Kern County trustees hear debate over proposed display of historical documents including Ten Commandments

Trustees of the Kern County Office of Education on Wednesday heard extended public comment and a legal presentation about a proposed resolution to adopt a "historical documents" display that would include the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and other founding texts.

The proposal, presented remotely by Mariah Gondaro of Liberty Counsel, was introduced for discussion; trustees did not vote. Gondaro said Liberty Counsel prepared the draft resolution and offered to represent the county at no cost if a lawsuit follows. The board agreed to return the item for a formal vote next month after revisions and additional information are circulated.

The matter drew a mix of commenters during public comment. Reverend Angelo Frazier urged trustees to adopt the resolution as a recognition of what he described as the documents' historical relevance. Several other speakers including Laurie Braschler, Lindsay Parker and representatives of local groups urged caution. Braschler cited Stone v. Graham (1980) and provisions of the California Constitution and said displays that single out devotional texts can violate the Establishment Clause and state law. Brian Ocerio of Building Healthy Communities Kern said privileging one text risks making some students feel unwelcome and could harm student mental health and safety.

Gondaro told trustees the resolution as drafted aims to place the documents in common areas (for example, entryways) rather than classrooms and said Liberty Counsel has defended similar displays in prior cases. She cited U.S. Supreme Court decisions including McCreary County v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry and referenced a Ninth Circuit decision involving a display in Everett, Washington, as legal precedent she views as supportive. She also said Liberty Counsel has defended similar displays in Kentucky and Giles County, Virginia, and offered to provide case names and opinions to trustees.

Trustees asked a range of practical questions: whether displays would be inside buildings or at entrances, whether public funds would pay for plaques, how the resolution would be enforced across schools, and which district or county-run sites would be covered. Staff and Gondaro said displays have been privately funded in other jurisdictions but also sometimes paid for with public funds; Gondaro said the resolution is drafted with a stated secular purpose to reduce litigation risk. Trustees requested a list of schools under the county board's direct jurisdiction (including court and community schools and special-education sites), a corrected attorney engagement agreement, and a revised resolution that limits the scope to schools the county actually governs.

Trustees also asked that the public have an opportunity to review the revised draft before the next meeting. No motion or final action was taken; trustees directed staff to update the draft and return the item for formal consideration at the November meeting.

Gondaro provided contact information and said she would send case names and opinions to trustees upon request; trustees said staff would circulate those materials to the full board.

The debate will return to the board as a working document at the next meeting for formal discussion and possible adoption.