A San Diego County civil grand jury says Grossmont Union High School District trustees pulled the plug on a long-time mental health partner, then left students without on-campus care for months. In a 41-page report, the panel faults trustees for acting on false claims about services for LGBTQ+ youth and for failing to line up a smooth replacement, a combination the jury says put student safety and wellness at risk. The findings, released earlier this month, are ramping up pressure on the board as the district prepares an official response.
Grand Jury's findings
According to the San Diego County Civil Grand Jury, the board's July 20, 2023 vote to reject renewal of its contract with San Diego Youth Services was not based on performance concerns or misconduct. Instead, the report says the move was based on falsehoods and misrepresentations about care for LGBTQ+ students.
The decision, the jury found, left the district at the start of the 2023–24 school year without a districtwide suicide prevention program and without six licensed school-based clinicians who had been working on campuses. The report lays out nearly a dozen recommendations and requires the district to formally respond to each finding.
How it unfolded
Jurors traced the controversy back to a three-minute public comment at that July 20 board meeting from Anthony Carnevale, a trustee in the Cajon Valley district. Carnevale alleged that San Diego Youth Services operated programs that promoted top surgery and other transition-related care.
The panel noted that Carnevale has no mental health credentials and concluded his remarks contained falsehoods and misrepresentations. San Diego Youth Services' CEO told KPBS that the program he cited, called “Our Safe Place,” was not offered on Grossmont campuses. Between 2017 and 2023, the organization had referred only a handful of Grossmont students to that separate, off-campus program, the CEO said.
Four-month gap to replace services
After cutting ties with San Diego Youth Services, trustees approved an amendment to expand services with another provider, Wellness Together. The jury report says that vendor needed about two months to hire and train staff, and that services were not fully up and running until the beginning of December 2023. That timeline, the panel concluded, left students without comprehensive on-site counseling for roughly four months.
The grand jury criticized the board for failing to clearly alert school site leaders and for not ensuring continuity of care, conduct the report says ran contrary to the district's own policies. As detailed in the San Diego County Civil Grand Jury report, the rocky handoff harmed student well-being instead of protecting it.
Community fallout
The report casts the San Diego Youth Services decision as the first big public test of the board's conservative majority. It concludes that the episode deepened distrust between trustees and families, feeding protests and recall efforts that have turned recent board meetings into political flashpoints.
Critics connect this decision to a broader pattern of controversy around the board, including layoffs, program cuts, and a costly employment settlement. Local reporting shows the district agreed to roughly $700,000 in payments to former special education director Rose Tagnesi as part of a larger settlement, as reported by Voice of San Diego.
District response and next steps
District spokesperson Collin McGlashen told Times of San Diego that officials are reviewing the grand jury report and argued it presents little, if any, new evidence. Under county rules, agencies named in such reports must file a formal response within 90 days.
The panel is urging the district to pursue governance training, follow its own board policies more closely, and create clearer procedures for evaluating and replacing service providers so that students are not left in the lurch again.
For families and mental health advocates, the jury's recommendations lay out a possible roadmap to restore both services and trust. For the board, the report is a reminder that school governance decisions land directly on students' shoulders. The district's formal response will shape the next round of this fight and, in the process, the broader debate over how East County schools are run.
