Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historical Documents topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kern County Board postpones historical‑documents vote after packed public comment
Summary
After a closed session the board removed item 5.2 (a proposed display of historical documents including the Ten Commandments and a possible Liberty Council agreement) from tonight’s agenda. Dozens of speakers offered sharply divided views; board members urged further review before taking action.
The Kern County Board of Education announced after a closed session that it would not take up agenda item 5.2 — a proposed resolution and contract related to displaying historical documents, including the Ten Commandments — and that the matter will return for further investigation.
Public comment on the topic filled much of the evening. Opponents, including faith leaders, civil‑liberties advocates and Native American speakers, said the display would elevate one religious tradition in publicly funded schools and risk costly litigation. Audrey Chavez told trustees, “Don’t put the 10 Commandments in our public schools.” Sarah John, an intern with the ACLU of Southern California’s Bakersfield office, read a submitted letter urging the board not to proceed because the proposed action likely violates the religion clauses of the U.S. and California constitutions and could expose the district to high attorney fees.
Supporters of the proposal framed the documents as historical artifacts and argued they reflect legal and cultural roots. A public commenter who identified as Speaker 18 traced the Ten Commandments’ influence to English common law and historical textbooks, urging the board to present the documents as history rather than religious instruction.
Several speakers warned about the Liberty Council contract referenced in public materials. Sarah John said the ACLU’s submission also questioned a contract that would secure outside counsel for the board; she recommended the board seek indemnification from Liberty Council for any plaintiff fees as a condition of moving forward.
The board president told those who signed up for public comment that the topic had been removed from tonight’s agenda after closed session and that the Liberty Council matter was included in that postponement. Judge Robert Tafoya asked the board to attach the exact language of any future proposal when the topic returns so the public can review it in advance.
No board vote on the substance of the resolution or any contract took place tonight. Trustees gave mixed responses during member reports: some expressed support for including historical documents in schools as a reflection of founding values, while others emphasized the need to avoid actions that could be seen as endorsing a single faith. The board’s stated next step is further investigation and research before the item returns to a future agenda.
The board’s procedural action tonight — removing item 5.2 from the agenda — leaves open whether the item will be revised, refiled or withdrawn. The board did not set a date for when the topic will return.
