Darin Brawley departs
Historical board checkpointsMay 2008 roster: Fred D. Thomas, Daniel Tan, Holly Eckes, Christine Turner and Suzanne Dolberry.
2010 election winners: Christine Turner, Debra S. Jones and Elaine M. Gonzales.
A CASE FOR CHANGE / 2026
WHO MADE
THE DECISIONS?
Boards change. Decisions last.
01 / THE STORY
THE MAJORITY.
THE RESPONSIBILITY.
Christine Turner. La Shawn Love-French. Christina Steward. The former majority at the center of the November 2024 superintendent appointment.
Public office means
public accountability.
Trustees make consequential decisions about leadership, contracts and oversight. Those decisions deserve scrutiny long after the vote.
Our view: stability is a responsibility of governance. When leadership keeps changing, voters should examine the board’s decisions as closely as the superintendent’s performance.
The former majority and the current board are different. This story follows those changes rather than treating every board as the same.
02 / THE STORY
SUPERINTENDENTS CHANGE.
DOES THE CYCLE?
The Sentinel reports nine superintendents over roughly fourteen years, including interim leadership.
9
SUPERINTENDENTS
One district. Roughly fourteen years.
A question bigger than any one personality.
Board history below uses dated roster and election checkpoints from the supplied historical reconstruction. Election winners are not a complete roster of every trustee serving throughout a superintendent’s tenure; appointment records and source documents can extend these entries.
Richard Bray
Election checkpoint · November 2012Full-term winners: Teresa Rogers and Elaine M. Gonzales. Short-term winner: Jermaine Wright Sr. Christine Turner and Debra S. Jones won seats in the preceding 2010 cycle.
Lily DeBlieux
Election checkpoints · 2012–20142012 winners: Teresa Rogers, Elaine M. Gonzales and Jermaine Wright Sr.
2014 winners: Debra S. Jones, Jayson Hughes and Evelyn Glasper. Christine Turner lost reelection in 2014.
Edwin Gomez
Election checkpoints · 2014–20162014 winners: Debra S. Jones, Jayson Hughes and Evelyn Glasper.
2016 winners: Christine Turner and Holly Eckes.
Amy Nguyen
Election checkpoints · 2016–20182016 winners: Christine Turner and Holly Eckes.
2018 winners: Christina Bentz (now Christina Steward), La Shawn Love-French and Ammie Hines (later Hunter).
Kennon Mitchell
Election & appointment checkpoints · 2020–2022Christine Turner won Area 1 in 2020. The preceding 2018 winners were Christina Bentz (now Christina Steward), La Shawn Love-French and Ammie Hines (later Hunter). Stephanie Webster was appointed in January 2022 following Hunter’s death.
Michael Krause
Documented November 2022 board: Christina Bentz (now Christina Steward), Christine Turner, La Shawn Love-French, Holly Eckes and Stephanie Webster.
John Albert
Board succession checkpoint · 2023–2024November 2022 roster: Christina Bentz (now Christina Steward), Christine Turner, La Shawn Love-French, Holly Eckes and Stephanie Webster. Miguel Soto succeeded Eckes by appointment in March 2023.
Terry Walker
November 2024 appointment board: Christine Turner, Christina Steward, La Shawn Love-French, Miguel Soto and Stephanie Kyer. Turner was subsequently replaced by Krause.
THE QUESTION
Is it only the superintendents—or the system around them?
Our view: repeated turnover calls for a serious examination of support, evaluation, professional boundaries and board culture. The board’s membership changed during this period; the full chronology cannot be assigned to a single majority.
Explore the supporting record +
San Bernardino County Sentinel reporting. Source for approximate tenures and the reported $421,173 Walker separation value. Not an audited payment ledger.
Not in this collection. No content or amount has been inferred from the missing document.
03 / THE STORY
A PERSONNEL DISPUTE.
WAS THE RESPONSE PROPORTIONATE?
When conflict reaches the courtroom, residents deserve to understand both the conduct and the response.
Adelanto Elementary School District v. Michael KrauseSuperior Court case CIVBA2400679 · Appeal D086337 ↗Could this have been resolved
without court involvement?
Three executive assistants alleged harassment and safety concerns. The District sought a workplace violence restraining order. Michael Krause disputed the account and alleged political retaliation.
The appellate court upheld the core order, finding sufficient evidence of a future threat of harassment. It also removed an overbroad restriction on Krause discussing the proceeding at board meetings and shortened the order to the statutory maximum.
“We affirm the order as so modified.”
California Court of Appeal · July 6, 2026 · Opinion, page 2
OUR VIEW
When does a personnel dispute become a governance failure?
The court upheld the core protection against harassment while striking the restriction on discussing the proceeding at board meetings and reducing the order’s duration to three years. The public can respect that result and still ask: what alternatives were considered, who directed the litigation, and how were its costs reviewed? Legal authority answers one question. Proportionality and responsible governance require their own examination.
The election overlap +
The proceeding overlapped with Krause’s 2024 race against Turner. The Sentinel reports that district counsel demanded he withdraw, citing an alleged breach of his separation agreement. Krause alleges political motivation; the District’s case concerned employee protection. The timing raises an oversight question, but does not establish a conspiracy.
Explore the supporting record +
Published appellate opinion, D086337. Court-authored text retrieved through Justia. The core order was affirmed as modified. This is not a hearing transcript.
Account attributed to Krause and supplied by the site organizer; self-dated March 3, 2026. Selected excerpts, not the full original. The date of leave conflicts with the appellate opinion.
Announcement by the employees’ counsel, McCune Law Group, of claims reportedly submitted July 30, 2026. Party allegations, not findings. This firm is distinct from district counsel McCune & Harber.
Sentinel reporting about the October 29 search authorization, November 5 election and November 12 appointment. Vote details are attributed to this reporting.
04 / THE STORY
PUBLIC MONEY.
PUBLIC ANSWERS.
Legal conflict. Security. Leadership turnover. Residents deserve the full accounting.
THE COST COMPARISON / ESTIMATE + REPORTED SEPARATION VALUE$695,164.27Combined comparison—not an audited total or proof that all expenses were paid, attributable to one proceeding, or caused by the same trustees.
Legal conflict, security and Walker’s separation: two separately identified figures, combined to show the scale of public resources at stake.
ORGANIZER’S ESTIMATE$273,991.27
Legal services and security, including separate district-office security. Underlying billing and allocation have not been independently reconciled here.
SENTINEL-REPORTED VALUE$421,173.00
Walker’s separation value. The signed agreement and payment ledger have not yet been added.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR CLASSROOM PRIORITIES?≈ 1.37%
A one-year salary-cost comparison.
AESD’s March 5, 2024 Second Interim report lists $508,418 as the cost of a 1% increase in certificated non-management salaries and statutory benefits.
$695,164.27 ÷ $508,418 = 1.3673. The combined figure is comparable to about 1.37 percentage points of a one-year increase on that historical bargaining-unit baseline.
This includes statutory benefits and is not limited to classroom teachers. It does not establish available unrestricted funds or finance a permanent raise; recurring raises require recurring revenue.Read the district’s calculation · PDF page 129 ↗THE LEADERSHIP CONNECTION / OUR VIEWDecisions have a price.
Decisions have a price.
Students deserve the priority.
Christine Turner, La Shawn Love-French and Christina Steward formed the reported 3–2 majority approving Walker’s permanent appointment. Our argument is that residents should judge those leadership decisions by their consequences, including separation costs and the wider culture of conflict.
The combined figure is a cost comparison, not a finding that the three trustees personally caused every legal or security expense.
See the educators backing change ↓Trace the legal bills.
The organizer reports work by three firms. A public firm-by-firm breakdown requires invoices, dates and matter descriptions; no separate firm totals are asserted here.
Separate the assignments.
The estimate includes district-office security as well as other security costs. Routine protection and dispute-related assignments should be distinguished.
A separate cost.
The Sentinel reported a $421,173 separation value. It is separate from the legal-and-security estimate and is not represented here as a reconciled payment total.
THE CONTRACT / THE OVERSIGHT QUESTIONThree votes to hire.
Three votes to hire.
Four votes to terminate.
The Sentinel reports that Walker’s contract required four of five votes to terminate, with or without cause. Under that reported threshold, two trustees could block termination even if three supported it.
Our view: that raises a serious question about the incoming majority’s ability to change leadership. A termination threshold does not eliminate the board’s other oversight powers, and the clause alone does not establish anyone’s motive or prove why a separation payment was required.
The campaign’s interpretation is that the outgoing majority sought lasting influence through the appointment and contract. The public should examine the contract, the timing and the trustees’ explanations together.
WHO AUTHORIZED IT?Who directed the contract?
Who directed the contract?
Who changed the search?
Who authorized the litigation?
Who instructed counsel to draft Walker’s terms? What action replaced the national search with a permanent appointment? Who authorized pursuing the restraining order against Krause—and what did the full board know?
These questions call for the authorizations and decision trail. They do not assume an answer that the available documents have not established.
Explore the supporting record +
Not in this collection. No content or amount has been inferred from the missing document.
Not in this collection. No content or amount has been inferred from the missing document.
Not in this collection. No content or amount has been inferred from the missing document.
Sentinel reporting about the October 29 search authorization, November 5 election and November 12 appointment. Vote details are attributed to this reporting.
San Bernardino County Sentinel reporting. Source for approximate tenures and the reported $421,173 Walker separation value. Not an audited payment ledger.
Not in this collection. No content or amount has been inferred from the missing document.
Form 01CSI, S8A, certificated non-management: PDF page 129 lists $508,418 for a one-percent salary and statutory-benefit increase. Historical bargaining-unit benchmark, not current teachers-only payroll or recurring funding.
05 / THE STORY
EDUCATORS BACKING
A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
Students and teachers first.
ADELANTO DISTRICT TEACHERS ASSOCIATIONSupporting Lesley Tett
Supporting Lesley Tett
and Toni Rojas-Evitts.
The candidates’ campaign materials identify the association’s endorsements. Our campaign connects the choice for new leadership with classroom priorities and responsible spending; that interpretation is not presented as the association’s stated reason for endorsing them.
06 / THE STORY
A SEARCH APPROVED.
A HIRE DAYS LATER.
Three dates. One consequential decision.
A national search.
The board authorized Leadership Associates to conduct a superintendent search, according to the Sentinel.
The voters spoke.
Krause defeated incumbent Turner in the Area 1 election, according to reported results.
A permanent hire.
Turner, Steward and Love-French approved Walker’s appointment 3–2. Soto and Kyer opposed, the Sentinel reports.
THE QUESTION
What changed between the search decision and the appointment?
The Sentinel characterized this as a “lame duck” hiring. Walker departed in February 2026, approximately fifteen months after the permanent appointment. Our view: the public deserves a clear explanation of the process and its consequences.
Explore the supporting record +
Sentinel reporting about the October 29 search authorization, November 5 election and November 12 appointment. Vote details are attributed to this reporting.
San Bernardino County Sentinel reporting. Source for approximate tenures and the reported $421,173 Walker separation value. Not an audited payment ledger.
Not in this collection. No content or amount has been inferred from the missing document.
Not in this collection. No content or amount has been inferred from the missing document.
07 / THE STORY
BOUNDARIES MATTER.
Professional roles protect employees, trustees and the public.
Governance is not
personal loyalty.
Our view: trustees should respect supervisory structures, use established complaint procedures and avoid relationships that blur professional accountability. As elected officials, trustees must maintain boundaries with staff, interest groups and individuals so that private loyalty does not displace their duty to the public. Professional distance helps protect independent judgment and guard against improper influence.
Policy disagreement is not proof of bad faith. Voters choose their representatives. A functioning board must manage disagreement while fulfilling its obligations to students and employees.
The voters sent Krause back.
What should teamwork look like now?
Our view: elected colleagues should work together within lawful boundaries. Respecting the voters’ choice and protecting employees are responsibilities the board must meet together.
Explore the supporting record +
District governance handbook, March 2023. Historical document; current policy should be checked before relying on it for a specific procedure.
08 / THE STORY
KIDS DESERVE
A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
Stable leadership. Clear boundaries. Transparent decisions. Students and teachers first.
We cannot change the decisions already made.
We can change what we expect from leadership.