
Oak Run Superintendent Misti Livingston (orange blouse) with staff last year.
On Nov. 20 last year, Oak Run Elementary School District Superintendent Misti Livingston received a letter from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing’s Division of Professional Practices. It read:
“Dear Ms. Livingston,
“The Committee of Credentials, after careful review and consideration of the materials contained in your file, has determined to close its investigation and to recommend no adverse action at this time.”
The letter, signed by Special Investigator Zach Dyer, dispelled the dark clouds that had been hanging over Livingston’s head for more than a year. The storm formed after a group of disgruntled former employees and their supporters led by querulous political gadfly Dolores Lucero accused Livingston of a raft of crimes and misdeeds, from stealing out of the booster club’s cash box, to permitting unvaccinated students on campus to creating a hostile work environment.
As A News Café reported last year, many of those allegations turned out to be unfounded. For example, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office cleared Livingston of stealing from the cash box and all other alleged financial crimes. That didn’t stop the Shasta County Office of Education from including the debunked theft claims in the “lack of going concern” letter it sent to Livingston, the Oak Run board of trustees and the California Department of Education last year.
SCOE determined Oak Run Elementary was at risk of losing vital state funding after an audit by the Shasta County Health and Human Services discovered that only 13 of the 30 students had documentation proving immunization or a valid medical exemption. There were also discrepancies in the district’s Independent Study records, which tracks the school work of its homeless students, who make up roughly one-third of the student body. These metrics are used to compute Average Daily Attendance, ADA, which determines how much funding the school district receives from the state.
Although Livingston stopped declaring ADA in the 2023/24 school year as soon as she learned about the problem, an independent audit ordered by SCOE last year found that the original ADA of 51.88 students reported for the 2021/22 school year was actually 13.82 students. The 50.28 students reported for the 2022/23 school year was 16.11 students. The yawning gap between declared and actual ADA for both school years earned the district an $820,275 fiscal penalty from the CDE.

Oak Run Elementary School District Superintendent Misti Livingston.
In her letter sent last July to the CTC responding to the multitude of allegations, Livingston explained that the audit failed to capture the district’s homeless student population or take into account the recordkeeping fiasco created by the sudden departure of a longtime district secretary in mid-2023. In October, she asked the Education Audit Appeals Panel to waive the $820,275 fiscal penalty. In lieu of that, she asked that Oak Run be allowed to pay the fine back over eight years, as recommended by SCOE. The panel has yet to rule.
In a letter sent to the district last September, Shasta County Superintendent of Schools Mike Freeman noted that Livingston had not been alerted to the ADA discrepancy by previous audits.
“As mentioned earlier, although the district had independent audits conducted for the 2021/22 and 2022/23 fiscal years, the auditor did not review immunizations before because the district did not meet the criteria that required that review,” Freeman wrote. “It is unfortunate that this immunization noncompliance was not discovered and corrected earlier through the regular audit process.”
Nevertheless, Freeman concluded, the district has a responsibility to ensure “all regulations around immunizations are adhered to.”

Shasta County Superintendent of Schools Mike Freeman.
According to Livingston, the Oak Run Elementary School District, with a student population ranging from 28 students to 32 students, is now in compliance with state immunization and independent study requirements. When she received notice she was cleared of any wrongdoing by the CTC last November, she was elated. Thanks to her and her small staff’s hard work, she was ready to move forward as the school’s superintendent, principal and special education teacher.
“I thought it was the end of all this crap,” Livingston told A News Café. “If the CTC didn’t buy their lies, and all the other agencies they complained to didn’t buy their lies, what else could there be?”
‘They’ would be the five former employees, their followers and Lucero who Livingston has dubbed the “Grumpy Bunch.”
Less than three weeks after being cleared by the CTC, ORESD board president Shawn Hill and school clerk Dede Masala turned up in Livingston’s office at the end of the day. According to her contemporaneous notes, Livingston sensed “strange energy” emanating from the pair and gave both of them a hug.
“Am I getting fired?” Livingston asked Masala.
“Not exactly,” she answered.
“We’re putting you on administrative leave,” Hill said.
“Oh, OK,” Livingston replied. “For how long? Why? Even after I’ve been cleared of every single allegation?”
Livingston, who’s still waiting for an answer for why she was placed on administrative leave, had underestimated the staying power of her detractors.
“Boy, was I surprised when they put me on administrative leave,” she told A News Café.
Dolores Lucero and the Grumpy Bunch

Kerrie Stomps, Lillian Gonzalez, Georgia DeLarge and Dolores Lucero at last week’s Oak Run school board meeting.
On Dec. 18, 2023, Dolores Lucero contacted A News Café to pitch a story about the Oak Run Elementary School District. Lucero said she was working directly with then SCOE superintendent Judy Flores and business director Jessica Bigby on a case involving a school superintendent who had stolen funds from the school, including $3000 cash from the parent’s club.
In addition, Lucero claimed the school superintendent’s husband was a convicted sex offender who had failed to register with the state as required by law. She said she was just leaving SCOE on her way to report Livingston and her husband to the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office.
Note to reader: Neither of these two claims is true.

Dolores Lucero.
It’s not clear if Lucero went to the Sheriff’s Office in person, but according to call logs recently obtained by A News Cafe, she did contact the office on Dec. 19, the day after she called ANC. Deputy Molly Roberts, who covers the Oak Run area, took the call. According to the log, Lucero reported a possible “290” at Oak Run Elementary School, which refers to the criminal statue for failing to register as a convicted sex offender. The log reads:
“Spoke with (Lucero) who advised she would only speak about what she’s trying to report in person with me and another deputy. (Lucero) would not articulate a crime or what she was trying to report. I advised (Lucero) I would meet with her and bring another deputy as she had requested but she stated she was too tired from being in meetings all day. I advised I could meet with her next week sometime and she told me she would not meet and speak with me at all due to ‘the girls’ not liking me because they feel my prior reports were biased towards the school. (Lucero) would not meet with me and would not provide further information. (Lucero) advised she would give the FBI the report.”
‘The girls’ Lucero referred to include Lillian Gonzales and Kerri Stomp, pictured above with Georgia DeLarge and Lucero at last week’s board meeting. Gonzales and Stomp were members of the Parents Club, whose president alleged Livingston had stolen from the cash box. After five weeks on the job, Gonzales was dismissed as Oak Run’s community liaison on Nov. 7, 2023. On Nov. 13, she called the Sheriff’s Office and accused Livingston of check fraud for accidentally using checks from the now dissolved club’s bank account.
The Sheriff’s Office investigated and cleared Livingston of any financial wrongdoing, but Lucero and Gonzales continue to falsely allege that Livingston is a thief. Lucero has become a fixture at board meetings, loudly proclaiming Livingston’s guilt to the public without offering any evidence. The Sheriff’s Office has responded three times to public disturbances on Oak Run’s campus initiated by Lucero’s erratic behavior.
“At any Board meeting, including the one the cops were called, Lucero talks and yells at the top of her voice, points, exaggerates and breaks Brown Act laws,” Livingston said, noting that the act prohibits such behavior. “She comes up out of her seat and stands in front of the tables with an aggressive demeanor, yells over anyone who tries to talk and makes it incredibly difficult to do the business at hand.”
False Sex Offender Allegation

Mr. and Mrs. Livingston.
It gets worse. Lucero based her allegation that Livingston’s husband was an unregistered sex offender on the husband’s prior DUI conviction. When A News Café informed Lucero she had misread the court document and there was no evidence Livingston’s husband was a sex offender, Lucero refused to accept the truth. She and other members of the Grumpy Group have peddled this falsehood to a myriad of investigative agencies, Livingston says.
“I’ve been investigated by the health department, I don’t know how many times,” Livingston said in a prepared statement at October’s ORUSD board of trustees meeting. “Investigated by the Shasta County Water Board, investigated by Law Enforcement, investigated by the department of California Teaching Credentials, investigated by the Special Education Department of California, investigated by the Financial Crisis Management Team (FCMAT), and investigated by Shasta County Office of Education (SCOE); and there are no criminal charges because there is no criminal activity being performed by me.”
At the October meeting, Livingston called out the Grumpy Bunch by name for the first time. From the beginning of her tenure as superintendent in 2019, Livingston had focused on improving the behavior of its students, which staff identified as the school’s No. 1 problem. The Bunch wasn’t happy about it.
Livingston established a calm space in every classroom for individual students to retreat to in times of need to help them become regulated when unregulated. Oak Run established a Behavior Incident Reporting system to recognize patterns of behaviors on campus and to figure out whole school systems to put in place to help students. She introduced Morning Social/Emotional (SEL) meetings every Monday and Friday that taught positive character traits, as a proactive strategy against bad behaviors such as bullying.
The Grumpy Bunch, which is partially comprised of former employees and their allies who have children attending the school, represents about half the students attending Oak Run, Livingston estimates. Some parents bristled against Livingston’s efforts to hold students accountable for their behavior. Livingston believes that’s what the ongoing conflict is really about at its core.
At October’s board meeting she drew a line in the sand.
“So, to the Grumpy Bunch, you can choose to continue in the dark and keep being negative and spread more and more lies and division, and suffer the grave consequences that will eventually come from me tiring and just submitting all of my very well documented evidence,” she said. “Or you can choose to be kind, understanding, and come together as one team and build our kiddos and community up together with love and acceptance of all people.”
At the time, Livingston was feeling confidant. At an April board meeting, Shasta County Superintendent of School Mike Freeman acknowledged that Livingston had pleaded for months with SCOE to get help with immunizations and independent study, help that had only recently been granted. Now that someone has been assigned to the task, Oak Run is back in compliance.
Yet the California Department of Education’s $820,275 fiscal penalty remains. Instead of waiting to see if Livingston’s appeal is accepted, some of her opponents circulated a flier calling for a recall of the entire school board for granting Livingston a raise last year. The flier blamed the $820,275 fiscal penalty on Livingston alone and prompted Livingston’s prepared speech before the board in October.
The board increased her salary from $67,000 to $82,000 last year, which Livingston notes is still way below the $130,000 average first year salary for a school superintendent in California. It’s worth adding that the board gave Livingston positive reviews for the past three school years.
Is it fair to tag Livingston with all the blame for the $820,275 fiscal penalty? That’s what happens in the Navy: the captain goes down with the ship. But this isn’t the Navy. When asked that question just days before the January 21 board meeting, where Livingston’s job was on the only thing on the agenda, Oak Run school board president Shawn Hill told A News Café there was plenty of blame to go around for the errant ADA reporting.
Hill said Livingston was placed on administrative leave while he conducted a “fact finding” investigation of her actions, but could not comment on those actions or her future employment at Oak Run.
Lawsuits are Coming

Oak Run Elementary School District Board Chair Shawn Hill.
Last October, Lucero and Gonzales filed pro se unsworn federal civil rights lawsuits against Oak Run Elementary School District, Superintendent/Principal Misti Livingston, and the four sitting members of the board of trustees, president Shawn Hill, Dede Masala, Candice Maurer and Luke Pearson. Pro se means “for oneself” in Latin, meaning the two women are serving as their own attorneys.
It’s probably best to keep in mind the old legal adage, “A person who represents himself has a fool for a client,” when considering the veracity of these lawsuits, neither of which was signed under penalty of perjury.
Back in November and December 2023, Livingston attempted to expel Lucero and Gonzales from the campus in two incidents that occurred in the school’s small office. The first time, Lucero became irate when her document request wasn’t ready and refused to leave until staff called the sheriff, according to multiple witnesses. The second time, Livingston presented Lucero with a restraining order which upset Lucero so much Livingston put the campus in lockdown.
In Count I of her lawsuit, Lucero contends the defendants “violated Plaintiff’s right to free speech by retaliating against her for speaking out on matters of public concern. Defendants’ actions were taken in direct action to Plaintiffs formal complaints and public comments concerning misconduct within the district.”
In Count II, Lucero claims her due process rights were violated because the board personally didn’t investigate her allegations. In Count III she argues she was treated differently than similarly situated individuals when she was temporarily prohibited from attending board meetings in person.
As A News Café reported in its first story on Oak Run, Livingston felt Lucero’s loud, aggressive behavior on a small campus during the school day justified calling the sheriff and locking down the school. After Lucero’s outbursts at meetings continued, Lucero was temporarily restricted to attending meetings by phone. At the Shasta County Superior Court hearing where Livingston withdrew her restraining order requests, the judge warned Lucero and Gonzales that their behavior at board meetings constituted harassment.
Gonzales’ unsworn complaint takes a different tack, claiming she was dismissed from Oak Run after participating in protected whistleblower activities, namely her allegation that Livingston stole money from the Parents Club. Again, as A News Café previously reported, the investigating deputies cleared Livingston of any financial wrongdoing. Gonzales is now alleging Livingston forged her dismissal papers.
Here the writer warns the reader that Lucero, whose querulous behavior at Shasta County board meetings is well known, was convicted for felony election fraud back in 2014 for activities very similar to the ones she’s participating in today. Those charges were ultimately expunged, but they’re relevant to this story.
A News Café asked SCOE communications director Kerri Schutte if the office had referred any criminal allegations regarding Livingston to any law enforcement or regulatory agency.
“No,” she said.
Livingston’s Job on the Board’s Agenda

Oak Run Interim Superintendent Mark Telles and board members Shawn Hill, Shauna Kittrell, Dede Masala (standing) and Candace Maurer.
Both Lucero and Gonzales continue to argue that the Oak Run school board should investigate all of their many claims even further. Their numerous public document requests alone have burdened an already overworked school district. Both women spoke at the January 21 board meeting where Livingston’s job was on the line.
“I know at the last meeting … somebody said that maybe she might come back,” Lucero said. I hope that she does not come back. I hope you decide to fire her because all the things she’s done to the school. She’s destroyed the school and the community.”
Lucero argued that the board should deny Livingston a severance package should they choose to fire her.
“I just don’t understand why you renewed her contract just a couple of months ago and you’re in this position now to fire her maybe?” Lucero said. “If you are I think that it would be pretty sad for the community to have to pay her four years up front of contract (it’s actually three months’ pay). Like I said before, if she committed any criminal activity you don’t have to pay her that, it cannot be enforced, it has to be revoked, that contract.”
“As we all know she has committed multiple crimes in this community,” she continued. “I hope you do the right thing because it does fall on you are her boss you’ve been her boss but in the past you never acted like it or you didn’t take the responsibility to take action. That’s why we’re here, that’s why everything is happening, because of her but also because of you. It’s your responsibility for her actions.”
Gonzales brought up an apparently still open wage claim stemming from the five weeks she worked at the school in late 2023.
“I am here to inform the board that I have an open wage claim with the Dept of Industrial Relations for superintendent Livingston altering my time card and prior to her being placed on leave she submitted false and fabricated documents and I have yet to receive confirmation or any closure on that,” Gonzales alleged. “I’m entitled to the pay that I earned. I feel that you engaged and allowed superintendent Livingston to abuse her power under board authority and you renewed her expired contract when I requested you to investigate these claims over a year ago.”

Oak Run bus driver, groundskeeper and maintenance man Wayne Freeman.
With Gonzales’ testimony the board adjourned to make its decision. Outside, A News Café encountered Wayne Freeman, Oak Run’s bus driver, groundskeeper and maintenance guy. He also considers himself Livingston’s right-hand man. Freeman was surprised when a friend of his, a fellow Oak Run parent, thought it was mistake to ask kids to behave at the school. Freeman was on medical leave when Livingston was placed on administrative leave, catching him off guard.
“I mean, they can really fire her for anything, but I don’t think they will,” Freeman said unbelievably. “I don’t think she’s done anything. I’m telling you right now if she did do something wrong, we wouldn’t be afraid to say it. Because you see we’re that type of people. Hey, if you did something wrong, you take care of it, man. You say, okay, I did something wrong, I’m gonna fix it. This is how I’m gonna fix it, and you fix it, and then it’s in behind you. It’s gone away. Right? That’s what kind of people we are. If she wasn’t that kind of person, I wouldn’t be here.”
As A News Café proceeded back to the meeting, members of the Grumpy Bunch accused this writer of slander.
“What? Let’s talk about that!” I laughed good naturedly.
“Don’t talk to him!” Lucero yelled.
They didn’t.

Oak Run Elementary School District.
We filed back into the room after 10 minutes or so and Hill quickly announced the board had voted 4-0 to terminate Livingston. Mark Telles, selected by the Oak Run Board of Trustees after Livingston was placed on leave, will continue in that role. With his help, Oak Run hopes to hire a new superintendent/principal within 90 days.
Livingston was not in attendance and received official notice of her dismissal two days later in the mail. Her three-month severance package is intact. No reason was given for her discharge. She now believes that the fact the CTC exonerated her last November turned out to be her undoing.
“I realized SCOE was waiting to find out if the CTC would take my credentials, because then SCOE wouldn’t have to do anything else,” Livingston said. “I’d be taken care of for them. But my credentials weren’t taken, so they had to move forward with the next step to take care of me. I was the problem that needed to be swept under the rug.”
She plans to sue SCOE and the Oak Run Elementary School District, and said she already has lawyers lining up to take the case. Shasta County Superintendent of Schools Mike Freeman played down the office’s involvement in Oak Run’s decision.
“While SCOE has been working to support the district through their challenges, it is important to note that SCOE played no role in the decision that the board made regarding Misti Livingston’s employment,” Freeman said. “While accusations and allegations have been shared in public comments in our board meetings, SCOE has maintained the position that we are not a law enforcement agency and such allegations need to be referred to the proper authorities.”
All of the allegations against Livingston were referred to the proper authorities, who exonerated her in every case. Nevertheless, she’s out of a job.
She shared a recent journal entry:
“This experience feels like a limb being wrenched off, not by force, but by a slow, cold pressure, a quiet inevitability that no scream can stop. I don’t just miss the students and families I served with everything I had; I ache for them in a way that words fail to reach. My chest is hollow, but it’s not just emptiness—it’s a weight, as though I’m carrying the sky on my back, pressing me down, reminding me with each breath that I was never meant to be this far from them. But alas, I must move forward.”
Sometimes, that’s all you can do.
###
Correction: Mark Telles was selected by the Oak Run Board of Trustees — not SCOE — as interim superintendent after Livingston was placed on leave.