The Temecula Valley Unified School District board voted 4-1 Monday night to reject a motion referring Trustee Jennifer Wiersma to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), following months of public criticism over the cost and conduct surrounding a sexual harassment complaint she filed.
The proposal stemmed from a third-party investigation that cost the district $20,000, initiated and voted on by the board after Wiersma filed a complaint naming Schwarz. The independent report found no legal wrongdoing but noted interpersonal conflict among board members. While it was the goal of the board to recoup costs associated with the study, it was noted during the meeting that it was the board that voted to engage Nicole Miller and Associates for the study, not Jen Wiersma.
Wiersma reminded the board that she had the right to file a complaint. She said in her closing comments, “From the point of legally filing my uniform complaint, I asked district leadership to facilitate a meeting with the respondent and the board president behind the scenes, without spectacle. I was denied.
After the workshop, I requested professional mediation with proper legal oversight. I was again denied. In good faith, I participated in an investigation, which some have now suggested to me was a kangaroo court designed to fix this for the district. Is this where the cover-up becomes worse than the crime?
Many in the audience saw it as retaliation.
Board President Dr. Melinda Anderson introduced the motion to submit a complaint and investigation report to the FPPC, suggesting it was without cost to the district and could decide if there were potential violations of the Political Reform Act, but noted that she didn’t really believe the FPPC would accept the complaint.
“This is not a trial. We are not judges. The public is not the jury,” Anderson said while explaining her rationale. “We are simply trying to find a path forward.”
Komroski questioned the point of the motion. “Why are we doing this if the FPPC likely won’t act?” he asked, echoing concerns about symbolic gestures without legal substance.
Public comment was sharply divided. Some speakers demanded accountability for the financial and reputational toll on the district, despite the fact that the cost was incurred by the board’s vote.
Others, like Jack Guerrero, a former state official, urged the board to reject the motion. Guerrero warned that the FPPC does not have jurisdiction over the matter. “There is no campaign finance issue here,” he said. “This is outside the FPPC’s scope. Don’t let political drama erode this district.”
Wiersma responded by citing Education Code section 234.1, arguing she was within her rights to file the complaint. “I filed in my capacity as a board member. I was harassed,” she said.
Schwarz, who had originally proposed a separate censure motion against Wiersma, announced at the beginning of the meeting that he was withdrawing it. “Sometimes accountability isn’t about a show of force,” he said. “It’s about the long-term credibility of this board.”
The second controversial item on the agenda—a proposed referral to the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury—never reached a formal vote or motion. Anderson introduced it as an informational item to explore possible next steps, but no trustee advanced it. The board did, however, allow public comment on the topic.
It was noted that anyone could make a referral to the Riverside Grand Jury and at least one audience member said they were going to pursue it.
Rick Reese, another speaker, said the matter didn’t meet the threshold. “This is a personal conflict. The grand jury investigates issues of systemic concern to the county, not school board drama.”
With both proposed accountability measures either rejected or left on the table, the meeting ended with no clear resolution.
Trustee Steven Schwartz defended his reputation in closing comments, outlining his decades-long stellar educational background, stating he was also falsely accused of misconduct. He emphasized that the independent investigations cleared him of wrongdoing and questioned Wiersma’s credibility and motives and accused Wiersma of damaging the district’s trust and finances. He added that he is still considering civil action against her.
Wiersma, in her closing comments, said, “Every board member should be afforded the right to a discrimination-free environment, devoid of both religious bigotry and any form of sexual harassment. As a result of coming forward regarding my colleague’s vulgar slang and inappropriate comments toward me at the California School Boards Association meeting, I have endured institutional retaliation designed to harm me both personally and politically.
“I fully expected our board president to corroborate my statement in the workshop, based on our brief discussion after the incident. Instead, I have been targeted and smeared as the perpetrator.
“This flawed process sets a terrible precedent for every female student and woman in TVUSD who may need help. School districts must prioritize integrity, victim protection, and public trust by ensuring that AB 1078 is followed to prevent intimidation, bullying, and discrimination based on religion or gender in all school activities, within the local educational agency, and by the governing board.”
What wasn’t clear by the end of the meeting was what leadership will do to create a clear policy and pathway forward for people involved on the board who may have a grievance of some kind who don’t want to file a lawsuit or pay for an expensive study.
The board did end the night by voting to make a referral to the ask Riverside County Office of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with a request that they consider initiating a formal governance and fiscal review through the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT).
