Responding to a demand to “cure and correct” Brown Act accusations over school mergers, the Pasadena Unified School District issued a statement on Friday, saying that its legal counsel found no wrongdoing.
At issue were published reports revealing apparent coordination and consolidation plans that included trustees Tina Fredericks, Scott Harden and fellow Trustees Kim Kenne and Yarma Velázquez before the process formally began early this year.
The trustees have denied any collusion, but for months, the consolidation issue had roiled the district, with parents, students and other stakeholders decrying the possibility that their school campuses would close and be merged into other campuses.
On May 28, that process was halted after heavy pushback and the allegations that trusteed violated the Brown Act by colluding with the district’s consultant, which had been exploring consolidation with a special committee.
On Friday, the district acknowledged that on May 15, a member of the public submitted a request to “cure and correct,” a process of identifying an alleged open-meeting violation with a threat of legal action if the wrongdoing is not “cured.”
In this case, critics accused trustees of collusion ahead of a Dec. 11, 2025, meeting. Through Board Resolution 2852, a letter contended, the trustees set in motion a process to close schools, a process that according to the “cure and correct” demand, must be rescinded.
The letter lamented “an unlawful process” that is continuing.
“The District’s legal counsel reviewed the allegations, responded to the request, and concluded that the members of the Board of Education did not violate the Brown Act,” a district statement on Friday stated. “The Brown Act allows board members to communicate with each other so long as a majority of the Board does not exchange comments/positions on a particular topic.”
Pasadena’s Board of Education consists of seven members, up to three of which under the law can engage in the kinds of discussion at issue outside a public meeting, the district’s counsel said.
“Legal counsel found the evidence does not support an allegation that four or more board members exchanged comments/positions on the same topic outside of a board meeting,” according to the district.
At their May 28 meeting, during which the board ultimately rejected consolidation, the trustees — two of whom were served with intent-to-recall notices — denied collusion with a district consultant, Total School Solutions, hired to explore options for merging schools in the district.
Fredericks said a consolidation plan she created for her personal notes was independent of the consultant, as in 2025 she saw consolidation as a way to deal with the district’s massive structural deficit.
But she and Harden denied having tipped the scales toward consolidation, nor pushed for a majority that would have made consolidation a foregone conclusion.
Harden added that his work behind the scenes was about “effective governance” which demanded that trustees engage in rigorous research and fact finding.
Faced with declining enrollment, the chief contributor to a financial crisis, PUSD’s trustees voted to explore consolidation as a way to right-size the district given current and future projected enrollment while also using the process as a way to save money.
Opponents of school consolidation have consistently pushed back against this argument from the consultant saying it is antithetical to what makes PUSD special — a diverse array of schools that offer programs and learning environments that work for some student and not for others.
The district’s statement on Friday came on the heels of a Thursday night board meeting, where the board unanimously voted to terminate their contract with Total School Solutions, the consultant initially hired to explore consolidation amid declining enrollment and a standing district budget deficit of $30 million.
It was clear Thursday that the impact of that process was still very much on the minds of stakeholders.
“I had to change schools multiple times as a kid and it wrecked me […] I don’t want that for my kid,” PUSD parent Geoffrey Jost said.
Jost said his son’s social life would be uprooted with a school closure.
“I don’t want to see that bad course of action come back from the dead,” he continued..
Terminating TSS’s contract without cause comes amid heightened scrutiny around consolidation efforts.
Southern California New Group reached out to Fredericks for comment about the board’s decision to end TSS’s contract but did not receive a response.
For those who are against consolidation, such as Jost, the unanimous district vote to terminate TSS’s contract was not an absolute victory against consolidation efforts. Some posit that consolidation brings necessary benefits for students.
“There’s an argument that if we cut schools, there’s going to be less opportunities for our athletes,” John Muir High School Athletics Director Alfredo Resendiz said. “That’s not true. In many cases. We’ll have more opportunities [for] sports programs to return.”
According to some PUSD staff, right-sizing would focus funding for staff, student programs and student learning, which could still play out with a new consolidation contract under Resolution 2852.
However, until SCAC action is brought back for the board to consider, the contract termination acts as a temporary respite.
“I hope that (a consolidation contract) will not come back in any form,” PUSD parent Lisa Kroese said. “You’ve not convinced us that this is the best path forward (…) We have not succeeded any time we’ve tried this.”
“Take school closures off the table,” PUSD parent Una Lee Jost said, adding that alternative financial solutions to consolidation exist. “Instead of rushing consultant-driven recommendations, launch a community-centered visioning process for the future of PUSD and (…) consider even keeping the 33-member Consolidation Advisory Committee, and call it instead, the Revenue Optimization Committee.”