To Our Castro Valley Community,

We want to give you an important update—and set the record straight—about what’s really happening with the involuntary transfers of two of our respected Marshall Elementary teachers.

This week, CVUSD Superintendent Parvin Ahmadi responded to our concerns in the Castro Valley Forum, stating that:

“No Brown Act violation has occurred, as involuntary transfers are not ‘complaints or charges’ that require the issuance of a 24-hour Brown Act notice. The appeals of involuntary transfers do not legally require the district’s governing board to conduct an open or closed session meeting when considering such appeal.”

This statement is deeply misleading and avoids the real issue. Let’s break down exactly what’s true, what’s false, and why we’re confident the district violated state law and their own board policy.

What the Superintendent Gets Right (But Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story)

She says the district didn’t need to issue a special 24-hour notice to the teachers under the Brown Act. That’s technically correct—but it’s not the main problem.

That notice only applies if the Board is hearing complaints or charges that affect someone’s reputation. Whether that applies is debatable, but that’s not what our Cure and Correct letters are based on.

What Really Happened (And What the Superintendent Doesn’t Say)

Here’s what we do know—and what cannot be explained away:

On April 23, the two teachers submitted formal written appeals of their transfers to the Board of Education, as allowed under Board Policy 4114.
That policy says:
“If a teacher objects to a transfer, they may request a meeting with the Superintendent or designee... If dissatisfied with the results... the teacher may appeal to the Board. The Board’s decision shall be final.”

On April 28, the teachers received denial letters signed by Board President Dolly Adams, stating that the Board had denied their appeals.
But here’s the problem: There was no Board meeting—open or closed—between April 23 and April 28.
The appeals were never placed on an agenda. There was no discussion. No public vote. No record of a decision.

Why That Matters

This is where the Brown Act violation occurs.

The Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2) says that a school board can only take action in a properly noticed public meeting. 

That means:

The item must appear on a published agenda,
The Board must meet,
The public must have a chance to comment, and
Then the Board votes.
None of that happened.

If a final action was taken—either secretly or by one person—that action is illegal under state law and invalid under the Brown Act.

This isn’t about a technicality. It’s about the public’s right to transparency, and a Board’s legal responsibility to follow its own rules.

Why Her Statement is Misleading

The superintendent says the Board didn’t need to meet to decide the appeal. But the district’s own policy says otherwise:

“The Board’s decision shall be final.”

If the Board didn’t meet, then they didn’t decide. If the Board did meet informally, they violated the law. There’s no in-between.

What We’ve Done

On May 2, the teachers submitted formal legal letters demanding the Board “cure and correct”its violation.
The CVTA has filed a grievance citing multiple violations of the teachers’ contract.
We’ve shared this information with the media—and we’re sharing it with you.

Why This Affects All of Us

This isn’t just about two teachers. It’s about trust, transparency, and the integrity of our public institutions.

The district can’t claim “nothing to see here” when the facts say otherwise. Our teachers followed every rule. They did everything right.

The Board did not.

We will continue to fight to make this right—and we will not stop until our district leaders follow the laws and policies they are sworn to uphold.

With respect and solidarity,