Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press board for transparency on repeated superintendent evaluations and clarify recall support
Summary
Multiple public speakers criticized repeated superintendent evaluations on the agenda and urged transparency; some callers supported a recall petition while others defended Superintendent Walker. Christine Turner said she did not initiate the recall but signed the petition; teacher speakers cited Brown Act safe‑harbor concerns.
Several members of the public used the meeting’s comment period to press the Adelanto board for transparency around repeated evaluations of Superintendent Dr. Walker and to clarify their positions on an ongoing recall petition.
Fifth‑grade teacher Kimberly Smith criticized the recurring agenda appearance of superintendent evaluations and urged the board to include the statutory 'safe harbor' language required under the Brown Act so the public understands what is being discussed in closed session. Smith said the pattern of repeated evaluations risks sending the wrong message to staff and the community and asked the board to establish a clear, timely evaluation calendar.
Other speakers amplified the concern. Bev Toney said the Brown Act exists to keep local government accountable: "The Brown Act is about the truth, plain and simple," she said, and urged the board to avoid doing business behind closed doors.
Remote speaker Lauren Benson strongly defended Dr. Walker and told trustees they should "let her do her job," arguing repeated evaluations are interfering with district business and praising the superintendent’s leadership.
Christine Turner addressed a prior public comment that said she had initiated a recall of Trustee Michael Krause. Turner said she did not file the recall but confirmed she signed the petition and supports its goals; she urged anyone who filed the recall to refile correctly and transparently if they wish to proceed.
Why it matters: Public comments reflected a divided community about board oversight and the superintendent’s tenure. Speakers pressed legal transparency (Brown Act obligations) and procedural clarity, and some statements—both critical and supportive—could influence trustees’ next steps.
The board did not take immediate action during the public‑comment period on the recall or on changing evaluation scheduling; trustees and legal counsel later reiterated procedural constraints on making motions during public comment.
