Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents ask Desert Sands board not to renew TA Learning Services contract, citing DEI and conflict-of-interest concerns
Summary
Several members of the public urged the board not to renew a $30,000 TA Learning Services contract (agenda item 25.7), citing concerns about diversity/equity/inclusion material, alleged conflict-of-interest and potential federal funding risk; no board action on the contract is recorded in the meeting minutes.
Multiple speakers used the public-comment period at the Feb. 18 Desert Sands Unified board meeting to oppose renewal of a contract with TA Learning Services (agenda item 25.7), calling the program divisive, raising legal and funding concerns, and alleging conflicts of interest.
John Parker, who identified himself as addressing item 25.7, said he believed the program “singles out a group of people” and urged the board not to renew the contract. He noted the $30,000 contract amount and said that while the dollar figure was small in the district’s overall budget, he was concerned about the principle and potential similar future contracts.
Kenneth Snell told trustees he had documented materials and archived web pages he said linked the contractor to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) content; he referenced a California Globe article and urged the district to remove DEI-related materials before an alleged federal compliance deadline. He also said he had archived evidence and offered to assist the district’s review.
Dory O’Toole echoed earlier concerns and specifically asked the board not to vote on item 25.7 that night. She raised a conflict-of-interest concern: that a trustee’s outside activities could create bias in contractor selection. She also questioned why any program described as supporting boys would exclude girls and said that, in principle, the contract should not be renewed.
Speakers repeatedly framed their objections around DEI or “CRT” language and around the $30,000 contract figure; some suggested the matter risked federal funding if DEI materials ran afoul of federal guidance, a claim raised by public commenters and not accepted or verified by district staff in the record.
The transcript does not show the board taking a vote on agenda item 25.7 during this meeting; commenters were given the public comment period to make their views known.
