School board determines vote to move Southeast Academy does not violate Brown Act

NLMUSD school board president Narcis Brasov listens to a Southeast Academy High School cadet argue to keep the academy at its current location during the school board meeting on April 14, 2025. (Photo by Vince Medina)

NORWALK — A contentious debate over the course of action during the vote to move Southeast Academy High School to John Glenn High School opened the Norwalk - La Mirada Unified School District board of education meeting on Monday.

During the administrative item to approve minutes from the board meeting on March 24, where the vote to move the academy took place, board president Narcis Brasov proposed amending the minutes. Brasov said he could not ratify the minutes that ratify a vote he found "procedure improper."

"Given the response we've seen, I don't think I can look at anybody with a straight face and say, 'Yeah, people knew that was coming,'" said Brasov. "The agenda set for that evening stated 'facilities for Southeast as discussed at prior board meetings.' The most common reading (of 'prior board meetings') is what happened during the last two weeks, and the last two weeks the discussion was either staying put or moving to Excelsior (High School.)"

Brasov also argued that the vote did not follow his three rules of good governance, "no vote is pro forma, efficiency must give proper notice to the public, and not undermining (fellow board members) once a vote is taken."

The board president moved to delete the vote from the March 24 meeting minutes, contesting, "the public did not know that (was going to happen), and that's the point of the Brown Act."

According to previous Norwalk Patriot reporting, board members Lorena Vidaurre, Espie Free, Norma Amezcua and Jose Rios voted to move southeast to John Glenn High School during the meeting on March 24.

School board members Robert Cancio, Narcis Brasov and Becky Langenwalter voted to keep the academy at its current location.

They weighed multiple options, including a $34 million renovation of the current site or building a $62 million new campus at Excelsior High School.

There was no cost scenario for moving the academy to the John Glenn High School, but superintendent Natasha Baker said no new structures would need to be added to the campus.

Board member Free argued against the board president since the conversation leading up to the vote was during the public meeting.

"We did ask our consultants during our training last week, and they agreed that it was in public, although the conversation went elsewhere," said Free. "President, I'd like to remind you that you just said 'do not undermine,' but I felt undermined right now because four of us voted this way, but you are undermining us by bringing it up again."

The law firm Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost (F3) conducted a Brown Act training with the board on April 7.

Board member Jose Rios echoed Free's argument, adding that superintendent Baker was the person who brought John Glenn High School into the discussion of where to move the academy.

Baker clarified that she mentioned John Glenn as a potential location because it had been part of other discussions about relocations for the academy.

Board member Cancio came to Brasov's defense and said the option to move to Excelsior was not stated on the agenda.

"If we're going to have a vote on something, it should be clearly stated in the agenda, and that allows the opportunity for the public to make a case," said Cancio. "Because the agenda did not specifically state (moving the academy from its current location to John Glenn) only those that were here late that evening were privy to the potential discussion and decision making of the governance board."

The general council for the district, Robert W. Jacobsen, clarified that approving the previous board minutes is only meant to reflect the actions of the board during that meeting.

"If there is a concern about whether or not the vote happened in accordance with the Brown Act, we understand that a challenge has been made and outside council has reviewed it and feels that's not the case," said Jacobsen. "If there's a request to reconsider this, that's something that has to go through the board president and the superintendent, but to erase this, there's no basis for doing so. To say that we didn't do this would be actual prejudicial error."

After the clarification, the president's motion to erase the vote from the meeting minutes failed 4 - 3.

Board members Vidaurre, Free, Amezcua and Rios voted to approve the minutes of the March 24 meeting.

Board members Cancio, Brasov and Langenwalter voted to erase the decision from the minutes.