Perry alleges Brown-Act-noncompliant closed meeting; press-comment dispute follows
Per paragraphs 61–64 of Perry's December 10, 2019 federal complaint, on March 26, 2019 the board convened a closed meeting that the complaint alleges did not satisfy the Brown Act's notice/announcement requirements under California Government Code §54956.9 (pending or threatened litigation). After Perry made comments to the press about retaliation fears expressed by members of the public in the open session that followed, on April 17, 2019 defendants' counsel allegedly communicated that Perry had violated closed-meeting confidentiality rules and threatened that she could be sued in her personal capacity, asserting that the district would not provide her legal counsel if so sued. The complaint frames this exchange as both a Brown Act violation and a First Amendment retaliation predicate, and invokes Government Code §54963(e) for Perry's right to challenge closed-meeting practices without violating the Brown Act. These are allegations in a complaint subsequently dismissed.
People referenced
Citations (1)
- Perry v. Viloria — Complaint (Document 1, filed December 10, 2019) primary U.S. District Court, Central District of California (via CourtListener / RECAP)U.S. District Court, Central District of California (via CourtListener / RECAP) · Michael J. Aguirre, Maria C. Severson · 2019-12-10
On April 17, 2019, Defendants communicated to Plaintiff through counsel that by discussing retaliation in the press after the March 26 open meeting, she had violated closed meeting confidentiality rules imposed at the March 26 closed meeting. The April 17 e-mail also threatened she could be sued in her personal capacity and LBUSD could be sued for comments she made in the press about retaliation fears after the closed meeting on March 26, 2019. Plaintiff was warned the board and LBUSD would not provide legal counsel or assist her in any way if she was sued in her personal capacity.
Verbatim allegation (¶64) of the Perry v. Viloria complaint.