Public commenters accuse board of displacing adult special‑education program and potential conflicts over Da Vinci schools

Three members of the public used the meeting’s public‑comment period to urge accountability over district decisions affecting special‑education services and to raise ethics concerns.

Grace Bader told the board the Wiseburn community “deserves accuracy, transparency, and accountability” and said the district’s June 9 public statements conflicted with documentary evidence. "The Futures Plus program was in fact pushed out by this board," Bader said, adding that the physical building that housed the adult special‑education transition program “was demolished to make way for a sports field,” and that Da Vinci schools assumed operational responsibility to avoid service loss. Bader said those affected students “are not simply accessories to be moved around” and urged the board to prioritize their needs.

Jeannie Agar, who identified herself during remarks, reiterated a separate set of allegations about potential conflicts of interest. She said board president Roger Banwellis and Trustee Nelson Martinez both hold executive roles at Element Consulting and that their corporate résumés claim they were founders of the Da Vinci charter schools. "Their founder claims are false," Agar said, and she argued that continued board oversight of the Da Vinci schools by people who present themselves as founders would create a conflict that could violate Wiseburn School Board bylaw 9270. Agar said she has filed a Brown Act notice and an ethics complaint with the district and said she will return to future meetings with additional documentation.

Neither allegation prompted a board response during the public‑comment period; board members noted the Brown Act limitation on responses during that portion of the meeting. The transcript does not record a staff rebuttal or a formal board action addressing the specific claims during this session.

What happens next: Agar said she filed formal complaints; the district did not announce any immediate internal findings or independent review during the meeting. Board members may place the complaints or related items on a future agenda for formal consideration.

Why it matters: Both commenters framed their remarks as questions about whether district governance and facilities decisions have prioritized certain programs or created ongoing oversight conflicts. The claims combine program‑placement and ethics concerns that, if pursued, could trigger internal investigations or legal review. The Brown Act constraint on responses meant the allegations went unanswered in real time, leaving the record limited to the commenters’ statements at this meeting.

The board proceeded with its published agenda after public comment and did not take action on the complaints during this meeting.