MUSD Produced Records After We Put Them on Notice. Then We Found a Brown Act Problem.

DFP Investigations Desk | Manteca, California

On February 17, Dismal Freedom Press reported that Manteca Unified School District was in statutory delinquency under the California Public Records Act. The district's outside counsel at Spinelli Donald Nott had told us to expect records production by March 6 — nearly a month past the statutory deadline.

On February 27, attorney Carter Nott delivered a formal response along with 15 pages of records (Bates-labeled MUSD Response 000061–000075), including board agenda materials and an audio recording of the June 18, 2025 board meeting at which the Resignation and Release Agreement for Employee 134459 was approved.

We have now reviewed the production in full. Here is what it contained, what it did not, and what it revealed.

What the District Produced

The February 27 production included board agenda materials responsive to our January 26 CPRA request, a single legal invoice with the narrative portion redacted, and the June 18, 2025 board meeting audio. Counsel represented that no other responsive records exist in the district's possession.

Nott's letter addressed each of our five request categories. On authorization and execution records, counsel stated that no separate resolutions, memoranda, or directives exist beyond the board materials already produced. On financial records, counsel offered to produce payroll records from the academic year preceding the resignation agreement's execution, with personal identifiers redacted, within five business days of our written confirmation. On legal invoices, counsel asserted that metadata and billing detail are privileged under Government Code Section 7927.705, Evidence Code Section 954, and the work product doctrine.

What We Accepted — and What We Pressed

On March 2, DFP formally accepted the district's conditional offer to produce payroll records, triggering a March 6 production deadline. We also closed out the authorization and execution categories based on counsel's representations.

We did not close out everything.

On board records, the June 18, 2025 audio recording contains a closed-session report-out referencing specific language describing the employee and the nature of the action taken — language that may exist as a discrete closed-session agenda item, report-out script, or memorandum that differs from the general board agenda already produced. We have asked counsel to confirm in writing whether any such document exists.

On legal invoices, we asked whether any additional billing records, invoices, or engagement letters exist beyond the single invoice produced. If additional invoices are being withheld on privilege grounds, we have asked that they be identified by date and general subject so we can evaluate that assertion.

The Brown Act Issue

Our review of the June 18, 2025 board meeting audio surfaced an issue that was not part of our original records request.

California Government Code Section 54957.1(a) requires that when a legislative body takes final action on a matter discussed in closed session, it must publicly report that action at the same meeting. For personnel actions, this includes a brief general description of the action and the vote or abstention of each member present.

DFP's review of the audio indicates that individual board member votes on the Resignation and Release Agreement may not have been individually reported as required during the closed-session report-out.

We are not making a formal demand on this issue at this time. We have invited MUSD's written comment on whether its June 18 report-out satisfied the individual vote reporting requirements under Section 54957.1(a)(5).

A New Records Request: NWEA MAP and Education Code Section 53008

The same board meeting audio revealed a second issue.

During the June 18, 2025 meeting, a district staff member acknowledged on the record that NWEA MAP had not been formally approved by the State of California as a universal reading screener under Education Code Section 53008 at the time the board voted to adopt it.

On March 2, DFP filed a new CPRA request (MUSD-2026-0301) seeking all records related to NWEA MAP's state approval status, including correspondence with WestEd, the California Department of Education, and the Reading Difficulties Risk Screener Committee; any written confirmation of state approval; internal communications and staff reports regarding implementation; the contract between MUSD and NWEA for the MAP product; and records reflecting state or categorical funding received for screener implementation, including any signed assurances or certifications submitted to CDE.

The statutory deadline for MUSD's initial determination on this request is March 11, 2026.

What Happens Next

Four items remain pending.

Redacted payroll records are due by March 6. Written confirmation regarding the existence of a closed-session report-out script or memorandum has been requested immediately. Written confirmation regarding additional legal invoices has also been requested immediately. And MUSD's statutory determination on the new NWEA MAP request is due by March 11.

DFP continues to prefer resolution through good-faith production over enforcement proceedings. We will update this article as developments occur.

This is a developing investigation. CPRA records referenced in this article are available in our Data Library.

Dismal Freedom Press requested comment from MUSD and its legal counsel at Spinelli Donald Nott before publication. This article will be updated if a response is received.

DFP Staff | Dismal Freedom Press Investigating the truth across the Central Valley and East Bay