By Carlos Avalos
An official complaint submitted to Ensen Mason, the San Bernardino County Controller, Auditor, and Tax Collector, reveals a web of self-dealing, illegal meetings, and potential violations of California’s laws regarding the gift of public funds by the office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools.
The complaint alleges a culture of insider dealing has flourished for over a decade, enriching friends and family while potentially violating multiple state laws. This complaint alleges to have uncovered a systematic pattern of cronyism, nepotism, and conflicts of interest that may constitute violations of California’s Brown Act, constitutional prohibitions on gifts of public funds, and the Political Reform Act.
The scope of misconduct spans from the superintendent’s office to school district boardrooms, creating an interconnected web of self-dealing that has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars while undermining public trust in one of California’s largest educational oversight bodies.
The $3,000-Per-Hour Consulting Empire: At the center of this web sits Sherman Garnett, a former San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools administrator who has transformed his government connections into a lucrative consulting empire. Since 2019, Garnett has secured consulting contracts with the office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools paying rates exceeding $3,000 per hour, a figure that would make him among the highest-paid consultants in public education.
The arrangement began through Garnett’s mentorship of Don English, whom he hired at Chaffey West County Community School early in English’s career. This relationship has proven extraordinarily profitable: English now serves as Director of the Children Deserve Success Branch at the office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, the very position that approves Garnett’s consulting contracts.
According to internal documents reviewed in this formal complaint, Garnett’s contracts contain unusual “per attendee” fee structures, with revenue splits between Garnett and English’s department. Even more troubling, the contracts require San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools employees to handle all marketing and recruitment for Garnett’s private workshops – a potential violation of California Constitution Article XVI, Section 6, which prohibits gifts of public funds.
Upcoming Garnett Workshops (2025-2026) are as follows: September 25, 2025: Discipline Training, February 5, 2026: Student Records, and March 19, 2026: Discipline Training. Registration materials show these workshops are promoted through official San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools channels, with public employees dedicating work time to marketing Garnett’s private business.
The insider advantage extends to the next generation. Sherman Garnett Jr. secured a $900-per-hour consulting contract with Upland Unified School District, where his father serves as a board trustee, a clear conflict of interest that raises serious ethical and legal questions. The arrangement began with a September 25, 2023, email from Garnett Jr. to Shinay Bowman, Upland’s Chief Academic Officer, soliciting consulting services. In the email, Garnett Jr. explicitly references working with his father, stating: “For the last couple of years now, I have been working with my father, as we have been doing training for School Staff Administration/Teachers and School Security Officers.”
Notably, Bowman’s own $250,000 salary contract had been unanimously approved by the Upland board just months earlier, with Sherman Garnett Sr. casting a supporting vote. This created an environment where Bowman may have felt pressured to approve the consulting arrangement with the trustee’s son.
On October 24, 2023, the Upland board approved Garnett Jr.’s contract during a routine meeting, with the agreement buried in “Certificated Personnel Reports.” The contract details were not provided to the board or public; only a brief description of $1,800 for two one-hour training sessions. Sherman Garnett Sr. abstained from the vote without explanation but did not properly recuse himself from the discussion, a potential violation of conflict-of-interest laws. Less than a week later, Garnett Jr. was featured as a speaker for “Upland University,” the district’s professional development program.
The October 24, 2023, Upland board meeting revealed another troubling pattern. From his position as board president, Sherman Garnett Sr. used the public forum to promote his private business while publicly thanking two principals who had attended his workshops. According to meeting minutes, Garnett stated, “I run a training academy for student services administrators, and he extended an invitation for individuals to attend. He was thankful that Mr. Beeson and Mr. McCanne attended.” Within months, both principals received coveted administrative promotions.
Chris Beeson was promoted to principal on special assignment/director of purchasing, and Jerry McCanne was promoted to director of human resources.
This mirrors the career trajectory of Don English, who rose to power as a San Bernardino County Superintendent of School division administrator after Garnett’s mentorship, ultimately positioning him to approve Garnett’s lucrative consulting contracts. The pattern suggests Garnett has systematically created a network of indebted administrators who may feel obligated to provide future favors.
Perhaps the most egregious violation of public transparency laws involves the San Bernardino Countywide Gangs & Drugs Task Force, a San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools-affiliated entity that appears to be operating in direct violation of California’s Brown Act. The Task Force, which has operated for over two decades, maintains a website listing only its executive team with no posted agendas, public meeting notices, or opportunities for public comment. This lack of transparency violates California Government Code 54950 et seq., which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.
The organization’s composition reveals multiple conflicts of interest and Leadership Conflicts.  San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Executive Director Don English, who is also the department director approving Garnett’s contracts, Sherman Garnett, listed as “community member” with his business name prominently displayed, Dr. Gwen Dowdy-Rodgers, Chair (also President of San Bernardino County Board of Education). Brenda Dowdy, identified as Dowdy-Rodgers’ relative, serves as a “citizen-at-large” representative despite being a former San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools employee who worked for over two decades in Don English’s division.
Brown Act Violations, Closed Meetings, and Restricted Access: Registration documents for the Task Force’s October 1, 2025, meeting, discovered in San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools’ internal event scheduling system, reveal systematic violations of the Brown Act. The registration form requires advance registration through a San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools -controlled portal, demands personal information (name, email, phone, employer/district), defaults to “I currently work for or attend a California school, district, or county office,” and forces non-affiliates to select “I do not work for or attend a California school.”
These restrictions directly violate Government Code Section 54953, which requires all meetings of legislative bodies to be open and accessible to the public without conditions. Willful violations of the Brown Act constitute misdemeanor charges, and the restrictions documented here appear to be systematic and ongoing.
The California Attorney General recently held in Opinion No. 22-402 that a similar San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools-affiliated body – the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools (SANDABS) was subject to the Brown Act. Yet the Task Force continues to operate outside these legal requirements.
The culture of nepotism begins with County Superintendent Ted Alejandre, who hired his wife, Barbara, in 2012 as “Assistant to the Superintendent.” By 2015, she had been promoted to chief of Intergovernmental affairs, reporting directly to her husband.
Barbara Alejandre’s compensation grew from approximately $150,000 to $220,000 by 2020, with all raises and promotions approved solely by her husband. This arrangement constitutes classic “self-dealing”. Ted Alejandre directly benefited from each raise he awarded to his spouse, creating an inherent conflict of interest that may violate both ethical standards and legal requirements for public officials.
This complaint has identified potential violations of several California laws: Brown Act Violations (Government Code 54950 et seq.), systematic exclusion of the public from Task Force meetings, failure to post agendas 72 hours in advance, registration requirements that restrict public access, and lack of public comment opportunities.
This complaint alleges willful violations that constitute misdemeanors, with potential criminal charges for public officials. Courts may award attorney fees to successful plaintiffs. Some of these violations are gift of Public Funds (California Constitution Article XVI, Section 6), use of San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools employees to market Garnett’s private consulting business, and revenue sharing arrangements between public agencies and private consultants, and excessive consulting rates without competitive bidding.
Article XVI, Section 6 of the State Constitution prohibits the state or any of its political subdivisions from making gifts to private parties. Alleged conflict of interest violations are as follows: Sherman Garnett Sr.’s failure to properly recuse himself from votes involving his son’s contract, Gwen Dowdy-Rodgers’ dual roles overseeing both San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools compliance and a San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools-affiliated entity, and Ted Alejandre’s approval of raises and promotions for his spouse.
The systematic nature of these arrangements may violate California’s Political Reform Act, which requires disclosure of financial interests and prohibits public officials from participating in decisions that could financially benefit them or their families.
While exact figures are difficult to calculate the cost to taxpayers and students due to the lack of transparency, conservative estimates suggest these arrangements have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in excessive consulting fees, improper use of public resources, and administrative overhead. More importantly, these conflicts of interest undermine the fundamental mission of public education. When administrators are more concerned with rewarding friends and family than serving students, the entire system suffers.
This specific whistleblower is alleging Institutional Failure. The breadth of these violations raises serious questions about oversight mechanisms within the office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and the broader San Bernardino County government structure. The San Bernardino County Board of Education, charged with overseeing SBCSS operations, appears to have failed in its fundamental duty to ensure legal compliance and fiscal responsibility.
County Auditor Ensen Mason received complaints about these arrangements, but the scope of potential violations appears to extend far beyond what any single complaint could capture. This complaint had recommendations for reform
This investigation suggests several immediate reforms needed to restore public trust. Firstly, an independent investigation: The county district attorney should launch a criminal investigation into potential Brown Act violations and the gift of public funds. Secondly, the Gangs and Drugs Task Force should be disbanded or restructured to ensure Brown Act compliance. Third, there is a need for contract review. All consulting contracts should be reviewed for compliance with competitive bidding requirements and constitutional restrictions. Conflict policies should be strengthened policies to prevent public officials from contracting with family members or protégés,. Enhanced oversight is called for. An independent audit of San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools operations should be initiated the there should be stronger monitoring of the county superintendent of schools by the San Bernardino County Board of Education.
The complaint sent to Ensen Mason alleges a broader pattern. The San Bernardino County case is not isolated. Across California, educational oversight bodies have been plagued by similar scandals involving conflicts of interest, nepotism, and misuse of public funds. However, the systematic nature and duration of the problems at the office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools appear particularly egregious according to the complaint.
The whistleblower in the complaint stated that accountability is long overdue. According to the complaint for more than a decade, a small group of interconnected individuals has treated San Bernardino County’s educational oversight system as their personal employment and enrichment agency. They have violated state laws, ignored constitutional requirements, and betrayed the public trust. The evidence documented in the complaint demands immediate action from law enforcement, oversight agencies, and elected officials, according to the whistleblower. The formal complaint hit home on the fact that students, parents, and taxpayers in San Bernardino County deserve better than a system designed to enrich insiders at the expense of educational excellence. The question now is whether California’s legal and political systems will hold these officials accountable, or whether this alleged culture of corruption will be allowed to continue unchecked. This formal investigation/ complaint is ongoing. Additional documents and evidence continue to emerge, suggesting the scope of problems at the office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools may be even broader than initially documented.