TVUSD School Board Meeting Recap – March 11, 2025
A Night of Agreement, Division, and Unnecessary Distractions
1TVPAC Team
TEMECULA — On March 11, the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) Governing Board convened for its regular meeting, addressing key district matters. While trustees found common ground on important labor agreements and salary adjustments, the meeting was also riddled with unnecessary distractions — namely, partisan grandstanding, religious justifications, and debates that have little to do with student success.
Progress Where It Matters: Agreements on Employee Contracts
Despite frequent divisions among trustees, the board managed to reach unanimous agreement (5-0) on several crucial items:
Labor Agreements – The board ratified tentative agreements with the Temecula Valley Educators Association (TVEA) and the California School Employees Association (CSEA), ensuring fair wages and benefits for the district’s teachers and classified staff.
Classified Substitute Salary Schedule – A revised salary schedule for classified substitutes was approved, making the district more competitive in attracting substitute staff.
These votes were the high points of the evening—decisions that actually impact the quality of education in TVUSD. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the meeting was taken up by debates that had little to do with students or schools.
Partisan and Religious Rhetoric Has No Place in Public Education
A troubling trend has emerged in TVUSD board meetings: some trustees continually attempt to infuse partisan ideology and religious beliefs into district governance. School board positions are non-partisan by law — yet Trustees Jen Wiersma and Joe Komrosky frequently blur the line, bringing their personal political and religious views into discussions that should focus solely on education.
Wiersma stated: “It has been said that school board is non-partisan. Nothing is non-partisan anymore.” This statement is false. School board positions are non-partisan for a reason — to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of all students, not just those who share a particular political or religious ideology.
Trustee Emil Barham reinforced the inappropriate nature of these discussions by stating, “People vote, but God puts us in these seats.” Public education is a secular institution, and governance should be based on facts, policies, and educational best practices — not personal religious beliefs.
These comments are a disservice to students, parents, and educators who come from diverse backgrounds. TVUSD serves a broad community, and public schools must remain neutral on religion and politics to ensure all students feel welcomed and supported.
Civility Policy Debate: 28 Minutes Wasted with No Outcome
One of the more frustrating moments of the evening was an extended, unproductive debate over a proposed Civility Policy — a policy meant to promote respectful discourse among board members and the public.
Trustee Jen Wiersma introduced edits to Policy 1313, citing the need for updated language.
Public speakers raised concerns about the addition of the phrase “religious bigotry,” noting that this term has historically been weaponized to exclude or marginalize LGBTQ+ students.
President Melinda Anderson asked to add some amendments to the policy, four in total and prefaced her suggestions with a statement and a question for Wiersma.
“I'm concerned that the policy you're suggesting conflicts with some of your own actions,” Anderson said. “I've noticed several instances in which your actions such as calling fellow board members a liar in public and in private making serious and unfounded harassment accusations against colleagues and criticizing other board members on social media seem to contradict the principles outlined in this policy. It feels contradictory to push for a policy about civility when your own actions don't reflect that standard.”
Anderson then offered her first amendment to the policy.
“The governing board expects all members to act with honesty and respect filing false claims of child abuse with child protective services or making baseless allegations against fellow board members is unacceptable and harmful to the trust and professional needed professionalism needed for effective government,” she read. “Board members must ensure that any claims are based on facts false accusations of child abuse or attempts to damage the reputation of other board of others through such claims will not be tolerated and may result in disciplinary action according to district policies.”
Komrosky interjected.
“Are you accusing Mrs. Wiersma of calling Child Support Services on you?” he said.
“I'm not accusing her, I'm making the statement,” Anderson said.
“Do you have a problem with that amendment?” Anderson asked. “Because I don't know who made the false accusation, I actually don't, but I do have specific language that points me in the direction of who made the accusation.”
Komrosky asked if Anderson could make that language public, but Anderson said the issue was still under investigation, so she could not.
Anderson said that if the investigation “pointed back to board members,” she wants it to be in policy.
“The Governing Board expects all members to act with honesty and respect making false claims of sexual harassment or other misconduct is harmful to the trust and professionalism …” Anderson began on her second amendment, before Wiersma asked for a point of order.
“This feels punitive and targeting and if in closed session with what we discussed there are things still to be determined,” Wiersma said. “I think it's highly inappropriate to be going into these amendments. I think we need this first read to be closed….”
“No, I want to finish my amendment,” Anderson interjected. “Does the board want me to finish my amendments or stop?”
“I feel like you’re harassing a board member,” Komrosky said.
Trustee Steve Schwartz added to the discussion.
“Based on the excuse me based on the volume of anonymous emails that I've received accusing me of all kinds of disgusting things I agree with you 100%,” he said. “And if I do find out who those people are ….”
Members of the audience snickered, disrupting the meeting.
“We do know who some of them are,” Anderson said. “So, keep laughing.”
“I think it's disgraceful that you can't come out in the open and say what's on your mind you have to hide behind a false identity,” Schwartz said. ”I'm not even going to name them because those people know who they are.”
Anderson read her final amendment to the policy.
“The governing board expects all members to act with honesty and integrity and respect for their fellow board members both within the boardroom and in public forums,” she read. “Spreading gossip, false information or engaging in personal lobbying campaigns damages the reputation of fellow board members and undermines the trust and professionalism needed in effective government. Board members shall not engage in spreading gossip or false statements about other board members at public events and community groups such as MTRA or the Temecula Republican Women's luncheons or through any other communication channels.
“Additionally board members are prohibited from hosting or participating in personal phone-a-thons or similar efforts aimed at spreading misinformation about other board members.”
Komrosky asked what the disciplinary action would be, saying they are elected officials, implying they aren’t accountable, even to each other as a governing body.
“Are you worried that you’re going to be under disciplinary action?” Anderson responded.
“This is beyond the pale,” Komrosky said. “I personally think your actions as a board president are reckless and you literally should be held accountable.”
His comments seemed to run contrary to the statement he made just seconds before regarding elected officials.
“I would never fathom in a million years talking like this to fellow board members,” Komrosky said, conveniently forgetting the nearly year and a half of dismissive, insulting remarks and comments made toward board members Schwartz and former Trustee Alison Barclay prior to his recall from office.
The board moved on from the subject without resolution.
Public Comments Debate: A Misguided Priority
Another unnecessary distraction was the continued push by Wiersma to move general public comments to the beginning of board meetings. This has been proposed and shot down multiple times before, yet it continues to take up board meeting time.
Currently, public comments on agenda items already take place before the board votes on those items. What Wiersma proposed would only impact general public comments (comments on non-agenda topics), which are currently held at the end of meetings to allow board business to proceed efficiently.
Wiersma suggested a 20-minute time limit at the start of meetings, allowing only 10 speakers at 2 minutes each. Any additional speakers would have to wait until the end of the meeting.
The majority of the board opposed this change, as it would not improve transparency or community engagement.
“We are not here to determine who gets to be heard and who doesn't,” Wiersma said.
Anderson took issue with Wiersma’s insinuation that moving general public comments to the end of the meeting is somehow disrespectful to the public.
“I have not limited any public comments, I have only reordered the agenda to prioritize public comment related to business first,” she said. “By placing general public comment at the end of the meeting we prioritize public comments directly related to agenda items consent action and information. This ensures public feedback on specific items being discussed is addressed in real time. While general comments which do not pertain to agenda items are kept separate to avoid distracting from focused discussions.
“I'm a business woman, this is a business decision, it has nothing to do with politics. I want an efficient meeting and I respect all public comments. I have not limited nor have I ever thrown out a person, a public person that wants to speak … so I'm not trying to limit comment, I've just reorganized it into what I see is a more business-like, efficient way.”
This discussion wasted 14 minutes and ultimately resulted in no action, further demonstrating the board’s tendency to rehash the same non-issues instead of focusing on students.
Curriculum Concerns: Manufactured Outrage Over a Math Problem
A social media controversy spilled into the board meeting over a math problem in the district’s Financial Life Cycle Mathematics Workbook. The problem asked students to analyze a hypothetical “deal with the Devil” mathematically — ultimately revealing that it’s a bad deal.
Some community members (and Trustees Komrosky and Wiersma) found the problem offensive, though it was a clear exercise in logic and critical thinking.
Trustee Barham called out Komrosky for focusing on “the political statement we can post” rather than looking for real solutions for students.
“It seems that some inappropriate math questions were assigned to a class of 11th grade students,” Barham said. “The principal and district staff were notified and we are looking into this matter. Please be patient while the investigation is conducted.
“Our investigation revealed that this book went through all appropriate channels for a textbook. Our curriculum team reviewed this book and these questions were inadvertently overlooked. It was also approved by the board that also missed these questions in their review. The teacher that assigned these homework problems assumed that they were appropriate in nature as this is an approved text, but did not review the questions prior to assigning them, and that is true.
“We acknowledge that these problems were missed by layers of our organization. We are reviewing all curriculum approval processes.”
“This teacher did nothing wrong here.”
Barham then asked Komrosky to change or take down a post Komrosky made on the subject.
Instead of discussing how to improve student outcomes in math, the board spent time entertaining manufactured outrage over a couple of questions in a workbook.
Final Thoughts: TVUSD Deserves Better Governance
While progress was made on important issues — like labor agreements and substitute pay — far too much time was wasted on ideological debates, religious rhetoric, and partisan posturing.
School boards should be focused on education. Discussions about President Trump, religion, and conservative identity have no place in public education governance.
Civility and professionalism matter. If the board can’t even conduct itself with respect, how can they expect students to do so?
Public school governance should serve all students. The board must prioritize the needs of students, teachers, and staff over social media soundbites and political performances.
As the community looks ahead, it’s critical to hold school board members accountable for focusing on what truly matters: the education, safety, and well-being of Temecula’s students. Anything less is a failure of leadership.
