By Carlos Avalos and Mark Gutglueck
San Bernardino County Board of Education Member Ryan McEachron’s vitriolic reaction to county residents’ public records requests has triggered alarm among his constituents and a complaint to the district attorney’s office, as citizen efforts to monitor spending priorities by regional education officials continue, spurred on by curiosity over the basis of McEachron’s animus.
At two separate points during the September 8, 2025 meeting of the San Bernardino County Board of Education, McEachron took exception to the intensive examination members of the public have in recent weeks and months been making of the decision-making engaged in by the county board of education, San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Ted Alejandre and school boards of several districts throughout the county.
At issue in multiple instances is how elected educational officials, including Alejandre, have created or otherwise participated in arrangements involving the expenditure of educational program funds that have profited their friends, business or political associates, family members or themselves personally. In the same timeframe, there have been associated revelations demonstrating the political interconnections between the county’s elected educational officials, consisting primarily of school board members and Alejandre himself making donations to one anothers’ electioneering funds.
McEachron found himself provoked in the early stage of the meeting, after the preliminary and ceremonial items were dealt with and the board was hearing public comments. A former instructor with the Etiwanda School District, Antoinette Jensen, made some critical observations with regard to the county’s educational establishment, including the assertion that the county superintendent of schools office had engaged in “pay-to-play” practices with regard to contracting, a nepotistic arrangement in which Alejandre’s wife had been provided with a contract exceeding $200,000 per year and conflict-of-interest entanglements. Jensen referenced the funneling of campaign money to and between elected educational position candidates with whom Alejandre or board members are aligned and concerted efforts to remove individuals in office who are not in line policy-wise or politically with the prime movers in the county’s educational establishment. “Independent voices get in the way of your power,” Jensen asserted.
Jensen accused the county educational office of delaying responses to public records requests.
Mark Butler advocated that the board commission an independent outside auditor to look at the county superintendent’s office’s budget. With regard to the board making a collective response to an email communication dated August 22, 2025 from Deputy San Bernardino County Counsel Richard Luczak, Butler recommended that the individual members of the board retain separate lawyers to represent them rather than having one attorney for all five of them. His suggestion was that some board members were entangled in misfeasance or malfeasance while others were not.
McEachron referenced a letter he had received from the California Fair Political Practices Commission which he said noted that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing relating to political donations that had passed between his and Alejandre’s political war chests.
“Basically, the gist of the letter says that there was no validation to the complaint brought against me,” McEachron said. He identified Jensen as having made the request for the Fair Political Practices Commission investigation, and he chastised her for not having mentioned the FPPC’s finding during her comments. He went on to note that “There is another complaint out there similar in nature against me. I expect the FPPC will find in the same way, that I did nothing wrong in making a contribution to Mr. Alejandre’s reelection campaign.”
McEachron evinced pique at the manner in which members of the public were highlighting official action they disagreed with and were making use of governmental oversight agencies that directly involve citizen input or are actuated by citizen inquiries or complains, such as the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
“The thing that concerns me so much about these complaints is how similar they are in nature,” McEachron said. “It would speak to there’s a lot of collaboration, coordination and collusion going on amongst members of the public to come after members of this board.”
While McEachron spoke somewhat elliptically and indirectly, he came across as particularly sensitive about recently surfaced revelations and follow-up charges of cronyism and nepotism against several of San Bernardino County’s elected public education officials. Some of those pertain to favorable treatment school districts, the county board of education and the county superintendent’s office have shown to campaign donors, associates, friends and family members of school board members or those of Alejandre in vending or service contracts as well as consultancies and employment.
McEachron sought to suggest that while members of the public had a certain degree of license in criticizing and examining public officials with regard to their comportment in office, that privilege did not extend to the individuals or companies doing business with the district. Those entities, McEachron maintained, would not qualify as public figures or even limited purpose public figures under slander and libel law, and were thus immune from inquiry or criticism.
“It’s one thing to come after a public official, but when you start invoking members of the private sector or their corporations – one of the speakers said something about ‘You all need to get your own attorneys,’ – well, I would suggest the same for you, because you are bringing on liability against yourself when you’re going after private citizens or private corporations that you do not know, and you cannot do that. It is not legal.”
Without citing any civil or criminal statures that prohibit or outlaw inquiries with regard to or critical examination/assessments of government contractors, McEachron offered citizens who are monitoring the San Bernardino County Board of Education and the county superintendent of schools some advice.
“This is a caution to be very careful in what you’re doing, because there is not only civil penalties but criminal penalties for what you are doing,” McEachron said. “It’s fine to bring accusations against me as an elected official. This is not my first rodeo. I was on the Victorville City Council. I had numerous things brought against me there. I will survive these just as Ii survived those.”
McEachron then broadened those within the scope of his admonishment from members of the public and/or parents of students to other elected officials, more specifically his colleagues on the county board of education and more narrowly still, Andrea De Leon and especially Rita Fernandez-Loof, whom he indicated he suspected were assisting members of the public making inquiries.
“What worries me is there could be some collusion or collaboration going on with members of this dais,” McEachron said. “I hope and pray that is not the case, because if any of us up here collude with members of the public to come back against this agency, not only are you bringing the possibility of liability against this agency but possibility of liability against yourself.”
Interfering with companies that have contracts to provide goods or services to the board of education, the county superintendent of schools or the county’s various school districts would have dire consequences for those making such inquiries or challenges and the county school board members assisting them, McEachron said. “Those private citizens, those corporations out there, they don’t care,” he said. “We could spend tens of millions of dollars defending your actions because you colluded with a member of the public to bring accusations against an organization or a person that is not an elected official. They are a private citizen or a private corporation. It’s a warning of sorts. Not that I can do anything to you, there are others out there who can.”
Later that evening, toward the end of the meeting, during that portion of the proceedings in which the board members propose items to be placed on the agenda for discussion or consideration at future meetings, McEachron proposed turning the tables on those members of the public who were scrutinizing the board’s action or that of the superintendent of county schools by tracking the public’s use of the California Public Records Act to obtain information and tallying the amount of money expended by the county superintendent of schools office’s staff and the county school board’s staffs in responding to the information requests.
The California Public Records Act, enacted in 1968, provides the public with the right to access information concerning the conduct of government business. The act mandates that all public records are open to inspection unless there is a specific exemption to a particular record by law. Public agencies are permitted under the act to omit or redact information considered confidential or that might constitute an invasion of privacy if revealed, as strictly defined. The act specifies a process by which those seeking records must make requests for the records, documents, materials, information or data in question in ways that clearly specify what is being sought and in a way that is not overly broad or open-ended. The act specifies that the agency must respond to the individual making the request within 10 business days or otherwise extend the response time to a period within which it is reasonable to find and produce the records, that the records be provided in the format in which they are kept and that the agency provide a cogent reason falling within the exceptions specified in the act if it denies a request.
Referencing members of the public in general and Jensen specifically making such requests, McEachron asked his board colleagues to go along with having Richard G. De Nava, who is the assistant superintendent for business services in the San Bernardino County Office of Education and Alejandre’s right-hand man, track the public records request that are coming into the county’s public education division staff and tally the costs accruing as a result.
“Mr. De Nava, I’d like you to put together a running calculator of how much staff is spending on public records requests, like monetarily how much we are spending,” McEachron said. “We are getting inundated with these on a daily basis, it seems like. I think there’s some agenda out there, some group that’s focused on, for some reason, coming after us. But, I think it’s important that the public not only know whatever they’re requesting to find out but the public also know how much money – taxpayer money – is being expended to provide them with that information because it’s getting ridiculous. So, I would like a running calculator, much like our debt clock at the federal level, because this is going to continue to happen and I want the public to see what’s going on and how much it’s costing us to respond to these PRAs [Public Record Act information requests] that come in on a daily basis.”
In his comments, McEachron assiduously avoided mention of the substance or subject matter at least some of the members of the public are seeking in making the public records request, that being information showing if elected education officials such as himself or Alejandre have a financial interest in business being transacted by the county’s school districts, the county school board, the county superintendent of schools or his office. Instead, McEachron’s comments pertained to what he referred to as the “cost” of having staff members devote time from their schedules to find the sought-after records and in some cases redact them or have them reviewed by the school board’s legal team or the lawyer employed by the county superintendent of schools to ascertain if the documents contain any confidential information that should be excised or expurgated or redacted from the documents or would justify withholding them in their entirety. He implied that the cost of having such reviews made was the fault of those making the requests.
“This is costing us tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer dollars, actually, and I’m not sure what the point is, other than to make us all look bad,” McEachron said. He then suggested that when the public learns of the cost associated with producing the documents, the public will grow angry not with the officeholders but those keeping tabs on them.
“If you want to make us look bad, I’m going to make them look bad back to the taxpayers,” McEachron said. “They are expending taxpayer money doing this, for what reason, to what end, is my question. They probably won’t answer that because they don’t want to admit all they are doing is trying to make us look bad. But at the end of the day I want the taxpayers of San Bernardino County to know what is happening and where their tax money is going.”
Board President Gwen Dowdy-Rodgers and Board Member Laura Abernathy Mancha came across as supportive of at least some of McEachron’s sentiments, with Dowdy-Rodgers echoing what he said by suggesting that De Nava expand the monetary calculations of the California Public Records request costs to include the legal fees incurred by the district in complying with the informational provision requirements of the act.
There were aspects to the manner in which McEachron addressed the issue relating to the public records requests, his objection to them, what seemed to be his effort to intimidate those making the requests and his specific mention of Jensen that alarmed Jensen. In response, Jensen filed multiple complaints with the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office and some local police departments over what she said were “public threats during an official meeting.”
According to Jensen, McEachron and Dowdy-Rodgers came close to or in fact crossed the legal line on September 8 by violating the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open public meeting law with their attempts to dissuade the public from obtaining district documents and data.
“Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of the Act, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor,” according to California Government Code § 54959.
The Brown Act specifically prohibits officials from addressing or retaliating against public commenters from the dais, a protection designed to encourage public participation in government meetings without fear of retaliation.
Beyond the personal references to herself which could be construed as threats, Jensen noted, McEachron also directed staff resources for retaliation with the direction to De Nava, she maintains. Dowdy-Rodgers, as board president, not only failed to intervene but intensified the directive, according to Jensen.
The complaint alleges and outlines several specific violations, one of which pertained to Government Code § 54954.2 prohibiting action or discussion of items not on the agenda and another, Government Code § 54954.3(c), which protects the public’s right to criticize and prohibits retaliation from the dais.
According to Jensen, the board engaged in improper deliberation in that it took action on creating the Public Records Act cost tracker without proper notice or a vote. The Brown Act requires that action to be discussed or voted upon be specified as an action item in an agenda for the meeting posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting unless the matter involved constitutes an “emergency.”
Jensen in her complaint also cited one of the county school board’s own rules, that being Board Policy 113, which requires “consensus” before items can be placed on future agendas, as constituting a violation of the Brown Act in that it authorizes deliberation without public notice.
Jensen contended that on September 8, the board failed to follow Board Policy 113 to the letter in that it was not clear a consensus of the board members had been achieved when De Nava was given direction to provide the cost calculator. The board has, however, established a past practice pattern of establishing a loose consensus and accepting suggestions made by board members unless a clear majority of the board members express opposition to a suggestion.
Jensen stepped onto a controversial plane when she took issue with the county school board’s rule with regard to members of the public addressing the board at its meetings identifying themselves, a requirement identical to or not much different from those imposed by other local governmental entities such as school districts, water districts, city councils and the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. Board Policy 114 – Addressing the Board states, “The person wishing to address the county board shall, when recognized by the county board president, step up to the rostrum and announce his or her name.”
Jensen contends that “Requiring the name or identifying information of speakers is prohibited by the Brown Act.” While this may or may not be technically correct, there is a long-running custom and tradition in San Bernardino County and elsewhere in California, one broadly considered to be in the interest of the open exchange of ideas and information, not to mention civil courtesy, that individuals identify themselves during such public discussions.
Jensen’s position is that after the threats from the dais by McEachron, many citizens may fear providing their name or even speaking out at the county board of education meetings.
Jensen contends that directing staff to prepare ongoing reports specifically to “shame” and retaliate against citizens exercising their legal rights under the Public Records Act constitutes misuse of taxpayer resources for political ends.
Jensen’s complaint references raised safety concerns over McEachron’s outburst and Dowdy-Rodgers support for him. She has requested that the district attorney require law enforcement presence at future board meetings, including metal detectors and bag checks. The complaint also requests that McEachron be restricted to participating in meetings only via Zoom “to protect public safety and preserve the integrity of meetings.”
Jensen is seeking several remedies from the district attorney’s office. She is requesting criminal investigation of both trustees for Brown Act violations and misuse of public authority, suspension of Board Policy 113 as an ongoing Brown Act violation, cessation of all staff work on the California Public Records Act cost-tracking effort and enhanced security measures at future board meetings. She is asking the district attorney’s office to assess criminal and civil penalties authorized under the law for Brown Act violations to include criminal misdemeanor charges, injunctions and civil fines as deemed appropriate.
The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office has not yet responded to the complaint.
In addition, Jensen wants the full board of education to formally censure of Board President Dowdy-Rodgers and remove her from the presidency, a board censure of McEachron and public apologies delivered during live-streamed board meetings.
Jensen’s request of both the district attorney’s office and the county school board are quixotic and decidedly politically unrealistic. Jason Anderson, since being elected district attorney in 2018, has gravitated into an accommodation with the county’s political establishment, which includes virtually all elected officials in the county, including the members of the county school board and the superintendent of county schools. While Fernandez-Loof and De Leon are not members of the county school board’s ruling coalition, consisting of Dowdy Rodgers, Abernathy-Mancha and McEachron, which is aligned with Alejandre, they lack the political muscle to censure Dowdy-Rodgers and McEachron, as their two votes would be insufficient to achieve that end. Moreover, to force a censure vote in the first place, a majority of the board would need to agree to conduct the censure process, which, given the current numbers and political orientation of the board, would be unlikely to be achieved.
This matter highlights ongoing tensions between public transparency advocates and local government officials in San Bernardino County. A cross section of the county’s residents believe, and have marshaled evidence to demonstrate, that some elected officials have used the authority of their offices to benefit themselves, their family members, associates and political supporters by action they have taken as public officials, including votes approving contracts, franchises and project proposals. The public’s ability to obtain public records has contributed to the exposure of such questionable and illegal activity. At the same time, public officials, such as McEachron and Dowdy Rodgers, have complained about the cost and administrative burden of responding to public records requests. California law is clear that such costs are part of the normal operations of government and cannot be used as grounds for retaliation against citizens.
Debra Kamm, an advocate for children, parents, free speech, and government transparency, has conducted seminars for nationwide audiences on how to request public records from government agencies. After watching the video of the meeting, she sent an email to the board of education, addressed to Gwendolyn Dowdy-Rodgers, expressing her concern about unlawful retaliation. She cited “Mr. McEachron’s threats against members of the public for engaging in lawful activities” and asked, “Why is he so afraid of public records?”
With the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, Kamm successfully challenged the Irvine Unified School District to change what were ultimately adjudged unconstitutional board policies depriving the public of their free speech rights. She had been threatened with banishment for simply stating facts that the school board interpreted as “criticism,” which the board policy prohibited in violation of the First Amendment.
Kamm further noted in her email to the board that the action taken by board members violated the board’s own policy 116 Governance Standards and Ethical Conduct, which enumerates multiple standards relating to professional conduct, treating others with civility and respect, and supporting and protecting due process and civil rights of all individuals, calling out Dowdy-Rodgers for not stepping in as president of the board to curb McEachron, whom she opined should have been censured for his comportment on September 8.
Kamm proposed that the board adopt a resolution against retaliation and requested that the board ensure transparency of the costs of using highly paid law firms to respond to public records requests, which could be performed by existing staff at much lower cost to the taxpayer. She stated these actions were necessary to “restore public trust, protect constitutional rights, and ensure that oversight is not chilled by unlawful threats or misuse of public resources.”
The video evidence of the September 8, 2025 San Bernardino County Board of Education meeting is available on YouTube and provides the primary documentation for the allegations outlined in the complaint to the district attorney’s office.