PUSD Board President Drops Recall Signers From Lawsuit

Pasadena Unified School District Board President Tina Fredericks has removed the proponents of a recall effort against her from the lawsuit she filed to block the recall petition, saying they were never meant to be targets of the case.

Fredericks said an unclear understanding of filing requirements resulted in listing “DOES 1 to 124, inclusive” as respondents and defendants in her original July filing.

“I had no intention of suing them,” she said. “From the beginning my goal was just to clear up the falsehoods about me, and that’s it.”

She told Pasadena Now she wants to make clear that people involved in the recall are not targeted by her lawsuit and are no longer described in it.

Fredericks filed an Amended Verified Petition on Sept. 2 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

A hearing to set a trial date is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 8, at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. The Trial Setting Conference will be heard by Judge Tiana J. Murillo in Department 834.

A trial-setting conference is a scheduling matter rather than a trial. In such conferences, the judge typically determines whether a case is ready to be placed on the trial calendar and works out the practical structure of any future trial — whether the case will be tried to a jury or to the judge, which claims and defenses will be tried, whether discovery is complete, the anticipated length of trial, and witness and counsel availability.

Witnesses are rarely called, and no evidence or testimony on the merits is normally given.

Fredericks filed her original verified petition July 2, naming the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and 124 unidentified “Doe” parties. That figure corresponded to the number of District 6 residents who signed the notice of intention to circulate the recall petition, according to the original filing.

The action is brought under California Elections Code sections 13314 and 18600 and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 525, et seq.

Fredericks designated the action a priority matter under Elections Code section 13314(a)(3), a designation state law gives precedence over other civil cases.

The original filing sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction barring the county from authorizing circulation of the recall petition until a court could decide whether it should be invalidated.

Fredericks, who represents Trustee Area 6, is listed on the amended petition without an attorney and is representing herself.

The inclusion of the Doe parties drew public criticism through the summer.

Sierra Madre Mayor Kris Lowe, who has demanded Fredericks’ resignation, said in August that she believed she was among the unnamed parties and called the lawsuit an action against the same families the board is meant to serve.

The recall petition’s stated grounds, which Fredericks reproduces and disputes in her filing, allege that she violated California’s Ralph M. Brown Act by coordinating school consolidation plans through private meetings and serial communications, drafted and advanced her own “Consolidation 2027” plan while portraying the process as independent, and worked with a consultant before it received a taxpayer-funded contract worth more than $233,000.

Fredericks denies each assertion.

She contends no Brown Act violation occurred because the communications involved no more than two or three of the seven board members, short of the majority required for an unlawful serial meeting. She has said “Consolidation 2027” was a compilation of her personal notes that was never circulated to other board members, staff or the public, and was discovered only through an automated search the district conducted in response to a Public Records Act request.

The district’s outside counsel, Scott D. Danforth of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, wrote in a June 12 letter responding to a Brown Act “cure and correct” demand that there “does not appear to be coordination among more than three Board Members,” while acknowledging “the effect these communications have had on the public’s trust.”

The Board of Education approved the consulting agreement with Total School Solutions on Jan. 22 in a 5-2 vote and voted 7-0 to terminate the contract without cause June 11. The board rescinded Resolution No. 2852, which established optimal school size ranges, on June 25.

“The recall effort against board members does nothing to address the very real challenges that declining enrollment poses to our district and its impact on fully funding classrooms, support staff, and improving student outcomes. Let’s restore decorum in our board room to focus on these issues that unite all of us,” Fredericks said.

The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk approved recall petitions against Fredericks and Trustee Scott Harden for signature gathering on Aug. 13. Proponents have until Dec. 11 to gather signatures from 20% of eligible voters in each trustee area.