One Temecula Valley PAC Raises Concerns Over Potential Brown Act Violations and AFF Agreement in TVUSD
Press Enterprise photo
1TVPAC Team
Temecula, CA — The One Temecula Valley Political Action Committee (PAC) is sounding the alarm over potential Brown Act violations and the Temecula Valley Unified School District’s (TVUSD) proposed engagement with Murrieta-based law firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom (AFF). A special board meeting to consider the agreement is scheduled for Wednesday, September 17.
One Temecula Valley PAC urges the community attend the 8:45 a.m. meeting to express their disagreement with the proposal.
The agreement, possibly introduced by AFF attorneys Robert Tyler and Julianne Fleischer, would involve TVUSD joining an amicus brief to be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Notably, the meeting agenda item in question was not attributed to any board member — the usual practice when items are submitted for consideration — leaving observers to conclude that AFF itself brought the proposal forward.
Alleged Brown Act Violations
One Temecula Valley PAC expressed concern that board members Dr. Melinda Anderson, Joe Komrosky, and Jen Wiersma may have engaged in private discussions with AFF representatives regarding the proposed agreement and the decision to call a special meeting. If accurate, such coordination could violate California’s Brown Act, which prohibits a majority of board members from deliberating on district business outside of a properly noticed public meeting.
Outside Political Influence
The PAC questioned the appropriateness of a politically motivated outside law firm lobbying for district action, noting that AFF is attempting similar efforts in the neighboring Murrieta Valley Unified School District. “Temecula citizens did not elect Advocates for Faith and Freedom to set policy for this district,” the PAC stated.
Costly History of AFF Representation
AFF previously represented TVUSD in defending the controversial 2022 “anti-CRT” resolution passed by the prior board majority. That defense cost the district $50,000 and is now expected to result in a settlement between $1–3 million. Under that agreement, if the district settled — as it ultimately did — AFF became entitled to back fees, a structure critics say was designed to benefit the firm regardless of outcome.
Issues in the Proposed Agreement
The proposed Attorney Engagement Agreement raises a number of red flags, according to the PAC:
Contract Scope: While the stated purpose is drafting an amicus brief, the language suggests AFF would be retained as if to argue a case.
Fundraising Obligations: The contract requires TVUSD to assist AFF in raising funds for its litigation efforts, a highly unusual and controversial provision for a public school district.
Independent Review: Although the agreement acknowledges TVUSD’s right to seek independent counsel, the rushed scheduling of a special meeting calls into question whether due diligence has been possible.
Policy Violations: Board policies 9214 and 9320 require proper procedures for selecting legal counsel and limit special meetings to matters directly impacting the district. The PAC argues this agreement does not meet those standards.
Contradiction of Prior Commitments: President Anderson previously stated she would not entertain resolutions unrelated to TVUSD business, yet this proposal concerns national litigation with no direct effect on district students or staff.
Media Restrictions: The contract would prevent TVUSD from making statements to the media about the case without prior approval from AFF, raising concerns over ceding district communications to a private law firm.
Call to Cancel Special Meeting
One Temecula Valley PAC urged the board to immediately cancel the September 17 special meeting, warning that approval of the agreement would place TVUSD at significant financial, legal, and reputational risk while providing no tangible benefit to students, families, or educators.
