After Sanger Unified refused to give School Board trustees access to legal counsel, then went a step further to exclude one of those trustees, that elected official has now sued the district for violating state transparency laws.

California’s Ralph M. Brown Act allows trustees to confer with one another outside of public view in order to be able to confer with legal counsel, according to the legal complaint against Sanger Unified filed by Trustee Ronetta Bron.

The district, however, often wouldn’t have legal counsel available to trustees, the lawsuit states. At times, Superintendent Dennis Weichmann and Deputy Superintendent Eduardo Martinez told trustees that they served as legal counsel, despite neither of them being attorneys.

When Bron, who was elected in 2024, sent formal questions to the district about why she didn’t have access to attorneys, she was told that district staff would present cases and make recommendations.

What’s more, after raising her objections, the other six members of the board voted to exclude Bron from a vote and a discussion on at least one legal case. Attorney John Kinsey, representing Bron, said that the district’s actions constitute the “unauthorized practice of law.”

“Although the Brown Act only allows the board to go into closed session ‘to confer with counsel,’ and the attorney general has stated this means the attorneys must actually participate,” Kinsey told GV Wire, “district staff refuses to conduct its closed sessions with an attorney.  Making matters worse, district staff has actively refused to allow the elected members of the board to confer with the district’s attorneys.”

Sanger Unified Admin Keeps Legal Counsel to Itself

With about 12,000 students, Sanger Unified is the fourth largest district in Fresno County, behind Fresno, Clovis, and Central Unified. In July, trustees approved a $240 million general fund budget.

In a statement to GV Wire, a Sanger Unified representative said that “while the district would like to be able to address your questions more fully, because this matter is currently the subject of pending litigation, we are not in a position to comment on the specific allegations, circumstances, or actions related to the case.”

“What we can share is that the board of trustees and the district take their legal and governance responsibilities seriously, and actions taken by the board and district are done with the advice and guidance of legal counsel,” the spokesperson said.

The Brown Act requires government meetings to take place in public view. Exceptions to this rule include real estate decisions, personnel matters, labor negotiations, and litigation discussions.

According to the lawsuit, the board “repeatedly” met in closed session, using the litigation exception, despite not having attorneys present or allowing trustees to meet with attorneys.

On May 26, trustees met to discuss two possible lawsuits. That was when Weichmann and Martinez told trustees they would serve as legal counsel. This comes despite the California Attorney General’s office making clear that the litigation exception can only occur if an attorney is present, the complaint states.

Being an elected official and in charge of taxpayer money, trustees, including Bron, need access to attorneys to make important legal decisions, the lawsuit states.

“Respondents’ numerous violations of the Brown Act evidence a pattern and practice of ignoring the state’s open meeting laws, which has deprived Petitioner and the Board the ability to obtain advice from, or confer with, counsel for the District on issues that are of vital importance to citizens who live within the District, and the children who go to school there,” the lawsuit states.

Trustee Exclusion Disenfranchises Voters: Lawsuit

Before filing the lawsuit, Bron sent a letter to the district asking for a change in district policy.

At the May 26 meeting, trustees voted 6-0 to exclude Bron from voting on some closed session items, another violation of California law, the lawsuit states.

California law puts the burden of recusal on officials and not the body as a whole. Trustees represent their constituents, and California law has explicit requirements to exclude an elected official from participating in a vote. Violating that law disenfranchises that trustee’s constituency, the lawsuit states. Bron represents district area No. 1, the largest district by geography, spanning east Sanger north to the foothills and south.

What’s more, trustees took the vote unannounced, behind closed doors, and without the advice of legal counsel.

“California law strictly limits how an elected official can be removed or curtailed in office,” the lawsuit state. “A board majority cannot usurp these constitutionally and statutorily defined processes, especially based on a subjective perception that the trustee is purportedly ‘biased.'”