SAN MARCOS — Palomar College faculty and classified staff issued resolutions of no confidence targeting members of the college board of trustees this week, demanding better leadership and a renewed focus on student needs amid the continued fallout from controversial decisions by the board.
On Tuesday evening, around 100 members of Palomar College CCE/AFT Local 4522, which represents classified staff, and supporters rallied at a board of trustees meeting both inside and outside of the boardroom. Members demanded that trustees address harm caused by recent decisions, meet the union’s bargaining demands, and respect the voices of the campus community.
Classified staff are seeking a full cost-of-living (COLA) adjustment, a pay increase that they say the college is legally required to provide under their contract, as well as for the college to fill vacant positions, among other demands.
The board has faced heavy criticism after a three-person majority — comprising trustees Yvette Acosta, Jacqueline Kaiser, and Holly Hamilton-Bleakley — voted in mid-October to repeal a board policy focused on anti-racism, known as BP 3000, despite community pushback.
The 2021 policy was adopted with staff and student input in the months following the murder of George Floyd, during a time of national reckoning for many educational institutions regarding concerns of systemic racism. It outlines several commitments by the college to create a safe and equitable campus for students, staff and faculty of all backgrounds and to combat White supremacy.
However, the majority of the board argued that the policy could put the college in legal jeopardy. Since the beginning of the year, the Trump administration has put pressure on educational institutions to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs and “race-based” policies.
“By deleting BP 3000, this board did not say, ‘Racism is allowed.’ But you did say, ‘We no longer believe it requires an explicit institutional stance,’ and that distinction matters to the people who are most affected,” said Alyssa Vafaei, a counselor in Palomar’s Disability Resource Center.
Earlier this year, the same three trustees also voted to end the recitation of the land acknowledgment at board meetings, prompting questions about the board’s campus priorities.
Some faculty and staff claim the board’s divisive policies led to the departure of President/Superintendent Star Rivera-Lacey in November. Rivera-Lacey, who joined the college in 2021 and left for a position in Riverside, was known for championing initiatives that helped define Palomar’s reputation as a leader in equity, diversity and accessibility.
However, Rivera-Lacey also faced some criticism from staff and students for being “silent” about the repealing of BP 3000.
Representatives of both the Palomar College CCE/AFT Local 4522 and the Palomar Faculty Federation presented resolutions of no confidence in board members Kaiser and Acosta. PFF also included Hamilton-Bleakley in their no-confidence determination.
“It’s our last board meeting of 2025, and it pains me to think that members of this board will go home and genuinely be proud of the work they’ve done this year,” Palomar CCE Vice President Jena Kruhmin told the board. “Literally being so difficult to work with that our highly-skilled and highly-respected president decided it wasn’t worth it to stay here … If your goal was damage, then yes, you’ve been remarkably effective.”
The no-confidence resolutions also cited concerns that Kaiser appeared to support recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in comments on social media, as reported in an op-ed by the student publication The Telescope.
Some called the comments offensive and tone-deaf, noting that over half of Palomar’s student body identifies as Latino or Hispanic and that many are living in fear.
Kaiser previously addressed the comments and the Telescope piece on Nov. 5, noting that they lacked context.
“I guess if I were to add a little context to that, I would just make the statement that Trustee Kaiser’s family has more than once been the victim of criminal illegal activity at a great physical cost and financial cost to her family. So, there’s always two sides to every story. Sometimes it pays to take the extra step and to really hear other competing viewpoints as well,” Kaiser said.
Frustrations continue
Several students, community members, and trustees Robert Rodriguez and Judy Patacsil — who voted against repealing BP 3000 — have said that repealing the policy without community input has left many people on campus feeling unsupported and unsafe.
When repealing the resolution in October, trustee Acosta claimed that no other college in California has a board policy regarding anti-racism. However, on Tuesday, PFF President Lawrence Hamilton pointed out that this was untrue.
Hamilton read an example anti-racism board policy from Pasadena City College and a policy from MiraCosta College that commits to a racially just campus climate. He said it appears the trustees did not conduct their own research before claiming that no other colleges had a similar policy.
“Students, faculty, staff, and others in our community believe that they deserve an explanation for the inaccurate information you shared with us, and this is your chance to correct the record,” Hamilton said.
Acosta said she did not intend to share inaccurate information and was relying on what she knew at the time. Hamilton-Bleakley said the board “did not mean to imply that there were no policies relating to anti-racism throughout any of the other board policies in the state.”
The board also shared a statement from Palomar’s legal counsel, stating that the board relies on policies prepared and adopted by the Community College League of California, and that BP 3000 was not based on any policies recommended by the league.
Rodriguez said that while this is true, BP 3000 was not based on CCLC policy; it was not among the reasons cited for repealing the policy in October.
“That statement feels like an after-the-fact statement and not the real impetus for the actions of the board,” Rodriguez said.
Student trustee Ariel Fridman, who also shared concerns about rescinding BP 3000, thanked Hamilton for bringing forward these examples of other policies.
“Thank you for coming out and speaking on this. It’s great to see the other alternatives that could have been, and knowing that there were other colleges that had this,” Friedman said.
At the time of repealing the policy, the board agreed to form a subcommittee to explore alternative options to address the concerns that prompted the policy.
Patacsil said since then, she and Hamilton-Bleakley — who was appointed board president on Tuesday — have met several times and had productive discussions with college leaders about developing a resolution that captures the spirit of BP 3000.
“One of the things I asked is that we consider more than a resolution, but we’re going to start with a resolution … right now, a resolution is what was more palatable,” said Patacsil. “The discussions were enlightening, and informative, and one of the things I said was that I didn’t want this to be performative. I wanted to make sure that it made an impact.”
The committee will gather additional input from students, faculty, staff, and administrators, trustees said.
“I think we have a way forward, and hopefully in January we’ll be able to kind of accelerate things,” Hamilton-Bleakley said.
Brown Act allegations
In the past month, the board has also addressed allegations from the PFF that it violated the Brown Act, which outlines requirements for open public meetings.
In an Oct. 21 cease-and-desist letter to the board of trustees, the PFF noted that earlier that month, then-board president Kaiser had allowed two community members who led the Pledge of Allegiance at the meeting to speak for several minutes about their community work.
PFF said the presentation from the two individuals was not agendized, and that they were allowed extra time to speak that was not afforded to those who spoke during the public comment period of the meeting, where each speaker is limited to three minutes.
At a Dec. 10 meeting, the board shared a letter of unconditional commitment stating that they did not admit any wrongdoing but would cease the actions described by the faculty foundation.
“In order to avoid unnecessary litigation and without admitting any violation of the Brown Act, the Board of Trustees hereby unconditionally commits that it will cease, desist from, and not repeat the challenged past action as described above,” the letter stated.
Kaiser also told The Coast News that the names of the community members who led the Pledge of Allegiance were clearly listed on the agenda, and that she allowed them to share remarks in
“As Board President, I believe strongly in fostering meaningful community engagement throughout our district. It is important that we encourage participation from those we serve. Allowing them a few minutes to speak was a small but important way to honor their contributions and strengthen the connection between the Governing Board and the community,” Kaiser said.
Beyond the cease-and-desist letter, PFF leaders have also raised concerns about past instances in which board members had their cameras turned off when joining board meetings remotely.
Hamilton said that when cameras are turned off, it’s hard to tell whether board members are listening to the public and engaging in the meeting.
Kaiser also addressed these concerns, stating that trustees are not required to have their cameras on when attending board meetings remotely.
“The specific requirements that apply depend on the type of teleconferencing used, and the Board ensures it strictly complies with these requirements,” she said.
Search for a new superintendent
Before it can begin the search for a new superintendent/president, the board still needs to approve a contract with a consultant, a decision likely to occur next month.
The board heard a presentation from one potential consultant, PPL Inc., at its Dec. 10 meeting and will hear from another, ACCT Governance Consulting Services, in January. Rodriguez noted that during the last search in 2021, the board selected from a “menu” of services offered by its consultant and completed additional steps in-house.
As part of the process, the board will also designate members to a first-level committee consisting of college and community stakeholders to guide the search. While the ultimate decision on a candidate will be left entirely to the board, district staff said it is crucial to gather as much community feedback as possible.
“I cannot emphasize enough the importance of voice from our college community, our entire community,” said Assistant Superintendent/Vice President of Human Resources Anna Pedroza. “I would imagine that everybody’s goal, each of the five of you, your goal is to hire a president who will be here for many years, and so it’s about making sure that it’s the right fit for this college.”
Trustees discussed whether the first-level committee should include board members, with Pedroza noting that the committee requires a significant time commitment. The board opted not to render a decision at the meeting.
The board also appointed Dr. Tina Recalde, Palomar’s assistant superintendent and vice president of instruction, as interim superintendent/president while the college searches for a permanent candidate.
“I am honored by the Governing Board’s decision and appreciate the opportunity to lead our faculty, staff, and administrators as we continue our collegewide commitment to increasing enrollment and positively impacting our students as they pursue their educational and career goals,” Recalde said.
