Dozens of speakers during public comment described Phoebe Hearst Elementary School 's classroom culture and urged trustees to reinstate teacher Janine ("Miss") Rupert after the district transferred her following an incident involving removal of a strip of classroom carpet.

Amanda Panton, identifying herself as a Phoebe parent, called the board's decision "a calculated decision" and said the move had damaged trust between Phoebe families and the district. Student Nia Buford testified about "at least nine subs in six weeks" and said her class had not received graded assignments or consistent instruction since Rupert's removal. Retired teacher Shirley Finster and other speakers criticized the administration's response as a power play that punished both teacher and students; they argued the incident did not justify removing a teacher who "excelled" at engaging students.

Tyler Millsap, a former principal and district administrator, urged a restorative response and recounted a contrasting example in which a teacher repaid damages after a paint spill and remained at the site. He called the district's handling "illogical, unfair, and vindictive" and asked for a public rationale explaining how this case differed from others.

Speakers repeatedly alleged inconsistency in how similar actions were handled for other employees and asked the board to consider restorative justice approaches. Several student speakers implored trustees to prioritize continuity of instruction and a teacher's role as a mentor and role model.

Why it matters: The comments represent sustained community pressure on personnel decisions at a single site and show how disciplinary moves can become districtwide trust issues. Many speakers tied the disciplinary decision to broader concerns about equity, school culture and student support.

What the board heard: Requests for reinstatement or fuller public explanation for the transfer, and calls for restorative options rather than reassignment. Trustees did not take a personnel vote in open session; multiple community members asked for more transparent justification.

Provenance: Topic introduced at 00:25:38 (announcement of speakers) and covered through an extended sequence of public comments ending around 00:43:xx when consent agenda discussion began.