PBT, Episode 52; TVUSD Board Meeting, March 2025 (part 2), ft. Cole

Finishing up the discussion from the previous episode, and then jumping straight into the public comment reviews and responses (which is always fun).

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
All right, guys, this is going to be episode 52.
However, it is Part 2 of the last podcast where we covered
the March board meeting. We kind of finish our
conversation in this portion andthen we go into the public
comment section, which was fun as as it always is.
And God, I think Cole is just soexcellent at this.

(00:24):
I'm excited to continue to work with her when we cover school
board meetings. So enjoy.
This is Part 2 of the March meeting.
You ever wonder what is the truth?
Three things cannot be long hidden, the sun, the moon, and
the truth. Oh, the parliamentarian.

(01:02):
I feel like that's worth us talking about.
OK, OK, let's do it. OK, so another, I wouldn't say
issue, but something that was presented to the board in this
meeting was assigning a specificparliamentarian to basically
babysit the board meetings. It's unnecessary because our

(01:25):
board members need to have at least a basic understanding of
Robert's Rules of Order and how they need to be conducting
business on the dais. We also have a president who's
well versed in that and is the one actually controlling how
business is being conducted and the flow of that.
Also dealing with public reaction during the meetings.

(01:46):
We do not need to be giving someone else that responsibility
when it's already been assigned to five people and the
president. So I just don't, I don't know
where everyone's heads are at with that because everyone
should already be well versed enough.

(02:07):
And if I'm not mistaken, we're all watching the same meetings.
There's really no need for a quote UN quote mediator because
it's essentially what it is. I don't see how that's
beneficial to anyone because they're doing just fine.
It's we can't expect them to just be completely in line with

(02:28):
each other running as a functioning team right off the
bat. It doesn't work that way.
It doesn't work that way in the corporate world either.
When you're getting assigned with different departments and
different personalities to get aproject done, you just figure it
out. So I think that we need to give
them more time and give our president more time to be able

(02:49):
to show what they're capable of.Because again, like I said,
they're they're going on the right track.
They're progressing into a more professional working
environment. So allow that to play out.
I don't see a reality where thatis required even if things went
to total crap honestly. But I'm more than happy for us

(03:12):
to revisit as a community if it were to get that out of control.
But at that point, I think that's on us to just be like
y'all need to go, someone else needs to fill this position.
Yeah, I, I find it interesting that Jen was the one who who
kind of brought this up and requested this because the first

(03:38):
meeting was in December. Yeah.
Yes, so. Ever since every January, ever
since January, every meeting I've watched or attended, her
body language is very negative, correct.
So it's, you know, it's, it's hard for me to agree with her
when it seems, when it seems to me that she is a big contributor

(04:01):
to the. The.
Tension, The tension. Yeah, yeah, like.
You can't have a contentious look on your face, Yeah.
I mean, yeah, with. A colleague.
And. Expect things to go well.
Right. And like, you know, I like Jen.
I have you issues with Jen, but yeah, like, she if she hears
this and she feels some type of way about it, I would encourage

(04:23):
her to watch the meeting and just watch her body language
through the meeting. Like whenever something happens
that she doesn't like, she doesn't have to say anything.
It's all over her face, her bodylanguage, how she adjusts, you
know. And I mean, that's a big thing.
It's a big thing in everything, right?
It's again, you're conducting business, it's a professional
work environment. You need to be on your best a

(04:45):
game and focus, focus on what's in front of you, not how you're
feeling. Process it.
You have that right, but you're currently wearing a trustee hat.
You are representing your constituents and what they
expect of you, which is to be transparent, but not to the
point where I know your feelingsbased off of your face.

(05:07):
Just be professional and, and say whatever you need to say.
You know, cuz again, that whole freedom of speech thing that
keeps getting brought up and, and she has brought it up as
well. Speak your mind, but control
what's going on with your face and your body language.
Because we expect that of our students in the classroom as
well. So again, it's setting that
precedent, setting that example for them.

(05:29):
Again, hopefully we get that student board member show them
how to conduct themselves in a professional manner that's
respectful towards others. Yeah, yeah.
And that's the interesting part is, you know, a student board
member, I think could help this.I think it would lighten things

(05:49):
off a bit too, because there would be feel they would have a
need to like mentor and they just kind of soften up.
There'd be less tension. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's interesting You want to getinto some public comments.
Yeah, let's do it. All right, let me see.
That's move. To have the comments at this
time is more like A and I'm a science teacher too, a

(06:12):
scientist. It's more like a selection
process from the evolution pointof view because you have to be
until almost 10:00. I know it might not have the
approval to go back to the beginning because we all have
families and go work. I know this is your job, but as
somebody who's speaking now at this time, I will love that this

(06:35):
cop only comes to me earlier. That's my, my take.
And before I begin my, my, I wrote something here because but
before I begin, I, I, I'm not surprised why the student don't
want to come. It's too much drama.
This is sometimes like a telenovela.

(06:56):
If you're familiar with telenovela from Mexico, it's a
telenovela sometimes that you just can't follow it.
I made a speech. But my speech is.
Kind of. I have other things I can talk
right now, but it's really hard to follow you guys.
It's really there's some it's terrible, but I will say I come

(07:20):
from a family with a strong academic background and who
values education. My father is a chemistry
professor who was returning froman international scientific
meeting the last time I visited him last year.
He's 92 years old, and he's an inspiration for all his master
and PhD students. My life has been academic, so I

(07:41):
I know what academic, academic environment looks like and what
educators should focus on the students, all the students.
I'm hopeful that with the new scope or members, Mr. Barham is
Doctor Anderson, this focus willprevail.
And I have seen this, I have, I have seen a positive attitude

(08:02):
from you both to bring civility and accountability into our
meetings. Reaching now to other board
members and listening are crucial to the success of the
Board of School Board's objectives and therefore have a
positive impact on our students.Having said that, I'm here today
because something caught my attention during the last

(08:26):
workshop meeting. A board member stated that the
recall of Doctor Komrowski was awaste of time.
And that's far from the truth. I participated in a lot of
people from different parties and different religions, and
there was an amazing group that participated in that and that

(08:46):
was not a waste of time. What made the recall waste of
time was Doctor Kormansky lack of ethics in not accepting what
the people in his area voted for.
And I live in your area. He turned a democratic process,
which is the right of the peoplefrom any political views to use

(09:12):
into something obsolete. Because I would think who's
going to be recall again? If you know you can be
candidate, take it like this. Imagine if a teacher is fired
and he applies for the same position again during the same
school year. Would this teacher be allowed to

(09:32):
apply? No.
You show your character when theopportunity present itself in
front of you. And forever, Doctor Kamowski,
you would be remembered as the first school board member to be
recalled. My second matter.
Time. OK.
So respectfully, Senor, to startoff, that's perfectly fine.

(09:59):
You know that it wasn't a waste of time because that was
constituents in that area that felt a need for a different
board member. There's no arguing that.
Take that same mindset and flip it.
That same area wanted him back in the seat.
So if we're going to say 1 is true and acknowledge that, we've

(10:20):
got to acknowledge the other side of that because if he
wasn't wanted, he wouldn't be sitting up there.
So I think that's more of clashing of opinions.
And he did mention that a lot ofdifferent folks helped with that
recall, which did include some conservatives.
We, we experienced that during the walk for the recall.
So there were conservatives thatdidn't want anything to do with

(10:43):
Doctor K at that point. It's an opinion and people
coming out to the polls is the proof, right.
So I didn't like the analogy of an elected official being
compared to a teacher that gets fired and then rehired.
You're comparing apples to oranges.

(11:05):
He's an elected official, peoplewant him there whether you like
it or not, right? Versus a teacher who violated
something with an Ed code or specific to their credentials or
their profession, right? Obviously they wouldn't be
rehired within that district. It's very likely they would just
go to another one and get rehired there and hopefully do

(11:28):
better. So there you really can't
compare the two because one is based off of a hiring process
and having merit and a resume and credentials that support
whether or not you're fit for the position.
And if you violate any of that, then obviously you don't have a
job anymore versus an elected official who the community put

(11:51):
in there. He obviously needs to set the
standard and act accordingly, right?
But at the end of the day, he doesn't have the same
requirements as a credentialed teacher in a classroom on a
school site. He's a board member, he's
oversight. He doesn't need that background

(12:13):
or honestly that approval because this is based off of an
opinion. What did he say at the
beginning? Because that was what kind of
triggered me. Oh, you know what it was?
It was at the very beginning when he was discussing how he
doesn't blame the students for not wanting to participate
because it's there's so much drama like a telenovela.

(12:33):
And I, you know, I said or like the office respectfully on that
point as well. You can't follow, Sir, because
I've never seen you or heard youuntil this meeting on the 25th.
You can't follow because you haven't been following the
process. Right.
Which again is kind of strange because he just said that he

(12:55):
participated in the recall so heshould have more context.
I think he's he's has. He yeah, I think he's spoken.
A couple times because. But not enough to say you can't
follow. What's going on?
How can you not follow? Do you get what I'm saying so
well? And and.
Then respectfully, Sir, if you've been there more than
once, I apologize. It's just it didn't sit well

(13:15):
with me because how can you not follow if you've been following
along and you know better than anybody what the recall process
was like. So the interaction should not be
too hard to follow. Yeah, it's not that he can't
follow, it's just he doesn't want to.
He doesn't like the outcome. Again, it's like he's like, it
wasn't a waste of time. I met a lot of good people from

(13:36):
the community. That sounds like something like
a father and son or arguing. It's like that concert's a waste
of time. No, it's not, Dad.
I met a lot of good people like Coachella.
You know what I mean? It's like it's totally, it's
totally. Perspective and it's opinion.
But what it was was a waste of money.
Yes, it was it. Was a waste of the community's.
Time it may not have been a waste for you guys to for for

(13:58):
congregate, but those of you we wasted our money.
Felt like you fought fascism in Temecula.
I hope that, I hope that makes you feel good, that you.
But you wasted everyone's time. You, when you knocked on their
fucking doors and you, you lied to them.
You told them things that simplywere not.
True, which is a bigger issue. Yeah, I mean like and.
And and you wonder why he's backin.

(14:19):
Yeah, you lied. You lied and and also it's like
it was a special election. So it was known that voter turn
out wasn't going to be that high.
A lot of people didn't even really vote in.
We didn't get a lot of people who voted in the recall, you
know what I mean? So it's like, well, let's not,
you know, let's not leave that part out because when we include
that part, when you look at. Like you get the full.

(14:41):
Context. You get the full context and it
does kind of point to it being awaste of time.
Maybe not for you because you had a goal goal and you got your
goal and the goal was pointless because the same community that
you sold the lies to put him right back in the seat.
And that's how it works. And and his analogy, like you
said, yeah, his analogy is not accurate.

(15:02):
And it's not accurate because that teacher 100% can reapply
for that position. Doesn't mean they get it.
Probably not right because they were fired, but yeah, they can
reapply. So what is he talking about?
That's basically all Doctor K did.
Was he just reapplied? Was within his legal right to do
so. So if you have an issue with
that, you need to take that up with Riverside County and the

(15:25):
state of California. Well, they need to follow the
spirit of the. Law, the Spirit, well, if it
ain't in writing, you ain't getting it.
And guess what? That's what happened.
He's right back where everybody wanted.
Him. It sure does seem like a waste
of time to me when you see our perspective, but.
Well, time is money. Who are we?
Time is money and we wasted money.

(15:45):
So I think we did waste time. Let's see who's next we got.
This is Josh's comment. You got something for it?
There's. Nothing wrong, yes.
Yeah, OK. Doctor Kamarsky, while we were
discussing the AB 89, did I hearyou correctly say that Advocates

(16:06):
for Faith and Freedom gave Kate Sanchez the language for AB 89?
Did I hear that? I just want to genuine Fact
Check before I say what I'm about to say.
Is that reasonable? OK, sorry, sorry.
That's what I heard. My problem with that is that if

(16:26):
Advocates for Faith and Freedom gave a language to to Kate
Sanchez or to make the representative to put in AB Bill
89, we don't even know if it's constitutional yet.
But the inference, not an accusation.
The inference would be that theygave us, our district, the
language to write the resolutionthat you wrote.

(16:48):
It will probably be challenged in court.
So then we've hired advocates for faith and freedom to
represent us in court to fight the fight that they got us to go
fight. That sounds like a firefighter
arsonist who starts a fire, getson the fire truck to come put it

(17:10):
out. What it also sounds like is
taking a lot of taxpayer money and funneling it to lawyers.
Now, I've heard rumors from the community that the contract is
written that they're pro bono aslong as the case goes to the
Supreme Court. But for it to get there, this

(17:32):
board has to vote to continue the fight up to the Supreme
Court. And if we don't vote to fight it
to the Supreme Court, we're on the hook for all of the legal
expenses, hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I've got a California Public Records Act request to get my
hands on the actual contract. That just reeks of corruption

(17:57):
that they give us the resolutionto vote on.
We get sued. We hire them.
I think that's is that what happened with the CRT thing?
Did they write that resolution for us?
Did we get no, no. OK.
I just feels like financially there's a lot of this going on

(18:22):
because those lawyers are here in Marietta and this is just I'm
I'm, I'm not a insider. I don't know what's going on,
but just as a reasonable person,it seems really fishy that you'd
made a statement that they gave her the language and then we're
probably going to get sued. It doesn't sound like good

(18:44):
governance. You can see the hat.
I'm just looking for boring. You could, so thank you.
So Josh, I agree with about 97% of what you said.
Let's talk about the 3%. Now, right, it is fishy as heck
when you spell it out and you give the, the context, the full

(19:08):
context and the transparency of all that because no one else is
going to put that together. The, the average citizen, the
average constituent is not paying enough attention in that
manner, in that respect to come to that conclusion.
But he is making a very accurateassumption.
It's not good governance and it looks really terrible.

(19:28):
And I, I want someone to speak to that in detail because he
laid it out. I feel like they did at the end.
I think a very little though, but like.
Yeah, we he. Spelled it out.
We should sort that out, I think.
So here's the thing. I don't know the timeline,
right? Is like he's spelling out as as

(19:49):
if advocates for faith and freedom came up with this
verbiage gave it to Kate Santez.The push then timed perfectly
what was going on in Temecula and jumped on the lawsuits that
were going on here. You know what I mean?
It's it's, it's easy to look at it that way if we don't know the
actual timeline of. Life.

(20:10):
And that's what I'm saying, I would like a more detailed
outline of chronologically how it all happened because a lot of
it sounds too coincidental. It doesn't look good.
So if we can at least just get more transparency on that to,
you know, iron that out until then, it does.

(20:35):
It does appear to be fishy. And I, I want to make it
perfectly clear, I support the work that they do.
I support Kate Sanchez, I support AB 89.
So that's not my issue. My issue is how did this all
transpire? And yeah, Josh make some pretty
good. Points, but it would be, I mean,

(20:56):
they would have to know that this fight was gonna have, you
know what I mean? It's like everything, that part,
absolutely everything lined up to that.
Will be coincidence. It puts it puts I I feel like
his assumptions are putting a lot of like authority in the
hands of advocates for faith and.
Freedom no. And I I need to make it clear
that it's not them specifically that I'm referring to.

(21:17):
It's hay board. What are we doing?
Yeah, Spell it out for everybody, just like we've done
with purchase orders. Spell it out.
Yeah. We should get an.
Idea so we have more perspective, more context,
because as of right now it is a good assumption.
Because also, it could just be that advocates for faith and
freedom are in Marietta and theyhappen to be willing to take on

(21:38):
the fight against California, correct?
So they're jumping on every opportunity to do so.
You know what I mean? Like that's, that's another
realistic line that I see. But again, like, yeah, did they
set themselves up nicely when you lay it out like that?
Yeah, well, well I'm saying I'm I'm saying them like for
financially the the law firmly. The business.

(21:59):
Hell yeah, they set themselves up real fat when he lays it out
like that, but I don't know if. There's missing.
Contact. Yeah.
I don't, I don't know if our board colluded in that or no,
you know. What I mean, I think that's a
stretch. That's why I said like 97% of
what you. Said.
But what's funny is he's like, we don't know if it's
constitutional yet. Like, I'm pretty Are you sure we
have a good idea? Yes, a group of attorneys

(22:21):
putting together bud, you know what I mean?
Like what I? Trust their ability.
Yeah, well, what he really meansis like, well, we haven't yet
discussed the loophole to. How we can stop this?
Yeah. So that's really what he means.
You're giving all your cards, especially with the seeing a

(22:43):
lawsuit in the near future. There kind of.
Telling us what's gonna happen. Alright, what do you got next?
OK. Kind of make comments here as
the meeting progressed, so I'm gonna be scrolling 1st.
I wanted to thank Missus Deus for the meeting we had a couple

(23:03):
of weeks ago. That was great.
And I would like to thank Mr. Barham, Mr. Schwartz, Doctors
Kamroski and Anderson for addressing my concerns in
regards to speed and the shutdown of the DOE.
You guys were great about following up with me and and I
know it's still a big concern inthe speed community and I will
be continuing to have questions and be in touch, but I thank you

(23:25):
for your openness. As for the AB 89 endorsement,
I'm disappointed but not surprised.
The handful of trans kids in this district heard each one of
you. I know Doctor Anderson, you
applauded Steve for voting against his supporters and while
I'm disappointed and I'm sure his supporters are too, I'm
confident he won't be getting death threats from us tonight.

(23:51):
You guys brought up SEL and DEI and this is where's my you said
you don't. Believe.
I'm sorry, just to clarify, you said won't be getting that's
right. Yes.
Oh yeah, I know better than to say it on them.
You said you don't believe in equity, you believe in equality.
The speed classes you say you love run on equity.

(24:12):
Equity is making sure the voiceless have an iPad to speak
for them. Equity means speech and
occupational therapy for the kids who need to get past a lisp
or need to expand their speech, or can't write or tie their
shoes. If things were equal, those kids
would be tossed in general Ed and would be lost in the system.
Equity is making sure title one schools have resources that the

(24:32):
wealthy schools have. Saying you don't want equity is
just not just showing your privilege at screaming it from
the rooftops. And As for the parliamentarian
debate, I can tell you right nowanyone who has served on APTA
board could be your parliamentarian as we have
received hours of training on this hours and those of us who

(24:52):
have served on many boards have had hours over the course of
many years. Any I don't think you need a
paid, I know you don't need needa paid parliamentarian because
when you say something like that, oh, it could only be
$10,000. I again think back to my time as
PTA president at a Title One school mind you, and field trips
cost $5000 per grade level just to take those kids on a bus.

(25:16):
That doesn't count the tickets to the zoo or whatever that is.
And that's why a lot of times the lower income schools just go
to the farm because by the time we pay that $5000, we can't pay
another $5000 for zoo tickets. That could also be
transportation for the girls field hockey team because their

(25:37):
parents are driving them right now.
All the money spent should be benefiting the students, not
yourselves, not your lawyers. And personal slights are not a
reason to call an attorney. Personal issues require a
personal attorney paid by you personally.
Don't take the money from the kids because you're holding a
grudge. Thank you.
Thank you. So there's a lot to unpack

(25:59):
there. OK, let's start with this, the
speed perspective of the Department of Education.
As a speed parent, I'm happy about this decision.
It's we, we're long overdue for education reform and this is the
only way for us to do it on a national level is to just

(26:22):
dismantle the entire train wreckand just start from scratch.
That doesn't mean our children are going to get lost in the
process. We are still going to have
certain things in place. And I think that all the
financial people can really speak to that.
And maybe that's something that hopefully we can get them to
speak on the next couple of meetings.

(26:45):
That's not going to just stop happening.
Kids aren't going to just stop getting their services.
There's legal documents in place, Ieps and five O 4 plans
that must be accounted for and must be acknowledged and they
have to abide by it. It's a legal document.
So they're saying XY and Z services will be will be

(27:09):
provided to your child in some form or another regardless of
funding. That is an issue for the
business side, the administrative side to figure
out your child does not then gettold you don't get your OT
services or speech services anymore because we don't have

(27:30):
the money for it. That is not the child or the
family's problem. There's a legal document in
place that says you are going toprovide those services
regardless of what you need to do with the funding.
So that's why we have so many people on business services to
manage that for things like this.
Now do you think this lady is ignorant or she's just trying to

(27:50):
push fear mongering rhetoric? To be honest with you, I feel
like it might be a little bit ofboth.
I don't want to completely discredit her because she seems
pretty knowledgeable, but then then you hear some of the crazy
stuff that's come out of her mouth, specifically when she
said she knew better than to saythe threat on a hot mind.

(28:12):
Yeah, that was sick, consideringher past history.
This is the lady, guys. This lady has not come I I
haven't seen her at all until recently.
And then I found out that this is actually the lady she's
talking about not sending death threats.
This is the lady that went with Jen Reeves to Danny Gonzalez's

(28:34):
house, taking pictures in his kids room and just like
antagonizing and harassing. I mean that like, you know,
it's, it's so funny that this lady now, now hopefully
everybody forgot. No, no, we're never going to let
anybody forget. We know exactly how you operate
and the tactics you use and the way you conduct yourself.

(28:55):
You can go up and give public comment for three minutes, seem
as professional and knowledgeable.
As you when you admittedly said on a hot mic, you know better
than. The threat on here.
What? Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, great. I'm glad you know better.
So then you are playing stupid half the time then.
Yeah. And that we're not going to
allow that. You ran someone out of town.

(29:16):
You were a contributing factor to a lot of different puzzle
pieces that resulted in where we're at today, which was having
to facilitate a new board and fill all of the seats.
I take personal offense to anyone that's going to attack
any of the board members to thatlevel of invasiveness.
And then to go up months later with a new board and claim to

(29:41):
not conduct yourself in that wayis psychotic.
It is because I would have had more respect for her if she just
point blank admitted, hey, in the past I was part of the
problem and we should not be operating that way.
I take full responsibility for my past actions moving forward.
This is how we expect. We'd be and we'd be commending

(30:03):
her. Absolutely.
I'd be the first to give her thecredit that she deserves.
But she didn't do that, and thenadmitted she knows better than
to do that on a hot. And then it's so funny, these
people all the time we talk about, I brought this up earlier
where where when I was saying, when you were talking about the
spend money, and then I said that's when Allison was like,

(30:24):
well, the money can't be spent like that, Jen.
That's not how the money's allocated.
And it's so funny. It's like these people love to
try to act like when you spend money, you're stealing from the
kids that could go to this or that or this.
No, it can't. And they're the first ones that
will let us know when we try to use that argument.
Well, and we did. That's not how the money works.

(30:46):
The money is resourced for specific things in specific
areas, so it's not. And the government is checking
in, right? They're auditing, right, saying
where did this money go or why haven't you spent it yet, right?
Right, there's. A ton of accountability behind
the scenes. Money can't just go wherever you
want it to go. It doesn't work like that.
It seems like to me she's just pushed.

(31:07):
She's trying to fear monger. She's using her public comment
to push rhetoric that's not. Accurate.
On behalf of the entire speed community, Madam, I live here.
I don't subscribe to this at all.
I just don't like, you can totally speak on your own
behalf, but you are not going tospeak on my behalf as a SPED
parent and also as a volunteer and someone who has been

(31:30):
involved in this. And I do need to remind this
person, do you not recall that we have a SPED subcommittee
that's working to address all ofthe issues that have been
plaguing the district with the SPED department for many years?
And also is taking into account the future tense of where
financials are going to be because so much is changing in

(31:51):
our government. Do you not need to be reminded
of that? I'm a little bit confused.
Why haven't you offered to, to contribute to that or volunteer
for that? Or maybe you have, but that must
have been done behind closed doors because you're sitting
here giving our district and ourboard members crap over whether

(32:13):
or not they're going to take care of our speed students when
they literally have an active subcommittee to make sure of it.
Come on, come on. So that does tell us, maybe you
haven't been paying enough attention.
I don't know. Yeah.
All right. Let's go into the next comment.

(32:34):
Let's see. Doctor near, followed by Edgar.
Did you have anything on Edgar? I didn't.
No. Authoritarianism has no place in
our schools or our community, history has warned us.

(32:57):
Authoritarianism doesn't arrive overnight.
It creeps in slowly. The erosion of democracy doesn't
start at the national level. It starts in local institutions.
It can start here in this schoolboard.
And if, if we the people allow it to fester here, it will
spread the City Hall, county government and beyond.

(33:18):
What Emil and Melinda Anderson are doing has no place in
America, let alone a school board.
Let's talk about the reality we're facing, the silence,
dissent. Heck, Melinda just silenced me
today because she can't stand usmere mortal speaking our peace.
They pushed public comments to the very end, ensuring parents

(33:41):
have to wait all night to be heard.
Meanwhile, they prioritize the teachers union giving them the
first word while we, the taxpayers, the very people
funding this district, are ignored.
And recently, Melinda moved to amend a civility policy with
amendments designed to punish board members for expressing

(34:06):
opposing views or if they cannotcontrol certain people like
their family. Where is that item now, Melinda?
Suddenly gone from the agenda when it became inconvenient.
They manipulate power. Let's start by the words you
used today. You will find it liberating,

(34:26):
said Melinda Anderson. I encourage everyone to Google
and to see which dictator used these words.
They removed Doctor Kramowski's agenda and agenda item after he
worked tirelessly with district stuff.
Instead of collaboration, they stole it and formed the
subcommittee without him. Linda lied to the field hockey

(34:47):
parents promising a meeting and she wasn't present on the dais.
Jennifer Weirsma was spent over a year defending and building
the parental rights policy. Was pushed off this very
committee when you guys took over and then we saw you refuse
to work with Jennifer on the drug awareness subcommittee.

(35:11):
They abuse faith to justify the rule. e-mail students this very
dais and told us that God, not the voters, put him in his seat.
Think about that. Now we as people have a choice.
We can let this slide or we can send a clear message.
We do not accept authoritarian rule in Temecula.
If Emil and Melinda refuse to respect the democratic process,

(35:33):
then we the people must demand their resignations.
This is our district, our community.
Enough is enough. Thank you.
This is another one where there's just so much to unpack I
don't even know where to begin. Aside from the fact that most of

(35:54):
this is an opinion, it's not factually based.
It's alleging a lot of things that just aren't true because
we've already had the whole freedom of speech talk.
Nothing's being violated there. You just don't like where it's
positioned. That's a you problem.
Business is still being conducted and you're still a lot

(36:15):
at the time. The whole Melinda not being
willing to work with Jen narrative, that's really old.
Melinda did a very good job explaining all of that.
It wasn't an indefinite statement.
It was at that time she wasn't willing until she worked through
the other issues that were very much in the public eye.

(36:38):
So I don't know why that needs readdressing when she made that
pretty clear. I'm trying to remember the
beginning of what he was even saying because there's so much.
I feel like he really comes off condescending to me when he
really postures on my fortunately, American patriotism
in the Constitution is like, is like he thinks he's given a

(37:00):
speech before we charge the hillin battle.
You know what I mean? It's it's, it's very
overdramatic. It feels very attention seeking,
which is unfortunate because I've had some pretty decent
conversations with Doctor Rajev and I had a lot of respect for
him. But over the course of this new
board and the way that things have played out, I've just been

(37:21):
pretty disgusted with the behavior and the allegations and
the attacks and. You know, he brought up things
that we talked about on the lastepisode.
I actually was going to say that, yeah, we've already
addressed half of these things, so we're not going to rehash
those out. But but I just think that like
calling them authoritarian, saying that they're violating

(37:41):
free speech, he's losing more people than than gaining them.
You know what I mean? It's like you have a gripe, you
have a frustration. Let's be realistic, you know
what I mean? Like, there's nothing that
they're doing that's authoritarian.
Just because you don't like it, right, doesn't mean that it's

(38:02):
unconstitutional, correct, or authoritarian at all.
And like every time he tries to stand on that, it's like it's
just so over the tops. Yeah, it just.
Crumbles because. There's it makes me cringe, it
makes me cringe. It feels like, it feels like
he's putting on for the cameras.That's what it feels.
Like again, it's. Not yeah, and it's not.
It doesn't feel genuine. It does not feel genuine.

(38:22):
And that part is really unfortunate too, because you
have a platform to really address sincere, genuine issues.
And this seems more of like, I don't know, maybe a way to speak
for other people that feel that they can't speak?
Maybe. You know, maybe I'll just leave
it at that. I won't allege too much, but.
There's certain people that usedto speak all the time that don't

(38:44):
speak anymore and I'd rather have him than those people to be
honest. That's fair.
Yes, He's more articulate, I think, bringing up how basically
how quickly things can be plagued and poisoned from a
local, state, federal level. We're already there, Sir.

(39:07):
That's what we're trying to change.
We have, there's so much reform that has to happen and this is
part of it. When we have new quote UN quote,
management, right, because they're oversight, people are
going to ruffle feathers. You're not going to agree with
everything. You're not going to like certain
personalities. Again, we're going to be the
first to speak up if there's a genuine violation of free speech

(39:32):
or any form of the democratic process.
They don't have control over thefact that they got the seats.
That was us. You don't have to like it, but
many constituents want them there.
So we have to be able to work with that and work together on
that. I don't know if you if you want
to cut this or not, but I feel like this is the perfect plug

(39:56):
for the fact that he did bring up being conservative and being
Christians. What I'm seeing the theme thus
far is that certain board members feel the need to
eliminate any competition because they feel that they are

(40:17):
more deserving because they're veterans or whatever merit they
think they have. And they're trying to assert
their dominance still. And obviously they're being
kicked down according to other people's perceptions of how
things have played out on the dais.
And unfortunately, as Christians, they're no longer

(40:38):
actually representing our valuesin that respect because God
calls for honest, transparent leadership.
And it's not just about their personal ambition, because
that's what it genuinely feels like at this point.
I hope I'm wrong about that in the future.
But as of right now, it's it's not just about their personal

(40:59):
ambition. It's also about the very real
communal consequences of their actions.
And we're seeing that play out when people come and speak and
what feels like it's on their behalf as well, because a lot of
the language just doesn't feel like it's coming from the person
that's actually speaking it, which is another concern as
well, because again, no one's freedom of speech is being
violated. So if that's how you feel, you

(41:21):
should be the one saying it and not having somebody else do it
on your behalf. And if they're going to, they
should very explicitly state that before they say anything.
And as a community, as we continue to witness these things
and the transition from the previous board, because, again,
they're clinging on to the past and we just need to move forward

(41:43):
as a community. We really need to choose wisely
so that we're not choosing leaders that don't have the
discernment that maybe we initially felt that they did or
maybe they've just strayed away from that.
I'm not sure. But it's very destructive in
nature. And having that unchecked
ambition is going to continue tocause tension and this

(42:05):
volatility that at the public comment section of these
business meetings continues to plague and just over shadow all
the unanimous things that were said and done.
We need to keep that into consideration for midterms and
the next election cycle. Are they really truly

(42:25):
representing those values that we continue again in the general
public comments discussing? Because those values are very
important to me and that's how Ilive my life.
But we're getting away from thembecause egos are getting in the
way and this personal ambition is getting in the way.
It's like there's an agenda, like an underlying agenda that's

(42:45):
happening. So the fact that he called that
out, I felt that that was a goodpoint to, to just kind of bring
up it's, and that's my personal opinion.
That's just my observation, obviously.
No, it's good. Let's go to the next one.
All right, so it's nothing specific I want to speak of, but
just a few tiny things. So the first thing with the
social media is that I think Stephen Schwartz, you might be

(43:07):
mistaken with board members and other politicians getting in
trouble with using it. That is when they use the logo
or they try to imitate that theyare are a part of the district.
So if you say, you know, I'm a candidate running for office,
I'm endorsed by TVOSD and all the staff there, that's legal.
If you post the trademarked logo, that's illegal.
But you cannot control a board member, Melinda, from typing on
their keyboard, 5 characters on their keyboard.

(43:30):
You cannot stop them from doing that.
So yeah, so it's, I mean, it's TV USD also, you're responding
back to me when Jen tried to respond back to somebody who
instantly shut her down and had like some type of seizure about
it. And then now you're responding
back to me. So it's just a bit odd.
And then let's see the other thing with the meal, Amelia, you
were saying you don't want to get in legal trouble talking
about, you know, preventing teachers from talking to

(43:51):
students about, you know, sexuality and, you know,
penalizing the teacher for that and holding them a cannibal and
stopping from them, stopping them from talking about that
because you don't want to get introuble.
And it's like you don't want to get sued from the state for
hundreds, hundreds of $1000 or millions of dollars.
Are you putting a price on the well-being of children here?
Are you saying I don't want to pass this policy because it will

(44:13):
make the district get less funding or get as soon it seems
like you're putting money 1st instead of the children.
And jeez, like if you do the numbers like a lawsuit, let's
say $750,000, there's probably 75,000 taxpayers in the in the
district, $10 a taxpayer to savechildren.
Come on, Emil, it's it's really not that much.
It's not like $100 million lawsuit or something.

(44:33):
OK. And then, yeah, that's all I had
to say. And then also somebody mentioned
girls get half the sports funding is boys, and that's
because girls are girls and boysare boys.
So just thought I'd throw that in there that girls don't tend
to do as much physical activity as boys do.
So I think that's kind of commonsense.
So also I'm being interrupting Melinda, and one of your

(44:56):
campaign promises was to. I can add 30 more seconds for
you since the public interrupted.
I did that for the board. Wow, that's that's essentially
all I had to say, but it it's ridiculous.
People interrupt a lot. So I I would appreciate if you
could stop. I'm sorry I got distracted.
I can add 30 more. Seconds, you're good.
And then also, Emil, when we hadthat 15 minutes on, what was

(45:18):
that, Q7? You were looking at the timer
counting down so you could finish your point at the last
second so that Doctor Kamrowski cannot respond to your point.
You did that on purpose, Emil. You were looking at the timer to
try to stop Doctor K from responding and you were abusing
Melinda's time policy. So it's it's a whole mess up
here. It really is a whole mess.
So thank you. Thank you.

(45:40):
He wants to talk about a seizure.
I just had one listening to him.What the hell was that?
He's so disrespectful. He made so many assumptions.
I couldn't keep up. Now we know what people are
thinking and what they're what they're looking at and their

(46:01):
their next move. Like, you know, what they're
calculating in their brain in that moment.
Are you kidding me? Yeah.
I just had a seizure too. That fool said girls aren't as
physically active as boys. What?
Kind of disrespect, Ignorant. I have $100,000 right now that

(46:25):
says my 13 year old daughter will beat him in a 40.
Hour. Yeah.
Ford. I have dude.
I'll have. Money on it, I will put money on
it dude. My 13 year old will smoke you
dude A. 1000% that is like that literally just ties into what we

(46:47):
were talking about that they're less than.
Yeah, right. I guarantee you the majority of
the high school athletes, femaleathletes in this district would
whoop your ass to Kingdom come. Maybe think before you speak,
especially in an audience of parents that have had enough of

(47:08):
this narrative. Someone, someone should tell
Riley. He really sounds like a
transgender woman. Because we're better than you.
You. Coming first.
I can't. And by the way, I've never
talked about this, but I'm I'm happy we can end on this public
comment because I want the listeners to know that I

(47:29):
actually received a cease and desist from Riley, something
that I'm pretty sure he just handwrote himself.
And you know, I've heard him talk about the importance of
free speech and standing up for free speech and public comments.
But as soon as I make a podcast where we give our opinion and
our perspective on situations, yeah.

(47:52):
Shut. Your mouth, shut my mouth.
Oh, I'm I'm slandering him because I'm giving my
perspective and it's so funny. It's like my response to him was
basically to kick rocks. He basically told me that.
He basically told me that I haveuntil, like you have until
tomorrow to pull the episode down, bro, I'm not pulling the
episode down, but you're more than welcome to come on.

(48:15):
And. Clear the record.
Go ahead and clear your. Name on the.
Platform and he had nothing to say to that.
So it's just, it's just, you know, this guy, he's something
else. I mean, I just don't like half
the time he goes up there and it's it's it reminds me of like
it reminds me because sometimes I'll tell my 13 year old like,

(48:36):
Hey, if you have an issue, you can go ahead and discuss it.
If you don't like, if you don't want to do your dish, if you
don't want to do the dishes, youdon't like helping out, talk to
us about it. Let us know.
And my 13 year old will go off just like how he did.
Oh, and then and then and then mom, and then you did.

(48:57):
It's like Jesus. And we sit there like, OK.
All right, OK. All right, do you feel better?
All right, now do the dishes. Exactly.
Oh my gosh, this. Is a long one.
It is. Yeah.
All right. You got anything to close this
out? Just let's listen to each other.

(49:19):
Let's just take a beat. You know, I feel like we're
getting into the same song and dance of just false outrage and
false victimhood. And we've just got to get out of
that mindset If we are ever going to get out of the past.
And I think I mentioned that previously, like let's just move
on already as a community as well, not just the board members

(49:41):
because they're they're showing that they can do that Little by
little they are doing it. But as community members, guys,
pick your battles. That's all I got to say.
Pick your battles. I think I dive in head first
into every battle. All right guys, thank you for
tuning in. We'll see you next time.

(50:02):
Bye, guys.