Public commenters accuse Inland Personnel Council and county oversight of conflicts, call for review

At the San Bernardino County Board of Education meeting on March 11, three public commenters accused the Inland Personnel Council (IPC) and connected district officials of influencing personnel investigations in ways that undermine teachers’ and students’ rights.

“On 11/01/2024, my very first day in my classroom, I was lacking staff and hot water in my classroom kitchen, which marginalized my students and put them in danger,” said Philip Costas, a former special‑education teacher contracted through SBCSS. Costas said his safety complaints escalated to a personnel investigation and alleged retaliation by county administrators, saying that whistleblowers were not treated fairly.

Another speaker, who identified herself as Antoinette, presented documents and alleged that IPC training and advisory roles across San Bernardino and Riverside counties raise conflicts of interest when those same networks also influence how complaints are handled. She said local examples and audits show inconsistent treatment and urged the board to examine past investigations and training materials.

Des Alvarez told the board he believes IPC has been part of a pattern of cover‑ups in multiple districts and cited public settlements and documentary coverage in support of his concerns. Alvarez named a former Redlands administrator and alleged the advisory structure created opportunities to mishandle abuse investigations.

Board and staff members did not dispute that serious allegations were raised. Angel Arrington, the county’s charter schools senior project manager, and other staff listening to public comment said the board should be attentive to claims involving child safety. "Today's comments are disturbing and I would like for us to do more homework into this," a board member said during member reports, adding she would bring the topic back on a future agenda for further inquiry.

The speakers’ remarks were framed as allegations and the board did not make factual findings at the meeting. No member of county staff or IPC leadership provided a public rebuttal during the session. The board asked staff to return with options for next steps, and several trustees said they would pursue procedural clarifications so allegations can be investigated within applicable law and personnel protections.

What happens next: Board members asked staff to prepare follow‑up material for a future meeting so trustees can consider whether formal review, a staff‑led audit, or referral to an outside investigator is appropriate.