Two Very Important Documents: Mae M. v. Komrosky Decision and Legal Challenge to Unconstitutional Facilities Funding

Happy Saturday, and Happy Opening Day to Lunada Bay, Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills and Silver Spur Little League! It’s a very busy baseball day on the hill.

I’m writing to share two very important documents. The first is a decision out of the Riverside County Superior Court last week in the case of Mae M. v. Komrosky, Riverside County Case No. CVSW2306224. This case was brought by BigLaw firm Ballard Spahr and Public Counsel on behalf of union interests against the Temecula Valley Unified School District and several board members challenging policies that (1) prohibit the teaching of critical race theory and (2) require parental notification of psychological transition of a child at school. The decision denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, finding, among other things:

“Theories such as an individual is inherently morally or otherwise superior to another individual because of race or sex, or that individuals are either a member of the oppressor class or the oppressed class because of race or sex, or an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist and/or sexist would seem to be incongruous with the Legislature‘s clear intent found in California Education Code 233.5. Indeed, teachers are to impress on students principals of truth, the dignity of American citizenship and the meaning of equality and human dignity which includes the promotion of harmonious relations free from discriminatory attitudes.”

It is an incredibly refreshing read and a much-needed dose of sanity in a society that feels like it has completely gone off the rails.

The second critical read is this demand letter sent by Goodwin Proctor and Public Advocates (have you noticed the pattern of BigLaw taking up radical causes in public education?). In this letter, the parties threaten the State with a lawsuit challenging an inequitable facilities financing system. They contend that the State’s system for funding public school facilities is unconstitutional in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and causes significant harm to students. I agree, however, I vehemently disagree with the proposed remedies, which are based on erroneous assumptions (e.g., that “high wealth” districts have more money for facilities), and will cause further harm to districts like PVPUSD. The critical point missed in the demand letter is that a community perceived to be “wealthy” may have a higher tax base, but if those voters are unwilling to vote to tax themselves more, then that wealth (or perceived wealth) does not translate to dollars for facilities.

Please take the time to read for yourself and share your feedback with me. As always, this is one woman’s opinion. I don’t speak for the Board and no one else speaks for me.