Board of Education — April 14, 2026

📖 The Bible stayed on the shelves, and so did the policy that put it there

The Board of Education voted to uphold the district review committee's recommendation and keep The Holy Bible: King James Version in school libraries. The minutes record Candy Olson as the mover and Jeannette Wilson as seconding, and record the motion as one "to uphold the committee's recommendation to maintain The Holy Bible: King James Version in school libraries" 1.

The hearing was the last step of a process the agenda spelled out in advance: the board would "consider the appeal and determine whether the presented material is appropriate for students at the elementary, middle, and/or high school levels," and anything found unsuitable for a level would be pulled from those schools "within five (5) business days" 2. On the recording, the motion that carried was framed from the dais more broadly than the minutes record it, as keeping the book and allowing it "in any level of schooling, elementary, middle, or high school, if a librarian chooses to place it in there" 3. The adopted minutes carry the narrower wording, and they are the record.

How a Bible challenge reaches a school board

The machinery the whole night ran on is Administrative Regulation 1312.2, and specifically its Section II, the branch the regulation reserves for a complaint alleging "perceived pornography, erotica, graphic descriptions or depictions of sexual acts, and/or sexual violence, or sexually explicit materials" 4. That branch moves fast and bluntly. Once a principal decides a complaint qualifies, "the principal must remove the item from the school library and notify the Superintendent of the removal within three business days." The review that follows is not done by a site committee but by a three-person district committee of "the Superintendent, the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, and the Director of Elementary or Secondary Education," working from "a review rubric, rubric scorecard and definitions list" and reporting "preferably within two months." If the complainant disagrees, the appeal goes in writing to the Board President, and "The Board shall then hold a public hearing within forty-five calendar days to determine whether the material is appropriate for student use" 4. That hearing is what filled the board room on April 14.

The committee's work is in the agenda packet, though it is easy to miss: three completed Section II Rubric and Rubric Scorecard forms at packet pages 15 to 17, each dated February 24, 2026, scoring the Bible 7, 4 and 5 out of a possible 25, which falls in the form's lowest band, the one paired with the action "Retain book/materials" 5. Those three pages are scanned images sitting inside an otherwise born-digital packet, so they do not appear in any text search of the file.

At the microphone

The minutes name thirty speakers at the hearing, and record no one urging the board to remove the book. A sample of the positions the record pairs with a name:

• Gina Porter urged the board to deny the appeal, arguing that censorship violates students' First Amendment rights by letting one parent's private beliefs restrict access for the whole student body 6.
• Greg Brittain dismissed the comparison between the Bible and other challenged books as invalid 6, argued the effort was part of a broader campaign to undermine the foundations of Western civilization, and urged the board to vote "no" 7.
• Aaron Fernando argued for consistent application of the board's own removal policy, quoting the arguments previously used to justify removals and contending that the Bible meets those same criteria 6.
• Michael Paisner criticized the board's book review process and called a decision to retain the Bible while having banned titles like The Bluest Eye and Push "hypocritical and discriminatory" 7. At the podium, after giving his name, he told the board: "Three of you voted to ban books where the main characters are black, but tonight, we all know, you will vote to keep the book that promotes your own religious perspective." 8
• Peter Hall said he was confused by the complaint, that the King James Version's archaic language makes it largely inaccessible to students, and that its violent Old Testament passages reflect ancient practice rather than modern endorsement 7.
• Katherine Appleby opposed removing the Bible but questioned the integrity of the review, arguing that two months was not enough for committee members to read a work of that length cover to cover and raising the possibility of bias among Christian reviewers 9. Identifying herself at the podium, she said she was still working through a second reading of Les Misérables, a book of comparable length, and that it was taking her longer than the regulation allows 10.
• Tim Ormsby called the challenge a tactical demonstration designed to expose the flaws in the board's book challenge policy, and argued the policy wastes district resources 9.
• Dale Broome rejected any moral equivalency, arguing the Bible frames sinful behavior as a violation of God's law rather than normalizing it 9.
• Bea Hamilton said the board had ignored earlier warnings that the policy was flawed and overly broad and was now in the predictable position of choosing between banning the Bible and exposing its own hypocrisy, and Mark Laird called the policy vague and a waste of time that has brought national ridicule to the district while defending the Bible's place in schools 11.

The hearing closed at 7:39 p.m. 12.

The comparison speaker after speaker reached for is in this archive. At the December 9, 2025 meeting the board took action to remove Push by Sapphire, and to restrict The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison so that "only 18-year-old students with parental permission can check out the book" 13.

Outside the room

The hearing was covered outside the district as well as in it. Community Forward Redlands counted 26 public speakers at the hearing, where the minutes list thirty, and reported the outcome two days later 14. CBS Los Angeles reported the decision the same night and noted that under the policy the district has removed Push and restricted The Bluest Eye to students over 18 with parental consent 15. Previewing the meeting, Hoodline reported that the complainant has not been publicly identified and that the complaint argued "certain passages are sexually explicit and therefore unfit for schoolchildren" 16.

🔒 A loaded handgun at Moore Middle School, and single-point entry district-wide

Superintendent Juan J. Cabral used his report to address the incident at Moore Middle School, where a student brought a loaded handgun to campus. He commended the student who alerted staff and the teachers and security team for a calm response, and said the district is moving all schools to a single-point entry system within two weeks, increasing random canine searches for gunpowder, and writing to families about secure gun storage at home. Redlands High School, effectively two campuses, will implement single-point entry at each 17. The recording of that report adds two details the minutes compress away: Moore had four ways onto campus and has already been cut to two, and surveys went out to staff and to Moore parents 18.

In board comments, Candy Olson commended Director Yost and Principal Dyerly for their handling of the incident and urged parents to keep firearms locked at home, and Melissa Ayala-Quintero commended the student who reported the weapon and encouraged parents to talk with their children about reporting safety concerns 19.

Community Forward Redlands later reported that the measures were set out in an April 22 letter to families, and that the district pointed to two incidents in recent school years in which middle school students brought loaded handguns onto campus 20.

💵 A one-time 2%, with layoff hearings two weeks away

Both employee associations used their standing reports to talk about pay. Stephen Caperton, for the Redlands Teachers Association, addressed the tentative agreement and the reduction in force hearings set for April 29 affecting 28 certificated staff, attributed the long-term deficit to past administrative decisions rather than external crises, and urged the board to prioritize permanent ongoing salary increases in the next budget cycle 21. Liz Huerta, for the Redlands Education Support Professionals Association, argued that "one job should be enough" to support a family and maintain dignity, and that the absence of raises harms morale and retention 6. For background on the dispute the associations are pressing, KVCR News reported in February that the district faces a $17 million deficit and has approved layoffs affecting up to 135 employees, and that the teachers' union disputes the district's account of what caused it 22.

The board then ratified the agreements. The RTA addendum provides a one-time off-schedule payment of two percent of each employee's base salary for 2025-2026 plus a $2,000 increase in the district's maximum contribution toward Health and Welfare benefits, with a term running July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028 and the AB 1200 public disclosure 23. The RESPA addendum provides a one-time payment of two percent of base pay or $1,100, whichever is greater, for unit members in paid status as of April 1, 2026 23, with the same benefit increase and the same term 24. Management Team members and the Executive Cabinet received a matching one-time two percent payment and benefit increase 24, and the management team salary schedule was revised effective April 15, 2026 25.

🧠 The mental health policy was the night's real split

New Board Policy 5131.8, Mobile Communication Devices, was approved on first reading with suggested edits 1. The two mental health items split the board. New Administrative Regulation 5141.5 and New Board Policy 5141.5, Mental Health, were each approved over the recorded No votes of Patty Holohan and Melissa Ayala-Quintero; on the administrative regulation the minutes note that a first motion was superseded because "Suggested edits called for a new motion" 1.

The minutes name nobody in the discussion itself, and this page will not either. What the recording preserves is the shape of the disagreement: a board member the minutes do not name objected to editing the text on the dais, saying "the whole point of having the committee was so we can work through these things, and now on the dais, you're going to go ahead and change it without even trying to pull it back to work it back into the committee" 26. The district's policy manual now carries AR 5141.5 with an adoption date of April 28, 2026, two weeks after this first reading, including referral triage rules that require "Urgent/Crisis Flags: Must be reviewed immediately upon receipt or within the same school day" 27.

The item drew public comment both ways. Aaron Fernando called the policy a common-sense measure and urged the board to pass it, and Bea Hamilton argued it needed amendments for HIPAA compliance and clarity on parental rights, and was partly redundant given the standards mental health professionals already work under 28.

🇺🇸 The 250th anniversary resolution went back for a rewrite

The proposed resolution celebrating America's 250th anniversary came up as a discussion item, not an action item. The minutes describe "a spirited debate," with supporters emphasizing patriotism and civic education and critics raising "concerns about potential fiscal impacts, the burden of new mandates on teachers, and the abrasive tone of the original draft," and record the board agreeing to have the proposal rewritten and returned for consideration as an action item later 29. The recording carries that tone objection in the plainest terms, from a board member the minutes do not name: "A lot of this is just really abrasive and rather dog whistly, and I'd rather see it be rewritten." 30

Public comment on the draft came earlier in the evening. Valerie Zavis urged the district to celebrate the anniversary as an educational opportunity, while Michael Paisner called the draft historically revisionist and argued that linking religion to the founding sits badly with the Establishment Clause 12. The archive shows where it landed: on June 9, 2026 the board adopted Resolution No. 2025-2026-31 celebrating America's 250th anniversary in an edited version 31.

🗂️ The rest of a night that ended after midnight

Business Services consent items 12.a through 12.r passed together, among them a 450-unit Chromebook purchase at a cost not to exceed $307,628.64 17, and payment transmittals 26002198 through 26002504 totalling $9,965,010.72; the 2026-2027 board meeting calendar was approved after amendment 32. Educational Services action items included five student expulsions 33. Human Resources consent items 16.a through 16.c were approved as a block 34, and the second and final reading moving the district's volunteer rules from AR and BP 4229 to AR and BP 1240, Volunteer Assistance, was approved 25. In closed session before the open meeting, the minutes record a motion, carried, to adopt Closed Session Resolution No. 2025-2026-23 terminating the employment of certificated employee #2025-26-13 effective March 14, 2026, under Education Code sections 44932 and 44939 35.

🗣️ Public comment, and a complaint about the agenda itself

The second public comment period ranged well beyond the Bible. Aaron Perez condemned Principal Jeff Wray, alleging a history of dishonest and bullying behavior in IEP settings and a refusal to respond in writing to a cease-and-desist letter, and asked the board to intervene and enforce accountability 25. Aaron Fernando argued that the Bible's temporary removal from school libraries had been a direct consequence of the policy and that the process had followed exactly the procedures the board established 36. Katherine Appleby criticized the use of Measure D funds to paint Citrus Valley High School rather than fund accessibility work such as a new stairway and ramp 36. Michael Paisner criticized Board Member Olson over equity and over her organization's alleged support for a school voucher initiative, and condemned the board's new public comment format as an attempt to stifle dissent 36. Antonis Christodoulou asked that public comment be moved ahead of board votes and criticized spending on private security contractors while staff positions are cut 36.

The sharpest procedural complaint came from the dais. Candy Olson said her repeated requests to agendize a bullying policy revision, a no-deception policy and a parent notification policy have been ignored, noting she has formally requested the last of those five times since July 2025 19. The Board of Education Governance Handbook sets out the route she is describing: "Any Board member may request that a matter within the jurisdiction of the Board be placed on the agenda of a regular meeting," in writing to the Board President and Superintendent at least 8 calendar days ahead, after which "The Board President and Superintendent shall determine whether the request is merely for information or whether the issue is covered by an existing Board Policy or Administrative Regulation before placing the item on the agenda" 37.

The meeting adjourned at 12:08 a.m. 29.