Temecula Valley Unified trustees hold governance workshop to rebuild trust, set meeting norms

Temecula Valley Unified School district trustees, Superintendent Dr. Woods and consultant Shapiro met in a Feb. 25 governance workshop to address lingering divisions on the board, review the district governance handbook and agree on several informal changes to meeting norms intended to improve trust and collaboration.

The workshop focused on board-superintendent roles, the elements of effective governance in the district handbook and steps trustees said they could take to reduce public friction. Facilitator Shapiro told trustees that “the success of the board and superintendent depends on earning and maintaining the trust of stakeholders,” and he led the group through Patrick Lencioni’s model of team dysfunctions to frame the conversation around trust, conflict, accountability and attention to results.

Why it matters: Trustees said public division and social-media disputes have damaged the board’s credibility with parents, staff and community members. Several trustees said restoring respectful, transparent processes is a prerequisite to making policy changes that have been controversial in the past, including parental-notification practices and a contested flag policy that several speakers linked to earlier legal and bargaining disputes.

Most of the session consisted of trustees describing priorities and sources of disagreement and then identifying procedural steps to reduce future conflict. Trustees reiterated overlapping priorities such as student achievement, school safety and fiscal responsibility while acknowledging disagreement about specific policies and past choices. Trustee Emile (first name used in the workshop) said he ran on “student achievement and academic growth,” adding that those outcomes should guide board decisions. Trustee Joseph said he places strong emphasis on parental empowerment and on “protecting the innocence of children,” and he said he would not compromise on parental-rights issues.

Several trustees and the facilitator raised procedural concerns that had contributed to the conflict: trustees said some decisions had moved forward without broad discussion, that multiple outside legal opinions had been consulted at different times, and that past process failures had left wounds within the board and the community. The transcript records claims about legal costs associated with earlier disputes; a trustee asserted that certain policy decisions had “cost the taxpayers $113,000,” while other trustees disputed parts of that account. Trustees agreed that future work should be more clearly tied to legal advice, executive staff input and deliberate stakeholder engagement (including through the LCAP process named in the governance handbook).

The workshop also included a sustained exchange about conduct among trustees and an allegation concerning an off‑dais comment that one trustee said she heard at a conference photograph. A trustee asked for a public apology; Trustee Steve Schwartz denied the claim and said he had written statements from other attendees who did not hear the remark. The facilitator and other trustees moved the group to a short recess after the exchange. The dispute was discussed in workshop comments and not resolved as a formal board action during the session.

On meeting norms, trustees reached informal consensus on several changes to the board’s meeting guidelines. The group agreed to add a no‑eating guideline for the dais, to allow breaks as needed during long meetings, and to discourage non‑essential texting during meetings while recognizing narrow exceptions for urgent personal or technical matters. Trustees also discussed better remote‑participation practices (for example, testing Zoom and alternative apps in advance or using messaging tools to coordinate during technical failures) so that members attending remotely do not disrupt business.

What the workshop did not produce: There were no formal motions or votes recorded on policy changes, disciplinary actions or new board rules during the workshop. Trustees discussed prior actions — including contested decisions that led to PERB (Public Employment Relations Board) proceedings and litigation over bargaining and parental‑notification issues — but the workshop itself produced direction for dialogue, not binding board action.

Trustees asked staff and each other to prioritize listening and to follow the governance handbook’s processes for stakeholder engagement and policy development. Facilitator Shapiro recommended professional development (CSBA’s governance training and other programs) and suggested that trustees use committee work to build shared expertise instead of trying to do everything as individuals.

The board adjourned the workshop at about 1:08 p.m. The board’s next regular open session was announced as scheduled for Feb. 25, 2024. The superintendent and staff were present for the workshop; trustees said they would return to the governance handbook in a future session to continue turning the workshop’s discussion into concrete procedures and possible handbook updates.

Ending: Trustees described the workshop as a first step toward repairing relationships and improving governance practices; no formal policy changes were adopted at the session and several trustees said follow‑up work with staff, legal counsel and the community would be necessary before any contested policies were revisited.