A Voice for Beverly Hills — Past, Present, and Future
The article highlights ongoing dysfunction within the Board of Education, particularly regarding the failed settlement of a lawsuit challenging the board's bypassing of its own bylaws when appointing a new Vice President. Despite negotiations that seemed to lead to a resolution, the board ultimately rejected the settlement, resulting in costly legal proceedings and further scrutiny of their actions, which have raised concerns about fiscal responsibility amid significant budget deficits.

Once again,the dysfunction that has plagued the Board of Education during the last nearly two years since the commencement of the unconstrained reign of three board members led by the current President (the trio), has been publicly displayed. I had anticipated that I would be able to tell you about justice, a happy ending, retribution and omelet on the faces of three of the members of the BHUSD Board of Education all wrapped into one litigation resolution.
But I cannot. Only the omelet remains.
Let me explain.
For the past several days Daniel Lifschitz and the District’s lawyers have been negotiating a settlement of Mr. Lifschitz’s lawsuit. The lawsuit challenges the Board’s disregard of its bylaws last December when it installed Sigalie Sabag as Vice President instead of Dr. Amanda Stern as required.
The principal term of the settlement which was proposed by the District never changed and was never challenged: 1) Sigalie Sabag would step down as Vice President and 2) Dr. Amanda Stern would be installed as Vice President as required by the District ByLaws in effect last December.
Numerous drafts of a settlement agreement were exchanged and many hours of attorney time of the District’s lawyers were expended negotiating details. One final detail that the attorneys agreed upon in mid-afternoon on July 28, at the request of the Board’s attorney, was timing: Dr. Stern would be sworn in as Vice President at the Board’s meeting on that night July 28.
At the last possible moment later in the afternoon, the District’s lawyer advised Mr. Lifschitz that there would be no settlement but could not give any further information or explanation.
There was one thing of note that occurred during the negotiations of and exchanges of the various drafts of documents. Board member Amanda Stern, who holds a Doctor of Education degree (coincidentally the same degree as the ones held by Dr. Alex Cherniss and Dr. Dustin Seemann), was invariably and properly referred to as “Dr. Amanda Stern”. In every version of the draft prepared by District counsel, the “Dr.” was crossed out and she was referred to as “Amanda Stern”.
I am informed that two members of the trio have had no formal education beyond a few courses at community colleges. That, of course, is not a basis for criticism. However, disdain for academic achievement has no proper place in the behavior of members of the Board of Education.
So where are the parties now?
The court has rejected the District’s motion to dismiss the case (a demurrer) which required rejecting most of the District’s attempts to justify violating bylaws that have the operation of law. The District had also objected to Mr. Lifschitz’s efforts to conduct discovery into their conduct. But the court rejected the District’s objections and the trio has been ordered to produce documents. More importantly, the Court ordered that the trio submit to depositions during which they must testify under oath and penalty of perjury about their conduct.
Those depositions are scheduled to commence as we go to press on July 30th.
Bottom line, the District has likely spent an amount into six figures up to now and will spend a substantial amount moving forward through the depositions and beyond. All of this expense up to now could have been avoided had the trio simply complied with their own bylaws. Notably, the bylaw that they ignored was supported by Ms. Manouchehri when it was enacted only a couple of years ago. Further, the expense going forward could have been avoided had they simply implemented the settlement terms that they had proposed earlier on July 28.
The flip-flop was inexplicable and remains unexplained.
I also must observe that in light of the fact that in the 2025-26 fiscal year, District expenses exceeded revenues by over $6M and for the current fiscal year expenses are projected to exceed revenues by another $3M, the trio would be more sensitive to unnecessary and unjustified expenditures.
Lifschitz, who challenged the Board entirely at his own expense, has shared these details about the settlement negotiations with me because he believes that the public has a right to know how the District is conducting itself in response to claims that the court found were based on the public interest. I have personally agreed to defend Dr. Stern and her wife in any depositions that the District demands.
Dan has been vilified by the trio and their supporters for imposing litigation costs on the District. Perhaps they should consult their mirrors. They will see the persons responsible.
Kim Lifschitz has announced her candidacy for election to the Board of Education.
Ironically, at the time that this settlement was being finalized, Judy Manouchehri, one of the trio, has announced that she is running for re-election to the Board. I have tried, without success, to reach her to discuss her candidacy.
I was somewhat surprised to learn that Ms. Manouchehri has decided to run for re-election given what she has done during her first term. But then again, President Herbert Hoover ran for re-election in 1932 after presiding over the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed.
***
I just read a two page advertisement in a glossy lifestyle magazine entitled “The Concierge You Weren’t Supposed to Find” that touted the virtues of “an ultra-exclusive, members only daily lifestyle and travel concierge.”
It went on to emphasize that he built his reputation: “Not through advertising; Not through headlines; Certainly not through self-promotion.” And on and on in this ad about how “in a culture obsessed with visibility [he] has become successful by embracing invisibility.” Of course it includes a very visible photo that is I assume is this publicity shy fellow.
This brought to mind the travel advisor Anne and I use. He has never advertised nor does he talk about how exclusive he is. He is just always there when the ball comes down.
For example, when I landed in the chaos of the Colombo, Sri Lanka airport in February, I could not locate the driver who was supposed to take me to the hotel in the mountains four hours away. I called my advisor in the middle of the night in the Pacific Time Zone where he is located. He told me to take a “selfie” [it is astonishing to me that I know what a selfie is let alone that I could take one] that showed where I was standing and send it to him. Three minutes later the driver found me.
When our Sri Lanka trip was concluding, one of our friends who was with us was scheduled to travel northwest to Dubai. But the “Iran War [that is not a war]” broke out and travel in that direction was impossible and finding flights anywhere was challenging. Our friend called the advisor and an hour later he had scheduled three days in Shanghai at a wonderful hotel and transportation home for our friend.
I cannot tell you the name of this advisor but his initials are Maynard Zhang (mz@mztravel.co).

Peter Ostroff is a long-time Beverly Hills resident of over 50 years who retired in 2017 after a 50-year career as a trial lawyer. He was born in Washington, D.C. in 1942. He graduated from Washington University (St. Louis, Mo) in 1964 with a B.A. degree in political science and economics. He graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1967 with a J.D. degree. He taught law at Monash University Law School in Melbourne, Australia in 1968. He became a member of the Illinois Bar in 1967 and the California Bar in 1969, He clerked for Hon. Shirley M. Hufstedler of the United States Court of Appeal 1969-70, practiced law with Nossaman, Waters, Scott, Krueger & Riordan and successor firms from 1970 to 1980 and with Sidley Austin from 1980 until 2017. During his full time law practice years he was a Committee Chair and Member of the Council of the American Bar Association, Litigation Section and was President of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. Since 2018, he has served on the Beverly Hills Planning Commission. In addition to his work on the Commission, Peter has chaired the BHUSD 7-11 Surplus Property Committee and contributed to planning efforts for the District Offices site on S. Lasky Drive and future uses of the Hawthorne School property. He also served as Co-Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the City's Climate Adaptation and Action Plan. He has been married to Anne Y. Ostroff since 2002, has two children, Nick Ostroff and Natalie Anne Cookson and has two grandchildren, Elliott Cookson and Emma Anne Cookson. Some family information is collected under Family Tree in this website. Since April 2024, he has written a weekly column for the Beverly Hills Weekly The columns are collected in this website.
petero@ostroff.la
The first meeting of the newly constituted City Council raised questions about accepting a donation from Israel for a memorial, highlighting a shift in dynamics following John Mirisch's departure after 17 years. Additionally, concerns about operational issues at the La Cienega Metro station and ongoing wealth disparity in the city were discussed, alongside the need for better management of city projects and the implications of recent water infrastructure challenges.

The article clarifies that the Board of Education did not vote to reject a settlement regarding the Lifschitz lawsuit, as previously reported, but that Board President Judith Manouchehri made the decision unilaterally. This action has led to ongoing litigation and criticism of Manouchehri's leadership, particularly regarding her refusal to allow a vote on the settlement and her handling of the situation.

The Beverly Hills City Council recently reaffirmed its commitment to the "Residents First" principle by rejecting a proposal to allow short-term rentals during the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the city's strict ban on such rentals to protect neighborhood integrity. Despite potential revenue opportunities, council members voiced concerns about enforcement challenges and the disruption short-term rentals could cause to residents.