The BHUSD Board of Education was accused of violating the Brown Act, which ensures transparency in public meetings. (photo by Tabor Brewster)

Attorney Daniel Lifschitz threatened litigation against the Beverly Hills Unified School District Board of Education and issued a cease and desist letter to its members on Sept. 9, alleging violations of the Brown Act, which ensures transparency in public meetings. The cease and desist letter comes amid turmoil over a resolution that would have required the display of the flag of Israel on school campuses that was quickly reversed following safety threats.

Lifschitz, who is a parent of a BHUSD student, accused the board of violating California Government Code 54954.3, which guarantees the right to public comment on each agenda item voted on by a government entity. The code states that a public comment period is not required for an agenda item that has already been heard, however, it requires that the school board must provide a new opportunity for public comment if an agenda item has been substantially changed.

“Over the past few months, the board has repeatedly violated the public comment obligation by taking public comment on agenda items at the start of meetings, only to then substantially change and pass those items within the space of the same meeting, robbing the public of any opportunity to address what the board actually votes on once its marathon redlining sessions conclude,” Lifschitz said. “This includes the Standards-Based Instructional Environment resolution on July 16, the antisemitism resolution on Aug. 26 and the flag ban resolution on Aug. 29.”

Lifschitz said that Board President Rachelle Marcus and Amanda Stern have objected to the alleged violations, and that Board Vice President Judith Manouchehri, Sigalie Sabag and Russell Stuart have “embraced them with open arms.”

The cease and desist letter provides the board 30 days to commit to following the guidelines of public comment, Lifschitz said. He added that the commitment must be approved during an open session meeting.

“To avoid escalation of this matter, please provide a timely, unconditional commitment that the board will fastidiously adhere to the public comment obligation in all matters and shall no longer vote on any resolutions or proposals within the same meeting in which they are substantially changed, as has proven to be the board’s pattern and practice to date,” Lifschitz said.

During Lifschitz’s comment, Marcus interrupted and instructed him not to speak the names of board members.

“No mentions of the names right now please,” Marcus said.

Additionally, immediately before the public comment period on Sept. 9, Marcus imposed new rules on public comments, stating that they must be “respectful and relevant to district personnel business.”

“Personal attacks, inappropriate language and discussing specific employees or students are not permitted,” Marcus said.

California Government Code 54954.3 states that “the legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.”

The school district has been the subject of increased public outcry and controversy for the past year. In April, former fashion design teacher Bella Ivory and former basketball coach Jarvis Turner sued the district, alleging anti-Black racism and discrimination. On Sept. 8, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brock T. Hammond ruled that the two plaintiffs can move forward with one trial, rejecting the BHUSD’s request for the allegations to be presented as two separate cases. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Dec. 12.