Sept. ‘25 School Board Report Card: Dysfunction, Disrespect, and a Failing Grade for Student Success
1TVPAC Team
TEMECULA, CA — September 2025
The Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) School Board's September performance has left parents, educators, and community members frustrated and disheartened. According to the latest OneTVPAC report card, only one trustee received a grade above a B, while three trustees earned a failing grade — a stark reflection of the ongoing dysfunction plaguing the board.
Rather than addressing pressing issues like student achievement, school safety, or curriculum improvements, the board spent most of its time in September entangled in petty feuds, personal attacks, and ideological posturing. Trustees frequently used meetings — and social media — as platforms to insult each other and community members, while largely ignoring their core responsibilities.
Below is a breakdown of each trustee’s performance this past month, measured against eight grading criteria including leadership, professionalism, fiscal responsibility, and focus on student success. The grades are based on their behavior in the boardroom and outside (public events, training, social media, communication with constituents, etc.). The criteria are pulled from the California School Board Association (CSBA) standards for effective trustees, and include an additional one of fiscal responsibility, given the upcoming budget shortfall.
Melinda Anderson — Grade: D
As board president, Anderson’s leadership has faltered significantly. She called a legally questionable special meeting to discuss an amicus brief — a move some allege may have violated the Brown Act. Despite promising transparency and cost-cutting, Anderson continues to be involved in ongoing legal consultations that remain shrouded in secrecy.
Her conduct during meetings has been erratic and concerning. She walked off the dais mid-meeting without explanation and was visibly emotional during debates — actions critics say were unprofessional. At one point, she questioned fellow trustee Steve Schwartz’s vote in a way that undermined board effectiveness and displayed her as a bully, using her position as board president to sway votes in her direction.
Most notably, Anderson contributed nothing toward student achievement this month. With no site visits, committee work, or policy contributions on record, her D grade reflects a lack of substantive engagement in her official duties.
Emil Barham — Grade: C+
Barham displayed moments of competence, particularly when presiding over meetings (Sept 30th after President Anderson left) and the Sept. 17 special meeting, where he refused to participate due to potential Brown Act violations — a principled stand that signaled an understanding of governance protocols.
However, his inability to stay above the fray during regular meetings, especially when Anderson is present, drags down his overall effectiveness. Barham spent too much time airing grievances rather than focusing on district business. His board comments also veered into possibly confidential matters, raising concerns about boundaries and discretion.
Despite these issues, he earned higher marks than most of his colleagues for demonstrating occasional leadership and ongoing support for public education.
Joseph Komrosky — Grade: F
Once again, Dr. Komrosky’s conduct was among the worst on the board. He openly attacked parents and audience members from the dais, dismissing community concerns and attempting to silence dissent — including a push to “postpone indefinitely” topics that could hold him accountable. Even after an attorney told him he could not postpone an item that was squarely in the board’s purview, he attempted to do it again with President Anderson.
His hostility toward critics, inconsistent policy stances, and willingness to rewrite history from his own failed board presidency have worn thin. Komrosky even told parents he would no longer communicate with them due to what they posted about him online — a blatant dismissal of public accountability.
Despite holding a Ph.D. and having years of board experience, Komrosky seems to have learned little. His bullying behavior, lack of leadership, and failure to support student-centered initiatives firmly place him at the bottom of this month's rankings.
Jen Wiersma — Grade: F
Wiersma continues to confuse her role as a trustee with that of a social media influencer. She frequently appeared unprepared, lost track of the agenda, and followed Komrosky’s lead on nearly every issue — including her refusal to serve on committees unless he was also appointed.
Her behavior has been contradictory and dramatic. When challenged with facts, Wiersma often cries “retaliation” and plays the victim — a pattern that distracts from board responsibilities. Particularly disturbing was her role in the public bullying of a middle school student, a violation of basic ethics and decency, especially from someone entrusted with student welfare.
Wiersma’s lack of independent thought, unprofessionalism, and failure to contribute meaningfully to policy make her one of the board’s most problematic members.
Steven Schwartz — Grade: B+
Trustee Schwartz has remained one of the few voices of professionalism and policy focus on the board. A California School Boards Association (CSBA) delegate, Schwartz routinely updates the public on legislative matters impacting the district and checks legal issues in advance to avoid complications.
He continues to prioritize students and teachers, speaking thoughtfully on academic issues. However, his choice to respond publicly to sexual harassment allegations — which an investigation found to be unsubstantiated and possibly fabricated — may have played into the hands of those looking to provoke him.
While his frustration is understandable, Schwartz is most effective when he avoids personal conflict and keeps the focus on policy. Even so, he remains the highest-performing trustee this month by a wide margin.
Can Divided Trustees Regain the Community’s Trust?
September’s report card paints a troubling picture of a school board deeply divided and often disconnected from its mission. With only one trustee demonstrating consistent professionalism and commitment to student success, it’s no surprise that community confidence in the board continues to erode.
While OneTVPAC acknowledges the difficult political climate, elected officials are expected to rise above personal feuds and focus on their core responsibility: ensuring every student in TVUSD has access to a safe, high-quality education.
As the board moves into October, the question remains: Will trustees put aside their egos and finally put students first?
