The Brown Act
California's open meetings law requires that public bodies deliberate in properly noticed public meetings so the public can observe how decisions are made.
What the Law Requires
The Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code §§ 54950–54963) requires that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency be open and public. The law applies to school district boards of education.
A "meeting" under the Brown Act is broadly defined. It includes any gathering in person or through electronic means where a majority of board members discuss, deliberate, or take action on items of public business.
The Daisy Chain Rule § 54952.2(b)
Section 54952.2(b) addresses serial communications specifically. It prohibits a majority of a legislative body from using "a series of communications" including emails, texts, or calls to collectively discuss public business outside a properly noticed meeting, even when no single communication involves a majority of the board.
The law states:
"A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body."California Government Code § 54952.2(b)(1)
This is commonly referred to as a "daisy chain" where Member A communicates with Member B, who then communicates with Member C, and so on, until a majority has collectively discussed the same item of public business. Each individual communication may involve only two people, but together they constitute a meeting under the law.
What Counts as Public Business
Public business includes any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board budget decisions, school closures, contracts, personnel, and policy. Pre-decisional research, strategy discussions, and vote-counting on pending agenda items are all covered.
Why It Exists
The Brown Act was enacted in 1953 specifically to prevent public bodies from making decisions before the public meeting takes place. The Legislature's finding: "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know." (Gov. Code § 54950)
Enforcement
Brown Act violations can be challenged in court. A district attorney, the Attorney General, or any interested person may seek to invalidate actions taken in violation of the Act. Courts may also require remedial open sessions and can award attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs.
September 3, 2026: The District Admits a Mistake
On September 3, 2026, Board President Fredericks joined a special board meeting, a Committee of the Whole session where trustees edited the facilitator's draft definition of the "District Transformation Process," intermittently by teleconference. The agenda listed her address but omitted a condominium unit number, the location appeared to be behind a locked gate and inaccessible to the public, and the agenda was not physically posted there.
On September 7, a cure and correct demand was sent to the district alleging that her remote participation did not meet the Brown Act's requirements, including its "just cause" requirements.
On October 7, the district's outside counsel, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, responded in writing:
"First, the District acknowledges that a mistake was made regarding President Fredericks' remote attendance at the September 3 Special Board meeting for the Committee of the Whole."District counsel's response to the cure and correct demand, October 7, 2026
The letter argues that no remedy is required because no formal action was taken at the meeting: "though a technical violation may exist, the facts do not suggest any 'action' was taken as defined by the Government Code." It adds that board members "have been reminded of the various requirements for remote attendance."
↗ Read the district's October 7, 2026 letter (PDF)
↗ California Government Code § 54952.2 full text ↗ Colorado Boulevard: Inside the PUSD Consolidation Plan, May 11, 2026 ↗ Colorado Boulevard: PUSD Lawyers Acknowledge Brown Act Violation, October 13, 2026