Recall Eckert effort falls short: Where GUHSD moves from here

By Alexander J. Schorr

November 24, 2025 (El Cajon) — The recall effort against trustee Scott Eckert on the Grossmont Union High School District Governing Board failed to meet the required amount of 9,600 signatures on Monday November 17, 2025. The grassroots effort needed signatures from 15% of registered voters in La Mesa to spur a recall action: volunteers who spoke with voters said most had not previously heard of the GUHSD board controversies which include mass firings of teachers and librarians, apparent violations of California’s open government law, allegations of conflicts of interest and misallocation of funds, as well as unethical campaign tactics.

The leader of the recall, Andy Trimlett, said that the recall team is ready to focus on the 2026 general election, and they hope to flip the board of its conservative block members. “Three of these board members are up for election in November 2026,” said Trimlett on social media. “It's time for them to go.”

The three up for reelection and likely to face stiff challenges in November 2026 are Robert Shield (Area 4), Jim Kelly (Area 5), and Gary Woods (Area 3). All three voted for controversial measures including mass firing of teachers and librarians, and against protections for immigrant students, among other issues that have generated public protests.

Eckert (Area 2), who voted with the majority on the mass firings, won’t be up for reelection until 2028, but could be vulnerable then. In 2024, Eckert’s main opponent, Jay Steiger, suffered from a “ghost candidate” who won close to 4,000 votes without launching a major campaign, ultimately splitting the vote in favor of Eckert with a margin of just 1,100 votes.

Incumbent  Chris Fite (Area 1) has been the lone dissenter voting against the firings, on opposite sites from the majority on an array of issues. He won’t face reelection until 2028, providing voters with an opportunity to shift the board majority at the ballot box next fall.

A Recap

The recall effort initially sought to target Woods, Shield and Kelly along with Eckert, but the prospect of gathering signatures over such a large geographic area proved daunting, prompting organizers to focus on Eckert. Community members allege that these trustees have engaged in numerous actions that breached public trust and potentially violated state law:

• Violations of the Brown Act: The Board has been reportedly conducting board business and plotting against employees and political opponents in private message chains outside of public meetings. Arranging for the promotion and hiring of allies, including the creation of a $187,000 Chief of Staff position for Jerry Hobbs, a central figure in the private discussions. When the Union-Tribune requested records, some trustees were initially evasive or produced incomplete records, suggesting an attempt to hide the extent of these communications.
• Conflicts of Interest: Allegations of “pay-to-play” schemes where a trustee voted to award funds to a campaign donor’s company. Trustees Kelly, Shield, Woods, and Eckert all accepted campaign donations from John Wayne Howard. These same trustees voted in favor of motions that resulted in over $600,000 in district funds being paid to Howard’s law firm for legal services. The board majority was also found to have used private text messages to discuss district matters and political strategy.
• Misappropriation of Funds: Creating a high-paid admission position for a political ally while simultaneously cutting essential positions like teacher-librarians and counselors. A major point of contention for many years was the board’s failure to build a promised high school in Alpine despite voters approving bond measures (Proposition H and U) for that purpose. The board also faced criticism for creating a new and high-paid “Chief of Staff” administrative position as well as hiring political ally Jerry Hobbs— a job that was created without public posting or interviews. Hobbs later resigned with a severance of $186,500 after past disciplinary issues.
• Unethical Campaign Tactics: The board has faced allegations of running “ghost” or “fake” candidates to take votes away from opponents of the board majority. The allegations stem from text messages and emails obtained through public records requests, in which an “inner circle” including Chief of Staff Jerry Hobbs discussed the plan and political strategy. The primary goal was to create “spoiler” candidates and siphon votes from the union-backed candidates, particularly from Jay Steiger and Chris Fite to ensure victory for Scott Eckert and Randall Dear. The three individuals identified as “ghost” candidates” were Marsha Christman, Azure Chrisawn, and Debra Harrington. These candidates reportedly had no campaign websites or social media presence, nor did they report any campaign contributions or expenditures, suggesting that they were not running legitimate campaigns.

It has been months since the news that the board laid off all district librarians and scrutiny of the scandal-bound board has raised public awareness on a growing litany of controversial actions. Multiple investigations from local news outlets unveiled alleged discrimination, cronyism, and retaliation against opponents and potential pay-to-play dealings, including an ECM investigation revealing ties to private schools or homeschooling businesses involving Woods, Shield and Eckert.

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has opened an investigation into Eckert’s vote to renew the contract of a prominent campaign donor. The FPPC is an independent and non-partisan body in California that administers and enforces the state’s political ethics and campaign laws. It was created by the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9), with its mission being to better promote transparency and public trust in state and local government.

Back in 2013, the FPPC found that Jim Kelly (as a candidate and officeholder) failed to timely file a sei-annual campaign statement for the period of January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012, and he was fined. While the FPPC has broad powers to investigate and enforce the Political Reform Act, any current investigations into the recent allegations against the board are internal and have been publicly disclosed until a formal enforcement action or decision is reached. The public can file concerns directly with the FPPC by their website enforcement section.