BUSD Board President Garza Says Trustee Shoved Her; Trustee Stewart Disputes Account Before Censure Vote

Board President Mayra Garza, right, and Trustee Amie Stewart.

October 22, 2026

By Brian Hews

Bellflower Unified School District Board President Mayra Garza says fellow Trustee Amie Stewart pushed her to the floor during an October 8 meeting recess, injuring her elbow. Stewart, through her attorney, disputes the characterization of the confrontation and has requested postponement of a proposed censure scheduled for October 22.

The dispute has generated a sheriff’s report and an exchange of letters between attorneys over the evidence supporting the resolution and the process the district followed in preparing it.

“On Oct. 8 I was in the closed session room with Board Members Brad Crihfield and Amie Stewart,” Garza said in a statement to Los Cerritos Community News. “Ms. Stewart used physical force to push me, resulting in me falling to the floor and hitting a chair as I fell. This caused an injury to my elbow, resulting in an abrasion, bleeding, and bruising.”

LCCN obtained a sheriff’s report number, 26-16982-13, and the identity of an assigned detective through the Bellflower Sheriff’s Substation. The existence of the report does not establish the allegations, and LCCN has not confirmed whether any charges have been filed.

In an October 19 letter, Stewart’s attorney, Marc D. Wasserman, objected to the proposed resolution’s presentation of disputed events as established facts.

“The proposed resolution characterizes disputed events as established facts, including allegations concerning intentional physical misconduct,” Wasserman wrote. “Ms. Stewart disputes the accuracy of those characterizations.”

The letter does not provide Stewart’s alternative account of the confrontation. Wasserman requested that the board postpone consideration until it had an appropriate opportunity to evaluate the allegations and relevant evidence.

According to the district’s staff report, the October 8 dispute began during an open-session discussion concerning the potential denial of a contract for an interim chief business officer. The report alleges Stewart spoke in a loud, demeaning tone and called fellow trustees “liars.”

Garza called a 10-minute recess. She, Vice President Brad Crihfield and Stewart then entered an adjoining room used for closed-session meetings, according to the report.

The district alleges that shouting and profanity from that room were audible in the boardroom. The proposed resolution attributes to Stewart the statement, “fuck all of you guys,” and alleges that the physical confrontation followed.

General Counsel Andrew Sarega told LCCN he was not in the room during the recess.

“The recitals in the resolution and the staff report reflect the accounts and reports of the District trustees who were present during the recess,” Sarega said.

The revised resolution similarly attributes the alleged push to accounts from trustees present. Garza, Crihfield and Stewart are the only people the district identifies as being in the room.

Sarega said the public meeting video shows the discussion preceding the recess, but there were no video or audio recording devices in the room where the alleged confrontation occurred. He declined to discuss whether Garza sought medical treatment, citing her privacy.

Wasserman’s letter also challenges the process used to prepare the proposed censure.

“To our knowledge, Ms. Stewart has not been provided with an independent investigative report, the complete evidentiary basis for the proposed findings, or a meaningful opportunity to respond through counsel before the proposed resolution was prepared,” he wrote.

He requested documents, witness statements and investigative materials relied upon by the district, along with preservation of recordings, electronic communications, draft resolutions and related records.

In an October 21 response, Sarega maintained that the board could consider censure without an independent third-party investigation or a trial-type administrative hearing. He characterized censure as an expression of the board’s judgment concerning governance and conduct, rather than a criminal adjudication.

Sarega rejected the evidence request insofar as it sought pre-hearing civil discovery and directed Wasserman to submit a California Public Records Act request for additional district records. He said public agenda materials would be available and agreed to include Stewart’s attorney’s objection in the meeting packet.

Sarega also said Garza placed the proposed resolution on the agenda in coordination with Superintendent Erin M. Simon. Any decision to postpone, amend or proceed with the resolution would rest with the board, he wrote.

The district’s correspondence does not directly establish whether an independent investigation occurred. Sarega’s responses instead explain the district’s position that one was not required before a censure vote.

Wasserman acknowledged the board’s authority to express its views but argued that authority did not eliminate its responsibility to be accurate and fair. His letter reserves Stewart’s rights and states that it should not be construed as an admission concerning the allegations.

Proposed Resolution No. 26-1022 would formally censure Stewart for conduct the district describes as unprofessional, abusive and physically aggressive. It would also warn that future incidents could result in additional administrative or legal action.

The documents provided to LCCN contain no completed vote totals or signatures establishing adoption. The resolution remains scheduled for consideration at the board’s October 22 meeting.