GUHSD priorities: trustees give themselves a massive raise, nearly quadrupling salaries

By Alexander J. Schorr

December 15, 2025 (El Cajon) — The Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) governing board voted unanimously to raise their own monthly salary of $534.04 to a proposed $2,000.00 each starting  in January 2026. While California law does allow for school boards to increase their trustees’ compensation annually by up to 5% based on the presenting monthly rate, as per the newest law AB 1390, the board trustees have gone above and beyond what is normally acceptable for a trustee's stipend.

The agenda item last week was amended at the request of board trustee Chris Fite, where in addition to raising their own salaries, student board trustee Ava Hersch would be able to earn elected course credits based on the number of instruction minutes during services within the GUHSD board. Previously, Fite requested that Hersch be given a higher salary as well, too, which a majority voted down.

Previously, the board awarded themselves a 5% raise in 2023— compared to a 0% for teachers. They awarded themselves another 5% raise in 2024, with teachers having a 1% increase. Now, the board has effectively given themselves a 373% raise in 2025, compared to a 2% for teachers. Ultimately, with this current amount, the board trustees will be given a raise of $400 per meeting to now a $400 salary per hour. Additionally, the board members will also receive medical benefits, long-term disability, travel expenses, and retirement health benefits.

Some Context

One of the main arguments of Gary Woods, Robert Shield, Scott Eckert, and Jim Kelly, is that there apparently was not enough money in district reserves for the coming future during the possibility of a recession, or worse. This argument was the primary reason for the board firing all teacher-librarians and counselors back in February of 2025.(Teacher librarians were later reassigned as teachers only.)

Four of the  trustees who voted to give themselves raises, the conservative members named above, had earlier this year argued that they needed to save the district money, and at the same time, created a Chief of Staff position with a minimum salary of $156,508 during a time when projected budget deficits and widespread layoffs, and yet also voted in favor of giving the then fired Chief of Staff Jeffrey Hobbs an extended severance of over $186,000.

The GUHSD board majority has also faces major legal costs.  Recently, the district settled a lawsuit for $1.2 million, covering payment in damages to Rose Tagnesi, a former special education director, in a lawsuit alleging anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination and harassment. The district has also faced lawsuits related to a serious 2020 incident at Santana High School where a student left campus and was trafficked for several days. The district settled the lawsuit with the student's family for $400,000 in 2023. In a separate case the district settled a sexual battery lawsuit filed by a “Jane Doe” student against a deceased teacher in November of 2024. The lawsuit alleged sexual battery and negligence, with the legal costs for this case reaching over $207,000.

The issue in question is the prioritization and allocation of district funds towards administrative positions and legal fees, with some of these costs linked to campaign donations rather than a direct and massive increase in elected board members’ personal monthly stipends.

The public was not satisfied with this decision, as the board prioritized giving themselves a raise, but not teachers’ raises or protecting vital staffing positions.  The salary hikes follow a longstanding distrust between the board and its constituents following the mass layoffs in February.

Lillian Zeigler illustrated that the board’s decision to reward themselves with a raise was a hypocritical one, as previously, the board made the case that teachers and librarians needed to be removed to save money. This is “a raise which [they] said could not afford librarians and counselors with. A raise which [they] refuse to support immigrant students with,” said Zeigler. Additionally, she stated the governing board should prioritize raising the salaries of teachers if they were to enhance their own stipends: “put the money where it matters. Back into our schools.”

Screenshot, right: Lillian Zeigler addresses the governing board

Jackie Daan, another community member, blasted Gary Woods especially: “We trusted you, and you let us down.” Daan scrutinized Woods, alongside Scott Eckert, Robert Shield, and Jim Kellyn for apparently dismissing the concerns and needs of the public, at least in regards to fiscal responsibility and respect.

Screenshot, left: Jackie Daan blasts the trustees who “failed” the public.

Daan also blasted the board majority for refusing to even allow a vote on a resolution introduced by trustee Chris that would have required the board to follow California law in restricting ICE agents on school campuses. “I supported you. I put your campaign sign in my yard, I made phone calls,” she testified. “We trusted you. We voted for you. We gave you the power you’re now wielding over us, and to be clear, we didn’t turn against you. There is no outside, crazed, left (wing) mob attacking you— it's your constituents.”

Gavin Preston added that the board refuses to be transparent with the public, and has created animosity due to not seconding or discussing their policy making for board business. “We’ve written the letters, we’ve made the phone calls… and yet we’ve received no responses, no explanations of your actions, no seconded motions for public discussions at [the] meetings,” stated Preston. Preston illustrated that the board’s “total calculated silence” is what enables the resentment and distrust of the community in regards to their view of the board.

Do They Deserve a Raise?

On the plus side, the district has touted the fact that the San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA) awarded the Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) its 2025 Golden Watchdog Award for outstanding stewardship of taxpayer dollars through the refinancing of its existing school construction bonds – an action that will save East County taxpayers $18,900,017 in long-term interest costs.

However, the GUHSD has been embroiled in numerous controversies, especially in 2025, involving its conservative board majority. This includes allegations of Brown Act violations, mass firings of teachers, counselors, and librarians, and unethical campaign tactics. These issues have sparked community outrage and an unsuccessful recall attempt of trustee Scott Eckert. Key areas of controversy include but are not limited to:

Mass firings and budget issues: In February 2025, the board majority voted to eliminate 61 positions, including teachers and all nine teacher-librarians. This decision was questioned and scrutinized as the district reportedly had a significant surplus and sufficient reserves. Leaked messages suggested that the four trustees targeted librarians in particular, as they were perceived as “anti-board.”

Lack of transparency and violations of the Brown Act: Following the release of the San Diego Union Tribune Article, the board trustees conducted board business through private messages outside of public meetings. Additionally, there were also accusations of limiting public input during meetings and attempts to exclude media.

Conflicts of interest and questionable hiring: Allegations included a trustee voting to award funds to a campaign donor’s law firm. The board also created a Chief of Staff position for a political ally without public posting in spite of his controversial history.

Unethical campaign tactics: Records reportedly showed discussions among board members and their associates about the alleged use of “ghost” candidates in order to draw votes away from opponents.

Personal issues with staff: The board has faced criticism for ending contracts with a nonprofit providing LGBTQ+ youth mental health services, citing a lack of alignment with “East County Values.” The board was also recently embroiled in litigation with an employee whom they targeted for their sexual orientation. When it comes to outraged community members, they have also passed resolutions enforcing a restriction of protest activity.

Failure to advance the Alpine High School: Three of the current board members were also criticized in the past for failure to build a high school in Alpine, despite bond measures approved by voters for this purpose. A Grand Jury sharply criticized the GUHSD for this, though the district blamed declining enrollment.

These controversies have led to strained relations between GUHSD and community members, as well as the Grossmont Education Association and the teachers union, which have fueled student walkouts and numerous community protests.

Correction:  An earlier version of this article indicated that the vote was 4-1 on raising trustees' salaries.  In fact, it was 5-0.