East County Students: Come As You Are, We Will Meet You There

The Board denied renewal of the San Diego Youth Services school- based mental health contract solely due to a misrepresentation about referrals for services to transgender students.

The Board’s decision to deny renewal of the San Diego Youth Services contract for school-based mental health services and the Memorandum of Understanding for the suicide prevention program was not supported by any proven facts. 26

The decision to deny renewal to San Diego Youth Services was based on the objective of restricting or materially amending services to LGBTQ+ youth. Fact: The denial of renewal to San Diego Youth Services left the District without six school-based mental health clinicians and one clinical supervisor at the start of the 2023 – 2024 school year. Fact: The replacement provider, Wellness Together, was not fully onboarded until the beginning of December 2023.

The Board’s decision to deny renewal to San Diego Youth Services without identifying a replacement provider was potentially harmful to students.

The lack of adequate mental health support during a time traditionally characterized by high demand for services was detrimental to students. Fact: Despite the non-renewal of the mental health school-based services and suicide prevention programming, San Diego Youth Services continued to have existing Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), which were programs provided at no cost to the District. Fact: San Diego Youth Services made multiple attempts at the start of the 2023–2024 school year to provide services for the juvenile justice diversion program and the Family Resource Center as was consistent with their contracts.

The Board’s decision caused San Diego Youth Services, to be functionally barred from providing services as outlined in approved MOUs. Fact: One Board Trustee said that he wanted to deny renewal of the San Diego Youth Services contracts to pursue a contract with a company more aligned with “East County Values.” 27 Fact: Between July 2023 and January 2025, the Trustee defines “East County Values” just one time at the January 2025 public Board meeting, although they are referred to as the “community’s values.” Fact: In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the San Diego Union Tribune, a text message by one Trustee to another from early 2025 stated that “East County Values” was defined as “Respect, Responsibility, Resilience, and Rigor. Let’s end DEI.” Fact: San Diego Youth Services and Wellness Together programs serve diverse student populations, provide equitable access to services, and include students of all abilities. Fact: San Diego Youth Services and Wellness Together both comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state non-discrimination policies. Fact: The Board Trustee’s expressed desire to “end DEI” is inconsistent with both San Diego Youth Services and Wellness Together programming, as well as incompatible with existing Grossmont Union High School District policies and the California Department of Education. Fact: Grossmont Union High School District’s inclusion, equity, and diversity policies potentially impact as many 13,500 students or 62.5% of the student body.

“East County Values”, as defined by a Board Trustee as “respect, responsibility, resilience, and rigor” are evident in the services of both San Diego Youth Services and Wellness Together, with both organizations delivering quality services to students with neither being materially more aligned with these characteristics.

A Board Trustee using the absence of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as a qualifier for a replacement mental health service provider is contradictory to the California Department of Education Code.

The Board Trustee’s definition of “East County Values” went publicly undefined until January 2025 and was inconsequential in the selection of a replacement service provider. Fact: The Board approved Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) is a specific commitment to the school community, County and State Departments of Education, and vendor partners. Fact: The 2023–2024 LCAP stated that there was an increased need for mental health support for students and that survey data showed that there was a need to emphasize student mental health and social emotional support. Fact: The District’s approved LCAP for 2023-2024 included a goal connected to student mental health and social-emotional support. Fact: The 2023–2024 LCAP specifically used San Diego Youth Services’ programming as a metric for achievement in item 2.2A. Fact: The Board approved the LCAP on June 15, 2023, but then denied renewal to SDYS on July 20, 2023. Fact: The approved LCAP goals by the Board relied on continuity of services to students and an ongoing relationship with San Diego Youth Services. Fact: The Superintendent is responsible for executing decisions made by the Board.

The Board’s decision to deny renewal of San Diego Youth Services was not aligned with the District’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP).

The Board’s decision compromised the Superintendent, administrators, educators, and clinicians’ abilities to achieve the goals outlined in the LCAP. Fact: The Board’s decision to deny renewal of the San Diego Youth Services’ contract and Memorandum of Understanding was unexpected by service providers, school- based staff, administrators, students, the Superintendent’s office, and the community. Fact: The Board decided to terminate State mandated services without the knowledge or involvement of the Superintendent or their staff, yet they were tasked with repairing and rebuilding services. Fact: The Superintendent is the District's Chief Executive Officer and is ultimately responsible for providing mental health services to students.

The Board violated its Duty of Care as it did not use care and diligence in its decisions regarding the provision of student services.

The Board performed actions which are the responsibility of the Superintendent and staff and did so without their involvement. Fact: The Board meetings in Fall 2023 were well attended by students, staff, stakeholders, and other community members. Fact: The Board’s action to deny renewal of San Diego Youth Services’ contract was overwhelmingly opposed by those who attended and spoke at Board meetings in Fall 2023. Fact: The public response to the Board’s decisions was overwhelmingly contentious, oppositional, robust, and sustained.

The Board’s decision does not represent the community’s best interests.

The Board violated the public trust doctrine as it acted in conflict with the best interests of students. Fact: Collegiality and collaboration between the Governing Board and students, staff, and other stakeholders are strained. Fact: Board meetings between July 2023 and January 2026 continue to be contentious, with recesses called to restore order. Fact: During October, November, and December 2025, three Board Trustees have referenced constituents and members of the school community with denigrating language, such as “disrespectful”, “mob-like”, and “mediocre”. 30

Trustees have disparaged the school community during public comments and social media posts which have generated and fueled ongoing distrust and dissension. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision- making authority. The response of the elected agency or department 31 head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: