is right in that range. The district’s 2025–26 budget stated that compensation accounted for 77% of the general fund. For 2026–27, LBUSD lists about $71.14 million in personnel and staffing costs against a $90.15 million spending plan. That is about 79%, with the caveat that overall planned spending is lower, which makes compensation a larger share of the budget.

So the issue is not that Laguna spends too much on employees, but what happens when a small raise meets rising healthcare costs.

LBUSD’s benefits line is not just health insurance. It includes STRS, PERS, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, retiree benefits, OPEB, and health and welfare benefits. In the proposed 2026–27 budget, total employee benefits are about $21.45 million. Health and welfare benefits are about $5.50 million of that total, or roughly 6.1% of the district’s entire spending plan.

Healthcare costs themselves are moving fast. Nationally, the average employer-sponsored family premium rose 6% in one year, and single coverage rose 5%. California is even higher, with family premiums increasing 24% since 2022, outpacing both inflation and wages.

So when LBUSD shows a small salary increase and a decrease in benefits, the public should ask what employees are actually gaining.

A 2% raise can disappear very quickly when healthcare premiums increase. A raise on paper can become a wash in real life. For some employees, especially those covering a spouse or family, it can become a loss.

The Michael Bishop healthcare review helped me understand why this is so complicated.

LBUSD’s health plan year begins October 1, and the district’s fiscal year begins July 1. That means the district builds and adopts its budget before final healthcare renewal rates are fully known. The district is budgeting on one calendar while healthcare costs move on another.

Then there are the plans: PPO, HMO, individual, spouse, children, family. Employees get married, divorced, have babies, retire, change jobs, add dependents, lose dependents, and move between eligibility categories. Those changes do not always happen neatly at the start of a fiscal year.

I am not pretending to be a healthcare expert. I am learning this as I go because the budget number did not sit right with me. But the more I learn, the clearer it becomes that this system is easy to get wrong without serious guardrails.

The review found that from 2022–23 through 2025–26, employee contributions were not set in accordance with the collective bargaining agreements. The district covered a larger share of the total annual healthcare costs than it should have under the contract.

The review also points to a systems problem: timing issues, multiple plans, multiple tiers, changing employee census data, contribution caps, and the need for better coordination between Human Resources and Business Services. The recommendations focus on controls, communication, budget comparisons, review of the cap structure, review of plan design, and possible alignment of the plan year with the fiscal year.

But this should not become a quiet excuse to reduce benefit support.

Under the contract, the district pays up to a negotiated cap, and employees pay what is above it. For example, certificated PPO family coverage, the annual district cap is about $25k. The 2025–26 PPO family premium is about $39k, leaving the employee responsible for about $14k, or $1.4k per contribution period.

For Kaiser HMO family coverage example, the annual district cap is about $21k. The 2025–26 premium example is about $28k. That leaves the employee responsible for about $7k, or about $700 per contribution period.

Those are not small numbers, and that is why salary and benefits have to be discussed together. A district can offer a modest raise, hold to the cap, reduce its benefit costs, and still leave employees carrying a larger share of the burden.

That may be legal under the contract or clean on a spreadsheet, but it still deserves public scrutiny.

The 2021 MOU shows that the district has used bargaining to address healthcare pressure before. LBUSD and LaBUFA agreed to cover increased health and welfare benefits of about $350,000. To me, that says the pressure on healthcare costs was already obvious. The district and union saw the strain and reached an agreement to address it.

Now we are back in a similar moment, only with active negotiations.

I know the public is not privy to what either side is proposing and I understand bargaining has rules, which exist for a reason.

But the budget, review, caps, and board’s financial choices are public. So the community should come to the board with direct questions at June 8th’s meeting.

What is the board’s plan to protect employees from rising healthcare costs?

Is the district budgeting for a real compensation increase, or only a raise that gets eaten by premiums?

Will the board consider additional benefit support, a different cap structure, or better plan design?

How will the district address administrative failures without turning the correction into a cost shift?

What solution is the board willing to own?

LBUSD is not a district scraping by. Our proposed 2026–27 budget describes strong financials, full funding of LCAP goals, healthy reserves in other funds, and a AAA stable rating. Money is never unlimited, but choices exist.

This district prides itself on excellence. But excellence is expensive because good teachers, classified staff, counselors, specialists, and support employees do not stay because a district says nice things about them at board meetings. These people stay when compensation reflects the cost of living, healthcare costs, and the value of the work.

I started with one line in the budget and ended up with a much bigger concern.

Healthcare benefits are complicated, and the review proves that. Rising healthcare costs are real, and the state and national numbers prove that too.

Now the board needs to prove that fixing an administrative problem does not mean lowering support for employees and that a small raise will not be allowed to disappear into healthcare costs.

They need to prove that Laguna Beach Unified is still willing to invest in the people who make the district worth bragging about.

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

For nearly two years, Laguna Beach has been told that governance matters.

Our policies and bylaws matter.

Transparency and process matters.

At least, that was the pitch to help elect Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills. It justified all of their governance committees, policy reviews, legal questions, public criticism of district leadership, and hours of board meetings spent debating how LBUSD should operate.

The promise was simple enough: institutions are stronger when decisions are made through transparent, established processes instead of the preferences of a few people in power.

Then came May 14, 2026, when a new superintendent was appointed. Suddenly, the process has become negotiable.

This is not a story about whether Dr. Don Austin is qualified, and it’s not even really a story about whether the board had the legal authority to appoint him. School boards have broad authority to hire superintendents, and no one needs to pretend otherwise.

The question is not whether the board had power, but how they used it.

For Howard Hills, his governance obsession did not begin when he was sworn in. For more than a decade, he has shown up around LBUSD with questions about leadership, process, board authority, and whether the district was following the rules closely enough. Howard built a public identity around governance language.

Sheri Morgan’s record fits inside the same frame. Her political brand has been transparency, access, and community voice. She has presented herself as someone trying to pull LBUSD out of a closed-door culture and into a more responsive, public-facing one. Whether you agreed with her or not, the pitch was clear: the old way was too insulated, too controlled, too dismissive of the community.

In 2026, that governance language became formal board work. LBUSD approved an Ad Hoc Governance Committee to review the district’s governance processes, including the clarity, organization, and alignment of board bylaws and policies with CSBA models, statutes, and board-adopted norms. Howard led the charge to create this committee because he insisted that governance structure mattered.

LBUSD’s own Board Bylaw 9310 says board policies are adopted to set clear procedural expectations for district governance. It says policies are binding unless they conflict with law or collective bargaining agreements. The district’s policy manual is supposed to be the framework for how the board governs.

But then Board Policy 2120 became inconvenient.

On June 4, 2026, Sheri Morgan defended the superintendent appointment by arguing that the prior superintendent search had not expired. According to her, the district had already conducted an extensive search less than a year earlier, Dr. Austin had stated he was part of that process, and restarting the work would be unnecessary, expensive, and fiscally irresponsible.

“There is no statute of limitations,” Sheri said. “There is no expiration date on that search process from less than one year ago. Restarting that process and redoing that work is not required by law or policy.”

She also said repeating a search that cost more than $50,000 and took four months would be “fiscally irresponsible.”

That is one argument. However, Howard Hills made another.

He did not simply argue that the policy had been satisfied. He actually argued that the policy was not mandatory.

“The bylaw is not mandatory and it’s not compulsive,” Hills said. Then he went further, saying the board could appoint a superintendent “any way the board wants to do it and any time.”

After all the speeches, all the policy debates, all the governance lectures, all the concern about procedure and institutional standards, Howard suddenly announced that the superintendent-search policy was not compulsory and that the board could, essentially, however it wanted, appoint a superintendent.

Funny how flexible governance becomes when it finally applies to them.

If Howard had never spent years questioning governance, if Sheri had never built her case around transparency, if the board had not created a committee around policy alignment and board-adopted norms, this might read like an ordinary disagreement over how much process is enough.

But that is not the record.

The record is a board majority that used process as both sword and shield until the moment process pointed back at them.

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

Dr. Joan Malczewski put the concern plainly during the June 4, 2026 board meeting. Search processes exist to help institutions protect themselves from the weaknesses of individual decision-making. They protect against bias, generate better information, create buy-in, and, most importantly, protect the institution and the person being hired.

A superintendent search process is not only about finding a good person. It is about creating legitimacy around the choice.

Joan was not informed that Don Austin was a candidate until the May 14, 2026 closed session, when she was met with a motion to hire him. She said she had no prior information that conversations were happening, no knowledge that negotiations were underway, and no role in determining a start date.

This was not a board-led process; it was a majority-led outcome.

There is a difference.

And that brings us to Dee Perry. Most conversations about the current board majority focus on Howard and Sheri, which makes sense. They speak the most, drive the arguments, and attract the heat.

But they cannot govern alone.

The majority is three votes, and their third vote is Dee Perry.

Dee’s role is quieter, but it is not smaller. She often appears surprised, uncomfortable, or only partially informed. She can seem adjacent to the controversy rather than central to it. But when the vote matters, Dee Perry is not a spectator; she seals everyone’s fate.

Howard and Sheri can argue, posture, explain, defend, and accuse. This allows Dee to remain aloof and pretend to be just a passenger along for the ride. And when she says she was “a little bit in the dark,” that does not make the vote easier for us to swallow. It should make it more concerning. If a trustee is unsure, uninformed, or surprised by how a major decision reached the board, that is the moment to slow the process down, not hand it the final vote it needs.

Dee may not be driving the car, but she keeps handing the keys to Howard and Sheri.

The board majority can keep saying this was about stability. They can say it was about saving money and avoiding another long search. They can say Dr. Austin was already vetted, so the policy was not mandatory. They can say the law allowed it.

Maybe some of that is true, but none of it answers the larger questions.

If governance mattered enough to build a political brand around it, why did it stop mattering here?

If policies matter when Howard and Sheri are criticizing district staff, former board members, or prior decisions, why do they become advisory when Howard already has the votes?

If transparency is the standard, why was the public asked to accept the explanation after the decision rather than being included beforehand?

And if Dee really was “a little bit in the dark,” why was she still comfortable becoming the light that turned the whole thing green?

This is about whether the board majority is willing to hold itself to the same governance standard it spent the last two years demanding from everyone else.

So far, the answer looks pretty clear.

Governance matters — until it gets in their way.

More reading…

The emergency filings are in, and LBUSD’s defense is revealing: the district is not only arguing that the Irvine Bowl will be accessible, but also that graduation planning is now too far along to move the ceremony back.

That may be a legal defense, but it is also exactly why this decision should have been fully evaluated before the board majority forced the change.

As I wrote when the federal civil rights case was first filed, this was never only a fight over scenery, nostalgia, or where seniors should toss their caps. The lawsuit asks whether LBUSD moved a public school graduation to a venue that may exclude disabled family members from attending on equal terms.

Read the first part in LBUSD’s Graduation Lawsuit…

In the plaintiffs’ emergency request to stop graduation from being held at the Irvine Bowl, they ask the court to keep the June 11 ceremony at Guyer Field instead. They argue they are not trying to cancel or delay graduation, but to maintain what they call the accessible status quo venue where graduation had been held for at least the previous five years.

In LBUSD’s opposition to that emergency request, submitted today, June 4, the district argues that the lawsuit came too late, that the Irvine Bowl has hosted graduations for decades, that the venue predates the ADA, and that the legal standard is whether the graduation program is accessible overall, not whether every part of the historic venue complies with modern construction standards.

That is the legal fight, but the governance issue is much simpler.

The board voted on February 26. According to Interim Superintendent Manoj Roychowdhury’s declaration, staff began site walks and accessibility planning in early March, families were surveyed in April, and the lawsuit was filed in June.

The board voted first, and the accessibility process followed.

In that declaration, LBUSD says it arranged accommodations including wheelchair and companion seating, accessible restrooms, courtesy wheelchairs by reservation, amplification, closer seating for hearing or visual impairments, service animals, security support, and livestreaming with captions. The district also says LBHS sent an accommodation form to families on April 17, received 265 responses, and had 83 families request accommodations.

Maybe that is enough for the court, maybe not, but it does not erase the obvious question: why was the board voting before this work was complete?

In the plaintiffs’ memorandum supporting the emergency injunction request, they argue the Irvine Bowl does not provide equal access for disabled family members, citing limited wheelchair-accessible spaces, limited companion seating, clustered seating locations, steep routes from parking and drop-off areas, and difficult circulation inside the amphitheater. Their filings also say LBUSD conducted no formal ADA accessibility evaluation before the board vote, and that this was confirmed through a LBUSD Public Records Act response.

LBUSD may have a legal argument based on older-facility and program-access law, including Ninth Circuit precedent involving school bleachers. But that legal argument is not a defense of the process.

Graduation logistics are not nostalgia projects for alumni. They involve staffing, transportation, student supervision, safety, facilities, family needs, emergency planning, accessibility, and legal compliance. When a board majority forces an operational change before those pieces are fully evaluated, staff are left to make it work after the fact.

And now LBUSD is telling the court it is too late to unwind.

In Roychowdhury’s declaration, the district says moving graduation back would require renting about 2,500 chairs, addressing audio-visual changes, possibly adding a second video display, obtaining an elevated stage, handling printed programs, and undoing bus arrangements.

That may be true, but it is exactly why the hard questions should have been answered before the vote.

The court could deny the emergency request and allow graduation to proceed at the Irvine Bowl, either because the judge decides the plaintiffs waited too long or because the judge agrees with LBUSD that the district has done enough to make the graduation program accessible.

The court could also stop LBUSD from holding graduation at the Irvine Bowl and force the district back to Guyer Field or another accessible venue, especially if the judge decides that the access concerns are serious enough, the harm is too immediate, or the district’s after-the-vote accommodations are insufficient.

I do not know what the court will do, but I do know this: no public school district should be litigating disability access days before graduation because a board majority wanted a symbolic vote before the operational work was complete.

If LBUSD wins, the board majority will probably call it vindication, but a legal win on timing or program-access standards would not prove the process was responsible. It would only mean the district survived the emergency motion.

If LBUSD loses, the consequences become immediate, with students, families, staff, transportation, seating, and logistics thrown into the exact chaos the district now says would be so difficult to manage.

Either way, the court is being asked to decide the emergency legal question, but parents should be asking the governance question: why was LBUSD put in this position at all?

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

The request focuses on the sudden May 2026 leadership change at LBUSD, including closed-session actions involving Dr. Jason Glass and the appointment of Dr. Don Austin.

There are many specific documentation requests, but the central issue is simple: when a school district makes major leadership decisions behind closed doors, the public is left trying to understand what happened after the fact. This request asks for the records that could help answer those questions.

As you may know, a PRA request is not proof that anyone did anything wrong or an accusation by itself. However, it shows us what information remains unclear, which documents may exist, and what the public has the right to examine.

Parents and community members should care because it concerns governance, transparency, public spending, board conduct, and whether LBUSD has followed the policies and procedures it has already adopted.

So again, I’m sharing this because the details matter. Read it for yourself:

Re: Public Records Act Request — Statements of Economic Interests, Disclosures, and Related Records — Time-Sensitive Under Government Code § 81008

This is a formal request for public records under the California Public Records Act, Government Code sections 7920.000 et seq., and the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81008. I make this request in my capacity as a parent of an enrolled student in the Laguna Beach Unified School District and as a member of the public exercising my rights under Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution. I am acting in my individual capacity as a parent.

This request is made in good faith and in service of the children of this District during a leadership transition that has been the subject of regional press coverage in the Los Angeles Times on May 13 and May 15, 2026, in the Orange County Register, and in the Laguna Beach Independent, and that has been acknowledged in writing by the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. The District has long affirmed, through its adopted Board Bylaws and Conflict of Interest Code, that transparency, ethics, and integrity are foundational to its governance. The District’s adopted Board Bylaw 9005 expressly requires every Board member to “govern within Board-adopted policies and procedures” and to “hold themselves to the highest standards of ethical conduct.” The District’s adopted Board Bylaw 9321 expressly commits the District to “modeling transparency in its conduct of district business.” These commitments were adopted by prior Boards, in the substantial majority of cases on September 9, 2021 or earlier, and have remained in continuous effect through every change in Board composition since. They bind every current Board member by force of the District’s own adoption and by force of each Board member’s oath of office.

The events that are the subject of this request, including a 3-2 closed-session vote terminating the sitting Superintendent on May 12, 2026, and a 3-2 closed-session vote

The Board proceeded to closed session and voted 3-2 to appoint Mr. Austin as Superintendent of Schools. The May 14, 2026 Special Meeting extended into late-evening hours. To the extent the District intends to take the position that the disclosure questions raised in my May 14 correspondence were addressed during the open or closed session of the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting itself, I respectfully ask that the District specifically identify the agenda item, the timestamp on the official meeting recording, the Board member making the response, and the verbatim language of any such response, so that the record is clear.

During the open session of the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting, which was broadcast publicly in real time, Board member Howard Hills addressed the First Amendment rights of Board members in their personal communications and the authority of the Board President to communicate on behalf of the District. Mr. Hills stated, in pertinent part: “we have a bylaw in this district that says board members are encouraged to communicate with the public on their personal views about board business as long as they identify that it’s personal views. ... that’s a bylaw that protects the First Amendment rights of board members.” Mr. Hills further stated that “the idea that a board member should not be communicating their views independently is just anti-democratic and it’s anti-First Amendments.” On the authority of the Board President, Mr. Hills stated: “the idea that the president of the board communicates on behalf of the district when you have bylaws that have the force and effect of law and are legally binding ... where the board has delegated an authority and a responsibility for the president to communicate with the public. That makes it no different than if the superintendent issues a press release. There’s no difference between the two. That’s called a balance and that’s called co-equal.” Mr. Hills further disclosed, on the public record, that legal counsel had been consulted on this question in a Board governance meeting, stating: “we had a governance meeting with the lawyer present and it wasn’t Mr. Pearl, it was Mr. Danforth. The question was asked of the lawyer. If we don’t want the president of the board to be able to communicate the way it says in the bylaws, what do we do? And the answer was you got to amend the bylaws to say that the president can’t do that.” The official recording of the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting open session will confirm Mr. Hills’s exact remarks.

I welcome the constitutional clarity Mr. Hills offered, and I note that the same First Amendment protections apply equally to members of the public who correspond with the Board on matters of public concern, including this request. On the basis of the position articulated by Mr. Hills regarding the Board President’s authority to communicate on behalf of the District in a manner equal to a communication from the Superintendent, I understand President Morgan’s May 14, 2026 reply to my correspondence to constitute an institutional communication on behalf of the Board. I therefore understand the Board’s substantive non-response to the disclosure questions

These standards were not imposed on the current Board by outside authority. They are the District’s own institutional commitments, adopted by prior Boards in the considered exercise of governance responsibility, and inherited by every subsequent Board member upon assumption of office. No current Board member can claim ignorance of these standards. Each current Board member took an oath of office knowing these standards governed their conduct.

A. Adopted Process for Superintendent Recruitment and Selection — BP 2120.

LBUSD Board Policy 2120, adopted September 9, 2021, establishes the District’s adopted process for selecting a Superintendent. The policy provides that “the Board shall establish and implement a search and selection process” that includes consideration of the District’s current and long-term needs, the desired characteristics of a new Superintendent, and the scope of the search including whether to conduct an internal, statewide, or nationwide recruitment. The policy further directs the Board to “hire a professional adviser to facilitate the process of a search for a superintendent,” to establish a salary range and contract elements, to determine “the best methods for advertising the vacancy and recruiting qualified candidates,” to establish a process for screening applications, to determine interview questions and processes, and to determine “how and when candidates’ qualifications will be verified through reference checks.”

BP 2120 further provides that “the Board shall interview preliminary and final candidates in closed session and determine the most likely match for the district.” The plural — “candidates” — is the operative term.

BP 2120 also expressly contemplates an alternative path for circumstances in which immediate operational coverage is required: “As necessary, the Board may appoint an interim superintendent to manage the district during the selection process.”

The District has publicly acknowledged that the prior Superintendent recruitment, which resulted in the selection of Dr. Jason Glass in May 2025, was conducted through a four-month nationwide search process producing approximately 40 applicants, with the assistance of Leadership Associates as the District’s retained executive search firm. The records sought through this request seek to develop a complete record of the Board’s compliance with each enumerated step of BP 2120 in connection with the May 14, 2026 appointment of Mr. Austin.

B. Adopted Provisions Governing the Superintendent’s Contract — BP 2121.

LBUSD Board Policy 2121 governs the form, substance, and termination of the Superintendent’s employment contract. The policy provides, in unconditional terms, that “the Board shall not take action to terminate the Superintendent without cause at a special or emergency meeting of the Board.” The policy further provides that “the Board shall not take action to terminate the Superintendent without cause or within 30 days after the first convening of the Board after an election at which one or more Board members are elected or recalled.”

BP 2121 further specifies that “the maximum cash settlement that the Superintendent may receive upon termination of the contract shall not exceed the Superintendent’s monthly salary multiplied by the number of months left on the contract or the Superintendent’s monthly salary multiplied by 12, whichever is less,” and that “the cash settlement shall not include any noncash items other than health benefits.”

BP 2121 further provides, in unconditional terms, that “copies of any contracts of employment, as well as copies of the settlement agreements, shall be available to the public upon request.”

The records sought through this request will develop a complete factual record of the Board’s compliance with BP 2121 in connection with the May 12, 2026 separation from Dr. Jason Glass.

C. Adopted Evaluation Requirement — BP 2140.

LBUSD Board Policy 2140 provides that “the Board shall annually conduct a formal evaluation of the Superintendent’s performance.” The policy specifies the criteria, schedule, methods, and instruments to be determined with the Superintendent’s input,

. fequires “a single evaluation document that represents the consensus of the Board,” requires that “the Board shall meet in closed session with the Superintendent to discuss the evaluation,” and requires that “the Board president and Superintendent shall sign the evaluation,” which shall be placed in the Superintendent’s personnel file.

Dr. Jason Glass commenced employment on July 1, 2025 and was terminated on May 12, 2026, approximately ten months later. The records sought through this request will establish whether the Board conducted the formal annual evaluation required by BP 2140 prior to the termination action, and the documentary form of any such evaluation. D. Adopted Role of the Board and the Superintendent — BP 2111 and BP 2110.

LBUSD Board Policy 2111 provides that the Superintendent “understands that individual Board members do not have authority to act on behalf of the Board, or to direct staff, and that authority rests with the Board as a whole.” LBUSD Board Policy 2110 designates the Superintendent as “the chief executive officer of the district” and provides that the Superintendent “shall implement all Board decisions and manage the instructional and noninstructional operations of the schools.” BP 2110 further specifies that the Superintendent is “the sole employee hired by the Board,” from which it follows that all other District employees are not direct subordinates of the Board or of any individual Board member. E. Adopted Standards Governing Nonschool Employment by District Employees — BP 4136/4236/4336. LBUSD Board Policy 4136/4236/4336 governs outside employment by District employees, including the Superintendent. The policy provides that “the Governing Board expects all employees to give the responsibility of their positions precedence over any other outside employment.” The policy further provides that an outside activity is automatically considered inconsistent, incompatible, or inimical to district employment when such activity: “1. Requires time periods that interfere with the proper, efficient discharge of the employee’s duties; 2. Entails compensation from an outside source for activities which are part of the employee’s regular duties; 3. Involves using the district’s name, prestige, time, facilities, equipment, or supplies for private gain; 4. Involves service which will be wholly or in part subject to the approval or control of another district employee or Board member.” BP 4136/4236/4336 further provides that “an employee wishing to accept outside employment that may be inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to the employee’s duties shall file a written request with his/her immediate supervisor describing the nature of the employment and the time required.” The records sought through this request will establish whether Mr. Austin has filed the written request required by BP 4136/4236/4336 in connection with his ownership and operation of SimpleWins, and whether the Board, as Mr. Austin’s immediate supervisor under BP 2110, has evaluated each of the four prohibition triggers identified in the policy.

F. Adopted Professional Standards for Educational Leaders — BP 4319.21-E.

LBUSD Board Policy 4319.21-E adopts the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. Standard 5 (Ethics and Integrity) requires that “Education leaders make decisions, model, and behave in ways that demonstrate professionalism, ethics, integrity, justice, and equity and hold staff to the same standard.” The standard requires that “Leaders act upon a personal code of ethics that requires continuous reflection and learning,” that “Leaders guide and support personal and collective actions that use relevant evidence and available research to make fair and ethical decisions,” and that “Leaders recognize and use their professional influence with staff and the community to develop a climate of trust, mutual respect, and honest communication.”

The records sought through this request will establish whether the Board evaluated Mr. Austin against Standard 5 of BP 4319.21-E prior to his appointment.

G. Adopted Conflict of Interest Provisions — BB 9270.

LBUSD Board Bylaw 9270 provides that “no Board member, district employee, or other person in a designated position shall participate in the making of any decision for the district when the decision will or may be affected by the Board member’s, district employee’s, or other designated persons financial, family, or other personal interest or consideration.” BB 9270 further provides that “Board members, employees, or district consultants shall not be financially interested in any contract made by the Board on behalf of the district. ... If a Board member has such a financial interest in a contract made by the Board, the contract is void.”

BB 9270 further designates “Governing Board Members” and the “Superintendent of Schools” as Category 1 disclosure positions under the District’s Conflict of Interest Code.

H. Adopted Communications and Media-Relations Authority — BP 1100 and BP 1112. LBUSD Board Policy 1100 provides that “the Superintendent or designee shall establish Strategies for effective two-way communications between the district and the public,” that “the Superintendent or designee shall provide the Board and staff with communications protocols and procedures to assist the district in presenting a consistent, unified message,” and that “the Superintendent or designee shall utilize a variety of methods to provide information to the public,” including “news releases.” LBUSD Board Policy 1112 specifies that “the Superintendent or designee shall identify the district’s and/or site’s primary media contact to whom all media inquiries shall be

routed,” and enumerates four categories of authorized spokespersons: “the Board president, Superintendent, public information officer, or district communications director.”

BP 1100 contains, at the “Mass Mailings at Public Expense” subsection, a prohibition on District-funded mass mailings (defined as items reaching more than 200 recipients) that feature a Board member by name or photograph and that are “prepared or sent in cooperation, consultation, coordination, or concert with the Board member.”

I. Adopted Standards Governing Public Statements by Board Members — BB 9010. LBUSD Board Bylaw 9010 provides that “all public statements authorized to be made on behalf of the Board shall be made by the Board president or, if appropriate, by the Superintendent or other designated representative.” The bylaw provides that “Board spokespersons shall not disclose confidential information or information received in closed session except when authorized by a majority of the Board,” and that “when speaking to community groups, members of the public, or the media, individual Board members should recognize that their statements may be perceived as reflecting the views and positions of the Board. Board members have a responsibility to identify personal viewpoints as such and not as the viewpoint of the Board.”

J. Adopted Provisions Governing Disclosure of Confidential and Privileged Information — BB 9011.

LBUSD Board Bylaw 9011 provides that “a Board member shall not disclose confidential information acquired during a closed session to a person not entitled to receive such information, unless a majority of the Board has authorized its disclosure.” The bylaw expressly provides that “the Board shall not take any action against any person for disclosing confidential information, nor shall the disclosure be considered a violation of the law or Board policy, when the person is: (1) Making a confidential inquiry or complaint to a district attorney or grand jury concerning a perceived violation of law, including disclosing facts necessary to establish the illegality or potential illegality of a Board action that has been the subject of deliberation during a closed session; (2) Expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of Board action in closed session, including disclosure of the nature and extent of the illegal or potentially illegal action; (3) Disclosing information that is not confidential.”

K. Adopted Provisions Governing Board Member Electronic Communications — BB 9012. LBUSD Board Bylaw 9012 provides that “a majority of the Board shall not, outside of an authorized meeting, use a series of electronic communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board.” The bylaw further provides that “to the extent possible, electronic communications regarding any district-related business shall be transmitted through a district-provided device or account. When any such communication is transmitted through a Board member’s personal device or account, they shall copy the communication to a district electronic storage device for easy retrieval.” L. Adopted Procedures for Closed Session — BB 9321. LBUSD Board Bylaw 9321 provides that the Board “is committed to complying with state open meeting laws and modeling transparency in its conduct of district business.” The bylaw provides that “after the closed session, the Board shall reconvene in open session before adjourning the meeting, and when applicable, shall publicly disclose any action(s) taken in the closed session, the votes or abstentions thereon, and other disclosures.” The bylaw further provides that “agenda items related to district employee appointments and employment shall describe the position to be filled.” BB 9321 further provides that “when an action taken during a closed session involves final approval or adoption of a document such as a contract or settlement agreement, that becomes public upon such approval or adoption, the Superintendent or designee shall provide a copy of the document to any person present at the conclusion of the closed session who submitted a written request.” M. Adopted Governance Standards Generally — BB 9005. LBUSD Board Bylaw 9005 provides that “to maximize Board effectiveness and public confidence in district governance, Board members are expected to govern responsibly and hold themselves to the highest standards of ethical conduct.” Each individual Board member is expected to, among other things, “Keep confidential matters confidential” and “Govern within Board-adopted policies and procedures.” N. Adopted Provisions Governing Administrative Discretion — BP 2210. LBUSD Board Policy 2210 vests in the Superintendent or designee a limited discretion to act “in such situations” not addressed in written policies, or “when immediate action is

necessary to avoid any risk to the safety or security of students, staff, or district property or to prevent disruption of school operations.” This discretion is vested in the Superintendent or designee. The policy does not extend equivalent discretion to the Board or to individual Board members.

O. Synthesis.

The records identified below are sought, in significant part, for the purpose of determining whether and to what extent the actions taken by the Board on May 12, 2026 and May 14, 2026 complied with the District’s own adopted Board Policies and Bylaws. The District is not free to disregard its own duly adopted policies. The public has a substantial interest in knowing whether the District’s actions during this period were consistent with the procedural and substantive commitments the District has made to its community.

Records Requested

In light of the foregoing, I respectfully request the following public records. For records held by individual Board members on personal email accounts or personal devices that concern District business, such records are Personal Account Records within the meaning of this request and are public records subject to disclosure under City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608.

1. Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) — Board Members and Acting Superintendent.

All Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) filings on file with the District, including all schedules, attachments, amendments, and any cover correspondence, for the following individuals, covering the period of each individual’s service on the Board of Education or in their respective District role, through the date of this request:

(a) Howard Hills, Board of Education; (b) Sheri Morgan, Board of Education; (c) Dee Perry, Board of Education; (d) James Kelly, Board of Education; (e) Joan Malczewski, Board of Education; (f) Jason Glass, Ed.D., former Superintendent; (g) Manoj Roychowdhury, Acting Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Business Services; (h) Mr. Austin, including any “assuming office” filing on file and any other Form 700 received in connection with his appointment. This includes annual filings, assuming-office filings, leaving-office filings, and any amendments. Personal residence addresses may be redacted under Government Code section 87206.5. All substantive disclosures on Schedules A through E remain public.

These records are subject to the two-business-day availability requirement of Government Code section 81008. 2. Form 700 Filings During May 2026. All Form 700 filings of any kind received by the District filing officer between May 1, 2026 and the date of this request, including any filed at or in connection with the Board’s May 12, 2026 Special Meeting and the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting. Subject to the two-business-day availability requirement of Government Code section 81008. 3. Section 87105 Disclosures. All disclosures, recusals, or statements made under Government Code section 87105 by any Board member at or in connection with the May 12, 2026 Special Meeting and the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting, including any related entries in the open or closed session minutes, the closed session report-out, and any contemporaneous notes maintained by the Board Secretary or the District’s clerk. 4. Section 1090 Disqualification Records. All Government Code section 1090 disqualification statements, abstentions, or recusal records filed by any Board member in connection with the appointment of Mr. Austin, the prior consideration of Joanne Culverhouse, or any other superintendent-related contract action during the period November 1, 2024 to the date of this request. 5. Form 803 Behested Payment Reports. All Form 803 Behested Payment Reports filed by any current or former Board member under Government Code section 82015 and 2 California Code of Regulations section 18215.3, for the period of each individual’s service on the Board of Education through the date of this request. 6. Closed Session Minutes and Report-Outs. The closed session minutes for the May 12, 2026 and May 14, 2026 Special Meetings, to the extent disclosable under the Brown Act, Government Code section 54957.1, and the full text of the closed session report-outs publicly announced for each meeting, including the specific timestamp within the recording of the open session at which any such report-out was made. 7. The Austin Superintendent Employment Contract.

The Mr. Austin Superintendent employment contract, draft contracts, term sheets, and any related compensation, benefit, or side-letter agreements, including all provisions concerning outside employment, side businesses, paid coaching, paid speaking, paid consulting, or any other outside income, and any provisions concerning post-employment. Pursuant to Board Bylaw 9321 and Board Policy 2121, these records are explicitly subject to immediate public availability.

8. The Glass Separation Agreement.

The Dr. Jason Glass separation agreement, including all settlement documents, release agreements, mutual release agreements, non-disparagement clauses, confidentiality clauses, severance terms, payment terms, benefits continuation, and any side-letter agreements. This includes all drafts, all communications related to the negotiation of the separation, and all documents prepared or received by the District, the Board, or District counsel in connection with the negotiation, drafting, execution, or announcement of the separation. Pursuant to Board Policy 2121, these records are explicitly subject to public availability upon request. This information is also disclosable under Government Code section 53262 and the California Public Records Act.

9. Total Expenditures Related to the Employment of Dr. Jason Glass.

All records reflecting the total expenditures incurred by the District in connection with the recruitment, employment, and separation of Dr. Jason Glass, including:

(a) All invoices, contracts, and payments to Leadership Associates and any other executive search firm, consultant, recruiter, or advisor retained by the District in connection with the recruitment of Dr. Glass;

(b) All compensation paid or payable to Dr. Glass during his employment, including base salary, bonuses, deferred compensation, and any other monetary compensation; (c) All benefits provided to Dr. Glass during his employment, including healthcare, retirement contributions, life insurance, disability insurance, professional development allowances, and any other employment benefits;

(d) All relocation expenses, housing allowances, transportation allowances, or other in-kind compensation provided to Dr. Glass in connection with his employment;

(e) All signing bonuses, retention bonuses, or other one-time payments made to Dr. Glass at the commencement of his employment;

(f) All separation payments, severance amounts, continued healthcare coverage, continued benefits, payment of accrued leave, payment of unused vacation, payment of unused sick time, and any other monetary consideration paid or payable to Dr. Glass in connection with his separation from the District; (g) All legal fees incurred by the District in connection with the recruitment, negotiation, drafting, execution, or announcement of Dr. Glass’s employment contract and separation agreement, including all invoices and billing records from Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo and from Dannis Woliver Kelley relating to these matters; (h) All communications expenses incurred by the District in connection with the announcement of Dr. Glass’s hiring or his separation, including any press release distribution, communications consultant fees, or related costs; (i) Any other public-fund expenditure made by the District in connection with the recruitment, employment, or separation of Dr. Glass during the period January 1, 2024 to the date of this request. If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist. 10. Compliance with BP 2121 in the Termination of Dr. Jason Glass. All records demonstrating the District’s compliance with Board Policy 2121 in connection with the termination of Dr. Jason Glass’s contract, including: (a) Whether the May 12, 2026 Special Meeting at which the termination action was taken was a Regular Meeting or a Special Meeting for purposes of BP 2121; (b) Whether the termination of Dr. Glass was for cause or without cause for purposes of BP 2121; (c) If the termination was without cause, all records reflecting the Board’s analysis of the BP 2121 prohibition on termination without cause at a Special Meeting; (d) The total cash settlement amount paid or payable to Dr. Glass in connection with the termination; (e) The calculation supporting that amount under the BP 2121 maximum cash settlement cap;

(f) Any records reflecting Board action authorizing a settlement amount exceeding the BP 2121 cap; (g) Records establishing the public availability of the Glass settlement agreement pursuant to BP 2121’s explicit provision that “copies of any contracts of employment, as well as copies of the settlement agreements, shall be available to the public upon request.” If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist. 11. Compliance with BP 2140 (Evaluation of the Superintendent) Regarding Dr. Jason Glass. All records of the formal annual evaluation of Dr. Jason Glass conducted by the Board under BP 2140, including: (a) The criteria, schedule, methods, and instruments used for the evaluation; (b) The single consensus evaluation document required by BP 2140; (c) Minutes or notes of any closed session meeting at which the Board met with Dr. Glass to discuss the evaluation; (d) Dr. Glass’s written response to the evaluation, if any; (e) The signed evaluation document signed by the Board President and Dr. Glass; (f) Records of any other performance evaluation conducted by the Board with respect to Dr. Glass, including the evaluation reported in published press coverage as having occurred on February 26, 2026; (g) All communications between Board members regarding the evaluation or evaluations of Dr. Glass. If no formal annual evaluation of Dr. Jason Glass meeting the requirements of BP 2140 was conducted prior to the May 12, 2026 termination action, please state in writing that no such evaluation was conducted. 12. Communications Regarding the Termination of Dr. Jason Glass.

All communications regarding the proposed or actual termination of Dr. Jason Glass’s employment, from January 1, 2026 to the date of this request, by any Board member, the Acting Superintendent, the Board Secretary, or District counsel with Dr. Glass directly, with his attorney, or with any agent acting on his behalf. Communications between Dr. Glass’s counsel and the District are communications with a third party and are not subject to attorney-client privilege belonging to the District.

13. Board Action Items Relating to the Glass Termination.

All Board action items, closed session items, agenda items, and votes relating to the termination, separation, or severance of Dr. Jason Glass, including all attachments, supporting documents, and presentations.

14. Communications with Mr. Austin and SimpleWins.

All communications between the District and Mr. Austin or SimpleWins, from January 1, 2025 to the date of this request. For the avoidance of doubt, this item includes all Personal Account Records held by any Board member.

15. Compliance with BP 4136/4236/4336 (Nonschool Employment) Regarding Mr. Austin.

All records pertaining to compliance with Board Policy 4136/4236/4336 by Mr. Austin in connection with his ownership and operation of SimpleWins, including:

(a) The written request, if any, filed by Mr. Austin with his immediate supervisor describing the nature of his employment with SimpleWins and the time required for that employment;

(b) The supervisor’s written evaluation, if any, of whether such outside employment is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to his duties as Superintendent; (c) Any authorization, conditional authorization, or denial of authorization issued by the Board, the Acting Superintendent, or any other supervisor regarding Mr. Austin’s outside employment with SimpleWins;

(d) Any communications between Mr. Austin and the Board, the Acting Superintendent, the Board Secretary, or District legal counsel regarding the application of BP 4136/4236/4336 to his outside employment;

(e) Any records reflecting the Board’s evaluation of whether SimpleWins’s coaching services to other superintendents and aspiring superintendents are activities that

overlap with Mr. Austin’s regular duties as Superintendent, within the meaning of BP 4136/4236/4336 subparagraph 2;

(f) Any records reflecting the Board’s evaluation of whether SimpleWins’s use of Mr. Austin’s superintendent credentials and reputation for private gain implicates BP 4136/4236/4336 subparagraph 3;

(g) Any records reflecting whether SimpleWins’s services are or have been provided to any Board member, District employee, or other person whose approval or control affects Mr. Austin’s duties, within the meaning of BP 4136/4236/4336 subparagraph 4; (h) Any records reflecting the Board’s evaluation of whether Mr. Austin’s time commitments to SimpleWins interfere with the proper, efficient discharge of his duties as Superintendent, within the meaning of BP 4136/4236/4336 subparagraph 1.

If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist.

16. Communications Regarding Joanne Culverhouse.

All communications between any Board member and Joanne Culverhouse from November 1, 2024 to the date of this request. For the avoidance of doubt, this item includes all Personal Account Records.

17. Records Concerning Mr. Austin and the 2025 Superintendent Search Conducted by Leadership Associates.

All records, in any form, that reference, mention, name, evaluate, assess, vet, screen, score, rank, list, profile, recommend, advise upon, caution about, raise concerns about, or otherwise concern Mr. Austin or SimpleWins, during the period January 1, 2024 to the date of this request, prepared, obtained, used, transmitted, or maintained in connection with the 2025 Superintendent search conducted by the Board through Leadership Associates and any related period. This item includes, without limitation: (a) The engagement letter, retainer agreement, scope of work, fee schedule, and all contractual documents between the District and Leadership Associates, together with all invoices, billing records, and payments to Leadership Associates;

(b) The candidate position description, candidate profile, search criteria, and search timeline developed by Leadership Associates with the Board during the 2025 search;

(c) Any application, resume, curriculum vitae, cover letter, candidate statement, or other submission received from or on behalf of Mr. Austin during the 2025 search;

(d) Any candidate long list, candidate short list, candidate finalist list, candidate semi-finalist list, or other candidate slate prepared by Leadership Associates that includes the name of Mr. Austin;

(e) Any candidate evaluation, candidate assessment, candidate scoring document, candidate ranking, candidate screening assessment, candidate comparison document, or candidate profile prepared by Leadership Associates, by any Board member, or by any other person, concerning Mr. Austin;

(f) Any interview notes, interview score sheets, interview ratings, or interview summary documents concerning Mr. Austin’s participation, if any, in any phase of the 2025 search interview process;

(g) Any reference check record, reference check summary, reference contact log, reference questionnaire, reference response, or reference notes concerning Mr. Austin, including the identity of every person or entity contacted as a reference, the date and form of contact, the questions asked, and the substantive response received;

(h) Any background check record, professional license verification, credential verification, prior employment verification, prior litigation search, news media search, or other due diligence record concerning Mr. Austin prepared during the 2025 search;

(i) Any briefing memorandum, briefing document, executive summary, candidate brief, candidate profile, Board packet, or other briefing material prepared by Leadership Associates for the Board or for any individual Board member that references Mr. Austin; (j) Any progress report, status report, or interim report transmitted by Leadership Associates to the District, the Board, or any individual Board member during the 2025 search that references Mr. Austin;

(k) Any recommendation, written advice, written caution, written concern, written reservation, or other written communication transmitted by Leadership Associates to the District, the Board, or any individual Board member that concerns Mr. Austin or that compares Mr. Austin to other candidates;

(l) Any record of any oral recommendation, oral advice, oral caution, or oral concern communicated by Leadership Associates to the District, the Board, or any individual Board member concerning Mr. Austin, including any meeting notes, meeting agendas, briefing notes, or summaries reflecting such communications;

(m) Any closed session minutes, closed session notes, or closed session report-outs from the Board’s deliberations during the 2025 search that reference Mr. Austin;

(n) Any email, text message, instant message, voicemail, phone call note or log, calendar entry, meeting note, internal memorandum, or other communication between Leadership Associates and the District, the Board, any individual Board member, or District legal counsel that references Mr. Austin or that discusses him as a candidate; (0) Any email, text message, instant message, voicemail, phone call note or log, calendar entry, meeting note, internal memorandum, or other communication between Mr. Austin or SimpleWins and Leadership Associates, the District, the Board, or any individual Board member during the period January 1, 2024 to the date of this request; (p) Any email, text message, instant message, written correspondence, meeting note, or other communication between or among Board members that references Mr. Austin during the period January 1, 2024 to the date of this request.

To the extent records responsive to this item are held by Leadership Associates, the District is required to conduct a reasonable search of records within its possession, custody, or control and to disclose in writing its determination as to whether responsive records held by Leadership Associates are within the District’s possession, custody, or control for purposes of the California Public Records Act. If the District’s determination is that such records are not within its possession, custody, or control, please state the specific factual and contractual basis for that determination, including the relevant provisions of the District’s engagement with Leadership Associates that bear on the District’s right to obtain or control such records.

Personal identifying information of any references contacted, including each reference’s name and direct contact information, may be redacted in accordance with the privacy balancing test under Government Code section 7922.000. However, the substance of each reference response, the date of the communication, the questions or topics addressed, and the institution with which each reference was affiliated shall remain disclosed. Information regarding candidates other than Mr. Austin may be redacted to protect the privacy interests of unsuccessful candidates, provided that the existence and structure of any candidate long list, short list, or finalist list on which Mr. Austin appeared is disclosed.

If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph: (i) that no responsive records exist; (ii) the specific custodians searched to confirm the absence of records, including but not limited to Leadership Associates, individual Board member personal accounts, and the

District’s Human Resources department; (iii) the specific search terms used; (iv) the date on which the search was conducted; and (v) the basis for the District’s conclusion that no responsive records exist. The District’s obligation to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records under Government Code section 7922.530 cannot be discharged without a documented search. 18. Reference Check and Qualification Verification for Mr. Austin (May 2026 Appointment). All records pertaining to the reference check and qualification verification requirements of Board Policy 2120, in connection with the consideration or appointment of Mr. Austin as Superintendent on May 14, 2026, including all reference check records, background check records, vetting records, due diligence records, candidate evaluation records, candidate interview notes, and candidate scoring or ranking records relating to the qualifications, fitness, prior employment, prior conduct, prior litigation history, or professional reputation of Mr. Austin, prepared, obtained, used, or maintained by any Board member, the Superintendent, the Acting Superintendent, the Board Secretary, District legal counsel, or any third-party recruiter, consultant, or advisor. Personal identifying information of references may be redacted while the substance of each reference, the date, and the questions asked are produced. If the District has no records responsive to this item, please state in writing that no responsive records exist. 19. Specific Reference Check Communications (May 2026 Appointment). All communications between any Board member, the Acting Superintendent, the Board Secretary, District legal counsel, or any third-party recruiter, consultant, or advisor, on the subject of references for Mr. Austin in connection with the May 14, 2026 appointment, including any communications with: (a) Any current or former member of the Board of Education of the Palo Alto Unified School District; (b) Any current or former employee or administrator of the Palo Alto Unified School District; (c) Any current or former member of the Board of Education of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District; (d) Any current or former employee or administrator of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District; (e) Any current or former member of the Board of Education or current or former employee or administrator of the Huntington Beach Union High School District, or any other prior employer of Mr. Austin; (f) Any other reference provided by Mr. Austin or contacted in connection with his appointment. If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist.

20. Disclosures by Mr. Austin.

All disclosures made by Mr. Austin to the District, the Board, or any agent of the Board, in connection with his appointment, regarding:

(a) His ownership, management, or other interest in SimpleWins or any related entity; (b) Any outside business, consulting, coaching, speaking, or other income-generating activity in which he is or has been engaged; (c) Any pending, threatened, or recently settled litigation in which he has been or is a named party; (d) Any prior or pending complaint, investigation, or adverse personnel action by a prior employer; (e) The financial terms of his separation from any prior employer, including any non-disparagement, confidentiality, or release provisions that may affect his ability to disclose information to LBUSD.

If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist.

21. Compliance with BP 4319.21-E (Professional Standards) Regarding Mr. Austin.

All records reflecting the Board’s evaluation of Mr. Austin’s compliance with Standard 5 (Ethics and Integrity) of BP 4319.21-E prior to his appointment, including:

(a) Any Board analysis of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Austin’s prior employment history and any settlements or dispositions in which he was named or involved; (b) Any Board analysis of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Austin’s separation from the Palo Alto Unified School District; (c) Any Board analysis of Mr. Austin’s outside business activities through SimpleWins against Standard 5 of BP 4319.21-E; (d) Any documentation that the Board considered or applied Standard 5 (Ethics and Integrity) of BP 4319.21-E in evaluating Mr. Austin’s fitness for appointment.

If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist. 22. Board Materials Prepared for the Austin Consideration. All Board materials, agenda packets, closed session memoranda, briefing documents, or other written materials prepared for or presented to Board members in connection with the consideration of any superintendent candidate, including Mr. Austin, during the period January 1, 2025 to the date of this request. If the District has no records responsive to this item, please state in writing that no responsive records exist. 23. BP 2120 Step-by-Step Compliance Records (May 2026 Appointment).

All records demonstrating the District’s compliance with each step of Board Policy 2120 in connection with the May 14, 2026 appointment of Mr. Austin, including:

(a) Records establishing the search and selection process and the Board’s review of district current and long-term needs, vision, and goals; (b) Records identifying the desired characteristics of the new Superintendent and the Board’s determination of the scope of the search; (c) Contract, retainer, scope of work, and all communications with any professional adviser retained by the Board; (d) Records establishing the salary range and basic elements of the Superintendent’s contract; (e) Records of the methods used to advertise the Superintendent vacancy and recruit qualified candidates, including all postings, listings, press notices, professional association notifications, and outreach communications; (f) All applications, resumes, candidate submissions, candidate communications, and inquiries received in response to any solicitation for the Superintendent position; (g) Records of the process used to screen applications, including identification of the screener or screeners and the criteria applied; (h) The interview questions, interview processes, interview schedules, and identification of every candidate interviewed, including preliminary and final candidates as contemplated by BP 2120; (i) Records verifying the credentials and qualifications of Mr. Austin; (j) Records of any Board visits to the candidate’s current district or prior districts to verify qualifications, as contemplated by BP 2120; (k) Records of Board deliberation in closed session and the open-session report of selection.

If the District has no records responsive to any of subparagraphs (a) through (k), please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist.

24. Agenda-Setting Communications.

All communications between any Board member and any other Board member, the Superintendent, the Acting Superintendent, the Board Secretary, District counsel, or any third party, regarding the inclusion of any superintendent-related closed session item on the agenda for the May 12, 2026 Special Meeting or the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting, for the period January 1, 2026 to the date of this request. This item includes all Personal Account Records.

25. Compliance with BB 9012 (Board Member Electronic Communications).

All records demonstrating compliance by Board members with Board Bylaw 9012 in connection with the May 12, 2026 and May 14, 2026 actions, including:

(a) All electronic communications transmitted by any Board member regarding any superintendent-related matter through a District-provided device or account, for the period January 1, 2026 to the date of this request;

(b) All electronic communications regarding district business transmitted by any Board member through a personal device or account during the same period, that were copied to a District electronic storage device pursuant to BB 9012;

(c) The District’s electronic storage device or system identified for purposes of BB 9012 compliance;

(d) Records identifying any electronic communications regarding district business transmitted by any Board member through personal devices or accounts that were not copied to District storage as required by BB 9012;

(e) Records of any communications between or among a majority of Board members, directly or through intermediaries, that may constitute a serial meeting under Government Code section 54952.2 and BB 9012.

If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist.

26. Communications Referencing the Requester.

All communications, in any form, between or among any Board member, the Acting Superintendent, the Board Secretary, District employees, District legal counsel, or any third party, that reference, mention, discuss, characterize, or respond to (a) Prudence Wyman, also referenced as Prue Wyman or P. Wyman, (b) any communication or correspondence from her, or (c) this records request, including any reference to the surname Wyman in any form, for the period 9:00 a.m. on May 14, 2026 through the date the District completes its production in response to this request. This item includes all Personal Account Records.

27. Payments Involving SimpleWins.

All invoices, contracts, purchase orders, payments, gifts, or reimbursements involving the District and SimpleWins, for the period January 1, 2024 to the date of this request. 28. Conflict of Interest Code.

The current Laguna Beach Unified School District Conflict of Interest Code, including Resolution 21-20 as adopted on November 18, 2021 and any amendments, and the

District’s most recent biennial review of the Code under Government Code section 87306.5.

29. Compliance with BP 1100 and BP 1112 in the May 14 Press Release.

All records pertaining to the District communications authority requirements under Board Policy 1100 and the spokesperson designation requirements under Board Policy 1112, in connection with the May 14, 2026 press release announcing the appointment of Mr. Austin, including:

(a) The press release dated May 14, 2026, issued at approximately 6:29 p.m. via ParentSquare, in its final form;

(b) All drafts, version histories, and metadata associated with each version of the press release;

(c) All communications regarding the preparation, drafting, review, approval, attribution, and distribution of the press release, including identification of every person who drafted, edited, reviewed, approved, or transmitted the release, and the date and time of each such action;

(d) The District’s distribution list and recipient metadata for the ParentSquare and email distribution of the press release;

(e) Records reflecting whether the Mass Mailings at Public Expense provision of BP 1100 was considered or applied in connection with the press release, including whether the release was prepared or sent in cooperation, consultation, coordination, or concert with any Board member.

If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist.

30. Senior Staff Personnel Matters and the Communications Function.

All records and communications, for the period November 5, 2024 to the date of this request, concerning the role, duties, scheduling, supervision, performance evaluation, reassignment, scope of duties, or contemplated personnel action with respect to the Director of Communications and Engagement, the Communications Specialist, or any other LBUSD employee within the District’s communications function, regardless of how such matters are labeled in the responsive records, including any references to “transition,” “alignment,” “restructuring,” “right-sizing,” “reorganization,” or “team change.”

31. Compliance with BB 9010 — Public Statements by Board Members.

All records pertaining to public statements made by any Board member in any media outlet, paid advertisement, social media platform, public meeting, or other public forum, from January 1, 2026 to the date of this request, regarding the May 12, 2026 termination of Dr. Jason Glass or the May 14, 2026 appointment of Mr. Austin, including:

(a) The content of each such public statement:

(b) The capacity in which each such statement was made, including whether the Board member identified the statement as a personal viewpoint pursuant to BB 9010 or whether the statement was authorized by a majority of the Board as the institutional position of the Board;

(c) Any communications between the Board member making such statement and any other Board member, the Acting Superintendent, the Board Secretary, District counsel, District communications staff, or any third party regarding the content, preparation, distribution, or response to any such public statement;

(d) Any records reflecting whether any such public statement disclosed or referenced information acquired during a closed session, in light of BB 9011 and Government Code section 54963.

If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist.

32. Compliance with Board President’s Written Commitment of May 14, 2026.

All records demonstrating the District’s compliance with President Sheri Morgan’s written commitment of May 14, 2026, 9:43 a.m. Pacific Time, in which she stated: “I will bring forward your concerns about the agenda as I circled back several times as I noted originally it was incorrect, and had our legal team direct staff accordingly,” including: (a) The original closed session agenda for the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting referenced by President Morgan as “originally incorrect,” in its initial form;

(b) Any corrected or amended closed session agenda for the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting, including all version histories and metadata;

(c) All communications between President Morgan and the District’s legal team (including but not limited to Mr. Jonathan A. Pearl of Dannis Woliver Kelley) regarding

the May 14, 2026 closed session agenda, including the substance of the direction provided by the legal team to staff;

(d) All communications between President Morgan and District staff regarding the May 14, 2026 closed session agenda, including any direction to the Board Secretary, the Acting Superintendent, or the Communications Director;

(e) All records reflecting how the substantive disclosure questions raised in my correspondence of May 14, 2026 (regarding financial, professional, or client relationships, Form 700 disclosures, Government Code section 1090 disqualification, and compliance with Resolution 21-20) were addressed by the Board, in either open session or closed session;

(f) The Board Secretary’s contemporaneous notes of the May 14, 2026 closed session(s), to the extent maintained;

(g) Any record of the closed session report-out under Government Code section 54957.1 for the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting, including the specific timestamp of any such report-out within the recording of the open session;

(h) Any records reflecting whether the closed session vote appointing Mr. Austin occurred before or after the District’s 6:29 p.m. May 14, 2026 ParentSquare press release announcing the appointment, including the precise time of the closed session vote and the precise time of the press release authorization and distribution.

If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist.

33. Records of Board Governance Meeting Regarding Board President Communication Authority.

All records of the Board governance meeting publicly referenced by Board member Howard Hills in his remarks at the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting open session, at which “Mr. Danforth” attended as legal counsel and at which the Board considered the question of the Board President’s authority to communicate on behalf of the District, including:

(a) The date or dates of the meeting or meetings; (b) The agenda for the meeting or meetings; (c) Meeting minutes, notes, or any other contemporaneous record; (d) Identification of all persons present, including each attending attorney by name and firm affiliation; (e) The legal opinion or advice rendered by Mr. Danforth or any other attorney attending the meeting; (f) Any written memoranda prepared by or for the Board or its

members in connection with the meeting; (g) Any follow-up communications between Board members or between any Board member and counsel regarding the subject matter of the meeting; (h) The engagement letter, retainer agreement, scope of work, or any other contractual document governing the engagement of Mr. Danforth, including identification of Mr. Danforth’s firm and the date of engagement.

To the extent any record is withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege, please provide a privilege log identifying each withheld record by date, author, recipient, subject matter, and the specific basis for the privilege claim. The District is on notice that the substance of the legal advice received was voluntarily disclosed in open session by Mr. Hills, and the District should evaluate the extent to which any subject-matter waiver of privilege has occurred. If the District has no records responsive to any subparagraph of this item, please state in writing for each specific subparagraph that no responsive records exist.

34. Teacher Listening Sessions Report with President Morgan.

The teacher listening sessions report referenced in the public record of the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting, including all related underlying records: notes of each listening session, attendance records, the analytical findings, the final report document, and all communications between Board members or between any Board member and the District’s legal counsel regarding the report. If the District has no records responsive to this item, please state in writing that no responsive records exist.

35. District Outside Legal Counsel — Engagement and Transition.

All records concerning the District’s engagement of outside legal counsel during the period January 1, 2020 to the date of this request, including:

(a) The current engagement letter, retainer agreement, or other agreement between the District and Dannis Woliver Kelley, including all amendments, scope of representation, billing rate schedules, and any conflicts disclosures;

(b) Any prior engagement letter, retainer agreement, or other agreement between the District and Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, including all amendments;

(c) The date the District’s engagement of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo concluded, or the current status of that engagement; (d) The date the District’s engagement of Dannis Woliver Kelley commenced;

(e) The Board action item, vote, or other authorization for the engagement of Dannis Woliver Kelley;

(f) Records of any Request for Proposals, solicitation, competing bids, selection committee documents, or other competitive process used to select outside legal counsel for the District;

(g) All communications between any Board member, the Superintendent, the Acting Superintendent, the Board Secretary, and either Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo or Dannis Woliver Kelley regarding the transition of outside legal counsel.

36. Outside Legal Counsel — Billing Records.

All invoices, statements, and billing records from the District’s outside legal counsel for the period January 1, 2024 to the date of this request, including attorney time entries, hourly rates, expense entries including travel, and matter descriptions, with attorney-client privileged content redacted only as necessary in accordance with Government Code section 7927.700, accompanied by a privilege log identifying each redaction. Pursuant to County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, billing records are not categorically privileged, although specific entries that reveal confidential attorney-client communications may be redacted with privilege log support.

37. Board Action Items Approving Outside Legal Counsel.

All Board action items, Board votes, and meeting minutes approving the engagement of the District’s outside legal counsel or authorizing payments to such counsel, for the period January 1, 2020 to the date of this request.

Records Relating to the May 14, 2026 Meeting Recording

I separately request the following records relating to the recording, editing, hosting, and retention of the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting video. These items are independent obligations under Government Code section 54953(b)(3), the District’s records retention obligations under Education Code section 35254 and 5 California Code of Regulations sections 16020 et seq., and Government Code section 34090.

38. Original Unedited Meeting Recording.

The complete original unedited audio and video recording of the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting, as captured by the District’s recording equipment or its designated vendor at the time the meeting was held. The District’s obligation to retain and produce the

original is independent of any subsequent decision by YouTube or any other hosting platform to remove, age-restrict, or otherwise alter access to a posted copy.

39. Edited or Modified Versions of the Meeting Recording.

Any and all edited, redacted, abridged, or otherwise modified versions of the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting recording, in any format, hosted on any platform, including but not limited to the District’s website, YouTube, ParentSquare, or any other distribution channel.

40. Communications Regarding Editing of the Recording.

All communications, in any form, between any persons regarding any modification, editing, redaction, removal, or re-posting of the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting recording. For the avoidance of doubt, “any persons” includes:

(a) Any Board member; (b) Any District employee, administrator, or contractor; (c) Any attorney representing or advising the District; (d) Any third-party vendor responsible for recording, hosting, editing, or distributing the meeting video, including any platform host; (e) Any individual or organization whose comments, words, image, statements, or appearance were edited, removed, redacted, or altered from the recording; (f) Any individual, organization, or member of the public, of any affiliation, who contacted the District, through any channel, requesting or recommending that any portion of the recording be edited, modified, removed, or re-posted.

41. Specific Identification of Each Edit.

A complete and specific identification of every edit made to the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting recording, including:

(a) The identity of every individual who made, authorized, requested, or approved each edit; (b) The date and time of each edit; (c) The specific portion of the recording edited, identified by timestamp in the original unedited recording; (d) The verbatim content of every word, statement, image, or audio segment removed, redacted, altered, or otherwise modified, as it appeared in the original unedited recording; (e) The stated reason for each edit, including any document, communication, or instruction relied upon to authorize the edit; (f) Whether any individual or organization outside the District requested, recommended, or otherwise initiated the edit, and the identity of any such individual or organization.

This item does not require the creation of new records. The information requested is identifiable from a comparison of the original unedited recording requested in item 38

with the edited version or versions requested in item 39, supplemented by any communications regarding the edits identified in item 40.

42. Legal Advice Regarding Editing of the Recording.

All legal advice, written opinions, memoranda, communications, instructions, or directives provided by or to the District’s outside legal counsel, in-house counsel, or any other attorney, regarding the editing, redaction, modification, removal, or re-posting of any portion of the May 14, 2026 Special Meeting recording. To the extent any such record is withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege, please provide a privilege log identifying each withheld record and the basis for the privilege claim.

43. Platform Notifications Regarding the Recording.

Any notification received by the District from YouTube or any other hosting platform regarding any community guidelines violation, terms of service issue, removal, age restriction, demonetization, or other adverse action taken with respect to the May 14 meeting recording.

44. District Retention Policies for Meeting Recordings.

The District’s adopted policies, procedures, retention schedule, and any written guidance governing the recording, retention, editing, posting, and removal of public meeting recordings, including any policy adopted under Government Code section 54953(b)(3) or the District’s Records Retention Schedule under 5 California Code of Regulations sections 16020 et seq.

45. Failsafe Statement Regarding Original Recording.

If the District does not have a copy of the original unedited recording in its possession, custody, or control, a written statement explaining when the recording was last in the District’s possession, who had custody of it, when and how it was lost, deleted, or destroyed, and on whose authority that occurred.

Format, Process, and Timelines

Electronic copies in PDF and standard video format (MP4 or equivalent) are preferred, delivered by email to this address.

For Form 700 records identified in items 1 and 2, the District is required to make these records available no later than the second business day following the day on which they were received by the filing officer, pursuant to Government Code section 81008.

For records subject to the immediate-availability provisions of BB 9321 (closed-session documents that become public upon Board approval) and BP 2121 (Superintendent employment contracts and settlement agreements), the District’s own adopted policies require production without delay. For all other records, the District is required to determine within ten days whether the request seeks disclosable records under Government Code section 7922.535(a). Any extension claimed under section 7922.535(b) for unusual circumstances must be Supported in writing identifying the specific basis for the extension and the date by which the determination will be made. In light of this request, the District is on notice of its obligation to preserve all responsive records, including communications on personal devices and personal accounts. Any destruction, deletion, or alteration of responsive records following receipt of this request may constitute spoliation of evidence under California law, a violation of California Penal Code section 135, and a violation of the District’s records retention obligations under Government Code section 34090 and Education Code section 35254. For any record withheld or redacted in whole or in part, please provide: (a) The specific statutory exemption justifying the withholding or redaction, identified by section number; (b) A privilege log identifying each withheld or redacted document by date, author, recipient, subject matter, and the specific privilege or exemption claimed; (c) The factual basis for any deliberative process or balancing test invoked under Government Code section 7922.000 et seq. Please confirm receipt of this request in writing within one business day. Notice of Protected Activity Framework Affecting LBUSD Senior Staff In addition to the protected activity status of this request itself, the District is hereby placed on formal written notice of the legal framework governing any personnel action that may be contemplated or taken with respect to LBUSD senior staff during the pendency of this request or in any period reasonably proximate thereto. A. Applicable Statutes and Doctrines. The following statutes and doctrines prohibit retaliation against public employees who have engaged in, are perceived to have engaged in, or may in the future engage in protected activity, including the disclosure of information concerning matters of public concern, the provision of information to public

records requesters or to the press, the giving of public comment at Board meetings, and the refusal to participate in conduct an employee reasonably believes to be unlawful: (1) California Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 1102.6, including the perceived-whistleblower and anticipatory-retaliation provisions of section 1102.5(b), under which an employer “shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information,” and including the contributing-factor framework and clear-and-convincing employer burden established by Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703;

(2) California Education Code section 44113, the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act;

(3) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to public employees on matters of public concern;

(4) Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution.

B. LBUSD Senior Staff Covered. For purposes of this notice, “LBUSD senior staff” includes, but is not limited to, the Acting Superintendent, all Assistant Superintendents, all Principals, all Directors and Coordinators, all classified employees serving in communications, instructional, or operational functions, any LBUSD employee whose duties have been materially altered during the period from November 5, 2024 to the date of this request, and any LBUSD employee whom the District perceives or has reason to believe may have communicated, or may communicate, with the requester, with any third party, or with any oversight body concerning the subject matter of this request, regardless of whether the employee actually has so communicated.

C. Documented Pattern of Communications Function Authority. The District’s adopted policies require that the Communications Director be one of the four authorized spokespersons under BP 1112 and that the Superintendent or designee establish communications protocols under BP 1100. The May 14, 2026 press release announcing the appointment of Mr. Austin was a District-funded mass communication, distributed through ParentSquare and other District channels to over 200 recipients. The District is on notice that any restructuring of the role of the Director of Communications and Engagement, or any other staff member whose statutory function under BP 1100, BP 1112, or any other adopted policy may be curtailed, constitutes a personnel action subject to the legal framework set forth in this section.

D. Anti-Coercion Notice. Any communication from the District, any Board member, the Acting Superintendent, the Board Secretary, District counsel, or any other agent of the District, to any LBUSD employee covered by this notice, that seeks to identify, interrogate, or determine whether the employee has communicated with the requester or with any third party concerning the subject matter of this request, or that seeks to encourage, induce, suggest, or pressure that individual to make any public or private Statement concerning protected activity, or that otherwise seeks to interfere with the employee’s exercise of protected activity, may itself constitute prohibited retaliation or prohibited interference with protected activity under one or more of the statutes cited above. The requester will treat any such communication, if it occurs, as additional evidence of retaliatory motive.

E. Burden-Shifting Framework. Under Lawson v. PPG and Labor Code section 1102.6, a plaintiff in a whistleblower retaliation action under Labor Code section 1102.5 need establish only by a preponderance of the evidence that protected activity was a contributing factor in any adverse personnel action, after which the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the action would have been taken for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected activity. Any adverse personnel action taken against any LBUSD employee covered by this notice, during the pendency of this request or in any period reasonably proximate thereto, will be evaluated against this framework and the documentary record this request will produce.

F. District Policy Reinforcement — BP 4118 and BP 4218. The protections set forth above are reinforced by the District’s own adopted policies. LBUSD Board Policy 4118 prohibits the suspension, discipline, reassignment, transfer, dismissal, or other retaliation against any certificated employee solely for engaging in protected activities, and requires not less than 90 days written notice before the filing of any suspension or dismissal notice premised on unsatisfactory performance, and not less than 45 days written notice before the filing of any such notice premised on unprofessional conduct, with disciplinary authority placed with the Superintendent. LBUSD Board Policy 4218 prohibits the same forms of retaliation against any classified employee, and requires, for permanent classified employees, the procedural protections established in Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194. G. Board Member Disclosure Protections — BB 9011. The District’s adopted Board Bylaw 9011 expressly provides that “the Board shall not take any action against any person for disclosing confidential information, nor shall the disclosure be considered a violation of the law or Board policy” when the person is making a confidential inquiry or complaint to a district attorney or grand jury concerning a perceived violation of law, expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of Board action in closed

session, or disclosing information that is not confidential. The District’s adoption of BB 9011 is on the record, and the District is on notice that its provisions apply by their terms to any Board member exercising the rights they describe. H. Requester’s Capacity. The requester acts solely in her individual Capacity as a parent and a private citizen exercising rights guaranteed by the California Constitution and the California Public Records Act. The requester is not authorized to speak for, and does not purport to speak for, any LBUSD employee. The requester is placing the District on notice of the legal framework that will govern any future personnel action affecting LBUSD employees within the categories described above. The protections invoked are public-policy protections that exist by operation of law for the benefit of California public employees and the public interest in transparent government; they are not contingent on the request, consent, or endorsement of any individual employee. I. Request for Legal Counsel Review. Given the legal framework set out in this section, the requester respectfully requests that the District review this request through legal counsel and that any personnel action affecting LBUSD senior staff during the pendency of this request or in any period reasonably proximate thereto be evaluated against this framework with the advice of legal counsel. J. Referral Reservation. The requester reserves all rights to refer any conduct inconsistent with the protections cited above to the California Attorney General, the Orange County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, the California Department of Industrial Relations, the Orange County Department of Education, the Fair Political Practices Commission, the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, and any other appropriate oversight body. Protected Activity This request is made in good faith, in support of transparent governance, and in furtherance of my child’s interest in attending a school district governed in accordance with California law. The right to inspect public records is a constitutional right under Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution. This request is protected speech and petition activity under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, and Civil Code section 47. Any retaliation, intimidation, or attempt to characterize this lawful request as harassment, smear, defamation, or improper interference with Board functions will be documented and addressed accordingly, including, if necessary, by complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission, the California Attorney General under Government

Code sections 7923.000 et seq., the Orange County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, and through civil action under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988. The protected activity status of this request and the protected activity framework affecting LBUSD senior staff set forth above are independent and cumulative.

Counsel for the District

I respectfully note that legal counsel paid from public funds entrusted to the District represents the Laguna Beach Unified School District as an institution under California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.13, not individual Board members in their personal capacities. Any response on District letterhead or from District counsel will, I trust, reflect the District’s institutional position. If the District wishes to characterize this request, or any related civic engagement, as anything other than a lawful exercise of public records rights, I would appreciate confirmation that such characterization has been authorized as the institutional position of the District rather than as a defense of any individual Board member’s personal interest.

Conclusion

The District commits multi-year executive compensation, separation arrangements, and other significant public expenditures through decisions made in closed session. The termination of one Superintendent on May 12, 2026, and the appointment of another on May 14, 2026, in compressed timeframes, require complete and well-documented records of the disclosures, vetting, and deliberation that supported each decision. The standards the District has set for itself, in its own Board Policies and Bylaws and in its Conflict of Interest Code, call for transparency and the highest ethical conduct in such matters. This request is a routine and lawful means by which a parent and member of the public seeks to confirm that those standards have been met for the benefit of the children and families this District serves.

I look forward to the District’s prompt and complete compliance with the timelines and obligations set out above.

If you made it to the end, thank you. I appreciate your commitment to the betterment of our schools.

For months, the Laguna Beach High School graduation fight was framed as a debate over tradition, scenery, and who gets to define what a “real” Laguna graduation should look like.

The federal filing from today, June 2, makes it harder to dismiss as sentimental parent drama. LBUSD now faces a civil rights case alleging the move to the Irvine Bowl may exclude disabled family members from attending graduation on equal terms, and the part I cannot get past is how avoidable this feels.

I said during public comment that the board was forming a dangerous precedent by interfering in operational decisions that should be left to those running schools. Graduation logistics involve staffing, transportation, student supervision, safety, facilities, family needs, emergency planning, and legal compliance. When a board majority forces an operational change before these factors are fully evaluated, the consequences do not stay on the dias.

According to the court filing, the LBUSD Board of Education voted 3-2 on February 26 to relocate graduation from Guyer Field to the Irvine Bowl without first conducting a formal ADA accessibility evaluation. The filing says that omission was later confirmed through the district’s response to a Public Records Act request submitted on March 11 and answered on April 2.

The ADA building standards did not change after 2019 in some way that surprised everyone. For the physical seating and access issues raised in this case, the relevant federal baseline is still the 2010 ADA Standards, including requirements for wheelchair spaces, companion seating, accessible routes, and seating dispersion in assembly areas. This means the issue is not that LBHS used the Irvine Bowl before, but that they made a new decision in 2026 to relocate graduation back there. The decision should have triggered an accessibility review at the time, before the board voted.

The predictable defense will be that the Irvine Bowl hosts the Festival of Arts and Pageant of the Masters, so it must be fine. However, a ticketed cultural event run by another organization is not the same as a public school district choosing a venue for an official graduation. The legal issue is not whether the Irvine Bowl can host events; it is whether LBUSD can hold a district-run graduation there and still meet its regulatory obligations to disabled students, families, and guests.

Once a public school district uses a venue for a school-sponsored event, the federal accessibility obligation follows the program. LBUSD cannot shift that responsibility to the Irvine Bowl’s operator or rely on the venue’s private-event history as a substitute for its own compliance review.

The allegations are also not limited to the question of whether a few wheelchair spaces exist. The Irvine Bowl provides only 11 designated wheelchair-accessible spaces and 12 companion seats for a venue with a capacity of 2,600. Those spaces are clustered in three areas in a steep hillside amphitheater rather than dispersed throughout. Paths from the parking and drop-off areas to the entrance are steep and irregular, and movement inside entails navigating sharply graded terrain.

So when someone says, “But there is wheelchair seating!” that does not answer the actual concern. Equal access means disabled family members can enter the venue, move through it, sit with family members, and experience graduation with the same basic dignity as everyone else. It is not enough to point at a handful of spaces and declare the problem solved.

The district already had a recent, known option. Graduation had been held at LBHS for at least the previous five years, and Guyer Field has sufficient accessible seating for users of mobility-assistance devices and their companions. The filing also alleges that Superintendent Dr. Jason Glass stated at a PTA Council meeting that if LBUSD were required to change even a week before graduation, it would be “no problem” because the district could “easily pivot” back to Guyer Field.

Sources familiar with the matter say an emergency injunction hearing is expected this Friday, June 5. Unless the docket confirms it, I would call it expected rather than formally set.

There may be defenses, and our district will have a chance to respond. However, our governance problem is already sitting in plain sight. Some will say this is political, but that does not answer the question of accessibility. Some will say graduation used to be held at the Irvine Bowl, but prior use does not replace a legally required, current evaluation. Some will say moving back now would cost money and staff time, but staff time is exactly why this should not have been rammed through as a board-driven venue change in the first place.

This is what happens when board members confuse oversight for control.

Oversight in this matter would have meant that the board had conducted the appropriate evaluations before making a decision. Control means forcing the decision first and leaving staff, students, families, and now attorneys to deal with what was missed.

There is no satisfaction in watching a warning become a lawsuit. I am only frustrated because this was foreseeable, avoidable, and exactly the kind of governance failure I was told not to worry about.

Graduation should have been the easy part. Instead, LBUSD is facing the consequences of a board majority that pushed into operations before the full picture was clear.

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

Every superintendent transition has a version that looks perfectly reasonable in the final agenda packet because the board has authority, the contract is public, the public can comment, the vote happens in open session, and the press release arrives polished with the familiar language of stability, continuity, and moving forward.

The question is whether the final agenda reflects the actual process, or only the public-facing end of a process that began elsewhere.

Oakland Unified recently gave the state of California a public example of how quickly a superintendent transition can become a trust crisis when the community believes the real decision was decided behind closed doors. While Oakland is larger, messier, and faces problems that Laguna Beach does not, we should heed the warning as a community because the controversy focused on secrecy.

In Oakland, Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell had her contract extended through 2027. Eight months later, the board moved to end her tenure early through what was announced as a voluntary separation agreement, following a 4-3 split. The effect was immediate; closed-session concerns, community outrage, and criticism that the board had done more behind closed doors than it disclosed.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, one Oakland board member said the board had discussed Johnson-Trammell’s future in closed session and taken a straw vote even though the item was allegedly discussion only, and the ACLU of Northern California later criticized the board over alleged Brown Act issues involving closed-session activity around her departure, a separation agreement, and a superintendent search while the public was told no final action had been taken.

The superintendent left, but the instability did not, as Oakland then appointed Denise Saddler as interim superintendent for the 2025-26 school year. Later, it was reported that there was community frustration over delays in the superintendent search, the unexplained suspension of a $150,000 search contract, and ongoing leadership uncertainty amid a fiscal crisis.

Again, I want to emphasize Laguna Beach is not Oakland Unified. Our school district is smaller, more stable, and we went through a superintendent search less than a year ago, but it is hard to watch Oakland’s chaos and then look at Laguna without noticing the shared concern that the public is being asked to accept the end of a process while still having basic questions about when it began.

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

The June 4th LBUSD Board Meeting agenda includes “Discussion and Applicability of Board Policy 2120,” LBUSD’s superintendent recruitment and selection policy, before closed session for superintendent appointment and labor negotiations, followed by open-session approval of contracts for the interim superintendent and Dr. Don Austin.

That agenda language does not feel accidental, because the Board did not simply agendize “superintendent appointment” or “superintendent search,” it agendized the “applicability” of BP 2120, which suggests the Board is preparing to explain either how the policy applies to what it has already done or why the full policy does not require the current search process the community might expect.

The likely argument is already visible: LBUSD completed a superintendent search less than a year ago, Leadership Associates served as the independent search firm, the community gave input on the desired qualities and needs of the district, Dr. Don Austin was included somewhere in that vetted pool, and because the Board majority believes those district needs have not materially changed, it can rely on that prior process instead of starting over.

That is probably why “applicability” is on the agenda, because the Board majority’s likely move is to say BP 2120 was satisfied through the prior search, the Board retained its authority to hire, closed session was the proper place to discuss appointment, contract negotiations were properly handled, and the public contract vote is happening in open session.

That is the strongest version of their case, and it is true: BP 2120 gives the Board direct responsibility for selecting and employing the superintendent, and California law gives boards room to deliberate in closed session when the Brown Act allows it.

However, I think that leaves a very low standard for a decision this important.

BP 2120 is supposed to be LBUSD’s own guardrail, and while it gives the Board authority to select and employ the superintendent, it also says that when a vacancy needs to be filled, the Board shall establish and implement a search and selection process that includes district needs, desired characteristics, search scope, internal and external candidates, stakeholder involvement, advertising and recruitment, screening, interviews, reference checks, and transition planning.

A prior search may explain how Dr. Austin entered LBUSD’s orbit, but it does not explain why he was not selected then or why he is the choice now, whether the Board reopened the process, completed updated reference checks, whether Leadership Associates had any current role, if anyone else was considered, or if his changed professional circumstances after Palo Alto were evaluated.

A lot has changed for Dr. Austin since he was likely vetted, and his departure from Palo Alto does not appear to be the sort of quiet, universally celebrated exit that can be tied with a gold bow and politely ignored while the Board tells everyone that last year’s vetting still answers today’s questions.

The February timeline is where the explanation starts to strain. If the February 20 departure date for Dr. Austin’s is correct, then just six days later, on February 26, LBUSD held an unscheduled closed-session review of Dr. Glass. After that, future closed-session agenda items reportedly avoided using the superintendent job title until Dr. Glass was removed on May 12.

If the Board’s answer on Thursday is essentially “last year’s search still counts,” then the follow-up needs to be immediate: did it count as background or did it count as the actual search for this appointment?

That question is not an attack on Don Austin’s qualifications, because by all accounts, he is qualified: he knows Laguna schools and this community, and it is reassuring that someone with that history would want to come back.

My concern is the route that brought him here. Sheri Morgan’s description of “securing and appointing Don” as a win for the district, made before the Board had publicly considered and approved his contract, only feeds the perception that the decision had already happened and that the public process was being arranged around it.

If BP 2120 was followed, the Board should explain exactly how, including what was satisfied last year, what was revisited this year, if Leadership Associates had any current role, if updated reference checks were completed after Palo Alto, when Austin became an active candidate, why he was not selected in the prior search, and why he is the right person now.

Those are not combative questions, even if this Board majority treats basic public accountability like an ambush.

There is one California counterexample worth acknowledging, because in San Diego Unified, Superintendent Bill Kowba announced his retirement on February 26, 2013, and the next day the board appointed Cindy Marten, then an elementary school principal, without a traditional search process or community input, in a move described as highly unusual and virtually unheard of.

San Diego’s gamble did not collapse because Marten served for years as superintendent and later became U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education, making it the standalone example I found of a board that skipped the cleaner path and still landed on its feet.

Perhaps Laguna Beach can become the second example, and Dr. Austin will be strong enough that people eventually stop caring how this Board majority brought him back. He has a lot to do, even with his familiarity with Laguna and his ability to lead, and needs to do what this Board has so far failed to do: calm the district down and restore some confidence that competent people are in charge.

But “the outcome may be good enough to bury the process” is not the transparency standard this Board majority promised, and after everything LBUSD has already been dragged through, families, staff, students, and taxpayers should not be asked to accept a governance gamble dressed up as a policy discussion.

The Board may be complying with the law, but the community is entitled to more than the bare minimum.

Sources

• LBUSD Board Meeting Agenda Packet, June 4, 2026

• LBUSD Board Policy 2120

• California Government Code section 54953

• California Government Code section 54957

• EdSource, “Palo Alto Unified Superintendent Don Austin, board agree to part ways.”

• San Francisco Chronicle, “Civil rights attorneys slam Oakland school board over alleged ‘backroom deals’ to oust superintendent.”

• San Diego Union-Tribune, “Board picks principal as Unified’s new leader.”

• Emails from LBUSD President Sheri Morgan regarding the superintendent transition.

More reading…

Laguna Beach Unified had a complex healthcare contribution issue that required review, correction, legal analysis, and stronger internal controls because employee contributions were not set in accordance with the collective bargaining agreements, and the district paid more than it should have under those agreements.

No one serious should pretend it is nothing, or argue the district should have ignored it. Anytime public funds are involved and agreements are not followed, people have a right to be concerned and expect accountability. But a real issue is not the same as a scandal; a compliance problem is not the same as corruption; and a benefits-administration error is not proof that teachers stole from students.

The independent review by Michael Bishop & Associates examined healthcare spending, spending variances, compliance with collective bargaining agreements, internal controls, and recommendations for correction. It identified contribution issues that needed to be addressed, but the conclusion on whether the lack of compliance constituted impropriety required legal review, which was not part of their final recommendations.

Howard did not stay in his lane.

He took the issue and turned it into the thing he had been waiting for. It became proof, at least in his mind, of problems with staff oversight, union involvement, prior board leadership, and district communications.

And when the facts were not enough to create the level of outrage he wanted, Howard built the outrage himself.

He did not just ask questions in public, review the audit, and follow protocol. He wrote the frame, paid to push it, praised those repeating it, complained that the press was not buying it, and then wrote that the group needed unofficial press coordination on the issue.

Howard can call critics “illiterate” if he wants, but the First Amendment is not hard to understand. He has the right to speak, write, criticize, buy ads, and argue his version of events as loudly as he wants. But constitutional protection is not the same thing as ethical conduct, and having the right to do something does not mean a sitting trustee should use paid ads, outside messengers, and unofficial press coordination to pressure the district he was elected to govern.

The story is no longer simply about the healthcare issue; it is about what Howard did with it.

Start with the number because it was the hook.

Howard keeps using $1.77 million because it sounds like a scandal and is big enough to scare people before they understand what actually happened. But according to the independent audit and the district’s board documents, the corrective action number the district proceeded with was about $1.04 million. Spread across the years at issue, that comes to roughly $173k per year. Against about $87.5 million in planned annual spending, that is about 0.2% of one year’s spending.

While that is not nothing, it is also not the district-defining financial collapse Howard needed it to be.

At the December 16, 2025 meeting, the district reported a cumulative overpayment of $1.04 million, and the superintendent recommended that the district absorb it from district funds. The presentation also made it clear that the option would not affect employees or claw anything back from them. The board accepted that corrective-action path. For the community, that should have narrowed the issue to implementation, controls, and preventing the error from happening again.

But for Howard, closure was never useful. The useful outcome was leverage.

One of the most dishonest parts of this whole thing is how Howard’s narrative keeps returning to our teachers and staff, even though they did not set the rates, design the contribution structure, or decide how the district administered those benefits.

Howard was not the one who uncovered a secret scheme. The issue came to light through district review, staff questions, and Dr. Glass’ public disclosure, meaning the people Howard’s narrative blames were part of the system that first surfaced the problem.

A responsible board member could have said that the district found an issue, that the district needs to correct it, that employees should not be punished for a district-administered error, and that stronger controls are needed in the future.

Howard chose something else.

He kept pressing, kept escalating, kept using the bigger number, and kept aiming the story toward staff, unions, former board members, and anyone connected to the version of LBUSD he had already decided was broken.

Once Howard decided he had found something rotten, corrupt, and intentional, everything else had to bend around it. If staff explained the issue carefully, they were spinning. If Dr. Glass stayed within lawful and process boundaries, he was protecting the “broken” system. If the audit did not go as far as Howard wanted, he went further anyway. If the accurate number was less useful than the inflated one, he kept using the bigger one. If employees did nothing wrong, they still became part of the story.

That is not oversight. It is an obsession with a target.

Howard did not need the district to fix the problem as much as he needed the district to validate his version of the problem, and when Dr. Glass would not do that, the relationship shifted.

Howard’s posture toward Dr. Glass only worked while Howard believed Glass might become useful to him, useful in taking apart the old story of LBUSD, validating Howard’s theory that the district was broken, and turning a compliance issue into the public prosecution Howard had wanted.

But Dr. Glass kept pulling the discussion back to process, law, role clarity, legal review, and actual governance. Howard wanted the district to validate the board majority’s theory of control. Dr. Glass would not turn staff into villains just because Howard needed villains. He would not turn district communications into Howard’s personal press shop, nor take a real issue and inflate it into the scandal Howard had already decided it was.

Once that became clear, the posturing faded.

When Dr. Glass’ separation was announced, Howard did not seem like a trustee grieving another destabilizing leadership change in a district that had already been through too much. He looked like someone who believed he had won.

That moment stayed with me because Howard did not need Dr. Glass to fix LBUSD; he needed Dr. Glass to support his goal in taking the district apart in the name of saving it.

Healthcare became the biggest weapon, but it was not the first sign of the pattern. By early 2026, the same majority dynamics were emerging around agenda control, public comment placement, governance processes, and operational decisions that staff and site leaders should have handled.

The voting records show repeated 3-2 splits in which Hills, Morgan, and Perry formed the majority, including the January 22, 2026 vote granting the board president final approval to post and propose the agenda for the board’s adoption.

Howard pushes, Sheri aligns, Dee makes it a majority, and then the public is told this is just governance.

But governance is not the same thing as control, and oversight is not the same thing as trying to run the district from the dais.

By April, Howard’s own words connected the pieces.

In an email titled “CONFIDENTIAL: Unofficial Communications Management,” Howard wrote to Sheri Morgan, Steve McIntosh, George Weiss, Kate McMahon, and Michele Monda about the frustration of not convincing the press, Steve’s op-eds, the full-page ads, and the need for someone “coordinating press.” He also said that even if the district obtained official communications support, they still needed a community-based team to manage issues with the unofficial press.

That is not a random community concern. It is a sitting trustee discussing an unofficial communications operation around district business, with the board president and outside allies included.

It also explains why the same story kept showing up everywhere. Howard funds the ads in the Indy, Steve writes the letters, George boosts the claims, the public hears the same accusations from multiple directions, and Howard then points back to the noise as if it proves the community is demanding answers.

But the noise did not come from nowhere. Howard built it.

Sensible Laguna (founded by Gary Kasik, Steve McIntosh, and Steve Brown) endorsed Howard, and Steve McIntosh later became one of the outside messengers Howard praised by name. George Weiss amplified the same claims on Substack. Howard’s paid advertisements are part of that record, too. They were not neutral civic updates. They were full-page ads under the FUTURE banner that praised the new board majority, attacked FUEL, criticized district leadership, repeated claims about healthcare overpayments, and blurred the line between Howard as a private advocate and Howard as an elected trustee.

And the people accusing everyone else of bias were standing awfully close to Howard’s own messaging machine.

That does not mean every person who agreed with Howard was directed by him, nor does it mean community members cannot write letters, publish posts, support candidates, or criticize the district. Of course they can. But when a sitting trustee names the op-eds, ads, and people, complains about the press, and asks for someone to coordinate communications, the public can ask whether the outrage came first or whether Howard built it himself.

I want to be clear about my own role in this. No one told me to start writing about LBUSD, no board member feeds me materials, and I am not taking direction from FUEL or any other organization. I started paying closer attention because of Howard’s conduct, and use sources such as public records, board materials, meeting videos, public comments, contracts, filings, and my own experience as a parent watching this district.

That is the distinction Howard’s side keeps trying to erase. Parents talking to each other is not the same thing as a trustee building a communications loop. Community members reading public records is not the same thing as an elected official feeding a narrative through ads, letters, Substack posts, and then pointing back to the noise as proof of public demand.

For all of this work and claims that “the community” is demanding this crusade continue, it keeps coming back to the same small circle of people repeating the same claims in the same places. The fact that the campaign has not caught fire as Howard clearly wanted would almost be funny if the consequences were not falling on teachers and staff.

The outrage campaign may not be persuading the broader community, but it is still landing on the people inside the district who have to work under it every day. The constant focus on this issue, the suspicion directed at teachers and staff, and the loss of trust in district leadership create an atmosphere that trickles down into classrooms. Students are affected when morale is low, and teachers and staff are distracted by controversy rather than fully supported in their day-to-day work.

And Howard’s fixation is not just rhetorical when bargaining is on the table.

His April email suggested that, with or without action by the DA, the county, or the state, the board had a fiduciary duty to address the audit with senior district staff and unions in the current CBA negotiations. He also framed the negotiations as being exploited by unions and supporters of former board members defeated in 2024.

When Howard keeps pressing who benefited, what was paid, and whether the district can recover money, he is not asking neutral questions in a vacuum. He is doing it while COLA (cost-of-living adjustment) and compensation are active or imminent, as employees face rising costs, and as Laguna’s teachers and staff absorb months of public suspicion created by a trustee who cannot separate a district-administered error from employee wrongdoing.

If the district has already decided employees do not need to pay for an error they did not create, that principle should not quietly reappear at the bargaining table as pressure on COLA, salary, or future benefits.

In addition to that, the claim that parents, teachers, and staff are simply manufacturing outrage collapses when you look at what staff were already saying before the email became public.

In the March 2026 staff listening sessions with Glass and Sheri Morgan, employees identified governance dynamics and the atmosphere of public board proceedings as barriers affecting campus climate and morale, as well as erosion of trust and psychological safety, communication shortcomings, staffing pressures, and questions about the boundary between governance and site operations.

This is not only about Howard, even though he is the loudest and most committed to the idea that he uncovered corruption. Sheri Morgan was on the unofficial communications email. While that does not prove she wrote the ads or directed outside messengers, it shows she was included in discussions about press frustration, op-eds, full-page ads, and the call for coordinated press coverage.

Her broader approach has followed the same instinct: question communications, staff authority, processes, and assess whether fear is coming from within, all while pulling more power toward the board majority.

Dee’s role is different, but Dee is the vote that turns Howard and Sheri’s instincts into board action. Howard pushes, Sheri aligns, Dee makes it a majority, and then the public is told this is just governance. Even when the technical defense is that only two trustees were communicating in the April email, the public concern remains the same: where is district business actually being shaped, at the dais or through side channels?

But the district is not one trustee, one board president, or three votes.

The district includes students, teachers, staff, administrators, families, and the community that supports them.

Howard keeps revealing the same thing: he does not seem to understand the difference between serving the district and trying to make the district serve him.

He can call it transparency, accountability, or fiscal responsibility, but the record shows something much uglier. He took a district-administered error, inflated it into a public scandal, aimed it at employees who did not create it, and used outside messengers to keep the pressure alive while negotiations sat in the background.

That is not oversight. That is not ethics. That is not courage. It is Howard turning a real issue into his proof, his platform, and his power play.

The healthcare issue was real, and the correction was necessary, but Howard’s campaign around it is the story now, and LBUSD should stop treating his fixation as governance.

Howard Hills was not elected to be the district.

He was elected to serve it.

Sources:

• LBUSD Board Meetings

• LBUSD Public Records Requests

• LBUSD Health & Welfare Overpayment Corrective Actions presentation

• Michael Bishop & Associates Audit Report

• Howard Hills / FUTURE paid advertisement in Laguna Beach Independent

• Steve McIntosh’s Letter

• George Weiss Substack

• Laguna Unmuted Substack

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

If you have spent more than five minutes watching a California school board meeting, you have probably heard someone say “Brown Act” with the confidence of a person holding either a law degree or a Facebook comment box.

Sometimes it is used correctly, but at other times it is used like a magic spell. Public officials like to use “Brown Act” as if it means “you are not allowed to ask what we are doing,” which is convenient but not exactly the point of open government.

So let’s make this easy to understand.

The Brown Act is California’s open meeting law, and it applies to local government bodies, including school boards. The whole idea is that public business should be conducted in public, unless a specific legal exception allows otherwise. The law itself says public agencies exist to conduct the people’s business, that their actions should be taken openly, and that their deliberations should be conducted openly.

In regular speaking terms, the school board is not a private club, and the public does not lose its right to understand the process just because the topic is uncomfortable.

The Brown Act does not mean every conversation a board member has is illegal, or that trustees cannot talk to the public. It does not mean that every closed session is automatically suspicious, or that every bad governance decision is a legal violation.

The Brown Act is simple in theory and maddening in practice, especially in school districts, where parents are trying to understand decisions about their children, teachers, the superintendent, facilities, tax dollars, and the district’s overall direction. At the same time, everyone in power keeps performing the world’s least enjoyable governance ballet.

For a regular meeting, the agenda must be posted at least 72 hours in advance and include a brief description of each item to be discussed or acted on, including closed-session items. The board generally cannot discuss or act on anything not on the posted agenda, except under narrow exceptions.

This means the agenda is not just a list but an official public notice.

If you’re wondering why agenda language makes people nervous, it’s because words like “governance,” “district leadership,” and “legal update” may be legitimate in the right context, but it is not exactly calming anyone down. It makes people wonder what is being hidden behind the curtain, especially when the meeting arrives, and the board suddenly seems ready to move as if the real discussion had already happened somewhere else.

In a closed session, the ballet gets even stranger.

Closed session is legal, and a school board can meet privately for certain issues, including specific personnel matters, legal issues, labor negotiations, and other topics where privacy or legal exposure is mandated by law. A superintendent’s employment can often fall into that category, which is why “closed session” and “superintendent” often show up together during periods of district chaos.

However, a closed session is not supposed to be a second private board meeting where the real governing takes place, with the public meeting serving as a ceremonial reenactment.

When people hear “we can’t discuss closed session,” that may be true, but it is not the same thing as “nothing from closed session ever has to be reported.” Certain actions taken in closed session have to be publicly reported, including the vote or abstention of every member present. The public is not supposed to be left with “trust us” as the sole basis for governance.

Then there is the issue that makes everyone’s eyes twitch: serial meetings.

On a five-member board, two trustees can talk to each other without automatically creating a Brown Act violation because two is not a majority. This is because a majority (or three trustees for LBUSD) cannot use a series of communications, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on district business outside a properly noticed meeting.

A serial meeting is not always five people sneaking into a room with matching folders and villain lighting. It can be a chain. One trustee talks to another, who talks to another. One person becomes the hub and separately communicates with enough people to build agreement. An intermediary carries messages. Social media makes something feel casual when, legally and ethically, it may not be.

Then there is the harder governance problem, which may not always be easy to prove as a legal violation: sometimes two people appear to be steering the direction, and a third person may not need to be fully looped in because they reliably vote with them anyway.

This does not usually give anyone a clean smoking gun. However, it can still be a serious governance problem because the public meeting stops functioning as the place where ideas are meaningfully tested, debated, and explained, and instead becomes the place where a decision that already feels made is finally performed out loud.

These concerns have already surfaced in Laguna Beach.

To note, I have not found a public court ruling, an OC District Attorney finding, or a disclosed enforcement action stating that the LBUSD Board violated the Brown Act since 2016, which is an important distinction because saying “Brown Act violation” is easy, while proving one is a completely different exercise.

What does exist is a record of accusations, warnings, formal concerns, denials, and unanswered questions during the current board’s tenure.

In January 2025, current and former LBUSD board members raised concerns about possible Brown Act violations arising from the new board majority’s effort to install an interim superintendent. Former board members questioned whether discussions or decisions had happened outside public meetings, the board majority denied violating the law, and the candidate ultimately withdrew.

Then came the 2026 graduation vote, where a formal curative demand reportedly alleged a hub-and-spoke serial meeting through an intermediary before the board voted to move graduation to the Irvine Bowl.

And just this month, where President Sheri Morgan shared a press release announcing Dr. Austin’s appointment two days after the board approved a mutual separation agreement with Dr. Glass. That timing does not prove a Brown Act violation, but it absolutely explains why some community members are asking governance questions at board meetings.

A few of the questions I have are:

• How did a superintendent’s separation happen?

• When did the board decide it was moving in that direction?

• When did conversations with Austin begin?

• What was discussed in the months of consecutive closed sessions? Why was it not considered reportable?

• Why the public meeting not the place where the decision was made, but the place where the decision finally became visible?

These are not conspiracy questions; they are governance ones.

Oakland Unified offers a useful example of why this type of superintendent transition can quickly become a major public trust crisis.

Just last year, Oakland Unified’s board approved a voluntary separation agreement with its superintendent after closed-session discussions. The decision came after weeks of concern that the board was moving privately to push out a superintendent whose contract had recently been extended, and the public meeting was where a major leadership change was announced without the kind of explanation many families expected.

Sound familiar? The reason Oakland resonates is not that every fact is identical to Laguna Beach, but because the public trust problem is the pattern.

A superintendent is suddenly on the way out. A board majority appears to have been working through a process the public could not see. People ask when the decision was actually made. The board points to the closed session. Critics point to the Brown Act. Everyone starts trying to reverse-engineer the process from agenda language, report-outs, votes, timelines, public statements, and the behavior of elected officials who somehow seem surprised by the public’s reaction.

This is why the Brown Act gets thrown around so much: it is one of the few tools the public has when it feels like the real meeting happened before the meeting.

But it also has limits.

The Brown Act does not require trustees to make everyone happy, agree with parents, or hold every difficult conversation in public. It does not turn bad judgment into an automatic legal violation. It sets the floor for open government, not the ceiling for ethical leadership.

The floor is a notice and reporting out only a vote if it happened. The floor is not using private chains, intermediaries, social media, or closed sessions to conduct public business outside public view.

I believe good governance should be higher than the floor.

So, going into next week’s board meeting, the public does not need to chase every rumor or become legal experts overnight, but people should understand what transparency is supposed to look like.

Watch the agenda and for vague language around major decisions. Watch what is listed for the closed session and for what gets reported out. Watch whether trustees explain their votes in public or whether the meeting feels like actual deliberation or like a decision that arrived already gift-wrapped.

Because the public can understand where there is smoke, there is likely a fire.

Sources:

• California Government Code Section 54950

• California Government Code Section 54954.2

• California Government Code Section 54952.2

• California Government Code Section 54957.1

• Voice of OC, “Transparency Concerns Swirl Around Laguna Beach School District”

• Daily Pilot, “‘48 hours of chaos’: Critics react as LBUSD board names new superintendent 2 days after booting Glass”

• San Francisco Chronicle, “Civil rights attorneys slam Oakland school board over alleged ‘backroom deals’ to oust superintendent”

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and issues easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the research, writing, and platform costs that keep this information accessible to everyone. I am deeply grateful to anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way.

Subscribe now

A school board has one employee: the superintendent.

The board sets direction, adopts policy, approves budgets, hires and evaluates the superintendent, and represents the public. The superintendent runs the district. Staff operate the schools. Students learn. Nobody needs a 45-minute PowerPoint to understand that, though naturally, we got one.

Closed session is not automatically suspicious. California law allows boards to discuss superintendent appointment, employment, evaluation, discipline, dismissal, and release privately. Personnel issues can involve privacy, contracts, and legal exposure. But closed session is the legal floor, not the trust ceiling.

And LBUSD has managed to turn that distinction into the entire problem.

In November 2024, the previous board voted 5-0 to enter into a separation agreement with Dr. Jason Viloria, ending his contract effective December 31. Howard Hills and Sheri Morgan had not yet taken office, so it is not accurate to say they removed him directly. Dee Perry, however, was part of that unanimous vote.

The district said the decision was not based on Viloria’s performance and that his evaluations had “regularly demonstrated exemplary results.” The stated reason was anticipated changes to the governing board. In plain English, we have a superintendent we say is doing excellent work, but the incoming board dynamic may make this impossible.

That was the first crack.

Then came the Dr. Joanne Culverhouse episode. The district needed interim help, which is understandable. What was not reassuring was the report that the board majority voted in closed session to offer Culverhouse the interim superintendent role despite objections that the process was rushed, preordained, and nontransparent. Culverhouse ultimately declined.

Around the same time, Board President Dee Perry was reportedly working out of the superintendent’s office during the leadership gap without a public board vote. Perry later apologized for the optics and said she was not taking over superintendent duties. Trustee Joan Malczewski said the move was not good governance and should have been approved by the board.

This is where mistrust began to grow. Not because anyone expected perfection during a messy transition, but because the line between board governance and district operations looked blurry. Blurry is exactly what you do not want when the superintendent’s chair is empty.

Jeff Dixon then stepped in as acting superintendent. He served as a stabilizing presence because he knew the district, understood operations, and was not publicly auditioning for a crown during a crisis. But even that process became messy. Dixon began performing superintendent duties on January 9, 2025, while the proposed contract terms were not announced until March 24 and scheduled for board consideration on April 17.

At a time when the district needed clean, boring stability, even the acting superintendent contract became another process drama.

Then LBUSD seemed to reset.

The district conducted a real superintendent search. OCDE described Dr. Jason Glass’s appointment as the conclusion of a four-month nationwide search. Glass had more than 25 years of experience, and the board reportedly selected him from about 40 interested candidates. Dee Perry publicly said the board was “100% behind Dr. Jason Glass.”

That is why what happened next is so hard to reconcile.

Glass was not a placeholder. He was not an emergency appointment. He was not pulled from a drawer labeled “break glass in case of superintendent,” no pun intended, though the district really wrote that joke for us. He was hired through the process that a district is supposed to use. He moved here with his family and brought the kind of experience LBUSD claimed it needed.

Then came February 26. On this day, the board held a superintendent performance evaluation that union leaders described as “off-cycle.” The same day, LBUSD received governance training from Jonathan Pearl of Dannis Woliver Kelley on board and superintendent roles, collective authority, confidentiality, and the principle that individual board members do not direct the superintendent or staff.

The board received training on the boundary between governance and operations, and immediately afterward, the Glass situation escalated rather than calmed.

There were six consecutive closed-session meetings with “employee discipline/dismissal/release” on the agenda. On May 12, 2026, LBUSD announced that Glass and the board had reached a mutual agreement to end his service effective May 31. The Daily Pilot reported that Sheri Morgan, Dee Perry, and Howard Hills voted to terminate Glass. At the same time, Jim Kelly and Joan Malczewski dissented. Glass was placed on paid administrative leave through his resignation date.

The public may never know what happened in closed session, and personnel matters are confidential for a reason. But the public timeline is fair to examine: a superintendent hired through a full search, publicly supported by the board, relocated with his family, and then separated less than one school year later after repeated closed-session personnel items and a 3-2 vote.

Maybe the paperwork is clean. But when someone moves across the country for a four-year contract and is gone in ten months, “mutual” does not exactly feel warm and fuzzy. It lands more like a hostage note written in board counsel font.

Two days later, LBUSD announced Dr. Don Austin as the next superintendent, effective July 1. The district said the action “quickly follows” the May 12 separation agreement with Glass. The same board majority that separated Glass voted to approve Austin, 3-2.

Morgan explained that Austin had already been part of the prior Leadership Associates search process, the district had recently gathered stakeholder input, and the district’s needs had not changed. But that creates the obvious question: if Austin was vetted last year and the board chose Glass, why is Austin the immediate answer now?

If the district’s needs had not changed, why did the selection change? If Glass was the right choice after a full search, what changed so quickly? If Austin was the better fit, why was he not selected the first time? These are not conspiracy questions. They are obvious questions created by the district’s own timeline.

Austin also arrives with a recent history of his own. In February 2026, Palo Alto Unified announced that Austin and the board had reached a mutual separation effective immediately, while Austin would continue as Superintendent Emeritus through June 30. Palo Alto said it was not a retirement or termination. At the same time, Palo Alto’s teachers union described the leadership change as a significant step toward healing a strained culture, citing top-down mandates, damaged morale, and declining professional trust.

That does not mean Austin cannot succeed in Laguna Beach. It does not mean people who remember him fondly are wrong. It does mean newer families will do what people do in 2026: Google him. What they find is much more than a glossy welcome announcement.

This is what LBUSD’s board keeps missing: trust is not restored by saying the correct legal words. Trust is restored by explaining the process clearly enough that people do not feel they need a public records request, a law degree, and a strong drink to understand what happened.

Viloria was released despite public praise and strong evaluations because of anticipated board changes. Culverhouse raised transparency concerns. Dixon stabilized the district while the contract process lagged. Glass was hired through a full search, publicly supported, and gone within less than a year, following repeated closed-session meetings and a 3-2 vote. Austin was announced within 48 hours, following a prior search that did not select him the first time.

That is a lot of superintendent turnover for a small, high-performing district.

The concern is not that every leadership change is illegal. The concern is that LBUSD’s recent superintendent timeline shows instability at the top, limited public explanation, and repeated decisions that may meet the legal minimum while still damaging public trust.

Dr. Austin should succeed. Students and staff need him to succeed. But he is walking into a district where trust has been badly damaged, much of it by the same board majority that appointed him.

Public education requires more than “we were allowed to do it.” It requires judgment, restraint, transparency, and respect for roles. Right now, LBUSD’s superintendent timeline does not tell a story of stability. It tells a story of a district repeatedly trying to recover from decisions that create the next crisis.

That is the problem the board majority created, and the one Dr. Austin inherits on July 1.

Today matters.

At 3:30 p.m., the board will hold a special session expected to address interim leadership. We should be watching closely to see whether the interim is internal or external, whether the decision brings stability or more disruption, and how much explanation the board believes the public deserves. Even if the board is legally permitted to make that appointment without public comment, legal authority and transparency are not the same.

Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills ran on transparency, and moving quickly into major leadership decisions immediately after Dr. Glass’s separation, with limited public visibility and very little public trust, does not feel like transparency. It feels like a process being used as a cover.

Then, at 6 p.m., the regular meeting begins at Thurston Middle School, with an agenda that is far too packed to treat casually: LCAP, budget, communications, technology restructuring, an election resolution, legal services, graduation and promotion services, and a VERY long consent calendar. I will be there for the full meeting, and I hope many parents, staff, and community members are too.

Tonight’s agenda is the first real stress test after this district upheaval — it is a test of whether this community is willing to keep watching what this board majority does when it thinks people are too tired, too busy, or too overwhelmed to follow the details.

Agenda Item 8A: LCAP 2026–2027

The LCAP is the district’s strategic plan for student goals, services, actions, and spending. It is about whether our kids are safe, supported, challenged, included, and prepared, and the agenda materials describe it as a three-year plan tied to student outcomes and support for specific student groups.

The big question, however, is whether the board’s actions reflect the values inside it.

It is hard to approve a plan built around student belonging while creating districtwide instability, and it is hard to talk about social-emotional support while staff and families are absorbing the impact of abrupt leadership decisions. The LCAP is supposed to be about students. The board majority’s recent actions have made it harder to believe students are actually the center of the work.

Agenda Item 8B: Budget 2026–2027

The budget is not presented as a fiscal crisis, as the proposed General Fund budget includes about $94.6 million in revenues, $90.15 million in expenditures, and a positive certification.

But that still does not answer the larger question: is the district now accounting for the cost of a superintendent search, transition support, legal review, separation costs, or the broader cost of losing a superintendent less than a year into his tenure? Howard Hills and Sheri Morgan have spoken often about fiscal responsibility, but creating the conditions for another superintendent search, more legal uncertainty, and more leadership churn is not the kind of fiscal responsibility the taxpayers were promised.

The budget also includes a $1 million legal expense line, and tonight’s consent calendar includes multiple legal services agreements. Districts need lawyers, but the public has every right to ask whether taxpayer dollars are being used to support students or to pay for the consequences of board-created instability.

Agenda Item 9A: Communications Plan

The problem is not the communications staff — we are lucky to have such a great and engaging Comms team.

The concern is that some board members seem to treat communications as another area where they can control process, tone, audience, and narrative, even when the work should belong to experienced staff. A communications plan is not a political tool, and it should not become a way for individual board members to manage optics or clean up governance problems.

The district does not need better spin. It needs less board interference from people who know what they are doing.

Agenda Item 11B: Director of Information Systems and Technology / Coordinator of Learning and Innovation

The district’s CTO retired in February, and staff is recommending two roles: a Director of Information Systems and Technology and a Coordinator of Learning and Innovation. That may be a reasonable structure, and it may even be smart, but losing a CTO and separating the work into two positions is still a significant change.

Parents should listen for practical answers about who owns cybersecurity, student data, software systems, classroom technology, staff support, and emergency response when systems fail. This should be a serious conversation, not board theater.

Agenda Item 12A: Election Resolution

The election resolution is procedural, but it is also a reminder.

We are six months away from change, if this community comes together. Joan Malczewski has already announced her reelection, and more will unfold between now and November. By fall, everyone will have slogans, mailers, endorsements, and polished versions of what happened.

That is why we need to watch now.

Watch who asks serious questions, who respects staff, who protects students, who escalates conflict, who hides behind process, and who understands the role of a board member instead of trying to act like district management. The record is being written now.

Consent Items T–W: Legal Services

The consent calendar includes four legal services agreements, covering general counsel, facilities, special education, AB 218 cases, Section 504, student services, and other legal matters. Again, districts need legal counsel. That is not the issue.

The issue is why so many legal services agreements are sitting on consent during a governance crisis.

What does each firm do? Who assigns the work? How are costs reviewed? Are services overlapping? What is routine, and what is being driven by the board majority’s decisions?

If this board wants to talk about fiscal responsibility, these items should be pulled and explained. They should not be buried in consent with the expectation that the public will not notice.

Consent Item X: Graduation and Promotion Services

The consent calendar includes the BCT Entertainment contract for graduation and promotion services at Irvine Bowl, not to exceed $66,137.98.

I am not interested in turning an event production contract into a fake scandal. Graduation and promotion cost money, and they should be done well.

However, this item still matters because graduation is part of where this board showed us who it was. Graduation location should have remained a site decision made by expert employees, and Dee Perry is on record saying she believed it should be a site decision before voting to change the location anyway.

That is why parents do not trust this board. Not because we are unreasonable, but because we are trusting our own eyes and ears on what happened.

The Real Agenda Item: We Are Watching

The staff work is detailed, the plans are specific, the budget is prepared, the LCAP is comprehensive, the communications item includes a staff presentation, the technology restructuring includes a rationale, the election resolution is procedural, the legal agreements are attached, and the graduation contract includes a scope.

The documents are doing what documents are supposed to do.

The problem is not the agenda — it’s the board majority.

At this point, I am not asking them to govern better, to respect staff expertise, to rebuild trust, or to understand the damage they have caused. They have had every opportunity to do that, and this is where we are.

What we can do is make sure they know we are watching every vote, every consent item, every legal cost, every interaction with staff, every use of process as cover, and every attempt to move major decisions through while hoping the community is too exhausted to follow along.

The board majority may have the votes, but they do not get to cast them in the dark. Not anymore.

So come to the meeting. Stay for the meeting. Listen closely. Take notes. Submit public comment. Talk to other parents. Share what you hear. Make sure the record reflects that this community is not confused, not distracted, and not looking away.

If you want to submit a public comment and are unsure how, I can help. If you cannot attend but have something you hope will be said, send it to someone who will be there.

I look forward to seeing familiar faces and new ones, and I still have hope, not because of this board majority, but because this community is paying attention.

LBUSD Board Meeting Details

Special Session: 3:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting Open Session: 6:00 p.m.
Thursday, May 14, 2026
Thurston Middle School Library
2100 Park Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.

I am done pretending.

Sheri Morgan, Howard Hills, and Dee Perry voted to remove Dr. Glass through a “voluntary separation” after less than a year in a quiet special meeting on a Tuesday afternoon. Joan Malczewski and Jim Kelly dissented.

Call it whatever procedural name they want. I know what I watched.

I watched a board majority ignore public concern, staff support, parent alarm, professional judgment, and every warning sign that this district was being pulled into chaos. I watched the writing on the wall for months: the bylaw change, the graduation overstep, the healthcare audit narrative, the attacks on parent groups, and the constant undermining of district professionals.

And now this.

How dare they.

I am angry because I believe Dr. Glass is good at what he does. I believe he brought seriousness, professionalism, outside perspective, and a level of thoughtfulness this district needed. I learned a tremendous amount by watching him lead, by listening to how he talked about governance, systems, budgets, student outcomes, and what it actually takes to run a district well.

He deserved time. He deserved good-faith governance. He deserved a board willing to support the leader it had hired, rather than undercutting him at nearly every turn.

And he deserved better than this.

There is a person behind this decision. A family. A career. A reputation. A human being who showed up with professionalism and grace while this district’s politics became increasingly ugly. I hope he knows how many people saw the work he was trying to do and appreciated it.

I hope he only gets better from here.

I want to thank Joan Malczewski and Jim Kelly for continuing to stand up for this district. They showed that it is possible to take this moment seriously, respect the gravity of what was happening, and put the long-term health of LBUSD first.

But the rest of us are still here, with the damage.

How dare they gamble with my children’s future. How dare they destabilize the district we chose for its teachers, staff, schools, programs, and community. How dare they take a district that should be focused on students and drag it into a power struggle of their own making.

They do not understand what they are messing with.

This is not just one decision. This is a fracture in public trust. This is a direct attack on the stability of our schools. This is a board majority showing us exactly how it uses power when it has it.

So now, as parents and as a community, we pay attention to everything.

The budget. The LCAP. The legal costs. The healthcare audit. Staff morale. Every agenda. Every vote. Every narrative they try to spin.

And parents need to organize.

Not later. Now.

To Sheri, Howard, Dee, and every person in this community who has spent months undermining teachers, staff, families, parent groups, and the professionals trying to hold this district together: be ready for real accountability.

I have been measured. I have been careful. I have tried to be fair. I have tried to assume good intent even when the pattern was right in front of me.

That is over.

You were not measured with us. You were not careful with our teachers. You were not fair to our staff. You were not respectful of the families who begged you not to destabilize this district.

And then you messed with our kids.

So now we organize, and we make sure this board majority does not keep the power to do this again.

For anyone asking what to do next: start with FUEL.

Sign up for the newsletter. Read the recaps. Share the updates. Follow what is happening with the budget, LCAP, legal costs, healthcare audit, and every board decision from here. This is where families can stay informed, organized, and ready for what comes next.

No more benefit of the doubt.

No more polite silence.

No more pretending this is just school board business.

They came for the stability of our district.

They came for the future of our children — MY children.

How fucking dare they.

I want the board to prove me wrong.

I want to look back on this week and feel like I was being too alarmist. I want to believe I had a pit in my stomach for no reason, that the concern I am hearing from parents, staff, and community members is misplaced. I want to believe this board understands the seriousness of the moment and will choose stability, professionalism, transparency, and the long-term health of the district over individual narratives, personal agendas, or the need to be right.

But right now, I do not feel that way.

Right now, this feels like a make-or-break week for LBUSD.

Not because of one person. Not because of one rumor. Not because of one agenda item. This is bigger than that. This is about whether the board will continue pulling the district into conflict, or finally recognize that its choices have consequences beyond the dais.

This week matters because the public issues facing the district are serious. The healthcare audit matters. The budget matters. The LCAP review matters. Legal costs matter. Staff morale matters. Public trust matters. And the way board members choose to talk about these issues matters just as much as the decisions themselves.

There are decisions a school board can make that do not simply pass with the meeting. They linger. They change who wants to work here, who wants to lead here, who wants to support the district, and how the community sees its schools. A district can spend years building a reputation for strong teachers, strong programs, strong community connections, and student-centered decision-making, only to see that reputation unravel quickly when the adults in charge cannot govern with restraint.

This is what I am afraid of.

I chose this district for its schools and teachers. I chose it because I believe in the quality of education here, the staff, the programs, the community, the arts, the opportunities, and the idea that LBUSD is a place where students come first. But what I am watching now does not feel student-centered. It feels like interference. It feels like overreach. It feels like a board increasingly willing to disregard professional judgment, twist public narratives, and consolidate power in ways that are deeply damaging to the district.

We cannot pretend this just started.

At least for me, I cannot forget the board bylaw change and the way it consolidated more power at the board level. I cannot forget the decision to choose the graduation location, where professional recommendations from district and site leadership were pushed aside on an issue that should never have become a board-level political fight. I cannot forget the way teachers and employees are now being pulled into the fallout of the healthcare audit. I cannot forget the way LCAP results and district performance conversations have been framed in ways that feel less like a good-faith effort to understand the full picture and more like an attempt to build a negative narrative around the district.

And I especially cannot forget the public conduct of an individual trustee who has repeatedly used his position, title, and platform to push one-sided narratives that have made this district less stable, not more transparent.

That needs to be said clearly.

Trustees have the right to ask hard questions. They have the right to disagree. They have the right to speak as individuals. But there is a difference between oversight and public undermining. There is a difference between transparency and narrative control. There is a difference between accountability and using a trustee position to inflame suspicion around staff, district leadership, parent groups, and community partners.

That conduct has consequences.

When a trustee uses a paid advertisement styled like a “School Board Update,” even with a disclaimer, it blurs lines for the public. When the same trustee frames long-standing district partners as part of some problem, it damages trust. When a trustee pushes a version of the healthcare audit that leaves employees feeling blamed or attacked, it does not help the district solve the issue — it makes the district more divided.

And the rest of the board cannot pretend that silence is neutral.

The healthcare audit should be handled with accuracy, care, and responsibility. If mistakes were made, they need to be corrected. If systems failed, they need to be fixed. If public money is involved, the public deserves clarity. But that is not the same thing as allowing the issue to be twisted into a weapon against employees, unions, or district leadership. Staff should not be treated like suspects because a benefits issue was uncovered. Teachers and employees should not have to absorb public blame for something that was clearly systemic.

This board must rebuild trust with staff NOW. Instead, the question is whether board members will allow suspicion to keep spreading.

The same is true with parent and community groups. SchoolPower has been part of this district’s fabric for decades. It was created to support students, teachers, and schools. It has helped fund programs and opportunities that families value. So how did we get to a place where a long-standing parent-supported education foundation can be framed as a problem, or even treated as an enemy of the community?

That should bother people.

It is not normal for a school district to start turning its own support systems into targets. It is not normal for parent groups, staff, district leadership, and community partners to feel like they are being sorted into sides. It is not normal for public service to feel like a constant battle over who controls the narrative.

And that is the issue: control.

The budget and LCAP review should be opportunities for serious, responsible governance. There should be moments when the board honestly assesses student outcomes, district priorities, staffing needs, legal spending, fiscal responsibility, and whether resources align with what students and staff actually need. But those conversations have to be grounded in the full picture, not cherry-picked data, political framing, or an effort to make the district look broken so that more board control feels justified.

There is a responsible way to ask hard questions about the budget, review the LCAP, and examine legal costs, healthcare costs, staffing, benefits, and student outcomes.

But responsible governance requires honesty, context, and respect for professional expertise. It cannot be driven by a desire to win an argument, punish opponents, or make every district issue fit into a predetermined narrative.

This board has enormous power right now. It has the power to calm the district down or inflame it further. It has the power to restore trust or deepen mistrust. It has the power to respect professional expertise or keep overriding it. It has the power to show staff they are valued, or make them wonder whether this is still a district where they want to stay.

That is why this week matters.

The board needs to put the district’s needs above its own. Above individual egos, personal grievances, political factions, and the need to win a narrative. Above the temptation to turn every issue into another referendum on who has control.

Because if the board gets this wrong, the consequences will not be small.

This is how districts get pulled into years of chaos. This is how staff morale breaks down, good people leave, and families lose confidence. This is how future leaders look at a district and decide it is not worth the risk. This is how legal costs rise, public trust collapses, and a district that should be focused on students becomes consumed by adult dysfunction.

And the most frustrating part is that this is still avoidable.

The board can still prove me wrong.

It can prove that the healthcare audit will be handled responsibly, not used as a political weapon. It can prove that teachers and staff will not be scapegoats. It can prove that parent groups and community partners will not be disparaged because they are inconvenient to someone’s narrative. It can prove that the budget and LCAP review will be serious, fair, and grounded in the full picture. It can prove that professional recommendations matter. It can prove that governance does not mean interference.

But it actually has to do that — not with vague statements about student success, polished language about transparency, or carefully framed explanations that ignore the community’s real concerns. The board must demonstrate, through its actions, that it understands how close this district feels to a breaking point.

Because I do not want to be right about this.

I do not want to look back and say the warning signs were all there. I do not want to watch LBUSD become another district that people talk about as a cautionary tale. I do not want teachers, staff, families, and students to pay the price for board behavior that should have been corrected before the damage became permanent.

I want the board to prove that this district is still bigger than the people sitting on the dais.

I want the board to prove it can listen to professionals, respect staff, protect community trust, and make decisions that strengthen the district rather than pull it apart.

I want the board to prove that I am being irrational.

Please, prove me wrong.

Because if this board tears apart the trust, stability, and professional culture that make LBUSD what it is, the district will not simply recover at the next meeting.

The damage could last for years, and the people who will feel it most will not be the trustees.

It will be the teachers.

It will be the staff.

It will be the families.

And it will be the students who deserve better.

I am resharing my earlier piece on school board governance in response to yet ANOTHER paid advertisement from an individual trustee, because it is a clear example of the concern: personal advocacy dressed up as public accountability.

Board members can speak for themselves, but serious concerns belong in the public meeting process, where claims can be questioned, clarified, corrected, and put on the record rather than packaged into a one-sided narrative that the teachers, staff, and community cannot properly answer.

That is the difference between oversight and performance. Governance happens through agendas, discussion, direction, and votes, not paid advertisements that keep dragging the community back into the same conflicts.

You can read the original piece here:

Updated June 15, 2026: Since the May update, that transition has moved from announcement to reality. Dr. Glass has concluded his service; the Board has moved forward with new leadership; and the district is now in a period of significant transition heading into the November election.

Updated May 13, 2026: Since this guide was first published, LBUSD has entered a superintendent transition, with the district announcing that Dr. Jason Glass will conclude his service effective May 31, 2026.

A lot is happening in Laguna Beach Unified right now, and it can be hard to know where to begin.

There are debates about test scores, facilities, the bond, staff trust, board conduct, district leadership, transportation, special education, and the November election. But the bigger question is simple:

What kind of school district does Laguna Beach want to be?

LBUSD is not perfect, and no district is. Hard questions should be asked about student outcomes, spending, facilities, special education, transportation, and long-term planning. However, asking hard questions is not the same as undermining the people doing the work. Transparency is not the same as chaos. Improvement is not the same as pretending the district is failing.

That is the line I am watching.

I write about LBUSD as a parent who is paying close attention: reading the materials, attending meetings when I can, following the data, and trying to separate what is actually happening from how people are trying to make it sound.

A Public Record for Laguna Schools provides independent, community-focused coverage of LBUSD to help make district decisions, public records, board actions, and the issues affecting our schools easier to follow. If you value this work, becoming a paid subscriber or patron helps make it sustainable by covering the time, research, writing, and platform costs required to keep this information organized and accessible. I am deeply grateful for anyone who reads, shares, subscribes, or supports this work in any way, and the site will always remain fully accessible to all community members.

Subscribe now

What is happening now

These are the most current pieces on the superintendent transition and the current instability facing LBUSD.

School board governance

These explain the larger pattern: what school boards are supposed to do, and what happens when oversight turns into interference.

Staff trust, budget, & district stability.

These pieces examine how board decisions, public narratives, and leadership instability affect the people doing the work within the district.

LBUSD’s stats & data

There is a lot of conversation about whether LBUSD is succeeding, declining, or failing. These pieces explain why a single chart, test score, or talking point does not tell the whole story.

Facilities and the bond

Facilities are not just buildings. They shape safety, access, athletics, arts, learning environments, and the daily experience of students and staff.

November election & community involvement

These pieces help connect the current board majority to the district issues they created. This leads to why the November election matters.

Who I am and why I’m here

This is to help you learn more about me and understand how A Public Record for Laguna Schools came to be.

Why should you care

November is coming, and by the time campaign mailers arrive, everyone will have a slogan.

The work now is to understand the substance before the slogans take over. That means reading the actual materials, attending meetings when possible, staying informed about what is happening here, and staying connected with other parents and community members who care about where LBUSD is headed.

FUEL (Families Unified for Education in Laguna) is one place to do that. It is a local parent and community group focused on supporting responsible school board leadership, protecting LBUSD’s strengths, and helping voters stay informed before the November election.

LBUSD’s future should be shaped by people who understand that public schools are not just budgets, buildings, test scores, or board agendas. They are children, families, teachers, staff, trust, and community.

That is what is at stake.

I keep hearing the same argument about Laguna Beach Unified: scores are low or declining, spending is too high, post-COVID testing is inflated, and the district is underperforming because only about 59% of students are meeting or exceeding standards in high school math.

That number matters, but it should not carry the entire story of the district.

I attended La Cañada Unified schools, a high-performing district that was recently ranked 7th in the country. I know what a small, academically focused community feels like because I grew up in one. I am grateful for that education, but I also know the limits of a school culture built almost entirely around academic achievement.

Academics are important, but so is creativity, counseling, independence, arts, athletics, career pathways, emotional development, and a school culture where children are known as people. This is why my husband and I chose Laguna Beach Unified Schools.

First, we have to read the scores correctly. CAASPP and Smarter Balanced are not old-style letter grades. California’s system is standards-based, and state assessment results are meant to be reviewed alongside other measures, including grades, assignments, report cards, and teacher feedback.

So yes, we should look at Laguna’s high school math number, but then we should look around it.

Laguna remains strong compared with Irvine, Capistrano, Newport-Mesa, and the state. Laguna Beach Unified also has the highest scores in Orange County, a highly competitive region for public education.

High school math should stay on the radar, but using a single number as proof of districtwide failure does not hold up, especially when high school math has been a lower metric for Laguna since the early Smarter Balanced years.

The better conversation is this: Laguna is strong overall, has excellent middle school results, and should continue improving its high school math.

Spending also needs some context.

Laguna spends more per pupil - something I’ve covered before. A small basic-aid district has a different cost structure, but the right question is still what students receive for that investment.

That includes smaller ratios, counseling, special education, intervention systems, AP, CTE, arts, athletics, facilities, and the staff needed to make those systems work.

This is where the Local Control & Accountability Plan (LCAP) matters. The LCAP connects goals, actions, services, spending, and student outcomes. Laguna’s LCAP focuses on college and career readiness, social-emotional competencies, student identity, and safe, welcoming schools.

That work is much more complex than a single test score.

The district’s midyear LCAP update shows how students are being identified, supported, monitored, and moved. For example, a student may be Tier 1 (meets or exceeds standards) in math but Tier 3 (needs significant intervention) in reading. He may understand math, but have difficulty with fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, or confidence. If something is also happening at home, test scores alone will not tell that story.

A strong school system ought to address both needs: the academic and the human. That is whole-child education in practice: structured, specific, and labor-intensive.

The LCAP also provides a clearer view of student groups and the student experience. Economically disadvantaged students reached 73.55% proficiency in ELA and 60% in math in the 2024 CAASPP discussion. Students with disabilities improved year over year in both ELA and math, while staying below the district average. English learners also showed strong progress, with 70.7% of students with comparative ELPAC data making progress toward English proficiency.

LBUSD reported that 97% of students in grades 5–12 agreed or were neutral about feeling safe at school. The LCAP also reports that 85% of students agreed their teachers care about them, 88% said they have at least one adult at school who supports them, and 80% of students and 83% of parents agreed that schools provide a safe environment where all opinions are valued.

That does not replace academic outcomes, but helps explain why families value Laguna Beach Unified’s approach.

Laguna Beach High School also delivers considerable opportunities for a small high school. LBHS reports 820 students, 51 teachers, a 208:1 counselor ratio, an average class size of 22, 27% pathway completers, 36% dual enrollment, and 85% earning college credit through CTE, AP, or dual enrollment. The midyear LCAP also reports 27 AP courses, 1,093 AP enrollments, 41% of LBHS students enrolled in at least one CTE course, and 59% of LBHS students having taken at least one AP class.

Those numbers show a school preparing students for college, careers, and life after graduation.

LCAP Community Convening is Today

LBUSD is inviting students, families, staff, and community members to review district progress and give input for the upcoming year. The event is today, Thursday, April 30, from 4 to 5:30 p.m. at Laguna Beach High School. Childcare will be available for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, and the district is asking attendees to register in advance through the link on its event page.

The district says participants will review student outcome data, including academic performance, engagement, and school climate; examine progress on current LCAP goals, actions, and services; and provide input to inform the Annual Update and future planning.

Instead of asking whether one snapshot proves a point, we should be asking better questions:

1. Are reading and math interventions working for the students who need the most support?

2. How are students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and multilingual learners doing compared with the district overall?

3. Are teachers, counselors, classified staff, and intervention staff being given the time and resources to do this work well?

4. Is the district spending money in areas most closely connected to student needs?

5. How can the board and community assist Dr. Glass, teachers, staff, and site leaders in this work?

These are the questions that help a district improve and treat our students as full human beings rather than data points. As a parent, I care about results and test scores. But I do not want my child reduced to one.

I want my child to be challenged, supported, known, responsible, empathetic, independent, and confident. I also hear from people who interact with Laguna Beach students, especially high school students, that they are often mature, polite, able to talk to adults, and willing to take responsibility. Those qualities do not appear on a CAASPP chart, but they are part of the education many of us want for our children.

Laguna should keep improving, high school math should stay on the radar, and subgroup gaps should be taken seriously. More parents and community members should read the LCAP, attend meetings, and ask good questions.

The people doing the work in this district deserve more credit than they are getting. They are not only chasing numbers but also building systems to help students grow academically, socially, emotionally, and practically.

That is the school district I chose.

Subscribe now