Parents, students press board to keep Tolleson district office as trustees record yes votes on relocation item

Board members of the Tolleson Union High School District heard more than a dozen public comments Tuesday night opposing a proposed relocation of the district office, but recorded yes votes when the board later acted on the agenda item tied to the move.

Community members, parents and students told the board the district office should remain in Tolleson, noting the office’s long history with the high school and raising concerns about spending priorities and campus conditions if leadership moved off the city’s campus.

Why it matters: Speakers said the proposed relocation touches community identity and district spending at a time when students report basic facility problems such as broken air-conditioning and long pick-up delays. Several commenters urged the board to spend district dollars on curriculum, student services and campus repairs instead of relocating central offices or on security equipment.

Public comments and concerns Susie Moreno told the board the district office “should stay in Tolleson as it has been since the high school was established in 1927,” and said her expectation was that the office remain part of the Tolleson campus rather than move elsewhere. A student speaker, identifying herself as a senior, asked why the district would move “a hundred years of history” away from Tolleson and tied the question to classroom conditions such as classrooms without working air-conditioning during the first month of school.

Another commenter who addressed the agenda item on budgeting said she was speaking about “action item 2 regarding budgeting and… to approve a district office in Glen,” and described the proposal as contrary to community expectations. Lisa Dailey and other speakers also criticized recent district spending decisions, including a reference to prior purchases of metal detectors, and urged funds be prioritized for instruction and student supports rather than what they described as security expenditures.

Board response and action Board President Sun opened the public participation period with the board’s procedures, set a two-minute time limit per speaker and reminded the public that some matters may not receive immediate answers because of legal or administrative constraints. After public comment concluded, board members recorded affirmative votes on the agenda item related to the district office move. The roll call in the transcript shows recorded “Yes” votes from board members listed as: Dr. Luna Menhena, Mr. Dale Blasio, Mr. Ortega Romero and Mr. Chapman. One board member afterward said they still had “serious concerns” about the decision.

What the transcript shows and does not The transcript contains sustained public opposition to moving the district office and multiple requests that the board prioritize campus repairs and curriculum funding. The meeting record includes a roll-call sequence with affirmative votes for the item; the transcript does not contain the full motion text for the agenda item as spoken on the record, nor does it show a formal mover/second on the floor in the excerpt provided. Exact budget amounts tied to the relocation were not specified in the public record excerpts.

Next steps and public outreach Board leaders invited constituents to use the district’s open-door policy and to submit emails or requests to meet with staff to discuss concerns. The transcript shows the board encouraged follow-up conversations but also emphasized it is sometimes legally constrained in public meetings from responding on particular pending or legally sensitive matters.

Ending The district will continue its agenda after the public-participation period; public commenters said they plan to pursue further engagement with trustees and district staff about the relocation and about campus maintenance and funding priorities.