Posted on 07/18/2025 7:24:48 PM PDT by DogByte6RER
A sworn declaration from a local constituent alleges that Temecula Valley Unified School District Board President Dr. Melinda Anderson could have made false and misleading statements during an independent investigation into a sexual harassment complaint between TVUSD board members. The document, signed and dated July 16, 2025, by Jason Craig, claims that Anderson privately admitted to hearing vulgar comments made by Trustee Steven Schwartz, differing from statements she made to investigators.
“Dr. Anderson admitted to me that she heard Mr. Schwartz say the comment(s) ‘You can cop a feel’… and ‘my wife wouldn’t mind,’” Craig wrote in the declaration. “At no time… did Dr. Anderson deny hearing the statements.”
The declaration details a phone conversation that took place on March 13, 2025, between Craig and Anderson, during which Anderson allegedly acknowledged Schwartz’s comments and dismissed them as part of his personality, stating, “That’s just Steve being Steve.” Craig said he initially interpreted this as an attempt to unify the board by excusing Schwartz’s behavior, but now believes it contradicts Anderson’s formal testimony.
Craig says he supported Anderson’s candidacy and helped to get her elected by submitting her election paperwork for her.
“Basically, the discussion was trying to figure out why he said these statements, not if he made them,” Craig stated. He added that Anderson later refused to discuss the matter further without attorneys present, raising concerns about her integrity.
The declaration directly challenges the findings of a June 4, 2025, investigative report conducted by Nicole Miller & Associates, which stated that Anderson and other witnesses did not hear any inappropriate comment during the December 5, 2024, incident.
The comprehensive 49-page report determined that allegations made by Trustee Jennifer Wiersma against fellow board member Steven Schwartz were not corroborated by witnesses, while Wiersma believed Dr. Anderson had heard the conversation between Schwartz and her.
Wiersma alleged that while on board business during a group photo at a California School Boards Association event on Dec. 5, 2024, Schwartz made inappropriate comments, including “You can cop a feel” and “My wife wouldn’t mind.” Schwartz denied making any such remarks, and then several witnesses—including Board President Dr. Melinda Anderson—submitted written statements saying they did not hear him make any inappropriate comment.
Wiersma alleged that newly elected TVUSD board member Dr. Melinda Anderson was nearby and overheard the crude remark, but dismissed it, telling Wiersma, “That’s just Steve.”
While the report stopped short of clearing Schwartz, it did state that, “The evidence does not sustain that… Mr. Schwartz remarked that he wouldn’t mind if [Ms. Wiersma] wanted to ‘cop a feel’ and/or further commented that his ‘wife wouldn’t mind.’”
Miller’s report also addressed Schwartz’s counterclaim that Wiersma filed her complaint in bad faith. While it stopped short of a definitive finding, the investigator wrote that the evidence “suggests her complaint may not have been made in good faith—or, at best, that she exercised poor judgment.” Notably, the investigative process culminated in an open-session discussion to waive attorney-client privilege, during which Trustee Schwartz voted with Trustees Barham and Anderson (despite a clear conflict of interest) to release the full report while Wiersma recused herself. Schwartz’s subsequent social media on June 25, smeared Wiersma, misrepresenting the report to demand Jen’s apology, further indicating self-interest and reinforcing the conflict.
But Craig criticized the handling of the report and accused district leaders of suppressing Wiersma’s voice, citing further procedural concerns. “Dr. Anderson’s lack of integrity has left me no choice but to put our personal conversation on record in hopes that we can find a better solution,” Craig stated. He also objected to the confidential report being shared outside official channels, including with a teachers’ union activist critical of Wiersma.
The investigation, conducted under the attorney-client privilege of the district’s legal counsel, included interviews with 10 individuals, including board members, district staff, and community members, as well as a review of documents and emails.
District leadership has not publicly responded to Craig’s sworn statement as of press time.
Concerns of Bias and Collusion Undermine Investigation’s Findings
In addition to Craig’s concerns about the integrity of the report, others have since raised sharp criticisms of the report’s methodology, calling it “compromised” by bias, flawed logic, and witness coordination.
Critics of the report point to several systemic failures:
Misinterpretation of common victim behavior. The report emphasized Wiersma’s seven-week delay in filing a complaint as suspicious. Yet, trauma experts widely agree that delays in reporting harassment are statistically common and not indicative of deception. The statistical reality is that up to 90% of harassment victims never file formal reports, and those who do often delay due to fear of retaliation, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC. A 2003 EEOC report showed only 6–13% of individuals who experience harassment ever file a formal complaint, meaning 87–94% do not. Inconsistent application of credibility standards. The investigation treated minor inconsistencies in Wiersma’s account as evidence against her, while downplaying or ignoring implausible elements in other testimonies, such as Schwartz’s claim that he did not know what the phrase “cop a feel” means. Witness collusion prior to the investigation. The report itself confirms that Schwartz collected and submitted signed statements from witnesses—including Anderson and Board Clerk Emil Barham—before the official investigation began. Critics argue this indicates that testimonies were coordinated, not independently obtained. The same 2003 EEOC report cited above found that 75% of employees who spoke up faced retaliation, underlining the fear many victims have in coming forward.
Craig believes retaliation is the reason Board Member Wiersma is the subject of several agenda items at an upcoming board meeting.
The TVUSD Board, under the direction of Dr. Anderson, has planned a Special Meeting for Monday night, July 21, 2025, to have the board vote on whether or not to formally refer the matter to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for investigation and possible civil fines and administrative penalties; or Reimbursement to the district for costs incurred; or vote on whether to refer the incident to the 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).
In addition, the board will consider voting whether or not to refer Jen Wiersma to the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury for review of governance conduct and misuse of public resources.
In the agenda for the Special Session, it says, “The public deserves elected officials who act with integrity, follow the law, and respect the limits of their office. This is not a political matter—it is a clear case of misuse of public trust and taxpayer dollars.”
Craig believes the public deserves this integrity from the board and the board president.
In an email from Dr. Anderson she clarified that The purpose of listing multiple paths—such as the FPPC, civil grand jury, the County Office of Education, and the State Superintendent—is to ensure that the full board has the opportunity to publicly discuss and decide collectively how best to proceed. The agenda does not propose using all four authorities, but rather provides a structured way for the board to consider each and determine if any are appropriate.
The agenda states, “These agencies are neutral. They have the authority to investigate and determine whether further action or consequences are warranted. That process removes politics, bias, and self-interest from the equation—and it’s what the public deserves.”
While the agencies may be neutral, Craig believes that the response from the board president is overkill and the district and board are trying to intimidate Wiersma and scare her into quitting.
Dr. Anderson added that, “In addition to the options listed on the agenda, there are two other potential courses of action the board may discuss:
-Directing the district to pursue reimbursement independently through litigation; and
-Referring the matter directly to the District Attorney for review.”
Wiersma said, “Since reporting the incident, I have endured what could be perceived as institutional retaliation and intimidation coordinated to harm me personally and politically. I have never filed this type of complaint or grievance during any aspect of my adult life. Now I understand why women are afraid to come forward with a claim of sexual harassment or misconduct. It’s time to right the record and return to board business.”
The board agenda states, “…We are not acting as judge and jury—we are simply forwarding the matter to those who are empowered to conduct an impartial review. We are also taking care to ensure the district does not expend further public funds except to support potential reimbursement [by Director Wiersma] of the more than $20,000 already spent on a matter determined to be personal and civil in nature.”
Craig said, “The punishment is in the process. All of this because a board member dared to come forward, which she had every right to do.”
Craig said the district would, of course, have preferred for her to have taken it outside the district and handled it civilly, but she had the right to handle it through the school district.
Dr. Joseph Komrosky said, “I’ve observed, on many occasions, the untrustworthy behaviour of Dr. Anderson and Mr. Schwartz, so this doesn’t come as a surprise. Based on this [Craig’s] key piece of testimonial evidence, it appears that the house of cards they have built is now crashing down. That said, there is only one way out of a lie. It’s telling the truth. It’s time for both of them to tell the truth and stop this witch trial against Mrs. Wiersma by coming clean and publicly apologizing to her. The manipulation and dishonesty that these two have brought into this situation are not only unprofessional but also immoral and unethical, and TVUSD deserves better.”
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
This is nothing more than a political witch hunt of a conservative Christian school board member …
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.