A draft of the first part of the article, and a general outline for the remaining sections of the article, were provided to the board members at the meeting. Respondent board adopted the resolution by a vote of 4 to 3. The board next considered a motion by respondent Keller to require the superintendent to identify any district employees who need training concerning confidentiality requirements. This motion was prompted by perceived leaks of confidential information from previous executive sessions. Respondent board adopted this resolution by a vote of 4 to 3.
Petitioner raises a number of objections to the board's actions.
Second, petitioner contends that respondent board illegally approved the use of public funds to publish a press release that represents only the personal opinions of its authors, respondents McKenica and Keller. Third, petitioner asserts that the resolution regarding confidentiality training was an improper show of partisanship, because the resolution was allegedly prompted by leaks that appeared in publications that did not support the majority of board members, although this majority had allegedly ignored previous leaks supportive of those majority members. A request for interim relief, to stay the mailing of the press release, was denied on December 4, 1998. Respondents deny the claims raised by petitioner, and contend that the board has at all times acted in compliance with the law. Respondents assert that the press release was adopted as an official action and statement of the board by virtue of the majority vote approving the mailing, and thus did not constitute merely the personal opinion of one or two board members.