BHUSD Board Majority Defends District in Lawsuit as Stern Backs Claim’s Premise

The Beverly Hills Unified School District Board of Education voted Feb. 10 to reject a government claim filed by parent and attorney Daniel Lifschitz, a procedural step taken when a public agency is sued. The claim is connected to an ongoing lawsuit challenging the board’s December decision to appoint Sigalie Sabag as vice president rather than follow the customary seniority rotation referenced in Board Bylaw 9100.

Under California’s Government Claims Act, public agencies routinely reject claims as a legal posture to preserve their ability to defend themselves in court and to avoid automatic liability or settlement exposure. The board’s 3-0 vote to reject the claim does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, which seeks a court order directing the board to install Board Member Amanda Stern as vice president. Board Members Amanda Stern and Rachelle Marcus abstained from the vote.

During the public meeting, Stern addressed the claim and characterized the lawsuit as a “righteous and necessary reminder” for the board to adhere to its bylaws, stating that the claim compels the board to follow seniority and voting procedures.

The lawsuit seeks relief that would directly benefit Stern through her installation as vice president, although she is not named personally as a defendant. Marcus did not publicly state a reason for her abstention. In matters involving litigation against the district, abstentions by sitting board members can carry institutional implications, as the board’s fiduciary responsibilities include taking positions intended to protect the district’s legal and financial interests.

Rejecting a government claim is a routine procedural action taken by public agencies to preserve their ability to defend against litigation and does not constitute a judgment on the merits of the underlying lawsuit.

The abstentions by two board members, one of whom would benefit from the relief sought in the lawsuit, underscore unresolved governance questions regarding how elected officials balance individual positions with their fiduciary obligation to act in the best interest of the district during active litigation.

The lawsuit is scheduled to return to court later this spring. Until then, district leadership has stated that its legal posture is focused on defending the institution and minimizing financial and operational risk to the school system.