Public trust in government depends on a basic expectation: officials entrusted with public authority must conduct community business openly and provide the public a meaningful opportunity to participate before important decisions are made.
That principle is central to growing concerns surrounding the March 12 Morgan Hill Unified School District board meeting.
California’s Brown Act exists to prevent public agencies from making consequential decisions behind procedural barriers that effectively exclude the public. The law is intended not only to permit attendance at meetings, but to ensure transparency and meaningful public engagement before decisions are finalized.
In this case, parents at Martin Murphy Middle School learned that respected teacher Ms. Kang might not be retained. Wanting to advocate on her behalf, they contacted district leadership directly to ask when they should attend and speak regarding her case.
Parents specifically sought clarification about whether they should attend at 5pm or 6pm because the agenda contained two separate public comment periods and broad boilerplate language regarding personnel matters. District leadership instructed multiple parents to attend at 6pm.
District leadership—including Superintendent Carmen Garcia, Human Resources Director Alex Aasen, Board President John Horner and Trustee Jennifer Marquez—would have known that teacher non-reelection discussions, including Ms. Kang’s, were scheduled during the 5pm closed session.
Despite that knowledge, parents advocating for Ms. Kang were directed to attend after relevant discussions had already taken place and decisions had effectively been finalized.
The practical effect was significant: community members arrived prepared to speak only after district officials had already discussed and resolved the matter behind closed doors.
Although the agenda referenced “Public Employee Discipline Dismissal Release Reassignment Complaint (Government Code § 54957 and 54957.1),” district officials routinely use the same generic language regardless of whether significant employment decisions are pending. Parents argue the agenda therefore failed to provide meaningful notice about when major personnel decisions would actually occur.
Critics contend district officials cannot claim transparency while relying on vague agenda descriptions and directing parents to attend after key discussions have concluded.
This concern goes beyond a technical reading of meeting law. It raises broader questions about whether procedural ambiguity was used in a way that prevented meaningful public participation while preserving the appearance of compliance.
The Brown Act permits closed session discussions for certain personnel matters. However, the law’s purpose is undermined when officials structure or communicate meeting procedures in ways that leave the public unable to speak before decisions are effectively made.
Whether these actions constitute a formal Brown Act violation is a legal determination.
Still, the underlying facts remain difficult to dismiss: district officials knew when the matter would be discussed, parents specifically asked when to speak and those parents were directed to attend only after critical deliberations had already occurred.
Community members have formally raised these concerns with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office. Additional review through the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is also being considered if the concerns remain unresolved through existing oversight processes.
At its core, this issue is about accountability. Public institutions depend on trust, and that trust erodes when officials appear to control information, timing and access in ways that limit meaningful community participation.
If district leadership acted appropriately, they should explain why parents were directed to attend after deliberations had occurred and decisions had been made. If mistakes were made, the community deserves acknowledgement and accountability.
Either way, the community deserves clear answers.
This year is an especially important moment for civic oversight. With multiple seats on the MHUSD Board of Education on the ballot, voters will soon decide what kind of leadership and transparency they expect moving forward.
Morgan Hill deserves leadership that treats public participation as more than just a formality.
Nga Dinh is a parent whose child attends school in Morgan Hill Unified School District.
