Board votes to release investigative report to two involved trustees with names redacted

The Temecula Valley Unified School District Board on June 10 voted in closed session to waive attorney-client privilege and release a third-party investigative report to the two board members who were the subjects of the probe, with redactions for legal counsel and certain third parties.

The board's legal counsel explained the legal consequences of waiving privilege: once privilege is waived for the document it may be subject to further public disclosure and could expose confidential attorney communications. "Any waiver of the attorney client privilege at this time will subject the report and its contents to future disclosure," attorney Carrie McNally told the board.

The board considered three options: disclose the full report unredacted; waive privilege for the report but redact counsel's statements; or retain the report entirely under attorney-client privilege. The motion approved by the board used the second approach: the district will waive privilege to allow the two involved trustees to receive the report but will redact the identities of legal counsel, mediators, staff and consultants, except for the individuals identified in a photograph referenced by trustees.

According to the meeting readout of closed-session actions, the motion to waive privilege and release the redacted report was moved and seconded and "the motion passes 3 to 1 with Mrs. Wiersma not being present." The roll-call sequence in open session confirmed the boardaction. Board members said they were trying to balance the involved trustees' ability to review underlying evidence with the district's need to preserve confidential attorney communications where appropriate.

Trustees raised concerns during the public portion of the meeting about the timing and whether the three remaining board members had time to review the full, unredacted document before deciding to waive privilege. Some trustees urged tabling the waiver until uninvolved members could review the report; others said litigation over privilege could be expensive and the report would likely reach outside counsel through court processes even if the board withheld it.

The board's action directs staff and legal counsel to produce the redacted report for the two trustees identified in the motion and to note that redaction of counsel statements was part of the decision. The district legal office told the board it would circulate the redacted document as directed and that any further disclosure obligations would depend on subsequent legal developments.