Reader’s Editorial: Why I support the recall or resignation of the GUHSD Board majority

By Chris  Fite, Trustee, Grossmont Union High School District board

October 26, 2025 (El Cajon) -- When the dust settles after all of the lawsuits and media stories and packed and contentious board meetings, these facts will remain: the GUHSD board majority repeatedly if not exclusively tried to make vital decisions regarding hiring, firing and curriculum choices on the basis of their ideological and personal biases, instead of based on what was good for the students and the district. Instead of meeting the needs of all students, parents, and community members, they exclusively catered to the wishes and desires of a tiny fraction (of which they belong): a far right religious faction who are fundamentally opposed to the mission of public education: educating all Americans, newly arrived and native born alike, to prepare them with the academic and vocational tools to thrive economically to achieve their American Dream however they define it and to civically educate students to get along with others who have different ideas or cultures than they do and to think critically because they are exposed to ideas that may be difficult or complicated or contrary to their established views. In short, to learn how to be a democratic citizen. Make no mistake, this reactionary sect is not based on love and forgiveness but on punishment and power. 

This is why reforms to get them to comply with Brown Act provisions and become more transparent are necessary but not sufficient: these are changes on the margins, a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic, or whatever metaphor you’d like to use. They do not want to act differently! They got into educational politics precisely to affect these changes. Transparency would allow those on the outside to see the real workings of their ‘mission’ (along with a handful of powerful allies) to transform the district into an insular, us against them dichotomy, with those in the ‘they’ category fearful and compliant or else! I can attest to the secrecy - I was routinely left out of policy decisions and have never been given any real explanation or involvement in deciding staffing cuts or other major decisions and/or why they are needed, and I have been on the board for over eight years! They do not want to act differently. Here is one of the many secret messages sent between board members revealed by the UT public records requests:

“I think it is best for us to come up with our own curriculum because when you ask others their opinion, there is tremendous pressure to go along with their ideas even when you don’t agree with them. They will show their loyalty by supporting our suggestions.” This is neither “caring, nor collaborative”. They are East County Dons.

In a way, I’d respect them more if they just came out and said, “We believe that this country, this district should be for a certain type of American. Our side should make the rules, and we are accountable to that constituency only”. At least they would be honest. But of course if they were to reveal their core beliefs and motives honestly, they wouldn’t appeal to those outside their bubble and would not get elected. Many of their election mailers over the last few election cycles blatantly misrepresented their beliefs and goals. Why? Because they couldn’t attract enough voters with honesty.

If your true motivations and agendas were popular, it seems to me that you would want to share them openly. A large part of the rage that the community has expressed over and over and over again at board meetings is this sense of secrecy and duplicity in justifying cutting jobs as a budget decision, when in fact, a large factor was the board's ongoing and well-known attempt to reshape staff and culture along extreme ideological lines. The board’s reaction? Instead of listening and maybe rethinking their positions, the board doubled down on the subterfuge and arrogance and reprimanded the public for being disrespectful (of course they were disrespectful! Anything less would be insulting; dupes and rubes they are not!) Recently, the board majority concocted a half-hearted non-apology (we did nothing wrong but we won’t do it again!) regarding their lengthy and long-occurring Brown Act violations revealed by the UT data dump. To much of the public and myself this seemed the worst of possible responses: a toothless and insincere gesture to tamp down controversy while refusing to acknowledge or stop the incessant meddling behavior that landed them in hot water in the first place. 

At a recent board meeting a board member stated, “the recall seems politically motivated”. That’s an amazing grasp of the obvious. Reasons for recalls are whatever the district community decides. While school board races are categorized as non-partisan or non-political, in reality that is rarely the case. That is the nature of modern politics, in which every single election race is seemingly crucial for both major parties, “non-partisan” or not. No less than Steve Bannon has called taking over school boards as one of the most important political tasks of modern MAGA Republicanism. 

But my fellow board members have taken ‘partisan’ to a whole new level: firing or not hiring ‘woke’ administrators, targeting teachers and librarians who have the audacity (also the 1st Amendment right) to disagree. Shutting down or slow walking curriculum/trainings/courses that support what they deem ‘DEI’ or multi-cultural or whatever the Extreme Right is against this week. Banning books with LGBTQ or Black or Middle Eastern themes. Courtesy of the UT data dump: “Remember to say that ‘making choices’ is not banning books”. Uh, yes it is! More: “...he (board member) was coming up with a strategy…which would be impossible for “woke” books to be adopted.” Sprouting lawsuits targeting non heterodox employees and favoring harassment claims (and payouts) to “whistle blowers” or “truth tellers” supposedly “standing up to district corruption” when it too often seems that some of these folks just can't get along with others and seemed possessed of a litigious streak. 

I was once told (and believe) that the most important task board members have is choosing a Superintendent. In fact, the board should actually have no role in hiring/firing any other district personnel. Ideally, we carefully vet highly qualified candidates and then make the best decision and then stand back for the most part and trust the process that the new Superintendent will hire or retain the best people and run it to the best of their ability . The GUHSD board majority actually did/does believes the opposite: it hires/hired Superintendents regardless of merit or ability, they were just hired according to what degree they were perceived to be deferential to what the board wanted and the board felt free to intervene in all kinds of decision-making within the district virtually all of the time. This is in no way implying or saying that our previous Superintendents were not qualified or performed well, they did, particularly *given the circumstances*.

Amongst the UT document dump was this gem: Former Chief of Staff stating to (a) board member(s) in 2024, “…it seems that a Board resolution removing signing authority from the Superintendent…might be the best approach”. WHAT?! And this was 6 months BEFORE he was actually “officially” hired. Or this: “…It may be a short honeymoon with the Superintendent (a different one)...Of course ALL OF THIS is the CABAL striking back. It can’t be permitted. It will thwart the will of the board.” Or this: “...UNTIL THAT HAPPENS we should plan/plot BUT NOT ACT.” Or this beauty: “Don’t lose any sleep over this. The violations are sooooooo petty as to be ridiculous. Know this: you are GETting to them…If this bothered them they're really going to be bothered by what comes next!...They know we are coming for them.”  Orrrrrrr: “We need to lay low until I’m fully onboarded…Meanwhile we need to strategize. I’m trying to avoid meeting with the Superintendent about her “ideas””. The hits keep coming: “Review the job description (Chief of Staff) in light of the Board’s goals—NOT in light of traditional CSBA doctrine (where the Superintendent has unchecked authority)”. There are dozens of examples of this kind of insane dialogue within the UT data dump - it's an interesting read to say the least, but I would be remiss if I didn't include these nuggets: “Second, freeze all library funds and micromanage all library purchases. *Strong arm emoji…Purchase entire LU (Liberty University) curriculum. *Another strong arm emoji…Purchase Hillsdale College curriculum *Another strong arm emoji”. “Same LCAP goal. Just spend it on other “mental health and wellness" interventions. Not wasted on library books”. “Instead we bought woke books that “affirm” the crazy ideas of confused teenagers…I’m guessing we’re spending $2 million to indoctrinate kids of the DEI and LGBTQ and militant trans agenda”. Now who could argue with that reasoning? LU curriculum and HC curriculum book ends with no books in between?    *Given the circumstances*. 

The Chief of Staff position that they created at a cost of a $180,000 yearly salary during what in their words was a budget deficit, was expressly created not for the benefit of the GUHSD students, but as a spy to root out disloyal staff and to mastermind their various schemes.There are dozens of examples of this kind of insane thinking and dialogue within the UT data dump.

This lack of/poor judgement and/or decision making based on extreme views has also led to the District spending millions of dollars in lawsuits: this alone should scare the community. These folks are not prime-time players capable of making reasoned, balanced and appropriate choices that serve the District and community effectively: They make rash decisions then later settle lawsuits to clean up their messes.

Finally, and closer to home, the board has unethically if not illegally targeted my election campaign by not only running (paying for) opposing candidates (which while personally disappointing is perfectly legal) but also running deliberately ‘fake’ candidates as ‘progressives’ in order to draw votes away from me to help their ‘official’ Republican endorsed candidates. One of the many UT articles re: GUHSD is devoted to this particular bit of skullduggery. The board also ran the same game plan in Area 2; the ‘fake’ progressive candidate was able to draw more than enough votes away from their targeted opponent to win the seat for their official and desired candidate. That, gentlemen, is beyond the pale.

But more importantly is what happens to the students of Grossmont. Do they learn to become critical thinkers who embrace the challenge and excitement of exposure to intellectual concepts and sometimes life changing ideas and experiences like everyone else on Earth who plans to succeed in a dynamic world? Or do we stifle and limit their opportunities to what only we know and approve? That’s why we need a new board for a new start.