Upland Board Trustee’s Son Sues District Amid Ongoing State Ethics Probe of Trustee

Upland Unified School District is facing a convergence of legal disputes, ethics inquiries, and internal investigations involving Board Trustee Sherman Garnett Sr. and a lawsuit filed by his son, Sherman Garnett Jr.

While Garnett Jr. is now suing the district and senior administrators, Garnett Sr. has been under investigation by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) since May 2024. The overlapping events have raised broader questions about governance, conflicts of interest, and transparency within the district.

A Trustee, a Son, and a $900-Per-Hour Consulting Contract

In October 2023, the Upland Unified Board approved a consulting contract paying $900 per hour to Sherman Garnett Jr. The contract approval appeared within a Certificated Personnel Report, a format that limited standalone public discussion of the arrangement.

At the time, Sherman Garnett Sr. was serving as Board President. Public records reflect differing accounts regarding his participation in the approval process. Garnett Sr. stated in correspondence to the FPPC that he recused himself from voting, while the board meeting minutes indicate that he abstained.

Under California ethics law, recusal generally requires that an official publicly identify the nature of the conflict of interest and leave the room during the vote. The meeting minutes reflect an abstention but do not document a formal recusal or departure from the room.

Subsequent public records also showed that Garnett Jr. had described working with his father for many years, suggesting overlapping professional activity. Later correspondence from Garnett Sr. to the FPPC characterized their work together as occurring only occasionally.

FPPC Investigation Continues

The FPPC is California’s agency responsible for enforcing conflict-of-interest, ethics, and political disclosure laws. Its authority includes investigating undisclosed conflicts, failure to recuse, and the use of public office for private financial benefit.

Garnett Sr. has been under FPPC investigation since May 2024, and no public resolution has been announced.

Separate FPPC-related issues have also emerged involving the district itself, including questions about the timely review of conflict-of-interest policies and the handling of Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700) filings.

Lawsuit Filed by Trustee’s Son

In late 2024, Sherman Garnett Jr. filed a lawsuit against Upland Unified School District, naming Superintendent Lynn Carmen Day and Assistant Superintendent Jennifer DeAnda as defendants. The board has discussed the litigation only in closed session, and no public discussion of the lawsuit has occurred at a regular board meeting.

Despite the plaintiff being the son of a sitting trustee, meeting records show that Garnett Sr. did not formally recuse himself during litigation-related discussions for over a year.

On November 5, 2025, meeting minutes reflect that Garnett Sr. recused himself from closed session discussion of the lawsuit. The minutes do not specify when he exited, the nature of the conflict identified, or whether discussion occurred prior to his departure.

California ethics guidance generally requires that officials publicly identify the conflict and clearly state when they are leaving and returning to the meeting. The available minutes do not document those details.

Internal Investigation into FPPC Communications

During the FPPC investigation, the district commissioned an internal investigation into whether Chief Academic Officer Shinay Bowman was authorized to send a 2024 letter to the FPPC addressing concerns related to Trustee Garnett Sr.

Bowman stated in FPPC correspondence that she acted “on behalf of the district.” Superintendent Day later asserted that Bowman was not authorized to send the letter.

An outside law firm was retained to investigate the conflicting accounts. According to the investigation findings, then–Board President Jack Young authorized Bowman’s communication after consulting with legal counsel.

The findings differ from Superintendent Day’s account and raised questions about how FPPC communications were approved and whether board-level authorization occurred outside a publicly noticed board action.

Separate Consulting Contract Involving Garnett Sr. Raises Oversight Questions

Separate from the Upland Unified matters, public reporting has identified a consulting arrangement between Trustee Garnett Sr. and San Bernardino County Superintendent Ted Alejandre, with reported rates exceeding $3,000 per hour.

Observers have noted that county-level school administration oversees and audits district budgets, creating overlap between county and district governance responsibilities.

The existence of high-dollar consulting contracts involving both father and son has prompted questions about conflicts, transparency, and the safeguards that prevent overlapping influence between public agencies.

Transparency Concerns: No Video Recordings and Repeated Special Meetings

Since the lawsuit was filed, Upland Unified has held ten special board meetings. Under California’s Brown Act, special meetings require shorter notice and do not allow general public comment.

The district also does not audio-record or video-record board meetings. As a result, the primary public record of closed session actions, including recusals and discussion timing, consists of brief meeting minutes.

The combination of frequent special meetings and limited documentation has made it difficult for the public to independently assess governance actions.

Ongoing Questions

Upland Unified School District remains under scrutiny following a prolonged FPPC investigation involving a sitting trustee. Additional concerns include a lawsuit filed by a trustee’s son against district leadership; consulting arrangements involving individuals with direct ties to the district and the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools; and the district’s practice of holding board meetings without video or audio recordings while frequently relying on special meetings.

Taken together, these circumstances have raised broader questions about how consulting relationships connected to district and county leadership are evaluated, how potential conflicts of interest are managed, and whether existing practices provide sufficient transparency for meaningful public oversight.