Who Does Lehman Really Serve?

Field Notes: Jason Lehman Office Hours, April 7, 2026 El Verano Elementary School, Room 3.3 Reported by Sonoma Schools Alliance

Present: Trustee Jason Lehman, two El Verano teachers, Laurie Salmas (El Verano School Office Manager), John Krzos (Taxpayer), and Leigh Cavalier (Sonoma Schools Alliance).

He Won't Answer Some Constituent Emails. Here's Why.

The meeting opened with a direct question: why has Trustee Lehman not responded to some constituent emails? His answer was blunt. He said he will not respond to my emails because I do not have children enrolled in SVUSD. I told him I am a taxpayer and a constituent, and that my tax dollars help fund these schools. I have every right to participate in these meetings and to question how public money is being spent. He did not dispute that. He simply had no good answer for it.

MacArthur Park Charter at Prestwood: What Input Did Families Get?

I asked Lehman what input, if any, he received from families in the Prestwood attendance area before the vote. He was evasive. He then went on to claim he received hundreds of emails in support of school choice and STEM programs, and that constituents expressed enthusiasm for the Prestwood facility. He also said he wanted to give an opportunity to families who had left the district, or who had “threatened”, his word not mine, to leave if the charter was not approved, to return.

District Finances: Are We Really Fiscally Healthy?

Lehman stated that district savings are rebounding and that the reserve account contains more than initially estimated. I agreed the reserve fund has increased. However, I pointed out that at a recent board meeting, financial experts from both the California Department of Education and SCOE stated clearly that a district our size needs $15,000,000 in reserves to be considered fiscally healthy. We are basically only halfway to that amount. Saying we are doing better is not the same as saying we are healthy. And projections, which Lehman leaned on heavily throughout the meeting, are hopes and plans. They are not reality.

The Charter Caused at Least Half the Layoffs

One of the teachers raised the point that the MacArthur Park Charter approval precipitated a minimum of half of the current staff layoffs. After a pause, Lehman confirmed that was true.

The office manager then made an observation that stopped the room. She was not disputing that school closures were necessary. But she said it makes less than zero sense to close three schools and then, just three months later, turn around and support a charter school. She asked directly: what was the logic behind that decision? Lehman did not answer.

In the absence of a real answer, she followed up with a second question: "Who do you represent?"

Lehman Claims Credit for Saving El Verano

When pressed on who he represents, Lehman responded by claiming credit for saving El Verano Elementary from the closure list, saying he advocated against cutting it when the board was deciding which school to eliminate.

It is worth noting that under AB 1912, the California law governing school closures for financially distressed districts, there are nine required metrics for the equity impact analysis. Prestwood was the only school in the district that met a majority of those criteria. The closure of Prestwood was not arbitrary. It followed a process. Lehman also said that if 200 families had wanted a charter after Flowery closed, he would not have said no. He did not say he would have voted no. There is a difference.

135 Signatures vs. 418 Signatures

Lehman cited approximately 125 to 135 verified signatures supporting the charter, which I believe refers to the signature pages attached to the MacArthur Park Charter petition. I have read that petition. There were approximately 135 signatures. I do not know how or whether they were independently verified, and I will be following up on that.

I reminded him that I collected 418 signatures opposing the charter, including parents with children currently at Sonoma Charter, Woodland Star, and Prestwood, as well as at least one district staff member. I asked him directly: why did 135 signatures in support outweigh 418 signatures in opposition? He did not provide a satisfactory answer.

Office Hours: Zero in 2026 [with the exception of the April 6th meeting], Three in All of 2025

Staff present expressed frustration, more than once, that Lehman has held zero office hours in all of 2026 and only three in all of 2025. Constituents in his area have emailed him without receiving responses. He offered no satisfactory explanation for his absence. This matters especially because in February 2025, the board voted 4 to 1 to limit public comment at board meetings, with trustees at that time telling the community that office hours were an available alternative. If office hours are the alternative, they need to actually happen.

The Charter Does Not Save Money

One of the teachers raised the claim made by Board President David Bell that the charter would somehow generate money for the district. That argument also appeared in the charter's own petition. Then-Acting Superintendent Rena Seifts addressed it directly in the district's petition response and stated it was categorically untrue.

Lehman then argued that charter schools in California generally operate at lower cost than district schools. That is partially true, but he left out the critical context:

Charter schools serve significantly fewer special needs students and far fewer multilingual learners and English language learners. Those student populations require more resources, specially trained teachers, instructional aides, speech therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, and behavioral specialists, all required by federal IDEA law at district expense.

A general ed teacher may serve 25 to 30 students. A Special Needs teacher may serve 8 to 12, often with one or more aides alongside them. Special Needs teachers also require additional credentialing, and districts frequently pay more to attract and retain those teachers because of a statewide shortage.

Those service obligations do not disappear when students leave for a charter. They stay with the district schools, at district expense. The charter's lower operating cost reflects who it is not serving, not any real efficiency. Additionally, charter teachers will be non-union, meaning lower pay and less robust benefits. These are not equivalent comparisons.

One of the teachers, a reading teacher, asked for clear and specific information on what the charter will ultimately cost the district. Lehman referenced the upcoming district budget rollout. Every financial analysis produced throughout this entire process has indicated the charter will cost the district money, not generate it.

The Board Spent More Time on an HVAC Contract Than on the Charter Vote

A teacher also pointed out that on the night of the January 8 charter vote, the board spent more time discussing a potential contract with Climatec, a company being considered to address aging HVAC and solar power systems, than it spent on the charter decision. A vote that will affect this district's finances and student population for years received less deliberation than an HVAC contract. That tells you something about how seriously the majority of this board took the decision.

Minimal Public Discussion Before the Vote

I pointed out that in the three months between when the charter petition was submitted to the district and the night of the vote, there was minimal board discussion about the charter. That means there was also minimal public discussion. The community had almost no opportunity to meaningfully weigh in before the decision was made. Trustee Gerardo Guzman was the notable exception, asking pointed questions about whether approving the charter would drain district funds. The tone from the other trustees was essentially: we believe in school choice, let's vote yes.

Communication Failures Across the Board

The office manager raised the broader issue of poor communication between the district office, campus staff, and board members. Lehman acknowledged this and said he hopes Superintendent Sutter will improve that dynamic. He also said he would personally welcome more communication with El Verano staff. For the record: the Valley of the Moon Teachers Association has made requests for better communication between staff and the board at every single board meeting since January 2025. Every one.

The Conflict of Interest Question

A staff member asked Lehman directly whether he planned to enroll his children in MacArthur Park Charter. He initially did not give a direct answer. When asked again, he said his children would not be attending the charter. Whether he ultimately chooses the charter or a private school, the conflict of interest question remains relevant. His children attended a Montessori school owned by a person who sits on the advisory board of the charter. Before the January 8 vote, I sent a formal letter to the district stating that I believed Lehman should disclose this information and that it represented a conflict of interest under California Government Code Section 87100.

Lehman dismissed this entirely and stated he had consulted an attorney, though it was unclear whether he meant the district's legal counsel or a private attorney, regarding my advocacy posts online. He repeatedly returned to the claim that I was making his children unsafe. I responded by pointing out that the school placements of Bell's, Landry's, and Guzman's children have been stated on the public record multiple times. Once families enroll in a school, that information becomes known. Lehman did not state that his children would be attending Sassarini or El Verano either. He did not offer a clear answer about where they will be enrolled.

The Layoffs: Not His Decision?

One of the teachers asked: when you were presented with the list of layoffs, how did you decide? Lehman stated that the layoff decisions were not his to make, that those decisions belong to the superintendent and district staff. He specifically said it was staff who decided to pink slip Director of Educational Services, Student Wellness and Inclusion Jillian Beall, and expressed hope that Superintendent Sutter will choose the right people to fill her duties.

"The Charter Would Have Passed Anyway"

Lehman claimed that even if he had voted no on the charter, the vote still would have been 3 to 2 in favor and the charter would have passed anyway. Think about that for a moment…………………….. Under the Brown Act, trustees are not supposed to be privately coordinating votes in advance. If he truly did not know how the others would vote, he had no basis for that claim. And if board outcomes were so predictable, why did the vote to close Prestwood pass 4 to 1, with Ann Ching as the sole no vote? Votes are not always predictable. His statement raises more questions than it answers, including questions about what conversations may have happened before the night of the vote.

Sonoma Schools Alliance attends every SVUSD board meeting and publishes field notes to keep our community informed. It is what was said, by whom, and in what context. For more information visit sonomaschoolsalliance.org or contact us at contact@sonomaschoolsalliance.org.

Unidos por Nuestras Escuelas - United for Our Schools.

Photo by Matt Walsh on Unsplash