TVUSD Board to discuss controlling graduation ceremonies, wasting more money on ineffective legal firm
TVUSD board continues to focus on trivial agenda items while ignoring the job of trustee
1TVPAC Team
TEMECULA — The Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) Board of Trustees is set to convene on Tuesday, June 10, for a meeting heavy with policy revisions, budgetary maneuvers, and controversial legal agreements — continuing what many parents and community observers see as a politicized drift away from student-centered governance.
Among the most scrutinized items on the agenda is a proposed revision to Board Policy 5127: Graduation Ceremonies and Activities.
This revision comes on the heels of a complaint by a parent regarding the lineup of speakers at Temecula Valley High School’s graduation ceremony — which featured nearly a dozen student speakers, chosen by the students at the school, along with faculty and the principal. TVHS’s valedictorian and salutatorian were not chosen to speak.
Sources tell us that the school’s ASB team, in conjunction with school administrative leadership, chooses the speakers for graduation each year. The structure for choosing student speakers has been in place for “quite a few years,” according to the source.
The policy, clearly written in response to the one complaint, is objectively seen as a politically charged, knee-jerk response and an attempt to control students.
Here is how the proposed policy change reads:
“This policy affirms the district’s commitment to objective, merit-based selection and to eliminating subjective decisions made by staff or committees that may result in perceived favoritism or nepotism. The practice of selecting speakers outside of clear academic or elected leadership roles has caused division among families and eroded trust in the fairness of school celebrations.”
“Graduation is a formal academic ceremony. It is traditional across the state and nation for the valedictorian to serve as the principal student speaker. Temecula Valley USD will uphold this longstanding academic tradition in the interest of consistency and excellence.”
The policy revision was brought forth by Board President Dr. Melinda Anderson and Board Clerk Emil Barham.
“This is the board saying, ‘listen, we know better than you,’ and we’re in charge here,” One Temecula Valley PAC contends.
“It sets a terrible precedent that harkens back to the previous majority of Komrosky, Wiersma and (then) Danny Gonzalez that saw them do little else but create culture war battles from the dais. And all they did was spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money for bad policies that couldn’t stand up to legal challenges, divided the community, threatened students, and seriously damaged the reputation of the district.
“Are we headed back to those days? Has the current board majority given up on their commitment to good governance and focusing on educating kids?”
Even more striking is the board’s continued — and expanding — reliance on outside law firms. Item N.41 on the consent calendar approves legal services from Advocates for Faith and Freedom, the same firm that represented the district in the now-infamous Mae v. Komrosky case.
The current board majority recently voted to end the case and settle with the plaintiffs, after a disastrous appellate court appearance, and approved a $50,000 payout to Advocates for Faith and Freedom.
The previous board majority originally claimed the firm’s representation was "pro bono," but the contract’s terms made it clear that any settlement would cost the district a significant fee — at this point an estimated $175,000 — an issue critics call both misleading and fiscally irresponsible.
Recontracting the firm for more work at a rate of $250 per hour, considering their track record of ineffectiveness, seems misguided and wasteful.
“This district is spending more time and money on lawsuits and ideological battles than on improving outcomes for students,” One Temecula Valley PAC said. “There’s a difference between defending the district and using legal counsel to push a political agenda — and Joe Komrosky and Jen Wiersma continually pressure the board majority to engage legal firms in hopes of furthering their political motivations.
“The board majority should finally put their foot down and put an end to the wasteful political maneuvering using politically motivated legal firms.”
The meeting also includes the introduction of Amended Board Policy 9150, regarding student board member roles, and several substantial financial actions — including construction management agreements, tech subscription renewals, and the 2025-26 Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) public hearing.
A slew of academic software contracts — such as those with Imagine Learning, Magic School AI, and Canvas — are also up for renewal.
Despite the loaded agenda, many contentious items remain buried within the consent calendar — a section typically passed with a single vote and minimal discussion — including the $50,000 payout to Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a new non-landline emergency phone system pilot from a new vendor, and construction authorization without board approval between meetings
In information and reports, the board will consider a change to the role of the school board’s student representative, submitted by Anderson, which essentially strips the board representative of any significant role, despite the board’s statements just weeks ago.
The current policy reads: “Student Board member(s) shall be recognized at Board meetings as full member(s), shall be seated with other members of the Board,...”
The new policy takes away the following: “and shall be allowed to participate in questioning witnesses and discussing issues.”
Then Anderson adds, “The role of student board members during the meeting shall be limited to ceremonial and supportive functions. This includes announcing the student leading the Pledge of Allegiance and presenting a thank-you certificate, announcing student and association spotlights, and announcing the public comment section designated for student speakers.”
This is essentially a bait-and-switch by Anderson, telling students they would be a valuable asset to the board just weeks ago, now stripping any significant duties from the student representative who went through a qualifying process in order to obtain the seat.
Furthermore, we question why Komrosky and Wiersma have yet to present on their trip to Washington D.C. more than a month ago for the Coast2Coast Federal Advocacy Trip. The presentation was agendized at the last board meeting, apparently mistakenly, and put off to a later date.
We believe that because taxpayer monies were spent to facilitate their attendance, Komrosky and Wiersma should present their activities while in Washington D.C. and justify the benefit to the district, and the rest of the board, for sending them on the trip.
The board recently amended a policy to require teachers and staff to not only present what they learned when they travel to conferences, but also include how they will use what they learned in the classroom/their role at TVUSD.
Why do Wiersma and Komrosky require things of TVUSD staff that they refuse to do themselves? And why does the rest of the board refuse to demand it of them?
It is our contention that the TVUSD School Board had vanquished much of the financial and structural damage that the previous board majority had inflicted upon the district — but this agenda shows that Anderson, Barham, and Schwartz are once again getting sucked into the politically motivated chaotic whims of Komrosky and Wiersma.
Continuing to attempt to pacify Komrosky and Wiersma with culture war-motivated policy revisions that are outside of their purview and kicking the can down the road on poor decisions by allowing politically motivated law firms to attempt to write illegal policy resolutions is wasteful and foolhardy.
Focusing on educating students, providing the best opportunities for our students, and doing so responsibly, while leaving personal politics at the door, is the only way TVUSD can regain its status as one of the top districts in the State of California. The Temecula community is asking for this current board to actually do the job of trustee, something we haven’t seen a board do in almost three years. It’s time.
The June 10 meeting will be held at the TVUSD Conference Center, with closed session beginning at 4:00 p.m. and open session at 5:30 p.m.
Read the entire agenda here: https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/SB_Meetings/ViewMeeting.aspx?S=36030186&MID=38308
