Final summary ← All meetings

Board of Education — July 8, 2025

Redlands trustees adopted a new classroom flag policy on second reading and turned down the library book-challenge regulation and the BP 6000 revision, at a meeting that opened at 4:30 p.m. and adjourned at 12:45 a.m.

This is an AI-generated summary of the meeting · September 11, 2026. Linked sources to original documents are provided to assist with verification of summary content. Agenda Transcript Minutes

July 8, 2025: a new classroom flag policy adopted, the library complaint regulation and BP 6000 turned down

Open session 4:30 p.m. · Adjourned to closed session 4:31 p.m. · Back in open session 6:03 p.m. · Called to order 6:13 p.m. · Adjourned 12:45 a.m. Wednesday, July 9 1 2 3

Present: Michele Rendler (President), Patty Holohan (Vice President), Jeannette Wilson (Clerk), Melissa Ayala-Quintero, Candy Olson 1 2

🔑 The short version

Three policy items sat at the centre of the meeting, all on second reading, all filed under Educational Services consent: AR 1312.2 – Complaints Concerning Library or Media Center Materials (item XIII.p), BP 6000 – Concepts and Roles (item XIII.q), and new BP 6115 – Ceremonies, Observances, and Flag Displays (item XIII.r) 4.

The minutes record the outcome of each. On AR 1312.2 the motion to approve was not carried. On BP 6000 the motion to approve was not carried. On BP 6115 the motion was carried, and the new policy was adopted 5.

Three further policy items came off the agenda before any of that. At agenda approval the board pulled items XIII.s, XIII.t, XIII.u and XVI.a 2. The reason stated on the record for the first three was that the Office of the Attorney General, with which the district has an agreement, "is reviewing both 5010 and 5145.3" 6. Those three were new BP 5010 and new AR 5010, both titled Notification, and a revision of AR 5145.3, Nondiscrimination/Harassment 4. XVI.a, a clinical experience agreement with Point Loma Nazarene University, was pulled as well 7.

🚩 BP 6115, and what it actually says

The policy the board adopted is in the district's policy manual as BP 6115, "Ceremonies And Observances", whose manual record carries an adoption date and a revision date of 07/08/2025. Its operative flag language:

"No flag other than the United States of America and State of California may be displayed on school grounds or in classrooms, unless it is a country, state, or United States military flag used solely for educational purposes within the adopted curriculum. This includes posters, digital displays, flyers, and any other related display. Any other flag must be approved by the Superintendent or the Superintendent's designee prior to displaying if, and only if, it is used for educational purposes and only during the related instructional period."

The policy also carves out exceptions "for displays of school championship flags, flags associated with academic achievement, college/university flags and various national flags" 8.

Two details are worth setting side by side, because they do not match. The agenda and the minutes both title the item "Ceremonies, Observances, and Flag Displays" 4 5. The policy as it stands in the manual is titled "Ceremonies And Observances", without the flag clause in the title 8. The consistency of the three documents was live in the room. In the discussion that preceded the votes, one speaker pressed that the language in BP 6000 did not match the language in the library regulation: "that language isn't the same as in here, and I think it all should be the same" 9.

The word "Pride" appears nowhere in the policy text 8, and that was the substance of the argument against it. In the discussion before the vote one speaker put it directly: "because you've written this policy so that it doesn't say pride, but obviously… we're talking about the pride flag" 10. Another warned about the consequences for students: "We're hurting a lot of our students by doing this. If they represent with a certain flag, and especially our LGBTQ plus students, when something goes wrong to them, you guys are going to get the hit" 11. Another speaker made the neutrality argument: "The flag policy doesn't discriminate against anybody. It is precisely non-discriminatory… you cannot coerce district speech to fly all special interest group flags" 12. A further contribution argued that "even a lot of the student speakers have confirmed they want the pride flag, but they have confirmed that it's because it represents their sexual orientation" — a characterisation the recording shows contradicted in the same breath, "No, they didn't.", the two run together in one diarised block 13.

None of those speakers can be named here. Every speaker label in this meeting's transcript is an automated voice match, and the minutes carry no narrative of the board's deliberation on any of the three items, only the motions and their outcomes 5. Who said which of those things is not in the record this page can stand on.

📚 The library regulation and BP 6000

The motion on AR 1312.2 was put early, at 4:00:08 into the recording 14, and the discussion ran until the vote was called at 5:28:03 15. The recurring request from one side was to hold the item: "can we just wait? Table this again so we can get the information from Ed Services, get it done, and get it right" 16. The recurring answer from the other was sequencing: "They actually need a policy passed so that they can make a rubric. Because making a rubric, wasting time on a rubric for something that's not even sure it'll get passed does not make any sense" 17.

After the vote failed, the record shows direction given to staff and an acknowledgment of what could and could not be produced quickly: the definitions could be brought back, but "the only thing that could be challenging is the rubric because of staff that may not be here" 18. Community Forward Redlands News reported afterwards that staff would return with updated language, a definition of "sexually explicit" consistent with California law, and options for a content review rubric 19.

What happened to either document after this meeting is outside this meeting's record. What can be said is that the manual's current entries carry later revision dates: AR 1312.2, listed there under the title Complaints Concerning Instructional Materials, and BP 6000, Concepts And Roles, each record a revision date of 08/19/2025 20 21. A reader following those two links is not reading the text the board declined on July 8.

🗣️ Public comment

The count was given on the record as "a total of 321 cards minus what we removed" 22, the removed ones being the cards on the three pulled policies; what was left on agenda items was put at "Roughly 225" 23. Speaking time, which the agenda caps at three minutes 24, was set for the night at 45 seconds 25.

The minutes list every speaker and what each said, across ten pages. The weight of it ran against the three policies, but not all of it.

Against:

Jennifer Escobar opposed the library materials policy, arguing it would let parents restrict access for all students, violate California law guaranteeing access to diverse materials, and override professional library review 26.
Jenny Cross warned the policies conflict with state law AB 1078, risk costly legal consequences, and undermine the volunteer effort that financially supports schools 26.
Rev. Cheryl Raine, referencing Christian teachings, opposed policy 6115 as unloving for restricting students from celebrating their identities 26.
Quinn Shea opposed the revisions to AR 1312.2 and BP 6115, warning they could enable book bans, conflict with AB 1078 and lead to costly lawsuits 26.
Nathan Garibay cited national and state data showing higher suicide rates among students when access to supportive books is restricted 27.
Rebekah Acosta argued that treating complaints about sexual content differently from complaints about racism, homophobia or violence is inequitable, and that vague terms grant the board subjective power 27.
Pat Molnar argued that vague language on "obscene" materials leads to self-censorship and undermines professional judgment, and opposed adopting policies copied from other districts 27.
Jean Saglam said displaying a Pride flag in classrooms is protected under California law (AB 1955) and Title IX, and that the proposed book policy circumvents librarians and parental rights and violates AB 1825, the Freedom to Read Act 27.
Reade Bramer called the flag and book policies pointless, costly and politically motivated, and warned that frivolous complaints under the book policy would require public hearings 28.
Bruce Laycook questioned whether prior board votes that ignored over 90% of public comment comply with the Brown Act 28.
Katharine Applebee warned that passing the flag and observances policy would prevent recognition of heritage months and events celebrating the district's diverse communities 28.
Dr. Malinda Hurley shared a personal account of their daughter's suicide attempt linked to bullying and reminded the board of its oath to uphold the law 28.
Michael Paisner noted that AB 1078 prohibits discriminatory book bans, raised the vagueness of terms like "lewd" and "pornography", and urged scrutiny of the Brescia University agreement to ensure gender identity protections 29.
Kim Laird argued the changes would give the broader community power to remove books, undermining both professional judgment and parental authority 29.
Siw Heede opposed expanding parental authority to remove books and shared a personal story from growing up in Denmark about listening to marginalized communities 29.
Paige Mann said the proposed library policy conflicts with the board's own policy prohibiting interference with the direct management of school duties 29. That objection has a counterpart in the board's own governance handbook (2025-26 edition), which lists among the standards the board evaluates itself against: "We clearly distinguish between our governance role (policy) and the Superintendent's management role (operations)" and "We refrain from directing district staff" 30.
Erika Ruiz said the flag policy is not about patriotism but about silencing LGBTQ students 31.
Jack Lucas argued the measures waste district funds defending discriminatory policies in court 31.
Tim Ormsby recommended The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini and urged the board to keep it available at Redlands High School 31.
Matt Keeling cited Maus, a Holocaust survivor story, as an example of a banned book 31.
Jenann Elias said restricting books including AP-recommended materials creates unsafe, exclusionary environments and exposes the district to costly lawsuits 32.
Arrissia Owen said the existing review panel was bypassed and that placing final authority with the superintendent is politically and operationally problematic 33.
Philip Mielke opposed allowing books to be removed within three days on a single complaint 33.
Mark Laird asked for clarity on the proposed agreements with CORE, Learning Genie and Leverage Learning Group, and opposed the book challenge procedures and BP 6000 revisions 33.
Michael Grossman spoke on the potential impact of legal costs on district finances, staffing and programmes including music, sports and field trips 34.
Margaret Male said existing systems already allow parents to regulate their own children's access 34.

In support:

John Berry referenced a recent Supreme Court decision upholding Texas' ability to require ID for viewing explicit content, and opposed allowing Pride flags on teachers' desks, citing undue influence over students 35.
Valerie Zavis supported the flag policy limiting classroom displays to the American flag and supported removing sexually explicit books, citing unity and age appropriateness 35.
Dale Broome supported passing the library and curriculum book policies, noted the legal criteria for obscenity, and supported the flag policy on classroom-neutrality grounds 26.
Douglass Hauser argued that all students should feel safe without requiring flags for identity, and that claims of graphic sexual content in texts like Atlas Shrugged are exaggerated 28.
Ken Hunter encouraged the board to maintain high standards and vote in favour of the policies despite public criticism 32.
Greg Brittain expressed support for the board and praised librarians and school staff 32, argued that fairness is being applied by not having special-interest flags, and voiced concern over lenient disciplinary actions for students causing physical harm 33.
Christine Collinsworth emphasised neutrality in classrooms and urged the board to uphold age-appropriate standards 34.
Anita Rhodes said the families they represent prefer classrooms to remain neutral regarding sexual content 34.

A public hearing on the Redlands Teachers Association's initial proposal to the board for the 2025-2026 negotiations cycle was opened and closed with no one wishing to comment 36.

🏫 Presentation and association report

Jose Torres, Executive Vice Chancellor of the San Bernardino Community College District, presented on the district's two colleges: 28,000 students, outreach to seven K-12 feeder districts including Redlands USD, 473 RUSD high school students in dual enrolment with strong success rates in the most-taken courses, expanding local career training, and KVCR TV/FM and FNX reaching over 4 million residents 35.

Stephen Caperton gave the Redlands Teachers Association report. The minutes record him reporting on the NEA Representative Assembly, highlighting affordability challenges for educators and concerns about state funding, and urging the board to avoid adopting controversial policies that could lead to costly litigation without clear evidence of need or community mandate 35. In the report itself he framed the fiscal argument as a duty: "you have a fiduciary duty to spend our dollars wisely… Every dollar we spend on litigation is a dollar we don't have to meet the needs of our students" 37. The report also stated that a survey the board had agreed to conduct, to establish whether a problem existed, was never carried out, a point the minutes' own summary of the report does not record 37.

President Michele Rendler used board committee reports to address the weeks preceding the meeting. The minutes record her expressing gratitude for community support regarding board policies, addressing misinformation and personal attacks related to policy differences, clarifying a commitment to fair and balanced policies inclusive of all families and students, and reminding attendees of decorum expectations before public comment 35. In her own words: "it is unfair and inaccurate that some are labeling me as an anti-LGBTQIA+, simply because they don't agree with these policies", and she described letters sent to nonprofit boards seeking her removal and picketing at her church 38.

🌙 Second public comment period, and board comments

A second community input period ran after the action items. Rebekah Acosta asked the board to ensure beginning-of-year orientations and events are inclusive for special education students, citing instances where students were excluded due to scheduling or lack of support 39. Eriko Grossman alleged inappropriate conduct by Trustee Candy Olson toward another attendee and called for her censure 39. Michael Paisner alleged that Board Member Olson's motivation for a recently passed policy was personal social media attention rather than student welfare, and also called for censure 39. Roux Whitmore requested an apology from Trustee Michele Rendler, saying her remarks disparaged consistent parent attendees 39. Katharine Applebee questioned Trustee Wilson's lack of engagement, saying board contact information is not publicly listed and emails have gone unanswered 39. Jessica described a past incident in which her fifth-grade child was handcuffed by police and hospitalised after a counsellor's misunderstanding, and asked for better staff training and student support 39.

Conduct in the room was itself a subject. Jenn Kim said hate speech, including homophobic and ableist slurs, has been allowed at meetings while attendees are restricted from using profanity 3. Margaret Male criticised the board for allowing a child to be harassed and for granting additional speaking time to the individual responsible 3. Jesse Male called for changes to the venue and stricter enforcement of conduct rules so that all attendees can speak without fear of harassment 3.

In board comments, Melissa Ayala-Quintero said intent does not erase harm, and that the board's unwillingness to compromise, apologise or take extra care regarding hurt caused in meetings makes the harm appear deliberate 3. Patty Holohan thanked the speakers, attendees, media and staff who stayed through the session 3.

Superintendent Juan J. Cabral closed by noting that the next regular meeting is August 5, that a special governance workshop is scheduled for July 15, that there would be no meeting on July 22, and that a special meeting could be called that day if principal or assistant principal appointments needed approval 3.

📋 Consent and action items

Business Services consent items XII.a through XII.g were approved together 36. They included the use of eighteen named charter transportation vendors in the absence of a formal bid, the Proposition 28 Arts and Music in Schools Annual Report 36 24, the fourth-quarter Williams Settlement uniform complaint report, Amendment No. 3 with SGH Architects for the Redlands East Valley High School pool renovation at $8,500.00, a letter of understanding with Redlands Community Hospital for tuberculosis screening not to exceed $15,000.00 a year, and rejection of claim number 657382 40. The Proposition 28 report the board accepted shows $1,541,243.89 invested in certificated salaries for arts educators, alongside $302,174.20 on books and supplies including instruments and art materials 41.

Educational Services consent items XIII.a through XIII.o were approved together 40. Among them: spirit and song team travel for Redlands High School, Citrus Valley High School and Redlands East Valley High School; the School Plans for Student Achievement for the district's elementary, middle and high schools and eAcademy; the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program plan through June 2028; a CORE coaching agreement for Franklin Elementary not to exceed $33,600.00 40; a Learning Genie agreement for TK formative assessment not to exceed $98,180.00; an agreement with the Redlands Educational Partnership under which the district acts as fiscal agent for the After School Education and Safety grant, not to exceed $1,934,912.56; the A. K. Smiley Public Library "Fourth Grade Heritage Tours" programme; and a CORE agreement for 28 full days of in-person training for grades K-3 teachers and two full days for grades 4-5, not to exceed $193,468.20 42.

Three stipulated expulsions were approved together as items XIV.a through XIV.c 5, covering students 2024-2025-041, 2024-2025-042 and 2024-2025-043 43. The agenda records the first as a recommendation "for expulsion in violation of Education Code 48915 (a) A Causing serious physical injury to another person" 4.

Human Resources consent items XV.a through XV.t were approved together, covering certificated and classified employment, salary placements, extra assignments, leaves and separations 43. In Human Resources action items the board approved, as separate motions, a memorandum of agreement with Brescia University, and student teaching or affiliation agreements with La Sierra University, United States University, the University of Phoenix and the University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences 7.

🔒 Closed session

Closed session opened at 4:31 p.m. with no community input 1. The board took action to appoint J.J. Martinez as Principal of Beattie Middle School effective July 9, 2025; Brian Davenport as Assistant Principal at Citrus Valley High School; Dr. Britta Davidson as Assistant Principal at Redlands High School; and Amy Pry as Coordinator IV, Special Education, effective July 9, 2025 1 44. It also took action to terminate the employment of Classified Employee 2024-25-20 under Education Code section 45113, and to immediately suspend without pay and proceed to terminate the contract of Certificated Employee 2024-25-21 under Education Code section 45123 44. President Rendler reported all of it out at the start of open session 2 35. No action was taken on the labor negotiator conference 1.

📰 Outside coverage, and what followed

Community Forward Redlands News previewed the agenda the day before, describing a first vote on a new parent notification policy "that would require school staff to inform parents or guardians about a wide range of student-related matters" 45 — the item that came off the agenda at the start of the meeting 2.

The outlet covered the outcome in two pieces on July 12. On the flag policy it reported that most speakers opposed it, "viewing it as a targeted attempt to ban Pride flags and a symbolic move that would harm LGBTQ+ students by removing visible signs of support" 46. On the library regulation it reported that the board did not adopt the revisions, "citing a lack of clarity around definitions and concerns about removing access to materials already on shelves", and that the BP 6000 vote "also failed" 19. Its characterisation of that vote as a decision "to table" is not what the minutes record: the minutes record a motion to approve that was not carried 5.

Redlands Community News covered the outcome on July 11, reporting that "On July 8, a board majority successfully introduced new policies regarding classroom flag observances but failed to pass protocols governing the removal of library books" 47.

The flag policy adopted here generated a labour dispute. KVCR News reported on August 29, 2025 that the Redlands Teachers Association had filed an unfair labor practices charge against the district over the board's flag ban 48.

Sources