Discover more from Accountable SCV
The Plot Against Anna Griese: Exposing the culture of corruption at Saugus Union School District: Part 1
Uncovering Collusion in the Saugus Union School District: A Case Study in Whistleblowing and Accountability
The Accountable SCV team has made significant strides in exposing the collaboration between the Saugus Teachers Association and Saugus Union School District Administrators to discredit newly elected pro-parent board member Anna Griese. This breakthrough was made possible thanks to the brave whistleblowers within the Saugus Union who provided emails intentionally withheld from public record requests. Despite multiple requests for all communications from STA President Elizabeth Hand about the Anna Griese situation, none were included, including those from Nick Heinlein. However, the newly obtained emails reveal the collaboration's true extent, including attempts to smear Griese and falsely portray parents as upset about a letter that was read.
Is Nick Heinlein supposed to be Saugus Union's fixer?
Two emails forwarded to us by a SUSD teacher show STA President Elizabeth Hand gaslighting the teachers of Saugus Union. Hand falsely claims that Anna and other parents were calling to remove a teacher and student, which is a baseless accusation. Moreover, Hand repeatedly attempts to discredit parents' eyewitnesses that saw what happened and accuses them of spreading "gossip." She says, "This group of parents have turned gossip and misinformation into a witch hunt of some of our most fragile students." Yes, because the parents are the ones on the witchhunt right now. 🙄 Hand then repeatedly attacks Martha Aguilera, a respected parent activist. Who made a post on Facebook and contacted the Signal, which covered the story. According to Elizabeth Hand, a person is only allowed to have an opinion when they have a child in the district. But, of course, Mrs. Hand is fine with three of the five board members making decisions without children in the district. STA President Hand has no issue with Rebecca Hindman, a serial violator of student privacy, who also happens to have no children in the district but regularly attends meetings to criticize Anna Griese.
Ms. Aguilera said, "I was frustrated with the district's response in September 2022 when rumors began of cannabis edibles on Bridgeport's campus," said Ms. Aguilera. "They didn't even bother to let parents know that they were aware of the situation and were looking into it. They could have easily asked parents to talk to their children and let them know if they had seen anything." Instead, she said, "It took nearly two weeks of hounding and the Signal to get involved before they explained the situation, so this time, I skipped to the chase and went to the Signal first."
Before we go further into this, it is essential to watch Anna's comments that created so much angst that leftist parents would sacrifice their children's privacy in the belly of Moloch for the chance of wildly swinging at the air in Anna Griese's direction.
Interesting to note that the first speaker at the February 14 meeting was a "birthing person" named Heather Dillin, who hysterically claims that Anna has a 5th grader at Northpark, and somehow that is a conflict of interest. Did she just out Anna's child? Of course not; she goes on to out her own child as a BASES student because it only violates a child's privacy when it embarrasses Colleen Hawkins. Sorry, it's Dr. Hawkins, as we are merely plebs. You are not alone if you see a trend that consistency and principles are not a priority for these nihilist leftists; if you have a child in the district, it is a conflict of interest; if you don't, why are you even talking? The message is clearly shut up, and let us indoctrinate your children.
STA President Hand shared a lengthy concern trolling social media post from a teacher/parent that started with "I have my parent hat on right now," which is just another way of saying, "As a concerned parent," This person then claims to have a child in the BASES program, and then proceeds to write this ridiculous line "This situation deeply impacts me because this board member named my son's school, this is his special education program. One we love and are so grateful to have for him. He deserves better from this school board member than to be disparaged from the dais during a meeting." This person even voluntarily discloses their child's name publicly to dunk on Anna Griese. So Anna reads a letter written by eyewitness parents that notes the school, the sex of the student, and the program, and leftists decide they will teach Anna a lesson by violating the privacy of their own BASES children. If you haven't figured it out yet, these are not reasonable people who guide themselves by logic or principles; no, sir, and don't you dare get their kid's weekly pronoun wrong or prepare for war in the check-out line at Target! They will make you regret that life decision.
Hand's follow-up email is pretty telling; we should have gotten the emails that Elizabeth responded to from concerned teachers, but Nick Heinlein has zero regard for his duties to fulfill state law. Mrs. Hand is assuring concerned Teachers about the situation at North Park. Because it is clear this was a severe situation in which Saugus Union was more worried about how the public perceived them than the health and welfare of the students and teachers in their schools. Teachers and Staff are regularly targets of violence on Santa Clarita campuses. If you work inside a Santa Clarita agency and have the information you believe is of public importance, please send it to firstname.lastname@example.org
A recurring pattern among leftist zealots is that they believe they are correct; they just haven't figured out how yet; that is when you see some Olympic-grade mental gymnastics. When bureaucrats are about to peddle some BS, they talk over everyone's heads. They also require you to call them Doctor as a reminder they sat in a classroom longer than you did; I know about your child than you do; I read some books! It's like a skunk spraying a nosy jackal in the face to get away. Unfortunately for the bureaucrat skunks, they ran into a group of parent honey badgers who do not give a f+++. In this instance, the skunk spray they tried to use was a term called FERPA, or the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Another whistleblower, again, shouldn't have been a whistleblower if Nick Heinlein had not blatantly violated the California Public Records Act, but skunks bureaucrats gotta do their thing. The saddest part is that Mr. Heinlein was warned that we had emails that should have been included in this request, and he had months to come to his senses. So this begs the question, what else is Saugus Union hiding? These people are in charge of our children and can't be trusted to follow our fundamental laws. Santa Clarita, we have a problem.
A parent asked SUSD what exactly Anna Griese did that violated FERPA. She got a lot of responses from different people; the first one was from Elizabeth Hand; apparently, Elizabeth Hand's emails are something of a sacred thing around SUSD because we specifically asked for her emails regarding the Anna Griese situation, and Mr. Heinlein violated California state law to protect them. We even warned Mr. Heinlein that we have emails that he is not providing, and he gave us a big middle finger.
This parent goes up the chain and eventually gets Jennifer Stevenson, who sends FERPA wording highlighting §99.30 part A and part F of what qualifies as Personally identifiable information. However, when Stevenson highlights part A of FERPA, she explicitly leaves off the part that reads "from the student's education records." This is because a student's education records can be defined, and Anna Griese did not do that by reading the letter in question. If calling out that the student was in the BASES program was such a big deal, why are all these parents now lining up to expose all their BASES kids in some ill-conceived ploy to own Anna? Nothing says I care about student privacy like violating my own child's privacy 😆
Part F, Stevenson also highlighted reads, "Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances to identify the student with reasonable certainty;" How is a person that doesn't work for SUSD going to pinpoint who a student is with information that sparse? So if Anna's critics wanted to make the point that the letter would have been acceptable if she left off the BASES part, they might have some credibility, but we all know they won't because this isn't about Student Privacy; this is about avoiding accountability and being mad that the public is viewing Saugus Union as the dumpster fire it is.