Board of Education — September 30, 2025

uh to order by myself, Emil Barham, at 4:03 p.m. on Tuesday, September 30th, 2025 at the district office conference center. Are there any requests for changes to the agenda? Yeah. Uh this is a this is a question for uh Tony. >> Tony, can you hear? They're asking you a question. Okay. >> Yeah. I know the public censure the item

against me. I I know the public can't censure a board member. Board members can do that, but the public can. I know it's in accordance with the Brown Act um you know to to post this to the public for 72 hours. Can this be tabled indefinitely? >> You you could st c certainly postpone it. Um, the education code requires you to to

agendaize public requests for agenda items that are with the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. >> Certainly, the censure of a board member is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. I'd never actually seen a community resolution like this. >> So, I don't know what the board will do with it on the agenda. But in any event,

your board bylaw on agendaizing um request from the public gives latitude to kind of fix when it's going to be considered. >> Got it. >> I wouldn't delay it for too long, but certainly postponing it from tonight to some future meeting would not be a problem. >> I got it. But it can't be postponed indefinitely. Has to be heard.

>> Eventually, you're going to have to take it up. That's Yeah, because it it's it's in general with the subject matter of the board. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. >> So, do you want do you want to make any motion on that? >> No. Okay. Okay. So, I have one um I have an item that I would like to table and

that is uh under action items uh number six uh resolution opposing assembly bill 495 to defend parental rights and education. And I'd like to read a statement. In California, the contents of a bill that has not been signed into law are generally not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board of education. >> Point of order. Are we deliberating

here? Is this correct for him to make a statement? Mr. DeMarco, could you answer that because I'm >> unclear, please. Okay. I'm I'm trying >> I think this is a good question for legal to answer. >> Okay. Can I just I want to justify my reason if you don't mind for tableing. >> I'd like to know if the protocol is

appropriate first. >> Okay. No problem. >> If it is, that's fine. >> Okay. No problem. Let's Mr. DeMarco. >> I'm sorry. I'm not clear on on what's going on right now. >> So, let let me let let me start again. Um I would like to table okay indefinitely um action item number six um opposing assembly bill 495 to defend

>> but I'm being asked >> I'm sorry >> what was that >> he froze >> oh he froze frozen >> okay >> you want he's back >> are you there >> I I can hear you just fine Okay. >> Okay. So again, um my intent here is uh to postpone or to table indefinitely resolution uh 2526 opposing assembly

bill 495 to defend parental rights and education. And basically what I would like to say is in California the contents of a bill that has not been signed into law are generally not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board of education. Um, a bill is just a legislative proposal until it is enacted by law. So, the board's justification is defined by

existing law and its role as a policym body. >> Point of order. I asked that you guys Dr. Woods, did you tell them that I was walking in? >> Yes. >> Okay. Where are we at? >> I haven't approved the agenda yet. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> So, we have the call to order and the

approval of the agenda. >> Okay. I'm trying to to make >> a change to the >> to the agenda. >> Make a change to the agenda. >> Okay. What change are you making to the agenda? >> I'm making number six action items. I want to table table six. >> What is number six? >> It's opposing 495. And basically what

I'm saying it is it not again this is my third or fourth attempt. >> So we have a motion and a do we have a second? >> We have nothing. So just let me talk if you don't mind. I'll start again. >> No, go ahead. Just >> complete. Yeah, just let me talk because people are interrupting me left and

right. >> Actually, normally what we do is we take a motion and a second. So, Mr. Barham would like to remove AB495. Do I have a second? >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So, now can I talk? >> Now you can go. >> Thank you. >> In California, the contents of a bill that has not been signed into law are

generally not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board of education. A bill is just a legislative proposal until it is enacted as law. The board's jurisdiction is defined by existing law and its role as a policymaking body, not by pending uh legislation. While the board can set policy within the framework of existing law, it does not

have jurisdiction over a proposed bill's content before it becomes law. If the bill is signed into law, then we as a board in collaboration with district administration will be tasked with creating regulations to implement the new law. >> Okay. Does let's go ahead and we have a Steve, you have a comment. >> Yeah. Uh, I I would like to add um

I I've done some research with my attorneys, not my board attorneys, my own personal attorneys about um the advisability of us uh doing something like this. And and I'm just going to make this hypothetical because we don't know. So, if the governor has already signed AB495 cuz it's on his desk and I don't know and I don't know if anyone else

knows if he has signed it then it is law and according to my attorneys um we put ourselves in severe legal jeopardy if we pass this resolution. There were all kinds of sanctions, personal liability sanctions, uh sanctions against the board from the Department of Education, uh from the Riverside County Office of Education. So, I think it's extremely

uh poor idea to vote on this um item. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second to postpone. >> I have a comment. >> Can I Okay. Okay. And then I'm going to ask Mr. DeMarco. >> So we had a discussion on the deis and there was actually a consensus to bring this back. AB495 does have to do with

information pertaining to the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. In fact, when I talked to Dr. Woods about it earlier, we discussed how important it is for schools to be aware of what's going on. The governor has until October 14th to sign it. And I truly believe as the smallest cradle of democracy here in the local community, we do have an

ability to speak into it. It makes a difference in Sacramento. It makes a difference for the community to know what's going on. We can further explain it. And I do think uh there have been several districts, including one down south. Um I just got information on it today with Andrew Hayes on what they are specifically doing to safeguard what

they have at the district. and it's a good conversation point for all of us. Whether we stick to this resolution word for word um isn't really the issue. We need to have the conversation so the community knows what's going on and where we as a district stand. So I think it needs to stay. >> Okay. >> Dr. Anderson,

>> I have a question. >> Oh, I do. I do also, but go ahead. So because um you said that there's potential future litigation around this, can we ask legal questions in close session or does it have to be in open session? That question is for Mr. DeMarco. >> I just look like he's struggling. >> Okay. Um Mr. Demarco, I have a question.

Um Mr. Schwarz said that there's potential litigation that we could be sued if we adopt this resolution. Can we ask legal questions in close session regarding the potential of being sued if we adopt this or does it need to be an open session? >> We could agendaize a close session regarding potential litigation based on board action for this item. I don't

think that we have it agendaized for tonight. >> Okay. Um let's >> at least not at least not for close session. >> Okay. Let's take the vote of um postponing this. You What was the motion to postpone? >> Definitely. >> Postpone indefinitely or definitely. >> Indefinitely. >> We've supported a bill before. Just >> so we know we've done that before.

>> L call roll. >> I think by the time >> Excuse me. I think by the time it gets there. >> Okay. >> Mr. Barham, you've already spoken. You've already I didn't get to speak my second. >> Call the question. Len, please call >> Yeah. Um I'm not sure. Could you repeat? >> Do you want to remove this from the

agenda? >> Yes. >> Post >> no. Kamaroski. >> No. >> Farham. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> No. So we will let the public give comment. >> We we put this in future agenda items and put it on the agenda. So >> you need to allow people to talk at this meeting. >> Okay. The next >> I just want to give you some updates on

the law. I don't know if you guys are aware. We'll talk about it in open session. That's the appropriate time to talk about it when we get there. >> So, we don't want to like >> right now we're just looking at approve approving the agenda. So, we will get to everyone's comments when we get to this item in the agenda.

>> Um, okay. The next is I am going to make a motion to postpone indefinitely items five and six both because we have um potential future litigation around them and they are under attorney review >> under action or information. >> Uh that's information items. Oh no action items. >> Action. So >> wait let me see. Is that no information

and reports? information reports. >> So, the vote of no confidence and the vote of community censure postponed indefinitely um because they're under attorney review and we need to talk to the attorney. >> Oh, attorney review. Okay, I'll second that. >> So, I have a comment because before you came in the room, we had that question. Dr. Kamroski actually talked to Mr.

DeMarco and what he said specifically about the community center is that you can't postpone it indefinitely. you have to tackle it one way or another. So, I just want you to be on the same page in knowing what he's already said. So, if it were in attorney review, I think he would have stated that >> it is indefinitely.

>> So, we're going to postpone it >> for this. >> But that directly is contrary to what Mr. Demarco said. So, I just want to be sure we're >> Can you get Mr. Demarco back on? >> Yeah, I I'm here. Can you hear me? >> Mr. Marco, we have other complaints related to this and I want to postpone

this indefinitely, meaning not forever, for the time being until the board has time to discuss this with legal counsel. >> So, this would be a >> trustee trustee Kamroski asked uh the same question about whether it could be postponed and it can be moved to a different agenda item, sorry, a different uh day's agenda. However, your board bylaw says you're

supposed to announce when it's going to be. And so, um, I think maybe there's some confusion over postpone indefinitely versus postponed definitely >> is sometimes used with this legislative body. I think if we just talk about postponing it to a future agenda, it's a little bit more clear and that is I said it could be postponed to a future agenda

when we spoke earlier. Okay. But it eventually you're going to in my opinion have to take this up because even though it's peculiar to me that it's coming from the community rather than the trustees regulating themselves. Um it was requested to be on the agenda and the topic of regulating uh board conduct is within the subject matter

jurisdiction of the board. So I think eventually you will have to take it up. >> So I want to postpone it for three months. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. What are you What are we seconding? >> Postponing the uh those two items >> for three months. >> Both of them. Is that for three months?

>> Motion for both? >> Yes. >> Hold on. I'm confused. >> I said I want to postpone five and six for three months. >> Oh, let's do one at a Can we do one at a time at a time? >> Okay, let's do the number six. I want to postpone that for three months. >> Which one is number six?

>> The center of Dr. Karaskki. Do I have a second? Is there a time limit for doing that, Tony, or is it indefinite? Is >> indefinite means there's a time limit. So definite means it's off. >> Indefinite would mean that we're not certain how long it's going to be postponed. And my my council would be to take it up

within a reasonable amount of time. Um, so I don't know whether saying three months versus saying Tony, get back to us when you've done some critical evaluation of this and can give us your legal opinion. >> Yeah. >> Would be a better way to say it. But >> the the competing interest here would be the public's right to agenda stuff under

the ED code and under your board bylaw versus a court compelling you to do so. So, you're going to have to bring this up at a future agenda. I think you have some leeway to postpone it and then maybe we could work with administration and the board president to figure out exactly when the date of the next uh

consideration of these matters would be. >> So, the organizational meeting is in December. So, it wouldn't make sense to push it out for 3 months. I don't I don't know if that makes a difference at all, but somebody's got, you know, obviously each trustee has an issue with these individual items. Does that make a difference? Is there a conflict in that

particular trustee voting for the item or does that not matter in this particular circumstance? >> That's that would be Mr. >> Is that being addressed to me? >> Does everybody have an equal vote in this? Does that not matter? I'm just questioning what we could hear from the community as a result of making any of these motions because we've had

>> so many issues. >> So with with for example the proposed community resolution for the censure of uh Dr. Kamaskki there is there is no applicable conflict of interest rule that would preclude him from participating in the deliberation >> or voting on that resolution. Okay. I here's here's the thing. There's numerous complaints. This is the one. This is I think that Dr. Karaski needs

to be fully informed and that he should have the opportunity and Mrs. Wearsman actually. I think that you guys need to have a conversation with Mr. DeMarco about what's going on with this this resolution. Um, so I'm gonna motion I made a motion and a second to postpone it for three months. I think that it would benefit everyone to have more

information before we move forward before the public comes. And >> for clarity, did Steve second it? >> I did. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Are you splitting them? So, we're doing one at a time. >> Yeah, we'll do one at a time. >> Okay. So, the first one is for Dr. Kamroski. >> Okay. >> And let's vote.

>> And can you restate the motion? The motion is to postpone this for three months or sooner if we get if we can get back to if if we can get legal counsel sooner than three months. But I think 90 days is a reasonable time. >> Okay. >> Especially information keeps pouring in and I think the board needs to be fully

informed of that information >> especially considering two advisory board members are on that. So it's a complete conflict of interest. >> So let's postpone it for three months. >> Okay. >> Okay. Shorts. Yes. >> Wearsma. >> Yes. >> Kroski. >> Barham. >> Anderson. >> The second is I'm in a motion to postpone indefinitely for 6 months the community

censure of board or the uh vote of no confidence. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Are we going to debate? >> Go ahead. discuss. >> You want to keep this on right now? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. I think that this is actually related I more information's come out and I think this is related to a civil

matter and a matter that the board voted that we would not be bringing back and involving the district in um >> there are ethical breaches as far as you are concerned Dr. Anders that need that excuse me because you don't give anybody a chance to speak. There are ethical breaches within your conduct in terms of how you deal with attorneys and the

public knows about these things and I know about these things and this is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. Nobody's saying anything about future litigation right now. You're just trying to protect your your butt. Okay? And this needs to come forward into the public. The public is going to be here. The public has something to say about your ethical

breaches. Okay? And you know that and you just don't want them brought forward. And I know that. Okay. So, nobody is saying anything about future litigation. Okay. You are totally off base. This is totally within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. And that's it. >> No, it's not. >> Yes, it is. Okay. Because like I said,

there are ethical breaches. Okay. You have breached you have breached your fiduciary duties in my opinion. Now, let me have a turn. >> My time isn't up yet. I have 10 seconds left. Okay. And I want I want 10 seconds back. >> Okay. Go. >> Yeah. So, there are ethical breaches as far as you're concerned. I have proof of

those things. Community members have proof of those things. And we need to bring it out into the public square because this is what you do. You don't allow these things to come into the public square because you're trying to protect yourself and your own interests. >> Okay. So, this is regarding Advocates of Faith and Freedom and Bob Tyler. And I

think that you're angry that you don't have all the information. I'm not angry >> because we can't have three board members in contact or it's a Brown Act violation. So, we've put Dr. Kamaroski as the point of contact and not you. And I think that that's what this is about. >> No, it's not. >> And I don't think that this is a time

and place so we can discuss it. I think we need to agendaize it for closed session because it's regarding a law firm that we're working with right now. And um there's community members that are involved that do have emails and texts that will speak to it as well, but we need to postpone this for 6 months. There's no

point in in doing this right now. I have a motion in a second. So I have a comment and uh this is not going to be easy, but I actually agree with Trusty Barum. There are a variety of things that we've seen for about eight or nine months now that are clearly ethical violations, complete dishonesty, an abuse of power,

targeting of trustees work, a misrepresentation of attorneys. I could go on and on. Now, I know Mr. Barham's nodding, but I've got things to say for you, too, if given the opportunity. But the point is each one of us on this deis should be honest and recognize the fact that there have been concerns that have created liability for this district, for

the board president, for individual trustees and for the staff. And for anyone to deny the truth of what this actually means and what it has brought us is is not making the right decision. I think there should be a discussion and I think tonight's the right time to do it. Okay. So, my comments directed at Mr. Barham. If you really wanted to, you

know, change leadership, you would have done it at the last meeting when Jen centured reorganizational leadership. This is nothing more than a public shaming. So, here's my thing. I'd be open to this and hearing it if we edit it and put your name in there as well for a vote of no confidence. How do you like those flying monkeys?

>> That would be fine. >> Yeah, >> that would be fine. I have no problem. >> This is about advocates of faith and freedom. No, it is not kids of faith. It's much deeper than that. It is. And m and there's going to be a public they're going to they're going to try to hang >> Bob and kids of faith in sorry Mr.

Barham. >> Mr. Barham interrupted me and I get it. I interrupted him earlier. Okay. >> So my thing is is if we want an edit, we can do that if we can get consensus right now. Otherwise, I'm fortabling it indefinitely as well because I think this is nothing more than a public humiliation shame ritual. But there's no

end result. It doesn't do anything. Emil unless unless you have something secretive that you want to release right now. >> There's nothing secretive. >> Then why didn't you then why didn't you join Jen when it was agendaized for reorganization leadership? Why not? >> Because information has come to light and you know what that information is as well as the rest of us.

>> I don't know what you're talking about. >> It's the email from the public person. There's someone in the public and they're out to >> but there is more than one person. Okay, there is more than one person. And you know what, Dr. Kamaskki, >> I have no problem if you want to add me to that list because I have done nothing

wrong. I want to discuss ethical breaches. Okay? And if you feel that I have ethically breached my fiduciary duty, if you feel that I have done that, then I am perfectly willing to put my own self on the list as well. >> Then put yourself in and let's do it. Okay, no problem. Let's do it, >> Mr. Schwarz.

>> Let's do it. I'm fine with that. Uh I think that's out of order. And so we'll we'll put that aside for now. Um I did nominate you to be president because I felt that um at the time you were the best choice. Um, I think it's a difficult job and I think that you have tried in a in a number of

ways to make it work and unfortunately you have been sabotaged by other people and you have been betrayed by other people and I think this is an opportunity if we do go ahead with this for you to um correct some of the mistakes mistakes that you think you've made and we can move forward. So that's all I have to say.

So to follow up, mine was more of the lines on hyperbole because if this was real, Emil and I'll go back to what I'd said. It was really about reorganizational leadership. We would have had the discussion then. So I'm perfectly fine with table this indefinitely if we want to reagendize this under and I can't do it. Neither

can Jen, but you well actually I can. No member of the prevailing party. only one of you three can agendaize a reorganization of leadership. We can talk about that then >> I want to talk. >> So I'm I'm with I'm with Dr. Anderson on this and if we don't >> you just flip-flopped though with what Mr. Barham just suggested because we

within the discussion can talk about reorganization, >> right? That can be an open discussion point. >> Hold on. >> Why not? >> Hold on. Let's get even more serious. Do you want to just gut this whole thing and make it a reorganization of leadership right now? Because because if you don't then it's nothing more than a Excuse me. There's no excuse. We have to

agendaize it. >> We've already we've already agendaized our reorganization meeting. >> We're not We're not changing it now because somebody thinks they're going to be elected president. >> That's not what this is about. It's not what this is about. >> Can we deal with this motion right now and move forward, please? >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Yeah. To address you, Mrs. Worman,

there's no flip-flopping. It's hyperbole. My whole original point was reorganizational leadership. That's where they should be done because this has no end result other than public shaming of a board member. It's not >> it's not about shaming. It's about actually talking about in the community the things that have gone down in terms of leadership and how they've

reverberated around the country. So, I disagree with you. I feel that we should go with Trusty Bar and actually talk about it. If he's willing to put himself in that position, then I think that's a great way to go because there are issues. So, if we're going to ignore it and try to cover for each other, I'm not

down with that. I am here for honesty and to actually discuss things and maybe get to a place where we can move forward together as a board. And it's not going to happen without a real conversation. >> I agree with you, >> Dr. Kamroski. You can agendaize a reorganization later and then the board will have to decide on it.

>> I can't. >> We can't we can't put it on today because it's not on the agenda. >> Scheduled it for December. Um, >> I can't because I'm not a member of the prevailing party. >> Yeah, we can't we can't agenda, Mr. DeMarco. We can't do a Right. My assumption is we can't do a reorganization right now because it's

not been previously agendaized. >> That's correct. >> We could if you stepped down though because that would trigger >> an actuality of needing a president, which would be up to you. But we don't have to reorganize. The point is we should have the discussion. And I think it's dishonest for anybody to feel any any differently with where we've been in

the last eight to nine months. >> Okay. I said my piece. >> Um I think this is about >> Mr. Barham more than about me. So that is not correct. >> I made the motion and we have a second to postpone it indefinitely. There's also another conflict of interest and we're and um it's regarding the information that you put on the agenda

and your attorney who I told I would follow up with after this meeting. >> There is no conflict of interest. You're making it up. Let's go. >> Ah, hold on. Point of order. This is misagenized because it's under information and reports and you're requesting for a vote, but you yourself said you wanted a two-stage process. So, by virtue of you pushing for this to be

a two-stage process, we can't actually have this on the agenda. Hence, the indefinite or we can postpone it to the next meeting if it's agendaized, right? Which >> did you agendaize it for action and was it pushed to information? >> I agendaized this for action. It was pushed. >> That's what I've done as well. I tried >> Wait, I want to tell you one thing. I

tried to put this in future agenda items and I was in a huge argument because I said it is not fair for Mr. Barham to force all of your information in future agenda items and then him threaten to sue the district if we don't put his in >> not to sue the district to sue the board >> to sue the board. He said he was going

to sue the board to sue me >> if and if I didn't push his and and you can ask Mr. Demarco, we argued for 30 minutes because I said it's not fair, whatever problems you and I have, it is not fair for me to put your information in future agenda items because Emil and Steve and I agreed to do that and then

for him to threaten to sue the board and sue me and force me to put this in information. And in the end, Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Dedrich said, "He sounds like he's got an attorney and he's going to sue. Do you want to sue?" And so we put it here and I didn't want to because it isn't fair and you can ask Mr. Demarco

if we had a heated discussion. It's not fair for Mr. Barham to make a rule for you and not for him. >> You know what Mrs. Wears could have fought for that herself. She she did not do that for you. Okay fought for it. >> Okay, that's not the point. The point is is that we have governing documents and

there is a hierarchy of governing documents. There are ed statutes, ed codes, and bylaws. And the bylaws supersede our governing handbook. Okay? And I rightfully put that in as an action item and spent $1,000 with my own attorney. Okay? Because you are trying to protect yourself and I and according to the bylaw, I have every right to put

it in as an action item. But you chose according to the bylaw to put it in information and reports. Okay? So whatever you did with her, okay, is between the two of you. Okay? That's between the two of you. I have a right to put that where it is supposed to go. Okay? And you would not allow it. Okay? Because you're again,

you're trying to protect yourself. So it went into the right place per your choice. Okay? You put it in information reports. Excuse me. Excuse me. No, he's up. He's passed his time. I have an attorney question. >> Yeah, excuse me. >> Mr. DeMarco, could you >> Excuse me. I'm not finished. No, you're >> You are finished. Point of order. He's

had more time to talk. >> You are not. You are not. >> Mr. You've had more time to talk than anybody. >> I I No. No, I haven't. I sat back here. You know, I rightfully >> wanted it in action. You fought me. You put it in information and reports, and that's where you can put it according to

the bylaw, and that's where it is right now. >> Mr. DeMarco. Trusty Anderson, this has happened for eight to nine months with all of us on some level other than >> Mr. Did I did I try to put this in my statement was this is not fair to Jen Wearsma to not have this in >> matter future agenda items

>> doesn't matter. You you did indicate that your established practice was to agendaize matters for future agenda items for round one, but we looked at your board bylaws and the education code and advised you to put it on the current agenda. And I I don't want to betray too much attorney client privilege, Dr. Anderson, but I can confirm that there was quite a bit

of debate on whether to do that. Yes. because I felt like it wasn't fair. >> Well, you've also agendaized items in our name that we didn't ask to upload. Items that I asked for action have been pushed into future agenda items. >> Okay. Point of order. >> Dr. Anderson, your leadership has failed. And we're having the conversation now even in the approval of

the agenda. And it's tough to hear this. And I don't say this with malice, but >> point of order. We're just pointing out um I'm we're going to have to >> How are we going to get the agenda approved? We're going to take a vote and this is going to stay. If we >> This is going to stay.

>> Yes, it's going to stay. >> It would if people were honest. >> Yes. Exactly. We need to have this conversation in open session. There's no future. There's no future litigation. Just like last time with the amicus brief. There was no reason not to have that in open session. There is no reason not to have this in open session and to have this

discussion. It's time to have it. I have >> it's time to have it. It's like let the public hear the public is coming with information as well. I have information all of that information so the board is aware of all that information out there. That is the issue >> because it's not true information and the public that has the true information

is going to come. >> I have information too Dr. Anderson. >> You guys can we just move on we disagreement but let's just vote because we look really bad as a board. Let's just vote L. We're gonna post question is to postpone. It was moved and seconded. >> The motion to postpone. Okay. Schwarz. >> No. >> Where's my

>> You want it to You're gonna keep this on the agenda? >> Yes. >> Uh Where's my >> Is this with the tie-in of two trustees or one? >> What trustees? >> This is You're going to you're going to vote for me to have a no confidence. It was hyperbole and I was against all of it unless it's organizational

leadership. So no. >> So >> unless you want to make that motion during the item when it's on. >> So my question is the motion is to postpone. You guys all four of you are going to motion a vote of no confidence for me tonight. That's >> we want to discuss it. >> Let's just take let's just take

>> You want to discuss it? >> I want to discuss it. >> It's it's a information item. It's not an action item. He's got the public coming. He's got the public coming. And I'm so tired of our meetings being just a bunch of public nonsense. It's meeting after meeting after meeting. >> And you should have thought about that

before you did the things that you've done. >> What? >> And you talked about it to the public. You did this. You talked to the public about these things. I didn't talk about these things. This is about advocates of faith and freedom. And that's who you guys are going to hang up to lynch tonight. >> Not about that.

>> That is what the email is about. >> Let's take the vote. >> It's about Bob Tyler. >> Linda, let's take the vote. >> Okay. Schwarz already voted. >> So you're going to you want to bring this to public, Mr. Schwarz? >> Yes. >> It's an it's a information and report. It's not an action item. People are

going to comment on it and then we're going to move on. >> No, they're not. >> Okay. Let's take the vote. Tired of it. >> Come on, Dr. Anderson. Let's go. No. >> The motion is to postpone and Steve said no. >> Right. Is that where we're at? >> Yep. Yes. >> Okay. Where's >> Can you come back to me?

>> Kamoski? >> Yes. >> Barham? >> No. >> Anderson? >> Where's my >> Are there any are there any other changes to the agenda? >> I did. Were there any changes to consent items? >> I don't have any. I don't have any. >> I move to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Schwarz. >> Yes. >> Where's >> Kamroski?

>> Barham. >> Anderson. >> Yes. The motion was adopted unanimously. In accordance with government code section 54957, the board will now meet in closed session to consider the items listed in section E. Do we have any public comments on closed session items? >> No. >> Okay, then we will close the line. you take one and pass these down so

everyone can see the changes to the law? These are all the changes, the amendments to AB495 >> that a lot of people were not aware of. >> It just happened last week. >> It happened before they voted for it. >> I know there's a few changes. >> There were quite a few changes.

>> We ready? Okay. Good evening everyone. This is our favorite part of the meeting. As you can tell, we were a little bit delayed in closed, but thank you all for coming. We have a couple of recognitions tonight. The first, we should give a round of applause to Jerry and his team from Great Oak High School who were in here playing earlier.

His group was just given an option to attend uh a very important concert in Spain. Uh very highly regarded group coming out of Great Oak High School. Congratulations. [Applause] Our next recognition, Mr. Brian Pastor, and related to our ebike program, Brian, go ahead. >> There you go. >> There we go. Good evening and thank you for giving me a few minutes to speak

tonight. I'm here to briefly introduce a new district-wide safety program called the TVUSD safe riders that was officially rolled out to our middle and high schools this year. We recognized the number of ebikes, e- scooters, and bicycles at our schools and throughout the community and the safety issues that came from these increases. What we did at TVUSD is we organized a small team

from across the district. We worked with the Riverside Sheriff's Office, Bike Tmacula Valley, Call With Your Helmet On, and the City of Tmacula to help design our program. The program consists of a 45minute interactive training module, bike registration, and a certificate of completion for students to get their permit to park on campus once the module is passed. Since the

roll out was started um about two months ago at the beginning of the school year, almost 900 students have completed the training. I'm proud to say that we've had zero parental complaints as well and many compliments from that. That goes to the sites. Before we rolled this out to the district, we trialled the program at Veil Ranch Middle School. It was

important to try at this site because they have a massive amount of ebikes, bikes, uh a lot of things in front of the school and we thought this would be a great sample size to try it out. Uh since we did this at the school, we had Mr. man who is the assistant principal at Veil Ranch Middle School to

facilitate the process and he is here to recognize a very special student who supported the program at Veil Ranch at the very beginning. Before I ask Mr. Man to come out to give that recognition, I would just like to say thank you to Mr. man. I know he's here somewhere for doing all the work that he did

>> to do all the work that he did to make sure that this was very efficient and all the kinks were worked out before we handed it off to the other sites. So, Mr. Man, thank you so much for that and also the team that helped us put it together. So, without further ado, I'm going to hand over to Mr. Man.

[Applause] >> Thank you, Brian. That was very nice of you. Um, and I wanted to introduce a student who was instrumental to getting this off the ground at at Veil Ranch. He really was a big help. It's a He's a sweet boy. He was very He's very happy and friendly kind of kid. He's a kid you want more of at schools. Uh, he rode his

ebike and there was many times he would come to my office when we were trying to get all the kinks worked out. He's like, "Hey, this isn't working." And I'm like, "You're kidding. It has to be working. We just did." He was, "No, it's not working." And I like, "Okay, sit down to my office. We're going to figure this

out." and he really helped make it streamline and smooth out all the wrinkles for the rest of the district. So the things and questions that would have come from it uh we didn't have anymore. And so I want to introduce Liam Rosario. Come on up, buddy. This is a student that really helped us out um getting those kinks out like I

was saying on the system. And I want to thank you publicly and personally for all the help you did. You're a wonderful kid. He's now at Great Oak as a I think a freshman, right? Loving football and everything else. So, we just want to thank you and thank you, Brian, for bringing this to the forefront and thank

you guys for letting us have that opportunity. All right, guys. Up next from Tmacula Middle School, could I please have Principal Marvin Morton come forward? Sandy, Kathleen, and Melissa, please come forward. [Applause] >> Yes. And Teresa is here, too. >> I had the privilege of being with this group in Washington. They have been selected as a California middle school

to watch, which is also a national recognition. It's been an absolute team effort on your entire team, Mr. Morton. Tell us a little bit more. >> Well, first I'd like to thank Dr. Woods and all of cabinet for their enthusiastic support of us through this process. We really appreciate that. I'm joined tonight by some very special people. So, first off, I have Mrs.

Pierce. She's our LCAP math specialist. I I I can't think of anybody who can take a good idea and turn it into a system that positively impacts so many people. And you know, when we were going through this process and realized there's some things we could do to ramp up our enrichment intervention program, Mrs. Pierce did what we all thought was

impossible. So, uh we're also joined by Melissa Peterson. She's the guardian angel of our special education department. Uh you cannot be a school to watch without having a robust plan in place for the success of your special ed kids and Mrs. Peterson took care of that for us. Uh this was quite a process in terms of the self-study and a lengthy

application process. It's really it's a you know continuous improvement tool. And so as we were going through that we realized this was not one person or two people. This was a team of about 10 writers who put this application and applica uh application together and that our rock through that our foundation was Sandy McCreary. So she's our

intervention administrator and did an incredible job. We wouldn't be here without her. Yes. And then finally this is Dr. Hubard who's brand new to our school this year but will undoubtedly be involved in future schools to watch activities at Tmacula Middle School. So thank you Dr. Hubard for being here. And I'll just say uh the schools to watch

process has really been amazing. When we became a a California distinguished school in 2024, we were looking for the next thing to not only level up but to put ourselves uh in a you know nationwide group of schools who are trying to be cutting edge and you know put students in the forefront especially our middle school kids who have so many

unique needs. And so to be part of a national organization and be recognized by a national organization for the incredible work of of these people and our staff at large is really an honor. So thank you for having us tonight. [Applause] And finally to recognize one of our beloved employees, Mr. Dennis D'vor, Mrs. Nicole Ash. Dennis would have done this in 5

seconds. >> Stay up here with me. Jose, do anything. >> Yeah. Do you have to go grab something? No. >> Okay. I'm going to read this so I get through it. Good evening, governing board, executive cabinet, friends, and family. I'm honored to be here tonight to celebrate our dear friend and TVUSD family member Dennis D'vor. Dennis started working with the district in

2002, 23 years ago, as a computer technician. Over the last two decades, both the district and the field of technology saw a lot of change, and Dennis adapted and adjusted right along with it. He was an invaluable talent and the ultimate problem solver. His skill set was second to none and I remember many times asking him to explain things

to me very slowly and using very small words. But more important than his skill set was his incredible personality. Dennis was the kindest, most humble person that you could ever come across. He was not only willing to help, but honestly and truly enjoyed being helpful and being part of our team. There isn't a time I can recall where I didn't see Dennis

with a smile on his face and have a happy demeanor. Dennis was taken from us far too soon and we will forever miss him. The outpouring of texts, calls, and emails, and I think the attendance here tonight are a testament of the impact that he had on our organization. He will forever be a part of us, and we are grateful to

his family for sharing his time with us. And now I'll turn it over to Jose. >> Um, thank you very much. Um, well, Mrs. Lash has said just about everything that can be said about Dennis. Uh one of the things that I wanted to share with you is uh he did start as a computer uh technician back in 23 years ago and he

worked his way up. He became a technician technician to uh network specialist coordinator and finally an assistant director. I I was really when I retired I was really trying to prepare this for him and he was he was supposed to be the next director in my mind. It's not up to me but in my mind um he never changed over

that time. He was uh humble. He was respectful. He made anyone he came in contact with uh feel very important. Um whether whether it was a superintendent or a board member, he was also kind of funny actually. Um, so one of the things that he would do whenever we had a new employee, um, he would find the oldest,

ugliest laptop, the dustiest laptop, and the oldest cell phone, and the dirtiest backup, a backpack rather, and he would hand that to the new technician. I have several of the technicians from the department here and I think they can all attest to this that Dennis did that to them. Um, but after that, of course, it was a good laugh and it set really the

tone for the kind of relationship that he had with with everyone else uh in the department as well as outside. So, from the TVUSD family, from the IMS family, Jen, uh, please accept our condolences. Um, we miss him terribly. And thank you to you and your family, Tony, Lizzy, for sharing him with us as long as you did. He did wonderful things

here. And we're we have a small token of of our appreciation for Dennis favorite picture. And it says Dennis D'vorah, assistant director, information management systems 2002 to 2025. In loving memory of Dennis D'vor and his years of outstanding services, tireless effort and constant support for the district and its projects for the last 23 years, you will be deeply missed and

forever remembered to information systems. So, thank you so much. And one last note, we made uh the same plaque to with Dennis's picture to hang in our IT department forever and ever. So, thank you. Good evening and welcome to the regular open session meeting of Tmacula Alley Unified School District Board of Education on September 30th, 2025 at

5:58 p.m. In attendance this evening, our governing board, Dr. Melinda Anderson, Mr. Emil Barham, Dr. Joseph Kamaroski, Mr. Steven Schwarz, Mrs. Jiren Wesma, Miss Melissa Chai, student board member. All right. In attendance are also the secretary to the board, Dr. Gary Woods, and the executive team. We will now have the pledge of allegiance recited by Tmacula Valley High School students,

Isabelle, let's see, Stanbury, Isabelle Crom, Ella Wulmer, Jaden Parker, and Noah Gay. the flag of the United States of America and to the republic. stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [Applause] We were supposed to talk about Gary's separation thing enclosed and we didn't. Are we going back in there? Are we moving it to the 14th?

>> 14th. >> Unless we finish really early. Okay, we will now have the board president's comments and I've asked student board member Melissa Chai to speak this evening. Thank you Melissa. >> Thank you for this opportunity. Dr. Anderson. Good evening everyone. As the student board member, I want to begin by saying how much of an honor it is to

serve in this role. Sitting on this deis gives me a unique perspective, not only as a representative of my peers, but also as a learner myself. Every meeting has been a chance to better understand how our district operates. And I've realized that school boards are not just about policies and procedures. They're about people. The students, the teachers, the staff, the families, all

working together to build the best possible environment for learning. Like any community, we're not perfect. Our schools aren't perfect, and the people who make them up aren't perfect. But that's what makes them such powerful places. They are designed to be spaces for growth. Education isn't just about getting everything right the first time. It's about learning, adjusting, and

continuing to improve. I see that spirit every day, not only at Chapperel High, where I've personally had fantastic experiences with teachers and administrators, but across the district. I've seen how dedicated our educators are and I'm confident that same commitment is alive at Great Oak Tmacula Valley and all of our schools. Something I've also learned from this seat is how

important our community's involvement is. We are very fortunate to have an active and passionate community in Tmacula. When members of the public come here to share their thoughts, it truly makes a difference. And when those thoughts are shared respectfully, even when disagreements arise, it sets an incredible example for students. Many of them are in this room tonight, and many

more are watching from home. They're learning not only from what appears in classrooms, but also how adults in our community handle dialogue, conflict, and collaboration. Respectful discussion shows students that their voices matter and that civic engagement doesn't have to mean hostility. It should mean listening and working together. I've also gained a new appreciation for parliamentary procedure. At first, it

felt complicated and almost intimidating, but I've come to realize how essential it is for keeping our meetings fair, structured, and productive. These procedures may not always be simple, but they remind us that every voice at the table has its place and that the work of the board is taken seriously. It's reassuring to know that this board strives to follow those

processes carefully because it shows a commitment not to just rules but to fairness and respect. Overall, my biggest takeaway from this role so far is gratitude. Gratitude for my peers who trusted me to represent them. Gratitude for the educators who worked tirelessly for us. And gratitude for this opportunity to sit alongside all of you and learn what leadership looks like up

close. Thank you for giving me the chance to be a part of this work. I'm proud to represent the students of TVUSD and I look forward to continuing to learn and grow in this role. >> All right. Action taken in close session must be reported to the public once closed session ends. Today's close session began at 4 p.m. The board of

education took the following action in closed session. Um, it was moved by member Anderson and seconded by member Schwarz to approve the confidential settlement agreement between Tmacula Valley Unified School District and Kronos SAHR, Inc. and UKG company. The motion was approved. >> What? >> That's me. That's wrong. >> That's what I thought. >> No, that's my fault. These two are

right. >> Read that and then this one and I'll No, that's my fault. >> That did not happen. It was moved by member Anderson and seconded by member Schwarz to approve the resignation agreement for classified employee 212997 resignation effective September 30th 2025. The motion was approved and adopted with a vote of 5 to zero. It was moved by member Anderson and

seconded by member Kamaroski to approve the resignation agreement for classified employer number 324348. Resignation effective September 12th, 2025. The motion to approve was adopted with a vote of 50. >> And then all the other >> this one. So it was moved by Anderson and seconded by Schwarz to approve the claim. >> It was moved by Anderson and seconded by

Schwarz to approve the claim for damages for JD received on September 11th, 2025. The motion was adopted five to zero. And then the last one, um, item number two, conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9 and eight cases related to the Brown Act demands to cure and correct, cease, and

desist. Copies of related documents are attached. Um, no reportable actions were taken for close session in items number twos. Uh, item number two, two trustees were not present. Um, Melissa, would you like to introduce the student? >> Okay. Hey, as your student board member, I have the honor of introducing tonight's student spotlight. Each month, we have the opportunity to highlight our

amazing students from our schools who remind us why we do what we do. So, just a friendly reminder, our spotlight speeches are limited to three minutes. So, from Chapperel High School, we have Genevie Hua, Kobe Kramer, and Kaden Twist. Good evening, Superintendent Woods, board members, and cabinet members. My name is Jenny Hua, Chapperel's ASB president, >> and I'm Kayen Twist, ASB Secretary and

Treasurer. Thank you for having us today. >> To kick things off this year, we hosted club rush on August 28th, giving students the chance to connect with clubs on campus. The next day, seniors celebrated senior sunrise with breakfast and photo ops to start their final year. On September 4th, the class of 2029 enjoyed freshman movie night watching

cars in the quad. Two days later, seniors showed off their creativity during senior parking spot painting with the help from their family and friends. Our bridge students also had amazing moments. We held their first annual neon party, a sensory friendly dance experience for our bridge students. We also hosted the unified basketball tournament where a varsity unified team

earned another gold victory. >> Then came homecoming week with the theme fast and furious Tokyo drift. performers, some cheer, dance, NJROTC, Haka, Heyana, Anani, Emerald Guard, VSA, and Folklorico. And even the staff brought our energy brought the energy from zero to 100 at our rally. Friday night continued the celebration with our halftime show featuring performances and the crowning of our homecoming king and

queen Diego Chidz and Sophie Flores. We were also lucky enough to have a pair a unified pair on homecoming royalty this year for a very first time. It was such a great experience for all of us to share and even their families got to partake in the royalty experience. >> We also announced our 2025 2026 Fab 5

who represent our school's values of passion, respect, integrity, determination, and excellence. Their energy along with the students in the Puma Pit earned us national student section of the week title after our very first home game of the season, putting us in the running for national and state titles. We closed out homecoming week with the homecoming dance on September 20th

featuring rides, a DJ, live student bands, photo booths, virtual reality, and much more. It was an unforgettable night for Abumas. This Thursday, we're excited to host a middle school leadership conference at SHAP. We're working with fellow leaders from TV and great oak to inspire the future leaders of TVUSD. >> We would like to thank you for your time

this evening and for your continued support of our students and programs. >> Please enjoy this short video highlighting our events from the past month. We look forward to sharing even [Music] Heat. Heat. All right. Thank you, Chapperel. From Great Oak, we have Abby Huth, Amina Shams, and Cadence Lane. >> Good evening, board. I'm Abby. >> And I'm Cadence, and this is what we've

been up to at Great Oak this month. Our homecoming week was was a success with so many fun games, student participation, and high attendance at our football game. Varsity cheerleader Ga Mora and partner Jay Hannah were announced as Hokco Queen and King. Our homecoming dance hosted over 2,300 students with five carnival rides, karaoke, multiple photo booths, vendors,

and our DJ this year played some really great tunes. On September 9th, we had the privilege of honoring nine extraordinary individuals as the inaugural Hall of Fame induction ceremony. Athletes, administrators, and coaches were recognized for their lasting contributions to our school and their legacy on and off the field. >> Our first great race has taken off where

teachers and students have the opportunity to find other students on campus and enjoy lunch together on the senior lawn. Random students get brought together to foster new connections and enjoy together. >> We also had club rush this last week. All of our clubs were able to go out and share what they support and do for Great Oak. So many students got their

involvement on campus. Our peer leaders presented the be the one assembly at elementary schools Luceno and Paba. They began their kindness paper change and they will join them at the spring carnival. Peer leaders hosted a suicide awareness week because nice because nice matters week. We are also excited for our culture nice our culture fest where throughout the month different cultures

are highlighted and honored. Hispanic heritage month was a great example of this and deaf awareness month was a great was great too with tons of lunchtime activities. How have you been the one this month? Our Great Oak students have been working on being the one to pick up trash around campus. We encourage everyone this month to try to

be the one. Shout out to our cross country teams who just traveled to New York to race the McQuade Invitational. The boys won and the girls came in third behind a team ranked eighth in the nation. Going to these national races keep our cross country teams in discussions for national rankings and help our athletes with stress as

postseason comes near. Thank you and enjoy the video. Rewrite your history. Light up your wildest dreams. Musician victories. Every day we wanted everything. Wanted everything. Mama said, "Don't give up. It's a little complicated. All tied up. No more love. And I'd hate to see waiting. Had to have hopes for a living. Shooting for the stars, but I

couldn't make a killing time, but I always had a vision. Always had to have a LITTLE [Music] stranger to be the [Applause] Thank you, Great Oak. And from TV, we have Megan Hammond and McKenzie McMacken. >> Good evening. Thank you for having us here tonight. Yes, she's got it. Uh there's been a been a lot going on at TV in the last

month. We're very excited to share a few highlights. I'm Megan. And I'm Kenzie. Our athletic teams are on fire. Both our girls tennis team and our girls volleyball teams are undefeated in league. Our volleyball team is presently ranked number 12th in California. Last week, Savannah Sheridan, a senior on the team, earned her 1,000th career kill. Yesterday, our flag football team had

their first home game with a big win over Myrietta Valley Myrietta Valley, putting us in at first place in league. It's been a great season for the team, bringing together athletes from a bunch of different sports in this inaugural year. We're three and one in league with a good chance to move on to playoffs. We've had tons of exciting activities

with our 9th grade class at the beginning of the year as our upper classman Golden Guide mentors have been hosting activities and discussions during the school day. We gathered the entire class a couple weeks ago for some different throw throwback games in the stadium. It was hot, like Florida muggy hot. But the groups were had fun playing

along and getting to know each other. We also hold it hosted a tailgate barbecue before our second football game. Bringing the class of 29 together has made a difference. They've made they've been amazing participants and shown a lot of school spirit. This year we've got a class competition called the hunt. With each grade striving to be the best

and most spirited class of the year, each grade earns points by attending events, winning rally games, and joining clubs and teams. The ninth graders have already moved into a strong lead. Next week, we have our homecoming week. We'll see if the freshman can keep their lead with the lots of opportunities to participate in spirit days and compete

at our Hokco rally. We're really excited about the 2025 Golden Games homecoming based on the Hugging Games. We're wearing camo at our home football game and honoring the amazing tributes on homecoming court. Megan is one of our senior nominees representing district 12. Next week is a busy week with homecoming and the Riverside Countywide College and Career Kickoff. Throughout

the day, all students will be attending workshops to set goals and hear about the many, many options for our future. Our 9th and 10th graders will be attending a TED talk style event with presentations from a couple students, a few staff members, and a couple amazing members of our community. We seniors also get to take our senior panoramic

photo. On Thursday, TV is celebrating custodian appreciation day. Our custodial team does an amazing job keeping campus clean and helping ASB with so many of the events we host on campus. We're really proud of our custodians and can't thank them enough. Last week, we just finished our first inner mural of the year, a spikeball tournament. We had close to 15 teams

competing. Congrats to Brody Schumacher and Timothy Miller for winning the whole thing. That's just one of the many things going on at lunch each week with music Monday with music every Monday, cornhole every Wednesday and Friday competitions. Thank you so much for letting us share. Go Bears. >> Thank you TV. And now from Rancho Vista, we have a video from students. If you're

watching this, please like correct me, but it's Gina and Sophia Angulo. Good evening board members and cabinet. I am Gina Ammon and I am Sophia Angula. >> We are from Rancho Vista High School where we are delighted to share the great things happening around campus to ensure student success. We kicked off the first quarter with many activities to bond as a school.

This was a great way to assist new students to adjust to our school and meet new people before classes start and the hard work kicks in. In August, we had frames so all the students could take a photo for their first day and for the senior's last first day. We celebrated team colors, which is where all classes would wear

their team colors to earn points, as well as giving out Otter Pops and a lunch event where students were able to get a cup of ice and fill them with their desired flavors for snow cones. Lastly, we had class colors for pop-up spirit day, which was all staff, seniors, and juniors wore a different color to earn points.

This month we have done team color Tuesday, club rush where all students get to pick a club. For example, financial club, art club, movie club, theater club, and fishing club. And as well as minga store where kids were able to rack up points to spend it on prizes. Lastly, our back to school night where students were able to bring their

families to show off their school and talk to teachers and staff. And lastly, we would like to welcome our new Rancho staff members, Miss Loza, our ELA specialist, Miss Shannon, our counseling clerk, and Miss Contras, our social worker. >> That's it for today. Thank you for your time. Soar with style, Eagles. [Applause] All right, now it's time to recognize

the important school organizations that support our students and staff every day. From our teachers association, we have President Edgar Diaz. [Applause] >> Good evening, board and staff. Uh happy what was it? O almost ready to October, right? It's kind of like that that part of the year when we're all getting ready into our routines and moving along. Um I

just came back from teaching my student or my my my student driver I should say my fourth son, fourth driver Tmacula getting ready for that driver's test. Feeling pretty comfortable about it now. I don't feel stressed about it anymore as I as I did. I think it's pretty similar to our teaching time right now. We were all stressed at the beginning of

the year. Now we're getting into routines and schedules and we think everyone's kind of getting used to the environment that's there and so that's kind of what a lot of what our teachers are feeling right now and kind of moving into. I just was bringing about some of the information that's brought to us by our membership. Um we're going to be

sending out a survey to collect information from all our TVA members about technology integration and the implementation uh that's done in the classroom not only software about hardware. We're hearing a lot about a lot of hiccups happening within classrooms on how um different server the the district server is blocking out different sites. So even though they develop lessons or they're taking

something from like UC Scout that provides additional curriculum for students in high school those particular links or the embedded items are blocked out creating headaches for not only students but also the teachers in the classroom who are trying to teach those lessons throughout the day. Uh so that survey is going to give us information as far as what are areas we need to

focus on and be able to bring that back to TVSD to help improve that um the delivery that we have uh in the classrooms for that. Uh also I attended the TVSD safety team uh that it composed of like administration classified and certificate as well. It reported there were 10 incidents of violence of of against employees by either students,

parents or guests. Uh we we got some more input coming in from our office. So we're going to send out the workplace violence prevention form to all certificate employees to make sure we can record uh what is actually happening. That was 10 incidents just from the beginning of this year. Uh we know that we're also starting out a

special education students deserve 100% initiative to try to advocate for situations in the classroom that are safe and effective for teachers to be able to lay out the instruction and for students to be able to learn there as well. We also know that with higher class sizes, we also get some situations that become unsafe where there's not

enough staffing there and we have way too many students and staff in one particular classroom. uh that creates um situations that can be unsafe for students and for staff as well. So, that's some just something we we're looking at because some of our members are really looking into lowering class sizes in special education classrooms, creating safe environments for them so

that they can be able to teach and for the students to be able to learn everything they can from their individual education plans. Thank you for the time. Right. Thank you. And from our classified employees association, we have administrator Ruby Alvardo and President Jennifer Chrome. [Applause] >> All right. Well, that's it. Thank you all for the work that you do to keep our

school strong. >> Do we have any student comments at this time? >> We have two public comments on the consent calendar for Okay, first up is um followed by Rosie. Good evening. Um I am here talking on consent calendar item number 31. I have serious concerns about approving this legal services contract under the consent calendar. Remember, we postponed

this item not once but twice in the past to thoroughly review it before approving the current contract in March. This agreement locks the district in a 5-year term with guaranteed annual increases that are far exceed the cost of living adjustments projected for our own teachers. For context, teachers cola in the current budget ranges between 1 and 3.4% 4% and is projected only through

2028. Meanwhile, this uh contract guarantees legal council increases of 5 to 6% each year, nearly double the rate and continues till through 2030. They say a picture speaks a thousand words. Just for uh reference, this is what we're offering the law firm and this is what we're offering the teachers right down here. And this right here is where

all of you presently your contract or your term ends. And we are giving them a contract up till two more years for five years. That's what we're signing up for. And the difference is stark. And keep in mind, you might be replaced s sooner, but the lawyer lawyer's contract locks in these increases. Approving this contract now is fiscally irresponsible.

None of us sitting here today will necessarily be accountable with it is still in effect. Yet, we are obligating future boards and taxpayers to escalating costs during a period of economic uncertainty and ongoing deficit spending. This is not responsible use of public funds. When the district is cutting programs, deferring maintenance, and asking employees to do more with

less, it is simply unethical to lock in a long long-term increases for outside council so far out of proportion to what we provide our own staff. Presenting this on the consent calendar without discussion only adds to the appearance of impropriy. At minimum, this item should be pulled for full board debate. At worst, it raises serious questions about governance and steward stewardship

of our taxpayer dollars. Trustees are interested with the public's trust to manage taxpayers dollars responsibility responsibly, not to act as cultural arbiters or self-appointed moral warriors. Stewardship me means protecting the future, not mortgaging it for comfort today. And one final lesson that I pass along to my daughter when handling other people's money. Don't write a check with other people's money

that you won't write with your own. Thank you, >> So, I would like and so shocked that I felt the need to come down here and address you. >> Hold on. Point of order one second. Is this on the consent calendar? >> This is a public comment. >> Oh, that's at the end of the >> Okay, >> I'll put that at the very end.

>> Okay, we'll just move that to the end. Okay. >> I move to approve consent items 1 through 31 that were not pulled, which none of them were pulled. Do we have Yeah, we did. At the beginning, I asked if there were any consent items to pull. >> Do you remember when I asked if there was any consent items to pull?

So, I didn't specifically pull an item, but with Upnate bringing that up with number 31, I would actually like to weigh in with some commentary. Um, it it was interesting to see this on with a five-year, and I think actually she's right. I agree with the fact there should be an open conversation. In fact, I would even advocate for maybe it being

a two-year. Um, I I think I like who we're working with at this time and I know they're a great firm. However, I think a five-year is odd. I would be more comfortable with two at this point to consider other data and some other things moving forward. >> The reason that it's on there with a five is because last time they were

terminated. Um, it affected a lot of areas in the district. Um, can I ask Dr. Woods if I could ask the cabinet. Um the special ed department was affected and the negotiations department was affected. Um and it was more catastrophic to not have them. So that's why their term is five. Would >> I'd like to say we also usually approve

these on an annual basis. >> Yeah. >> All contracts they come in June. We have multi-year contracts, but they still come back to the board annually every June for board approval. >> These guys are not they're not on the June rotation, >> correct? They're they're expired in November. I think >> November. So that's why it's on for

November and I actually asked them to extend it for the benefit of the district because the special ed was affected and um the negotiations was adversely affected. >> I don't think that actually was the case. I we had a very specific reason as to why we let this firm go prior. um with the people that we hired, we had um

some clear communication about bringing them back on board and why. So, at this point, I think we may have a different board in 2026. I think they should re-evaluate this. I think a two-year is sufficient. I'm not comfortable with five. >> Can I speak? >> I'll go after. Go ahead. I have never seen anything like this. And I've seen a lot of boards, in my

experience as an educator, I have never seen an attorney being given a five-year contract. It's reckless. What it does, it's going to lock future boards into working with this firm, and they may not want to work with this firm. And in addition to that, you're not able to negotiate the rates that are in the rate schedule. you're locked into that and

you're not able to, you know, depending on what's going on, maybe lower the rates. Um, so, you know, I I'm not going to approve this contract. And in addition to that, I don't think that this firm has given us very good advice. I mean, based on what took place with the amicus brief, um, and taking everything back into

close session where, you know, my attorney said that it should have been done in open session and the fact that the document pertaining to the whole uh to the whole uh motion wasn't even made forward uh wasn't even brought forward to the public so that the public could engage in the document. I mean, there's lots of issues, you know, it's not just

Bob Tyler and Advocates of Faith and Freedom with this, but AALR O, is that what it is? Ad A L O. They were involved in how we we we uh we adjudicated this motion with the amicus brief. So, I don't feel we've gotten very good advice. A five-year contract is reckless. It is totally and completely reckless for the reason that I just gave

and I will not be voting for it this way. I have to agree with uh Emil. Um when I received the uh information about the special board meeting, I was looking for the brief. What are we voting for? And I didn't see it. How can we vote to support an amicus brief that we haven't seen? And then when I saw it, there were

things in it that had nothing to do with what they told us it was about. The first line was not about what they said it was about. It was about something else. And so I I think that not only is that reckless, I think it's illinformed when you're supposed to represent the board to put us in a

position to vote for something when we haven't even seen it. So I would recommend keeping this contract through December when we reorganize and then move on in that at that time to decide whether we want to keep them on. I certainly would like to see an RFP, which is the way we hire attorneys, not just do it willy-nilly.

>> I really like Dedric and DeMarco from this law firm. I have full faith and confidence when I work with them, and I think they're good for the board and the district. I'm under the impression, though, that the contracts are on a yearly basis that expire at the end of June and then renewed July 1st. And so,

I'm under the impression just one year contracts. So one to two year is fine with me because a good law firm they prove themselves. You just reup their contract every June. That's the way this works. But what I am for is moving them to being, you know, um it just seems like the board president, you're using them more than our general legal

counsel. So you might want to consider moving them into general legal counsel. Just saying. Huff is our general legal counsel now. >> Okay. Um, so can I get consensus if we have this pulled and then bring it back for two to three years? >> Do you want to do that? The reason that I asked for an >> So they're not on a June schedule.

They're on they we need to renew this by November or we lose our contract with this firm. >> I'm fine. >> So we could bring it back at the next meeting. And then I recommend a two to threeyear. The reason that I asked for an extended contract is because of the special ed department and the attorney that works

with them and also um I think that we're going to have more continuity if we stick with um Bill Dedricch with the negotiations. >> Can't we vote right now rather than bringing it back in November? >> Do they need to rewrite it? >> I I don't believe they would need to rewrite it. I think you guys can decide

right now if you'd like to do a two or threeear contract and they can re they can revise. >> I'm good for two. >> Okay. So, we'll do uh the motion is let's make a motion to revise the contract for two years. Do I have a second? Second >> and then we'll discuss that >> that motion >> we just discussed.

>> We could do a postmotion discussion discussion. >> We just you want to discuss it again for two years. >> You can do a postmotion discussion. So, it's fine. So, may I start because I think Go ahead. We each commented. So, I just want to say I'm thankful for the attorneys we've worked with. I think they've done an outstanding job and I

want the community to be assured that we I have full faith and trust in what they've done in terms of the amicus brief and so forth. I don't know how many of you were in the special meeting, but there were two gentlemen that were not who have spoken negatively about it. So, that makes a difference. I'm confident with what we did in making

that decision and I think a 2-year contract is viable, but I do recognize the public comment that was made. I think five years is too long. So, I'm in agreement there. I think this is a good compromise and continuity is important, but two is reasonable. >> I I do apologize for having to take my wife for surgery last Wednesday. So, uh,

that was more important to me than being at the special meeting. And I really, really wish people would stop impuging other people's motives without knowing what's going on. It's insulting. It's degrading. >> Okay. Point of order, Mr. Schwarz. >> I'm not done. I'm not done. >> No, but point of order. We're talking about the 2-year contract. I made the

motion. >> No, I am against the two-year contract. One year is plenty. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You should call point of order on her. >> Can I ask for a point of cl clarification? >> Uh, as a routine, we often have five-year contracts. All that does is it guarantees us rates for a certain amount of time. You'll notice number 29 is an

ex execution of an extension of a contract. Our standard practice is to always bring them back annually, even if they're a four, three, four, fiveyear contract. If you approve a two-year contract tonight, am I taking uh Atkinson Anderson out of that annual approval? I will still bring back the rest of the attorney firms every June and I will hold off reagendizing

the as our standard practice Atkinson Anderson next year and wait two years before I agendaize it. Is that I just want to make sure I understand the direction. >> That's the motion. >> Okay. Thank you. Standard practice is to review attorney contracts on an annual basis. And I don't want to get into it because it's personal, but this firm was terminated

for non-performance. That is why they were terminated. And there is a reason why that they were terminated for non-performance. And it's personal with regard to the firm. And I'm not going to get into it, but I'm saying we need to do this. I don't have a problem with these two guys. Okay? I mean, I do and I don't. I do. I I I have

a problem with what their involvement was in terms of the amicus brief because their Brown Act specialist was brought into play and their Brown Act specialist screwed up. He's not competent. Okay. So, at the end of the day, we need to look at this firm for for the reasons that I've said on an annual basis just like we do everything else. Um, and it's

not going to hurt us to do that. >> So, >> that's my Yeah. >> So, I'm I'm going to I'm going to make a motion that we do that we look at this firm on an annual. >> We already have a motion on the table, so let's vote on it. >> Vote. Wait, I just everyone got to

comment. I wanted to ask if you guys could just explain how it affects the special ed department when we cancel. And I want to clarify it's 200 over 250 attorneys that we have two that we see, but um there are numerous attorneys minus one. There's one attorney that we don't work with from this firm. >> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Dr.

Anderson. Um, when this firm was originally with us and then was questioned and up for termination or their contract for non-renewal, special education did put in a special request to maintain at least a couple of the attorneys with this firm because we do build relationships with our attorneys and they get to know our students and our families and our cases. And we do

have some ongoing cases in our district where having a singular attorney work with us throughout the years. Not only does it provide a cost savings, but it's actually mutually beneficial for us as well as our families that we're working with because of those relationships and understandings that grow. So, my advocacy is always going to come from the attorneys that we know of that work

well with us and our staff and our families. >> And do what is the name of the attorney that does our special ed? Um, >> do you remember? >> We have many. I'm gonna reference one by his first name, and that's Jack. And that was specifically one of the ones that we requested to retain. Um, he's amazing, and this law firm has done well

through special education with us. >> Okay. >> So, I'd like to make an amendment. >> Um, I think Dr. Yeah, Dr. VZ had a comment real quick. I just wanted to comment very quickly, and I know this is probably well known by the board, but our attorneys that we work with specialize in certain areas. So, um, when Miss Deas talks about Jack, he

specializes specifically in special education. That is pretty much the only work that he does. So, I think that's an important important consideration when we're looking at consistency of cases. We cannot just work with any attorney on special education law. IDEIDA law is very different than facilities or any other area. >> So, I respect that. I respect your

input. So, I'd like to make an amendment that we utilize this firm for special education for two years and for anything else it would be one year on an annual basis for all other things outside of special ed. I think that that's reasonable. Do I have a second? >> Didn't we already have a motion on the floor?

>> The board president is running the meeting. Mr. Barham, you're not. The board president's running the meeting. Let her take the motion that was originally there and see if we could amend it. Let's just slow it down. Everybody's jumping in. That's what I think. >> So, we have an amendment to extend it for two years and Mr. Barum wants to amend the

amendment for two years for special ed only. So, do does anyone want to go along with is there any seconds for >> Yes. No. >> No. >> Okay. So, there's not consensus, Mr. Barham. I again I'm I'm open for two to three but if you guys are sure you want to. Okay. So there was an a motion for

two years and a second. >> Schwarz >> no. >> Where's Kamaroski? >> Yes. >> Barham >> Anderson. >> Student. >> I would like to pass my vote on this one. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. So, we'll go ahead and Was there any I did ask if we were going to pull any consent items and I was surprised

that nobody pulled any consent items at approval to the agenda. Um, so I move to approve consent items one through 30. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Lenz, I'm sorry. Schwarz, >> yes. >> Uh, Wesma, >> Kamoski, >> Barham, >> Anderson, >> yes. So, the motion >> Oh, >> yes. >> Thank you, Melissa. The motion is

adopted unanimously. I move to approve consent item 31 with the 2-year contract. Len. Oh, do I have a second? >> We already vote. >> Oh, we did vote on it. Okay. I need extra help tonight. I didn't bring my glasses tonight, so I'm going to have someone do the readouts that has their glasses on. >> Um, the contract for assistant

superintendent in this meeting. >> You choose. >> Okay. So, let me just start with the motion. I move to approve the employment agreement for Dr. Kimberly Vez to serve as the superintendent effectively January 1st, 2026. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Ready. Okay. effective January 1st, 2017, pursuant to government code section 54953, subdivision C3, before taking final

action on an employment agreement for a local agency executive or a salary or benefit increase for a current local agency executive. The board must provide an oral summary of the salary and or fringe benefits for local agency executives. Local agency executive is defined by government code section 3511.1 subdivision D1 through3 as the chief executive officer a deputy ch a deputy

chief executive officer or an assistant chief executive officer of the local agency in our district. We consider the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and any other administrators and managers who are department heads and/or employed by an individual contract for consideration of the board. Tonight is a contract for an individual who is a local agency executive within the meaning of the law. Accordingly, for the

contract, we will read the following information into the record. The position of the local agency executive superintendent. the term of the new renewed or amended employment agreement between the district and the executive, the new salary to be paid to the executive, and any other elements of compensation listed in the contract such as TSA contributions, health and welfare

benefits, car mileage stipen, cell phone allowance, and any other district paid benefits. Accordingly, we provide the following. The Tmacula Valley Unified School District has offered Dr. Kimberly Vez, the position of superintendent [Music] [Applause] sub subject to the terms and conditions of an employment contract commencing January 1st, 2026. Dr. Veza's salary is to be paid uh $349,94 subject to potential increases in the

future, and Dr. Dr. Veles shall be entitled to 12 days of leave of absence for illness or injury with full pay. Dr. Vez may acrue and accumulate sick pay as allowed by the education code. Dr. Vez shall be entitled to 24 working days of vacation with pay in addition to holidays as defined in section 37220 of the education code. Dr. Dr. Vez shall

be entitled to mileage reimbursement for district travel in her personal vehicle according to district policy and IRS regulations. Dr. Vez uh the district shall reimburse Dr. Vez for all actual and necessary expenses incurred by her within the school of her employment in accordance with applicable district policy. The district shall pay Dr. 's annual memberships in the Association

of California School Administrators and any other organization approved by the board. Dr. Vez shall be afforded all of the health and welfare benefits of employment which are granted to the district's administrative personnel, including the district's health, vision, and dental insurance plans, except as authorized except as otherwise set forth in this agreement. The district shall pay on behalf of the superintendent all

necessary premiums for a term life insurance policy in the amount of $500,000. Superintendent shall select a beneficiary or beneficiaries entitled to the $500,000 of insurance proceeds. Dr. Vez upon separation or retirement for the district may continue enrollment in the district's health plan at her own expense. Once the compensation summary is completed for the executive, the board may take final action in opening session

to approve the compensation or contract. >> There was a motion in a second. Is there any discussion? I just want to make a comment and I can't really go into the details because it involves some things behind closed doors, but I wanted to publicly thank you Dr. Veles for taking into account some of my thoughts and suggestions

regarding the contract. And we'll leave it at that because I talked to someone who gave me some insight and it immediately brought such deep respect for me, for you. Not that I didn't have it because it was there, but it's such an important role to lead this district forward. And when this person shared that with me, it

gave me peace and contentment in knowing you've you've been here for a long time. I think there are things you've learned along the way from Dr. Woods, from this board, and I know you have a desire to see us go in in a good direction and to get better, and I appreciate that. But I just wanted to publicly thank you for that and we

know that you will have great success. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations, Dr. VeZ. >> We got to make the motion. >> We already did make it. >> Excuse me. >> Yeah. Did you vote on it? No, >> we didn't vote on what I'm saying. Oh, >> Len Cell Schwarz. >> Enthusiastically, yes. >> Where's Kamaroski? >> Enthusiastically, yes. Barham,

>> yes. >> Anderson, >> Melissa, >> The motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you all. So honored. Thank you. I move to approve the employment agreement for Nicole Davis to serve as the assistant superintendent of educational support services effective January 1st, 2026. Do I have a second? >> Second and a comment. Uh, having been here for 5 years and

worked with everyone who's in the cabinet, I can say what I told Dr. Woods when he was hired. We are fortunate to have these fine people, Mr. Ars, Mrs. Lash, Mrs. Deas, and of course, Mrs. Vez. And, uh, I'm so happy for you, Nicole, that you are moving on up. And I know uh you're always there when I have

a question. You're there for our kids and our parents and I have deep respect for you and soon to be Dr. Deis, which is great. Congratulations. [Applause] I'm >> going to say the same thing. Congratulations, Mrs. Deas, soon to be Dr. Deas. I did the same thing with Dr. Vez before she was doctor. You got to go. You got to pump it up. And I know

Frank R. >> Okay. >> All right. Effective January 1st, 2017, pursuant to government code section 54953, subdivision C3, before taking final action on an employment agreement for a local agency executive or a salary or benefit increase for a current local agency executive. The board must provide an oral summary of the salary and or fringe benefits for local agency

executives. Local agency executive is defined by government code section 3511.1 subdivision D1 through3 as the chief executive officer, a deputy chief, a deputy chief executive officer or an assistant chief executive officer of the local agency. In our district, we consider the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and any other administrators and managers who are department heads and/or employed by an

individual contract for consideration of the board tonight is a contract for an individual who is a local agency executive within the meaning of the law. Accordingly, for the contract, we will read the following information into the record. The position of the local agency executive assistant superintendent, the term of the new, renewed, or amended employment contract between the district and the

executive, the new salary to be paid to the executive, and any other elements of compensation listed in the contract, such as TSA contributions, health and welfare benefits, car mileage stipens, cell phone allowance, and any other district paid benefits. Accordingly, we provide the following information. The Tmacula Valley Unified School District has offered to employ Nicole uh Nicole Deis as assistant superintendent

educational support services subject to the terms and conditions of an employment contract commencing January 1st, 2026. Mrs. Deis's salary is to be paid $256,48 subject to potential increases in the future. And Mrs. Mrs. Deis shall be entitled to 12 days of leave of absence for illness or injury with full pay. Mrs. Deis may acrue and accumulate sick

sick pay as allowed by the education code. Mrs. Dea shall be entitled to 22 working days of vacation with pay in addition to holidays as defined in section 37220 of the education code. Mrs. Dea shall be entitled to mileage reimbursement for district travel and her personal vehicle according to district policy and IRS regulations. The district shall reimburse Mrs. Deis for

all actual and necessary expenses incurred by her within the school of her employment in accordance with applicable district policy. The district shall pay Mrs. Deas's annual memberships in the Association of California School Administrators and any other organization approved by the board. Mrs. Davis's Mrs. day I shall be afforded all of the health and welfare benefits of employment which are granted to the

district's administrative personnel including the district's health vision and dental insurance plans except as otherwise set forth in this agreement. The district shall pay on behalf of the assistant superintendent all necessary premiums for a term life insurance policy in the amount of >> Yeah. Is this right? No, it's 200. >> Yeah. In the amount of Sorry, guys. In

the amount of $250,000, the assistant superintendent shall select a beneficiary or beneficiaries entitled to the $250,000 of insurance proceeds. Once this compensation summary is completed for the executive, the board may take final action in open session to approve the compensation or the contract. Lenny >> Schwarz, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Kamoski, >> Barham, >> Anderson, >> yes.

>> Melissa, >> yes. The motion passes unanimously. Next in action, I move to proceed with the nomination and the election of a vice clerk board advisory committee liaison and to reorganize the parental rights subcommittee. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. >> One public comment. >> We have one public comment. Okay. >> Jennifer San Nicholas.

>> Okay. Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> I have a comment before we start. >> Um, before you comment, I have to I submitted this, so I get to introduce it. >> Okay. So, I have three minutes to talk about it, but I won't need all three minutes. Um, I keep talking about board members working together and breaking up

the teams. And I think that's why I'm in the position I am is because I tend to vote based on what I feel like is best at the time and not join teams and that sometimes makes people angry at me. Um, I want Mr. Schwarz. I think he's been on the board a long time and I would like to see him

have a position. Um, so I I want to nominate you as vice clerk and board advisory committee. And that being said, um, the parental rights subcommittee hasn't met. And I think that it worked well when I worked with Dr. Kamroski on the um the, um, privacy policy. I just feel like that worked better for the community to have

two different perspectives. So, I want to reorganize the parental rights subcommittee and um have Dr. Kamaroski work on the two flag, the flag policy and the other policy. Those will be my suggestions. Um do I have comment? >> Can we take them one at a time? >> Um >> meaning split the >> Do you want me to split the motion?

>> Yeah. >> Okay, >> that's my request. So, let's have comment and then at the very end I'll split the motion for a vote. Can we do that? >> All right. So, I have a comment now. >> Okay. >> Um because I had asked that we since this was going to be on there that we look at all the subcommittees

again because I want to reorganize some other ones. >> Okay. But it's not on the agenda. So, we have the next >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. Um, I already know if I ask the attorney, he's going to say it's not agendaized to reorganize all the subcommittees that we we can agendaize that next next time because then the

board the public would have needed time to prepare and comment on the reorganization of all the subcommittees. Do you want me to text do you want me to text him and verify? >> No, you don't have to do that, but we can also vote take a motion and vote and if we get twothirds okay because it's not a big deal. Okay, we're just going

to or reorganize like you're going to reorganize your parental subcommittee. I just want to reorganize a couple of other ones. >> Let me just check with the attorney then so we don't get another Brown Act. >> Yeah. >> By Well, first let me see. Does anybody else want to reorganize all the subcommittees or should we do that next

time? >> I just have one that I want to reorganize. >> We have to have it on the agenda. >> Okay. Well, we can by twothirds vote if you know your Robert's rules of order like you say you do. I'm gonna we can we can do it. If we get twothirds of a vote in a motion, we can put a

non-aggendaized item on the agenda. And it's a small >> That's actually not true. It has to be an emergency. >> All right. We do have a list of list of subcommittees here. So given that we're having a list of subcommittees, it is possible to reorganize them because they are agendaized. >> They are there. >> It's not a Brown Act violation at all.

Just >> you guys want to reorganize all the subcommittees? >> Do I have >> We can start we can start with the two that we're voting on. >> Okay, let's start with the two. >> I think I mean >> let's start with these two and then we'll go down the subcommittee list. >> So um I made the motion I'll motion to

elect um Steve Schwarz as vice clerk board advisory commazison. >> Second. >> Thank you. So, my comment to that, and it may not make a difference, but I would love to throw my hat in the ring and actually motion to be that person instead of Mr. Schwarz. So, however you want to um speak to that, that's something that

I would like to do. I actually think that there is an opportunity for all the board members to have roles and I don't want to deny you that opportunity but right now I want to give it to Mr. Schwarz and then in the future when we do the reorganization um I would like to see other people step

up and take leadership roles besides me. So, just know that like I it's not that I'm I I just want to keep I want Mr. Schwarz to have an opportunity. So, he he hasn't and he's been here a while. So, um any other comment? Okay. So, then will you >> Yeah, I have a comment. I I'm going to

guess Mr. Schwarz is going to get voted in. I'm not against you in this position. I'm against the position itself only because last meeting I said I thought it was overly bureaucratic. So just know that. >> Um so is there any other comment regarding the board advisory committee and the position? >> Call the question. >> Board advisory committee or question.

Okay. Um Len >> Schwarz. >> Uh thank you Dr. Anderson and my vote is yes. >> Okay. >> Where's >> no >> Kamroski? >> No. >> Barham. >> Yes. Anderson. >> Yes. >> Melissa. >> Thank you. The motel. >> The motion passes three to two. >> The next motion is to reorganize the parental rights subcommittee. And I

would like to um my idea would be to remove mr. Barham and put Dr. Kamaroski on there for the reason that I gave previously. Um I I do think with the previous policy having the different perspectives from Dr. Kamaroski and myself is better. >> Um do I have a second for that? >> Second. I I want to discuss.

>> Okay. >> So I have no problem with this motion. What I have a problem with or what I will have a problem with is at the end of the day when the uh neutral classroom policy comes out, my name better be on it because I'm the one who introduced it. >> You mean like the letter Dgrade that you

took from me? Hypocrite. >> Oh god. >> I'm going to call you out, dude. >> Okay. Point of order. >> My name better be on it. >> Why don't you apply that to the thing that I introduced? You don't get it both. >> We're going to redo all the subcommittees. So point of order. So I have >> is unbelievable and I call you out.

>> Okay. Point of order. I have a motion and a second. Len, will you call? >> I'm sorry. >> There was never a D policy discussed, dude. >> Yeah, dude. I'm the one who agenda. >> No, hold on. I have discussion, too. >> I have discussion. >> Just a minute. I >> You seem to care. >> I don't.

>> You're the one that said my name better be on it. >> You didn't put forth this discussion. >> You didn't put forth. This isn't your meeting audience. This is going to put forth any policy regarding the D. I put forth let's get there. Isn't there the committee for DG policy and I expect my name to be on it.

>> Okay. >> All right. Dr. Anderson, here's the thing though. We need we need clarity. So I need discussion from you. There's a parental notification committee. in that committee. Is it specifically bifurcated into neutral classroom and sensitive topics with students? >> No. >> Because this is Okay. Then what is it exactly? Because those two policies are out there. Emil's referring to one of

them and or both. And then you're talking about parental notification. Which is it? Because this is rush. It has to be very clear. >> We titled the committee parental notification. But I feel like the committee is not this committee is not parental notification. This is has to do with the two policies that were sunshining. There's two ideas. I agree.

One is sensitive topics and that was my idea and >> that is correct. >> And so that can be pres we talked about it before about conversations that teachers have with students that are not appropriate. Those are sensitive topics. So that is correct. >> There the the thing is the sky's >> the limit like there's no policy in

place and we've asked the teachers union to look at these ideas and get back to us. Nothing has been done for months and Mr. Bar and I haven't met or talked since January or February or something. So, >> and that is correct. Those two policies were not part of the parental notification committee. They were >> So, we can call it a different

committee. We could call it Can I finish? >> Okay. Because you're the one talking it's his question. Mr. Barham, point of order. Joseph, ask me a question. >> Use the gavl, Dr. Anderson. He's not listening to you. >> I'm done. >> There you go. Well, then go into the audience like you did last meeting. >> I'm done. I went in I went in for a

reason. >> Okay. So, here's what I'm going to ask. >> This is going to be a really hard meeting and I'm going to thank everyone on the board that helps me call port of point of order. It's going to be really tiring for me to get through this. So, Mr. Barham, Dr. Kamaroski asked me a question I was answering.

>> So, I got two minutes though and I want to use that with you. >> Okay. >> Okay. so we can have a conversation. You can start my clock. >> I'm a firm believer in ownership. I'm a firm believer that you and Emil literally should finish this out because I was against it from the beginning. I feel like I'm being inserted in because

maybe there's nothing been done. Me and Mrs. Wearsma tried to tell you that you don't negotiate with the union. They're going to stall you. That is what we're looking at now. Seven months. That is what I believe. Now, maybe I don't know because I'm not in the committee. I'm not in collective bar. I don't I don't know. Right. My thought is is why don't

you and Emil finish this out. Why do you want me in? I know you said old guard, new guard. Okay, but that would have been done earlier in the year. So my question is what is it about me that you want me in the committee with you and not a meal? >> Has the ball been dropped somehow?

Because I am a firm believer that you two should take ownership. I might consider joining, but I need to know why. You know, to be honest, I think the public perception is going to hurt having the anything good come of this. Um because the previous policy, I think that the teams that we have set up on the board, they

don't work and we need a better balance. And that's why I support m do or um Mr. Schwarz having a role. So for me it's that I think that we'll have more success if we don't work in these teams and these teams and and that's honestly so it's up to you if you want to participate or not. Um I feel like it is sunshining is

not an easy process but it's something new that we're doing and I would like you to be open to looking at where we're going. It's not it's not often done by any school districts. Because of the perb case, we decided to try the sunshining. I think we'll get a more robust and a more um legally sound policy if we do if we participate in the

sunshining process. But it's up to you. If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. >> Can I can I say something to him? The only thing that was in parental notification, the committee, the only thing that was there was fleshing out all the parental notification policies that we debate debated in those four or five iterations. That's all that

was done in that committee. Um, and then Dr. Anderson suspended it and she suspended it so she could have collaboration with you on the on the the the the policies that you brought forward and the policies that Mrs. Weisma brought forward. That's all that's ever been done in that committee. >> Right. But you're saying your name you

want your name on it on what part? the neutral classroom that you didn't have those because those policies are not part of the parental notific and and you were talking about the flag policy and all of those things. The flag policy is integrated into the neutral classroom policy which is not part of the parental notification committee. Right

>> there it's separate. So there's >> so I wouldn't be working on a neutral classroom policy would I or not because you want your name on that and I'm like well you brought it forward and I'm I'm all about that. So I'm trying to figure out what am I being asked to do primal notification. >> There's nothing in there right now. As

far as I know there's nothing in there to be worked on right now. So you're starting from scratch. So anything that comes about in terms of parental notification, you would work with Dr. Anderson on that. >> I know. So here's my confusion though. Are you saying that the the umbrella is parental notification and under the umbrella is neutral classroom and

sensitive? Okay, that's what I thought. So um I wouldn't be working on neutral classroom with you or sensitive topic. >> Can I clarify? >> Yes, I'm really wanting that. Back in January when there all all of us put information on the flag policy after we had rescended everything with PERB, we formed a committee and we called it parental rights and

notification committee and then we talked about old school and new school and we kind of went back and forth over who was going to do this. And so Emil and I put ourselves on that committee. After that I took the information from the flag policy previously and then I took the information from so the this is how the neutral classroom

idea came about like how do we redo this in a way that will work in our district. So, I took your flag policy and I also took your board policy on what is it? What's the one? >> Controversial issues. >> Controversial issues and I entered them into chat GPT and I asked like, can we come up with something that would create

a flag policy and a neutral classroom policy and then from there I asked for people's feedback. Just people like in the community, what do you think of this? And we kind of talked about it a little bit in close session. And then we open the sunshining. And so there's really no policy except like what I put into chat GPT as an idea

like could we marry these my idea was could we marry these two ideas to create a neutral classroom because I liked the controversial topics and I thought it could but at this point that's as far as we've gone and um it's really just been those are the exact steps. Nothing has been go nothing has been done besides

and I'll point out Dr. Kamroski besides if if you look at what I've been what I pulled out of chat it is the language from the controversial topics married with the flag policy and that's the idea of where I think this could go but I want the teachers union to also look at that and say is like how can we do this

so that we can have neutral classrooms. I'm open to it, but I'm also open to whatever work we've done. If Mr. Barham has contributed to it, he gets full credit. I'm all about that. Our little tango earlier, we're just we just we're having it out on the day, whatever. I'm open to that. But I just wanted to be

clear on exactly what I would be doing. And the reason I would say yes is because there is activism in the classroom and there are families that want things out of the classroom, but they can't have it out because we don't have a policy. I'm willing to step in the gap and help whatever help I can. >> You you should you should step into the

gap. >> Do you and Mr. Barham want to work on it? >> I can send you all my chat GPT information that I >> but you know I want to >> I would love to work with Dr. Kamroski. >> Okay. I I want >> I'd like to throw my hat in the ring again. >> I want to I want to clarify something

though as far >> I want to clarify something in terms of your your chat GPT stuff. Mr. Arce and I worked extensively on those talking points for the neutral classroom policy. Is that not correct? >> It's correct or no? >> Just want to >> It is correct that you provided me with talking points regarding um goals and

objectives with that specific board policy. Mr. Barham regarding >> and I have no problem >> if you want to work on it. I have no problem. >> Good. Do it. >> Have no problem. Let's do it. >> Okay, let's move. Can we call this to question? Dr. Kamski, do you want to be a part of this or not?

>> Let's come back to this. >> Okay, let's go. >> We have other subcommittees. Let me Hey, I have a right to ponder this. Let me ponder. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Mr. Barnum, do you want to work with Mrs. Wearsma? >> That's another >> I'd be up for that because she's requesting >> Mrs. >> Let's find out what Trusty Barham wanted

to reorganize. That's essentially >> Okay. So, here here's what I would like to reorganize. I would like to reorganize because there has been no meet. This was established January 28th, 2025. And I think that this is very important and Dr. Anderson, you haven't you and Schwarz haven't met on this at all as at least as far as I know. And I would I I

think that this is really important for our community. The Tmacula Elementary School dual immersive language program. And I would like to work on that with you, Mr. Schwarz, if you're open to that. >> Since you haven't since you haven't >> I'm okay with that. >> You okay with that? Web begin. >> Does anyone have any comment on Mr.

Barham and Mr. Schwarz working on a dual immersion? >> We're going to meet with Crystal. >> I think you guys have more time. >> Okay. So, do you want to make a motion? >> Sure. to replace. >> I move that uh we dismantle well we keep the subcommittee tees dual immers dual immersive language uh program um take

Dr. Anderson off putting meal bar hem on and uh do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. >> Selear >> C. >> Wearsma. >> Yes. >> Koski. >> Barham. >> Anderson. >> Melissa. >> Yes. >> Okay. The other one is I I don't I have not been meeting with the sped subcommittee. Does someone want to replace me on the sped subcommittee?

What was that again? I'm sorry. >> The special ed subcommittee. >> Do you want that committee to keep going? >> We have a current agreement that we're putting into place the things that we spoke about last year. We had a highly productive series of meetings and we're meeting again in October and then from there we're going to figure out how we

get the committee together almost quarterly. I think that's what we agreed upon in consensus at the last meeting. >> I don't think though that Dr. Kamroski because we we may be going to a place that you might not want to go because we're talking to the union about transitioning that subcommittee into something quarterly like a problem-solving subcommittee. And I'm not sure that you

you would want to be part of >> Yes. But it's it's going to be different than this subcommittee. So, we're talking about it. It's nothing finalized, but I'm just saying given your how you feel about >> No, it it's contentbased, not >> I I don't know. I'm just telling you where it's going. >> Give it a shot.

>> I feel like >> I have a heart for the sped students. Uh as as as much as I disagree with the values of some of the leadership of the teachers union, I don't disagree with possibly working with union related to sped. >> Okay. >> Content rel related, it's not as sticky, so I'm open to that. Um why don't you

think about it? >> I'll be ready to think I'll be ready to do this before we get out of this topic then. All right. >> So what what happened with Pon? What are we doing? Okay. You're thinking about parental notification, >> Jen. >> Okay. >> What do you think about working with Jen on parental notification and I work with

you on the sped subcommittee? >> We can have Jen, we can have someone like Dr. Woods in the meetings with you >> or Dr. Bles. >> So, where I'm at in thinking it through is what you guys started I think should be finished with the two of you. I know you said that you haven't had a lot of

forward motion, but I think that's kind of exactly the point of what Dr. Kamaroski and I see and I would much rather have a plan B behind the scenes and talk to Dr. Kroski about it should this not come through because if the two of you haven't moved it with the union at this point and I know there could

still be discussions then I don't really wish to join it. >> Why don't you are which which one are you talking about right now? I'm sorry. >> Whichever one we just debated between Melinda and Kamroski and then you and me. I just think it's a lot of confusion. So, I don't want to make a decision to move into or out of

something right at the moment. I'd rather keep going with >> You don't even want to work with Kamaroski on parental notification? >> Oh, I would work with Dr. Kamroski. >> Well, I would I'd move for that. Let's Let's just do it. >> All right. I'm up for it. >> I'm up for that. So is >> so one point of clarification is this

then us taking over what's already with the union in negotiations or something entirely different or can it be what we want it to be? >> It's taking over where they left off and if they have good talking points we're using those. >> Yeah, you're starting from Mrs. Weisma. You're starting from scratch. >> Okay. I think that Frank and Bill have

gone a long ways and before we start from scratch, I think we need to talk to >> I will always use the good work that other board members have brought forward. >> I just But I will use the good work. >> Yeah. I just don't want to get pinned into what I don't understand is going on and that's

>> so many committee from the beginning. So I just want to be sure I understand what I'm taking. >> If they're handing us the reigns to the subcommittee, it's ours. >> Okay. So, do you Mr. Arce, I feel like before we throw away everything that might have happened that maybe we should bring this back into um you can update

us on negotiations next time and then we can reagendize this just to make sure everyone's on board. >> Well, and seeing things in writing would help >> with the negotiations. >> Do you think that would probably be the best thing to do? I think as it relates to the topics of the board policies that were sunshine as

part of our sunshine process and um items that are pending reopener discussions, I think it's best that we move forward with a plan negotiation session and I update the board on the association's position on bargaining through those policies before we make any >> changes >> other changes. >> Okay, we'll we'll reagendize this next time. So let's so I want to be clear. So

we're sun we're in the process of negotiations on neutral classrooms talking points excuse me talking points submitted by email sensitive topics talking points submitted by Dr. Anderson. We're going to ponder parental notification which as far as I'm concerned you're if you decide to take it up you and Mrs. Where's my are starting from scratch on any future

parental notification items that there are because there's nothing there right now. >> Yeah, most of that's already done. >> It's done. But if there's anything else that comes up, >> yeah, it's yours. >> See, >> all right. I'll in favor of me and Jen working in this subcommittee and I'm in favor of working on the Oh, go ahead.

>> I think that Mr. Barham is saying there's nothing in parental notification, but these two things exist. >> I'm in favor of working on that. >> They're not. >> They're different. They're He's saying he's going to put you guys on the parental notification committee because these two things are not parental notification. Do you see what he's do?

Do you see? >> Uh oh, excuse me. Uh I thought he just said though. Okay, so clear it up again. >> You can have parental notification. It's done and empty. do what you want with it. These two things are not parental notification. What would be the point? >> But even before we were talking about the neutral classroom, see there is

confusion. The neutral classroom and the sensitive topics under the umbrella of the parental rights subcommittee. >> That's where we're at. >> He's saying it's not. He's saying that these two are something different. So what's the committee called that these two >> and the parental notification is like handing us nothing. It's like an empty vessel. Here you go. No,

>> you can. He said you can do whatever you want. >> Come on. You know what? What you saying? Come on to me. >> No, what I'm saying is there's no work to be done currently. >> No, there isn't. But but that doesn't mean that during this process of negotiation with the union when talking points come back

on neutral classroom and sensitive topics that you're not going to have any input into those things. You will. What if we form a committee called the neutral classroom sensitive topics committee and assign two board members to that? >> That's what I thought we were talking about the whole time. >> That's what I thought we were too, but

he's saying they're different things. So, let's form a new committee called neutral classroom sensitive topics. It's pretty much flag policy. And if you if you don't want the sensitive topics is just something that I think should be a policy, but we it's my idea. The whole board can reject it if they want. >> So we could separate it and just do the

neutral classroom flag policy committee. Do you want to do that? >> That's fine. And I'll be on that >> and you'll be on that committee or you don't want to be on the parental rights committee. Do you see >> he doesn't want Do you want to be on >> I could be on both. I mean I don't have

a problem. You're the one who's saying you're the one who's trying to reorganize this. >> Okay, >> this is very important. I'm glad we're taking our time. >> You're the one who's saying that you want to reorganize this. I'm If you want to reorganize this and and kick me off of parental notification, I'm okay with that. >> No, I'm I'm with you. There's really no

parental notification. >> That's what I'm saying. Although I consider when we formed parental notification, these two items were formed under parental. >> Why can't we dissolve parental notification subcommittee since there's nothing to work on? That's how the subcommittee does. It goes in and out of existence based upon things that are being worked on. There is nothing. Let's

dissolve it and then create the official committee. >> I'll work with Dr. Kamroski on neutral classroom flag policy. How's that? >> Do you want to work with Mr. Barham on that? >> All right, let's pause because of the possible pondering. I'd like to throw my hat in the ring and work on that with Dr. Kamaroski just like we did in the

beginning. >> But I'm going to try to break up these teams because I think we're going to have a better outcome if we work with each other. >> Well, you guys took over most everything. So, my opinion is just continue on. Keep moving through that and then let's move on. We have people here waiting and I think we can hash

this out later if we need to because it just it's not making sense. >> I'll pass. I'll pass. >> Let's postpone. That's too messy. >> Too messy. >> Okay, let's just dissolve it >> then. Who's going to take over the sunshining? >> Nobody. It's I'm going to work with Mr. Arce. You're going to work with Mr. RSE

on sensitive topics. I'll work with him. I'll bring back those policies, >> Dr. Anderson >> to the board. I mean, that's how it works. >> Can I provide some input? >> Yeah, you don't like that. I know you don't. As you know, the board receives a negotiations labor update every board meeting. That would be your opportunity to provide direction for me to provide

feedback and input as we carry out the bargaining of these policies with both TVA and CSEA. >> Okay, we'll bring it back next meeting. >> Okay, let's let's move on. >> Yes. >> Next is a public hearing. I move to conduct a public hearing regarding resolution number 2025-26-06 of sufficiency of textbooks and instructional materials compliance for the fiscal year 2025-2026.

Second >> Schwarz. Oh, >> yes. >> Is there any comments? Do we have any public comments? No. >> Okay. Schwarz, >> Wersma, >> yes. >> Kamoski, >> Barham, >> Anderson, >> Melissa, >> yes. >> Okay. The motion is adopted unanimously. This is a time and place designated for the public hearing to review and consider resolution number 2025-26/06

and the certification of sufficiency of textbooks and the instructional materials compliance for the fiscal year 2025-2026. I declare the hearing now open at 7:30 p.m. Staff, is there any discussion? Not unless you have any questions about this efficiency report which is our Williams Act requirement. Okay. Is there anyone who wishes to comment on resolution number 2025-2606 and the certification of sufficiency of

textbooks and instructional materials compliance for fiscal year 25-26? Nope. All right. If there is no comments, I will declare the public hearing closed. The public hearing end time is 7:31 p.m. I move to adopt resolution number 2025-26/6 and the certification of sufficiency of textbooks and instructional materials compliance for the fiscal year 2526. Second. >> Is there anyone that opposes?

The motion passes unanimously. I move to approve resolution 2025-2611 opposing Assembly Bill 495 to defend parental rights and education. >> We have public comments on this. >> We have six. >> We have six. Okay. Do we want to allow three minutes for public comment? >> Sure. >> Okay. Um, first up is Michael Davis, followed by Josh Sherling.

Lord, thank you for letting me share with you this evening. I stand before you today in support of California AB495, the Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025, because I believe in a community that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our children, especially in times of uncertainty. This bill is designed not to undermine parental authority, but to strengthen our families during stressful

times such as immigration enforcement or im military deployment. It empowers families to craft plans that ensure their children are cared for and protected, reinforcing the notion that every child deserves stability and support regardless of their circumstances. Opposing AB495 sends a message that we do not value the safety of all families, particularly those facing systemic challenges. Instead, we should embrace policies that

protect our children, acknowledge the diverse realities of the families and our community. By supporting AB495, we affirm our commitment to nurturing a safe environment for every child, ensuring that their rights and well-being are at the forefront of our decisions. Let us come together and support measures that enhance parents' rights while also recognizing the need for flexibility and compassion in our

legal system. Thank you for listening. Next up is Josh Shirley, followed by Sarah Bell. >> I'm slightly confused as to what body this is. Um, this is not the California State Assembly. We do not make laws here. We do not vote on laws here. This is performative. This serves no purpose other than to send an alienating message

to the people in our community. As I read AB4495, I understanding that this is primarily to help people in crisis, families in crisis where you don't have a a caregiver, a legal guardian available in an emergency. If your parents got deported or arrested by ICE while you were at school, who's going to pick you up when you are at your daycare and

nobody comes to pick you up because they're in custody? This is meant to be a benefit to help families who know bad things might happen. We should be supporting this. This is this helps child safety. This this is not just an affidavit somebody could forge and be like go to a daycare and say I want that kid. That's not how this

works. This requires daycare and institutions to actually have um policies that are given to the parents. It's about transparency from them. This is meant to help the the hardest hit, the most impoverished people in our society. Frankly, this is sending the message to families of immigrants that they aren't wanted. And I look at in my heart and my faith

and I ask, how would Jesus treat the immigrant? What kind of rules, what kind of things could we do to help the immigrants? I may not agree with them being here illegally. I might have my opinions about that, but they deserve protection. When we put our hand over their hearts and they say with liberty and justice for all,

>> that's not just citizens, that's not just a specific faith group. It's for everyone. When we have the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment that protect due process, that's for all people, not just citizens. So, please be compassionate. stop making these performative uh statements that really don't have any bearing on what's going to happen in Sacramento. Just like the

amicus brief, it doesn't serve any good in our community other than to message to the to the minorities here that we're against them. We need to be a school district for everybody. Thank you. >> Next Next up is Sarah Bell, followed by Miss Strange. Sorry. Okay. Um, my name is Sarah Bell. I'm a parent in the district. Um, while

my comments tonight are addressed to the board, um, I'm really here because I think it's important that the the public hear the facts about Assembly Bill 495. It's a bill designed to strengthen parental rights. It's not to take away parental rights. And it allows parents to choose a caregiver for their children. How many of you sitting here have to

worry when you take your kid to preschool that you might be deported and not be able to pick them up? We need to not I'm tired. I'm tired of having to address the board when these items are agendaized and discussed only through the lens of your personal life experience and the family structures that your own personal beliefs support. We are here

why I love this district is to support and elevate all students and be mindful of their safety. That is what this bill was created for when the mass deportation started happening. Those are the children we need to think about. But in addition to that, this bill also supports any family facing separation for any other reason. So it creates a

joint guardianship process through probate court. That's facts. allowing parents to preserve their parental rights while designating a trusted caregiver. I'm not going to say I didn't see things in this bill that were concerning to me, but the controversial section allowing non-family caregivers to sign the affidavit was amended and removed. So, that is not something to argue about or continue to spread false

information about. Over 1 million children in California, these are our students in California, over 1 million have an undocumented parent. This bill builds on existing law to give immigrant parents clear legal tools to ensure that their parents are cared for by the adults of their choice, parental choice. As a mother, I want to choose that. This is not about giving custody

to strangers. Now, the po point has been brought that we already have this in place because we have emergency contacts designated. I will tell you I am fortunate enough to have a will that's documented and I can tell you that my emergency contacts are the people that live across the street from me and closest to my children's

school. They are not the caregivers I have designated in my will something happened to me. That is not what this bill is for. And that is that is what this bill is for. And that is not what an emergency contact list is for. I urge you to clearly explain in your discussions how this bill violates parental rights in TVSD.

>> Times Thank you for your opposition to Assembly Bill 495. It can be a dangerous law that strips away parental rights and makes it easier to take children from their families. Even if it has was well intended, it still reduces many of the safeguards that are in in place today. And this is why it's most likely going

to pass because union leaders and their leftist allies like to exclude parents. And that's why taxpayers oversight for parents and students urges you to go even further. Just like Lakeside Union School District in San Diego just did. Trustee an Andrew Hayes led his district in putting in a policy that requires IDs to match a notorized parent approved list before releasing

any child or else the authorities are called. Pass this resolution right now. Then take it a bit further and create a similar policy as Lakeside just did to show that one, parents still matter, two, children are protected, and three, Sacramento's overreach won't control you either. Thank you, [Applause] >> David Sola, followed by David Hatch. Good evening. My name is David Sola and

I'm here again as a parent. I don't know about any of the other people that come up here and speak, but I know that I come up here as a parent and my kids go to this district. So, what I'll tell you is this. I'm going to speak from a place of experience. How many of you up there,

how many of these people out here have had to fill out that affidavit before, the caregivers's affidavit? Raise your hands. Yeah, that's what I thought. I just did it last year when I took my niece in because her parents were unable to care for her. So, I'm not coming up here and talking to y'all, you know, just because

I have some type of motivation other than I've experienced this. AB495 is not here for political games. We need to do some reading. So, I appreciate the facts that get put out here. And I'm going to tell you this. If a caregiver uses the long-standing caregiver uh authorization affidavit, a parent's decision overrides whatever is in that affidavit. You can't just lose

your your custody of your child or being their parent just because you allowed someone else to care for them when you were unable to. This is wild. Read it. Look at what we have in place and actually talk to people who have done it. And if you didn't ignore me every single time I sent you an email, you

would know that I've experienced this and I can give you some perspective that's real and worth something. And I realize that we don't always agree. But on the things that we can agree on or the things that we can at least talk about, we need to find some common ground to have those conversations. What you're trying to do right now is

going to have real impacts. And it's not just about here in this district. I realize that everybody wants to tell Sacramento what to do. Yeah, Sacramento's jacked up. I'm not going to sit here and pretend like they have everything in order or they're taking care of business. But the business of this district, the business here belongs to the parents and the families that

actually live here. >> Stop propagating this stuff. >> Talk to the people that live here. >> So, just one second. I'm going to give you a warning because I need you to be quiet >> in the front row. No, this is your first warning. Okay, keep going. You have extra time. >> So, the people that live here own these

topics and these subjects. And every single time you don't like something, it doesn't require a resolution. Maybe it could require a conversation first before we try and just push everything up and make a big scene. I noticed how quickly everybody in here jumps on the controversial stuff. Oh yeah, I want to be on that committee. I want to be on

that committee. And then special education comes up and you cower and oh, I'm not really sure I want to do that cuz you know this just going to take some work. If you want to be up here and do this job, do the job or just go away and let somebody else do it for you. >> Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is David Hatch. I'm a Tmacula resident and a father of a TVUSD student. Tonight, I'm here to respectfully urge you to not adopt a resolution opposing Assembly Bill 495. It's a useless resolution. It provides no solutions. AB495. The Family Preparedness Plan Act is a 2025 bill designed to address a very practical problem. What's the problem?

How families can remain connected and maintain decision-making authority for their children when unexpected crisises occur. Those situations can include immigration detention, deportation. This is important right now, incarceration, medical emergencies, military deployment. We have we have uh you know veterans on this military deployment or other disruptions that make a parent temporarily unavailable. The bill's intent is straightforward. It's not

trying to deceive anyone. They want to give parents more tools to plan ahead so that a trusted adult can make essential decisions about a child's education, health care, and daily needs without a lengthy court process. What is so confusing about this? Here is what the legislation actually does. It expands caregiver options so parents can legally designate someone with an established

relationship for the child. It establishes a joint guardianship framework, allowing parents to share temporary decisionmaking authority. It ensures a clear process for parents to immediately regain full authority once they are available. Again, parents rights still exist. And it requires schools and child care providers to follow parental instructions and exhaust all contact attempts before any decisions are made. Supporters argue

this approach helps children remain with trusted adults. Critics have raised concerns about certain aspects of the bill. That is valid. Their their concerns are vague language around terms like unable to contact and the potential for misuse in rare situations. Those are valid points and worth continued legislative discussion. We do not need to make a useless resolution on

something that hasn't even been decided in Sacramento yet. We are a school board. This isn't Congress. Framing this bill as an attack on parental rights misrepresents its intent. AB495 does not strip authority from parents. It reinforces it by ensuring that parents, not courts or agencies, decide who should keep in temporarily control if they cannot. By adopting this resolution, the board

would be making a political statement rather than a policybased one. And it risks aligning our district against legislation designed to strengthen families, not weaken them. [Music] [Applause] >> I'm going to call for a fivem minute recess. Okay. Hello. Okay, we're gonna reconvene folks. Excuse me. >> Could you sit down, miss? >> Okay. >> Open the meeting. >> Okay. So, here we are and we are on

action item number six and we are up for discussion. Is there any discussion on number six? >> Yes. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Schwarz. Two minutes. >> Point of order. Should it be that the people that brought it forward have a chance to present that first? Are we going with what we normally do? >> Did she Yes. But did did she do that or

not? I don't remember. >> She did. I I just >> She didn't. >> Yeah. No, whoever agendaizes it goes first. >> No, I know that. But did she do that? I can't remember. She didn't did she did she do the threeminut presentation? >> Did you Okay. >> Go ahead, Mrs. Wearsma. >> Okay. AB495. I know there's been a lot

of discussion about that in the community. First of all, first of all, I want to say this is a message for all parents. It's a misnomer that we're targeting any group of children. And I just want to say no one's cowering or sherking from doing the work. There are people campaigning. So at this point I want to have an honest discussion and

this resolution is here so that we can discuss this and what we can do as a district. So in response to enforcement of illegal immigration by the Trump administration, it is true that Assemblywoman Assemblywoman Rodriguez introduced this particular bill this past February. The bill expands the use of a caregivers's authorization affidavit. And it's true, it is a

decades old legal form that permits non-parents to make medical and educational decisions for a child. This bill continues to allow individuals to claim kinship within the fifth degree without requiring notoriization, verification, or parental consent. In practice, this means a stranger could falsely claim to be a relative and then assume authority over a child's schooling or healthcare decisions. The

affidavit states schools or medical facilities have no obligation to verify the affidavit signer is the person they say they are. I understand supporters frame AB495 as compassionate legislation designed to help immigrant families and of course we want to help people in terms of emergencies. There are others that would say it could easily allow for increased kidnapping and human

trafficking of our children. The problem is this was voted along party lines. Okay, so you need to understand that it is true. It's political on some level, but you had a lot of people in the assembly say this that the guard rails for this bill are insufficient. The proposed law is riddled with logistical problems that don't require authority

figures to verify that a child is being surrendered to a legitimate adult in the case of a parent being detained as is the case with designated emergency contacts, court sanctioned standby guardians or when child protective services gets involved. It is also true that they made some amendments, but I see it as window dressing, not protection. The reason they changed a

couple of things is because there was an overwhelming um voice from the parents coming out opposed to it. So actually Sacramento did listen and they made some changes. They removed two provisions. Language allowing unrelated adults with a mentoring relationship to sign the caregivers's authorization affidavit. Good language explicitly stating that a parent's signature was not required. That doesn't mean though that the

signature is required. Um, while these tweaks may appear to address concerns, they do little to fix the bill's fundamental flaws. The affidavit process has exposed the massive safety risk our current caregiver authorization affidavit process poses. There was another legislator >> time, Mrs. Wearsma. >> Okay, I'll finish up when I have two minutes again. >> Okay. >> Okay. Very good. Dr. Koski, do you have

any >> I got no comments. The resolution speaks for itself and my uh stance on it. But yeah, no comments. >> Mr. Mr. >> So um >> uh three minutes is Oh, it's two minutes. Sorry. So as the only member of the uh board who is a member of the CSBA legislative committee, we have debated this bill uh three or four times. It has

been amended and remended and the final bill has um changed some of the provisions to make sure that anybody who does sign the affidavit is either a blood relative within the fifth degree of kinship, aunts, uncles, greatgrparents, grand great uncles, aunts, cousins and cousins once removed. The affidavit would permit the person to consent to medical care for the child

i.e. imu immunizations, physical and or medical exams or counseling. It would also require the attorney general no later than July 2026 to publish model policies. It does not replace or interfere with existing school policies regarding how LEAs may identify emergency contacts. Now, uh this bill was passed by the House and the Senate and it's on the governor's

desk. It could have been already signed by the governor. And if it has been signed by the governor and it is now law, I asked my attorney, well, what does that mean? And my attorney said, there are legal consequences if we vote to over if we vote against a law which has already been passed and it's now in law. It is

against our oath of office. There could be litigation. There could be intervent inter intervention by the state. There could be loss of funding and there could be personal liability for any school board member who does that. So I don't know if the governor signed it. I know it was in the plan that he was going to sign it. So I am going to recuse myself

because I do not want to put myself in legal jeopardy. >> Thank you, Mr. Schwarz. Okay. I'm going to take two minutes for myself. Um, in California, the contents of a bill that has not been signed into law are generally not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board of education. A bill is just a legislative proposal

until it is enacted as a law. The board's jurisdiction is defined by existing law and its role as a policymaking body, not by pending legislation. While the board can set policy within the framework of existing law, it does not have jurisdiction over a proposed bill's content before it becomes law. If the bill is signed into law, then we as a board in collaboration

with district administration will be tasked with creating regul regulations to implement the new law. So as a result of this, I will be recusing myself from this vote on this motion. >> Mrs. Weman. >> Okay. Okay, just to finish up here, the affidavit process has exposed the massive safety risk our current caregiver authorization affidavit process poses. Someone could basically

make an important decision for a child by filling out an eight question form that is not required to be notorized, checking a box to indicate that they are a relative um and present a form of ID that is never verified for authenticity. So, here's the thing. Andrew Hayes, he did discuss this with his board and what they did is within the district, they

decided to look at things as per um this concern with the bill. It's true Newsome has not signed it yet. October 14th, it it is supposed to be signed or not signed. Um our job, I believe, as local officials, is to make sure parents are informed and aware of what's going on. I feel like school boards do indeed have

the ability to uh have a voice with Sacramento because they already made changes. So if everybody's aware of this, I think it's helpful. Dr. Woods, when he and I talked, we talked about this is the hill to die on. And if maybe this is the committee where we where we look at what's required in terms of an

ID that we're making sure parents um are not usurped on any level because this just highlights something that's gone on for quite a while that needs to be changed and there are concerns in this day with trafficking and child abuse and um it opens the door for some nefarious activity and I have heard people in very wise positions of leadership with great

concern. So, this isn't to be dramatic. This isn't to say this resolution's got to be the way it's written tonight. It's what can we do to have a conversation collaboratively. Someone mentioned that. Great. Let's do it and make sure at TVUSD we're communicating with people so that if they pass something like this, they understand what we're doing as a

district to safeguard safeguard all of you as parents. And I don't care if you where you come from or what your background is. I care about all the kids and doing the right thing. >> Thank you, Mrs. Wearsma. Um, Melissa, do you want to weigh in on this? >> Okay, >> I would love to. Okay. >> All right.

>> The concerns raised about Assembly Bill 495 are valid, protecting parental rights and ensuring that families remain central to decisions about their children, is an important principle and it's one that I fully support. I also recognize that AB495, like many bills, is not perfect in its current form and may have aspects that will need careful scrutiny. At the same time, I believe

that pursuing this resolution is largely a political statement rather than a practical solution. It is important to note that a single district uh resolution does not have the power to change state law. Only the California legislature and the governor can make changes to AB495 and even widespread opposition by individual districts is unlikely to alter the outcome. While I

understand the intentions behind the resolution, we must consider what tangible impact it will actually have on our students and families here in Tmacula. My concern is that focusing significant board time and attention on this resolution may divert energy from pressing day-to-day challenges that directly affect our students. We have seen in the past that high-profile resolutions, while they're often

well-intentioned, can lead to controversy, legal questions, or unintended consequences, which can create confusion and distract from the work that directly supports our students. I'm not raising this as a criticism of anyone, but as a reminder that we should carefully weigh the potential benefits of symbolic actions against the practical needs of our schools. That said, I do believe it is

entirely appropriate for the board to monitor AB495 closely, stay informed about its implementation, and communicate concerns to state legislators if necessary, but I would encourage us to focus our efforts primarily on areas where the board's decisions can make an immediate difference in the lives of our students where our time and authority can have the most impact. This ensures that we

remain student- centered in our priorities while still staying aware of relevant legislative developments. [Applause] Thank Thank you, Melissa. That was >> was great. Okay, so Dr. Kowski, no more comments? >> All good. Let's go to vote. >> Okay. >> It's going to be mute anyways, but sorry. >> Okay. All right. So, let's uh So, I move to approve resolution 252611.

Um opposing assembly bill 495 to def to defend parental right I should have had you make the motion or Mrs. Wema to defend parental rights in education. Is there a second you >> you move to approve it? >> Yeah I know I shouldn't have done it. I'm going to let you go ahead and do it or Mrs. Wearsma. I'm sorry

>> because you want to approve the resolution. Correct. I'm going to recuse myself. >> Yes. I'll move to approve it and with the tangent and the idea of wherever else we can have this conversation whether it be one of these committees or beyond. I'm on board for that. But yes, I will make the motion. >> Okay. Is there a second?

>> Second. >> Okay. Uh Len, would you please call the role? >> Schwarz. >> Based on the reasons I gave before, I need to recuse myself. And if for some reason my recusal is not up to the reasons that you usually recuse yourself, then I vote no. >> Okay. >> Where's Kamroski? >> Yes. >> Barham, >> recuse myself.

>> Anderson. >> Oh, sorry. >> She's absent. >> And Melissa. >> Melissa. >> No. >> Okay. So, motion fails. Uh >> two to two. Okay, let's move on. >> And uh Mr. Barnum, can I can I insert that that sped subcommittee right now? >> Um yeah, go ahead. >> Okay. I'd like to I've been pondering the whole time and I was talking with

Mrs. Dis Mrs. Deas at break. Um I'd like to join the SPE committee. The the one hesitation I had is possibly me and you working together, but uh we can get past that. We can we can do good work in the sped committee. And the only requirement that I have is that I bring one parent with a sped kid into the committee. I

know there's already a parent. If that's the case, I'm going to join it. >> That's fine. Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion on that at all? >> No discussion. Len, can you please >> Oh, yeah. I Oh, yeah. One other thing is I wanted to say you were on the safety committee. You weren't at the last

meeting. That's only because you were at the secondary committee, which I was supposed to be on, too. We had conflicting committees. I was on the safety committee and I heard teachers complaining that some of the sped kids were punching, kicking, biting them. And I uh I'd like to get into the tension point of giving the sped kids the

absolute resources they need, but also protecting the teachers. I mean, it it's getting a little crazy. And so for me, I always had a heart for sped kids, but I want to get in there and work on that with the union, with the teachers, with the sped with I mean, all of it. I think that you will be very happy with how we

operate in that and we make a lot of progress and we've made a we've brought a lot of action items to this day as as a result of that subcommittee. So those those topics we've covered, but we still have a lot of work to do in in in in covering those issues. So it's it's it's evolving. >> Cool. And she said she's going to give

me the notes from the last meeting so I can look at them. When's the next? It'll probably be end of October and then in that meeting will determine next dates. >> Do we know normally what time I teach Mondays and Wednesdays and I have to hustle back from Mount Sack or is it on a certain >> When I when I send you the notes, Dr.

Kowski, the times, dates, and locations are listed so you'll get a feel for when that is. >> All right. Okay. So, um I move that Dr. Kamaroski join the special ed subcommittee um and bring an additional parent into uh the subcommittee. Do I have a second? >> Yes. >> Okay. And so I think we're we've discussed. So Len, go ahead and call the

role. >> Schwarz, >> yes. >> Wersma, >> Kamoski, >> Barham, >> Melissa, >> yes. >> Anderson, absent. >> Okay. So motion passes four to zero with Yeah. four to zero. Okay. Um let's move on to uh number seven, bond feasibility study results. Do we have any public comments? >> We have one public comment. And who might that be?

>> Jennifer. >> Jennifer San Nicholas, please come on up. Sorry, this thing just went to sleep on me when I >> was my birthday. >> It is. Okay, there we go. Um, okay. From the brief summary of data that was provided on the agenda, it appears the statistical analysis indicates the feasibility for voting in a bond measure

by the community. Like my friend David mentioned, it's important to read. So I did did some research on this. The board's action today makes no decision other than to move forward in the next step in the democratic process. The community will then decide if this is the direction they want to move in or not, which is the beauty of democracy. I

want to remind each of you that you represent the students of this district. You don't represent the business community. You don't represent the builders. You don't represent the chamber of commerce. You were elected to represent the students of TVUSD. and our kids deserve to have the democratic process be open to them. So, I urge you to vote yes on this. Thank you.

>> Okay. Um >> I'm introducing >> Yeah, I'm introducing >> You're doing it. Yeah. >> Okay. So, uh Dr. Woods is going to introduce the uh bond feasibility study. So, go ahead, Dr. >> Yes. A couple of months ago, the board did approve that we go out and do a bond feasibility survey. Tonight, it is an honor to introduce the president of True

North Research, Dr. Timothy Mclarney. Dr. Tim. Thank you, Dr. Woods. And good evening, uh, board members. Um, I'm Tim McCclarney, president of True North Research. We are a firm that for the last uh almost 25 years has specialized in working with school districts as well as other public agencies around the state in using surveys to help them

develop a statistically reliable understanding of the communities and the customers that they serve. Um to date my business partner and I working as a two-person team have designed and conducted over 1500 research studies for public agencies. And about half of the work we do these days is what's called revenue measure feasibility studies like what we're going to be talking about

here tonight where the goal is to understand if it's feasible for an agency to move out with some type of revenue measure and uh if it is feasible to determine how might they go about structuring that measure in a way that's consistent with the type of measure that their community is interested in supporting. Uh we've helped our our

clients have a lot of success over the years. To date, our research has underpinned about 42 billion in voter approved measures around the state. Um, within Riverside County, uh, I think there's 15 or 16 bond measures in the past uh, decade that we've, uh, helped uh, school districts work on. And I'm proud to say that we actually worked

with Tmacula Tmacula Valley USD back on your Measure Y bond uh, back in the day. So, um, lot of experience here uh, as well as in Riverside County. Um, tonight's presentation just covers the highlights. Uh I I welcome your questions as I go along the way or at the end whichever is your preference. Okay. So before we talk about the

results, helpful to take a quick moment to review the purpose of the study as well as the methodology. Um as a revenue measure feasibility study, we're really trying to uh address the three bullets that you see here on the slide. The first is to answer that basic question of is it feasible? And what I mean by that is if you as a board were to choose

to place a measure on the ballot in 2026, does it have a reasonable chance of success? The answer to that question isn't always yes. I mean, sometimes we do this work, we look at the data, and we just really can't see a clear path to get you from where you are today to where you need to be to be viable on

election day. And if that's the case, I'll be the first person to tell you that. And in fact, three years ago, I did a similar study for Tmacula Valley USD. And based on those numbers, my recommendation at that time was don't move forward in the current environment. Right? We sort of recommended that now was not a good time for that particular

proposal. When we do find feasibility in a study, the second bullet kicks in, and that's to understand how might you go about structuring this measure in a way that it's consistent with the type of measure that your community is interested in supporting. There's a lot of components to a bond proposal. There's the aggregate bond amount, how much is this going to be, the underlying

tax rate, uh there's a project list, how is it that you propose to spend the money, what sort of accountability provisions are built into this measure, on and on. So there's a lot of sort of important decisions that have to be made as you're preparing a bond measure for ballot that the survey can help guide. And then thirdly, it's an opportunity to

understand the role that information plays in shaping voters's opinions about your proposal. Uh and uh that in turn can inform how you how you as a district would communicate about your needs as well as ultimately how uh an independent campaign might proceed. So, in terms of the methodology, um the fir in the first question you always want to ask yourself

when you're thinking about a potential uh bond measure is what election cycle is this going to be on? Because different elections have different turnouts and as you expand or shrink turnout, you tend to get a different profile to the participating electorate. In this case, we were looking at the two opportunities that you have in 2026. The first would be the June primary uh which

is the smaller turnout and the second would be the November general election which would be the larger turnout. Uh we use a process called stratified and clustered random sampling. I can get in the details of that if you like but suffice it to say what it does is it guarantees us at the end of our data collection process we have a sample that

matches the likely November universe on all the dimensions that we know tend to drive how voters behave on these types of measures. So the balance in our sample by age and gender and partisanship and household party type and where folks live within the district, the balance in our sample matches the balance of that likely November universe. And that's really the

key to having this research be reliable. Uh once we pulled our sample, we reached out using three different methods, email, text, and telephone. Uh folks had the opportunity to participate over uh online or by telephone, whichever was their preference. uh we had actually contracted and set out to do 500 completed interviews. I always have to make some estimates about

what I think the productivity is going to be and what the participation rate is going to be. I tend to be a little conservative so that we don't underdel. Um turns out that your residents were more than happy to chat with us and so although we wanted to speak originally with 500, we walked back in the door

with 858 completed interviews. So really good response from the community. Um, with that larger sample size, what that does is it allows us to have a smaller margin of error due to sampling in this study. In that ca in this case, it's plus or minus 3.3% at the 95% confidence level. What that means is we can be 95% confident the

results we'll talk about tonight are within 3.3% of what we would have found had we spoken with all of your likely voters. Okay, so on to the results. Uh this first slide shows the results of the first question in the survey, which is our importance of issues question. And for each of the issues you see on the

left side of that figure, we simply ask folks to tell us how important is this to you. Is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. Um we're they're asked in a random order, but we've sorted them here on the slide from high to low based on the combined percentage of folks who said it was either extremely or very

important. Um we asked this question for a couple reasons. Number one, it's just a nice warm-up question, right? gets folks into the groove of taking the survey, gets them thinking about their community. Um, but the other thing it allows us to do is understand how education as a topic stacks up against other issues that also compete for tax

dollars, right? Things like maintaining local streets and roads. And in particular, it's an opportunity for us to understand how the topic of ensuring the quality of education in local schools stacks up against the issue of preventing local tax increases. Rough rule of thumb, surprisingly predictive. The more importance that your voters place on the issue of ensuring uh the

quality of education local schools relative to the issue of preventing local tax increases, the better positioned you are to move s forward with some type of education related revenue measure. The more those two things are seen as equally important, the more tension there is typically the steeper the hill you'd have to climb to be successful on election day. In this

case, we see the number one issue uh was in fact ensuring the quality of education local schools at 97% saying that's extremely very important. As you work your way down the list, preventing local tax increases was two up from the bottom at 64%. So there's about a 33% gap between those two. That is actually a bit larger than what we have been

seeing in recent election cycles. So um you know that's that's a good thing. The other thing I will point out though is about fourth down on the list you see repairing and renovating aging school facilities checks in at 73%. So it's above that issue of preventing local tax increases but it is significantly below the issue of ensuring the quality of

education local public schools. That pattern always happens. I pointed out not because it's unusual but because uh it's kind of a healthy reminder to us that although bonds are about facilities, right? They're about, you know, making repairs and improvements to your facilities. At the end of the day, what voters care about when it comes to school buildings isn't so much the

buildings themselves as what happens inside those buildings. And so, anytime you're doing a bond measure, it's really important to sort of connect the dots between what it is you're building or fixing, but why that ultimately matters to your core mission of educating students. So, after that warm-up question, we get right down to business and the survey with what we call the initial ballot

test. And the idea here is before we get any deeper into this interview with a respondent, we start talking about possible tax rates that could be associated with a bond, going into more detail about how you can spend the money or presenting arguments pro and con. We want to present to the respondent a mockup of what we think that 75word

ballot statement could look like if you were to put it on the ballot and get their reaction. The initial ballot test is a really good gauge of where your voters are at on the natural with respect to this proposal. So what you see here is that 75word ballot statement and that's the language and here are the results. So at that initial ballot test

we had 62% of likely November voters say that they would support this proposal. We had 26% who said they would oppose and you've got about 12% who were unsure prefer not to answer the question. So in the state of California for a Prop 39 bond to be successful you need 55% support. So, we're sitting at this initial ballot test about seven points

above the 55% threshold that's required for passage. Now, naturally, support for any revenue measure can depend on the price tag, right? The more expensive this is to a household, all other things being equal, the lower the level of support you can expect. One of the goals of this study was to make it really clear that bonds mean taxes, right? in case you missed

that in the 75word ballot statement, but also to test different tax rates that could be associated with this measure as well as different ways of talking about the tax implications of a bond so that we'd understand that where sort of that that comfort zone is for at least 55% of your voters. So, in this tax threshold question, we came about it by um using

what's called a Dutch auction where you start high and go low. So, we said, "All right, if you knew that this measure would cost your home uh $20 per 100,000 of assessed valuation, would you vote yes or no?" If they're anything but a definitely yes at the $20, you do 15 and you do 10. Right? So, you start high, go

low. And what you see here is that when you focus voters attentions on the tax rate, you get a little softening of support. Uh that always happens. So, at that $20 per 100,000 assessed valuation rate, we had 49%. At 15, it was 52. and then at $10 it jumped up to 60. Now, we also know um from doing a lot of

research that this is a conservative read on voter support for your proposal for a couple reasons. Number one, we are taking the price tag out of the proposal and setting it aside and focusing voters attention on it. When you think about what a bond proposal is, it's a combination of things. It's all the things you're proposing to do. The price

tag is one element of that. here where by pulling your pulling it out and sort of focusing voters attention on it, you're giving it a lot of importance um more so perhaps than when it's in the 75 words. And that tends to give you a more conservative read on support. The other reason why we know that this question is

a conservative read is because when I say, you know, this measure is going to cost $20 per 100,000 assessed valuation, not everybody knows what you're talking about, right? You have to know what assessed valuation is. You have to have some estimate of the AV for your property. You have to be able to do math pretty quickly in the in your head in

the space of an interview and not everybody's good at that understandably. And so what we happens is there's certain voters who they know you're talking price tag. They don't know what it adds up to and they will hedge. They will say no or not sure. So that's why we also come about it the way on this slide where we say, "All right, let me

put it another way. If you knew that this measure would cost the typical homeowner about $95 per year, would you vote yes or no?" That's the left column. The $95 per year is that $20 per 100,000 of assessed valuation tax rate multiplied by the median assessed value for a residential property in your district. So it's what that middle

property owner would pay. And once you kind of anchor it in a number that makes sense to people, an annual total, what you see is you get a better reaction to this. So at $20 per 100,000 of assessed valuation, we found 49% support. When you just do the math for folks and say, "By the way, that's $95 per year for the

typical homeowner." Support is back up at 60%. To the right is the same exercise, only here we're annualizing that $10 tax rate um for which we previously saw 60% support. Uh when you go ahead and tell them that at a $10 per $100,000 um tax rate, um it's going to cost a typical homeowner about $48 per year. Support jumps up to 65%. So all of

this is information that we use to kind of figure out where is that where's that sweet spot, right? Where's the comfort zone for your voters where we at that tax rate um you know you have 55% plus of your voters indicating they would support it. So after the tax threshold section, we get into the projects and improvement

section. And here we're trying to do two things. One is we are now going to start to educate respondents more about what this proposal would accomplish. Um up to this point they only had the initial ballot test. We had 75 words to describe this what this proposal would do here. By unpacking it into all these different potential uses, you give them a much

better idea about what a bond measure would accomplish. The other thing it allows us to do is to look at of all the ways you can spend the money, how do your voters feel about each of these uses and which of these are ultimately their priorities and is there anything that you're thinking about spending the money on that voters don't really see

the merit of? They're not enthused about having that as part of your bond package. Um, the obvious thing from this slide, the takeaway is that everything we tested was popular with respondents. We had at least 80% of voters say that they would favor spending some of the money on each of the items on this list. Um, at the top of the list, however,

what you see is a a really typical combination for what we tend to see voters um sort of gravitate towards when it comes to school bond measures. Basic repairs to your facilities, right? roofs, plumbing, electrical, right? Bringing your older facilities up to current codes in terms of building health and safety. Um AC is pretty popular here apparently. Um so I was a

little surprised by that, but that's number two. Uh and then STEM and career tech. Those two uh are popular in every districts. And so you have this sort of combination of STEM, career tech, and then these upgrades to your older facilities. Now, if you as a board choose to place a measure on a 2026 ballot, there's going

to be an election cycle. And during that election cycle, there's going to be a lot of discussion and debate in the community about this proposal, right? You'll undoubtedly have advocates that will go out and talk to their neighbors and friends and tell them why this is needed and why they should vote yes. You'll likely have some opposition, too.

People will step up and say, "This is a terrible idea. We shouldn't be doing it. And here's why." For this survey to be a reliable gauge of the feasibility of a bond measure, we need to simulate that discussion and debate in the space of the poll. So we know not only where are your voters on the natural, which was

that initial ballot test, but what happens to their support once they hear both positive and negative arguments. So we test a series of positive and negative arguments. Here you see sort of the top tier of positive arguments. I just broke it into two tiers because it's easier to see that way. And then to support the measure. Um, and what you

see here at the top of the list, first of all, there's a lot of arguments that resonate in a positive way, but it's interesting, the top three are really kind of factualformational statements. Um, like for example, the first one, most of the schools were built more than 25 years ago and need to be repaired and upgrade. Last year

alone, there were 317 classrooms and facilities with leaky roofs. It's time to make essential repairs and improvements so our schools can serve our community well for decades to come. Right? the average voter probably hasn't stepped foot in one of your classrooms um in years if at all. They don't kind of understand the condition of the facilities. And so when you can add a

little specificity like 317 leaky roofs or the fact that you have 350 portable classrooms with the average age being 28 years, those kind of details matter. Um and they sort of help voters understand the need for the proposal. Um second tier of positive arguments. Well, after at this point in the poll, voters have heard more about this

proposal than they did at the initial ballot test, right? So, we had a chance to talk in more detail about the tax rates. That's a bit of a wet blanket on support for the proposal, but we had a chance to sort of follow up with that, talk in more detail about how the funds could be spent. We conveyed a series of

positive arguments. And so, we circle to what we call back to what we call the interim ballot test. Here's where we present that same 75word ballot statement. We say, "Now that you've heard a bit more, where do you stand?" And what you see is support at this point ticks up about three points to 65%. So we're sitting about 10 points

above that 55% threshold that's required for passage for Prop 39 bond in California at this point. And then we get to the negatives. And the idea behind the negatives is I want to pressure test respondent support for this proposal by peppering them with a series of negative arguments. Right? The kind of arguments you might hear from an

opponent during uh a campaign cycle. And the reason for that is I want to know how resilient this yes vote is, right? Should you move forward with a bond measure, should you get into the campaign campaign cycle and you you get opposition, they're they're vocal and they get their arguments out there. How might that impact uh voter support for

your proposal? You'll notice that we test fewer negatives than we do positives. There's a good reason for that. What you tend to find when it comes to school bond measures is the advocacy campaign. They tend to be better organized. They raise money. They have boots on the ground. They have a louder voice than do the opponents. And

so we simulate that disparity by testing fewer negatives. That said, the negatives we're testing are hard-hitting negative arguments, right? They're the kind of arguments, um, that we know tend to get traction and that you often will hear in a bond cycle. And so, uh, the number one here being the idea that now is not a good time. You always hear

that, by the way, when there's a tax measure on the ballot, that now is not a good time to raise taxes. The reasons for that vary over time. Right now, inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices, cost of living increases, right? People are struggling. Now is not a good time to raise taxes. That's a common uh opposition argument, but you see some of

the other ones we test here. The real question is what happens afterwards? And that is here. So, the opposition arguments that we test cool support down for the bond by about five points. Um, so we're landing at the final ballot test at 60%. So that's still about five points north of the 55% threshold that's required for passage.

Okay. So what does all this mean? I've got a couple wrap-up sides here. I'm going to circle back to that overarching question I mentioned at the outset as one of the main motivators for why you do this research, which is to understand is it feasible? If you as a board were to choose to move forward with a measure

in 2026, does have a reasonable chance of success? When I was stood here three years ago and we did this research, my answer to that was no, right? that I didn't see in the data a clear path to get you to where you could be to be successful on election day. Things are different with these numbers and I

actually think that you do have feasibility. Why is that? Well, all the things that you see there under the positive signs. We saw that, you know, ensuring the quality of education in local public schools was the most important issue faced in the community from your voters perspectives. That translated into solid natural support for the bond measure at the initial

ballot test with only the 75word ballot statement to go off of. 62% of voters said that they would support this. Uh the projects and improvements that we tested, they were all popular. 80% plus of respondents favored spending some of the money on that item should you have a successful bond. Um, we have positive arguments that resonate. And

importantly, at each point in the survey where we paused and presented that same 75word ballot statement and said, "Now that you heard a bit more, where do you stand?" All of those ballot tests were north of 55%. And that was even after we peppered them with opposition arguments. And so in my experience, when you have that kind of pattern and you have the

numbers that you have, you have a path forward uh toward a viable bond measure that um the poll also though calls out some challenges, right? And that we want to be cognizant of and sensitive to. The first is tax rate sensitivity, right? Both also that folks don't quite naturally understand the tax rate as expressed for a bond in terms of per

100,000 assessed valuation. And so you want to make sure you're pricing this thing right. So that's within the comfort zone of 55%. Um we did see some receptiveness to those potential opposition arguments, right? The ones we tested um cooled support down by about five points. So that's an issue. Um not so much coming out of the poll, but

certainly thinking ahead to what the 2026 election cycle is going to be like. It is going to be a hyperartisan election like the ones that we've been having recently. Um and there could be some statewide initiatives on that ballot. We don't know yet. Uh that could create a little headwind. Um we haven't we're not sure, but you always want to

sort of keep that in mind. My point in raising these things is when you're thinking about moving forward with a with a measure, you want to you have a measure that's can kind of stand on its own two feet in some ways like and is built in enough buffer so that you're not counting on it being perfect weather

on election day, right? You don't have blue skies and tailwinds. you know, you want to be able to create a measure that can withstand some some crossurrens and some headwinds during the election cycle and still be successful. And then finally, we obviously have a lot of unknowns, right? We don't know what the next year will hold in terms of

the economy, in terms of tariffs, and what impact they may have on inflation, other measures that may pop up. And so, um, these are all things to keep in mind. So, with that, on my last slide, I've just got a couple sort of recommendations and and thoughts. Um, the first thing is a reminder that a poll like this is a snapshot in time,

right? It is not a crystal ball looking forward to next November saying you're going to get 60% next November. If I had a crystal ball, I would charge a lot more for it. Um, the I say that in part because what's going to determine what happens on election day in November 2026, if you should move forward with a

measure, isn't what your poll says today. It's everything that happens from this point forward. So that's a reminder that we need to make smart decisions about kind of how you structure your measure so it's consistent with the type of measure your community says they're comfortable supporting and you need to put the work in in terms of uh

communications. And so part of the smart decisions is the tax rate. This is not the time to be choosing that now, but you want to make sure you're keeping it affordable in that comfort zone. project priorities. You want to listen to what voters said that they are sort of most enthused about using bond proceeds to fund. And those are the things that are

in the bullets right there. And you know, there's district communications that are non- advocacy communications. You as a public entity are not allowed to advocate up or down on a future measure, but you can provide information, right? And should provide information. You want voters to be informed about the decision you're asking them to make. And obviously should you move forward um there would

need to be an independent campaign that would privately funded citizen-led right that to uh champion this measure moving forward through the election cycle because let's face it 2026 is going to be a wild ride. So with that let me pause and certainly happy to answer any questions the board may have. >> Okay thank you uh Dr. McCclarie. So, I'm

gonna ask you to stay up there. Okay. >> And are you okay with two two-minute rounds of either questions or comments? >> Mrs. Wema, you okay with that? >> Okay. Who would like to start? >> Any questions, Mrs. Weman? [Music] So, I think my question with this tonight is where do we go with this? I'm assuming there's time

for further detailed financial analysis, a project list before the board could make a decision. Is it that we're taking this? Thank you for your presentation. We have time to process it. We have somebody on our board advisory council who's actually very skilled with bonds and financial information. Um, can you clarify that or would that be somebody else? what what's the ultimate

action plan for tonight because I want to be sure we know. >> So, I would probably kick that to the superintendent. Um, >> of course, we would strongly recommend that you allow us to continue. For example, we have a bond, we have a board advisory team that meets tomorrow. One of the items I'm going to bring up

is this item. I'm gonna ask them to focus their efforts on digging deep. This there's a lot of work to be done here, but then to come back to the board and give you their recommendation. It's a very diverse group. It's very representative of the community and I'm excited for them to to help work on this for on your behalf.

>> Can this be pushed to October 14th? Okay, Mrs. Wema, are you finished? You you've got 33 seconds left. Um although I would like a little more because I allowed for Dr. Woods. Thank you for commenting. Um yes, I think it would be good to get members of the advisory council to weigh in. I would want to know individual

decisions because of the makeup of that board. I would want to know specifics. Uh, looking through the survey, I noticed there weren't there wasn't information to voters about pre-existing bonds that are still being paid off, including one bond that's not been utilized. I just want to be sure if we're continuing this conversation that people understand the full context

because they might hesitate in supporting a brand new bond and ensuing tax unless we're transparent with that. Um, the survey also didn't seem to mention current spending trends by the district. I just want to be sure moving forward that we discuss all of these so that people are educated and >> we have time is we will we have time to

we're going to explore all those things. >> That's great. That's what I wanted to be sure >> that is going to happen for sure. >> Um did you want to comment? >> Yeah, I just thank you uh Mr. Barham. Um I just wanted to speak to the point that you made. I think you're dead on that there's a lot of conversation that needs

to happen before this would ever come to a decision whether or not we're moving forward. Uh Dr. McCclarie was just here to present the results of the survey and whether or not we should even continue in the conversation when we did this three years ago. At this point, we said, "Let's just stop spending any time on this project at all." And that was the

recommendation. At this point, it's just do we continue? Do we start to engage our community? Do we start to engage our parents? And do we continue the conversation? Basically, it's accepting the survey results and what's next. Is Dr. Woods okay with putting this on the agenda for the board advisory committee? There's lots of work to be done as you

mentioned. What projects have we already paid for with the previous bond? What projects would be next in line? and the detail of what that ballot language looks like would all be for the board to decide and we have some months to do that and we at some point maybe after the board advisory committee comes up with their in-depth analysis if they

decide to move forward maybe it's a board workshop or you know where we look at facility needs and develop that bond language collectively but that's really far down the road in my opinion the one of the things that I want to lean into that you said at the very end is things can change and let's say January or

February something happens in the economy that changes how voters feel about supporting a measure at that point we may say we're going it's not the right time. So, I I think this is just is this a conversation that we want to continue and continue to monitor what's happening in the economy to to eventually make the determination if

we're going to move forward with ballot language. That would be a a May decision to make. >> Okay. Thanks, Mrs. Lash. Dr. Kamroski. >> Yeah. Quick question for Dr. Woods. Uh can we push this off till October 14th considering a full board is not here and another member of the board is not present. This is a hefty weighted

decision that we're voting on and then I can proceed with the time after he answers because I have more. But that that might help because if the board recommends till October 14th, maybe gives time for the other committee to come with feedback. Uh right now it's not looking good for me voting on this. I'm just giving you a big hint. It'd be

better to push it off and then a whole board can be here. Yeah. >> Okay. Let's let's hear from everybody else and then consider that. >> Okay. Then I'll then I'll finish off my But let me let me have the question though. Can it be pushed? >> They're going to need more time than October 14th. It'll take them 90 days to

do a good analysis on this. >> But this vote can be pushed to that meeting. >> Uh the meeting is tomorrow. The next one I meet. >> No, I meant our board meeting for October 14th. >> Board consensus. Absolutely. It could be. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. Now, let me finish on my time. Hold on, Steve. I'm not done yet. Um

>> so yeah, I'd say I'd just say that the I've organized my thoughts. I don't think the housing market is good right now on numbers, on mortgage numbers, and there's too much liability uncertainty in the marketplace to rely on property taxes to fund this bill. That's just one. I might come back to this if we have two additional minutes after.

>> Yeah, you do. >> Right. We have an additional round. >> You do. >> That's where I stand right now. It could change October 14th, but right now, that's where I'm leaning. And I just think a full board is better. >> Okay. Mr. Schwarz, no comment. Okay. Um I don't have any comments. Mrs. Wearsman, I'm going to come back to you.

So I guess Dr. Kamroski, you're saying you want a full board in order for there to be an acceptance of the feasibility survey so that things can then move forward because from what I can understand, if we do accept this, it goes to the advisory council tomorrow and then there's continued discussion, but much more discussion before we land

on something to put it on the ballot. Right? So tonight, how we vote is not it's going to the ballot. It is accepting this to continue discussions. So, I don't know if that makes a difference for you because I'm fine to wait too either way. But just wanted to be sure you're understanding that clarification um and would respect your decision if

you want your other colleague here. >> Go ahead. >> All right. So, I'll address the elephant in the room. I don't have full faith and confidence in two members of that board advisory committee. One being up and here's why. I believe on September I don't Dr. Kamroski. >> Nope. This is when this subject matter jurisdiction and I have every right

because it's addressing that meeting tomorrow. Upmeat has made a false statement. The school board has posed to approve another contract with the same law firm that just cost taxpayers over $1 million in legal fees and settlement settlements that was addressed about AFF. That was an absolute lie. She's on the committee. Plus, she agenda censorship against me. Plus, Gary Audi's

name is on it. Both of those matters. No, you do not get to point of order because they are on the committee. I'm sorry. This has nothing. >> Are you trying to censure me? >> It has nothing to do with the >> Are you trying to censor meusty bar? You should let him continue. This is within this might be a brown act. Mr. We

already got a lot on our hands. >> It has nothing to do some of them because of you. >> It does because it would go to the council. He should be able to express the board. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> They're supposed to give the board advice and two of those members are compromised and they should resign.

>> No. Okay. Gary Audi up. There you go. >> All right, we're going to move on. Go ahead. You heard it. >> Go. >> Go ahead, Mr. Schwarz. >> It's ridiculous. >> Come on. >> I am not for lies and false statements. And if you think that's ridiculous, you're ridiculous because he made a false statement. Right now, Dr. Woods

can affirm that we have not paid $1 million. Is this correct, Dr. Woods? >> Please. >> To this point, we have not. Come on. There you go. >> Go ahead, Mr. Schwarz. >> Lie. There you go. Go ahead. >> Looking good right now. Right. Come on. You shouldn't be talking to the audience either. >> No, because she's biased and she has no

right to be able to sir not be talking to the audience. >> She has no right to give advice to this board. Okay, let's move on. Go ahead. No neutrality in it. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead, Mr. Schwarz. This audience is full of people who do stuff like that and we don't criticize them. We let them say what's on their

mind. >> Okay, let's keep it to the bond. >> I'm um as far as the bond goes, I respect I'm sorry I forgot your name. >> Tim McCclar. >> Tim, I I respect what you did, Tim. It seems like you did a bangup job of surveying what's going on out there. And I know um this is only the first baby

steps in dealing with this. Uh when we're looking at numbers like $90 a year, I don't know. It it it doesn't seem like it's exorbitant that we're asking someone who has a $900,000 house to pay an extra $90 a year. I'm not talking for anyone else. I'm talking for myself. So I think what we need to do is we'll discuss this tomorrow uh

with Dr. Woods and the committee and we will come back with some ideas and we will move forward. >> Okay. So am I getting from this board that we are looking to postpone this accepting the res that we're looking to postpone accepting the results of this bond survey until October 14th. Is that what I'm getting? >> That's coming from me. Yeah, that's an

affirmative >> coming from you, Mrs. Wearsma. >> Okay. And I will support that as well. So, we will bring this back on October the 14th. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thanks for your time. >> Okay. Um All right. Where are we at here? We're information. Um hold on one second. How many public comments do we have on

this? >> How many? >> Okay, go. Go for it. >> Who is it? >> Uh, Jennifer San Nicholas. All right, you guys are a hot mess tonight. Um, I just wanted to address all these things that on the information reports for um, item one. Um, as to Mrs. Mossa, she was correct. Um, this the um, it does look like a Brown Act violation

when you had that closed door session. It's seemed like some shenanigans and it seems shady and a lot of us don't have faith in the advocates for faith and freedom given our history with them. Um the next one was oh that got deleted. Um I think it was Eliza Peg is she was wrong about Mr. Schwarz's letter. I

don't know what a serial meeting is but she's wrong. Um doesn't need more explanation than that. Um as for Chelsea Bole, she's just a menace. the meeting she was referring to when she was removed, she was getting a warning for yelling at uh Melinda and then she turned around in the middle of that morning and gave my entire row the

double finger salute and that's when she was asked to leave. So that was a whole bunch of on her part. Um and then um she really did open Pandora's box because I think most of us didn't even know about that whole cure and correct thing that was going on. And with Mr. PAC's letter. Um, I agree with

everything he said, especially with the special meeting that resulted in us joining forces with Advocates for Faith and Freedom. Again, it was shady at best and it leaves the district open to many, many problems. So, um, got a lot to figure out, guys. >> Thank you. >> Point of clarification, can I ask you a question? Um, it's 9:00. Is is there any

way that there would be a consensus just to hear the public comments instead of going through for another hour expecting people to sit here till 10:00? I don't think so. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. So, anything else? We have nothing else on number one. >> That's it. Okay. Let's move on to uh >> Okay. Mrs. Wearsman, you brought this,

right? Privacy. >> I did primarily to get an update from the district with where things are at. So, I don't have a speech. I want to know where things are at. >> Okay. Perfect. >> Okay. First up is Caroline. Caroline Huffman. followed by Jennifer San Nicholas. >> Oh, wait. >> There's that. >> And I just want to say, excuse me,

Caroline, before you start. >> Yeah, >> the snapping is very distracting, believe it or not, to the people up here. So, >> well, we were told we can't clap and we were told >> No, no. I'm I'm I'm I'm saying this to everybody else, not you. Um, I know you snap, okay? But I'm >> I don't snap loud.

>> No, I know. But I'm trying to keep I want you to be focused and I'm trying to keep the snapping to a minimum. >> I know you support me. >> Okay, you can call. >> All right, ma'am. >> Okay, let's start the time. Go ahead. >> Tonight, you're discussing the privacy form, but let's talk about the info

sheet that comes with it because let's be real, this thing is basically a parental wish list. A how to >> Yeah, exactly. >> Okay, go ahead. A and I just had an orgasm earlier. >> Okay, we'll give you >> a how-to guide on yanking kids from Should I start over? >> Start over, please. >> Okay, thank you. I'll wait.

>> Thank you. Tonight, you're discussing the privacy form, but let's talk about the info sheet that comes with it. Because let's be real, this thing is basically a parental wish list. A how-to guide on yanking kids from lockers rooms, dodging sex ed, and filling out complaints when parents don't get their way. Very thorough for parents and students totally erased. You know, the

what you're missing is the section for students to opt back in when their parents opt out. That language should be front and center in the info sheet. Otherwise, you're not just cutting students out, you're gagging them. And who pays the price when parents ideology gets put above student rights? LGBTQ plus students? The kids who depend on safe spaces,

accurate health education, and basic respect just to feel human at school. Ignore them, and you're not protecting families. You're targeting children. And targeting children isn't parental choice. It's discrimination. Discrimination that drags you straight into Title 9 complaints, civil rights investigations, and lawsuits that will drain this district's bank accounts. So, if you pass this policy as it is, own

it. Own that you choose parents politics over student rights. Own the lawsuit, the investigations, and the price tag. But don't act shocked when it all lands in your lap. You've been warned. >> Thank you. >> Next up is Jennifer San Nicholas, followed by Greg Lingworthy. >> All right. I don't disagree with anything Caroline said, but um I'm at

the point where I think just for the love of God, can we move on? Fine. If you want to pass this, pass this. But can we talk about improving growth and proficiency and get back to educating our kids? We have been distracted by this issue for months and it's ridiculous. This is the board of education, not the board of whatever

this is. And it's just distracting and it's not improving test scores. It's not improving GPA. It's not making our kids learn and catching up from the time and when they were off with COVID. So, let's get back to it. >> Thanks, Jennifer. Mr. Langworthy. >> Welcome, Mr. Langworthy. >> Yep. Good to be here. So, I just want to

review. I think this was a big win for the board. Um, and just to review where you guys were uh this started out, you were addressing a problem that was ignored in other school districts. I know that I approached the Myetta School District with this issue a couple years ago, my wife and I, and it was just, you

know, my hands are tied. We're not going to do anything. And you guys addressed it, and it caused quite a commotion in the community. You know, we had a lot of personal attacks. Uh, you know, Emil was attacked, Melinda was attacked, probably all you guys had some abuse in this. Um, but you stuck with it. And so what what

I think this showed um being persistent and making the arguments you know this is again um battling the argument not the person. I think that's the the whole theme that I'm uh trying to emphasize and that's what parliamentary procedure is. It gives you a means of discussing controversial issues in a respectful way so you get everyone's input in a

multitude of counselors. There is wisdom. You know Jen's got ideas. You've got ideas. Steve's got ideas. Joe's got ideas. Melinda's got ideas. How do you do it in a way that brings all that wisdom together and you come up with a solution that is good for everyone? And the um you guys came up with a policy. You came together after all that

controversy, after some very contentious public meetings. to listen to the public and then the staff was actually able to put meat on the bone so to speak get get this into action and so I've read what the staff has come up with and again the staff is to be commended you know the policy was there but then how do you

implement the policy so I think the staff did a really good job doing this and you came up with something that many school districts have been afraid to even address so I think this was a big win for the board and and just want to commend you that that you stuck with it. You you persevered. Staff supported you

and um I think this was a good thing. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, Mr. Langworthy. >> Okay, we're good. So, Mrs. Wema, do you want to say anything about this privacy update? >> No, I'm going to go ahead and give it to Mrs. Deis to discuss. Thank you. Thank you. And uh you had uh asked a couple

questions so I think I'll just go through and answer the questions and then see if the governing board has anything else I can provide clarity on. Um this uh FAQ opt out form was presented a couple weeks ago at our board meeting. It's a a combined document that gives our parents access to all of the optout options and um

subsequent ed code and board policies that support them in one place. So the question was uh to what extent has this been communicated with our families? We actually have a communication plan prepared. I was waiting for after tonight's meeting in case there were any other questions. I know this is an info item, not an action, but I still was um

looking forward to providing the update and seeing what other conversations there were. This is going to be going out in our community connection uh every Friday. It goes out for the rest of the semester. It's scheduled to be in our annual notifica annual parent notification packet uh that goes out in the spring and as parents in the

district we have to read it cover to cover and sign that we are reading it and that we're seeing all of our rights that are in there. So it'll be included in that as well. It's also been added um or will be starting tomorrow morning as a link on the bottom of every school web page. The other question that uh we

received is uh what's been proposed for staff training? Well, a lot of these optouts our staff is already trained in. We've been exercising these opt- out options under law and policy for several years. However, because this document might be new to some of our administrators and we absolutely want them to be well positioned to respond to our families and to know all of the

things that are available to them. Um, starting tomorrow, I'm going to all of our principal meetings through the course of the next few weeks and I am scheduled for a period of time to provide them a training on this document and uh the Google form and uh the process that ensues and then are middle school students given the option to opt

out of dressing for PE? This is a really good question. And it was actually brought up in our board meeting a couple weeks ago and I believe cuz I went back over and I watched the board meeting in that section to make sure I wasn't missing anything for the conversation um that we've been given direction through board consensus to have a committee

where we're going to work with our PE teachers and talk about this as an option. In fact, we've reached out to see in Riverside County if there's any other schools that don't dress out. We're making sure we're not missing anything in terms of ed code or state requirements or our federal programs monitoring in terms of dressing out and

we are convening a team with PE teachers and that is going to be done um along with Miss Ricken to get some feedback on this so that we can actually explore this. It might be an interesting option that we have available to us moving forward. And then um Miss Mir Where's you were wondering if any edits had

made. Um when I rewatched the board meeting a couple times, I know it was brought up that we wanted maybe something to be added in there in terms of survey questions, etc. So, I actually did a little bit more digging and added to that portion of this opt out FAQ in terms of how do you opt out of surveys

given to students? And we do have a really strict protocol in place. I mean, by law, I mentioned at the last board meeting as parents, we've received the survey notification. It's 30 days before the survey. If I opt out as a parent this semester, it's automatically assumed. I'm also opting out for next semester. Parents have access to all of

the questions that we provide. But I added something in here just to make sure that that edit was made and uh reiterated. And that is also uh the pupil the protection of pupil rights amendment which is known as perpa. We have furpa and we have perpa. I could nerd out on both of them if you want me

to. But under perpa we are not allowed to ask these kinds of questions that are titled or um designated in the list that you provided. If it's a survey that's given under the department of education, parents have to provide active permission. if it's a survey that's given um locally or through the state, parents have to be given the right to

opt out. So, I just wanted to reiterate on that because I feel like instead of an opt out form other than what we currently do, it's incumbent upon us to make sure that our staff is informed in what they are allowed and not allowed to ask students in surveys and class surveys and things like that. So, what

we've started to do is work on some communication and doc uh almost Dr. RS and I will be working on that just making sure that that parents aren't feeling like these questions are coming in class. If there's a survey that asks any of these more qualifying questions, we are required by law to notify families in advance so that they have

the opportunity to opt out. And if I'm missing anything, let me know. But those were the main questions that I think you wanted me to provide an update on. >> Thank you for that. with the PE discussion when that happens if we could discuss if it isn't already going to happen having some aspect of that privacy policy being in the syllabus or

just one other place that parents are aware. I think that would be helpful. And then I think another mention I thought of was during sex education when they're talking about all these issues and privacy. That could be another place. I think because I know parents are so busy and and don't have the bandwidth to take everything in. If we

can weave it through in several places, feel good that we've done the best that we can do to inform people, then we've done our job and um we kind of move forward from there. >> And I and I also want to thank um uh Mr. Barham for bringing that Google form uh at the last board meeting because I

think great minds think alike, right? We had um the exhibit that was coming forward and we had this Google form that we were working on in in the student services department and the questions were almost synonymous. And so you can see what's been added on the exhibit for tonight's agenda item is the Google form form of the exhibit. And so the

questions match exactly and then if a parent reaches out to their site that's what would be sent to them and then that conversation starts because the last thing I want to say with any of these optouts is that it's not on paper. It's not something that is dry and cold and we just receive a signature. We are 100%

about parent communication and parent partnership and the conversations that we have with our families. We've we've we've always been centered on that to make sure that we're understanding where our parents and students are coming from and that we can find a solution that works best for them. So you will see on the bottom of the school web pages the

link to this and the information coming out in the community connection. Thank you. >> Okay. Um Dr. Kamaroski, do you have anything? >> No thanks. >> Okay, Mr. Schwarz. >> Okay. I have nothing. >> Mrs. Weirdman, do you have anything further? Melissa? >> Nothing. Okay. >> Thanks, Mrs. Deas, for giving that report out. >> Okay. All right. Um, so let's move on to

number three. One public comment. >> Janice, please uh come to the podium. >> Hi Janice. >> Hi. How are you? Hello. So, regarding tonight's discussion on board consensus on adding items to the agenda, I want to clarify that under the Brown Act, any trustee has the right to request that an item within the board's jurisdiction be placed on a future agenda. I um the law

also gives members of the public the right to place matters directly related to school district business on the agenda. TVUSD's own board bylaws affirm these rights and outline the process. Yet, in practice, these rights are not being honored. Trustee requests have been disregarded. In some cases, items that were placed on the agenda have been removed during the

meeting itself. Um on September 9th, for example, the memorandum of understanding with Riverside University Health System Behavioral Health requested by Trustee Barum was included on the agenda but not voted on due to the major board majority vote. That action raises serious Brown Act violations uh concerns. The same problem applies to public requests. My August 28th request for an agenda item was ignored, while a

later request from another community member was honored and placed on this agenda. And even though this item has now been taken off the agenda, but I'm I missed the reason why, this selective treatment undermines transparency, erodess public trust, and violates both the law and your own bylaws. Finally, agenda setting should not be arbitrary. It should reflect the rights of trustees

and the public applied consistently and fairly. Therefore, I urge the board to use tonight's discussion to reaffirm those rights, follow the law, and rebuild trust in this governance process. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, Janice. Okay. So, this item was uh submitted by Dr. Anderson and she's not here. So, is is it okay if I speak to this first? Do you guys okay

with that? Mrs. Wearsma. Okay. So, we've had some issues with how to add items to the agenda. Um, and we need to follow what our bylaw says. I mean, and you we've talked about what went on with me at the very very beginning. Um, we have a hierarchy of board uh board governing documents and and those those are statutes, ed code and

our bylaws and then our governing handbook. It is a hierarchy and we need to be paying attention to the bylaws. I don't know what's going on with future agenda items. I found that what happened with Mrs. Wearsman was kind of it was weird. Okay. To me, I I was very confused by it. Um, you know, there was

a lot of people here that night at the podium and there was a lot of chaos. I'll call it that. Um, I liked when you wanted to be adding items to the future agenda. You brought it forward and by consensus we agreed that that would go on as a future agenda item. And I think that that is that's

the way we should do it. I mean, our bylaws already say, unless we want to change our bylaws, how that we can add that any one of us can add an item to the agenda and then it's up to the president and the superintendent to determine where where the item goes in information or action. But I think that

we need to start with future agenda items and get some consensus as to how we're going to uh how those items are going to be placed on the agenda. So, that's where I'll leave the presentation to start. Does anybody have any comments? >> All right. >> Uh, yeah. I have a bunch of future agenda items. Uh, so it's going to take

quite a while for me to go through all of them since, um, this board saw fit to put us in a position of taking a position on an amicus brief. If that's our president, I got a lot of items that I'm going to propose that we take amicus briefs on. There's a lot of stuff going on that has to do with education and

funding that I think is really important that we support. Okay. >> So, when we get to it, I will >> delineate them. But the question is is do you do you have any comment as to how we should be how we should be item how we should be adding items to the future agenda because the bylaws already say

how we are supposed to add action andor information and reports. >> At the end of the meeting when you say do you have any future agenda items whoever has one speaks about it. Len takes it down and puts it on the agenda for the next meeting >> if we have consensus. Pretty simple. If we have consensus, did it go?

>> Well, I don't think we need consensus to add a Okay, >> you don't need consensus to add an agenda. >> Maybe we don't. Maybe we don't. Okay, so that's two minutes there. Okay, Mrs. Wearsman, go ahead. >> Okay, so I know as a trustee, I've followed government code and our district bylaws in either mentioning something here on the deis or officially

asking 10 days ahead of time. And there's two different ways to do it, right? You can mention something for a future agenda item and that's great, but we shouldn't have to go by that alone because there could be a tyranny of the majority and there could certainly be a minority member who would want to see something, but should they bring it to a

discussion at the end of a very long meeting be stamped out. So that's why we all signed the governing handbook which says on page 15 that any board member or any member of the public may request that a matter within the jurisdiction of the board be placed on the agenda of a regular meeting. It's true it has to be

in writing submitted to the superintendent or designate. Yes, a president does have that jurisdiction with a superintendent to collaborate. And I will say you're a different person when you're in charge, Mr. Barham. that respect and the way that that you're conversing should be whether you're sitting in that seat or not. And I just want to note that. I appreciate it. But

that is something that you should carry out regardless of who's leading the meeting. >> Um the point is is that we did sign this government handbook. It's a done deal. We should still be able to move forward with recognizing the fact an individual, just as Mr. Schwarz said, can bring it forward. we can discuss it as a group,

but there still should be um some wiggle room where all elected officials, we should be able to put something on if it's reasonable. It can take an up down vote, fine. But I think we ought to honor one another with that and not change or propose that it's one way or the highway, which is there's consensus or there's nothing. I don't think that's

the right way to do it >> as long as it's within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. >> Sure. And there could be differing perspectives on that as well. um depending on the worldview and the argument and so on and so forth, but within reason, yes, individuals should be able to propose 10 days out and get

it on. >> Okay. All right. Um Dr. Kamroski, >> I don't think we should put things on future agenda items if we want to at the end of the meeting unofficially, if we want to say, "Hey, I'm considering something for the future." That's up for the board member to state to the public. But we are elected by the members of

this um community and if we want to agendaize something, we should have full freedom to do it. And if we agendaize something dumb, guess what? We're going to know about it from the community and fellow board members. Everyone should have that right. I do not agree with consensus. Now, if it's working with district staff, maybe a board member

prudently says, "Hey, I'd like to work with somebody on this longer project. You guys mind and get consensus?" That might be good. But that's that shouldn't be a general rule even though I did that. So I agree with the future agenda items. Uh I think we should be able to agendaize whenever we want if it's within a 7-day window.

>> Okay. >> And we were elected to do that very thing. Okay. Otherwise, it's just an extra layer of bureaucracy that's unneeded. >> Mr. Short, >> just a quick retort. So rather than uh keep all of you here, I know you want to go home and see the Dodger game. Um or the the Padre game's over. So is the

Yankee game. Uh I I'll put mine in writing and I will give them to uh Len at some time before the next meeting, okay? So I don't bore everyone to death. >> And you know, the only reason that I brought up the consensus was because that's how the city does it. And uh they seem to get along very well doing it

that way. But I'm if you're all open to if that's what you I'm fine with if you want to put it on the as a future agenda item as long as it's within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board and if it's not then we talk about it and and maybe we have to get consensus at that

point but I mean I don't see that as an issue. So >> yeah I mean you just said future agenda item all us three didn't say that. We just said to agendaize you're saying future. We didn't say that at all. No, no, no. I mean agenda in the bylaws, it says you as long as it's within the

subject matter jurisdiction of the board, we can put it on the agenda. >> You just you just meant that generally that in the future if we want to agendaize something. You didn't mean it must be in the future agenda. Yeah. >> No, I'm I'm talking about future agenda items. You're saying that you don't even want to achieve consensus with that. No.

Okay. And that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. seem to Mr. Schwarz doesn't have a problem with that and Mrs. Wearsman, you don't. >> Um, I'm with Dr. Kamroski on this and I would point out, yes, I'm proud of the city council. They have a pretty functional relationship. They don't have time limits. They get to talk things

out. They have public comment. Um, at the end, however, they start at 3. So, at 6:00 when people are off work, they can go and speak. So I think it would behoove us to look at their example, maybe aspire to get there, but in the meantime, no rights should be restricted about putting an agenda item on so long

as it's in the parameters and done properly with communication. >> Okay. So shall we move this information item to action? Are you guys okay with that at this time? >> For the next >> or do you want to put it on the next meeting? >> We can do it now. >> Is it This is the first read, right?

>> It's the first read, but we all seem to agree. So if you would like to take this to action, we can do that. >> But is the agreement that we leave it as is because we already have bylaws that say you can do an either or an or. It's either one. >> Anybody can add anything to the agenda

as long as it's within the subject matter jurisdiction. It's up to the president or the presiding office. >> That's what it says, right? Yes. >> That's what the handbook says. >> Okay. And so we all agree on that. Okay. And then for future agenda items, anybody can add anything to the future agenda. >> So it stays as is.

>> It stays as is. Right. >> So are you guys good with that? >> I'm good keeping it just how it is. >> Yeah. But let me throw a little caveat in there. When somebody agendaizes something as an action item, it should stay as an action item, not I agendaize it as an action item and then all of a

sudden it shows up in under information reports. You can attest to that today. I can attest to that in the past. Jen can attest to that in the past. It needs to be very explicit. This is what I'm wanting to be agendaized. I'm a governing board member. Please put it on the agenda. Thank you. And not it shows

up somewhere else. >> And the superintendent collaborates. >> Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt. >> So action or information. If the board member says, "Hey, I think this is better information." Or, "I think this is better action item." For example, you don't put a resolution under an information report. You put it under an action item. There are things that

should be delineated and that is up to the board member and then the board member puts it into an email. Make no mistake about it. This has not happened clearly in the last six months. It needs to be that way just for the record. >> Okay. >> And just one other point, I think the handbook also says that the

superintendent and the president collaborate together. So I would call on whoever that is in the mix. make sure with the president that it is agendaized properly and that there's open communication with the board because I was left hanging for the last meeting and couldn't figure out what was going on and then something landed with my name on it that I hadn't planned to have

on the agenda. Nothing's more frustrating than that. So, it would behoove us to all do better as a team. Let's do it. >> Okay. So, do we are we good? I mean, can we just We have consensus. Do we have consensus, guys and gals? >> There's three people that have consensus. >> Okay. Okay. So, >> what about Melissa?

>> Melissa, what do you think? Sorry. >> Are we good? Okay. So, we're good. We're going to keep things the same and let's move on. Okay. Um, >> uh, we're on we're on four. >> Four. >> Yeah, we're on four. Now, this is an example to be quite I mean, I think I put this in action and then the

president or you decide Can we put this? Are you guys okay changing? Do you have Do we have consensus to put this in action? This next one? >> No, I'd like to keep it in information personally and just have the discussion. >> Okay. All right. >> Let me let me ask you a question. Go ahead. >> Um I can't open this up. I'm getting

Wi-Fi connection problems I have for the last hour. Did you agendaize this under action >> and then it got put under information reports? >> Yeah. >> Hey, I'm consistent. I have the same problem. I have no problem right now if we could take board consensus to move it into action even though we're in information and reports. So if you want

to take action on I'm fine with it because it's the way you wanted it to be agendaized. >> Thank you. And thank you. And I think it's really important that this one be in action right now. >> Okay. So >> that's board Yeah, that's board consensus. Um, >> if we if we have to >> we good? No, I don't think

>> Okay. So, we're good. >> I believe on information reports, we just need consensus and if it goes to action, we absolutely need a vote. Yeah. >> So, yeah. >> Okay. Um, okay. So, and we have public comments on this. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, go ahead. >> First up is Josh Sherling, followed by Sarah Bell. >> Oh, look at us.

the drinking. >> What got me involved? >> Welcome, Josh. >> What got me involved with uh the school district is uh how we were using attorneys. I've always felt like we've done it wrong. I think we've wasted a lot of money and a lot of uh school district time with attorneys. I'm disturbed the fact that we're still

back to using Advocates for Faith and Freedom. I was just trying to do a little bit of research about like what their background is and what they support. And I found something oddly connecting um on a URL. It's a 412urch.org ministries. We support >> Yeah, I know. I'm going to give him some latitude. We have advocates for faith

and freedom tied to a religious group. Why are we choosing attorneys that have a very particular political and religious um >> Josh? >> Yes, sir. >> So, we have to we're amending the the attorney policy >> about how how the board contacts uh council. Correct. >> Well, that that is part of it. So if you want to if you want to speak to that,

that's part of the policy. >> Absolutely. So the so the the problem that I have here is that >> may maybe it's better to go into general because then you can fully give a detailed report out of what you want to do. If you're trying to do it here, you're going to you're not going to be aligned because you're going

>> Dr. He wants >> saying I want him to be able to fully speak. I don't know if he can do it right here. >> Okay. But let let's see what he does. Um really I am just looking for a policy that really makes our contacting council um intelligent that we are not just seeking out um political footballs to to

to punt around and that there is a common sense method that if the superintendent or any of the people on the staff need to contact general counsel that it is done frankly with the priorities of student education. staff development and what is the best method we could give an education for our schools. Thank you. >> Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. I'm going to speak on I was going to say something about the snapping fingers, but I'll I'll save that for later. Um, I do want to express my support for the proposed changes um to board policy regarding access to legal counsel. Um, those of us that have been around a while, we were here when the it

was previously revised not so long ago uh to allow only the board president access to legal counsel because district legal services has been used um to advance board members personal agendas rather than for legitimate board district business. But given the ongoing volatile climate between the board members, it's critical that our policies be amended to reflect sound governance

practices and the practical realities of how this board is running. There have been several occasions where, and I wrote this earlier today when Mr. Barham was not sitting as president. Um, but there have been several occasions where as board clerk, Mr. Barham has been called to act as board president and the president's absence during the meeting. I promise I'm not a witch. I did not

predict that. Um I I would not want the board president or any member acting in that role to have to navigate that position without direct and timely access to district legal counsel. So, I definitely support the amendment and in that I'm asking each of you to put your personal bias aside and consider the resources that you would want any

trustee to have acting as president or acting board president. I urge you all to adopt these changes and let this help the entire Tmacula Valley Unified School District community. Um, we were taught I know this is off topic. We were taught by teachers, us parents, in audiences, to snap to show our approval when it's not appropriate to clap or make noise

because I know um it's distracting and I remember the first time I was recording my daughter's choir solo and people were snapping. It was really annoying in my video. Um but yeah, we were taught by >> teachers to do that and so I don't think anyone means disrespect. >> No, I know. Okay. >> Thanks, Sarah. Last speaker, Melanie Busousar.

>> Hi Melanie. >> Hi. I urge the board to adopt a clear enforcable guard rails around how legal counsel is accessed by the board president. The policy modification says that the board pro board president shall not act alone in consulting with legal counsel. That safeguard is critical because when individual trustees, including the board president, consult with district attorneys without

oversight, it creates the appearance of private representation rather than district-wide representation. I have reached out to the district today regarding my concerns of private communications between the board president and attorneys while those same attorneys were under contract to represent the district in high stakes litigation. I respectfully ask that any policy adopted today go even further. That all consultations with district

affiliated legal counsel and board president be immediately documented in writing and shared with the entire board, including attorneys names and the purpose of those consultations. and that no district affiliated attorney be permitted to provide personal advice or mediation for individual trust trustees outside of formal board direction. Thank you. Okay, so we have a lot going on here with this.

Um, so I brought this forward for a number of reasons. um our board president and and a community member actually brought it um and spoke to this um in terms of how we were using our attorneys and basically said Anderson and Barham what are you doing? Well, Barham has no freaking idea, okay, what is going on with our attorneys at

all. And that is why I brought this because I know that our board president is the only person talking pretty much the only person talking to attorneys right now. Um so um the bills are being racked up. Nobody knows why she's talking to these attorneys. and the board policy says that you're supposed to fill something out and say, "I want to call this

attorney and this is why and get the proper permission." Um, when I brought this forward when I first got elected, I figured that there would be um responsibility in enacting this policy and there hasn't been. So that is why I'm bringing this forward to amend that um the board president may not act alone that the clerk whoever the clerk is if

the board president is going to act that the permission be obtained um um by the superintendent the clerk and as well as the president herself or himself but this is very necessary I feel for for that reason. Um, and I also have evidence um, from community members and also myself that this president is speaking to attorneys about personal

matters and not board business, which is a conflict of interest. So, I can talk about that later here if that's what people want, and I think I probably will at some point in this meeting, but we've got some issues with our current president speaking to attorneys about business that is not district related. So, that is why I'm bringing this

forward. We have to follow this policy. We have to ask, we have to ask um and get the proper permission. Why do we want to talk to an attorney? Who do we want to talk to? And then in addition to that, there's no summaries coming from the attorneys and that's what's supposed to happen as well. So, nobody knows anything in terms of what's

going on with these attorneys. So, this amendment is to provide those safeguards and bring things back under control. And typically, this is what happens. A board president should not be the person talking to attorneys. That is not how things normally run in a district. The person who should be talking to an attorney is the superintendent. He is running the

operation. He is he or she are the people that should be talking to attorneys. There's no there should be very few reasons why a board president and I know I'm probably going to get some disagreement here because the culture of this board and I'm not knocking anybody here but the culture of this board changed in 2022 and the

presidents or presiding officers started to talk to the attorneys. It's like we got to get away from that. We got to go back and and and and do what is typical in a school district. and that and what is typical is is that the superintendent is the person that talks to the attorneys. So >> that's it. So um

>> well I we this >> can I add to the discussion? >> Oh absolutely. I mean go ahead. I mean so we're we're two minutes. >> Go ahead. Two minutes twice around. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, in 2022, when several of us came onto the board, there was a need to um get away from the status quo and kind

of the establishment way of doing things. And I mean no disrespect to anyone in the district, but we knew there needed to be a change in attorneys. I think that we benefit when there's a balance. I think the superintendent should fully be able to ask their questions and receive counsel, but so should a board president. And actually, there are districts where

individual trustees do have the ability to speak with someone for five to 10 minutes. Maybe they seek permission. That's fine. I understand that. But on December 17th, 2024, when new leadership was established, things were pushed aside, usurped, experience was pushed away, and there were changes made. I actually disagreed with what went down and how it got locked into just the

president and then the president and the superintendent having to comment. Dr. Woods shouldn't have to get Melinda Anderson's okay to do it. He should have that latitude. At the same time, she should have the ability to speak to an attorney. Maybe she asks permission or gets a summary. At the same time, I, as a trustee, have been locked out for

months from being able to ask a simple question, which is egregious because as an elected official, I should have that ability. And because I've had a network for three years now of people all over the state, I get some good advice elsewhere because I haven't had the opportunity to. But today, I had the the chance to talk to Mr. DeMarco. That's

all I needed was 5 to seven minutes for some clarification on something with a contract that made all the difference in how I came in here tonight. So, there has to be a balance. You don't throw it all to the superintendent, throw the trustees out. There has to be a working relationship that's functional where we're not overspending, abusing anything

with authority or their representation and the like. And I don't think we've hit that yet. But we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have to be able to discuss things with attorneys. We're not the experts. They are. >> And and there's provision for you to do that in this policy. I mean, it just you

haven't been given permission, but the provision for you to talk to an attorney is here. So, >> right, but in your advocating at the end, you basically said, I think it should be mostly the superintendent. And that's where I go, no, nope. I disagree with that. >> It it's it depends on the issue. >> Sure. >> That's what it is. It depends on the

issue. If you if you're not the clerk or you're not the president and you need to speak to an attorney, there's an avenue for you in this policy >> and it should be fair and not targeted. There should be a way to do it, right? >> And I think this is fair. I mean, I don't know if you think it's fair, but I

wrote it >> to where I think it's fair, but you know, you can criticize it and we can change it if you want, >> right? Okay. Dr. Kamroski, do you have anything that you want to add to this? >> Yeah, I would say number one, the superintendent is our employee, and it's backwards. The board president should be

calling attorneys when the board president sees fit. The superintendent is the CEO of the district, but the superintendent works for the board. That being said, in 2022, all we did was follow the governing handbook, which was previously established before we were even voted in, giving that authority to the superintendent and or the board president. Number two, each one of us up

here has one voting power except for the president. Well, one voting power, none above each other. We all have the same vote, but the board president has just a little bit more authority than all of us. And that's why the board votes in the board president. One of those is the approval of the agenda. One of those is

contacting legal when necessary. Another one of those is a seating arrangement. You know, I might be forgetting a few more, but that purposely is the leadership that the board elects. And so that board president has that position from the board and that is separate from the superintendent. The superintendent is hired from the board. So I would say

I disagree with all these changes. >> Okay. Wow. Okay. >> So, what would you advocate for? >> Can I speak, please? No. Thank you. >> Yeah, he needs his turn. Go ahead, Mr. Schwarz. >> So, um, you can always contact CSBA legal. It's free. You don't have to pay them a scent. You send your questions and you get your answers. If it's

something general, if it's something more specific, then you go through the process to get permission. Uh part of our fiduciary responsibility is keeping bills down and just calling attorneys for little things that we could get answers from cabinet for example or from other places um is something that we should be doing. And as as you you've heard me say I have my own attorney. Um

if I have a question I'm willing to pay him for it. I don't want to burden the district on my personal questions to my attorney. That's not what board attorneys are here for. They're here for business, not to deal with personal issues. >> Okay. I'm going to ask Dr. Woods, would you weigh in on this? >> Well,

you're talking to somebody that has 38 years of experience, many of those years working directly with attorneys. I can have a five-minute conversation with an attorney and get a lot done. I don't need background information. I I know a lot of the legal terms myself. I know the case law in many cases. There is something about that relationship between a

superintendent and an attorney that can be valuable. The board needs to trust the superintendent. They hire the superintendent. if things aren't going well, they can make corrections at at that level, too, if they want. So, I I've seen districts be very successful when the superintendent is heavily involved in these conversations. >> Okay. I'm going to ask you to weigh in

too, Dr. >> I actually don't know how much more I can add to what Dr. Wood said. I would totally agree with um what he did say. I understand that every school district is different. I and everyone every school district has their own issues and the things that they're dealing with. However, I I did share and I did share

this with you when we talked about this. Um prior to um about December of 2022, um board members did not contact um attorneys. I understand and I respect we're in a very different time, but that was um the sole role of the superintendent. Um I think we are hired in positions where we are well-versed in ed code 30 years, 38 years, 20 plus

years. Um and so by working through um ED code, which we're very familiar with, as Dr. Wood said, we're able to speak the language. We're able to understand IDEIDA and all the acronyms. Um and usually it's a pretty quick conversation. So I I don't know how other than that, I don't know how much more I could add to Dr. Woods.

>> Okay. Can I >> like to >> No. Oh yeah. But when you're done, I'll speak again. >> Okay. I I think I need to take my turn cuz I presented, so I'm not going to be long. Okay. So, I guess my concern is at this juncture, um, the reason that I'm doing this is because the board president

and the attorneys are running this district right now. That is the way that I see this. Um, and that should not be happening. The superintendent is the CEO of this district strategically and operationally. I mean, he's running it, but it's there's a lot going on here with the board pre, the current president, and the attorneys. They're too involved in

the operations of this district right now. And that is why I'm putting this forward. Um it's an internal control. It's a safeguard and we've had issues with no disrespect here but we've had issues with legal fees. Okay. And it's because of the ch I feel it it is because of the change that we've the cultural change that has taken place

with board presidents andor presiding officers. We've got to give it back to the people who are running this this district and and that's why I'm I'm putting this forward. Okay. Mrs. We >> Yes. So, I actually did call CSBA because I haven't been able to reach attorneys when I've needed to and I was told we don't have that particular

service available. So, I was turned away. Just wanted to clarify that because I did try that route and I forget what it was about, but that that didn't end up panning out. Um, what about this? A constituent just texted me trustees should have an aotted budget for legal consultation without having to jump through hoops first. And I would

agree to that. I think that's an excellent idea because there should be times where we as trustees should be able to reach out, not to take advantage of a situation or go into a personal situation um that may not be in the subject matter jurisdiction of the board, but we should be able to do it. I'm not convinced that we've found the

right balance here. I don't think we put it all on the superintendent's um side. I don't think that board presidents should be able to unilaterally make decisions and no one knows what's going on. There has to be something different. And I like this idea that trustees should have an allotted amount. I should be able to call in certain circumstances without

having to jump through all the hoops, all the red tape, all the regulations and and so forth. So I see what Dr. Kamroski is saying and I'd like to know more about what you think if you think what we currently have is right or do you like that idea of an aotment um because I think that would be a more

fair and balanced way to do it. >> This is going to be a good one but the time's got to be reset. Thanks. Um the elephant in the room is that this is taxpayers money when we contact legal. We get it. Trust me, we've heard this for the last year. There's been an overage uh as far as use of attorneys.

We get it. We know that. And I wanted to just challenge a point that you made, Emil. There is no board president running the district. Again, a board member only has one fifth voting power. That's it. I mean, nobody, no one person can run anything. It's literally five of us. Well, now four of us or whatever it is on the day when we take

action. Um, that being said, wouldn't you have wanted to contact a lawyer when you tried to agendaize an item and then you feel stifled and then it gets agendaized the wrong way and you think to myself or you think to yourself, I want to contact an attorney. This isn't right. Well, that was me. When I agendaize something

on action or my name wasn't on it, then my name was on it. And I was like, wait a minute, take this off. And I was told, no, you do that at the board meeting. I was like, you're the board president. Please do it now. What are you doing? And I was stifled. And I would have loved to have just been informed by an

attorney, yes, this is your right. You can agendaize it per governing handbook, per bylaw. And I think that you would want that right. Steve would want that right. Melinda and and Jen. That being said, Huff general legal counsel years ago, he told me, he said many of his school district, he actually allows all five board members to contact him. We're

not talking half an hour, how was your day? How was your weekend? No. Straight to business. I have a question or two. And many times he told me he does not even charge board members if it's within a minute to two to three. And so I'm open to that because there are circumstances where you think to yourself and I think to myself, I need

to talk to a lawyer, man. Something's not right here. >> I needed to talk to a lawyer for the past month. >> Well, so then maybe you $500 an hour to my own attorney to make sure I get advice so I get it. >> Yeah. So maybe it shouldn't be that way. And all I'm saying is Huff, our general

legal counsel, he's already granted that to other districts. So, I'm open to that, but literally with strict guidelines, >> I don't think this is a vote. >> We decided to make an >> It's an action item. >> Is this Oh, yeah. We did. We did make this an >> That's why I wanted information. >> Okay. All right. So, we need to go

around one more time. Does anybody have anything to say here? >> Okay. All right. So, um I move that uh we approve. Although I like your idea, Mrs. Wearsma. We can come back to that. for now. We I think that we should approve this. So, I'm going to make the motion that we do that we approve the

the changes here. Um I think we should come back and consider what you're saying. I think it's it's a good idea. Um something to consider. So, I'm going to make this motion that we approve the changes and that we follow what's here because we haven't been following it. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Len

>> Schwarz. >> Yes. Weisma, >> no. Kamoski, >> no. >> Barham, >> yes. Motion fails. Two to two. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Let's move on. >> General public comments. >> Yeah. >> Can you explain why? >> I'm sorry. >> I can't do that now. I can't do that now because that happened at the beginning

of >> Actually, we're obligated to report after close that it was taken off so that the public can know that it was. I'm just saying it's not a Brown Act violation. >> I don't think it happened. I don't know. Did it happen? >> It happened during open. >> Yeah, it happened. >> Yeah. Just Okay. Sometimes we repeat it

after close, but Okay. >> Sometimes we repeat, hey, the board took action at the beginning of the meeting. So, I agree. I agree. >> Okay. You can't repeat it. >> Sorry, Caroline. >> How many? >> 22. Two minutes. >> Two minutes. >> That's three. Okay. >> Two minutes, guys. >> Um, >> is Danny Molina followed by Beth

>> Sea? Good evening. Um, I know it was removed from the agenda, but I wanted to talk about it anyways because I I find it amazing how they seem to love going after you, Dr. Kamaroski. You know, in this uh censor, they talk about the recall on June 4th, but then they leave out the re-election in November, which

is fabulous. But really, what's incredible is the people that signed it. You know, 81 people, and I bet if we cross reference this with the one TmAcula pack, everybody would be on that name. This is 07% of our population here. And 15 of these people I know, one of them actually ran from a restraining order she received

recently. I've heard every single one of you you up here talk about being attacked. There's a lady here tonight. She's in here. She knows who she is. She attacked my family. She followed my wife. She came to our house. She was served with a restraining order and she ran from it. Ran. Let me ask you, what innocent person runs when they're being

served with a restraining order? It makes my blood boil that these people that act like that. Another one in here as well runs voices of the fash goes to people's houses, take photos in their bedroom. It's embarrassing. And Miss Dollywalt, by the way, not up. I was corrected. Dr. K. Miss Dollywatt. Apparently, um, it's disrespectful to use first names even though she uses

ours all the time, but that's okay. But Miss Dollywatt brings these people into our community and adds them in here. They talk about establish and enforce policies ensure that trustees who engage in harassment, threats, or intimidation are subject to appropriate disciplinary measures. Meanwhile, she puts names in here who harass community members. I have the proof. I have the pictures. And

you know, I know for a fact, Mr. Schwarz, cuz now you're paying attention to me, and I appreciate that. But the lady who harassed my wife, who seriously impacted my family, you brought her into this district, sir. And that is a shame. It's embarrassing. We could do better. Thank you. >> Followed by Christine Masa. >> Good evening. My name is Beth Saha.

I've been a substitute teacher for TVUSD for 22 years. and I'm here tonight on behalf of all the substitute teachers in our district to request a pay raise. TVUSD board is responsible for making sure every classroom has a qualified adult leading it every single day. Without substitutes, that would be impossible. Every day teachers are absent and every

day someone has to step in so our kids don't lose valuable learning time and that someone is a substitute teacher. How can we expect excellence in Tmacula schools if we don't value the very people who keep them running? Substitutes are the safety net of our district. We walk into unfamiliar classrooms. We adapt to different grade levels, subjects, and groups of

students. We manage the classroom, keep order, and make sure learning continues. We are not just villains. We are educators, mentors, and protectors. Right now, you're asking substitutes to shoulder that responsibility for far less than we deserve. Our pay is pretty comparable to hamburger flippers. Neighboring districts pay nearly $100 more per day. Think about it. $100 more every single day. This equates for to

$2,000 more per month for those of us that work daily. Why would a sub choose Tmacula when other districts pay so much better? This pay gap sends us a clear message. You do not value our work. As a result, many of your great subs have already left this district and are working in others. This is not just about fairness. It's

about respect. It's about being valued. >> Hi, ma'am. Thank you. >> Thanks, Steve. >> Christine Masa, followed by Michael Davis. >> Hi, Christine. >> Hello. So, I wasn't planning to actually make any comments tonight, but after witnessing that catastrophe of the closed session, I couldn't contain my embarrassment for you. Dr. Kamaroski, how dare you try to postpone any agenda

item presented by the community indefinitely, meaning that you don't want to discuss it at all. Never mind that it was an agenda item detrimental to you and you're a hypocrite because you just said that you support community members putting agenda items on that are in the jurisdiction of the board, but apparently not when the agenda items are

about you. It's shameful the way that you, as well as several other board members. Try to say that you listen to the community, but when 80 members of the community put forward an agenda item, you completely disregard it. So the next time you want to say I listen to the community, we know that you're lying. And Mrs. Wearsma, having an

advisor having advisory committee members who are also TBUSD parents submit an agenda item is no more a conflict of interest than you giving a public comment as a community member during a meeting. Just sit down and shut it. And Dr. Anderson, wherever you are, you've shown that you cannot be impartial. I understand an agenda item calling for a vote of no confidence for

you must have been hurtful. But if you want to display integrity, debating a board member on their vote while they are in the process of voting is not the way to do it. Yes, you did that when Trusty Schwarz was casting his vote and you kept asking him, "Are you sure this is what you want? Are you sure you know

what you're voting for?" It's embarrassing and you did nothing to further your image as a person of integrity. You only heard it more. and Trusty Worersma, I want to have an honest discussion. You probably displayed the utmost cowardice when you were voting on the agenda item for Dr. Anderson and you postponed your vote to see how Dr. Kamaskki would vote. Don't

think we didn't notice. And then you issued your vote. You're not at Olive Garden. He's not ordering your dinner. If you want people to believe that you could think for yourself, you just underscored that you can't. Now we know, if we didn't already, you're just a follower. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Mossa. >> Michael Davis, followed by Josh

Sherling. >> Board, thank you for letting me speak with you once again this evening. When I began coming here a year ago, I came with the intentions of sharing a voice for our LGBTQIA plus siblings. being a religious figure speaking for those voices. I wanted to come to these meetings with a different volume and a different focus being here at these

meetings at different time hearing face faith voices very loud and very confrontational. It's always been my goal to be the calmer voice to encourage the board to do things to make sure that no one is left behind. At our last meeting that I saw online, the special called meeting, I saw loud voices become confrontational and reactionary, very loud voices calling

out liberal participants for different reasons. I still want to come as a calm voice this evening even with dealing with that confrontation because every time our voices get louder, people suffer. Our LGBTQIA plus siblings suffer. Our transgender kids suffer. This evening we talked about immigrant kids that could lose their parents during the school day. They suffer. There are individuals

that need substitute teachers that are paid well and are qualified teachers to be here. Every time our voices get louder, someone suffers. And I want this board to remember that. This evening, I heard one voice share something very clear and calm that should set the standard for how everybody on this void board works. And by the way, it's the only voice that

matters in this room. It was the words of our student board member this evening as she talked to the entire board and everyone in this room. How can we act with each other so that we are the calm voices that don't accidentally hurt people because we're too busy screaming? [Applause] [Music] I just uh returned from Norway. I

brought each of you a small present. I hope you enjoy it. While I was there, I had asked what's happened with American politics. And what I've realized is that we have weaponized and we have promoted cruelty. Cruelty is very easy to do. It is easy to hate. It only requires the lowest level of intelligence to be cruel. If you wish to

know who the most intelligent person in the room is, look for the kindest. It takes empathy and emotional intelligence to be kind. But the beautiful thing about kind people is they don't have a competition because there's a paradox about kindness. They understand that competition and comparison is the thief of joy. They only care about being kind. What I would implore all of us is that

if you're given a headline, if you're given a story, if you're given an email from a parent and it makes you enraged, it makes you feel like you have to do something about it, take a moment to reflect, take a moment to fact check, take a moment to compose your thoughts. And I think Dr. Karas, you said ponder. I think that's a really

good thing that you did there and I appreciated that. It was good reflection. It was good leadership. Thank you. I wish we would do that more often. Uh Melissa, thank you for your wonderfully thought out words and thank you all for the time to speak to you. >> Thanks, Josh. Good evening, trustees, superintendent, members of the community. My name is

Steve Guyger. A little bit about myself. I'm a veteran force reconnaissance marine, a former CIA global response staff contractor. For context, watch the movie 13 hours and current law enforcement of over 11 years with Los Angeles Police Department. I don't say that to boast. I say it because I've spent my career in security realm at some point time or

another. As a father of three daughters in this district, this is personal. The facts are clear. Half of all school attacks in the US end in just one minute. By 5 minutes, over 80% are over. The FBI confirms most end before outside law enforcement arrives. Even with fast response, the median police arrival is 3 minutes. That's already too late. Here

in TVUSD, we fund just 3.5 school resource deputies, over 28,000 students across 33 schools. That's nearly 8,000 students per deputy. National Best Practice or NASRO says we should have at least one on school grounds at all times. Meanwhile, the city of Tmacula's website claims six RSOs, but the board contract funds only 3.5. Which is it? Parents deserve clarity.

And there's another contradiction. Speaking with the district earlier this year, they say, "Our plans will continue to rely on RSO deputies as the armed response. Yet hours ago, about three and a half hours ago, I was told, "Sorry, it's not in the budget." Which one is it? Either you believe protection isn't needed or you refuse to fund it. Both

answers fail parents. The truth is TVSD holds reserves well above 2 to 3% legally required. That's tens of millions of dollars. But our kids are left without full-time trained armed security on campus. Bottom line is attacks end in minutes, often seconds. If security starts miles away, it's already too late. Our kids need protection on campus, not in transit.

I'll be back at the next school board meeting to enlighten everyone else on some more topics. >> Thank you, sir. >> Mary Davis, followed by Greg Langworthy. >> Hi, Mary. >> Hi. Yes. Good evening, Mary Davis here. So, um, first of all, I wanted to congratulate you on Constitution Day. I was so happy to see your district did

that. I saw some of the pictures. Thank you for doing that. Um, and I still believe very importantly carry a constitution with you at all times. Um, I'm here tonight to uphold the rights of women and girls and to highlight that, uh, it may seem like we're well into this, but I want to share a story. In

San Diego, there's a restaurant, uh, the Grant Grill. And it was only 56 years ago that women weren't allowed in there by themselves. They couldn't go in for lunch, and they were only allowed after 3 PM with a a male escort. So, we're really not even almost a half a century. And that's why I fight so hard for the

rights of women and girls not to give up that precious f territory. In fact, October 10th is XX Day, uh, XX Roman numeral, celebrating women XX chromosome. So I encourage you to um celebrate that with me. Uh as far as kindness, the one gentleman brought that up and I think find find it very interesting because it's actually a form

of manipulation, weaponized empathy. And while kindness is a noble go unto itself, it can be weaponized. I mean according to that honestly if we're going to use kindness, should every woman consent to rape because it's what the man wants? It would be kind. No. No. I'm telling you women have to hold boundaries. whether that's on a podium,

in a bathroom, in the locker room. And when you don't, uh, if we look up psychological manipulation, uh, tactics could include gaslighting, guilt, manipulation, bullying, name calling, or Darvo, deny, attack, reverse, victim, oppressor. Um, words like fascist and Nazi, overused, and you actually dilute and devalue their meaning. Uh, I do a bridge banner where somebody called me a

Nazi Mima and I thought you're equating a woman with a sign to the genocide of 88 8 million. So, no, words matter and kindness matters. Girls, stick up for your rights. [Applause] [Music] >> Greg Langworthy followed by Caroline Huffman. I want to speak to the the you know five and six um vote of no confidence on Minda and the community censor of of

Joseph. Um the only comment I had on those is is a simple one. Before censuring or criticizing you have to get both sides of the story. That that was kind of my view on Melinda. I I need to know you know why is she hiring those attorneys? I haven't heard that side of the story. And then um Joseph um you

know up censuring Joseph have you guys talk together you know and often a situation can be diffused just by that personal interaction. It takes both sides you know if if um I'm going to talk to Emil's got to open the door or talk to Jen Jen's got to open the door talk to Joseph or or Steve got to open

the door and then that communication can happen. So, the example of the board really can set a welcoming um situation for the community because you guys are are on the spot. You're always going to get criticism and oftentimes it's hard to listen to the criticism and I I think you do it pretty well. But that is that's my only comment here. before

coming public with a criticism, make sure the community, we have a responsibility too to make sure we have fully listened to um the the other side of the story. Get get all the facts and then if it turns out that it's got to be dealt with publicly, fine. But make sure you've done your due diligence first to

hear both sides. So, thank you. >> Thanks, Mr. Langworthy. Caroline Hoffman followed by Jen San Nicholas. >> Uh since the board removed the uh censure of Joe from this discussion, I just wanted to say I'm speaking tonight as someone who was personally attacked at this day by Joe when I called on him to refer to transgender students by

their preferred pronouns a simple act of respect. He called me a psychotic progressive liberal and said I was objectively disturbing the meeting >> please. and claimed my disagreement was the kind of divisive behavior that has in the past led to someone being assassinated for their beliefs. Let that sink in. Standing up for the dignity of students was framed as dangerous. He

dehumanizes our students and hides behind his personal religious beliefs. Yet, as an elected official and under Title 9, he is legally and ethically required to respect all students, even those who identities or experiences he may not personally agree with. I'm frustrated and angry that an an adult entrusted with leadership would use his position to intimidate, demean, and threaten

rather than protect the children in his care. Students deserve leaders who model respect, not fear. Words like his erode trust, normalize hostility, and create a climate where students can feel unsafe simply for existing as themselves. And every time you get up here, Joe, you say, "I was elected to do this. I was told I can say this." But when what they

want is illegal, you want you want to talk. You can't be hide behind. I was following orders. The Nurburgg trials taught us that. Thanks Caroline >> Jennifer San Nicholas followed by Dollywall. Okay after the last special meeting I came home really upset by the heartless comments I heard on this day. I wanted to write a letter to each of you that

were here but I figured at least two of you wouldn't read it and I couldn't get the words out diplomatically. Now that I've had some time to reflect and calm down, I'll say this. It's to all of you, but especially to you, Dr. Kamaroski, but it it does apply to all of us in this room. I don't care what your faith

is. You don't get to be cruel to the constituents and students you represent. There were three parents of trans children in the audience at that meeting. Three that I know of. There could have been more. Your words were a dagger to the heart. I saw some of the strongest, most stoic people I know break because of your

pointed cruelty. My faith tells me cruelty is never okay. As is told in Matthew 25:35, "Whatever you have done to the least of my brothers and sisters, you have done to me." Your diet tribe invoked that of governors George Wallace and Jimmy Davis when they used their god-fearing morals as the basis for hate. Your actions were no better.

Upnate followed by Gia. Um, before I start my comments, the $1 million clarification, I posted it on Next Door and a lady called Savannah Garcia asked me, I clarified how I came to the number of 1 million. That is not the uh dealing with public council, is currently under mediation. I explained that Chino Hills paid 250,000 in 2018

for the prayer lawsuit that they're bringing again to Freedom from Religion Foundation. and the last uh numbers that uh AFF themselves gave just taking the hours and the general billing rate that's how I arrived at 1 million the actual number should be higher this was a very conservative estimate and uh I think Mr. Molina missed the point. What I told him last time was

when we use respectful language and honorics, it kind of serves as a salv when we talk about very difficult topics. When we talk respectfully, I think you missed the point completely about mister and using first name and last name. And decorum, as one civics ethic guide reminds us, is the armor that protects the debate from descending into abuse. When a trustee misgenders a

student or hurls personal insults, that armor is cast aside and with it the public's trust. You are entitled to your personal beliefs, but when you use public resources and this days to wa wage culture wars and vilify more than half the people you were elected to serve, you betray your oath and divide the very community you swore to

represent. Democracy demands better. In the spirit of democracy, we are called to honor the rights and humanity of our neighbors, those who differ from us, those who challenge us, and the generations yet to come. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedoms, our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions on

in physics or geometry. That wisdom from the nation's earliest day is as urgent now as it was then. Public policy must rest on the rights of all people, not private religious views of those who are temporarily in office. These meetings are archived for public record. Years from now, your children and grandchildren. >> Thank you, >> Gia. Paul by Melanie.

[Applause] >> Good evening. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Sir Walter Scott, thank you for that. When this new board convened, I was so hopeful and was pleasantly it was like that for a little bit and then things started. They wrote a very long thing that I am not going to have time for. So

instead, it is very abbreviated. And what I'm going to say is that there have been shenanigans involving allegations of a violation of penal code section 518 and the HOBS Act 18 section 1951 and an uninforcable non-disclosure agreement that was pinned by a particular law firm associated with this school board in a I know I'm being cryptic but I don't want to come

out and say something that has not been proven yet but I am very very aware of very specific allegations that I just mentioned and um I will be sending an email to every board member so you understand what I'm talking about and I'm going to ask you to read it and then reread it and then read it a third time

before you decide to dismiss me out of hand because these things are very serious and there are great implications to the board if you don't take action and in the letter that I'll be sending I I have seven suggestions to help mitigate it. But uh one of the biggest ones is to uh not do work anymore with a

particular very political uh law firm. Thank you for your time, [Applause] >> Melanie followed by Rosie. I lost the thread of what I was going to say because I wanted to speak to Dr. Anderson directly and she's not here and I would have preferred to I don't want to speak any further to that because contrary to what she said I

don't want to bring the circus and I don't want to air the dirty laundry. I am only here because I do think you should investigate what I brought to your attention. Greg Langworthy said something earlier that there are two sides and that you should look at Emil's side and you should look at Dr. Anderson's side, should look at my side,

but there's another side you should look at and you should look at her text messages. I was in the car with her when she received threatening and contentious text messages from people in our community. And I am afraid that she is going to be following through with things that are, as I mentioned in the email, these need to be investigated.

It can be handled internally. Um, that's my thread. Thank you. Thanks Melanie >> So I was hoping to address Melinda Anderson on this and uh Mr. Schwarz. So I read the uh what happened with you and Dr. Where's uh Jennifer? Where's Ma? And I am appalled appalled that you would sexually harass her, tell her to touch you inappropriately,

and then say your wife would not mind, and then gaslight her and launch an attack against her character. That is unconscionable. I cannot believe the parade that you and Dr. Anderson did against her. Instead of being a man of honor, why wouldn't you just apologize to her for saying that, for disrespecting her like that? But instead, you had to drag the attorneys

in, drag her name through the mud in this community. It's horrible. Horrible. If you were my father, I would tell you, I'm ashamed of you. I'm ashamed to bear your name. Your wife should be ashamed of you. It's despicable. You owe her and this community an apology and you shouldn't even be leading children. That is just so horrible that you would do

what you did. I mean, I read this and I was just pissed. I was livid that you would go and Dr. Anderson would go so far as to do go through the FPPC, a civil grand jury, the county office of education, the state superintendent to ensure that your secret is quiet. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. You have the opportunity to do the right thing. And I

hope that you do. I hope that you man up. You take responsibility for your lies and the disgusting thing that you told her and that you publicly apologize to her and to this community and for the money that you blame her for using. That's what happens when you try to shut her out and shut her down. >> Rosie, thank you. Thanks, Rosie. Rosie.

Rosie. Ros. Hey. Hey. >> Janice. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey, Caroline. Caroline. Caroline. >> Janice. followed by M. Strange. >> Hey you guys, please. I don't want to give you a warning, but I will. >> Okay, you know what? Rosie, please. >> Thank you, Rosie. Rosie, thank you. Okay, Rosie. Rosie, please. Go ahead, Janice. >> Okay. Um, hi. First, I want to say I

find the criticism of attendees who don't live in Tmacula upsetting. I personally don't come here because I have nothing better to do or for political reasons. I come as a parent who faced serious challenges in the San Diego Union High School District. >> Excuse me. I'm going to give you all your time back. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You know what, Brian?

>> That Caroline, I don't want to do it. Caroline. Caroline, that's a first warning to you. Please. >> She's already had a first warning from Dr. >> Anderson. Have to ask you to leave. Okay. >> Why did she have to leave? because I'm going to give her a warning right now, too. Rosie. Ro. Okay, Rosie, please. >> Okay.

>> All right, Caroline, you got to go. You got to go. I'm sorry. >> Hey guys. No, no, no, we don't do that. We don't do that. >> Yeah, we don't do that. >> Um, somebody, you left your phone. Is that your phone? >> Hey, >> I'm not sure. Okay, Rosie. >> Rosie, is that your phone? >> Rosie.

>> Hey, Ro. Hey, Caroline. Please. Come on. Hey, Caroline. >> Caroline. Come on, Rosie. >> Come on. >> No more. >> Okay. >> All right. Go ahead, Jet. Give her a time. >> Okay. It's like break out the popcorn to me is having a board me. >> I mean, not Rosie, Janice. Excuse me. >> Okay. Um, I'll just continue. Um, from

what my experience and because I couldn't unknow what I learned, um, I became an educational consultant and also an advocate for marginalized students. and I attended the Tmacula Valley board meeting on July 21st after friends asked for help because they knew I had knowledge of school board governance, including California's unique uniform complaint procedures. Since then, I've continued attending

because I witnessed a board led by Trustee Anderson openly disregarding state and federal laws and regulations, including those that govern how a board must conduct itself. And under Trustee Anderson's leadership, there has been a pattern of disregarding laws designed to protect the safety, well-being, and rights of students, parents, staff, and trustees, which erodess public trust and puts this district at risk. One example

is the handing of handling of trusteema's UCP complaint. Another was the proposal allowing students who do not want to share facilities with a transgender student to opt out by citing a religious or mental health issue which was disturbing and harmful, including because it drew national attention and caused unnecessary trauma likely for transgender students and the girls who

abducted. while many other California school districts have managed similar situations responsibly and without drama. Finally, I believe it is essential that community members, including from different school districts, collaborate, share knowledge, support one another, and speak up for those who fear retal retaliation. Moreover, even though it may sound like a cliche, young people really are our future. That makes it our collective

responsibility to ensure every student receives an education that not only includes a strong academic foundation but also nurtures compassion, empathy, teamwork and leadership because the leaders our state and our country need tomorrow are sitting in our classrooms today. Thank >> thanks Janice >> Ms. Strange followed by Cerebel. What happened to Melissa? Where'd she go? >> I mean Melinda. Thank you. I'm sorry.

There you are, Melissa. Excuse me. Thank you. um she might just want to stay home for good. I notice this just keeps happening. You know what board member gets up and leaves in the middle of a of a board meeting over and over again. You know what to do. Um, as chair of taxpayers oversight for parents and

students, which includes members of the rainbow community, we stand with TVUSD girls who refuse to accept biological boys in their private spaces in sports. Girls like Melissa must not be forced to undress, shower, or compete against boys. This is about safety, fairness, and lawful rights. And that's it. It's nothing other than safety, fairness, and lawful rights. The board faces lawsuits either way

from Sacramento politicians funded by the teachers union, Governor Nuome, Bont, and Thurman. if you protect the girls policy, privacy policy, or you can get suit from TVUSD parents and this community if you don't. If you stand with parents and students like Melissa and the brave girls who have spoken in this very room time and time again, you won't be alone.

You'll have Harit Dylan's legal team, the US president's support, federal law, and the majority of Tmacula voters standing with you. Protect girls private. >> Time is strange. Thank you. [Applause] >> Sarah Bell, followed by David Sola. Okay, I almost just said I'll just email you, but um because it's late. Um Melissa, thank you once again for your

comments tonight. You are wise beyond your years. You've been here and we could all learn a lot from listening to you. Um that being said, I'm not fully taking your advice tonight. I've never publicly addressed board members as individuals in my comments, but Mrs. Wema, you can say whatever you want about not targeting individual students, students who identities don't

align with your personal beliefs, but actions speak louder than words. We hear your words. We see what you put on the agenda. We see how you vote. We see what you publicly support and share on your social media. Your words and actions don't align and frankly I prefer your words to your actions and I know that you can do

better. Dr. Kamaroski, you've raised many valid concerns tonight and I've heard in previous meetings about how the board president operates, but you removed the vote of no confidence from tonight's agenda. So, I'm I'm definitely perplexed about that. and you know you and I don't speak but uh that was confusing. Um in closing I I do want to thank Mr.

Schwarz and Mr. Barham for when I have reached out as a parent in this district. Their conversations have been thoughtful, helpful. I feel like they listened. Um, and it's clear that both of you have a clear commitment to supporting all students in the district, and I appreciate that very much. >> Thanks, Sarah. Thank you, [Applause] >> David Sola, followed by

David Hatch. >> Good evening. I was going to come up here and say, um, Dr. Dr. Kowski, you were accused of some pretty terrible things, and I know that you don't believe that uh you you did any of those things, but while you were being accused of that, there were people here high-fiving and uh like celebrating terrible things. I think you should

probably correct that because I don't think that's what you want to portray. Um but I want to take a book out of Melissa's uh Melissa's notes or excuse me, I want to take some notes out of Melissa's book here uh and try and be a little bit more kind up here. I want to talk about um this appearance of

impropriy. If there are things that are happening in the dark among this board, I realize there's some legal things that we have to do in the dark, but when there's a whole bunch of other stuff going on in the dark, that's really bad. I think that's a problem that we really need to keep in check. And uh you all

really claim to be people of faith. So, let me speak in your language. Luke 12 2 through three. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. Therefore, whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner

rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops. So, why is so much being pushed to occur in the dark? One of our conservative neighbors here reached out to me and brought some of these impropriies to light. They know who they are, and I'm wondering where their voice is here on the subject, or has their opinion changed because suddenly those

things happening in the dark align with what they want. That's called hypocrisy, and that's the age that we're living in. So, while I'm sure you get that dopamine hit whenever people are clapping for you, I want to remind you that those people clapping for you are not going to tell you the truth about your missteps and they're going to clap you right off

a cliff. So, what you should do is really listen to people who don't agree with you because that's what really makes things work. I'm not saying that you have to do what I want you to do. I'm saying you should listen and we should have the conversation. And when you continue to take those conversations only into the

rooms and the echo chambers that benefit you or the ones that you have already agreed with, then why are you even here representing all of the children in this district when you should just be representing yourself in Congress or somewhere else? Thank you. >> David Hatch, followed by Allison. >> Good evening. My name is David Hatch. I'm a Tmacula resident in area 4 and a

parent of a TVUSD. Oh, don't leave Dr. Kamaskki. This is just about you. Well, all right. This evening is about leadership and accountability. And there goes the accountability. And Mr. Kamaroski is my trustee. I do not believe he is acting in the best interest of our community or our district. I will share examples. First, Mr. Kamaroski, while representing this

district, appeared on a far-right network along with Congressman Matt Gates. He is a former congressman and their discussion focused on the sexualization of youth. Yet, a bipartisan congressional investigation found Matt Gates had sex with a 17-year-old girl and paid for it. That girl is the same age as girls at our local high schools. So, I find it very

troubling and I don't know how I can trust someone who claims to protect kids and protect girls when he aligns with someone accused of exploiting them. Second, on September 2nd, Mr. Kamroski joined a walk out protest involving a minor, a current TBUSD student. Some believed it targeted a transgender student. Some believed it was to protect student privacy. But I do know that the

organizers of the event admitted that the school had already made accommodations. There was no issue. Page 13 of the governance handbook states, "Board norms are to focus time and energy on important issues, not pettiness or politics." protesting in middle school that for an issue that was resolved is political activism disguised as governance. At the end of the day, this isn't about

politics. This is about responsibility. Mr. Kamaskk's behavior and its pattern of behavior undermines public trust, damages credibility of the board, and distracts from what truly matters, educating and protecting our students. We need leaders who rise above ideology and treat every family with respect and understands that their words and elected officials words carry weight. Okay. All right. Thanks, Mr. Hatch.

>> Allison followed by Leah. >> Allison. Okay. So, as a pair Oh, no. Is it working now? >> Go. >> Okay. Can I get my one second? >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. As a parent of a recent Tmacula graduate, my values begin with protecting all students. Every family wants their child safe on campus. That is not controversial. What is

controversial is when board members call for outside agitators. I'm talking about people driving hours or even flying in to stir chaos. And yes, I'm aware some call me an outsider. Yet, I raised a graduate here. I work in Tmacula. I have nephews who are throughout all of the schools in Tmacula. Okay. Meanwhile, we have Emil and Schwarz, the ones who actually care

about students, care about financial responsibility, who constantly receive threats mostly from these outside outsiders who live hours or states away. Meanwhile, at Chapparel, there are two bathrooms for hundreds of cis boys. It's unsafe, unsanitary, and it's dangerous. And where's mma? Silent. Yet, she is known. But one trans student exists and suddenly she has a crusade. That's not

protecting students, that's targeting them. I've recently seen Jen pushing TPUSA clubs on campus, but I hope you know you must also allow every faith. Now, I do not personally follow the Satanic Temple. Yet, even the Satanic Temple teaches one should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason. That's a religious freedom. So, what

kind of Christianity looks less kind than the satanic temple? Joe, last meeting you ranted about psychotic liberals, tried to pin an assassination on progressive, then in the same breath talked about civil discourse. Yes, you yet you misgendered a trans girl girl, calling her the boy in the locker room. You've done this several times. You and Jen rallied to

protest one student on her own campus, ignoring her safety, knowing uh no one was being forced into changing out of the locker rooms. No one was >> time Allison. Thank you. Thank you, >> Leah Bermudez. I think she left. She was a kiddo and left. Um and then Dr. Regev Dr. Reev Howdy everyone. Um I want to take a look

at what what you email Barham are doing. So he seeks lawyers on his own neighbors threatening families of the crime for the crime of putting a sign in their yard. Is this leadership? Is that the leadership that we have here? Apparently yes. That's intimidation. His lawyer floods the FPPPC, the DA, and the city with letters weaponizing the system

again, followed by a sworn complaint from Melanie Busousard against me, parroting Barham script almost word for word. She accused me of funding and distributing signs when I have done no such thing. This is their playbook. lie, file false accusations, swear false oaths like they mean nothing. And indeed to people who have no fear of God and they have no God actually an oath is

just ink on paper. They worship power but we stand for truth and the truth is no amount of lawyers, lies, FPPC complaints will silence silence us from protecting our kids. And tonight we actually heard talk heard Barham talk wanting to sue the very district his own trustees his own fellow trustees. Are you out of your mind? Emil, you are

acting like a baby in a man's clothing community. How on earth did we let a middle-aged man with, as far as I know, no wife, no children, no stakes in our schools being entrusted with the education of our kids? How would we let this happen? That's a question for all of us. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dr. Reev.

>> You have your name here, >> doctor. >> You can pick it up then. >> Thank you. No, thank you. >> Are we good? >> All right. Negotiations update. Nothing. Okay. I think you're first, but are you are you okay, Mrs. Wears? >> Melissa, >> you first. >> Okay. >> Okay. Hi, guys. Um, I think I've said

most of what I wanted to say during the president's comment at the beginning of this meeting, but I can give a little bit more of an update on my progress in this role. I've received a lot of support from our community both in person and online. Students, teachers, and parents alike have reached out to me telling me their thoughts on action

items, asking about my experience, and just thanking me for my work. I love that when I'm walking around campus, Chapperel staff will stop me in my tracks to ask me how I'm doing. And a few days ago, Tmacula Mayor Brendan Kalfus invited my family and me to the city council and gave us a tour. So, shout out to him. I'm truly learning a

lot from this experience both during and outside of our physical board meetings. Since I'm the first student representative in this district, everything I do somewhat sets a president for future representatives and students in this role, which is a lot, but that's a responsibility that I am honored to carry. I appreciate all the feedback I've been receiving from the

community, and it's been really helpful in guiding my next steps. What I lack in career experience, I hope I make up for in my unique perspective. The voice I have on this day is something that I cherish and I am extremely grateful for the opportunities I have been given. Even though they can get hectic, I really do look forward to attending

these meetings. I am proud of the progress I've seen um our community making. And growing up in Tmacula truly is something special and I thank all of the people who have helped me get to where I am today. As always, if you are a student, parent, or staff member in the district, I'm always open to discussing literally anything. Any of my

teachers at SHAP can tell you that I love to talk, so come talk to me. >> Thanks, Melissa. All right, Mr. Schwarz. This is a very special time of year for those of us who are Jewish. Between Russia, Shenna and Yum Kipur, we try to make the world a better place by talking to the people who we deal with all the

time. and trying to make amends for what happened during the year. And I've I've spoken with our cabinet and our superintendent secretaries and done that. It's a a duality for me tonight. I was going to talk a lot about that, but unfortunately unfortunately the craziness never ends. So this is 53 pages of Nicole Miller. 53 pages. This is one notorized letter.

The report was conducted by Nicole Miller and Associates. Tony DeMarco, whom my fellow board members adore, was involved in defending parental rights and was instrumental in recommending Nicole Miller and associates for a sensitive investigation concerning a complaint against me. Here's the conclusion. Page 53. In accordance with our findings, Nicole Miller and Associates did not sustain Mrs. Wemerman's allegation of sexual

harassment by Mr. Schwarz. Nor was there evidence to suggest the district acted negligently. The investigation found concerns about the credibility of and motivation of Mrs. Weisma suggest her complaint may not have been made in good faith. This is a censure resolution which I wrote right after the meeting where I was accused. I put it on the agenda several times and

I took it back only in the hopes that maybe some sense of decency would come and I would get an apology. So I'm going to read it to you all. Whereas the Tmacula Valley Unified School District board holds its members to the highest standards of integrity. Whereas false accusations undermine the gravity of legitimate complaints. whereas the actions of board member Wears were found

to be in violation of the board's code of ethics and professional standards. Now, therefore, be it resolved that TVUSD formally centures board member Weisma for conduct unbecoming a board member and for intentionally making false statements that have caused harm to a fellow board member and to the public's confidence in the integrity of the board. Be it further resolved that

this resolution shall be entered into the public record and that the board urges board member Wearsma to issue a public apology, participate in ethics training, and refrain from future conduct that violates the board's standards. Thank you, I just want to note for the community right now, this is further evidence of retaliation. And when in a meeting we

dec >> when in a meeting this board decides that we're going to move away from the discussion and yet this is brought up again. It's retaliation. And that's all I'm going to say about that. >> Hey guys, >> this is the deal. >> This is the deal. Can I Can I get a few seconds back, please? >> Okay. Shh.

>> I am the same person in private as I am in public. I >> No. Hey, excuse me. >> You know, I just had an audience member look at me and say, "F you." And I'm not sure it was directed at me or Mrs. Whisma, but it's uncalled for. >> Okay, you got Hey, I doctor, please. Hey, please stop.

Hey, got you know what? We're almost done. Hey, we're all Rosie, please. We're almost done. Okay, give Mrs. Weman back 10 seconds. >> It says something that Mr. Schwarz has to come back again with that. I'm honest to a fault. I'm not perfect. I'm a flawed person and a trustee, but I have told the truth. >> I believe you.

>> Rosie, please go. You're done. >> So, let me continue on. Um, kindness can be weaponized to circumvent truth with gaslighting. This is true. Mr. Guyger, thank you for your mention of the SRO's. Three are paid for by TVUSD. >> Sorry to interrupt. You got to get your time back, Mrs. Rissman. You can't say please go. You're done. You have to say

you're objectively disturbing the board for conducting business. You can't just kick people out. You have to let them know why. Just respectfully. >> She knows why. >> That's what you have to let her know why publicly. >> I'll do that in the future. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Mrs. >> I think it was Mr. Guyer. I wanted to

let you know we have three SRO's funded at TVUSD and three by city council. I definitely feel like safety and security should be a top issue. It brings me to watchd dogs and I was honored to be with principal Erin Nielsen at Abby Ranki and Brian Pastor with Danny Molina and Cole Man for organizing that Watchdog kickoff. That is the best way that you

as parents can get involved. Budgets are tight if dad's grandpa's big brothers uncles step up and help. And yes, there's a place for women too. It absolutely is inclusive. We would love to further this program. This has been my heart from the beginning. And yes, David Sola, I see you in the back. And though you irritate me from time to

time, you did provide the pizzas. So, I'm going to give you that shout out. Um, that was a great event. Joseph and I got to go to Paloma Elementary and enjoy some of the classrooms as well as outdoor time with the kids. Thank you to Principal Marvin Morton for showing us around. We got to listen to their jazz

band, visit their CTE exploration lab. We actually got to join some dancing that went on in in their VAPA class. Totally joy. All the good enriching stuff that really has me walking away thankful that I'm a trustee. Um, as far as Advocates for Faith and Freedom, I know there's been some discussion about that. I wanted to let you know, if you

didn't know, that this firm just had a significant victory for fairness in women's sports and the protection for free speech here in California. Yeah. A US district court for the central district of California ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and the save girls sports which is allowing their core title n discrimination claim to proceed. Now in terms of the walkout that happened

because a president along with a board majority didn't vote for the privacy process which is what Dr. Kamroski and I originally spoke to in our experience which would have circumvented that entire scenario. So, I just want to point that out. Um, to Mr. Barham, you've used the deis to campaign against Sonia Shaw, the one conservative running for sup state superintendent. That

wasn't appropriate. You shouldn't be sending intimidating letters to citizens who want to put up a sign in their yard. Um, you shouldn't be calling people flying monkeys and disparaging pastors and then sit in that seat and be a different person. You need to be the same way in every moment that you can. And we're all flawed, but that kind of behavior is

disrespectful. And it has just felt like a charlatan through and through. >> Can I give a point of clarity that Mr. Schwarz is raising before my comments. >> Go ahead. >> I I believe it I believe that when when somebody sends an email to the board, only the board president can reply all, but each board member can reply to that

person. That's so I think Yeah. So, just to be clear, we can each reply to you, we just cannot reply all. Okay. Okay. I'm ready. >> Where do I start? Hm. Vote of no confidence. That wasn't tabled indefinitely. Um that was in that was tabled 2 to 3 months. The board president said that she had some concerns legally. So we'll flush those

out. That'll come back. Um I you know the gaslighting times 10,000 talking about cruelty and and hate speech or whatever you want to fling out at me. But just an example, the lady who got kicked out got kicked out at the last meeting and while she got kicked out before she was interrupting me and many others the entire meeting she was

screaming or not not screaming yelling as she was getting kicked out and then and then today she's disrupting. So I refuse to accept the gaslighting. It's a Marxist strategy. Get out of here. You wanna you want to come in here just like this. You want to come in here and you want to interrupt the meeting and then

accuse me for being cruel. I'm sorry. He just he's got it twisted. And one thing I want to do is people people quote scripture. It's totally fine. I'm going to quote it, too. And I wasn't prepared to do this tonight, but I'm going to. Philippians 4, meditate on these things. Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are

just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue, and if there is anything praiseworthy, meditate on these things. That does not include meditating on a boy going into a girl's locker room. It is none of those things. I will I will literally continue this fight until the day I die, whether

I'm here or not. Outside of that, you have Psalms 139:14. God made you fearfully. You are fearfully and wonderfully made. Children, all of you, all the students in this community, all the children in this community, God made you that way. And believe it or not, he loves you even more than your parents. I will not stand here and I will not I

will be an advocate for your voice even if your own parents are not. You are used as a political pawn. I'm not just talking about this school. I'm not just talking about one school. I'm talking about all across the nation. I'm not singling out anybody. And I made it very clear. Do not demonize these kids. God made you Jesus Christ in his image. He

made you a biological boy or a biological girl. And that's exactly how you were made. To resist that is to resist your creator. And whether the parents or the teachers or even pastors or false teachers spew that nonsense onto you, I rebuke I rebuke them. Pastors are leading children a astray, propagating this bull crap to where a

boy can do this. And it disturbs communities all throughout the United States. It's not just Tmacula. It's not just the United States. It's all throughout the world. Wokeism is dying. It is dead. People are sick and tired of it. But what I'm here to do is advocate for you children. Even if your parents won't, God loves you. He wants a

relationship with you, literally. And that's the way you were made. I am going to ask you, Mrs. Wearsma and Dr. Kamaroski, to listen to what I'm going to say very carefully. You, we all received a letter today from a whistleblower with regard to shenanigans um with our board president. This whistleblower at a lunch with Dr. Anderson stated in her own

words that Pastor Tim Thompson was blackmailing her to resign from the school board. She this whistleblower Dr. Anderson described uh to this whistleblower that she was being extorted that that it was an extortion of an elected official. While this whistleblower was present, Dr. Anderson received and responded to text messages she identified as coming from Bob Tyler. At the same time, she was also receiving

text messages from Pastor Tim Thompson, further underscoring the involvement of both men in the matters that she was describing. She was basically saying that they were helping her to negotiate her resignation. Dr. Anderson said to this whistleblower, "If I'm going to resign, I'm going to get something out of it." meaning a retraction from Jason Craig regarding his statement to the Valley News.

Dr. Anderson state that Bob Tyler was actively involved in negotiations regarding her resignation and that a meeting with Tim Thompson of the 412 Church and others were scheduled. Now, Dr. Anderson and I have evidence of texts that she has been using attorneys for her own private use. Okay. On July the 29th, I was the presiding officer. I called

David Huff and I because I did not know what to do with this whistleblower's information and I said, "David, this is what's going on in terms of blackmail." And David Huff said, "I know." Because Dr. Anderson called David Huff and said, "I am being blackmailed by the church group," meaning the 412 church. Okay? And that is why, okay, and and

subsequently met with Pastor Thompson. We're trying to get what happened at this secret meeting hashed out. We're not able to do it. But David Huff verified what Dr. Anderson said to the whistleblower, and we're not going to dis disregard David Huff. And I don't think you would do that. So, we've got some ethical breaches here. Okay. This whistleblower documented her

exchanges with Dr. Anderson with an independent journalist. This independent journalist asked for the text messages that this whistleblower saw on July the 25th. Dr. Anderson says they don't exist, which is a crime in itself. Okay? So, we've got some issues to deal with here. And that is why I brought this to forward to you. So, we need to look at

this because this is serious business. We've got pastors blackmailing possibly our board president, which is just insane. >> You want to give us all some extra time? >> Let's do it. >> If we can have it, >> let's do it. Let's go for it. Let's do it. Let's Yeah, let's let's go for it. You want some extra time?

>> I'm all for time. >> Okay. >> I never was for limits. >> Well, I mean, hey, it's kind of late, but I'm just saying. Yeah. >> What about the public? >> Excuse me. This is not the public's meeting. >> This Yeah. No, no, no. Don't say that. Okay. >> No, it's not the public's meeting. It's the governing board meeting in the

public. >> I know. But let's let's let's do some extra time. Go. Let's two minutes. Doctor, >> let's go. Uh I'm not asking to go first. >> Okay. I mean, I will continue. >> Yeah, you continue and then >> I can continue. And I'm asking what I'm asking for and this is the reason that I brought this forward. I'm asking you to

reconsider your vote on a vote of no confidence because I have evidence myself that Dr. Anderson has used David Huff and Bob Tyler for her personal for personal reasons, not district business, okay, which is an ethical breach. I mean, he told me himself she said that he was that she was being blackmailed by the church group, okay? and he told her

to be careful that she not trade her seat for any type of consideration. Okay. And he also told me that she could not get off the phone fast enough. And I believe that that is when she went to Bob Tyler and he started to negotiate her her resignation. For what I don't know, okay, but I heard it from David

Huff myself and he's not going to lie to me. So whatever happened at the meeting in which pastor Tom uh Tim Thompson will not give his testimony as to what happened at that meeting when Dr. Anderson met with him and Jason Craig and Jason Craig will not give his testimony either. So what took place at that meeting? That is what I would like

to know. And in addition to that, the text messages will prove it all because the text messages were seen by the whistleblower. The independent journalist asked for a public records request and an affidavit it was denied and I believe that an affidavit was signed by Dr. Anderson saying that I have nothing which is a crime. So we

have a lot to consider here and you didn't allow it to come forward. Okay. And I know that you're close with pastor Tim Thompson. Okay. But you know what that that pastor is? Why is he so involved with our school board? That's that's the question. Why is he so involved all the time with our school board? It's like we need to get to the

bottom of what's going on here. Go ahead, Mrs. Wesma. >> Well, I for one would like to say that Pastor Tim Thompson and I rarely speak. So, if there's any illusion out there that somehow they've pulled puppet strings for the past three years, not true. In terms of this meeting, I know we have one person in the room who was

at the meeting, and I just I don't know where to go with this because you three decided to put Melinda Anderson with no experience in as board president. Everyone was convinced that was the right decision. I know how difficult it is to navigate all the things. I had a little grace with that tonight understanding um some of what she's had

to go through, but I did agree that there have been problems. But to take Pastor Tim at this moment and smear his name, Bob Tyler, I know that there is a concerted effort, Mr. Barham, on your part to do exactly that. And I would reserve some judgment here because I actually haven't gotten to every email this afternoon that was sent. Um,

I'm happy to look at what is true and what is right, but I think you're overstepping a bit. You weren't in the meeting. I wasn't in the meeting. Dr. Kamroski wasn't in the meeting. Jason Craig has never had the opportunity to present the declaration and what he felt went down with the investigation. And yet I have a colleague continuing to

read the results of really what was a kangaroo court decision. Okay, they got exactly what they were looking for no matter what. So that's a different topic. I'm just saying there are many things to meet through here with honesty and solutions and I don't know where I land because >> okay >> I I I'm not going to assume guilt on

their part. I do know what Dr. Anderson has done in her leadership. I've written emails and tried to do my best to explain the problems to Dr. Woods, to the cabinet. So clearly, >> Hi, Mrs. >> I agree there, but I'm not going to go where you're going tonight with these other issues. >> Okay. >> Dr. K, just wanted to say you made

claims people that aren't here to defend themselves. I heard there was a private meeting. It's actually none of my business cuz I wasn't invited. Somehow you're making it your business. You weren't invited. And maybe you were. I'm not I'm not sure. So maybe the people that were invited to that meeting, maybe they wanted it to be private, maybe they

didn't want it to be public. I'm not sure. But that discussion is for those people and they're not in this room. And so that conversation needs to be have with those people. I'm not even going to get in the middle of that. Um the other thing I want to say is sub raises. So I secretly really want this extra time to

shout out to the subs. I've always advocate advocated for higher raises for subs every single time. And I'm only one voice. I'm just saying every single time. Um the snappers a long time ago when we were doing governing board handbook and we, you know, got rid of signs in here and all that. Um you know, we we really didn't want obsessive

clapping because it can disturb as well. Even back then people were doing the snapping of the fingers. It didn't bother me. If that's a bother, we can talk about as a board. I'm neutral with the snappers as long as you don't get super annoying. Um yeah. And then uh visiting school sites. I've had the privilege of visiting five or six school sites with

Dr. Woods. Really fun stuff. Um looking forward to the student of the month next month. U student of the month next month at Sizzlers. And last I would say this given that what I said about the two people on the board advisory committee. Even that said, let's say you remain on the board. I will still take the wisdom

and the insight from those five board members when they present data. I am open to that. If that goes forward, I am open to uh reasonable evidence that's presented to me and then I can make a decision on that. Whether I think it's lacking or not, whether it goes to the ballot or not, I'm still open to that.

But I would say things that are made private, they should they should remain private unless they want to be disclosed publicly. And I'm not sure if you're stepping on that ground or not. My last question is, did you get permission to contact Huff, our general legal counsel? I was the presiding officer because Melinda was nowhere to be found. So that

is why I did it. I took it upon myself on July the 29th. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. A few months ago, there were some serious allegations made that necess necessitated the district conduct a third-party investigation. After a very thorough and impartial investigation, I'm happy to report that our financial statements are accurate with absolutely no misappropriation of

assets. The investigation proved we have effective fiscal policies and procedures in place which have resulted in clean audits from several multiple sources. Our hiring practices are done with the utmost integrity and our vendor selection process is exhaustive and transparent. Lastly, I want to thank Assistant Superintendent Nicole Lash for her full cooperation during this investigation and your continued dedication to this

organization and your leadership. Thank you. excuse me, board advisory committee for future agenda items. Um, you're going to report on social workers discipline. >> We were given a pretty hefty collection of topics for one topic. >> Sure. Uh so I discussed with Dr. Woods how we're going to provide the information for foster youth seal discipline and um yeah those three in uh

a memo report and then I'll be able to answer any questions that the board will have in October. >> Okay. Emil, I agree with Joe. We should look at talk with Mrs. Lash about sub pay. See what we can do to pay our subs. >> I agree. >> Amen. the highest possible amount. >> That's right. As much as you're not

subs. >> No. Yeah. >> Okay. So, we got sub pay. >> So, the thing with the subs too is what we have discussed is that there are teachers that take over certain periods and because of their longevity, they're earning a lot of dollars for those hours. So, if there's a way to re-evaluate that, and I know Mr. for

RSA. We've talked about this before. It would be awesome to come back around and do even a slight raise because I think we could restructure it and um give them more money and I think they're worth it especially when you look at Fall Brook and some of the other districts. >> So, I'm okay. Um no, hold on.

>> Hold on. Um Dr. I want to start kind of start this off right with you. Even though you don't take office until January of 2026, we need to do superintendent's goals. And I'm thinking we should do it in October for for the year, October to October. And the reason is is because our big four the test scores come out October 15th.

So if we do the goals in October and then we get the data in the following October then we have some raw data in which to evaluate you. I mean are you okay with that? So, I'm perfectly okay with that in terms of working on it this October in terms of a draft possibly until we we look at January 1 and moving forward.

I'm fine with that. >> Okay. I mean, because you're I mean, you're you're in ESS anyway >> and you're working on raising our test scores. I mean, not that that's going to be the only thing that we evaluate you on, but I think it makes sense to put something together in October of this year and then when the data comes out in

October of 26, we can just do the evaluation right there because we have the numbers. >> Yeah. >> Instead of doing it, I think it's I don't know when it's scheduled. I think it's in June. >> Correct. That's usually about when it is. >> Yeah. But it's just because of the timing differences with the data, it makes it hard.

>> Yeah. And that's partly why I'm suggesting possibly looking at October for a draft and then making changes after the first of the year, which I think is >> is acceptable, but >> Yeah. Okay. So, there's that. Does anybody have any others? >> Yeah. I just wanted to congratulate Mr. Marble. >> Yeah. I'm not done yet, but

>> congratulations, sir. Yeah. Okay. So, I am also going to put on consideration of an investigation into what I just spoke about because I think that there are serious breaches of uh ethics here based upon what I've experienced myself and uh we cannot have corruption on this board and if there is corruption it needs to be we need to get rid of it and and I'm

sorry that it involves some of your friends but you've got to overlook that and allow some kind of an investigation to take place. That's being transparent to the public. I'm telling you what I heard and you should respect the respect what I'm saying and at least consider an investigation. And if I don't know, that's on you. I mean,

your voters, that's something that they will have to consider when you run in 2026. We can't have this kind of thing. We can't have people talking to attorneys, okay, when it's not district business. We can't have people saying that they're going to be blackmailed by members of the community. >> Trusty Barum, I think we're done here. >> You know what? Excuse me.

>> I think you're campaigning just a little bit. >> It's time to be done. >> It's time to be done and to end this meeting. >> I'm I'm talking I'm trying. >> You've talked. We've all talked. I think we need >> so I want to put that on the agenda. >> Mr. Barham, >> Mr. Barham, may may I make one comment

related to substitute pay rate? >> Sure. >> Okay. Uh, can we put that on the agenda? >> F first of all, I think the >> agenda >> the employee was Beth Seaha who uh said some very good comments about um her opinions and perspective. And I just want to share we appreciate her. We appreciate all of our guest teachers. We

appreciate all of our substitutes. Some of them um go in and take a short-term assignment and don't know kids and they do their very best to make sure the classroom is under control and that they carry out the teachers lessons. So, we absolutely value that. Um I do want to point out to the board that it is a

pretty complex item uh to ensure that you have a full understanding of. I think it's important that we revisit the fact that we have an incentive bonusbased model at this time. um if the board is interested in uprooting that going in a different direction, we're happy to uh work together to provide some estimate of what that would mean in

terms of impact. Um as a reminder, we have regional subs right now assigned to sites. Uh it's probably also important that we bring information related to comparisons um in terms of pay rate. But not only that, also um do those increases, including the incentive model, actually help fulfill um staffing discrepancies for substitute pay raise or or substitute uh daily um assignments. With

that said, I think our request would be that that come back to the board as an information item where we can maybe have some of these discussions and then the board can provide some direction knowing that it has significant budgetary implications. Thank you. >> Okay. Are we finished? >> All right. Motion to adjurnn. Thank you. >> 11:08.