The Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office on Thursday, Aug. 13, approved the circulation of recall petitions against two Pasadena Unified School District officials, Board President Tina Fredericks and member Scott Harden, following revelations earlier this year of controversial internal discussions by PUSD board members.
Proponents of the recall will have until Dec. 11 to gather signatures from 20% of eligible voters in both Fredericks and Harden’s respective districts, otherwise the petition fails and no election will be held in 2027. For Fredericks in Area 6, that’s 4,075 voters and for Harden in Area 4, that’s 3,543 voters.
According to a written statement by Fredericks, the recall petition efforts are built on “baseless and unfounded accusations.”
Fredericks was served intent to recall papers in May, after controversial public records requests were released – documents noting discussions between Fredericks, Harden, board members Kimberly Kenne and Yarma Velázquez and consultants regarding school consolidation plans months before PUSD hired Total School Solutions as their independent consultant.
In June, the district’s legal counsel reviewed the allegations, responded to the request and concluded that members of the Board of Education did not violate the Brown Act.
While Fredericks and Harden’s recall would necessitate special elections, board members Kenne and Velázquez’s seats are up for re-election in the November ballot. Velázquez, though, is not seeking re-election.
According to Fredericks, the election costs for both her and Harden totals nearly $2 million.
“A constituent would be agreeing to the additional cost to the school district, putting additional financial burden on an already financially-burdened district,” Fredericks said, adding that a recall “could cost the district 20 jobs.”
In his own statement, Harden added that special election costs take “directly from teachers, programs, and the services our students rely on every day.”
Also against the election, the United Teachers of Pasadena, in a written statement, emphasized an off-year recall is not the solution, given the district’s current financial problems.
“Given that Pasadena Unified has been continuously choosing to underfund the classroom experience, pursuing an off-year recall election diverts even more funding away from our students, staff, and school communities,” the statement reads.
But according to Dawn Dennison, who served Fredericks with a notice of intent to recall in May, Fredericks’s statement is deeply ironic.
“She’s driven hundreds of kids not to come back to PUSD,” Dennison said. “If she was interested in saving taxpayer money, she could resign.”
Now, ahead of the Dec. 11 deadline, organizers must gather the necessary signatures to get the recall measures on the 2027 ballot.
“It’s a huge step forward,” Dennison said. “Recalling alone is not a small effort … when they don’t have their constituents’ best interest at heart.”