An Unnecessary Contract: Advocates for Faith and Freedom
How the TVUSD school board majority chose to defend against the CRT lawsuit
Summary: The Temecula School District already has insurance that defends against lawsuits. But the school board majority hired a law firm anyway, binding the district to lengthy, expensive court battles. Why?
At their first meeting in December 2022, the newly elected school board majority (Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez) passed a resolution banning the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) and “other similar frameworks” in Temecula public schools.
In June 2023, a law firm representing individual parents, students, and teachers demanded the resolution be retracted. It was not. In August 2023 they filed a lawsuit against the school district and school board trustees.
At a special meeting on August 9, 2023, the board majority presented and immediately approved a contract with the firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom to defend against the lawsuit (here’s the full contract as approved). This firm offered to provide services pro bono (for free).
Sounds like a good deal!
On the surface this contract looks like a good deal—free defense for the district and the board!
It’s not.
The most important reason it’s not a good deal is that it’s unnecessary. The TVUSD is a member of the Riverside Schools Insurance Authority JPA (joint powers authority), which insures the district and the board and defends them against lawsuits. Legal defense is already covered. No attorney firm is needed to defend against this or other lawsuits.
Here’s another big reason not to sign the contract: it requires the district to “vigorously defend itself in this litigation until it either succeeds as the prevailing party…or it has fully exhausted all options of appeal to the highest court…” Appeals typically go on for years. For example, the California State Supreme Court—just one possible appeal—takes an average of just under two years to decide civil cases.
Also, if district staff or the board (this board or any future one) ever decides it’s wiser to settle, not appeal, or stop using Advocates for Faith and Freedom, pro bono no longer applies, and the district will have to pay all attorneys’ fees incurred up to that point.
In any case, attorneys’ fees are just part of the cost of defending the lawsuit. The contract states that the district pays for printing, postage, and mileage; legal research; courier and delivery charges; investigators’ and experts’ fees; court and filing fees; and other expenses. And of course district staff will have to spend time responding to legal questions and proceedings. For as long as appeals go on.
So to review:
This unnecessary contract the board majority approved ties the district’s hands for years into the future.
Any attempt to rescind the contract costs us significant money that otherwise would be spent on our schools and students.
Significant time and energy will be expended by district staff on this lawsuit, rather than on the education of our children.
So why did the board majority approve the contract?
Good question! While all board discussion about litigation is held in closed session and not available to the public, we can make some pretty good guesses based on the contract itself and what we heard at the open session on August 9.
The firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom wants to use this lawsuit for their own ends. Their contract states: “Firm is a nonprofit entity that has a philosophical interest in the pending litigation, the outcome of the litigation, and the prospect that this case may establish legal precedent.” This firm does not care about what’s in the best interests of Temecula students or our community; they’re in it for what they want.
And what about the board majority? Unfortunately it appears they agree. At the board meeting, Komrosky said, “Me personally, I want this lawsuit to be destroyed…And quite frankly if this goes to the Supreme Court of the United States—awesome.”
Clearly the board knew about the JPA insurance, because both Allison Barclay and Steve Schwartz (the two trustees not part of the majority) briefly mentioned it in the very short discussion President Komrosky allowed. But the JPA would not accomplish what the majority wants, because it would review the lawsuit and could advise the district to settle and rescind the anti-CRT resolution (a likely outcome in this case). Komrosky cut off discussion before any questions could be asked about the JPA.
So despite the fact that they were elected as trustees—who have a fiduciary responsibility to manage school district funds for the benefit of our students, not themselves or their personal goals—Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez approved this unnecessary, unwise contract.
But why?
The board majority and their backers want to change California law (in this case, to outlaw the teaching of what they think critical race theory is). They probably think it would be difficult to convince the California legislature to change the laws the way they want, because the legislature leans left. So they are trying to accomplish their goals through the courts.
They passed the CRT resolution expecting a lawsuit. They got it. Now they’ll pursue it, using our resources.
We, the taxpayers and students and teachers of Temecula, will have to pay for their goals—in money, in time, in distraction from learning, in worry, in loss of our school district’s good reputation.
Is that what we want?