September 8, 2026 — Board of Education Meeting Recap

The board met in the Board Room at 25 West Lugonia Avenue, opening closed session at 4:30 p.m. and the regular open session at 6:00 p.m. All five members were present 12. What the earlier agenda preview flagged as the item most likely to fill the room did exactly that: nearly an hour of the meeting went to library and "controversial issues" policy, and it is where this recap begins.

📚 The library-books fight, back for another round

The single discussion item of the night was proposed revisions to Board Policy 6144 (Controversial Issues) and Board Policy 6163.1 (Library Materials) 11. This returned on direction the board had given weeks earlier: at the August 11, 2026 meeting, members debated whether BP 6144 should be expanded to library materials and wrestled with "how to determine whether a book addresses a political issue, what would constitute an opposing viewpoint, and who would be responsible for making such determinations," raising examples involving "presidents, religion, historical movements, the Holocaust, slavery," before directing staff to draft revised language 79.

The draft that came back went well beyond current policy. Existing BP 6163.1 simply asks libraries to provide "[m]aterials that present opposing sides of controversial issues" 89. The revised language would require that if a book "can reasonably be considered to be political in nature," including materials on presidents, presidential family members, political issues, movements or activists, "a book or other media presenting an opposing viewpoint shall also be purchased," with librarians and principals overseeing the balance and unresolved calls escalated to the superintendent 59.

Public comment ran heavily against the mechanics of the proposal. A union representative cautioned that the draft "requires the immediate purchase of materials with opposing political viewpoints without analyzing budgets or the availability of additional resources," and worried it could "discourage librarians from making any purchases related to politics" 17. A speaker identifying as a district school librarian testified that library staffing had already been cut roughly in half — describing the elimination of elementary paraprofessionals, high school paraprofessionals, and middle school librarians — and asked how the district would fund a book on every president when the collection at that speaker's school covered only about half of them. The same speaker disclosed that librarians had each received a copy of the Bible whose purchase was understood to be board-mandated, and asked "where are the holy books from the other major world religions?" 21. Another commenter, speaking as an English teacher, pressed the same imbalance point and described a librarian being "drummed out" 23. A substitute-teacher speaker offered his nonprofit's help bridging district disagreements 38.

Not all comment opposed the effort. One repeat speaker argued the board sets policy and must correct imbalance, contending that book orders on political or cultural topics skewed overwhelmingly to one side 27. Another commenter objected to a new AP Psychology textbook edition covering human sexuality and gender identity 19.

The board discussion was pointed. The superintendent put a slide of specific purchased titles on screen — including children's books by Black authors, a Taylor Swift biography, and Obama titles — and pressed the core problem: "who gets to decide that this book is controversial," noting the district holds roughly 70 titles on President Obama 39. Members disagreed over whether an internet or AI search could reasonably flag "controversial" content in seconds, over whether opposing viewpoints must be found for subjects like the Holocaust or slavery, and over whether the board was straying into curating libraries at all 404546. The exchange grew visibly testy, with members talking over one another about whether a specific book list should even be examined during the discussion 43.

Where it landed: as the preview predicted, this was a discussion item and no vote was taken 48. The direction that emerged was to soften the mandatory-purchase clause so opposing materials "shall also be purchased, if appropriate" — an acknowledgment that a balancing counterpart is not always suitable 48. Much of BP 6163.1 was to be left intact, with the added enforcement language moved into an administrative regulation 4448. Language in BP 6144 was to be revised to reference balanced selection rather than singling out U.S. presidents 48.

The Redlands Daily Facts covered the run-up to this fight in August 2026, noting the "controversial issues" policy was adopted in 1995 and last revised in 2015, and requires lessons and speakers to present topics in a balanced way 98. The broader dispute has deep roots in Redlands: in March 2024 speakers clashed over whether certain titles were pornographic and should be removed versus whether only parents may restrict their own children's access 72, and in July 2025 commenters warned that related book and flag policies invited lawsuits and legal fees 86. The Community Forward Redlands blog reported the board passing a "controversial book removal policy" in August 2025 94.

💵 The budget close-out and a sub-3% reserve

A presentation on the 2025-2026 Unaudited Actuals and 2026-2027 Revised Adopted Budget drew close questioning from the dais, particularly about the district's reserve for economic uncertainty sitting at roughly 2.02% rather than the 3% target for the current year 15. Staff attributed part of the cushion to about $6 million in additional state special-education funding expected to reduce the general-fund contribution going forward 15. The board later approved the Final 2025-2026 Unaudited Actual Financial Report 28.

The district's finances have been a live concern: at the February 10, 2026 meeting, speakers raised a projected roughly $20 million deficit and a proposed reduction of nearly 10% of certificated staff amid declining enrollment 65. Outside reporting has been more optimistic — Community Forward Redlands wrote in March 2026 that the deficit was projected to shrink to about $3.8 million in 2026-27 and near balance the following year 95.

🏫 Naming the Orangewood administration building

The board authorized commencing the naming process for the Administration Building at Orangewood High School under the newly adopted BP 7310 and its administrative regulation 29. The naming framework — which routes proposals to a superintendent-appointed screening committee — was itself adopted only in June 2026 70. This was among its first uses. Discussion at the dais and in public comment probed where the naming of buildings begins and ends and the costs of signage and ceremonies 2429. Staff clarified the specific request was to name the building for Dr. George Barich, the founding principal of Orangewood who served the school for 16 years and passed away in 2025 30.

🎓 Ten expulsion readmissions

The board approved ten separate expulsion-readmission requests, covering offenses ranging from physical injury and use of force to terrorist threats, controlled substances, and possession of a dangerous object; each student was described as having met all conditions of their expulsion order [Sources 8–10, September 8 2026; Sources 31–33, September 8 2026]. The dais discussion touched on whether returning students are placed on behavior contracts and safety plans and whether recidivism data is tracked 31. One general-comment speaker separately criticized the readmission process as insufficient discipline 26.

🏭 Foothill Groves, Gann Limit, textbooks, and consent

The board adopted Resolution No. 9, finding the former Foothill Groves citrus packing house at 304 9th Street exempt from the Field Act as a non-school-use property to be used as a central kitchen and administrative hub 2962. The district bought the property for $12,000,000 in 2023 68. The board also adopted Resolution No. 10 (Gann Limit) 29 and Resolution No. 7 on textbook compliance for 2026-2027 31, and held two public hearings — on the textbook resolution and on RESPA's initial reopener proposal — that drew no speakers 28.

Routine consent business — a $289,990 playground bid, Gold Star Foods and Harvest Produce food-service items, notices of completion, a roughly $7.04 million payment transmittal, and personnel items — was approved together, and the board ratified Resolution No. 4 on teaching outside credential authorization 2833. A student highlight featured Citrus Valley High School's CLASSy Flower Shop and Coffee Company 12.

🗣️ General public comment turns personal

The second comment period, on non-agenda matters, veered into a running dispute over campaign-finance complaints and campaign-sign incidents involving board members — including a public-records account of FPPC filings and an allegation, said to be captured on video and reported to police, of a stolen campaign sign 3435. These exchanges named sitting members and candidates, but no record before this page verifies who said what, so the substance is reported here without attribution.

This recap is based on the meeting agenda, packet, and automated transcript. The district's official adopted minutes were not yet available; where this page describes board actions, they are drawn from the transcript, which records what was said and done aloud but is not the official vote record. Vote counts and margins are not reported here.