By Carlos Avalos
A detailed whistleblower complaint filed with the San Bernardino County Auditor, Ensen Mason, alleges a pattern of contract violations, preferential treatment, and potential misuse of public funds within the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (SBCSS), raising serious questions about transparency and accountability in the agency’s operations. The complaint, submitted by advocate Antoinette Jensen, who previously worked in the educational profession within San Bernardino County, centers on consulting contracts with Sherman Garnett, a Upland Unified School Board Trustee who also operates a private educational consulting business. The allegations include repeated violations of procurement policies, “after-the-fact” approvals that violated accounting procedures, and the use of public resources to market a private business.
The complaint asks the county auditor asked to investigate these after-the-fact approvals, policy violations, and potential misuse of public funds
The complaint comes against the backdrop of a recent California Attorney General investigation that found Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools in violation of the Brown Act. Last year, Attorney General Rob Bonta concluded that the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools (SANDABS), controlled by County Superintendent Ted Alejandre, was illegally operating without public transparency requirements. Alejandre and his office had withheld information relating to the actions and expenditures of the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools Executive Committee, which met in secret and without the posting/provision of an agenda relating to its meetings at which votes and decisions on the expenditure of money entrusted to the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools for educational programs were made.
“We conclude that the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools Executive Committee is the ‘multimember body that governs’ San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools within the meaning of Government Code section 54952, subdivision (c)(1)(A), and is therefore a ‘legislative body’ within the meaning of that section and subject to the Brown Act’s open-meeting requirements,” the California Attorney General’s office determined. This previous finding, according to the whistleblower, illustrates “the consolidated power and control of the County Superintendent” and establishes a pattern of transparency failures that extends to current contracting practices.
In the complaint, there are allegations of unusual contracting agreements. Central to the current allegations are contracts between the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and Sherman Garnett for educational seminars on student records and discipline. The arrangements, spanning from 2021 to 2024, contained several unusual provisions that distinguish them from standard consulting agreements. The issue of marketing for private gain is also alleged in the complaint. Unlike typical consulting contracts that involve flat fees, Garnett’s agreements with the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools specified payment on a per-attendee basis. More controversially, the contracts explicitly required the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools to handle all marketing and “recruitment” using public funds and taxpayer-paid employee time to increase attendance at Garnett’s private seminars. “Using public funds (and taxpayer-paid employee’s time) to market and recruit attendance for a private business constitutes a clear misuse of public funds,” the complaint states, noting that Garnett uses flat-fee arrangements with school districts outside San Bernardino County.
The contracts also included an unusual revenue-splitting component. In 2021, while Garnett received $75 per attendee, $50 per attendee was directed to the Children Deserve Success division of SBCSS, led by Don English, who serves as Board President of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. Purchase orders explicitly stated that English’s division would receive these funds for facilitating and marketing the events, creating what the whistleblower describes as a system where “public funds were diverted from individual school districts to a division of SBCSS – without transparency of this fact to the attendees, or to the public.” The complaint documents multiple instances where SBCSS contracting policies were allegedly violated, specifically Policy 3312, which requires approvals to be obtained before services are rendered.
In 2022, Garnett provided two seminars in September without any contract in place, despite email references to a contract number (22/23-0739). Instead of executing a proper contract, the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools officials apparently split the services into two purchase orders of $7,885 and $5,415 to stay under the $10,000 threshold requiring formal contracts. “The total for those two seminars in September equated to $13,300,” the complaint notes. “These seminars were so close in proximity, that it appears that Sherman Garnett and Don English were well aware that Sherman Garnett’s total compensation would be over the $10,000 requirement for a contract to be executed, but they decided to skirt the typical protocol.”
Chief Business Officer Richard De Nava, who also serves as campaign treasurer for Superintendent Alejandre, repeatedly approved retroactive authorizations that he acknowledged violated accounting procedures. In October 2022, Don English specifically requested “after the fact” approvals for the September seminars. De Nava approved both requests on October 26, 2022, for requisitions 3806 and 3406, despite acknowledging this violated their own accounting procedures. The approval documents show English promising that “to ensure that it doesn’t happen again,” proper agreements and requisitions would be required in the future. However, the same pattern repeated in April 2023.
On April 20, 2023, a requisition was submitted for a Garnett seminar scheduled for April 24, 2023 – just four days later. However, the requisition already showed 41 registered attendees, indicating the seminar had been planned, marketed, and scheduled well in advance. The purchase order wasn’t created and approved until April 26, 2023 – two days after the seminar had already taken place, and the same day Garnett submitted his invoice.
Escalating fees, costs, and the financial details reveal dramatically increasing costs and what the whistleblower characterizes as excessive consulting fees, as seen below.
2021
Antendee Charge $125
Garnett’s Share $75
English Share $50
2022
Antendee Charge $185
Garnett’s Share $95
English Share $90
2023-2024
Antendee Charge $225
Garnett’s Share $95
English Share $130
Hourly rate analysis based on seminar flyers shows that Garnett spoke only for two and a half hours at each event, noon to two thirty pm. His effective hourly rate reached extraordinary levels. On September 13, 2022, he earned $7,885 for two and a half hours, which equals $3,154 per hour. On September 29, 2022, he earned $5,415 for two and a half hours, which equals $2,166 per hour. On April 24, 2023, he earned $3,895 for two and a half hours, which equals $1,558 per hour. “This is an exceedingly high rate for consultants and is inflated due to the per-attendee fee arrangement,” the complaint states.
Revenue Impact Summary
9/13/2022
Attendees 83
Total Charged $15,355
Garnett’s Cut $7,885
English’s Cut $7,470
9/29/2022
Attendees 57
Total Charged $10,545
Garnett’s Cut $5,415
English’s Cut $5,130
4/24/2023
Attendees 41
Total Charged $9,226
Garnett’s Cut $3,8955
English’s Cut $5,330
TOTALS
Attendees 181
Total Charged $35,126
Garnett’s Cut $17,195
English’s Cut $17,930
The complaint raised pointed questions about the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and their oversight, pertaining to why government employees have engaged in marketing for Garnett’s private business and whether that arrangement was used for other consultants? The complaint delved into why the contracts were not included in the County Board of Education agendas to provide for public transparency, how money directed to the San Bernardino County Superintended of Schools Office’s Children Deserve Success division was accounted for and spent, what consequences ensue from the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Office failing to follow its own policies and wheter the County Superintendent of Schools has the the authority to create and revise policies without public input? There were also vetting concerns expressed in the complaint. The whistleblower also questioned the vetting process for vendors, noting that Garnett “does not appear to have a business license, or a Fictitious Business Name (FBN) registered with the county.”
The complaint alleged the issues raised represented more than isolated incidents, describing them as “a pattern and practice at the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Office that creates an environment which drastically increased the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.”
In her complaint, Jensen wrote to Mason, “Public trust has been breached due to the contracting policies made unilaterally without public input, the potential conflicts of interest, the repeated violations of the approval process [and] public monies going to market a private business for personal gain.”
The complaint requested a formal investigation into whether wrongdoing has occurred, citing concerns about policies created unilaterally without public input, potential conflicts of interest, repeated violations of approval processes, public money used to market private businesses, and senior staff knowingly violating stated policies.
As of the original complaint, SBCSS has not responded to requests for comment on the specific allegations contained in the complaint. County Auditor Ensen Mason’s office will now review the complaint and supporting documentation to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. The extensive documentation provided includes contracts, purchase orders, approval forms, and marketing materials spanning multiple years. The case highlights ongoing tensions over transparency and accountability in public education administration in San Bernardino County, particularly regarding the use of taxpayer funds and adherence to procurement policies designed to prevent favoritism and ensure fair competition. It further raises questions about the incestuous relationships between elected public eduation officials, their business interests and the public education institutions those elected officials oversee or network with as a consequence of their authority regarding educational programs. For parents, taxpayers, and education stakeholders in San Bernardino County, the outcome of this complaint could have significant implications for how the county’s school office conducts business and maintains public trust.