Continue reading →

The Barstow City Council on Tuesday night voted to place Police Chief Albert Espinoza on paid administrative leave.

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department personnel on Monday moved in on a cockfighting operation in Yucaipa, detaining 38 observers or participants, of whom two were arrested and charged. In addition, some 200 gaming cocks were seized, along with money and 25 firearms.
 On January 19, 2025, at approximately 10:02 a.m., deputies from the Yucaipa Station were dispatched to the 32000 block of Avenue E in response to reports of illegal “cockfighting” occurring on the property.
When deputies arrived, approximately 50 vehicles were seen on the property. Shortly thereafter, a large number of those assembled on the property got into a majority of the cars present on property and began to drive away. When deputies attempted to stop one of the vehicles, the driver, later identified as 33-year-old Jose Luis Adame of Riverside, accelerated the car toward a patrol unit. The deputy avoided being struck. When he sought to initiate a traffic stop, a pursuit ensued. The vehicle stopped near 16th Street and Yucaipa Boulevard where Adame and three passengers were taken into custody. Six live roosters were found in the rear cargo area. Adame was arrested and his vehicle was impounded.
Deputies detained 33 other people identified as spectators on the property where approximately 250 roosters were kept, and a fighting ring with a scoreboard and steel talons were found. Sheriff’s Aviation observed a subject hiding inside of a truck at the rear of the property. Carlos Romero was found lying down inside the truck with seven live roosters in boxes. He was detained and found to have a large sum of U.S. currency on his person and a hidden Ruger semi-automatic handgun inside the truck.
Adame was arrested for P.C. 245 and CVC 2800.2, and Romero, 36 of Perris, was arrested for PC 597 and PC 29805. Both subjects were booked at Central Detention Center.
The San Bernardino County Rural Task Force responded and authored a search warrant for the property. Additional steel talons were located and approximately 24 firearms were seized from a large safe. Yucaipa City Code Enforcement responded and red tagged several buildings including a trailer on the property. San Bernardino County Animal Control recovered approximately 17 dead roosters, seized eight live roosters, and tagged 61 boxed roosters.

By Mark Gutglueck
In a high risk bid to keep the wraps on the misdirection of federal and state money to a host of the deep-pocketed backers of a good cross section of the region’s politicians, San Bernardino County officials are seeking to intimidate a one-time politician into silence about the details of those monetary diversions.
At the center of the burgeoning scandal is former San Bernardino City Councilman Henry Nickel, who served seven years on the city council from 2013 until 2020, and who staged failed political comebacks in a 2022 run for San Bernardino mayor and another in 2024, when he narrowly lost his bid to re-assume his former place on the council dais representing that city’s Fifth Ward.
Despite his checkered political experience, Nickel yet retains a modicum of reach within the dual-sided realm of politics and government, as he was reelected to his fourth term as a member of the Republican Central Committee in March 2024 and is yet employed in an influential position with San Bernardino County.
Indeed, it is by threatening to relieve Nickel of his job with the county – an analyst in the county’s workforce development division – that some of the more senior members of county staff and a host of the most powerful and politically-well-connected members of San Bernardino County’s business community are hoping they can ensure his silence. Ironically, it is the lattice of interweaving political and business interests that previously supported Nickel in his rise to prominence and propelled him into position to learn many of the hush-hush aspects of those alliances that the political and governmental shotcallers now want to keep from the public. Continue reading →

More than eight years following the passage of Proposition 64, all 24 of San Bernardino County’s municipalities are selling medically-related cannabis products and seven are selling or have cleared the way for the sale of marijuana for intoxicative effect.
The county has come a long way from the days when law enforcement throughout the 20,105-square mile jurisdiction routinely made a practice of arresting and prosecuting marijuana users, and in some cases seeing to it that those trafficking in the substance spent upwards of a decade in state prison.
In the mid-to-late 1960s and into the 1970s, 1980s 1990s and first decade of the Third Millennium, as marijuana use escalated from what it had been among previous generations, San Bernardino County law enforcement under sheriffs Frank Bland, Floyd Tidwell, Dick Williams, Gary Penrod and Rod Hoops, multiple police chiefs of the county’s various cities and district attorneys Lowell Lathrop, Jim Cramer, Dennis Kottmeier, Dennis Stout and Mike Ramos proved as or more committed to enforcing restrictions against marijuana use and sales as their counterparts in any of the Golden State’s 57 other counties. Moreover, the political leadership throughout San Bernardino County, from the board of supervisors to the mayors and council members of all of what are now its 24 municipalities – 22 cities and two incorporated towns – were equally adamant about preventing the proliferation of cannabis. 
Continue reading →

Following extensive input from the public on Tuesday night, January 14, the Redlands Unified School District Board of Trustees discussed the possibility of banning any flags on school campuses and in school rooms beyond those relating to the state and federal government, the U.S. military, the school itself or those displayed, presumably temporarily, for educational purposes.
While the language of the proposed ban being discussed was not specific to any given topic or issue, the practical matter being discussed relating to the so-called “pride flag,” i.e., one relating to a celebration of lesbian, bisexual, gay, queer, transsexual, asexual and other non-heterosexual (LGBGQT+) identification.
Ultimately, as the matter was intended for discussion only, no decision on changing the current policy was made. The district’s current policy allows the LGBGQT+ flag to be present at schools, in classrooms and elsewhere on district facilities.
Some parents and some students do not like having the flag and what its presence implies in an academic context. Other students, some parents and a substantial number of teachers appear to be in favor of having the flag in place on campus.
The policy was proposed by new board member Candy Olson, Candy Olson, who was elected to represent the district’s Trustee Area 5 in November, proposed a change to the district policy. She was supported in making the proposal by Jeannette Wilson, who narrowly was elected to represent Trustee Area 4 in November.
It has been suggested that the residents/parents in trustee areas 4 and 5 are more heavily opposed to the presence of the LGBQT+ flag than the parents/residents of the district’s other three areas, but there is no polling data to support that supposition.
Reelected to the board in November was Melissa Ayala-Quintero, representing Governing Board Area 3, where, according to some, support for allowing the LGBQT+ flag is solid. Ayala-Quintero is stridently in favor of allowing the pride flag to be present on district campuses and in classrooms.
Olson in her election bid was supported by Awaken Redlands, which bills itself as “a non-partisan group of parents and community members focused on preserving traditional values in our city and schools” and by the Inland Empire Family Political Action Committee, which self-describes as a Christian advocacy group.
There is tension between the LGBQT+ community and its supporters, many of whose members consider anyone who is opposed to open references to the sexual orientation of those exposing what were formerly referred to as “alternate lifestyles” to be close-minded, bigoted and hateful, and those who object to such references to lifestyle choices and sexual orientation to be in poor taste, and/or unbecoming and/or unnecessary and/or intrusive.
The proposed policy, which was up for a discussion but not a vote, states, “No flag other than the United States of America and State of California may be displayed on school grounds, unless it is a country, state, or United States military flag used solely for educational purposes within the adopted curriculum. This includes posters, digital displays, flyers, and any other related display. Any other flag must be approved by the Superintendent or the superintendent’s designee prior to displaying if, and only if, it is usedfor educational purposes and only during the related instructional period. Exceptions maybe made for displays of school championship flags, flags associated with academic achievement, and various national flags within classrooms, recreational rooms, or gymnasiums.”
Under the heading “Promotion of Inclusivity and Neutrality,” the policy further states, “Celebrations of broadly recognized national and cultural holidays (e.g., Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Black History Month) that align with the district’s mission of fostering historical and civic understanding” are to be permitted.
A theme running through much of what those in favor of the policy change was that there is no consensus as to what is acceptable and what is offensive across the entire spectrum of the students and parents in the district and to avoid imposing the views of one side or the other on the other side, no flags relating to potentially divisive or controversial issues or topics should be posted. Those opposed to changing the policy appeared to believe that the topic of fluid sexuality was not, or at least should not be, offensive to anyone.
Both Wilson and Olson said that they had multiple constituents who were in favor of changing the policy.
While there were present in the meeting chamber some members of the public who were in favor of the change, the room was flooded with those opposed to making any policy shift. A contingent of those who wanted to weigh in on the matter were not allowed into the room because the numbers exceeded the number permitted inside under fire code regulations. At least some of those in favor of the policy change were relegated to waiting outside in the cold. A good number of them left before the meeting concluded and without having an opportunity to speak.
A fair number of those who were in favor of flying the LGBQT+ flag imputed to those who were against doing so hate.
Those advocating for preserving a policy that allowed the LGBQT+ flag to fly maintained that they valued freedom of expression and that changing the policy would undercut diversity and inclusivity. Board Member Patty Holohan expressed her belief that even though the flag did not represent a majority of the district’s students, it was worth keeping in place as a powerful statement of acceptance even if it represented just a single student. The advocates, however, were not particularly sympathetic toward those who saw the district’s focus on alternative approaches to sexuality or sexual orientation at all as personally intrusive or offensive and upsetting.
Those in favor of keeping the flag policy as it it is indicated they placed a high value on tolerance and inclusivity. Some of those, however, were dismissive and less than accepting of and unwilling to contemplate inclusivity of those who objected to the district dwelling, even passively, on the matter of alternative sexuality.
All of the faculty who addressed the board were against the policy change.
Patricia Molnar, who has taught in the district for 28 years, advocated on allowing flags of all types but the pride flag in particular to be put on display before students in a school and classroom setting.
“Country flags, college banners and the pride flag in my room all communicate values of academics, curiosity and diversity.” The pride flag in her transsexual son’s classroom was of crucial assitance to him, she said. Such a flag,” she said, “helped keep my son alive when he doubted the value of life. Lesbians, bisexuals, gays, queers and transsexuals, she said, are “often bullied” and are “not an ideology and they are not a political maneuver.”
Jen Yagubian, a counselor at Mentone Elementary School said the policy change was tantamount to “denying free speech.” She said the display of the pride flag’s “message is we all belong. [The current policy] is not divisive but very inclusive.”
She said depriving students of the flag would lead to students who are not heterosexual fordoing themselves.
“Myself and my co-counselors know the numbers, and the statistics of the LGBTQ+ population and suicidal ideation and completion of suicide,” she said.
Elizabeth Antos spoke positively of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer, intersexual, asexual, aromantic identification and said, “Acknowledgment of one group does not diminish another. Acknowledgment acceptance and recognition of LGBTQIA+ populations does no demonstrable harm, unlike the hatred of those who would erase the acceptance and progress of recent years.”
Margaret Hoganson said the new policy was an “attempt to marginalize and dismiss students.”
Dorothy Loman said she was in favor of limiting the flags to be flown at schools to the American and California flags.
“Our schools have veered off track,” Loman said. “They are no longer a place to learn but have become a place to push special interest agendas and identity politics. Identity politics should not be something the schools focus on. The schools are here to teach the basics and I applaud the efforts to get back to that.”
Sameer Bhagara, a Redlands High senior, warned the district might get sued if it were to change the policy.
Braxton Foley alluded to repeated instances of the district’s faculty sexualizing students.
“Our school district has pretty big problems with a lot of your guys’ coworkers sexually harassing children,” he said in reference to the faculty and teachers who were advocating maintaining the display of the pride flag. “I think it’s quite funny that we are advocating keeping flags in the classroom that show what your sexual preference is. We’re not advocating to put a straight flag in the classroom or another type of flag in the classroom This gender ideology is absolutely ridiculous and it should not have a place in our classrooms.”
“I stand here today not as some political revolutionary but as a student opposed to this policy,” Redlands High School sophomore Aya Francisco, who acknowledged identifying as transgender. He/she would lose his/her sense of being welcomed at school if the policy were changed, Franciso said. “By what extent will you erase the things that make me who I am?” Francisco asked.
Germaine Myles suggested the policy was a ploy to allow only those celebrations or flags which represent heterosexual white Christians.
Corrine Peyton, a Redlands High senior, said the policy’s language was vague and that it entrusted to the school board arbiting what is and is not controversial.
Jesus Cisneros, who said he had to wait out in the cold to get an opportunity to speak, offered his opinion that “The American flag represents every single person here, not just a small minority.”
He said that despite the substantial number of those showing opposition to the policy change at the meeting that night, those in favor of subjecting students to the homosexual flag were grossly outnumbered in the community.
“It is a small minority,” he said. “There is a reason why Candy Olson won by a landslide. There is a reason Jeanette Wilson is up there. There’s more people that think like me. There’s more people that could be here Why? Because we work. We work long hours. A lot of those people happen to be the Hispanic people who are now the majority in Redlands Unified, but they can’t be here and they’re not involved in politics but soon they will be. Why? Because they are tired of the gay agenda. We all are. That is the reason we are here.”
Michael Paisner, who suggested bud did not directly state that he was gay, said the Unitied States flag doesn’t represent him.
Lawrence Hebron, who ran against Ayala-Quintero in November and polled 45.32 percent of the vote to her 54.68 percent, suggested gay flags “are coercive.” He said the district had a “promiscuous flag policy.”
Greg Brittain of the Redlands Tea Party said that the “American flag is representative of all Americans.” He said the gay flag represents a small minority. While he did not explicitly advocate against allowing the pride flag to be displayed in schools, he asserted that allowing the pride flag to be present in a school setting meant that flags representing all points of view should be tolerated as well. Ken Hunter said that “Kids are vulnerable. They are easily distracted. He said flags such as the pride flag represent some but not all. “We’re all Americans.” The U.S. flag is the “only flag that represnts us all,” he said.
Sevin Templeton said the new policy was a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
Ruins Rowlso offered her view that the district would be taking a first toward genocide by adopting the proposed policy.
Bruce Leigh Cook said the proposed policy would effectively muzzle free speech.
Tim Ormsby took issue with the language in the policy stating “recognition is prohibited of ideological or controversial positions.” He said that “seems to be so vague that it’s, like, stifling. If I were a teacher or district employee, I would be afraid to open my mouth. High school is not just education. It’s also social growth and social experience, forming values and beliefs that’s lifelong. I think you need controversy there.”
Niedra Mowdro, a high school senior, said students “treasure” the presence of cultural symbols in the midst of where their educational process is taking place. “These symbols foster connection, pride and belonging within our schools and banning them would erase this vital representation,” she said.
Briley Guillen asserted the new policy would “specifically target the pride flag” and that “The pride flag is not a sexualized symbol. It’s a celebration of inclusivity, diversity and love. Removing it would send a message to queer students that their identities are shameful or unwelcome, further isolating an already-vulnerable group.”
While Guillen suggested it was “factually inaccurate” that bisexual students were more prone to mental health crises or taking their own lives, she maintained, somewhat paradoxically, that “societal hostility” toward bisexuals contributed to the mental health challenges that led to bisexuals committing suicide. Removing the pride flag, she reasoned, was an action that “frames queer identities as inherently pathological” and “removing symbols of inclusion like the pride flag would” add to “the mental health toll to students who are told their very existence is up for debate.”
Shara Lucas said, “Removing symbols like the pride flag only gives bullies permission to believe that their behavior is acceptable” and will “make them more hostile.”
Maria Bruner said, “Policies that restrict the acknowledgment of identity, culture or inclusion can unintentionally discourage students and hinder their sense of belonging, ultimately impeding their ability to succeed in school.”
Daniel Chenaharo, declaring he had nothing against those who engage in non-heterosexual practices, nonetheless said that those who do should “keep it at home. As a foreigner, somebody who was not born here, I am proud that the [U.S. Flag] is here. That represents something my country did not give me, which is freedom of speech, which I am expressing right now, and the ability to have my kids grow up in an environment where they will be safe. I strongly believe that having the pride flag displayed in the classroom will cause confusion to the kids and it will not bring good citizens in the future. So, I would consider you, please, getting the flag out of the classroom.”

Board Member Jeannette Wilson said she was in favor of determining how the students’ parents felt about the symbology and ideology their children were being subjected to in an academic setting
“Redlands parents need to have more of a say,” Wilson said.
Board President Michele Rendler said she was in favor of surveying parents with regard to the policy.

Board Member Candy Olson, reacted to insinuations that the majority of those at the meeting through their clapping and cheering for those speakers opposing the policy change and jeering those in favor of it demonstrated the predominate sentiment within the district, said, “A lot of people who support the policy aren’t here because they are working or have family obligations.” She said the majority showing of opposition to the policy change that night was “not a clear representation of the people in our districts [meaning hers and that of Wilson].” She suggested that the survey, because those opposed to the policy change would likely respond en masse while those supporting it would be less likely to participate, would “not quite be a representation but it will provide good data.”
She took issue with the effort by those opposing the policy change to suggest that it was only a minute minority who were dismayed by the presence of the ideological symbols with which some parents and students were at odds.
“You cannot say everyone is okay with all of this, because they are not,” Olson said. “They are clearly not. We need to be respectful of everyone’s beliefs.”
Rendler acknowledged that those upset with the status quo were, for the most part, less vocal than those who were pressing the district to allow the LGBTQ+ flag to remain in place.
“Some are quieter about it,” Rendler said.
Olson conceded that doing some polling might be of use.
“A survey will help,” she said. “I just don’t think it is a totally accurate assessment.”
Rendler said, “It’s a worth a try to see what we can get.”
Ayala-Quintero, who was dead set against removing the LGBTQ+ flag from the district’s schools, suggested that a poll had already been done and that it favored keeping the flag in place.
She said 461 emails had been sent to the board prior to the meeting and that 401 of those sending them were against a change in the district flag policy and 60 were in favor of altering it along the lines Olson had called for.
“87 percent of those who did take the time to email in were in support of this [the current policy],” Ayala-Quinero said.
Ayala-Quintero did acknowledge “a great difference in those opinions.”
Of some note was the attitude commonly expressed by those in favor of allowing the pride flag to remain that it represented a norm that should be accepted, even though some expressed the paradoxical reality that some people were virulently opposed to its presence. Equally significantly, those in favor of the presence of the LGBTQ+ flag in school settings celebrated their approach as one that embraced tolerance, acceptance and inclusion, even as some of those also supporting the presence of the pride flag expressed disdain for the religiosity of those who were opposed to exposing their children to the symbol of non-heterosexual orientation.
This topic came closest to being dealt with when Wilson brought up the subject of other flags and symbols that might not sit well with those in favor of exposing all students to the LGBQT flag wheter they want to be subjected to it or not.
“I think we’ve been skirting around it,” Wilson said. “How are we going to address other flags? There are many flags that people have brought up that community members may want to have in school, in classrooms, that again not everyone is going to agree on. Are we going to have a policy for every single flag there is that might end up in a classroom? That’s another part of it.”
Ayala-Quintero appeared to have difficulty accepting that others might find non-heterosexual symbology disturbing or a flag celebrating lesbianism, bisexuality, homosexuality or transsexuality offensive.
Wilson sought to illustrate the outrage that some parents might feel at having their children confronted on a daily basis with non-heterosexual symbology by referencing an ideology Ayala-Quintero might be offended by.
“You’re okay with a Nazi flag?” Wilson asked.
From her reaction, it was clear Ayala-Quintero took it for granted that a Nazi flag would not be welcome by anyone.
“That is a hate symbol, Ayala-Quintero responded. “Would you not agree?”
Wilson did not allow Ayala-Quintero to slip out of the parameters of the comparison.
“I was asking the question,” Wilson said.
Quintero, not yet seeing the analogy, said, “That is a hate symbol. Why would I want that?”
“Not to the people who believe in it,” Wilson said. “It is representing their group.” Wilson then moved on to complete the comparison to illustrate that there is dynamic disagreement among people with regard to ideologies and that if one ideology is to be imposed on the district’s students by those who embrace that ideology, those same people will need to be prepared to tolerate that an ideology with which they disagree must also be imposed on the students. “There’s a flag for other religions, for pro abortion, against abortion. Many groups now have flags, and it is a part of what we need to take…” Wilson said, before Ayala-Quintero cut her off before she could finish with “into consideration.”
“It’s just very vague and very subjective, because who gets to decide which flags are appropriate?” Ayala-Quintero half said and half asked.
“That’s my point,” Wilson said.
Ayala-Quintero then, perhaps subconsciously or perhaps deliberately, acknowledged that she was advocating that an ideological imposition be made upon the students of the district.
“We’re trying to say the board gets to decide what’s appropriate,” she said, then added, “on a case-by-case basis.”
Ayala-Quintero seemed to be suggesting that her perspective – that the LGBQT+ flag should be on display in school settings – was the predominate view with a majority of the community, the majority of the parents, the majority of the teachers and faculty and the majority of students and its display should therefore be the district’s policy. She then sought to illustrate the accuracy of her perception by asking, “How many times have we had other than board meetings and public comments and even this past election, how many times have we had students complain about seeing a pride flag in a classroom?”
Superintendent Juan Cabral responded in a way that seemed to support the premise of her argument.
“I don’t have exact data,” Cabral said. “I don’t recall a complaint coming in, though.”
Before Ayala-Quintero could capitalize on the presumption that there was very little in the way to objection to the presence of the pride flag with Redlands schools, Board President Rendler, whose position in the polemic to that point appeared to be safely within the moderate middle ground between Olson and Wilson on one side and Ayala-Quintero on the other, challenged Ayala-Quintero’s assumption.
“I do know that kids do, some kids feel uncomfortable and [take the position] that ‘I’m not going to say anything to anybody’ because [they] don’t want to look like they don’t like people and whatever, but they are uncomfortable.”
Quintero then sought to suggest that teachers might somehow render a solution to a circumstance in which students in their classes objected to being subjected to the LGBQT+ symbology.
“If they attempted to have a dialogue with that teacher, because our teachers are wonderful, and if there’s something making a child uncomfortable, I would imagine that they’d be willing to compromise over that,” she said. “I don’t know what that compromise would mean, but I would imagine that is again on a case-by-case basis. It’s really about being respectful not only to the students that want to see it and identify with it but the ones that don’t.”
Wilson, picking up on how Quintero did not delineate how a student who didn’t want to be subjected to LGBQT+ symbology would feel respected when his or her preference was being ignored, said, “I don’t think most kids would confront their teacher about something that makes them feel uncomfortable and I know a lot of kids won’t even tell their parents it makes them feel uncomfortable because they want to stay in school with their friends. They want to be in school. They don’t want to get pulled from school to be homeschooled.”
This brought Olson into the conversation.
“I have a personal experience with a kid in REV [Redlands East Valley High School] who told me that her and all of her classmates don’t tell their parents about all of the ideological flags in the classrooms and libraries because their parents would get so mad they’d pull them out of school, and they wanted to stay with their friends,” Olson said. “I’ve had the experience with my own daughter who loved her teacher but felt very uncomfortable with a flag that was displayed and she did not want me to talk to the teacher because she loved the teacher and did not want something coming in between the relationship and distancing each other. So, just because we’re not hearing complaints from the students very much or the parents, it doesn’t mean they are not there. They are there. They do not want to be called names. I just want to do what’s right for all of the community. We need to respect the parents and all of the beliefs. Some agree, some don’t. So, let’s just keep it neutral. That, I think, is the best policy moving forward.”
Ayala-Quintero was not prepared to give up that easily.
“Respectfully, your definition of what is neutral and my definition of neutral is not the same, correct?” she asked Olson.
Olson responded, “I suppose,” and then asked, “What do you think is neutral?”
Ayala-Quintero said, “I think what we’ve been doing in respecting everyone is neutral. There are students who show up with MAGA hats and Trump flags and I don’t stop them from expressing themselves.”
Olson responded, “Those are students and that’s their right to wear what they want. We’re talking about staff and teachers.”
Ayala-Quintero said, “How far does this go, though? Because we’re already going to start restricting staff. So, when do we start restricting students?”
“We never restrict students,” Olson said.
Ayala-Quintero retorted, “But we’re stepping on our staffs’ freedom of expression.”
To that, Olson said, “A teacher is in a position of authority and influence over children.”
“As are you, as a board member,” Ayala-Quintero said.
“What’s your point?” Olson asked.
When Quintero did not respond, Olsen: said, “The idea is for the teachers to not influence a child in a way that parents disagree, to be respectful of all families. That’s the idea. Kids have the freedom of speech to wear whatever type of hat pin, button, whatever they like.”
Quintero said, “Clearly, we’re not coming to an agreement.”
At one point, Board Member Patty Holohan, who represents Trustee Area 1, in what may have been an effort to reach some middle ground between the Christian activists who are most readily identified as Olson’s constituents and the progressive elements in the district represented by Ayala-Quintero, pointed out that she is a Catholic and that “Catholics and Christians… love everyone. We are not singling out anyone.”
This prompted Olson to observe that there are some Catholics who are not on board with having their children subjected to non-heterosexual symbology or demands that they live at one with the LBGQT+ agenda.
“We had a speaker talk about his Catholic faith and how he feels differently,” she said.
The board kicked the idea of doing a survey and forming a committee to make a recommendation around. Neither Wilson nor Olson was enthusiastic or even supportive of forming committee, which Superintendent Cabral at first indicated would be better smaller than larger, but later said might grow to as many as 20 members when Wilson and Olson expressed concern that a small committee might be stacked with members in favor of the current flag policy. The idea on the committee evolved to it merely providing input to inform the board’s eventual decision on what the policy should be. Without committing to form a committee, the board reached a consensus on doing a survey of parents, faculty and students, which Cabral said he would facilitate carrying out.

The San Bernardino County Fire Department will conduct a 30-day duration testing of drones to determine their effectiveness in assisting fire response in the county seat.
The unmanned and remotely-piloted flying vehicles will be used to assess from the air fires to determine their intensity and type. Often, fires that are reported by telephone are of an unknown type, and may involve a vehicle, structure or vegetation.
The San Bernardino County Fire Department and other local fire protection and prevention agencies and districts have learned that a majority of what are initially cataloged as “unknown fire types” turn out to be false alarms or unfounded when firefighters in firefighting vehicles arrive at the location. In many cases the fires are barbecues, or sometimes cooking or warming fires utilized by the homeless, which do not represent a hazard .
In the last week, the San Bernardino County Fire Department, which serves the City of San Bernardino, has responded to 53 unknown fire calls in the City of San Bernardino alone and 833 during the final three months of 2024, according to a statement put out by the San Bernardino County Fire Department.
Operators with unmanned aerial vehicle licenses direct the drones over the areas targeted for survey.
The use of drones by firefighting agencies is not unheard of. The devices, equipped with high-resolution cameras, have been used to map fire perimeters, look for fire and flood victims and to reconnoiter hazardous material spills and mishaps.
In many cases, a drone can make a survey of a danger zone in one-fifth the time it takes to get a manned unit in place. When a manned response is appropriate, information from the drone survey can ensure that the right equipment and apparatus is dispatched to the scene of the incident.

San Bernardino County’s drones include not just cameras but thermal imaging capability.