Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Political Activity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Murrieta Valley Unified board tables probe after public alleges campaign activity at district event
Summary
After multiple public commenters alleged that a CSSEA chapter meeting on district property was used to promote school-board campaigns, the Murrieta Valley Unified School District board voted to table a policy discussion and asked legal counsel to review the matter in closed session.
The Murrieta Valley Unified School District Board of Education on Sept. 12 voted to table a discussion about political activity after several members of the public alleged that a union meeting in August used district facilities and time to promote school-board campaigns.
Jonathan Pearl, the district counsel, urged caution and recommended a closed-session legal review, saying: “my recommendation would be that the board table this item for now” and that the board “meet in closed session to hear from legal counsel first” before resuming the public discussion. The board approved a motion to table and directed staff and legal counsel to pursue follow-up steps.
Public commenters described the same August 13 meeting of a CSSEA chapter and accused attendees and at least one board member of campaign activity on school property. Jose Careno, a community member, told the board the meeting “shifted the intention of the meeting from a business meeting to actually being politically motivated during school hours,” and said speakers circulated signup sheets and urged volunteer support for candidates.
Speakers and several callers cited Administrative Regulation 4119 and California Education Code provisions they said prohibit use of district resources for campaigning. One commenter read AR 4119 aloud and cited Education Code sections 7054 and 7056 and Government Code 834, arguing the public deserves an explanation of any district staff or trustee role at the meeting. The district’s board attorney noted possible criminal as well as civil consequences under the cited statutes, and advised that legal fact-finding be conducted before further public action.
Board President Diffley and other trustees said they wanted a deliberate, legally informed approach rather than an immediate vote in open session. Multiple speakers in the audience had asked for accountability if the allegations proved true; trustees said they would not jump to conclusions while legal counsel clarified the applicable laws and facts.
What happened next: the board voted to table the G11 discussion item and to place the matter on the agenda for a closed-session legal briefing. Trustees did not adopt disciplinary actions or findings at the meeting and gave no timetable for when the closed-session review would conclude.
The board received additional written and oral public comments during the meeting alleging improper political activity; the district indicated staff will follow up and that the board expects a legal briefing before any further public deliberation.
