Printer-friendly version
By Alexander J. Schorr
“We need public school leadership that we can trust.” —Madeline McCurry-Schmidt, a La Mesa parent and graduate of a GUHSD school
A new promise to keep
July 25, 2025 (San Diego’s East County) -- All public boards in California are expected to follow the state’s open government laws. But explosive revelations based on public records published by the San Diego Union Tribunesuggested secret meetings and backroom deals involving several Grossmont Union High School district trustees. In response, on July 17, the GUHSD Governing Board took the unusual step of pushing a resolution to follow the Brown Act and district bylaws, which trustees approved unanimously.
“The Board unconditionally commits that it will cease and desist from the challenged past action,” said Board President Gary Woods. In spite of referencing alleged wrongdoing, Woods stated that there was “no conclusive evidence” for the board having committed Brown Act Violations, though recent revelations by the San Diego Union Tribune, CBS8, and MSN, suggest otherwise.
A briefing at Grossmont High School
Before the GUHSD meeting, and amid calls for the resignations of board members Gary Woods, Scott Eckert, Robert Shield, and Jim Kelly, there was a press conference hosted by Madeline McCurry-Schmidt, who addressed a lack of trust and transparency from the governing board towards community members.
Right screenshot: A recall petition for trustee Scott Eckert
“The majority block on the Grossmont School Board has left our schools without any campus librarians,” McCurry-Schmidt stated. “They have diverted school funds to pay off their allies and their own campaign donors.”
When Scott Eckert laid out his campaign, he accepted money from a local lawyer, one that had sided with the board majority. According to McCurry Schmidt, the firm helped to pay for and create “fake ghost candidates” against Scott Eckert’s political rival. Once Eckert won, he apparently voted to extend the district's contract and continue paying loans to John Howard’s Law Firm.
The San Diego Union Tribune dropped the news that the GUHSD trustees were involved in adding these “ghost candidates" in the November 2024 election to ensure that Scott Eckert would be ultimately elected. This was done to split the vote against his then opponent Jay Steiger.
The press conference preceded the actual board meeting at 6:00 PM, where community members encouraged the recall of four board members, with Scott Eckert being the primary target of late in the recall effort.
An erosion of trust
California government ethics and transparency experts said that the trustees’ texts and emails raise concerns as to whether the governing board members are acting in the public’s best interest, as well as how much of the board business is being conducted behind closed doors.
According to John Pelissero, a government ethics director at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, “these kinds of actions erode trust in the school board,” and that this “undermines their legitimacy in making policy for the school district.” The issue of the messages in question raise concerns over whether Grossmont Union trustees violated California open meeting laws.
At this point in time, it is well known that the conservative majority on the GUHSD governing board conducted privately board business while excluding certain trustees, texting and emailing one another to target individuals not loyal enough to them. The board majority referred to their individualized discussions as a “war room,” with a litany of messages disparaging teachers, staff, and students as being weaponized and indoctrinated by “DEI and LGBTQ and militant trans agenda.” The conservative board majority has had a history of distrust and disrespect towards gay and queer staff and community members, with no signs of change.
According to the Grossmont Education Association (GEA) Vice President Stephannie Macecca, “GEA is exploring every legal avenue for these Brown Act violations and these many plots by the board for district staff exploitation. We are very disappointed as a union they have shut us down and shut us out from involvement with the district. GEA has not been allowed to be a meaningful collaborator for over a year. In the spring of last year, they cut off all communication, and we have not been treated as a stakeholder at all. That is not a good practice— to silence and not listen to a stakeholder. This is an abuse of power as evidenced in these texts and emails.”
Rebuttal to the board’s resolution
Rachel McCurry expressed shame towards the board for being untrustworthy, mocking the governing board’s new resolution promising to now adhere to the Brown Act. In public comments, she told the board majority, “I am so ashamed of you. When I read those four Union -Tribune stories— two of them on the front page above the fold— I saw clear PROOF that you have done things that are immoral. I saw that you retaliated and punished a librarian teacher for donating money to the person who ran against Mr. Eckert.” She also referenced the covert meetings held behind the scenes to discuss board business as well, where they excluded trustee Fite.
McCurry, an educator, mother, and community member, stated that the board’s “promise” to be lawful was unserious. “It’s like a kindergartener saying ‘I'm sorry’. Are you going to pinkie-swear with all of us to be good from now on?”
Jason Balistreri blasted the board for betrayal of the community, calling the board “unethical governance.” Ballistreri stated that “Librarians were ignored, and consequently cut the next year,” all while referencing the board’s private texts and messages seeking retribution and the removal of “woke books.”
Additionally, among a handful of public speakers, Michelle Krug, a Democratic party community member, was not permitted to speak after submitting a late speaker card; the board majority walked out of the building following a gaveling for closed-session. This contrasts with the special board meeting on June 26, where a late attendee was permitted to speak on a closed-session item without a speaker card and for longer than the allotted time of three minutes.
A contentious meeting
Board President Gary Woods opened the meeting, where he assured that all viewpoints would be heard, then admonished the crowd present to be polite and respectful and avoid outbursts. Hethreatening to call recess or a removal of disruptive persons to assure a “safe and respectful environment for all participants.”
Screenshot, left: GUHSD board president Gary Woods asks crowd to avoid outbursts and assures that all voices will be heard.
The public voiced outrage throughout the meeting, however, but Woods ultimately did not remove anyone by the end of the meeting in spite of the warning. The board members requested that they and the community try to “work together” towards issues at hand, though those gathered who voiced frustration doubted their sincerity, such as the number of people who spoke directly to the board.
Greg Kelly, father of Maggie Kelly, a former student board member, warned against reckless spending of taxpayer dollars for new appointees and “cruel” cuts of librarians, teachers, and counselors. “The board is currently taking action to show favoritism and discrimination." Greg Kelly, a sponsor of the recall effort, alleged a conflict of interest for the board’s behavior, where taxpayer money was spent on apparent investigations of those they did not agree with in the school community, and partnered with key republican officials while punishing those who endorsed democratic ones.
Suzanne Sannwald, a West Hills teacher librarian until recent cuts, said the absence of librarians would degrade education and library services, particularly new and needed skills in handling Artificial Intelligence and data fluency. “School libraries will also be kept open with Library Tech. Did you know that librarians have wanted Library Techs for years— ever since we've been losing them due to attrition? They have been missing half of our team because a fully functioning library should have at least two full-time staff members… it's hard to handle it as a single person.”
The sentiment was carried on by community members, illustrating that because school starts in a few weeks, libraries will be empty “for the first time in decades.” The community encouraged the board to “cure and correct” where the cuts to librarians and staff are concerned, demanding that the board majority rescind the cuts and resign.
Chris Fite answers the community directly
Chris Fite, the only trustee who opposed the mass firings of teachers and other staffers, seemed to confirm many suspicions held by community members. Regarding the lack of transparency and actions of fellow trustees, he said, “These folks don’t have confidence in any of you.”
This statement reflects the outrage and pain expressed by community members amid the controversial firings of teacher librarians, psychologists, and counselors back in the February board meeting at El Cajon High School. The cuts themselves were still not rescinded after this meeting, and continues to be a hot button topic for community members amid growing distrust towards the governing board.
Additionally, Fite referenced the ambiguous and controversial alternative ethnic studies curriculum that board president Woods sought to perpetuate. The board has been putting off a vote for discussion or adoption of the program amid concerns for transparency and possible conflicts of interest, with the program being alleged to have been created by a libertarian think tank exposing excuses for slavery.
According to Fite, “There is no ethnic studies" for the upcoming school year. “If we had presented an alternative curriculum as the only one, would we have approved that for this year?”
Fite added to the distrust and animosity held by the community for months now, stating pointedly, “What you have to understand about all of this… we’re not doing proper stuff.”
Board president Woods made no comment to answer the question posed by Fite. No other board member spoke on the concerns raise by Fite on behalf of community members.
Shortly after, Item 23 of the Education Services section of the board agenda was removed for the evening meeting at the request of Fite: it was titled "Approval of Agreement between Grossmont Union High School District and the San Diego County Superintendent of Schools for Library Media ServicesThe item will be taken up at a future board meeting.
The basics on the Brown Act
The Brown Act safeguards to the public’s right to be informed of official business and the right to comment on matters that affect their community. It prohibits serial meetings among a majority of trustees outside of a public meeting, and these meetings can take place in person or virtually; when one of the trustees continues conversation about a topic with at least three, it then comprises a majority.
The point is clear on page 15 of chapter 1: “Where matters are not subject to a closed meeting exception, the Act has been interpreted to mean that all of the deliberative processes by legislative bodies, including discussion, debate and the acquisition of information, be open and available for public scrutiny” (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d; 41; 42 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 61, 63 (1963); 32 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.240 (1958).) Additionally, the act prohibits serial meetings, which the texts and messages provided the Union-Tribune show are possible pieces of evidence for violation of the Act.
Screenshot, right: members of the Recall Effort gather to demand a recall of Scott Eckert and the resignation of three other board members
The San Diego County Registrar of Voters had informed the school district that a Notice of Intention to Circulate a Recall Pettiton had been officially filed to recall the Area 2 Trustee. The recall effort is primarily focused on Trustee Scott Eckert, though all trustees excluding Chris Fite are targets as well— those being the ones named on the group text messages. The registrar estimates that a special election in Area 2 would cost the district somewhere between $900,000 and $1.5 million.
For further information on the movement to recall four board trustees, you can visit the recall site, which details ongoing conflict between the governing board and the Grossmont High School District community.
Recent comments