Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Murrieta Valley Unified board votes 3–1 to join amicus brief after heated public opposition
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment objecting to the short notice, potential fundraising language and diversion of classroom resources, Murrieta Valley Unified’s board approved an attorney engagement agreement to join an amicus brief, 3–1.
The Murrieta Valley Unified Board of Education voted 3–1 on Sept. 17 to approve an attorney engagement agreement (item E1) that adds the district’s name to an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, overriding repeated public pleas to delay or reject the move.
Board President Nicholas Parteu opened the special meeting at 5:00 p.m., announced the session was livestreamed and noted that Trustee Munoz had resigned earlier in the week, leaving four members present. The board approved the meeting agenda by motion before hearing public comment.
Nut graf: Dozens of parents, teachers and staff urged the board not to sign on, saying the district should prioritize classroom needs — smaller class sizes, special education supports and facility fixes — over a high-profile legal filing. Many commenters said the item was placed on the agenda with insufficient notice and raised past examples where other districts incurred substantial legal bills after hiring the same outside counsel.
Public commenters repeatedly told the board it was putting politics ahead of students. “You want us to sign on blind. You want this district to put our name out there on a nationwide level with this kind of ridiculousness,” Emily Brooks said, criticizing what she called last-minute timing and alleging political motives. Multiple teachers said the district faces overcrowded classrooms and funding shortfalls and warned that any legal engagement could divert dollars from classrooms.
Speakers also flagged contract language that — in earlier drafts — said the client would “make a good faith effort to help raise money to support this case among others.” Commenters said that provision risked turning district staff into fundraisers; board materials presented at the meeting were amended that afternoon to remove or reword the fundraising language, commenters said. “This contract contains a provision for the [district] to raise money to support a private law firm,” one commenter said, urging the board to table the item.
Board defenders said signing an amicus brief is a way to place the district’s view before the Supreme Court without initiating litigation or incurring litigation fees. In describing the vote, a trustee said the district’s participation required no filing fee and framed the action as protecting girls’ sports and Title IX rights.
In roll call, Nancy Young voted no; Nick Bardu, Mrs. Briggs and Mrs. Schmidt voted yes. The motion carried, 3–1. The board adjourned shortly after the vote at 6:04 p.m.
What’s next: The engagement authorizes the district to be listed on an amicus brief; it does not, on its face, open immediate litigation. Commenters asked for a neutral education-law review of any contract language that could create financial obligations, and several urged the board to refocus on classroom priorities. The board did not announce any immediate additional financial commitments at the meeting.
Sources: Transcript of the Murrieta Valley Unified Board of Education special meeting (Sept. 17).
