Parents, former staff allege special-education noncompliance, Medi‑Cal billing and abuse complaints at San Bernardino County board meeting

Three public speakers used the San Bernardino County Board of Education’s public‑comment period in August 2025 to make a series of allegations about special‑education practices in local districts, including claims of improper Medi‑Cal billing, withheld records and failures to follow mandated‑reporting rules.

Des Alvarez, a member of the public, told the board: “You show pictures of minority children and make it look like you care about us. But I don't believe you care about minorities, English language learners, or low income families. You just use them because you financially benefit from them, and you use them to make you look like you're a decent human being that cares.” Alvarez alleged that staff at the county office billed Medi‑Cal improperly and named an individual he identified as Rebecca Smith as a billing contact.

Antoinette Jensen said she was “exposing whistleblowing in this county where politics protect power and money comes before students,” and alleged campaign‑finance and conflict‑of‑interest problems involving county staff and contractors. Jensen told the board she had shared written complaints with members and said the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) had an open matter she referenced.

Whitney Nielsen identified herself as a cleared special‑education teacher who said she filed a Williams complaint and had reported suspected abuse while employed in Etiwanda. “My child was severely traumatized due to the failure of administrators at Tera Vista Elementary to follow mandated reporting laws and prioritize student safety,” Nielsen read from a written statement; she later said she was dismissed from Etiwanda and described herself as a “whistleblower.”

Speakers named specific people and organizations, including Etiwanda School District and the county office’s special‑education staff. The public callers described several processes they said they had used or sought — Williams complaints, state complaint channels and, in one speaker’s account, an FPPC referral — but they framed their statements as allegations and requests for accountability rather than as proven findings.

Board members later said during board reports that the Brown Act limits what they may say about non‑agenda items from the dais but that they take public complaints seriously. A board member said some of the emailed concerns had been referred to the county auditor to determine whether they fall within that office’s audit scope, and that other questions had been forwarded to the board’s legal counsel for consideration of what, if any, follow‑up the county office can provide.

No formal board action was taken at the meeting in response to the specific allegations raised during public comment. The speakers requested records and investigations; speakers identified existing complaint processes (Williams complaints and FPPC references) and said they had filed or were seeking filings with those offices. The meeting transcript shows the board did not dispute the existence of the public complaints and noted limits on the board’s authority to intervene in local district personnel matters.

The allegations involve matters that, according to the speakers, have been or could be taken to outside agencies (state complaint processes for schools, the FPPC for campaign/financial issues and Medi‑Cal billing review). The board itself did not announce investigations or findings at the meeting.

The county office’s superintendent and staff did not announce any independent findings at the meeting; members of the public and some board members said they would expect legal counsel, the county auditor and external agencies to be the appropriate next steps for fact‑finding.

What’s next: The speakers urged external review and public accountability; the board’s publicly stated response was limited to noting the constraints of open‑meeting law and to indicating staff or counsel would be consulted about scope and next steps. No vote or investigatory directive was recorded in the meeting minutes.