Orange County, CA – A recent ruling by Judge Craig Griffin has compelled three of four challengers for the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) Board to revise or delete claims found to be false or misleading in their candidate statements. The orders came in response to a lawsuit filed by OUSD constituent Darshan Smaaladen. Crystal Miles, Jack Chang, and Ivan Kokos were among those directed to make changes, while challenger Chip Ahlswede's statement was found to contain no false or misleading claims.
Crystal Miles, a challenger in Area 4, was ordered to correct her assertion that "Only 40.66% of our students are proficient in math." Judge Griffin mandated that this figure be changed to 46%, aligning with data from the California Department of Education for the most recent testing cycle. Records also indicate that the district's math proficiency has consistently improved year-over-year since 2022. A further claim by Ms. Miles, stating that OUSD ranks "13th out of 15 in overall quality," was ordered deleted from her statement by the Judge. The context for this ranking was not clear, though it was suggested she might have referenced a dataset where OUSD was rated favorably at #13 among 16 Orange County school districts.
Similarly, Jack Chang, a candidate in Area 7, was directed by Judge Griffin to amend his ballot statement. Mr. Chang had claimed that "Test scores in our district are dropping," a statement the Judge ordered deleted. The plaintiff in the lawsuit cited information indicating that OUSD students are gaining academic skills at a rate placing the district in the top 14% nationwide. Furthermore, reading performance reportedly ranks in the top 20%, and math in the top third. Mr. Chang's statement also included a claim that "only 40% of students are proficient at math," which the Judge ordered corrected to 46%.
In Area 1, Ivan Kokos, a commercial banker challenging for a trustee seat, was also subject to Judge Griffin's order. Mr. Kokos had expressed concern about "the district’s structural deficits: its own projections call this unsustainable." The Judge allowed Mr. Kokos to keep the core of his statement but required him to change the phrase "call this unsustainable" to "show this is unsustainable," presenting it as his opinion. However, Ms. Smaaladen challenged this characterization of OUSD's finances. She stated that OUSD does not have a structural deficit, clarifying that any recent deficit was due to one-time expenses. Ms. Smaaladen highlighted the district's healthy reserves, positive certifications from the county, and an AA+ rating from Fitch, an independent credit rating agency. This rating, which has seen two upgrades since 2021, reflects the district’s "financial resilience, supported by unrestricted reserves exceeding 25% of spending." Ms. Smaaladen suggested that Mr. Kokos may have inadvertently referenced information pertaining to Oakland Unified School District's financial situation.
The lawsuit underscores efforts to ensure factual accuracy in local elections. Ms. Smaaladen emphasized the importance of accurate information in political discourse, stating that candidates should not make claims that are "factually, undeniably untrue." She noted that without challenges, such statements could remain on ballots and be accepted as fact by voters.
