TVUSD Board Presiding Officer Wiersma fights censorship from board members and staff over parental rights policy

In an unusual move on Sept. 10th, TVUSD Board Clerk and acting Presiding Officer Jen Wiersma, called to order the continuation of the August 27th, 2024 regular TVUSD board meeting to officially close the prior meeting. The meeting on August 27 abruptly ended when two board members left the meeting while Wiersma started to read a statement she had prepared with legal counsel addressing a parental notification policy issue and a letter sent from Supt. Woods after receiving communication from the California Department of Education (CDE).

 Parental notification has been the focus of school boards up and down the state after complaints and lawsuits from parents who, after the fact, found out that school employees secretly have been facilitating their students changing their gender identification and identity, with potentially life threatening surgeries and castration. Other parents have objected to having students of the opposite sex in the locker room or bathrooms. 

There are several districts like TVUSD that have court battles working their way through the system. TVUSD has so far had success in state court defending their parental notification policy they enacted last year when they had a conservative board majority that ran on parental rights issues. 

Supt. Woods responded in July, 2024 by sending out a letter to teachers, students, employees and parents nullifying parts of the approved policy as requested by the CDE without public comment or a vote from the TVUSD board. 

The issue, according to Wiersma, and the cause for debate, was that “neither the CDE nor the superintendent has legal standing or lawful authority to nullify or supersede a lawful policy that was voted into TVUSD policy by board members who were elected by the public.”

During the board meeting of August 27, in order to keep Wiersma from reading her statement and hearing the information she had attained from legal counsel,  the two other board members, Schwartz and Barclay, quickly left the meeting. After they left, Supt. Woods said, “If there isn’t a quorum, the meeting is adjourned. He repeated that the meeting was adjourned and then appeared to be looking up and signaling to staff by running his finger from right to left across his neck, which is typically a sign to “cut”. Staff followed suit by diming lights and cutting video immediately while Officer Wiersma was still speaking.

An attorney, Mr. Brenner, during the Sept. 10 meeting stated that Robert’s Rules of Order don’t require the meeting to end because there isn’t a quorum. It just goes on without the ability to vote and it still needs to be adjourned officially. 

Additionally, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, the Superintendent doesn’t have the authority to adjourn the meeting while the Presiding Officer is present and running the meeting. The role of the Superintendent is an administrative officer, not a member of the board. Their role is to provide information and advice, not to control the meeting’s proceedings.

Jonathan Ingram, long-time Murrieta Councilman and former Mayor wrote a statement and asked someone to read it in the Sept. 10 meeting. 

He wrote, “To the Current Board Members and the Superintendent of the Temecula Valley Unified School District,

“I am writing to express my profound disappointment regarding the recent treatment of Trustee Jen Wiersma during the public board meeting. The concerning decision to cut the lights and video feed in an apparent attempt to silence a fellow elected official is wholly unacceptable.

“Such actions erode the transparency and accountability that we, as parents and community members, rightfully expect from our school district. Every board member warrants the respect due to their position, and the public has the unequivocal right to hear all perspectives on critical issues that influence our children and the policies of our board. This behavior not only raises serious questions about accountability but also jeopardizes the foundational principle of open dialogue that is vital to our governance process.

“As representatives of our community, you are charged with the responsibility to create a respectful and inclusive environment where all voices are valued, particularly on matters as significant as parental rights.

“I urge you to reflect upon these actions and consider the lasting implications they may have on the trust our community places in you.”

Sincerely, Jonathan Ingram

Wiersma asked for a vote during the Sept. 10th meeting for an endorsement of her Open Letter by the Board. She was requesting to have her letter sent to all the stakeholders in the district, the same people that received the Superintendent’s letter, but without the support of her fellow board members the vote died and the letter will not be sent out to the district.

The letter from the Agenda but not read aloud in the meeting, or sent out to the stakeholders, is included  below. The letter from Superintendent Woods is also included after Wiersma’s letter.

___________________________________________________________________

August 27, 2024
From the desk of Jen Wiersma, Board Clerk and Presiding Officer of the TVUSD Board

As we begin the 2024-2025 school year, and in the wake of the notice letter regarding the
recent California Department of Education (CDE) finding on TVUSD’s Parental Notification
Policy, I am reaching out as the clerk and presiding officer of the Board to share my thoughts and perspective with you on the CDE decision, Assembly Bill 1955, and our Parental Notification Policy, which the Board passed by the TVUSD Board of Education in August of 2023. Please note that these are my personal perspectives and not a statement on behalf of the Board. Nonetheless, given the reactions I have received and the understandable concerns within the community after receiving the notice letter, I felt it was important to communicate and share my views.
In a difficult post-COVID era, I recognize the important role of schools to support students struggling with social, emotional, and behavioral health issues on campus. Balancing student, parent, and employee rights and concerns while addressing rising social and behavioral needs continues to be a complex issue before school boards throughout the state. Many are asking what role the school should play when addressing the needs of students with varying and often complicated social, mental, and physical health considerations.
In contemplating these issues, I returned to important case law on the rights of parents and families to inform my thinking.
“Rights are the “starting point” of family law: “Natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Parham v. J.R., 1979)
“Our society does recognize an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ presumptive right to retain the care,
custody, management, and companionship of one’s own child, free of intervention by the
government.” (California Court of Appeals, In re Henry V., 2004)
The U.S. Supreme Court found that parental rights were fundamental under the Fourteenth Amendment, stating “the custodial parent has a constitutional right to determine, without undue interference from the state, how best to raise, nurture, and educate the child.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Troxel v. Granville, 2000)
“Parenting is a fundamental right, and accordingly, is disturbed only in extreme cases of
persons acting in a fashion incompatible with parenthood.” (Supreme Court of California, In re Carmaleta B., 1978)
Accordingly, in the absence of extreme or other similarly compelling circumstances, such as neglect or abuse, neither the State of California nor the CDE has a legal basis to interfere with a parent’s fundamental right to care for and direct the upbringing of their child. Parents and guardians have the right to be informed about all aspects of their child’s educational, social, and medical circumstances, progress, and involvement at school. Respecting the historical rights of parents gives guidance to our current tumultuous times.
In light of these first principles, federal and state law also recognizes the essential role of
parents to authorize accommodations and services for students with unique needs. Public
schools are legally required to identify, accommodate, and provide educational services to
students with disabilities, including physical or mental impairment or medical conditions,
after obtaining consent from the student’s parent or guardian. A school’s failure to
communicate social-emotional or mental health issues, or a student’s request for the school staff to facilitate a psycho-social intervention, is inconsistent with federal and state laws, procedural safeguards, and school policies. Gender dysphoria is a mental health diagnosis based on an incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and biological sex (DSM-5). Though gender dysphoria is not a recognized disability under IDEA, the DSM-5 states that “the condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment” and students may have mental health comorbidities that could be classified under a disabling condition. Students cannot access disability assessment, education accommodations, or special services from schools without the consent of a parent or legal guardian. Withholding information from a student’s parent about possible symptoms connected to a disabling condition arising from or associated with gender identity contravenes fundamental parental rights, is a form of unequal protection under the law, limits student access to substantial educational support, and is discriminatory under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. All students deserve to have equal access to educational supports regardless of gender identity which requires parental involvement.
In furtherance of parental rights and the best interests of our students, and based on
applicable statutory and constitutional case law, the TVUSD Board passed parent
notification Board Policy 5020.01 in 2023.
Recently, on February 23, 2024, the California superior court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against TVUSD’s parental notification policy, affirming its initial view that the policy met federal and state law requirements. The judge declared that BP 5020.01 did not violate students’ constitutional rights stating, “the District’s purpose in involving parents in the decision-making process and restoring trust is furthered by mandatory parental notification . . . The Policy is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.”
Despite the clear ruling by a state superior court judge, on July 16, 2024, the CDE made an administrative “determination” that TVUSD BP 5020.01 was discriminatory. The CDE’s
determination conflicts with the state superior court’s initial ruling allowing BP 5020.01 to
stand. The state superior court’s ruling was not discussed or addressed by the CDE. A
comprehensive review of legal options and surrounding documentation was not brought before the TVUSD Board for consideration and a vote to direct how to proceed. As a result, TVUSD did not submit a request for CDE reconsideration based on the superior court ruling. Similarly, neither the taking of corrective action requested by the CDE nor the sending of the notice letter from the Superintendent was brought before the TVUSD Board for approval, and the Board has never authorized or approved the District, the Superintendent, or any other staff member to refrain from implementing BP 5020.01.
In July, the State of California passed AB 1955, which goes into effect in January 2025,
prohibiting any school board policy, rule, or administrative regulation that requires a school employee to disclose any information related to a pupil’s LGBTQ+ identity to any other person without the pupil’s consent unless otherwise required by state or federal law. The Act does not limit a parent’s ability to request and obtain school records, as required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). How AB 1955 applies to various school board notification policies in conjunction with state and federal law, and whether AB 1955 is Constitutional and valid is currently being litigated.
In a lawsuit filed by the Chino Valley Unified School District and concerned parents, and
recently joined by the Anderson Union High School District and the Orange County Board of Education, the plaintiffs ask the state superior court to bar California from implementing AB 1955 on the grounds that the legislation violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Ultimately, the legality of AB 1955 will be decided by the courts. In the near term, and as noted, if no injunction or stay is issued by the superior court, AB 1955 will go into effect in January 2025.
Regarding the prior communication from TVUSD about Board Policy 5020.01, I did not and do not agree with it. Neither the CDE nor the Superintendent of TVUSD has the authority to change or invalidate any aspect of the policy passed by the duly elected school board and upheld by a state superior court judge. Short of a court order, a valid and effective legal statutory requirement, or other valid and effective legal requirement, only the Board can make such an invalidation. Any future proposed Board policy, including changes to an existing policy, must be placed on the Board’s agenda, with public comment allowed, and passed by a majority vote of the duly elected TVUSD Board in open session. In addition, in this situation, all available legal options should have been explored, including seeking reconsideration of the CDE’s decision and challenging it in court, and second and third opinions from counsel should have been obtained, before providing communication to our families and community on such a complex, novel, and currently undecided set of legal issues that directly implicate fundamental parental rights. While I acknowledge that as an individual Trustee, I cannot override or prescribe a different action from the Superintendent’s letter published to parents and the community, technically and legally the policy still stands as written and passed by the Board on August 22, 2023.
By January, hopefully, the results of the legal challenge to AB 1955 will be clear and
understood. A fully constituted TVUSD Board with five seated Trustees can consider the
Board’s Parent Notification policy in open session, including whether any change to it or
rescission of it, is warranted. And until then, and at this time, our teachers, administrators, and staff have every right and ability to communicate their concerns with families; students may receive compassionate support and educational services; and parents have full rights under the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to receive both official and unofficial records.
In closing, caring for our students and their families remains one of my highest concerns as a Trustee. As we begin the 2024-2025 school year, I look forward to seeing our students thrive in an environment designed to elevate their health, welfare, and education.
Sincerely,
Jen Wiersma
Board Clerk
Current Presiding Officer

______________________________________________________________________

Letter from Superintendent Woods to all the stakeholders, including parents, students, teachers, and staff.

July 25, 2024
Re: Notification Regarding Board Policy 5020.01, Parental Notification
Dear TVUSD Students, Parents/Guardians, and Employees:
In conjunction with legal counsel, the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) writes to update all District students, parents/guardians, and employees on the status of a Parental Notification Board Policy 5020.01, adopted by the District’s Board on August 22, 2023. The California Department of Education (CDE) is requiring the TVUSD to send you the following information:
“The California Department of Education has determined that TVUSD Board Policy
5020.01, Parental Notification, paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), violates California
Education Code Section 220’s ban on discrimination against students based on gender
identity and expression.
The policy states:
1. Principal/designee, certificated staff, and school counselors shall notify the
parent(s)/guardian(s), in writing, within three days from the date any District
employee, administrator, or certificated staff becomes aware that a student is:
a. Requesting to be identified or treated as agender (as defined in Education Code Section 210.7) other than the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the student’s birth certificate or any other official records.
This includes any request by the student to use a name that differs from their legal name (other than a commonly recognized diminutive of the child’s legal name) or to use pronouns that do not align with the student’s iological sex or gender listed on the student’s birth certificate or other official records.
b. Accessing sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, or using bathrooms or changing facilities that do not align with the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the birth certificate or other official
records.”
Based on the CDE’s determination, TVUSD will not implement paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) of BP 5020.01 in blue text (bolded text below) for the time being, considering Governor Newsom’s signing last week of Assembly Bill 1955, which may render this parental notification policy unlawful as of January 1, 2025. The remainder of BP 5020.01 remains in effect.
TVUSD Board Policy 5020.01 states:
“The Temecula Valley Unified School District Board of Education strives to foster trust
between the District and the parent(s)/guardian(s) of its students. To that end, the
Board supports the fundamental rights of parent(s)/guardian(s) to direct the care and
upbringing of their children, including the right to be informed of and involved in all
aspects of their child’s education to promote the best outcomes.
It is the intent of Temecula Valley Unified School District in enacting this parental notification policy to do all of the following:
1. Provide procedures designed to maintain and, in some cases, restore trust between school districts and parent(s)/guardian(s) of pupils.
2. Bring parent(s)/guardian(s) into the decision-making process for mental health and social-emotional issues of their children at the earliest possible time in order to prevent or reduce potential instances of self-harm.
3. Promote communication and positive relationships with parent(s)/guardian(s) of pupils that promote the best outcomes for pupils’ academic and social-emotional success.
It is the policy of the Temecula Valley Unified School District that District employees, administrators, and certificated staff collaborate with parent(s)/guardian(s) in evaluating the needs of students having academic, attendance, social, emotional, or behavioral difficulties and in identifying tragedies and programs that may assist such students in maximizing their potential.
This parental notification policy requires the following:
1. Principal/designee, certificated staff, and school counselors shall notify the parent(s)/guardian(s), in writing, within three days from the date any District employee, administrator, or certificated staff becomes aware that a student is:
a. Requesting to be identified or treated as a gender (as defined in Education Code Section 210.7) other than the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the student’s birth certificate or any other official records.
This includes any request by the student to use a name that differs from their legal name (other than a commonly recognized diminutive of the child’s legal name) or to use pronouns that do not align with the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the student’s birth certificate or other official records.
b. Accessing sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, or using bathrooms or changing facilities that do not align with the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the birth certificate or other official records.
c. Requesting to change any information contained in the student’s official or unofficial records.
2. The principal/designee or staff shall notify the parent(s)/ guardian(s) of the student immediately or as soon as reasonably possible that the student has experienced any significant physical injury while on school property or participating in a school-sponsored activity.
3. All District employees shall take every student’s statement regarding suicidal intent seriously.
a. Whenever an employee, administrator, or certificated staff member suspects or has knowledge of a student’s suicidal intentions based on the student’s verbalizations or act of self-harm, the employee, administrator, or staff member shall promptly notify the principal or school counselor, who shall implement District’s intervention protocols, as appropriate, and shall notify the parent(s)/guardian(s) immediately, or as soon as reasonably possible.
b. When a suicide attempt or threat is known, the principal or designee shall ensure student safety by taking the following actions:
i. Immediately secure medical treatment and/or mental health services as necessary.
ii. Keep the student under continuous adult supervision until the parent/guardian and/or appropriate support agent or agency can be contacted and has the opportunity to intervene;
iii. Notify law enforcement and/or other emergency assistance if a suicidal act is being actively threatened and remove other students from the area in the event of an active suicidal act.
c. The principal or designee shall document the incident in writing, including the steps that the school took in response to the suicide attempt or threat.
d. School employees shall act only within the authorization and scope of their credential or license. An employee is not authorized to diagnose or treat mental illness unless specifically licensed and employed to do so. (Education Code 215).
4. The principal/designee or certificated staff shall notify the parent(s)/guardian(s) of any incident or complaint of a verbal or physical altercation involving their child, including bullying by or against their child, within three days of the occurrence. Any student, parent/guardian, or other individual who believes that a student has been subjected to bullying or who has witnessed bullying may report the incident to a teacher, the principal, the District compliance officer, or any other available school employee. Any complaint of bullying, whether it is discriminatory or nondiscriminatory, shall be investigated and resolved in accordance with law and the District’s uniform complaint procedures (UCP) specified in Administrative Regulation 1312.3.
5. Unless otherwise specified, the notification required in sections 1 through 4 above can be by telephone, mail, email, or conference. The District employees who make such notification shall either keep a record of such notification (if written) or document such notification (if verbal) and place the record or documentation in the student’s official student information system.
6. For purposes of this Board policy, Family Code Section 6924, Health and Safety Code Section 124260, and Education Code Section 49602(C), the inclusion of parent(s)/guardian(s) is appropriate unless specifically prohibited by law. Nothing in this policy affects the obligations of the District’s employees, administrators, and certificated staff as mandated reporters under Article 2.5 of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act Sections 11164-11174.3 of the Penal Code and the District Policy 5141 and Administrative Regulation 5141.4.”
As many of you know, on February 23, 2024, a state superior court judge declared that TVUSD BP 5020.01 did not violate a student’s constitutional rights as alleged in a recent lawsuit stating, “the District’s purpose in involving parents in the decision-making process and restoring trust is furthered by mandatory parental notification . . . The Policy is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.”
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gary W. Woods
Superintendent