Special Meeting — July 21, 2025

The special board meeting of the governing board of education is called to order by myself, Dr. Melinda Anderson at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 21st, 2025 at the district conference center. And then for I noticed a lot of people might have missed the written board president's comments. I'm going to start with those. Point of order. President Anderson, I'm calling on you to be

formally recognized to discuss procedural issues with a preliminary comment. >> Um, what do you want? [Laughter] >> Just do you want to make a motion or do you want to >> I have I have a request that I would like to read. >> Okay. What is your is it a motion or a request regarding the agenda? >> It will be a request followed by a

motion. >> Okay. I need a second. So, you're motioning to I'm asking for the request first and that's that the board defer this statement until after the agenda approval allowing for public comment and trustee input as required by the Brown Act. This ensures a fair and transparent process from the outset and as a trustee deeply affected by the

content, this could be viewed as manipulation before we approve the agenda. So, my motion is to move your comment inside of the actual agenda. >> Okay, I'll second that. Any comments? So, do you want to let me first do we have anyone that opposes? We want to move it just to after the approval of the agenda. fine with me.

>> Okay. Anyone? All right. Then the consensus is we'll move it to um after the approval of the agenda. Is that okay, everyone? All right. >> That would mean it's an action item that can be discussed both by the public here and we as trustees. >> No, it's not an action item. It's board president comments and then at the end

of the meeting there's general board comments. So, these are just the comments that the like I normally don't give president comments, but I just wanted to let people know where we were where this agenda was headed. >> Um, >> but if you look at prior agendas like the one for tomorrow night, there's no way for the public to see it prior like

you've done it tonight. So I just want to be sure that as a trustee I have the ability to talk to it because as you're preemptively talking about the goals for this evening I should be able to address it as an actual agenda item in addition to other colleagues here at the deis. Okay. So let me just ask I just wanted

to give my general I wanted to do my president statement let people know where we were headed with the um meeting. So, are you okay with that? >> I want to I want you to elaborate a little bit. >> Like, I don't understand. >> Yeah. I'm not I'm not following you. >> You don't want So, so you want to

talk about the board member comments. Is that what you're saying? You want to comment about my comments before I give my comments? I I don't understand what you're saying. >> I would like for you to give your comments, but then have the ability to address it as a trustee, as should anyone else here. as should the audience. This is an item that was sent

out preliminarily in the agenda which was outside of best practices and you've had the ability to already gather public sentiment and opinions. I respect the fact that you want to read through it. I don't have a problem with that. But before we move on, I would indeed like to speak to it. Each colleague should have that opportunity as well as the

people here to listen to this meeting tonight. If you feel like you need to call and talk to legal to ask, I respect that. But I think that is the best way to move forward with your comment. >> Well, would you be okay if I just moved them to the very end and use them as my general board comments? Let's just move

them if you'd like to do that. I think that's people can read them if they want to cuz I So, >> okay. So, we're going to move those. I'll just give those comments at the very end. And the next is the approval of the agenda. Do I have any requests for changes to the >> two requests? >> Okay.

>> I want to move um my board comments to the next to the last at the meeting. So, right before yours, I would like to make my board comments at that time. >> Do you want to >> I'm making a motion to move my board comments to the end of the meeting right before your comments. >> You want to be the last? Do you want to

just be the last one and I'll be the second one? >> No, that's fine. That's the last is fine. And so I would respectfully object to that. >> Well, I made a motion. So, can we get a second or not? And then we'll move on. >> I second. >> Um, >> okay. Len, >> I don't care if you want to move yours

to second to last. >> Len, >> do you want to call? Well, we have Do we need to Dr. Woods? Do we need just call? >> Are we able to do this outside the agenda approval? >> Well, we're just He wants to move his public comments to the second to last. Honestly, it's more appropriate to do it

during board comments and right then and there we get a consensus at the very end. That's easily settled right there. >> We'll make that change at the very end. That's okay. And >> I have another change to the agenda. >> Okay. What was your other change? >> I'm going to remove uh action item six from the agenda and table it.

>> Okay. So, tableabling it means >> um do we have any discussion about removing >> Can I give my reasons? >> Okay. So, we have a second now. Talk about it. I initially brought forward the motion to censure because I believed it was important to address conduct that in my view undermines the values and responsibilities of this board. However,

upon further reflection, I've decided to withdraw the item, not because the behavior has become acceptable, but because it's become clear that proceeding with a formal censure could unintentionally shift focus away from the real issues and potentially serve the interests of the very person whose conduct is in question. Our goal should always be accountability, not theatrics. I remain committed to holding all

members, including myself, to high standards, and I will continue to advocate for responsible, ethical board leadership in other ways. To be clear, this is not about individuals. It's about reaffirming the values we expect all members to follow. While the board recognizes that public accountability is important, we also understand that dramatizing this process serves no one, least of all the public we're here to

serve. Our priority is to main focus on effective governance, not to provide a platform for deflection or theatrics. That said, this does not mean we condone the behavior. We will continue to address it through appropriate channels and remain committed to accountability. Sometimes the most effective form of account accountability isn't the loudest one. We'll be monitoring the situation

and documenting behavior carefully. Should formal action become necessary or constructive in the future, I will revisit that option. I have not ruled out civil litigation with my attorney. Thank you. Um, okay. So, we have a motion, a second. Is there any to postpone definitely the formal censure? >> Len, >> I want to talk. >> You would like to make a statement?

>> I do. I want to make a statement, >> but the statement has to be regarding whether or not we're going to postpone or not postpone. >> I gotcha. So for me, this is about accountability for each and every board member now and in the future. And it is about maintaining the behavioral ethics and integrity of this board as a unit that

serves the best interest of the stakeholders of TVUSD before they serve their own personal interests. making personal accusations against other board members on a civil matter in an open form, engaging in conduct against the advice of legal representation, putting fellow board members and community members in difficult positions. This is not acceptable for an elected official on the TVUSD board.

A board member here threatened the district and the threats escalated forcing a third-party investigation which later said board member put off and continuously postponed for weeks until a motion was made to en ensure participatory compliance instead of having a special meeting to address I'm getting there. >> I just need to remind you it has to do with whether or not we're going to

postpone this. >> I'm getting I'm I'm getting there. I would have to say another point of order would be called. I think what we're doing now is well outside the bounds of what's proper protocol and I'd like the record to officially recognize. So Mr. Bar, >> I cannot I can't allow you to continue. Mr. Bar, >> I'm going to just say my statement. I'll

be done. >> It save it till the end. It has to be related to are we going to postpone the censure or are we not going to postpone the >> vote? >> Okay. Len Schwarz. >> Yes. >> Wearsma. >> Koski. Yes. >> Barham. >> Anderson. >> Yes. So the motion to censure has been removed. >> Is >> like to make a motion to move public

comments to after the pledge of allegiance. >> So gen this is you you've been a board president before in a special meeting. There's not general board general public comments that the comments have to be specific to each agenda item. Do you want me to pull it up and read it from the Brown Act? So each >> No, but but this brings up a good

conversation. Are you going to cluster all comments at the end of the action items? Are you going to let each action item have at least 30 minutes of public comments? >> I'm going to file follow the Brown Act that says that each action item has 30 minutes of public comments. Part of what I was going to ask is I have gotten a

lot of feedback and there is some there's a lot of confusion about the action items and I was going to ask the board if we could discuss the matter so that the public has a better idea of where we're headed with these action items and then have the public make comments before the board takes any action. So, would you guys be open to

discussion before public comments because I think it'll save a lot of a lot of people making comments that aren't relevant and it can help them narrow in the focus of what we're talking about. >> So, I have a comment about that and I believe that would not be the ethical way to proceed forward. This agenda has been misrepresented to the public

because comments on individual action items need to be heard and publishing this agenda with them at the end I know has already served as a deterrent for people who want to come. The public deserves the opportunity to weigh in on each individual item and be heard before we then decide to collaborate together as a board. Point of order. Okay, let me

just read this. This is exactly what she said. >> She's going to let each person talk about each of the on the agenda, >> but that's not how it's represented on the published agenda. >> It says for Okay, just listen. It says in >> She clarified. I'm good with it. >> Let me just say what it says just so you

understand. For special board meetings, public comments are restricted to only items listed on the special meeting agenda. Public comments are allowed up to a maximum of three minutes per comment in the order received to a maximum of 30 minutes per item for comments on agenda items or non Why does it say or non-aggenda items? >> Okay, it says or non-aggenda items, but

it has to be for special board meetings. It can only be on the agenda items. So, you have the consent and whatnot. Can I can I have Len pull up the item H real quick just to clarify. That's why I asked to move this because that was confusing. >> Yeah. Where she clicked it. That was confusing. That read to me like you're

not going to allow public. You're not going to allow comments on each action item until they've already been voted in. So that's why I was like, let's move it all the front. But I get it. You >> cl I'm with you. Like >> All right. >> And and we knew this was confusing. So I talked to Len on the phone. Yes. When

did I talk to you? This morning. And we and I our agreement was let's tell everyone as they walk in that they need to make sure they select a specific item. So some of you may have been approached because we foresaw the confusion and we approached you individually and said make sure that you filled out the form correctly and you're

only allowed to speak on action items at a special board meeting. There's no general public and that's just the Brown Act. So we're just going to go by what the Brown Act says. The problem is in the February workshop, I believe the same mistake was made and we talked about it as a board. The problem is you

don't ever want to disenfranchise constituents looking at the agenda and thinking they have to wait. So, I'm glad you've clarified it. I think we're moving in the right direction. >> What do you want to do? >> From my understanding what you've shared is that they will have the opportunity to speak before each agenda item. I agree with that. I think that's a good

way to move forward for them and for us. >> Okay. and and I and Len if there was confusion we had staff clarifying that and I should have had them explain it to you as well. Um so my question is I think it would be beneficial for the public to hear our comments then for them to give their comments and then we

vote. We want to hear the public before we take action. But because there's been I've received so much feedback and confusion about what does this mean? what's going on. I think it'd be nice if we kind of discussed it ahead of time, but we won't take action until we hear everyone. And what are your thoughts on that?

>> In my opinion, with best practices, I've never seen that done. We've always allowed the public specifically to speak prior to the item. Dr. Kamroski, would you concur with that? >> I'd like the public to speak first, then we morally deliberate, then we take. >> That is correct. Because we are here as elected officials representing the people. We need to hear them first, then

we deliberate. We make a discussion. everyone. Okay, point of order. I want everyone to be quiet. I would have said that ahead of time in my president's comments, but they want me to say it at the end, but I'm going to say be quiet at the very end. Um, and be respectful. That's my comments. Please be respectful.

We're going to take a board consensus because we can change the agenda with the board consensus. So, I think it would be beneficial for the public if they got some feedback about what does it mean on the agenda? Why did we put this here? Do I have I make a motion to first discuss it, then have public

comment, and then take action. Do I have second? >> Second. >> Len CV roll. >> Schwarz. >> Yes. >> Wearsma. >> No. It's backwards thinking. >> Kamroski. >> No. >> Barham. >> Yes. >> Anderson. Yes. So, we're gonna just I mean I it's just an idea. >> Are there any other changes to the agenda right now? >> So far, just one item.

>> Okay. So, so far, yeah, one item is pulled. We need to I move to approve the agenda with item number six being pulled and then discussion, public comment and vote. >> Second. Second. Oh, sorry. >> Len >> Shorts. >> Yes. >> Where's my >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat what >> we we pulled censure and then we just said that we're going

to do um discussion, public comment, and vote. And that was already approved. So that's how we're approving the agenda. Do you want to approve the agenda? >> I do not. >> Okay. Kamaroski, >> no. >> Barham, >> yes. >> Anderson, So the motion passes 3 to two. Next is the open session business meeting. In attendance this afternoon,

our governing board, Dr. Melinda Anderson, Mr. Email Barham, Dr. Joseph Kamaroski, Mr. Steven Schwarz and Mrs. Jennifer Wearsma. We also have Secretary to the Board, Dr. Gary Woods. Um, we'll now have the pledge of allegiance. >> Can I ask one of our military in the audience? >> Yeah. Does the board is the board okay if we have some

>> 100%. >> Do you want someone in the military? >> All right. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you, David. And we the other thing I read in the Brown Act is once we start with an

action item, we will not be taking public comment on that item. So we're starting with number one. So whatever how many comments do you have? We have 11 and then we'll get to those after discussion. Do you want me to discuss this or make the motion and second it and then discuss it? >> Okay. So, I have on

should I make the motion and Dr. Okay, I'll make the motion then we'll discuss it. I move that the board of education direct the board president to submit a formal complaint to the FPPPC regarding potential violations of the political for reform act by member Jen Wearsman, including but not limited to the misuse of public resources, misleading public

statements, and potential conflict of interest provisions under government code 8710. supporting documentation including unredacted thirdparty investigation report and related materials shall be included in this complaint. So the reason I put all of these on the agenda is because it is this matter has been deemed to be a civil matter outside the jurisdiction of the district and we have some board

members that believe that the district still needs to be responsible for it and involved and um there's also questioning the integrity of the investigation. So I came up with some did some research and outside of the district these are the only non-cost things I could come up with. So the letter to the FPPC was the first thing that ca I came across. Um

I want to start by talking about the um misuse of public resour sources and then I'm going to give my opinion about sending a letter to the FPPC. >> You made a motion. Oh, did did was there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. So, there's the motion and a second. So, thank you, Dr. Woods. Um, so to clarify, I wanted just to clarify

with the public why this is a civil matter. And I was brought to my attention on November of 2023, we had something very similar happen with the previous board before I was even president. There were um several complaints against a board member brought by district staff and um legal counsel was called in. So there was a Zoom member or I'm sorry

there was a Zoom meeting, a board member, an attorney and then two of the district um a cabinet member and then another person. And at that time they dis the attorney discussed with the district that when there is a complaint against a school board member, the district has no jurisdiction and that board member was informed not to engage with the

district and at this time has never addressed the numerous complaints that have been made against that board member. And that was at the advice of their legal. So that was November 2023rd. So the previous board is the one that set the precedence that the district that any complaints against board members is outside the jurisdiction and these complaints happened

on school property and within the um what's the term I'm looking for? >> School day. No, it was under while the while the board member was officially doing their duties. What's the term? >> Their official duties. >> Yeah, like they were they were what they were promote they were on school property official duties. It was during working business hours. And so so at

that time the previous board determined this is before I was board president. The previous board determined that when there's a complaint against a board member, it's outside the jurisdiction of the district. >> And I think it's important that we recognize that those were UCP complaints. >> Okay. >> There were about 20 of them. >> Yeah. And then so now let's fast forward

and that the scenario has changed. Now we have board member against board member, not on school property and after hours. When we brought this to the attorneys and we we talked to all three firms that we work with, the consensus is this is a civil matter and this is outside the jurisdiction of the district. And that was clearly stated and expressed

beginning January 27th, 28 is when I got the email from general counsel and that we've tried to follow what the previous board said and that this is outside the jurisdiction of the um school district. That being said, attorneys have been used for the last few months for personal use to hash this out amongst board members and that so my question is

as a board do we believe that there has been a misuse of public resources and funds and I'm going to give my opinion on referring this to the FPPC. How long do you get to talk and then how are we divvying up time for other board members so I can speak to this? >> I'll let you speak to it. How like what

how much time you guys call? >> I think she probably extended two minutes right there. I don't know if there's a timer, but I want to be sure there's some >> usually it's three minutes to introduce something. >> Okay. >> So, you're introducing it though. So, I'm introducing it and I'll just briefly give my opinion because I'm actually it's it's funny how

like a blessing in disguise. Um I have my own FPPPC investigation going on and the investigator is actually quite friendly and helpful and um she has given me feedback and this it would be we can refer this to the FPPC but it would have to show that the board member was using it for campaign purposes and although

the attorneys at the FPPPC are going to side with this being campaign. So, I I I think there's like a 2% chance that they would pick this up and investigate it. So, why did I put it on the agenda? Because I want to put this to bed and I just came up with whatever options I could find out in the universe to

address it. And the FPPC was one. But I just if we vote on it, I just want you to know there's a very low chance that they would pick this up and investigate it because we'd have to tie it to campaigning. And I just don't feel like it would I I mean I we'd have to get so

creative and and I actually don't feel like this was campaigning. I I I think it was bad faith but not >> let Mrs. Wears M. >> Okay. So So that's my opinion about that. I don't think they'll pick it up, but that was just an idea. So what's your thoughts? >> Here are my thoughts on this specific

case. This was not a personal grievance. Under California Ed Code section 234.1, I had a right to file a uniform complaint as a result of the incident occurring in my official capacity as a trustee at the California School Board Association Convention. Title 9 supports the fact that the district has an obligation to investigate a UCP. Further, California Ed Code section 22

prohibits retaliation. Notably, my number one ask for a remedy on the official complaint, which is here, was a meeting with Melinda and Mr. Schwarz, facilitated by Dr. Woods and Mr. Marble, the Title N coordinator. That never occurred. In reference to the FPCC, I want to thank you for putting this agenda together because I've learned so much in the process and I've done my own

homework. So, in speaking to this, here's here's one thing to consider. Under the Political Reform Act, if my male colleague, the respondent, was motivated by personal gain, such as clearing his name, using a social media post to smear mine, it could actually fall under Government Code 87103 and be a misuse of office. The FPPC could investigate whether this decision

breached ethical standards, especially given the report's cost to taxpayers. This actually aligns with the FPPC's conflict of interest mandate as it involves a public officials decisionmaking process. The respondent's post which he made on an official TVUSD channel and misrepresenting the report to smear another colleague and demand an apology could be used could be seen as using his trustee p position for

personal gain. It could be bad faith. It could be something that they would look into and it might trigger FPPPC scrutiny under government code 871 0 >> time. Does anyone please keep your comments to FPPPC? Yours were appropriate. Thank you. Um, so like I said, I've been talking to an investigator and there's we but I'm more than happy to submit this to the FPPC if

that's what you want. I'm going to tell you there's I'm like you would probably vote to submit it to the FPPC for reimbursement. I mean, all they're going to do is look at it and I think they're just going to send it back to us, but I have no problem submitting the full investigation as worded in the

motion to the FPPC for review. >> I think it's time to return to board business. >> So, you Okay. Uh point of order. Point >> Okay. Is there any other comments? >> Okay, then let's go on to >> We do have >> General, you have a comment. >> Yes, and I think Steve did too. >> Did you have a comment?

>> Maybe. >> Sorry, I'm looking this way. So, >> depends on what I what >> just an honest question. >> Dr. Kamroski, you go first and then um Steve, >> I'm not sure. >> And yeah. >> Okay. >> Just an honest question. Why did you agendaize this if you knew that it was highly unlikely for the FPC to take

this? Did you discover that after you agendaized it or did you know before? >> I was just looking up at for I I'm looking for like free ways we can resolve this without bringing the district in. So, I knew that Jen feels pretty confident that the FPPC would look at it. I can't say 100% they wouldn't because I we haven't filed. So,

we could file and just see where it goes from there. I my gut feeling after reading the website and talking to the investigator is that they wouldn't but I they could and I I mean if you guys want to do that we can just package it all together. So whatever the board whatever direction you guys want to go I

do you have a any comments or questions >> I think it's time to hear from the public. Okay. So, we have 11 comments and I'm going to be very firm that these comments can only be related to referring the matter to the FPPC. And I want to tell everyone here, even though I have to say it at the very end,

this is not a trial and we are not judges. The public is not the jury. No one is on trial here and this is not going to turn into a public trial. So I want everyone to respect that we're just trying to come up with a way to resolve this matter. If your comments aren't related to the

FPPC then I will call you will be given one warning and then you will be removed and just please be respectful of the agenda and be respectful of the person that you're here to support that these >> not removed but asked to sit down. No, they're we've already talked to security. They'll be removed. So, um who is the first? What was that?

>> Yes. After the first warning, they will be removed. >> I'm not going to shut down free speech, but you need to keep your comments in a special board meeting. your comments need to be related to the item that we are talking about. So, it needs to be about the FPPPC and whether or not they're it's a good like should we refer

it to the FPPC or not. What I'm not wanting is for people to come up and accuse either board member of lying bad behavior. That's not the purpose of this meeting and we're not going to accuse each other back and forth. >> That is free speech. >> That is not It is free speech. You cannot shut down

free speech. I just point of ordered you. >> Dr. Carowski, you were a board president. You know, in a special board meeting, there is no general. >> You cannot shut down free speech. >> You want people to come up and trash talk the board. Be >> that is their first amendment right. >> Do you want me to call the attorney real

quick? >> Are you afraid of being criticized? That is what is that issue? >> I'm not afraid of being criticized. Point of order. Point of order. Um, >> wait. We're gonna take a recess right now. Five minute recess. Five minute recess. Do I have a second? >> Do I have a sec? >> Steve, we need a 5sec recess. A five

minute recess. Five minute recess. Okay. To clarify, we double checked and the Brown Act says you have to stay on topic. It's not a freedom of speech thing. It's a Brown Act thing. So, the next is I will warn you, you'll be removed from the pulpit, not from the room. You'll be asked to sit back down. Um, unless you're being incredibly

disruptive, then we'll let the security handle it. Who is the first speaker, Len? David Sola followed by Jennifer San Nicholas. >> Good evening, board members, staff, familiar faces, and the plethora of unfamiliar ones. >> I've come up here dozens of times to ask you to do one thing and one thing only, just to take care of our children.

>> I do the same tonight. The vote to refer this matter to state and county authorities is not just appropriate, it's necessary. >> Um, this >> is the FPC not a state authority. >> Okay, go. Thanks. >> Keep going. Keep going. >> Thank you. It's necessary. As the action item explains, the district has already spent nearly $40,000 responding to a personal

dispute initiated by Mrs. Weismo that an independent investigation found to be both unsubstantiated and made in bad faith. That's $40,000 taken from our classrooms and our students, used instead on legal fees, administrative burden, and political theater. Again, how many times are we going to go and watch her do this until the general fund is depleted? Let's be clear, this is not

the first time that this has happened where public resources have been treated like their own to manipulate. It's all for campaign purposes after all, regardless of the 2% chance that you think it is. This is this is being done to promote Mrs. Wearsma's campaign and to sabotage Mr. Schwarz's future campaigns. Let's be clear. Voting against the Melou's proposal

despite knowing our schools face aging infrastructure and reduce state funding. >> Point of order. >> Okay, that's not fiscal conservatism. It sabotage, disguises, ideology, all in the name of getting elected. She campaigns on student success and safety, yet her actions tell a different story. >> Point of order. >> Is a campaign not a part of the FPPC's

responsibilities. >> Keep going. >> I'm asking for a little bit of latitude as I am trying to stay on sub on topic and you keep interrupting me. Thank you. campaigning on student success and safety and actions telling a different story, obstructing critical revenue resources, creating legal liabilities, and promoting exclusionary policies that put vulnerable students at risk. This

board is doing the right thing by stepping this to the FPPC. Every trustee has been directly named or involved in this investigation. So, no one sitting up here can claim true impartiality. Any attempt to impose consequences ourselves would undermine public trust even further. That's why sending this matter to the state superintendent and the county office of education is not

just a procedural step. It's an act of accountability. Let them review this behavior and let them determine what consequences are warranted, if any. And if not, let's move on and get back to just taking care of the kids. Stop saying it and actually do it. Every meeting we say the same thing. Let's move on. Let's move on. Stop saying it.

Just do it. >> Thank you. Jennifer San Nicholas, followed by Greg Lingworthy. >> Good afternoon. Having read the entire report from the investigator, I have to concur with board president Dr. Alexander that or Anderson, excuse me, that the board should vote to submit a formal complaint to the FPPC. Mrs. Mrs. Wiserma clearly acted with ill intent and tried to go full Regina George on

Mr. Schwarz. And this is not a district issue. As if tarnishing his reputation was isn't enough, she wasted taxpayer resources that she took an oath to be a steward of. You broke that oath, Mrs. Wearsma, in a quest for vengeance. That isn't your money. That is our money. $40,000 could fund a lot. As a former PTA president, I can tell you what that

$40,000 could fund. But I don't have all night. I know Dr. Anderson said that the FPPPC might not pick this up, but the important thing is it will be on record. With this pattern of behavior exhibited by Mrs. Wema over the years, a paper trail is beyond necessary. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Greg Langworthy followed by Jason Craig.

>> Mr. Langworthy. So, I just have a a brief comment. Um, the letters the Can you hear me? >> Yep. The the letters that uh to the California Fair Practice Commission and the rest of the action items are attempt to get a third party involved in in making a judgment. And then um the the only comment I would make is of course

you got to give the investigators report but also now you've got new information that just came in. Of course we all are aware of the Valley News article. That's information that that all also should >> Yep. Go ahead. That's just information that also the the FPPC should consider since they're since since they're going to be considering um the investigators

report, shouldn't they also consider the veracity of this piece of the puzzle >> and uh um that allows them to make the determination on all these things and and you guys are kind of off the hook for having to make that judgment. That seems to be a a fair way to resolve this this new piece of information. That's

all I have to say. >> Thank you, Mr. Lingworthy. >> Yeah. So I would like to specifically address this action item first and foremost to acknowledge that the sworn statement detailed in my notorized affidavit suggests that the investigative report which is used to write this agenda item uh arrived at a conclusion without respect to truthful events I can personally attest to.

>> Point of order. >> I have prepared copies of my statement to each of you for review. >> Cut his mic. >> Okay. No, it's it's about do we want to refer this to the FPPC? >> Wait a minute. His mic's not on. And there has to be consistency in the way you apply the standards. Three minutes

gives a person time to get to the exact agenda item. >> Hey, I called point of order. How many times >> how many times am I calling everyone? How many times did I just say point of order to the more less conservative person. I want people to stay on topic. Should we refer this to the FPC >> or not? Like that's it.

>> Don Dr. Anderson, with all due respect, >> you read the for me for everyone, please. >> It is on order. >> Okay. >> Please read the rationale if you if you want to debate me. Okay. Um if we are using uh acting in good faith which you mentioned in your rationale Dr. Anderson um which is referenced

there uh it should also be extended and applied to you as per my testimony has lied to the investigator in bad faith specifically regarding the denial of hearing Mr. Schwarz statement. The misuse of legal counsel should technically fall upon the board president >> point of order. I'm not on trial. I'm not like point of order. It's the

>> Did you not write the agenda, Dr. Anderson? letting you know the FPPC isn't going to investigate me. I'm like a witness. I'm witness Dr. Anderson happens to be >> point of order because I'm I said we're not going to try this investigation over again here. This is do we want to refer it or not? And it looks like the

consensus is >> we're going to have you sit down because I gave you about three warnings. I think that that walks into dangerous territory with infringing upon his right to speak >> and violates his first amendment. >> The next public speaker, >> it's a violation of his first amendment. Followed by Bob Cow. >> Okay. All right. You ready? Okay. Good evening. First,

Mr. Schwarz, I applaud you for your decision to focus on students and the business of the board. I do though absolutely understand the desire for public accountability. So, I do think this makes an FPPC issue. >> That's I literally just said FPPC. Can you not hear? >> Jesus. >> Do we need another five minute recess? >> Seriously, like I said FPPC.

>> Okay, let's let's go. >> Okay, so can you I get my time? Okay. Uh so sending this to FPPPC is absolutely appropriate. Once again, board me board member Weisma's antics and her personal use of taxpayer funds, which is why the FPPC should be in on board uh is to the detriment of TVUSD students and staff. I

applaud this board for finally holding her accountable, particularly financially, and I encourage you to do whatever it takes, including referring this matter to the FPPC. Jen, let's be honest about harassment and v victimhood without rewriting history. As an educator, I endored years of repeated harassment from both. >> Now I'm calling point of order. >> I'll skip. >> Okay, thank you.

>> That's fine. >> I want Do you guys want another fivem minute recess? Just let let me call point of order. Okay, >> let me just go down here. She is only here for herself and her own political agenda, >> including her 2026 campaign, which should not be funded using TVUSD's precious resources, which are meant to support the education for this

children's community. Mr. Schwarz, I'm so sorry you had to go through this. I, for one, know exactly what it's like to be lied about by and slandered by her and the harm those lies can cause to this community. In fact, one of her rabid, I mean, avid supporters just published lies about us in various newspapers this week.

>> I'm going to call Point of order. >> Okay, point of order. >> No, I need you to sit down. Thank you. Thank you. >> See how agreeable? >> Okay, >> Bob Cal. Okay, I I just just a minute. I just want people to know I I'm this motion is do we want to we're talking about was there a misuse of public

resources for p campaign purposes that will go to the FPPC. I am not on trial. I'm a witness. So if you come up here talking about witnesses, it has nothing to do with the misuse of public funds. Like I'm a witness like Dr. Komroski is a witness in the investigation. So if you're going to come up and talk about witnesses in

the investigation, we're not talking about the investigation. I made it very clear that in 2023, the district said this needs to be outside of the jurisdiction of the district. It was brought in and we're trying to figure out should this have remained outside the jurisdiction of the district and was there a misuse of funds for campaign purposes? That's what the FPPC would

investigate. So, we're not going to retry the investigation. And the witnesses have nothing to do with the misuse of public funds. There's 10 witnesses. I'm just one of nine. Okay. >> A witness means you saw or heard something. I didn't. Please don't include me into that testimony of yours. >> Well, my testimony is the same as your

testimony. >> I never said I was a witness. You did. >> I'm sorry. Just stop. Forget it. >> Mr. Cow, please go. >> Yeah, the FPPC uh can be put in into this uh the conflict of interest mandate. It it involves a public official and that public official is Schwarz. So Schwarz should be put before the PPC.

The social media post misrepresenting the report to smear Jen and demand an apology could be seen as using his trustee position for personal vindication. If this involved undisclosed financial interest, campaign funding tied to a reputation or violated disclosure rules, it might trigger FPPC scrutiny under government code 87100. Therefore, I ask that Schwarz be Schwarz's name be put into the FPPC. The

FPPC could have jurisdiction over Schwarz's vote if it finds a conflict of interest, which it did, or misuse of public position under government code 87100 to 87103. His self-interested release of the report costing public funds and subsequent post could be investigated as ethical breaches which he should pay for. It's it's and that's it. >> Thank you, Mr. Cal.

Michael followed by upnate Michael Gregory. I used to be investigator for a lot of local governments with the same type investigation all the time. Cities, counties, special districts with the state of California. And just because you don't have enough primacia evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. So I need it to be about the FPPPC, not about the

investigation. >> Yes, ma'am. So this is in my opinion, this is my opinion. This is not a waste of resources because in every governmental entity, you have to investigate something whether it's true or not. You have to spend the time, you have to spend the money, you have to spend the qualitative and quantitative investigation to do that. This can be

looked at as retaliation, as a m as a matter of fact, against Jennifer Wearsma. So, you better be careful if you're going to going to go down that route because the focus will be on you and other people. So, I'm just telling you, I've done thousands of these investigations. >> Thank you, >> Um, this is awkward about the First

Amendment today. Um, so, uh, we're here because there were sexual harassment charges. Uh, all I'm just have a 10-second preamble and I'll get to the FPPPC. So, all employees in California are required to be trained in sexual harassment prevention. I just took the training and there are three factors involved. Severity, pervasiveness, and whether a reasonable person would

consider that a harassment. All of this dog and pony show happened because >> somebody alleged sexual harassment. One off-hand comment cannot be considered that alleged comment. And FPPPC, I agree with you, Dr. Anderson. We've made numerous camp complaints during the campaign because of people misrepresenting their signs, their position such as saying reelect when they were recalled. FPPPC does not have

the resources and it does not have the authority to actually remove an official. I think if you want to do it in addition to civil grand jury, I would be all for it. It cannot be the only avenue of addressing this complaint. I believe I agree with you there is less than 2% chance that they will follow

through this. If we want to do it in addition, that is absolutely fine. But I do not think that should be the only avenue to address this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Melissa. [Applause] I'm Melissa Schwarz. I'm Steve's daughter. If I may have 30 seconds before I get to the FPPC. >> No. >> Yes. Kly on the board. Thank you. Um, I

want to start by just speaking directly to Mrs. Wearsma because since you've made false and deeply personal accusations about both of my parents, I'm taking 30 seconds which >> I'm sorry. I have to have you just start. >> I have two sentences to read here. >> Okay. I want you to tie it into the FPP. >> That's where I'm going. Okay. You have

made false and deeply personal accusations against both my parents. I want to share two things about them that you might not not know. They met when they were 15 and they've been married for 57 years. My dad >> I'm so sorry. I'm getting there. I'm getting there. I ran I've worked on my dad's campaigns and your your defamatory

statements were absolutely to have you sit down. You have to sit down. See if she has to sit down. Can you cut her mic? >> Point of order, Dr. Anderson. >> I know. She We're >> She's got to sit down. >> I know. We are. Did you cut the mic? >> I gave you I'm so sorry. I I gave you

too many warnings. >> I need Brian. I called point of order too many times. I have to be fair. >> Point of order, Dr. Anderson. >> I know. I know. I I want you to know like I have to stay on topic. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. And then at the beginning I stated we wouldn't take any additional

but one person turned it in late. I think we just need to stick with we won't take comments as we're working. >> Can you get consensus? cuz I I' I'd say take all comments. All of them. >> I think if we do that, we're going to get >> We're going to get comments rolling in. So, we're going to I'm No.

>> Get them rolling in. Take them all. >> No, >> that's that's the right of the public. >> The problem is if I do that as we go on to the next As we go on to the next comment, Email, you're the deciding vote. Do you want to hear or not? for this topic only since we have time.

We're still under 30 minutes. >> Let her talk. >> We're still under 30 minutes. Go ahead. >> Wait, it's not you. >> I get it. >> It's Jack Guerrero. Did you turn one in number one? >> Let the people speak. >> Okay, we'll have you come up next. We're gonna You're We're on number one. Okay, Mr. Guerrero.

>> We've got We still are under our 30 minutes and the board consensus is we'll we'll allow Mr. Guerrero to speak. >> Yeah, we're It's okay. I promise we we'll get to you next. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the board. I've had the pleasure of interacting with uh several of you over the course of the last few

months, always uh with respect to issues of substance afflicting or affecting the children of this community. And so I come to the podium in that spirit of working collaboratively with this board and encouraging you uh to um vote against this agenda item. I'm appealing to your better judgment, to your conscience. Um for one, um this item is

uh squarely outside the scope of the FPPC. This is not a campaign finance violation. Miss Worersma was simply availing herself of a process that is lawfully enshrined within the bylaws of this district. And so if there's any campaign finance violation to circulate, it's with respect to uh the board itself. Uh and so there is no campaign finance violation. Um I would also

suggest that the basis for the FPPC complaint is a report, an investigative report that um deemed uh false uh accusations or false uh commentary to be inconclusive. Um if you read the report carefully, there is uh no definitive finding of uh false statements by anybody. Uh and so for that reason uh I don't think this is a legitimate uh

complaint with the FPPC. It's not going to go anywhere. There is basically no practical consequence. It is purely a symbolic gesture that uh will only uh result in uh a divisive um situation in this community and I think that would be a terrible disservice. Thank you. >> Thank you. [Applause] >> the motion was made. We had a second,

Len. >> Excuse me for exactly what? Yeah. Can you repeat the motion? >> Um, I'll repeat the motion. The motion was made. The >> Oh, I turned right here. The motion was made to refer the matter to the FPPC. That motion, Do you want me to read the whole thing again? >> No. So, it is to in the affirmative to

refer to the FPPC. >> Yes. In the affirmative. >> Schwarz, >> yes. >> Wersma, >> no. Kamaroski, >> no. >> Barham. >> Jack Guerrero is one of the smartest people I know. I'm voting no. >> Okay. Anderson, I'm going to vote no. Doesn't matter what I vote at this point. So the motion fails one to four. Okay.

So the part of that motion was to refer the findings to the FPPC. So I motion that we just remove part B. It's not applicable anymore. Okay, I am going to read this motion. The next one is I move to that the board of education authorize the district's third-party investigator Nicole Miller and Associates to release any documentation documentation, findings,

exhibits, or supporting material related to the investigation into the grievance filed by board member Jen Wearsma to the FPPC and/or the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury upon request by either agency. This authorization includes all materials previously shared with the board and or legal counsel as part of the completed investigation. I want to amend this real quick and cross out

political FPPC. So, let me read it without um so I'm going to say I move to that the board of education authorized the district's third party investigator Nicole Miller and Associates to release any documentation, findings, exhibits, or supporting materials related to the investigation into the grievance filed by board member Jen Wearsma to the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury.

upon request upon request by the agency. >> How did we move into the topic of the civil grand jury after >> because we we need to have a discussion on that aspect and the next agenda item. I don't see how we're morphing into that. >> I had so let me just do Do I have board consensus to move this item after number

two? >> It needs to be. >> Okay. So, we're going to include that in two and I'll just put it on the next page. So, the next motion is to refer this letter to a Riverside Civil Grand jury. So, the motion is that I move that the board of education authorized the board president to submit a formal referral to the

Riverside County Civil Grand Jury requesting an investigation. And I actually want to postpone this. I actually want to move to postpone this definitely because I feel like anyone can refer this to the civil grand jury. It doesn't have to be me. Um it could be a community member. It could be any member of the board. It could be an employee. Um we don't need

to take action on this. So I move to postpone this definitely. When we postpone it definitely can always be brought back in the future if we want to bring it back. Do I have a second? >> You're talking about action item number three specifically, right? Personal submission by the board because then you shuffled with two and I I didn't know

what you shuffled. You said something after releasing all the documentation, but I just feel like I feel like anyone can submit this. So is I mean what I'm trying to do is give the board options. So one board member feels like the third party investigation. So, let let me make the motion so we can discuss it because we

need to second it. So, I'll make the first motion and then if I get a second, we can discuss it. I'm trying to decide if we should just postpone it. Definitely. >> Should just postpone it? Definitely. >> Which one? >> To send it to the civil grand jury. >> The May I be recognized with a comment? So

I think with your comment in flagging the community that they could possibly do this, it would behoove us to have it as a discussion point amongst ourselves without tableabling it because people came here to possibly address this on the agenda. I have material that would be pertinent and that would be the right way to do it if in essence you're

letting people know they could go to the grand jury and if they do they need additional information that we discuss. I mean what I the reason I so let the reason I put this on the agenda was to give you another option for an investigative because you because you question Nicole Miller and associates. So this is another third

party investigator, but I don't want to be the board president that submits it and the board doesn't have to take action and submit it. So you could submit it yourself. Why don't you just submit it to the grand jury? So, here's my respectful thought on that. >> Uh, in your statement that went out on the agenda that you're waiting to share

until the end tonight, >> you mentioned that each and every board member has a bias or is a party of interest. And that's correct. That was a correct synopsis. >> The entire investigative report was built on flawed conjecture and improper witness segregation which allowed us. But my point is it We're not going to retry the investigation. My my

>> But it's pertinent to whether or not somebody would ever stop point. I'm going to postpone this definitely and you can submit it to the civil grand jury. >> You both should submit it. You both should submit this. >> I would be happy for them to sub and please submit >> this the public the member of the public

that is passing out papers. Please submit their statement. Please. I would love for the civil grand jury to investigate their statement. That would make me happier than anything. So, I think we need to hear from the public on this as well because you said before you make a decision, we have to hear from the public. >> You're silencing the public on the issue

you agenda and said you wouldn't make a decision until they were heard. >> Dr. Anderson, we have to let the public speak. Then we can vote. >> I am making a motion. You can't do that until they've spoken. >> We already decided. We already decided that at the top of the meeting. >> Okay, here we go. I am making a motion

to postpone item two definitely. I have a second from Mr. Barham. >> You cannot take the vote though. >> You can what you can do I can you can motion to postpone something. >> No, no. We have to listen to the public before we vote. That is what we decided. Yes, Mr. Bar. We decided on >> We're not taking action.

>> You just made a motion. That is action. I thought you were president for so long. Come on. Where's your parliamentary procedure? I am motioning to >> Are you saying that you don't want to listen to the public when you make this motion? >> I am saying that parliamentary procedure says if you motion to postpone an action

item, it's no longer on the agenda. >> That's like saying I don't want to hear from the public. >> You have to let the public speak. >> You have to. $5,000. >> So I motion to I have a motion in a second. Email calls the question. Len, please call roll. >> Schwarz. >> Yes. >> Where's my >> no?

>> Okay. >> You're going to be challenged on this. You have to let them speak. You've already agreed to it. >> Kamaroski. No. >> Barham. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> No. Uh, I move to postpone. Yes. I made the motion. So the motion for Dr. Anderson to send this because the motion that I put on here was board president

to submit this to a civil grand jury. That has been postponed definitely. That doesn't mean that this can't come back. It can come back, but right now we're not going to do it. >> Can I make a comment real quick? >> No, we're going to go on to the next item. Personal submission by board president is no longer relevant.

So number three, was there comment on number three? Because I motion that we postpone this or definitely because it's not relevant anymore. >> The public comments will be >> on number four. >> Right. That's a slide of hand. by shuffling the order and then doing this. It's a slide of hand. >> Number item three, I motion to postpone

definitely >> the submission by board president. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Len calls if we can't be quiet. Parliamentarian. >> No, I want to take the recess. >> Okay, Mr. Mr. Bar. I second. Do I Does someone else need five minutes? Yeah. >> Okay. If you were here to speak, please don't go. I need to go.

>> I changed my mind. I don't want to submit it. I feel like there's liability. Let's take a break. Let's go. >> Would have been better to have public comments before you change your mind. >> I can You guys canot >> close the cabinet again. Can everybody hear me? >> Okay. So, I'm going to make a motion.

I move that we allow public comments for number three even though it has been postponed. Second. >> Len, can you please call the role? >> Was it number three? >> Was number two. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Wait, >> we're going to allow I want to thank you for making that motion. I Yeah, you're welcome. >> So, let's do that.

>> Okay. >> Call the RO. >> Yes. >> Where's my >> Kamoski? >> Barham. >> Anderson. >> Okay. Let's call that. Let's get going. >> Yes. The motion passes unan unanimously. How many public comments do we have? >> Number two. >> Let him go. >> Yeah, let him go. >> So, the topic is referring it to a civil

grand jury. And who is the first person? First up is Jennifer San Nicholas, followed by Jim Dale. All right. Okay. So, the motion in reference um is to referring this matter to Riverside County Grand Jury. And as I mentioned before, I read through the investigator's report several times and it is compelling reading. So, I am in favor of this referral. Page 24 of the

report begins to outline Mrs. Wearsma's erring of grievances and perceived slights, giving the investigator cause to not only disbelieve Mrs. Wearsma, but to conclude that Mrs. Wearsma acted in bad faith. Resources were wasted at the whim of a disgruntled trustee who channeled her inner Veroo assault because she was mad she wasn't made president and didn't get her preferred

seating assignment. While I think this is criminal, I am hardly unbiased. So, I concur with President Anderson to refer this matter to the Riverside County Grand Jury for review. This will provide the fairness and due process that Mrs. Wearsma deserves, even though she didn't give that same consideration to Mr. Schwarz. I urge the board to vote yes on

this motion. Thank you. >> Sorry, Jim Dell, followed by Rick Reese. >> Thank you. It's good to see you guys again. Been a few months. Um well I think that the purpose of the grand juries generally whether it's civil or it's um criminal it's very easy to reach one-sided conclusions. So I would push that both um Mr. Schwarz and Mrs.

Where's uh have independent uh civil juries if you're going to do one for just um Trusty Wesma? Um I've heard the claim often that public officials must act with integrity and respect the limits of their office. I'm here to tell you that investigations I have very little faith in, especially concerning the district. Uh mainly because of my own experiences.

Um, you know, my experience as a field hockey coach, I led the the attempt to keep it uh here in the district. Um, and we've done that for at least a year. Um, though I question whether all the schools will be keeping it from what I've been told. Um, but I was threatened myself um with being banned from being a

sub in the district. My son was banned from being a sub in the district and other comments from people here. So, I filed a formal complaint to get an investigation going here through the district and that investigation um to me was kind of a kind of a >> point point of order. I'm sorry. This is related to

>> Yeah. No, it's just that >> no um it has to be related to the current investigation and referring it to Right. not your >> No, no, no. It's it's not about my thing or asking for anything there. No, the basic the basic thing is um I don't have my own faith that an investigation could be done on one side or the other. So, if

we're going to submit it to the grand jury, then it would need to be both. Both would have to be investigated because I would not trust uh the previous investigation from what I've looked at. Um, I've been doing stuff with schools since uh 1996. I've seen a lot at the college levels and things here. So, my whole thing here is the

trends. >> Point of order. It just has to be about the >> Okay. Thank you for your comments. >> Okay. Rick Reese followed by Elizabeth Craig. >> Hello. Good evening, board. Um, just to just to clarify a few things about the county civil grand jury. It's honestly I think this is kind of an inappropriate use of the civil grand

jury. The This isn't a jury where they're going to come back like when we go and do jury duty and you come back guilty or not guilty. It's not that. the the civil grand jury is appointed by a group of judges here in Riverside and the they are there for one year. They get paid. What they what they typically

do is they go around and they audit various departments throughout the throughout the county and then at the end they will write the recommendations. There's no guilty or not guilty. That's not their job. Even though it sounds like jury, that's not what they do. Um, and really he well some some of the past things that I was on the county grand

jury website earlier today. They did a review of the March Air Base joint powers. That's a big thing that affects the whole county. They do things that are very widespread that affect affects a lot of people. Other things they do county jail reviews. There's been suicides in the county jails. They they will do that review it. They can't say guilty or they

can't even issue indictments. They write recommendation reports. That's all they do. Um they've also done stuff as far far as looking at fraud, waste, and abuse. But at the end, all they can do is write recommendations. That's all they do. They can't charge anybody. They don't put down indictments. Other things that they have done is election integrity. I think they've done stuff

with the Riverside County register our voters. They also did something recently with the city of Banning. But again, these are special things. And I just want to point out that in this case here, this is very much kind of a sexual harassment incident. She said, he said, if you think about it, countywide, we got thousands of people that work for the county, plus

all the other jurisdictions, city, city employees, water boards, districts, you name it, that that they could if if every sexual harassment case was to come up to the grand this c this civil grand jury, they they would never do it. They don't do this kind of stuff because this stuff happens so often. Unfortunately, these these kind of incidents happen.

This is something that the the the county grand jury is just not going to do. I'm just telling you that right now. Other things they've done is um uh they they uh the failure of 911. Um they've also done studies for Narcan advising. They're they're in like an advise role, advisement role, advising law enforcement agencies and and

counties and communities how to use Narcan. So, I just want you to kind of consider that because this is this this really seems very inappropriate for, you know, the county civil grand jury. Thank >> Elizabeth Craig followed by Lean Charlton. Charlton >> um I feel that if you're asking any entity and including the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury to investigate

this matter, you need to leave the investigation that was done by uh Nicole Miller and Associates out of what they have or place it on hold for further uh investigation. And that is because Dr. Melinda Anderson lied during her testimony in the investigation. So, I'm going to call point of order because I'm a witness and this motion that we

>> But that's the reason it should be put on hold. >> Just let me just tell you what the motion was. It is to investigate the use of public resources for personal grievance. So, we are not here to put people on trial. Um, you can put me on trial. Say what you want, but this is got to be related to I the motion was

member we specifically regarding her use of public resources for personal grievance. >> So the reason that it was >> so it would be a new investigation. >> That's what I would hope and I would hope you would tell the truth through it. >> So just go ahead and keep going with your comments. Um >> related to the use of public resources,

>> right? The use of public resources short was misused because the investigation was altered by someone lying during the investigation. >> Are you going to point of order them? I'm going to ask for a point of order. You know what? We're just going to get through it. Let her talk. Just we're just going to stop. Just everyone try to

do your best to stay on topic. This is about the use of the misuse of public resources doing this investigation through the district and using district money after on you know around January 27th we said this was a civil matter referring it to the grand jury has to do with misuse of public resources and not taking it

outside of the district. >> Her time is continuing to tick down. You need to take it back. You need to take it back in time so that it encompasses what our board president just took. Len, thank you. >> So, the only way that um public resources were misused was because of a lie during the investigation and the

investigation is false because of this lie because it is a key witness in the investigation. Um, and so if if you can tell the truth in the future, then another investigation would be worth it. But since you clearly cannot then just let her finish >> then um we'll just continue. Okay, let him talk. Who is the next speaker?

>> Okay, so Lyanna is gone. We have Bob Cal followed by Michael Gregory. >> Mr. Cal, we're talking about the misuse of public resources for a personal grievance. Um and I'm again I want to remind everyone we're not somebody's >> water back there. Civil grand jury is not a criminal grand jury. They don't investigate individuals. They investigate policies,

procedures, and agency practices. They are auditors totally out of scope on individual sexual harassment claims. >> It's not about that. Therefore, this letter uh does not represent what actually happened. Now that there's a sworn affidavit by J Jason Craig, this is a mute case. Thank you. >> Thank you. Michael Gregory followed by Jason Craig. >> Michael, >> I think Mr. Gregory left.

>> He got removed. >> Oh, he left. Okay. Jason Craig. >> Uh, so head scratcher to say the least. Um, we're going to defer to a nonpartisan grand jury uh to punish a potential victim of sexual harassment. That's what you're showing the community. >> That's what you're showing the community by doing this. Per my testimony, Mr. Schwarz did engage in potential

wrongdoing. >> So now that we are able to get other legal bodies to make bad faith decisions, >> pause this time. I'm going to pause your time. Read this again. I I would be happy to not be a witness. You guys can I I won't even participate. I The grand jury can go ahead without me. What we're looking at as being

referred to a grand jury is a board member regarding the misuse of public resources for personal >> rebrance. So, so we're not asking to re re redo like whatever I I just want you to be clear regarding the misuse of public resources for pe personal grievance. So, go ahead one more time and um >> I mean and I'll just say that should

this go to grand jury. I'll make myself available for discovery and testimony in defense of Miss Weisma. Okay. Next. Next is Rusty >> followed by Elizabeth Sauls. >> So, I'm going to speak to the appropriateness of deference to the grand jury and that is based on the investigation and the report by Nicole Miller. And and so that's how that

relates to uh referring to the grand jury. I'm a retired police sergeant and an experience of conducting investigations including personnel investigations. And I want to talk about the wisdom of referring this investigation to the civil grand jury because I believe it will be a tremendous waste of time and an embarrassment to the district because of what I believe is apparent

unprofessional nature of the investigation. Specifically, number one, the investigation was conducted by interviewing the witnesses and subject of the complaint prior to interviewing the complainant or victim. This is outside the accepted norms of investigations. Number two, >> the investigator exhibits a bias against Miss Wisma by making derogatory comments about her, even to the point of questioning her ability as a trustee

when the report reads that possibly she was quote simply poor at communicating what was actually discussed, which is also not an ideal trait given her forward- facing position. This statement is inflammatory opinion apparently designed to prejudice the reader against Miss Whisma. The investigator does number three, the investigator point of order. Dr. Anderson, come on. I Well, I need your

help calling point of order. I just feel like >> Is it not based on the report that they gave you a girl? >> No, we're we're asking for an investigation of the misuse of public resources because a board member was given direction on in early or in late January that this needed to be taken outside of the district and that it was

a civil matter. So, do we want the grand jury to investigate the misuse of public resources by using the district? But you're but you're you're you're assuming that there's a there's a misuse of public resources based on her report. >> Well, no. No. Like using using um our general counsel as a Yeah. Okay. Never mind. Keep going. But but I think you

misunderstand. But keep going. >> I appreciate that. >> Number three, the number three, the investigator doesn't address the fact that Miss M >> I'm going to call a point of order. I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you, but when my daughter came up to speak and she was not on topic, she was asked to sit down. I appreciate what you're

saying, but we are talking about the misuse of public funds. There was nothing in the investigators report about the misuse of funds. It had nothing to do with it. Just please let me finish and then I'll let you finish. We are talking about the misuse of public funds and that has nothing to do with the report. There's nothing in the

report about public money. The report is strictly about a complaint that was made and the response that of the witnesses and the investigation. So if you want to talk about the misuse of public funds, that's great. But we're not talking about the report because there was nothing in the report about public funds. Thank you. >> However, if

>> are you shutting me down? >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought you think >> Let him talk. Let him talk for another minute. Let him go ahead. >> Go ahead, Rusty. >> Okay, number three. >> I want to finish then. So does >> Jason. >> My question to you, Mr. Schwarz or to whoever is, >> can you try to direct this to the misuse

of publics? This is all but your the idea of the idea that public funds was misused is based on the fact the assumption that she her allegation was false >> because Rusty Rusty >> need to sit >> I want you to finish because I just think like >> let's including Jason I think you should too and >> so okay so let me ask you

best and I'll help redirect you. >> I I don't I don't I don't want to to to to cause a melee, but my question is if it's if what happened here, the the poor nature of the investigation in the report is not suitable to this agenda item. >> Where would it come up? >> I I want you to finish with your

>> All right. Number three, the investigator doesn't doesn't address the fact that Miss Anderson contacts Mr. Schwarz to inform him of the complaint, including the specific language he was accused of using. This was highly inappropriate given the fact that Miss Anderson was a potential witness, if only by virtue of the fact that she was at the location the incident allegedly

occurred. Number four, the investigator doesn't address the fact that Mr. Schwarz asked for. And >> so it's I have to call point of order and I'm just going to ask that you sit down. People don't I I tried to say like this is very confusing. We're not retrying this case. We're not re we're not questioning witnesses and we're not

accusing Jen of or Steve of anything. So we're going to call point of order. We wanted to know your opinion on do we refer this for investigation of misuse of public funds. And I started by bringing up the 2023 November incident. So I'm I really am going to stick with the topic that's listed on the agenda. I

think that's going to be >> my question again to you then is >> I can't answer questions. Uh not in this meeting. Next comment not in this next comment. >> Elizabeth Sauls followed by Jessica Alexander. >> There's no vote. There's no vote being taken. Next is Elizabeth Saul. And I hope people are realizing where we're going with this

agenda item. >> I'm hoping to speak about specifically my experience with Nicole Miller and associates. Your microphone is not on because >> but we're not talking about Nicole Miller and we're not um >> Yeah, but we're talking about a grand jury investigation being moved forward based on a document prepared by Nicole Miller and associates. >> So I'm sorry.

>> She >> I'm sorry. I thought it was a Jed item. >> I'm sorry. Can I Which is your injury? >> Can I just say >> please? >> It would be recouping the money that was spent on the investigation with Nicole Miller like doing the investigation. Was that my question is is that a misuse of funds? Because on or around January

27th, 28, we received counsel from the general from we we we got direction from general counsel. This is a civil matter and then we tried to keep it a civil matter, but it was pushed through the district. So the question is, is there a misuse of public funds by having the attorneys, the investigation? Was all of that a misuse of

>> fun misuse of public funds by whoever was the decision maker in the contract with Nicole Miller and Associates >> and that was the board because >> yeah the the entire board all every single one of you were the decision maker >> I mean it's it's it's a sticky situation that needs do we need a civil grand jury

>> and associates >> so do you have so do you have a comment about >> okay let's try to stay on comment thank you >> when a friend forwarded me a link link a couple days ago when I read about the TVUSD president pushing for a grand jury investigation about a matter >> can you guys be respectful please thank

you >> an associates prepared document as supporting evidence I was concerned I am not here in any other capacity than as a taxpayer and a parent with firstirhand experience with Nicole Miller and Associates I participated for five months in a Nicole Miller investigation with this school district I've written to all of you a number of times this

past year with specific reference to the district's unethical relationship with this firm. >> Okay. So, now that's point of order because this is not even related to anything that we're talking about tonight. Like Nicole Miller and Associates isn't on trial and >> No, but um >> document the support the basis on which you want to move forward.

>> The information in her document sit down. >> Okay. I need to ask that you sit down because it's not related. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. I I this >> Jessica Alexander >> the the misuse of public resources and I think you would probably have good insight into that. So come on up. >> Good evening board members. I strongly

urge the board to retract this item and not advance it to the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury. My name is Jessica Alexander and I speak today not only as a resident and as a mother of a future student of this district, but I is also an elected official who cares deeply about the city and the 25,000 students

we all serve. Shortly after the incident in question, boarders sought my counsel based on my experience supporting women who experienced trauma. >> Point of order. I'm getting to it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can we just >> I am getting to it >> because there's funding, sir. There's funding. >> I I'm I don't mean >> I don't mean to interrupt you, but when

my daughter got up to speak, >> this is a dysfunction function. I I've never seen a board like this. >> Can I please just >> Hey, >> come on, guys. Hey, >> point. I I really need everyone to be respectful >> of >> Come on, man. >> Mrs. Alexander, please. >> You're losing control of the meeting. Dr. Anderson, take a recess and we'll

we'll restart our time. You're losing control of the meeting. >> I'm just being honest. This is really bad. >> Be quiet for just a minute. Okay. >> Wow. >> We've given multiple warnings to people. It's usually two, three. We keep going. And Mrs. Alexander is only one minute in and she's gotten one warning. So would you please continue?

>> Can I if I can say this just before any anybody who speaks at any council I'll start my m start my time. Any council >> should be able to have a conversation is all eludes into the same topic. >> Just because not every sentence is complete and specifically states that ma'am we we still can have a

conversation here. So let me finish. Mr. Schwarz when she attempted to report her concerns of unwelcome verbal harassment to HR. She found that there was no clear policy in place to support elected board members in such situations. This was not a misuse of funds. She did not have assistance to move forward and receive help. This is a serious gap that I

believe this board must quickly address moving forward for the protection and support and without retaliation of any board members who seeks the correction of unwelcome behavior. Miss President, Miss uh President Anderson, if you further this grand jury and continue to allow this private dispute to continue, you will further divide this board and this community. You are the board president. We

urge you to stir steer this board away from conflict and not into it. Board members Schwarz and Barham, this is going to stay on topic. Men who claim to be blessed by the seed of Abraham. There you go. Well, this has to do with court. >> And there's my time again. >> This is this is first amendment, right?

>> Let me give her a minute. I feel like she's been on topic because she related it to the amount of money that we're spending and she's actually addressing whether or not we should send this to a civil grand jury. >> I don't know. >> Right. But give her >> no >> the fact that I have a a gentleman who

consists to be my brother and a man who is Jewish and we have the understanding >> of the same exact principles that have to do with court related issues. >> Just a second because I don't want to take away your time. >> It's ticking. I'm not even going to have my time. >> Can we push pause for a second? Push

pause. Listen. Yeah. Push pause. I am going to let listen everyone just we're trying our best and this is why we can't be the the jury and the judge. Can you see why we can't be the ones that decide what happens here? Like as a as a board, as citizens, we can't make these decisions. Um Mrs. Mrs. Alexander, I'm

going to put your give you your time back with the seat of Abraham and I trust that you will tie it back into the F >> 110%. >> Thank you. >> Do I get some of my time? >> Yeah. >> Give her a minute 30. >> I'm almost done. I'm about threequarters of the way done. >> Board member Schwarz and Barham, men who

claim to be blessed by the seed of Abraham. Solomon stated in Proverbs 8:10, "These verses remind us not to rush to court, but to resolve p uh matters privately and with honor." Public shame serves no one. Don't take matters to court hastily. Otherwise, what you will do after if your opponent humiliates you. Make your case with your

opponent without revealing another secret. Otherwise, the one who hears it will disgrace you and will never you will never live it down. I urge all of you to lead with integrity, handle personal issues internally, and refocus on the students. We did not elect you to outsource leadership to the FPPC, Grand Jury, or Thurman in Sacramento. We uphold uh

uphold your oath to office and do the job as a leader and serve this community correctly. Thank you and God bless time. >> Very good advice by Miss Alexander. Mrs. Versma should have paid attention to that before bringing it up at a public board workshop. Coming back to >> point of order. I want you to respect Mrs. Upn while she's speaking.

>> Coming back to this topic. This all started out of a seating dispute and if you remember on October 17, 2023, Mr. Schwartz and Mrs. Barklay both said do not give the president the authority to make seating arrangements. But Mr. Dr. Kamroski was dead set on removing the cabinet from the days. So they set up this rule in place. This did not exist

before last year. I'm coming to the thing civil grand jury. People have said they do not have the authority. I'm going to read verbitim from government code 3060. An accusation in writing against any officer of a district, county, or city, including a member of the governing board or personnel commission of a school district, or any humane officer for willful or corrupt

misconduct in office, may be presented by the grand jury of of the county for or in which the officer accused is elected or appointed. The grand jury presenting the accusation may also be the additional grand jury impanled pursuant to then there's a bunch of sections. An accusation may not be presented without the concurrence of a link. So the complaint can definitely be

made. If the board is not going to do it, I will be and not for just this matter. We wasted money on other investigations. We wasted money paying a lawyer $27,000 because Mrs. Virisma did not agree with the legal recommendation of CDE. She has been constantly putting our district in legal jeopardy. I will be filing this complaint and mine isn't

like wishy-washy. You know how detailed I am. I will be putting detailed documentation into point of order. Let her speak. Don't interrupt a speaker. >> And confidentiality concerns. I had brought this back in September when during your board comments you said your sons have been accused of rape. I did not know that you were referring to your

own sons. I had pointed it out at that point. It's written in the email. I sent it out. It's dated February 17, 2023. It is definitely poor judgment doing it to your own family. It is def definitely poor judgment doing it to another person. You saw the daughter. What actions you knowing the consequences. you continued with your destructive

behavior. It is indeed very shameful. I will be filing this. I don't care. The board doesn't want to do it. Any citizen can do it. I am a citizen of Riverside County. I will be doing it. Thank you. Point of order. Who's the next? Last speaker, Erica Septton. Last speaker, Erica. >> Hello. Thank you for letting me speak. I

want to first say that I think that everybody who was cut off should have been able to continue speaking, including Steve Schwar's daughter. Even though people don't want to hear what she has to say, I think we should not be so sensitive that we can't listen to it. Um, I don't think that this was an inappropriate use of funds to

investigate the claim, but I don't also feel that it should be referred to grand jury because I feel that the district doesn't need to spend uh much more time and money on this situation. And I think it's something that should have been handled behind closed doors. And whoever had the ability to keep it behind closed doors, I think should have

exercised that power a bit more. The uh community doesn't really have a lot of interest in um having to be brought into the interpersonal drama of board members. This is a he said, she said situation that absolutely nobody can prove. So there's no point in saying you know who is right and who is wrong. Um I do want to say that

I'm sorry I'm nervous. Um, I do want to say that I feel a little disheartened that if we're willing to sue the board and spend lawyer money about CRT and free speech, um, which is fine that that that it's fine to be concerned if CRT is taken away or or free speech is being impinged upon, but what's going on when the

liberals are cons are upset that we're not defending or or investigating properly a sexual harassment claim. I'm not saying that he said it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it at least needs to be investigated so it was not a misuse of funds. And I think if you did refer it to the grand jury, Steve Schwarz's daughter wants to come

up and defend her dad. Can we just as a community have a heart, all of us, to let her say what she needs to say? Cuz if it was my dad, I'd want to say it. >> And I just think that we all need to calm down a little bit. We don't need to be enemies. All our kids go to school

together. Let's show them that as adults, we don't have to necessarily like each other, but we need to work together. [Applause] Okay. So, then I'll motion that um Mr. Schwarz's daughter be allowed to finish her public comments. But if I do that, it will be >> Yeah, we'll let a few Let them finish. Let these people finish. I I want them

to finish. >> How are we going to go backwards? >> That's okay. We know who they are. There's about three of them. >> Okay. >> There's I know who they are. Let's start with Mr. Schwarz's daughter. We need um I need a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Do we have consensus? Mrs. Weman, do you want to let people come back up

and speak? >> My only question of course in this aspect. >> So point of order, Mr. Barnes. Mrs. Wearsma, go ahead. Finish. >> My only question would be not to limit your time. It would be to point to the lack of procedural consistency. that is alarming in this meeting and it needs thank you for duly noting that

because it's really important that we conduct these meetings in that manner. The public expects it and we've been so all over the board >> because these are hard topics. Okay, this is a tough meeting. So, let's a little bit of perhaps the district should have had an attorney here or somebody to preside over it because they are hard topics.

So we have consensus to move to to allow her. I'm going to tell you all three we've been working with three three law firms for six months on this. If people think that the attorneys have not been heavy heavily involved all three and the comment that I get every time is this is the most unprecedented. No one has ever

dealt with anything like this. It's not that there's a sexual harassment claim. It's the pushing it and not listening to attorneys when they say. So, the attorneys have been >> and they've said this is a civil matter. So, we're going to we're going to like plug through this meeting the best we can. >> You're out of order.

>> Allow Mr. Schwarz's But if we do that, we need to be fair. I mean, it's going to be I agree with Mrs. Weman. It's going to be a big mess. >> I ask for one minute. You can time me. That's all I want. One minute. >> Let's let a few people Let's see what happens here. >> U Mr. Craig, you were sat down. Would

you like an additional minute? I'll give you and Miss Sharf and then one more. So, we have four people that we took their time away and we're going to let you come back up and take your minutes. >> Okay, >> let's go. >> One minute. >> I appreciate it. >> Thank you. Can everybody hear me? >> Yep.

>> Let's be really respectful and quiet since we took their time away. >> So, I am Melissa Schwarz. So, you all know my name. Melissa, not just Steve's daughter, but I am also a member of this community. And I want to address Mrs. Wearsma because you've made false and deeply personal accusations against both of my parents. My mom's not even on this

board. So, I want to share with you that they met at 15. They married at 21. They've been faithfully married for over 57 years. My husband and I actually moved to Tmacula several years ago just so we could be close to them. My father is an exemplary family man and no one has ever made a claim like this against

him until you. Growing up, one of the lessons my dad taught me was to turn the other cheek. Since you frequently quote scripture from this day, I'm sure you're familiar with Matthew 5:39. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. That's who my father is. It is incomprehensible and shameful that someone who is so

decent and so dedicated to public service is the very man that you chose to publicly defame. >> You owe my father and this community apology. And if you have a shred of the moral conviction you preach, you'll resign from this. [Applause] [Music] So, the point of my my testimony was not really directed towards Mr. Schwarz and the potential sexual harassment, but the

fact that there is evidence that needs to be investigated before we can even proceed, right? Um, I'm more concerned about the look of the district on a macro level. We're talking about sexual harassment here. We can't go black and white. It there's middle ground. There's gray here. So, if I'm just trying to present something I feel is truthful and I'm willing to

put myself out there. After I learned the facts, it was you guys voted to release the report. It was kind of a weird way that we were able to see it after the fact. I'm just saying take all the investigative facts before and after and make your decision. >> Thank you. And then we have um Miss is

it Mrs. Sharf or Miss Sharf? >> Ms. >> Mrs. Sharf. Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. Good evening once again. Uh again, Mr. Schwarz, I commend your focus on students and accountability. Given that Miss Wesma shared this issue on her campaign Instagram, referring it to the FPPPC is entirely appropriate. Once again, we're seeing board member Wearsma misuse public funds to the detriment of

TVUSD students and staff. I applaud the board for finally holding her financially accountable and urge you to pursue all avenues um of re re recourse. Jen, let's stop rewriting history. As an educator, I endured harassment from you and Mr. Kamroski targeted online, lied about during your board comments, and financially harmed. In fact, just um this week in Mr. Craig's letter that he

wrote, I was falsely accused. Mr. Schwarz and I were both falsely accused of having this report that I did not have. Where Mr. Craig got that lie from, I have no idea. Um but anyways, um so this district refused to act even when your lies led to threats against my physical safety. So, I'm thrilled that you might finally be

held accountable for all of your lies. >> Okay. And then last in the in the back, um if you want to come up and take your last minute, >> as I had let you know previously, um you have information going back your entire tenure on this school board and those of you that preceded these new people joining the school board from me that

details um the district's unethical relationship with Nicole Miller and Associates. I'm quite surprised that you would consider moving forward to a grand jury something with a document prepared by this firm as that underpins it. Um I speak with firsthand experience with Nicole Miller and Associates and with evidence when I say that TVUSD orders and pays for a third party to provide

you documentation that you can then hold up as neutral, third party and unbiased. Yet there is one chief decision maker named in that contract with Nicole Miller and Associates. This person dictates exactly what the outcome of the investigation is going to be. This is bribery and you use public funds to do it. It seems unwise for you to refer

anything to a grand jury that has documentation supporting it that is prepared by this firm and you know why. Every one of you knows why. >> Point of point of order. Um, point of order. I need you to No, we have I Yeah, I need her to She's not even talking about the investigation anymore. >> I believe Mr. Stump was also stymied in

sharing his comment. >> Mr. Stump >> Mr. Stump was stymied. >> Please come back up. I would like one more minute. >> Thank you. So, I'll just finish up with the last two points. Um, what I'm the point that I'm making is that this investigation is flawed. The report is probably an accurate representation of the investigation. Um,

and it's flawed. The investigator does not address the fact that Mr. Schwarz asked for and received statements from Miss Anderson and Mr. Barham. This incident should not have been discussed by potential witnesses and the subject of the investigation. Miss Anderson took the time to suggest, her words, board members not discuss the incident with the public, but she should have directed

that they not discuss it, particularly amongst themselves. The idea that Mr. Schwarz would have asked for a statement uh without any discussion about it strains credul. At best, it has the appearance of impropriety and at worst could be evidence of collusion. Finally, the fact that Mr. Schwarz and Miss Weisma have a contentious relationship is put forward as a rationale that he

wouldn't make such a comment. This might have some foundation if he were accused of making the comment out loud or in an attempted humor. But in fact, he made the com if he made the comment quietly as alleged and possibly so that it might not >> I see that should be addressed. >> Thank you. >> Um is there any more?

>> Okay. So the next item is the submission and so we're going to take this off because it's not applicable. Do I have consensus? Just to submit it by the board president. So I'm not going to do that. So just consensus that we won't address um the personal submission. The next is >> submission. >> Yeah. So number three, do you want to

vote on polling it or should we just pull it because it's not applicable anymore? >> Just pull it. >> Okay. Just pull it. Consensus to pull three. Um, number four is the withdrawal of the dis district district involvement and limitation to recordkeeping and reimbursement support. Um, I move that the board of education formally withdraw the Tmacula Valley

Unified School District from any further involvement in the personal dispute initiated by board member Jen Wearsma. As the matter has been determined to be a private civil issue outside the scope of district jurisdiction, the district shall take no further action except to retain all records, reports, and documentation related to the matter for future reference, provide documentation to oversight or enforcement agencies

upon request, and assist in efforts to seek reimbursement of public funds expended on the investigation. If such reimbursement is peru pursued through legal or administrative channels. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Does anyone need me to explain what this means? >> I think you begin the discussion and then we can each speak to it if we have

words. >> Okay. So, >> give me three minutes so I can explain it. So again, this goes back to November 2023 when the previous board determined that these complaints were outside the jurisdiction of the district and we have stayed true to that. I want I would like to understand why if an employee makes a similar complaint against a board

member, why that board member does not need to participate and completely ignores it. It's because it's they're outside the jurisdiction of the district. But then why would a board member think that a complaint between two board members would somehow qualify as being within the bound boundaries of the district? Um and like I said, all the all the other complaints, I think

there's 20 of them happened on school property during working hours. Um and the other one was after hours um off school property. And again, it's between two board members. I think the attorney previously said very clearly, the the district does not have jurisdiction over elected officials. So, if two elected officials are fighting with each other, they've got to take it outside of

the district. Um, and I think we've got to stop spending time and money on this. I think that was we we should have never gotten this far. So, that's my that's why I want to make sure that it is um voted on that we're not going to waste any more district staff, money, resources, we're not reopening investigations, we're just going to move

on from it. >> Um, is there someone that wants to argue that the district still needs a motion? >> I made the motion. You second it. >> Second. >> So, what what is the comment like? Why why should the district keep paying for this? I have a couple of important things to cover. I'll try to make this

brief, but I would like for you all to hear me out. The UCP process is an internal administrative mechanism designed to resolve such issues within the district's jurisdiction, not a civil lawsuit. Districts must investigate and if necessary, take corrective action. The investigative report by Nicole Miller and Associates commissioned by TBUSD indicates the investigate indicates the district treated the

complaint as within its purview by conducting an investigation suggesting they had accepted responsibility. The incident occurred during a district sanctioned event. The UCP explicitly covers harassment complaints and I followed the process triggering the district's duty to investigate. Courts have ruled the districts cannot evade Title 9 or state law obligations by labeling harassment complaints as civil when they occur in an educational

context. The California Department of Education overseas UCP compliance and districts cannot unilaterally reclassify such complaints to avoid liability. By commissioning an independent investigation, TVUSD acknowledged its role, making it inconsistent to later claim the matter was civil and beyond their purview. But what's more important is there was a constituent here tonight who said that a a paper trail is

important and I agree with you. Here's what I need for you to hear. On February 24th, I emailed Dr. Woods, Mr. Marble, our president, and an attorney. Here are my very words. My suggestion for rectifying the matter is to go directly into a professional form of mediation to draft a solution that is best for the district, my colleagues and the

community as a whole. We should set the example for finding resolution without litigation and spending additional district dollars. I know Greg Langworthy has reached out with recommend also seemed willing to offer and volunteer perhaps a lawyer could oversee the parameters of the mediation and the terms which we can agree I'm extending her time as much as she wants and Mr.

Schwarz both of them as long as they want to talk. >> I have to know how this can be done. >> It's up to Mr. Schwarz and I to have this primary conversation. I do not want to violate the brownness and part of our solution building that needs to be crafted additional policy. >> You need to cut the mic, Len.

>> No, you need to hear me out because this is everything. >> Everyone calm down. Your two your two minutes is up. Does >> who? >> This is my due diligence. That's >> and was out of order. This is where's I was turned down. You are out of order. >> But the community deserves to hear the out of order.

>> Okay. Um it's okay everyone calm down. It's okay. So Mrs. Wears my um your two minutes is up. Does someone else want to comment about taking the district and not using any more public resources on it? >> Yes. This this uh >> two minutes, Mr. Schwarz. And again, we're talking about >> I don't need two minutes.

>> Okay. >> We're not employees of the district. Okay. And it's I uh my attorney and other attorneys I've spoken to said this is a civil matter and so I am handling it through my attorney and I have not um released him and we had an investigation. The report was made. In fact, the gentleman there with the hat, I shared

it with him because he requested me to send it to him and I did. So, we're not here to discuss whether or not Nicole Miller is uh good or bad. We They were hired. They're a legitimate firm. They made their decision and I agree. Let's let the district get out of this and we will continue if we have to civily to

resolve this matter. Thank you. Some of those I'll speak to on the next item. But the thing that it's a glaring inconsistency. If you truly wanted to stop wasting district money on this, you wouldn't have had this very meeting. It would have died on the last meeting when it was voted in to release it to the board. I hope you're paying attention,

Dr. Anderson, because you like to talk when board members are talking. You do it frequently. All I'm saying is this very meeting is a contradictory problem that you face. That the the very thing that you agendaize is the very thing you're asking us to not do anymore. You're wasting taxpayers money by this very meeting. It's very irritating and and

quite honestly it's a reckless meeting because of your leadership. >> Okay. The next is should we just vote on it now then? Okay. >> Oh yeah, we do have Thank you. We have public comments. So, we'll start with >> uh first up is Jennifer San Nicholas, followed by Brandy Mer. >> Okay. >> Want to verify we're on number four,

right? >> Okay. Got a little confusing. Okay. Um I agree that the board should take action to remove itself from any further action in this matter. This was never a district issue and the district never should have been involved. It has been alarming how certain members of this board think that the district resources are here for their personal use.

District legal is for the business of the district or the business of the board as a whole. It is not to advance your personal agenda or to protect yourself, your family members, etc. Every penny taken away from education disenfranchises our children. I have heard talk about or excuse me, Mrs. This is weird me. I've heard you talk about yourself all

night, but never once about the concern for students. As for the board, if you need a personal attorney, get a personal attorney. Do not use district resources. If you can't afford one, then please act right. I do hope that the board is reimbursed by Mrs. Wearsma for the misuse of public funds because her histrionics are getting very expensive.

Thank you. >> Thank you, Brandy Maker. Followed by Bob Cal. Good evening board members, superintendent. This matter does not belong at a school board meeting. Period. The school board and district have concluded their business with this with regard to this matter by hiring an independent investigator and releasing the findings. Mr. Schwarz was basically vindicated by the investigation. Mrs. Wearsma's

veracity has been called into question and her reputation injured. If Mr. Schwarz feels like he needs further in vindication. He is free to pursue the matter in civil court or file his own FPPC complaint, not through this body. But I would ask you, how much more do you need or want and to what end? It is way past time for this board to get back

to the business it was elected to do. Serve students, parents, teachers, and the community. [Applause] >> Thank you. Cal followed by Jimmy Sharp >> Anderson. You said this is no trial. This has been a trial. I'm sorry. And and and and Schwarz and Barham, you're all three collutes. And you haven't let Jen speak and this has been a trial and

you have put her on trial without due process. I just want to state that. Thank you. All right. As Wema repeatedly ignored district council that this matter is civil and not under the district's purview, I strongly encourage this board to not only go after every single scent Wema wasted, but to also bring back a formal censure so that she is held

accountable. I am one of those employees who made complaints against both Wema and Kamroski, but was told by HR that the district did not have jurisdiction. And instead of insisting that my own personal grievance be solved at the district's expense, I simply defended myself publicly as best I could. So since Jen was allowed to use district funds and not pay them back, will her

lies against me from the day also be investigated at the district's expense? Will I get a special meeting dedicated to my own civil grievance? Where's lies, personal, political, nationalistic, racist, homophobic, and transphobic agenda has cost this district tens of thousands of dollars thus far? With the public council settlement, it will likely be millions. It is imperative that those who lie, especially about

sensitive issues, issues such as sexual harassment, and those who choose to ignore legal counsel, be held liable. The students and staff of this awardwinning district deserve every single dollar provided by the state and tmacula's taxpayers, and we should pay us back and be formerly centured by this board. Please, let's put this to bed and get back to serving our students and

community. Thank you. Okay, there's no more public comment on that. You >> want to vote? >> So, the motion was made. Let's um call the question. Schwarz, >> yes. >> Wearsma, >> no. >> Kamaroski, >> Barham, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. So, the motion passes 4 to one. Just so the next one is um a motion I

put this let me make the motion get the second I move that the board of education refer the third party investigation findings and their conduct oh and the conduct of board member Jen Wearsma to the Riverside County Office of Education and that California State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the review and oversight. The board further requests that the county

superintendent or state superintendent consider initiating a formal review of the fiscal crisis and management assistant team to evaluate the district district primarily the board's governance practices assist in the determination of formal censure and the use of public funds in this matter and to issue recommendations for corrective action. um supporting materials including thirdparty investigation report relating correspondence and board meeting

documentation shall be transmitted along with the referral. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> So I put this on the agenda because I didn't want to I don't believe that we can make a determination regarding censure and I know at the time Mr. Schwarz want had put the censure I know there's confusion too in the public. Um,

if you look at the censure item, I did not put the censure item on the agenda. If anyone got a phone call saying that I was censuring Mrs. Wearsman, I was not. I've always been opposed to the censure because I don't believe we can judge each other as board members. We're all involved. and um referring it to the

state superintendent. The state superintendent, he has no authority over like he can't discipline the board member or remove them, but he could recommend a censure. So, I thought if we got it out of our hands and put it into someone else's hands to recommend censure, um maybe that would be better for both Mrs. Wearsman and Mr. Schwarz

because then it's at the recommendation of someone else and that was the person that that that's the department I came up with. The other thing is um reviewing how the board has conducted itself with the misuse of funds. Um it's just been brought to my attention that that this has been going on the misuse of um attorneys for personal we

I've got to like collect myself. So, we have a policy that says no board member can act as an individual. We work as a collective. And so, when an attorney represents one board member um and fights against the rest of the board or the district, in my mind, that's a misuse of funds. And I think it would be

nice if they could audit like even back five years when you know, personally, I felt like the liberal board during COVID may have also um not handled themselves appropriately. So, I don't think it would hurt our board to be audited. And then all that would happen, that's my opinion, but all that would happen is they would make recommendations moving

forward so that we don't ever end up here again um so we don't end up with expensive investigations and use of attorneys for civil matters. So, that was my intention of um putting this on the agenda. I would recommend that Mr. Schwarz referred the matter to um the state superintendent because he's the one that um wanted the censure in the

first place. Um and so so that's the purpose behind behind this is just maybe we can do better in the future and I think that this is a dysfunctional board and that we might need the county to come in and have a look at us and audit us and give us recommendations. So, um do we have any um

that's that's it for me. Do we have any comment from the board? >> Um I did a motion second. Mrs. Weman, I do have a comment. From my understanding, you're clarifying that Mr. Schwarz would be the one to send the letter. What I would like to highlight is in your sample to the honorable Tony Thurman, you do state the investigation

found that Mr. Schwarz did not engage in any misconduct and concluded that Miss Wearsma acted in bad faith and likely pursued the complaint for political reasons. The problem with this is the report, as Mr. Stump pointed out did not conclusively state this. The report has been misrepresented on social media >> in much of these agenda items and in

this specific letter tonight. So when we're talking about the importance of integrity >> and procedural consistency, >> there is no point of order. She's making a factual statement. Mr. You know what? Let her continue >> and then you can talk after she talks. >> No, because she's not she's not on topic. >> She is on topic. >> She's 1,000% on topic and you're getting

irritated. Let her continue. >> Wait, wait, wait. Everyone, calm down. Point of order. Mrs. Weman, just we paused your time. Go ahead. >> When we're when everyone's quiet, I'm listening. >> Go ahead. So I am specifically on topic because I am reading the attachment for this particular item and it's important to point out the inconsistencies as we've moved through G1 to G5. what

we're doing in terms of relying on a report that has now come into question is using that as the item to send to one of these entities for a decision makingaking process. So what I would submit is that over and over tonight I have been misrepresented not only here in this room but to the public by virtue

of how this agenda has put together and it should concern all of us. I'm a local official who wants to represent you. I never >> I never waved my due process >> quite >> and that's important to recognize. it was missing in how we conducted this. >> Okay. Time. Um before the rest, can I clarify something? Then Mr. Bar would

like to speak. >> Um I put that there and I wrote sample letter and I just had chat GPT make a sample letter that would be like hey here's a sample of what it would look like. I would not submit that letter and that's why I said I think it should because Mr. Schwarz is the one that

wants to censure. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. I was just like what would it look like? So, um that would not be the letter that I would not be sending it and it wouldn't be the letter that would be sent. Mr. Barham and then Mi Mr. Schwarz, do you want to go or do you want Mr. and then Mr. I'm going to go to

the Okay, Mr. I mean I the only thing that >> the thing that really concerns me in this whole process is the misuse of public funds. That that is the bottom line for me and I would like to have the FCMAT come in because they will give us guidance in terms of the parameters that govern what is misuse of public funds because I

believe that we need to determine that in this case and in addition to that I think we need to go backwards um because I believe that there was misuse of public funds going back as far as back into the into the summer of 2024. Um and in terms on that board at that time there was no consensus in moving forward

with the letter to the to to the CDE the the CDE situation and Mrs. Wema took it upon herself to talk to attorneys. There was no uh there was no board direction in terms of that. Um at that time she was warned by the community. She was warned by Mrs. Barklay. You can't just you can't just do what you want because

this is your personal agenda or this is this is your your political aspiration. you didn't agree, you didn't get board direction, you we can't use district resources and district funds to do what we want to do. So that is why I am in favor of bringing in the fiscal crisis and management assistance team because I think that

they will help us determine they are an independent body. I mean I have my own opinions. Mrs. Barklay had her opinions. let an independent body come in and and audit uh the charges and look at the footage and let's see if there was misuse of public funds. >> Okay, time Mr. Schwarz. >> There's been a lot of talk about uh

Nicole Miller and Associates. So, I just want to read the conclusion of the report. I'm not going to go through what I my statement that I put out on uh Facebook. I quoted directly from the report. I didn't make anything up. Every word I quoted was exactly what was in the report. This is the conclusion of the investigation. It's 53 pages

>> and this is referring to >> this is referring to someone just saying it was inaccurate. >> What? >> Oh yeah. I I've already, by the way, I spoke to Tony Thurman this morning, so this is an ongoing thing. We have a very good relationship. Um, but the conclusion of the um report is very simple, and I'm reading directly from

it. In in accordance with our findings, Nicole Miller and Associates did not sustain Miss Weisman's allegation of sexual harassment by Mr. Schwarz. Nor was there evidence to suggest the district acted negligently in its response to her complaint. In consideration of the totality of the evidence, the investigation found concerns about the credibility of and motivation behind Miss Wearsman's

complaint that suggest suggest her complaint may not have been made in good faith or at best that she exercised poor judgment in publicly voicing and pursuing such an egregious allegation without sufficient basis. And I just want to add one more uh just something that someone commented. Why did I get written statements when the uh when Mrs. Weisma made her uh

comment at a public meeting? I called my attorney immediately. I said, "What should I do? I I don't know what to do. I I've been accused of something I didn't do." He said, "Who else was there? Were there other people there?" I said, "Yeah." Um, >> I'd like to go. >> Yeah, Dr. Kroski. >> Well, Mr. Thurman literally traveled to

Tmca to publicly oppose board actions, conservative board actions, which makes this request for him to have any oversight polit not just politically charged, but ideologically reckless from a conservative standpoint. I ran on local control and accountability. We have local control and accountability and our leadership should be executed up here, good, for good or for bad. That is

why we're elected. It should have stopped at the last meeting when the report came out and the majority of the board said let let the public see the unredact or the redacted report whatever it should have stopped right there. Any attempts to go beyond that is just going against local control. So that's number one. Misuse of public funds. Just one

thing I'll identify the $20,000 for the investigation. It's almost as if you guys are saying Mrs. Whisma wanted to do that. The board decided to do that. That is so reckless to say, you know, let me give you an analogy. Yeah. Oh, it that's like saying, "Hey, we're all going to go out to dinner." In fact, let's go out to

a really expensive steak dinner. And the board goes, "Yeah, yeah, let's go." And then after the dinner's over, they go, "You know what? Um, Mrs. Worman, you're going to pay the bill." Had Mrs. Wearsman known that or I or any other board member knew that there were strings attached to that investigation, I would not have voted for that

investigation. The strings attached is mind-boggling hypocrisy from this board. I cannot believe this. Had we known, it's like violating my consent as an elected official. We got together to say we're going to do the investigation. We didn't get to get to get together and say if this invested in if this investigation doesn't go the way we plan

or or it goes a certain trajectory, then we're going to do X, Y, and Z. None of that was talked about. Had it been talked about, going back to the dinner analogy, we might have said, "Let's not go to an expensive steak restaurant. Let's go to Sizzlers, maybe the Costco food court, or maybe not even go to

dinner at all to pay this bill." But this is where we are after the fact. To me, this reeks of retaliation against a board member. >> Amen. >> We as a board voted that in, not her. >> Okay. So, and and I want to point out that an investigation doesn't mean that anything is going to be conclusive. I

mean, we're looking at the fiscal crisis and management assistant team to look at the big picture and maybe they will say like exactly what Dr. Kamaroski said. We haven't made any determinations as a board. I don't believe that we can sit here and vote and say like Mrs. Wearsman needs to pay the district this amount of money back. I don't believe

that we are functional. Um, and so referring it out is just saying like what do we do with this and here's where we are. What do we think? And like I said, we're not going to be here as board members forever and we're going to have a change of board. So having the um FCMAT come in and give us guidelines.

So, in the future, future board members that are here um have have more structure on how to how to use district attorneys. I I don't think that's going to hurt the community at all. Um do we have any other comments on this, Mrs. Wearsman? Two minutes. >> I just have a question of clarification. Uh-huh. >> It seems that we just had the district

abdicate their role in any of this and it would seem a proposal like this would most fittingly come from an official institution looking for inquiry and direction. So if we left that by the wayside and as you mentioned everybody has some sort of bias or is a party of interest how then would that move forward in a logical way to take to this

entity whatever it's going to look like because it shouldn't be any of us individually. Mr. Schwarz already mentioned a relationship with Tony Thurman. So my question is at this point this doesn't even seem like a viable option for us. So let me clarify. I'm asking I'm asking the county to audit us as a board me like I'm saying come look at us like

look look at what I've done the last six months. Like what parameters can they put in place to help me as a a board president for the next six months. like we're asking as a board to come and look at us and put parameters in place so we don't waste taxpayer dollars on civil matters. >> But when you say a board, you released

the the board, which is within the district, of any further involvement. So >> I didn't I released the district. I just said I move that the board of education referred No, the previous one was that the district not have any more involvement paying money for for this dispute between you and Mr. Schwarz, >> but this entity would speak into the

district. So, how can it go? >> This has to do with the future use of funds. Like, I'm I'm not afraid to be audited. And I feel like if we are doing something wrong, we should find out about it. But we should have the county come in and tell us like you guys are doing it wrong because we are spending a

lot of money on attorneys fees and different things like that. I I'm not saying we're not targeting you in this. Now we we have we're asking for the superintendent to come in and determine censure because I don't believe we can make a decision as a board and nobody else can really recommend censure except the county or state superintendent.

>> Then it is targeted. You're not looking at an overall picture. You're looking at coming after a board member. And further, I'd like Dr. Kamroski's viewpoint on whether you think an audit would be appropriate because certainly an audit could be a good thing for any district. But is that our intent or is it to continue with getting what you

want to stand in terms of >> offering a censure? There's conflicting information that you're giving us. So, >> Dr. Kamroski, I would love to hear your opinion. >> Mr. Schwarz is next, and I'm sorry if you don't understand the audit, but that's okay. Mr. Schwarz, you're next. >> Yeah, I I find it amazing that the fact that I like the state superintendent of

education and I can talk to him is somehow negative. I I don't understand why that's negative. And I never talk to him. I'm not talking to him about censoring anybody because that's not within his purview. It's not within the purview of the state superintendent or the county superintendent to censure anyone on a board. That is the power, as

Mrs. Alexander is shaking her head, that's the power of the board to censure itself. I already pulled away from censuring because I don't think it's going to be I I gave you my reasons for it. But in fact, having a fiscal audit of the district and what's going on, I don't see how that could hurt us. They

will say, "Look, you're spending too much money on this or not enough money on that, and you should be focusing your money here." And I think that's a good thing. It's our money. It's all of your money. It's our kids' money. And I think we should be prudent with it as much as we can. So I I I welcome having that

group come in and do an audit. >> So can I ask you a question about this? Because that was my thing was was I I didn't think that we should recommend censure. Um do you want me to strike the language that the state superintendent Let me because you don't want censure at all anymore. Okay. So I'm taking it. It

was recommend whether or not to censure not to censure. >> Censure ourselves. No, I Yeah. And if you see what I was, he can recommend censure, but I'm glad you don't want a censure. I don't want to do a censure. So, we're crossing that out and we are not going to censure. So, I wrote determination of censure and I'm going

to cross that out. Um, and then so we don't have to talk about censure anymore. Um the ne you wanted to speak on the audit >> just just the straw to the glaring straw man argument in the room in in in this agenda there is at least three times mentioned Mrs. Worman touched on it before she was interrupted and it says

that she acted in bad faith. That's not what the report the investigation concluded. Said mayhab and that right there is possible liel which could end up in litigation to this district. So it's another it's just mindboggling. We we want to save money but then there's possible liel and that's a straw man because the the the optics to the public

is that Jen did act in bad faith because of you misagendizing this information which is horrific. It's a straw man. So, you beat up the straw man. But you guess what? That's not what Jen said, and that's not what the report concluded. So, this optic gets shoved up to Tony Thurman. It's just like, holy crap. I wonder how many people in the audience

actually think that she did act in bad faith and that was a conclusion of the investigation >> and it's not. So, all I'm doing is calling out to the leadership and your ability to agendaize things properly to not misrepresent a trustee. >> It's embarrassing. Did you hear what I said? Liel. >> That's what that is. That's the

million-dollar question tonight, right? So, anyway, >> the million-dollar question is your competence to lead this meeting and to not commit liel. It's just getting old. >> Okay. >> So, >> stop straw manning and represent her fairly. >> I just want to clarify, Mr. We don't have to talk about censure anymore because Mr. Schwarz just clarified he is

not going to move to censure Mrs. Wearsma. So, we can move on from that subject and we don't need to revisit it. I I I struck that from the comments and we're now it's the Do we want to be audited? >> Do you strike her acting in bad faith from your agenda >> that she acted in bad faith?

>> Yeah. Do you strike that? You did it three times. At least three times. >> I believe she acted in bad faith. >> You believe but you concluded that the report, the investigation concluded that. You should have said I believe instead of the investigation concluded that three times you did. >> Okay. So, let's go to >> I I want to

>> So, do you guys want to >> I want to talk about the audit. >> Let's talk about the audit. >> I don't know why we're not like subject. Let's do one more. So, I made my two minutes. Two minutes. >> You get two minutes and we're done. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm a finance guy. >> When I campaigned, I mean, all I talked

about was safeguarding the assets of the district. I don't feel like they have been safeguarded very well and that points to the past and I believe that this assistance team that it's very important that they come in that they that they look at the footage as to what was going on in August and September of 2024 when

the community and Mrs. Barklay were objecting to the fact that Mrs. Wearsma was on her own tangent spending money with Mr. Brener thousands and thousands of dollars when it was not within the scope and direction and consensus of the board at that time. And I think that this assistance team needs to come and look at this current situation as well

as that in the past and maybe some other things because they need to give us guidance as to what they need to give a this board and future board guidance as to and it's it's common sense. It's just like Dr. Kamski when he was the president you could argue okay that he misused public funds. Yes, >> he really didn't though because he did

not because he did everything within the consensus of the board. >> She did not do that. >> She did not do that. She was she was doing her own thing and spending district resources and using district resources and that is what needs to be looked into. And if it is determined that it is misuse of public funds, then

Mrs. Wearsman needs to pay that money back. That's how I >> So, um, the motion was made and seconded and >> Oh, thank you. Um, >> you also need to give me an additional time, but I'm happy to wait until after the >> public two minutes twice. >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> You You said that we would each have two

minutes twice, but I'm happy to have the public go first. Not a problem, but I need to come back to addressing these comments. >> Did you Okay. I thought you I'm sorry. I didn't make I didn't check my boxes. So, you get two more minutes. >> Yeah, let's do it now. >> We're going to stay. She had two minutes

twice. >> Yeah. >> I thought you had two minutes twice. >> Did she? >> Was it twice? >> Yeah. You had your two minutes twice. So, we're going to go to public comments now >> on >> um who is the first >> on number five? >> Sorry. Jennifer San Nicholas followed by Bob Cal. >> Did we vote on the on the audit?

>> We will after public comments. >> After public comments. >> So, I appreciate Dr. Anderson's efforts to restore public trust in the board through the involvement of the county and state. Reviews and feedback from one or both of these agencies will provide valuable guidelines for this board to get back on track with the laws and norms that have been ignored or out and

out violated over the last few years. Local control has been mentioned, but clearly the locals have no control, and that's what got us into this mess. This whole affair with Mrs. Wearsma is a culmination of the last two and a half years of drama and the previous board majority's desire to break public education by bleeding it dry one lawsuit

at a time. As board members, you have taken oaths to abide by the laws of the state and be stewards of public funds. And those who choose to run a foul of their oaths are the reason this board needs oversight and accountability. A good leader can admit where there is a weakness in an organization and move forward to make improvements to make an

organization stronger than before. I strongly urge the board to use this uh travesty as an opportunity to create a better, stronger board by voting yes on this motion. Thank you. >> Bob Cal followed by Kelly Maxi. Uh the majority of this board is disgusting to me. I I I can't say any more than that. you, Barham, Anderson,

Schwarz, you're very disgusting people. I was just That's my >> point of order. >> And and the crowd over here, the heckles, everybody, they're disgusting as well. >> He's He's not >> Who is this guy? Who is he? >> Does he live here? >> No, he doesn't. I don't. He does. He doesn't live here. >> Who is he?

>> He's just >> Excuse me. >> No, no, don't. No, no, no, no. Don't worry about it. >> No, he's fine. He's fine. He's no one. Don't worry about it. Kelly Maxi. >> He's He's a supporter of Joseph and Jen. That's who he is. That's their supporters. >> So, >> oh, even though you went to an MT event.

Look at the lies coming out right now. I mean, dude, and the inconsistency. >> I love how you like those little jabs. >> Dude, >> so next is Kelly. >> Were you endorsed by the MT? Thank you. >> Yeah. Not by Bob Cow, who's not my friend. Wow, this meeting is wild. Um, I promise I won't be that rude as

that guy, but I want to start by saying that I can't imagine that there are a lot of people in this community or even in this room for that matter that actually sat down to read the 54 page investigative report by Nicole Miller Associates. I did um like this meeting. It felt like flipping between a tel nolla and an episode of Jerry Springer.

And at the center of it all, Miss Wearsma, is you. And it's always you. I hope the whole community reads it because it's absolutely maddening to see the waste, the dysfunction, and the self-serving behavior laid out in detail. Dr. Anderson, regarding action item five, I am in agreement with both you and Mr. Barham. Uh, today's issue is

only part of a larger problem. Miss Whisma has repeatedly made decisions that squander our district's resources. I ask you to revise the request for state review and oversight of board conduct to include the broader pattern of fiscal waste and poor governance exposed by this and other instances. Examples are not hard to find. Miss Wearsma was warned over a dozen times at

the February meeting that today's issue was a civil matter, not something the district should pay for. She ignored the warnings, persisted anyway, and ended up costing our students $40,000. She has wasted over a thousand $100,000 in questionable legal fees tied to her personal fights. She wasted $21,000, probably even more on CRT workshops, even though experts confirm CRT isn't

taught in our schools. She wasted $361,000 to fire the previous superintendent without cause, a decision rooted in her personal agenda and not for student needs. Time and time again, Miss Wearsma chooses political theater and performative outrage to stay relevant, and it comes at a real cost to our students and our schools. These examples alone total over a half a million

dollars. Half a million taxpayer dollars, Miss Wema. Half a million dollars that should be spent on our students and not on you. Frankly, Miss Wisma, you should be censured. You should also be held financially accountable to repay the amount that you have wasted. And if you cannot do the one job you are elected to do, which is

responsibly serve our students and our schools, then you should resign. [Applause] [Music] That's the last one. So, I'm going to I rewrote this because things changed as we were discussing and I rewrote the motion. I do want to ask I was I was talking to Tony DeMarco. I texted him this morning and I wanted to ask if I

can read a letter um and maybe we should just read it right now. Um that he sent to the board. So I'm asking the board to consider that letter regarding Nicole Miller and Associates is not privileged. >> Sure. >> Do I have consensus Mr. Barham to read the Okay. Okay. And then I'm going to let everyone know how the third party

investigation um how we ended up with Nicole Miller is um we we asked Tony Demarco who happens to be the conservative attorney that is working with um Chino and Sonia Shaw defending parental rights and notification. Um he and Dean Adams and David Huff have all been working on this. If people think this is insane, so does everyone else. Like

this, nobody's looking at this thinking that it makes any sense. Um I think everyone's pretty dumbfounded that our board is like going through this. That's been the reaction I've got. Um so we asked him to recommend a um a third a third party investigator and um we kind I kind I knew that they were going to one of the defenses would be to

call um Nicole Miller and Associates into question. So let me just pull up that letter and read it. And that is from AARR. It's from the attorney that Mrs. Wearsma fought for so hard. It's from Mr. DeMarco and it defends Nicole Miller and Associates because she is a reputable third-party investigator. Um, and I just want to make sure that we're not

disparaging these companies. Um, let just give me a second to pull that up. And the board has read this. The entire board has read this letter and so they are aware that the law firms including Dean Adams, we use Dean Adams through um to um work with Nicole Miller, but she was initially recommended by AALR and all three attorneys stand by her firm.

Um let me just find it real quick. Lenny, do you have it >> or does anyone else have it because the whole board got a copy of it? Um, but I foresaw um slandering Nicole Miller and Associates as part of the defense and I and so I have that. Let me here it is. Here we go. So, I have board

consensus. This is not privileged information. Um, from Anthony Demarco, Will and Bill Dedric, William Dedricch. They both stand by. Um, you asked for a summary of why we recommended Nicole Miller and Associates, an investigative firm, to handle the complaint filed by one trustee against another trustee. My firm has worked with NMA and its predecessor firm Tom Davis and

Associates for approximately 25 years. NMA and its principal Nicole Miller have an extensive background in working with California school districts and other public agencies. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Miller has a law

enforcement background and she vets her investigators employs a prof invest I'm sorry she vets her investigators employs a professional writer to help her with reports and has been and has a business designed to cater to public agencies. NMA provides services to school districts on a regular basis through direct contracting, through insurance, JPA, and each of the main law firms representing school

districts. Almost everyone uses her. Compared to other investigators, NMA charges charges reasonable rates and does not overbill. Additionally, when NMA is working through my firm, she is quite collaborative in ensuring our expectations for quality investigation are met. So, I just want everyone to know she works with all of the attorneys that represent the boards in California. She has a stellar reputation. I asked

for this letter because when I read the report, I too was a little surprised at the findings and I immediately called Mr. Demarco and ask for his opinion on Nicole Miller and Associates and him and his firm stand behind her. So I just want to as we slander these people that have been brought into all of this, I wanted people to know

that that is a reputable firm and that all of our attorneys um including the ones that um Dr. Kamaroski and Mrs. Where's my um fought so hard for us to hire stand by the investigation? Um so with that, let me reread the motion because I crossed some stuff out. And it says, I think we should change the language to

say, I move that the board of education requests that the county superintendent and or state superintendent consider initiating a formal review by the Fi fiscal crisis and management assistant team to evaluate the boards. It had districts, but I changed that to boards. To evaluate the the board's governance practices, the use of public funds, and to issue recommendations for corrective

action, supporting materials, including investigation, related correspondence, board meetings shall be transmitted along with referral. Do I have a second? >> Okay. >> I want to I I want to amend that motion. >> Okay. What would you do? I What would you like it to? I I'm fine with all of this. >> Uhhuh. >> Um but I want a time frame on this. Like

if they come in and audit, it's for a certain period of time. And that would be from January uh 20 January 1, 2024 through the present time. >> You you don't want to go back further. >> No, we don't need to because Dr. Kamro, like I said, Dr. Kamroski spent whether you agree with how he spent the money or

not. I don't He did not misuse funds because he had the majority of the board. >> The majority of the board. So I want to review the period of time starting January 1st, 2024. Okay, which is 6 months before his recall. I want to review that period to the present time. >> I don't know if we can. I think they

should go back further to previous boards. I don't think we should just say like maybe the misuse of funds has gone on. We shouldn't just target Mrs. Weman and have him only audit her. Why not look back a few years and see how the boards handled these types of situations prior to Dr. Kamroski. >> I mean, all I know is that period of

time is what I saw. >> I I >> and I've actually looked at previous boards. I've watched all the meetings from the time that Barbara Broch was president. I've watched them all. I I don't think that there was >> I don't know if we can put a time limit on what they do. >> Yeah. Well, we have to put some kind of

parameters on the audit otherwise we're going to be spending a crapload of money. So that's why I'm suggesting that period of time, which I think is fair. >> I I agree. I think it I think it's too targeted and and the goal isn't to for me. I really put this on here even for myself because if I could go back in

time on January 28th when the attorney said this is a civil matter, I would have never talked about it again. It just dragged out. So what period of time do you think? >> If I could just how long how far back can we go? Like three years, 10 years, 20 years? I mean >> what about just >> I don't know

>> what do you think this is all president and everyone does this kind >> just remember by law we are audited >> a minimum of one time every year >> oftent times it's two two and a half uh audits for various reasons the the auditing of the district is already a matter of record it's already in place I

think what you're looking at is maybe a procedural audit >> board okay >> which could be a combination of financial but I I think I'm hearing a procedural question that you have. >> I have the words. >> Can I read the words to you, Mr. Barham? Go >> ahead. >> To evaluate the board's governance practices, use of public funds

and issue recommendations. So, it's not to audit the district. It's to just audit the governance practices and the use of public funds. I it's not they're not going to audit the whole district, but I think it wouldn't hurt to go back, like I said, to the previous board before Jen and Joseph were >> I understand that, but if there's a

question of misuse of funds as there as there was during that period of time, then I think that we need to direct the auditors to look at that period of time. I don't think that there's it's that's not a witch hunt or retaliation. >> That's that is that is public knowledge. >> Okay. So, public knowledge that that was

being questioned, >> okay, back in 2024, but we never did anything about it. >> Fairness. And why? Okay. So, if you're doing it if you're doing a scientific experiment, you need like a control group. So, if we're only auditing Mrs. Wearsma, there's no control. >> Saying to audit Mrs. Wema, >> we're only auditing the time frame that

she was president. There's no control. >> I mean, Dr. Dr. Kamroski was still the president January 1st of 2024. >> You want to go back starting with Kamroski? Yes. Can we go back one more year to see how it compares to the previous problem? >> So January 23 I I think that it shouldn't just I would be I I would be

singling him out saying that he did things wrong. Okay. All I'm saying is is that if you look at the footage and you look at what was going on at that time, there were questions of misappropriation of >> I want to bring something up. I'm saying I need a couple of minutes. I want to bring something up. It relates to this.

>> Yeah. >> When I was board president, there was an allegation that the majority of the board committed the Brown Act by Alison Barlay and that costed almost 30 grand. She's here. Notice at no time did the board say after that was all done, hey you got to pay for it. It's just what happened with the board. Analogously

with this time and that is a fact. We have money. >> Can I ask you a question? I want to know. >> You're interrupting my time and they're interrupting me from speaking. >> There's no more timer and it relates to asking was that a civil matter? >> No, but it analogously relates. There is there are sometimes side effects to

doing board business. Yes, we love the students. We love protecting them. We love, you know, offering all these great programs and doing all that. And at and at some point sometimes district employees have to be investigated. At some point there might be a civil matter. This is uncharted territory. But at no time are we like, "Hey, you're

going to pay for this." And that's what you're doing here. >> So setting a precedent. So my question is I'm asking for them the to >> look at I'm not bringing this up to shame Mrs. Barlay. No doubt I had to conduct an investigation with legal. It wasn't my choice. It was aimed at under Dr. Mcclelay. And when that

investigation concluded the results were like there was no Brown Act. Okay, moving on. >> Can you listen to this? It says issue recommendations for corrective action. I'm looking at recommendations. So in the future and that's why I don't want to target just when you guys when did you take office Dr. Karoski >> December 13th 2024 January it would have

been December >> December 13th >> December 13th 2022 >> Can we not just audit Can we not just audit two people? Can we like I'm sincere that I want to go back in time and and I want to go forward and make a change and get recommendations so five years from now this isn't happening anymore. That's my sincere plea. Like

let's look at what we're doing wrong and like change it. So that's I want them to issue recommendations. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. Len >> Shorts. >> Yes. >> Excuse me. Excuse me. We have public comment. >> Oh, >> yes. Before we vote, >> we did. >> We already had public comment. >> There's no more on this.

>> We had public comment and then I had to cross a long night. I know. I know. >> Just didn't know. Okay. >> It is. This is This is Every attorney has said this is unprecedented. People don't even know what to do with this. Like I don't know what to do. I'm doing my best. >> So, let's just vote. Rene call

>> Schwarz. >> Yes. >> Where's my >> because of the lack of clarity here, I need to ask what I need to do to vote present because at this point it's really not clear to me that the goal isn't targeted. And Dr. Woods has just said we have audits every year. So to spend additional time or money

pursuing this doesn't seem right. So I'd like to mark present because there's been too much confusion for me to definitive definitively make a decision. >> Mrs. Wearsman, I think you could vote no and that would if you feel like you're confused, I think it would be better to vote no because there's not enough information for you. I am trying not to

target you. I and this board can't come th this FCM A that like whoever looks if they look into it we're asking them to they may say no they're not going to be able to say that you have to reimburse the district that is not their place they're going to say going forward if I get told it's a civil matter I need

to not keep asking questions or Gary or Even with you yourself, they may may recommend make a recommendation to you if you get told it's a civil matter. We all have to drop it and that we can't push it through the district. They're going to make recommendations. That's it. And maybe they have maybe they'll find other stuff that we're like not

doing right. I'm not trying this one. I am just trying to My language is strong. You'll see my policies. Everything I write I'm is heavy-handed, including this, including my policy on graduation. and I always come off heavy-handed. I like that the discussion. I'm not we're not trying to target you. So, if you want to vote no, I think that would be

your best course of action. I think it's going to pass with the 41 or 31 or 32. So, do you want to just vote no since you don't know? >> I think based on the clarification with Dr. Woods and understanding that we do have a yearly process, I will vote no. >> Okay. Kamaroski. >> No. >> Okay. Okay.

>> Barham, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. So, the motion passes 3 to two. The resolution to censure has been removed. We don't have general public comments. >> I want to recess. >> Do we only We're done. >> Just give me I want three or four minutes. Recess. >> There's board comments, but I would agree. I would

>> I want I want I would like a five minute. >> Thank you. Okay. And yeah, we'll take five minutes everyone and then board comments. All right, we have a quorum. So, we're going to start with we're going to finish up >> Okay. Um, I'm not giving board comments. So, Mrs. Where's me? >> Steve, do you still

Okay, four minutes. >> I'm gonna ask to go. >> I'm gonna ask to go second to last. I know Steve already asked for the final. >> You're first. You're third. You want me to go first? >> I can go first. >> Ready? >> Go. First, I would like to address Pastor Tim Thompson of the 412 Church and head

of the IE family pack, better known as the Inland Empire Family Pack. I called you and left a message on Wednesday, June 11th at approximately 1:00 in the afternoon and followed up with a text at 1:28. In my voicemail, I said, "Our TVUSD board is struggling, particularly in the area of parental rights, which everyone knows you are passionate about.

We need your help." Did I hear back? Of course not. And they and I did not expect to, but thought I would give it a try. About a week ago, pastor, you put a post on Instagram criticizing other pastors, asking where they are going now, where where they are going to hide now regarding 501c3s. My question to you

is, where have you been hiding for the last two and a half years? your past and recent actions, ignoring a body of evidence and conclusions made by an independent third-party investigator against a board member because of personal alignment, and dismissing another, myself, who reached out to you for help has created division in both the church and school community. You

cannot choose when you want to engage. You recently called yourself a spiritual leader in an email you sent this board on another matter last month. Where is your leadership? For years, even before being elected here, I have sat back and watched the author of confusion manifest himself in the two members and many of their flying monkeys. How does the manifest manifestation

appear? through entitlement, arrogance, grandiosity, delusion, anger, bullying, cowardice, toxicity, abusiveness, meanness, lying, codependence, manipulation, named dropping, unpredictability, fear, harassment, intimidation, aggressiveness, maliciousness, deliberate sers of discord and division, selfishness, backbiting, deception, moral and fiscal responsibility, cruelty, dramatic gaslighting, and victim mentality. In addition, your discernment and endorsements of these strong and effective leaders. That's what you said on December 13th, 2022. Let's give them

a chance. Well, to you and a few more groups out there, I think we've given them enough of a chance for them to show that they are weak and ineffective leaders who have brought forth a level of incompetence that I find staggering. CRT, parental notification, flag policy. These two board members were unable to get these policies across the finish

line competently and unfortunately at a cost that I project will be in the millions of dollars to our hardworking taxpayers and the students of TVUSD. No excuses. This is shameful. I lay this pastor at your feet to reflect upon. I have a few scriptures for you to sincerely help you help you. 2 Timothy 2:4, Romans 14:19, and 1 Peter 5 2:3.

Because these verses seem to be in opposition to your actions. When politics overshadow the gospel, and not that politics shouldn't be a part, the mission suffers. at TVUSD. I know there are many who urge you as a pastor to refocus on Christ's calling and lead in a way that promotes God's kingdom and not your personal and political agenda

for you two. There is only one saying that comes to mind. You can perfect your image, but you cannot fake your fruit. It is time for the two of you to do the honorable thing by immediately resigning your positions and allowing this board and district to continue in the good work we have started. You two are deterrence and liabilities

to that good work. It's time to move on and this community at large has had enough. Please go Hey, point of order you guys. Next. Hey, come on you guys. Next is who was second? >> Dr. Comraki, you're number two. >> Wow. Mr. Barham, I have scripture for you, young man. >> 1 Corinthians 13. >> Go ahead. If I speak in tongues of men

or of angels, but I do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanking symbol, that is you, sir. If I have the gift of prophecy and I can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but I do not have love, I am nothing, that is you, sir. If I give all possess,

if I give if I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but I do not have love, I gain nothing. I rebuke you. You were a Christian brother and it's time that you were rebuked. We're not perfect. We're just forgiven. But for you to suggest that we resign, how about

the UNO reverse card? You resign. [Applause] The other thing is I just want to make it clear that when Dr. Anderson said that's Joseph and Jen's friend Bob Cow that walked out for MTR. That person was the president of MT that you in fact asked for an endorsement. It's just mind-boggling the lies of a mission. I I've I'm just going to be

honest. I've met one person in my life that was a pathological liar. He was my Ranger buddy in Ranger Battalion. It was absolutely bizarre. I didn't even know what a pathological liar was. When we found out, we figured out that my battle buddy was lying not just about big things, little things all the time. Lying every day. Dr. Anderson, that is

you. That is why I find you untrustworthy. You have lied so many times to me and Mrs. Wearsma one time with Dr. Woods on the phone. I triangulated you and you in fact lied. So the gaslighting is times a thousand. And all I'm saying, Emil, is you are forgiven just like me as a brother in Christ. If you want me to

resign, you resign with me. How about that, pal? But here's the thing. I ran as a conservative and I am not forsaking who I was endorsed by. You asked Pastor Tim for his endorsement from the IE family pack and he said no. And that is why your butt hurt. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. It is absolutely

correct. >> That is not correct. And I will >> then why did you interview with the IE family pack? >> Because I didn't know any better. >> Yeah, just to waste time. >> Why? >> Just to waste time. >> What about Jessica Alexander? >> That being said, you called Jessica Alexander and asked for her her endorsement as well.

>> No, you didn't. >> But I'm still talking. Still got my time. >> I'm going to go back to local control. I can say what I want. It's my First Amendment right. You will not stifle me. Your dictatorship is on display. If you don't know how to act as a president, you can not only step aside as president, you can resign. This was

the most reckless meeting I could possibly imagine. And everybody got to witness it. Your leadership. >> I don't know how many times you misagendize things. My name should be on something it's not. My name's on something and it shouldn't be. Even tomorrow's item was Zotterero. It's to be on action item. It's on information reports. It's so bad that I wonder if

it's just incompetence. Literally, I'm concerned about your mental health. This is not a character attack. this is what I've had to endure from you. Then you attack my family. You attack my wife, my father-in-law, my campaign manager, my mapmaker, all this kind of stuff. Don't ever think I forgot about that. You are not without sin as well. You claim

you're a Christian, you might be forgiven as well. But guess what? If you want to sit up here and run the meetings as such and target her with the witch hunt, you're going to have repercussions from this community. Both of you. You ran as conservatives. You're doing anything but. You're consulting Thurman who's best friends with Steve who campaigned against us. This is

unbelievable and it's not conservative and I'm calling you out. >> Okay, time point of order. Point of order. Um the next person was um Mrs. Wema and then Mr. Schwarz. To the best of my ability, I've built my trusteeship on speaking truth and serving as a principled voice for the people. I have consistently advocated for parental rights, educationally suitable

materials, and neutral classrooms while protecting children. As an elected official and a person of faith, I do strongly dispute the findings and the handling of the recent investigative report. From the point of legally filing my uniform complaint, I asked the district leadership to facilitate a meeting with the respondent and the president of our board behind the scenes

without spectacle. I was denied. After the workshop, I asked for professional mediation with proper legal oversight. I was denied. In good faith, I participated in an investigation, which some have now suggested to me was a kangaroo court designed to fix this for the district. The biased idea that I submitted to uniform complaint because I wasn't elected president, did not have my

preferred seating on the deis, or was avenging the track record of unprofessional behavior by the respondent is outrageous conjecture. Is this where the cover up becomes worse than the crime? A new affidavit confirms the fact this report is not complete. In a recent social media post, the respondent insisted the report findings were conclusive after refusing to recuse

himself in a majority vote to release it. Where was my due process found? It wasn't spoken to in a legal letter. I never waved my right to confidentiality in the investigation. Every board member should be afforded the right to a discriminationfree environment devoid of both religious bigotry or any form of sexual harassment. As a result of coming

forward regarding my colleagues vulgar slang and inappropriate comments towards me at the California Schoolboard Association meeting, I have endured a high level of institutional retaliation designed to harm me both personally and politically. Fully expecting our board president to corroborate my statement in the workshop as a result of our brief discussion after the incident. I have been targeted

and smeared as the perpetrator. This flawed process sets a terrible precedent for every female student and woman at TVUSD who needs help. School districts absolutely must pri prioritize integrity, victim protection, and public trust by ensuring that AB7 1078 is followed to avoid intimidation, bullying, and discrimination based on religion or gender within all school activities, the local educational

agency, and all acts of the governing board. Moving forward, I will continue advocating for this community that I love with resilience and purpose. I will never back down fighting for truth and principled policy that protects women, female students, and all future trustees. God bless you and your family. And to those of you that are here tonight, I

thank you for being a part of this process. [Applause] >> All right, Mr. Schwarz. >> Good evening, President Anderson, fellow trustees, members of the community, and parents. I have served this district with integrity, transparency, and a deep commitment to our students, teachers, and families for five years. Before joining this board, I served as an educator in New York City for 35 years

and five years when I moved to California at Mount Sosinto College, retiring with an unblenmished record. I have remained mostly silent while I was publicly accused of something I did not do. Today, with the truth confirmed by an independent investigation, I want to speak plainly. To investigate these allegations, the district hired Nicole Miller and Associates, a respected independent

investigative firm with over 25 years of experience working with California school districts and public agencies. Nicole Murrell has a law enforcement background, vets her investigators carefully, and employs a professional team that delivers fair, high integrity work. Every one of Trustee Wears requests was honored. Her interviews were conducted in person. They were recorded and handled exactly as she asked. And yet,

even after the initial investigation cleared me, she insisted the district itself be investigated, wasting even more time and taxpayer dollars. That second investigation also found no root wrongdoing by the district. The final report clearly stated that Mrs. Weman's complaint raised concerns about her credibility and her motives and that her complaint may not have been made in good faith.

That is not my opinion. That is the factual conclusion of a professional neutral investigator. And while I was being falsely accused, I received emails calling me names I won't repeat here. messages from people using fake email addresses who didn't even have the courage to stand behind what they said. When I tried to reply, every single message bounced back. They wanted to

attack me but did not want to give me the opportunity to speak the truth. This has been painful personally, emotionally. It has impacted my family and our community. And now, instead of taking responsibility, Mrs. Wema is recruiting people who do not live in our district like Bob Cowell, who have no children in our schools and who have no stake in this

community to come here and speak on her behalf. Let me be clear. This is no longer a matter of opinion. The facts have been investigated and reported. The truth is public and conclusive. I did nothing wrong. The accusation was false and it came from someone whose intentions have never been to strengthen the district. Mrs. Wema's actions have

repeatedly cost this district money and trust. The CRT revolution, which she supported, cost the district $50,000. Mrs. Wemerma, your job on this board is to serve the students and families of this district, not to use your seat as a platform to push your political ideology. You often speak about your Christian faith and quote scripture. Let me quote some scripture. Proverbs 12:22,

"The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy." I ask you now, have your actions honored these words? If you truly believe your own words, you must take responsibility. You must resign. My attorney and I are still considering civil action against you. [Applause] meeting. Do >> you want me to use the official? This meeting is adjourned around at

today at Monday, July 21st at 8:26 p.m.