This story was originally published by Fresnoland.
Some local Fresno County elected school leaders have their work cut out for them to make sure they’re legally transparent to the public about their decision-making.
In its first report of the year, the Fresno County Civil Grand Jury found that elected board members in Fresno County school districts were unaware of required ethics training and of the consequences of violating the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s sunshine and transparency law for public bodies.
Following citizen complaints of leaks to the media from a closed session of a Fresno Unified School District Board of Trustees meeting, the grand jury interviewed current and former school administrators and board members in Fresno County school districts.
Through their investigation, the grand jury found “that elected school board members lack necessary training on laws related to the disclosure of confidential information acquired during closed session.”
“While several interviewees related that Ralph M. Brown Act violations erode a public’s trust in an organization, none revealed a knowledge of other legal ramifications,” the report stated.
The grand jury report failed to specify exactly when and how — and who — may have violated the Brown Act.
However, questions about Fresno Unified’s transparency have swirled for more than a year since confidential information about the district’s recent superintendent search process was published by GV Wire, a website owned by the boyfriend of the board member most vocally opposed to prioritizing internal candidates.
During a March 2024 meeting, FUSD Trustee Keshia Thomas said the publication of the board’s closed-door 4-3 vote violated the Brown Act, EdSource reported at the time.
What followed was confusion from community members about whether the decision was to interview internal candidates only or to begin interviews with them first.
Fresnoland reached out to all FUSD trustees for comment on the grand jury findings.
And, without naming names, the grand jury also concluded that Fresno Unified was far from the only local school board with potential ethics and transparency issues.
The grand jury also found that there is no official checklist given to newly elected board members to inform them of mandatory trainings and responsibilities. The report explains that there was little consensus from interviewees as to what is considered a required training or the consequences of violating the Brown act.
Enforcement of the state’s transparency laws often come down to self-policing – or the courts.
Fresno city leaders are still tied up in litigation after a Fresnoland investigation in 2023 found that the city council was using a unique process to reconcile the city budget behind closed doors, drawing scrutiny from several legal experts.
However, the grand jury noted that, while it is the responsibility of elected boards to provide training to its members, the Office of the Fresno County Superintendent of Schools (FCSS) notified the grand jury of their desire to assist members with their required trainings, as outlined in the FCSS’s 2023-2026 strategic plan.
Moreover, the grand jury found that interviewees were receptive to a more organized onboarding process to ensure compliance with existing law.
The grand jury’s recommendations included:
- A courtesy notification by the FCSS no later than Sept. 1 to all boards of all Fresno County school districts informing them of the following:
- Two hours of public service ethics laws training is required every two years to comply with AB 2158.
- All elected school board members must complete training for AB 1234 by Dec. 31 unless their term ends before the new year.
- Records relating to AB 1234 training should be public records subject to the California Public Records Act.
- The Fresno Unified School District Board of Education should ensure its curricula for AB 1234 training complies with core topics within Fair Political Practices Commission Regulation 18371 by September 31, 2025.
- The FCSS should notify and advocate to Fresno County school districts by September 1, 2025 to create and implement onboarding checklists for newly elected members
A response is required within 60 days by the FCSS and within 90 days by the Fresno Unified School District Board of Education.
According to FUSD Chief Communications Officer Nikki Henry, the district is currently reviewing the report.
“We will ensure compliance with any recommendations moving forward,” Henry said in an email to Fresnoland.
Regarding the report, Superintendent Michele Cantwell-Copher gave the following statement to Fresnoland:
“The County Superintendent of Schools acknowledges the points raised in the Fresno County’s Grand Jury’s report and agrees that ongoing awareness of training requirements, especially those tied to public meeting laws, is a key part of school board governance. As noted in the Grand Jury report, my office has taken a proactive role in spotlighting these issues for the school districts of Fresno County, and we will continue to provide information and resources so that school board members can better understand the ethics training requirements and opportunities applicable to their roles. We anticipate adopting the recommendations of the Grand Jury to provide additional courtesy notices to Fresno County school boards to further emphasize the importance of these obligations.”