The beginning of a new year offers fresh opportunities — to read more, reach out to an old friend or finally clean out the garage. For CSBA’s Legal Department, it also offers the opportunity to remind member boards of the various rules and regulations affecting board governance. A quick review of governance rules can help your board kick 2025 off on the right foot, especially for those with new members. The following are a few of the most important rules.

The Brown Act is likely the best-known governance statute, and for good reason. It touches upon virtually every aspect of board service. Though it is impossible to cover all of the Brown Act’s provisions here, here are some to remember:

• The Brown Act requires all “meetings” — that is, a gathering of the majority of the board’s members to deliberate or act on a topic within the board’s jurisdiction — to be held in public. While this may sound straightforward, this requirement can be inadvertently violated through a “serial” meeting. A serial meeting typically occurs when a majority of the board uses a series of indirect communications (e.g., email or text message) to discuss board business. For example, a serial meeting would occur if a board member communicated their position on a particular issue to the superintendent, who then shared that position with other members of the board so that a majority of the board was involved.
• Board members do not all have to be in the same physical location to meet. Instead, board members have the option to participate in meetings remotely via teleconference. Though traditional teleconferencing requirements have often been difficult to satisfy, over the past few years the Brown Act has been amended to allow teleconferencing under a broader range of circumstances. For example, board members may teleconference for “good cause,” or during a proclaimed state of emergency, subject to certain restrictions.
• The Brown Act requires the board to provide time for public comment at each board meeting. This provides a valuable opportunity for the board to hear from its constituents. This can also become contentious, however, when members of the public make statements that are hurtful, disparaging or untrue, especially about board members and district employees. Even under such circumstances, a commenter must be permitted to speak. If the commenter poses an actual disruption, they may be removed if they fail to correct their behavior following a warning, or if they engage in threatening behavior.
• Two new bills of note for 2025 that impact the Brown Act. are Assembly Bill 2715 and AB 2302. AB 2715 added a provision to the existing reasons a board may meet in closed session for discussing cybersecurity threats related to critical infrastructure controls or information. Effective Jan. 1, 2026, AB 2302 revises the rules for remote participation by board members. Previously, members could participate remotely for “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” for no more than three consecutive months or 20 percent of meetings per year. AB 2302 revised these requirements to add a clearer definition of the meetings that may be attended remotely: (1) two meetings per year for a board that meets one or fewer times per month; (2) five meetings per year for a board that meets twice per month; and (3) seven meetings per year for a board that meets three or more times per month.

Board members must also be mindful of their obligation to avoid prohibited conflicts of interest. The most complex of these prohibitions — those found in Government Code Section 1090 (Section 1090), et seq., and the Political Reform Act (PRA) — are focused on financial conflicts of interest. Specifically, a financial conflict of interest is broadly construed, and includes virtually any situation in which a board member or their immediate family could financially benefit from a contract agreed to by their local educational agency. If a conflict exists, the contract is void, even if the board member recuses themselves from the contract’s consideration. While there are some exceptions to this prohibition, the penalties for violation are severe, including criminal sanctions and loss of public office.

Under the PRA, board members are prohibited from participating in the making of any decision (not just contracts) that would have a foreseeable and material financial effect on their own interests or those of their immediate family. Unlike Section 1090, however, the PRA contains a series of complex regulations defining prohibited conflicts, and such conflicts can be cured through the board member’s recusal from the decision-making process.

Finally, board members must be mindful of common-law conflicts of interest. Common law conflicts derive from California’s case law, not statutes, and, unlike the conflicts above, are not limited to finances. Instead, a common law conflict exists whenever a board member is placed in a situation where they could potentially struggle to faithfully represent the interests of their LEA. In these situations, a board member is required to recuse themselves from the decision-making process.

Finally, board members must be sure to comply with the PRA’s gifts and income reporting requirements by timely filing their Form 700s. Board members must file their Form 700 annually, and within 30 days of entering or departing office. Form 700s must detail identified investments and other sources of income, as well as gifts. If required information is inadvertently excluded, or a member forgets to file their Form 700, it should be filed as soon as possible. For additional information regarding Form 700 filings, board members should consult their local conflict-of-interest code or legal counsel.

Board members are required to receive training on these topics, and many others, as part of the ethics training mandated by AB 2158. For board members holding office on Jan. 1, 2025, this training must be completed no later than Jan. 1, 2026, after which it must be completed every two years.