TVUSD School Board Meeting on March 25: Trustees Go Off-Topic

1TVPAC Team

TEMECULA — The Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) Board of Trustees gathered on March 25 for their regular board meeting, but rather than sticking to the agenda and maintaining a professional atmosphere, a significant portion of the meeting was marked by off-topic discussions.

On several agenda items the trustees, especially Wiersma and Komrosky, strayed from the topic, bringing up issues that, while vaguely related, were not part of the item. This behavior disrupted the flow of the meeting and significantly extended the meeting time.

Members of the public who speak at board meetings on agenda items are expected to remain on topic during their comments. It is only during the general public comments part of the agenda where members of the public can speak on any topic, similar to the board trustee closing comment part of the agenda, both currently held at the end of the meeting. When each was in the role of board president, Trustees Komrosky, Wiersma, and Anderson have interrupted or redirected public speakers who stray off topic. But at this meeting, those board members clearly felt that the same rules do not apply to them.

Trustee Wiersma continually addressed issues outside the narrow scope of agenda items, commenting on public comments, her use of lawyers, and other unrelated topics. In an agenda item to approve a salary schedule for administrative positions (not individual employees’ salaries), both she and Trustee Komrosky digressed with personal opinions about pay, bonuses, and reviews for the superintendent and cabinet. None of which was appropriate for the agenda item or was relevant to the vote the board needed to make.

Board President Dr. Anderson did not remind fellow trustees what the agenda item was about or bring them back to discuss it. As another example, one agenda item was a vote to require district attorneys to email a summary of any opinion/decision to all five board members, with copies to the superintendent and appropriate executive cabinet members. But Dr. Anderson allowed a lengthy and heated discussion about when and how trustees can talk to lawyers, and a deep dive on a specific issue Dr. Komrosky wanted to contact an attorney about. 

Had a member of the public brought up those extraneous issues during a comment on this agenda item, all five trustees would have been quick to stop them. And appropriately so. When the board is discussing an agenda item, especially one that requires a vote, the commentary and discussion by members of the public as well as the board should stay on topic, professional, appropriate, and relevant to the matter at hand.

Why are members of the public held to higher standards than board members? Board members are elected by the public, answer to the public, and are paid a stipend out of taxpayer dollars. They should be held to the same—or a higher—standard of conduct as the voting, taxpaying public.

The frequent interruptions and arguments resulted in an unprofessional atmosphere and detracted from district business, frustrating other board members and members of the public who expected focused, efficient discussion. Several residents spoke during the public comments section, noting the board’s disorganization and lack of professionalism.

The time wasted on off-topic discussions also meant that important agenda items were rushed or left off the agenda entirely. For example, the public would have liked to hear a report on the girls’ field hockey resolution (how it would be funded, staffing, access to facilities), but instead the board went down rabbit-hole discussions that weren’t even on the agenda. The long meeting and self-aggrandizing remarks from certain board members undermined the board’s ability to address pressing issues effectively.

While trustees are entitled to voice their opinions, they are expected to follow the structure and priorities set by the meeting’s agenda. As elected officials, they should set an example of decorum and focus. Public meetings like this are an opportunity for transparent decision-making, and for those who attend, the expectation is that the conversation will remain relevant, efficient, and respectful. When it does not, the board loses public trust and undermines the legitimacy of the meeting itself. 

The meeting adjourned later than scheduled, with several agenda items only partially addressed. Clearly a more disciplined, focused approach is necessary in future board meetings to ensure that everyone’s time is respected and the work of the district remains the central focus.