Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge Brea Olinda USD to resolve football-eligibility dispute, question due process
Summary
At the Brea Olinda Unified School District board meeting, two public commenters asked the board to allow students back on the football team and said district procedures may not meet due-process requirements under the California Education Code; the board reported two closed-session stipulated expulsion agreements.
At Monday’s Brea Olinda Unified School District board meeting, community members urged the district to resolve a disputed football-eligibility decision and questioned whether the handling met legal standards for student due process.
Robin Crater, who identified herself as the grandmother and guardian of three district students, said two of her grandchildren were removed from the Brea High School football team following an off‑campus incident in May and that she had experienced anxiety and uncertainty while waiting for a formal outcome. “I have nothing in writing,” Crater said, adding that she received written correspondence only that morning from Superintendent Leon. She asked the district “to allow the boys to play and offer one of the boys support while doing so.”
Dr. Susan Newcomb, an educator and Brea resident, told the board she is “disappointed that a decision has not been reached” and said, according to her reading, “the due process in this matter appears to not meet the standards of due process outlined under California Ed code.” Newcomb warned that prolonged delays could effectively eliminate the students’ season and urged the board to seek clarity from administration and finalize a decision rather than leave families “in limbo.”
Board members reported closed‑session action earlier in the meeting. The board announced it had accepted stipulated expulsion agreements for two students, covering the 2024–25 school year; the readout said those agreements were acted on in closed session with motions reported as made by Becerra (with seconds by Flanders and by Lyons) and recorded votes of 5–0. The board did not discuss the underlying incidents in open session beyond the closed‑session readout.
The district did not announce any additional public action on the matter at the meeting; Crater said the case has been referred to legal review. The board’s public comment procedures were reiterated at the start of the meeting, and speakers were told staff would follow up on non‑agendized concerns.
