12/06/2024
For over three years, I have provided a recap of the SDUHSD Board meetings, as well as other district news and events on this page. At the time, I felt it was important to provide an accurate, transparent and consistent voice to the public that elected me. As someone who ran for my seat during the pandemic, I watched the increased role social media played in terms of the accessibility, frequency and even content of information. Once elected, my monthly posts became one of the only platforms in which I (as the sole minority voice at the time) could explain my decisions without interruption, interference, and/or misrepresentation. As I tried to convey during my October Board report, I firmly believe that there is inherent power in speaking one’s truth, even if and especially when your voice is drowned out by the chorus of many. While I plan on sharing my voice and perspective if ever needed and/or requested, this will be my last Board summary.
However, instead of my usual practice of recounting key discussions, I thought it would be more meaningful to share some of the overarching themes that emerged from the November meeting, how they are tied to past Board summaries, and (most importantly) how they can help the Board continue to serve the ongoing mission of SDUHSD moving forward.
According to CSBA, highly functioning boards dedicate an “60-70% of their discussions, to topics directly related to education and student well-being, including curriculum, student achievement, school climate and student support services.” However, a careful look at my previous summaries reveal that we did not fall into that category during the first two years I sat on the Board. As a prime example, the Board’s CVRA district boundary map that resulted in a lawsuit from the community and a subsequent take over by the County Board of Education was agendized on at least 10 meetings dating from January 2022 - April 2022. Wirh all motions led by Trustee Allman, the map adopted by the Board majority (“Map 8”) was submitted by an individual with no known connection to our schools/community, deleted their email account shortly after submitting the map and never attended any of the meetings to defend or explain their map. In fact, to this day I do not know anyone who has actually met or talked to T. Nguyen. Nor do I know anyone who has provided sound reasoning for adopting the map in the first place. During the January 11, 2022 CVRA presentation, our attorney explained the goal of the process: Because just one Trustee area (Area 5) was out of variance, small adjustments were needed to put our district back into population balance. In a direct quote he stated: “A demographer has been hired to create a few adjusted options. I want to emphasize adjusted. It is not a draw over from scratch.” He added: “Area 1, 3, 4 and maybe 2 will need to add around 2,000 people each… The maps will slide down. One will slide south. Three will slide south. Four will slide south so basically five will shrink.” Finally, and most importantly, he stated: “The board can choose to do that [draw new maps from scratch]. This is a separate process that requires getting county and community approval… for redistricting as it is defined by Ed Code… Making tweeks to get into balance. Ideally it should look like this [the previously adopted Cranberry] map.”
Despite this directive, Map 8 made sweeping changes to all five Trustee Areas: The area numbers in the north were inexplicably flipped, placing me in Area 1 along with Trustee Muir (Muir’s original Trustee Area). No Trustee resided in Area 2 (my original Trustee Area). Trustee Brontein was moved into Area 3 (Mossy’s original Trustee Area). Trustees Mossy (who had already indicated that she would not be running for reelection and eventually resigned a few weeks later) was placed in Area 4 along with Trustee Allman (Allman’s original Trustee Area). No Trustee resided in Area 5 (Bronstein’s original Trustee Area). In addition to the countless hours that district staff, the Board, SDCOE, and other concerned community members put into the CVRA process, we needlessly incurred tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees as a result.
With this example (and many others) in mind, I want to take this time to express my admiration and appreciation for our current Board leadership. For the past two years, President Viskanta and Vice President Smith have worked tirelessly behind the scenes to make sure that our meetings are conducted in the most efficient and effective manner possible. The tone and tenor of our meetings have shifted dramatically; even meetings that have dealt with emotional and/or controversial topics have been relatively calm and manageable for all. Meetings lasting over 10 hours and/or adjourning at or after midnight are (thankfully) things of the past.
I also want to thank our Executive Cabinet. Sometimes I fear that there is some misconception in our community about the role of a Trustee. We do not create curriculum, nor do we manage the daily operations of our individual school sites. Rather that is the job of Dr. Staffieri, our three Associate Superintendents (Mr. Marcus: Ed Services, Ms. Nuskin: Human Resources and Mr. Dickinson: Business Services), along with their respective staffs. When we talk about increased opportunities for students, robust curriculum offerings, qualified and talented educators, and fiscal responsibility, they are the individuals who are responsible for those accomplishments. The Board merely approves the decisions they bring before us for consideration. That being said, it is important to point out that any Board member who tries to take credit for any single initiative, is either gravely overstating or overstepping their authority. Especially because the Board can only act as a unit (based on the will of the majority), it becomes untenable and even dangerous when Board members insert themselves into roles that they are not qualified or authorized to assume.
This concept was the undercurrent of one of the most substantial discussions during our November meeting: Item 9H Approval of Audit Firm for Foundation Audits. After the agenda was posted, Trustee Allman drafted an addendum which essentially offered his personal notes on the proposed Foundation audits. I agree completely with Trustee Smith’s objections to the addeumum as reported in the San Diego Union Tribune: “In her remarks, SDUHSD Vice President Jane Lea Smith said she objected to Allman ‘demanding’ that his individual notes be added to the agenda, presenting his opinions as facts. ‘Although he has that right to do that, I find it to be unethical,’ Smith said. ‘I’m disappointed in what I believe is Trustee Allman’s blatant attempt to undermine a transparent, independent process by erroneously suggesting that the proposed contract does not cover the appropriate scope.’ Smith stated that the RFP and audit was unanimously approved by the board and developed with the district’s legal counsel and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), a state agency that recently conducted an independent review of the district’s special education program.
In response to Trustee Allman’s expressed frustration that the Board did not approve a separate sub-committee, with him as one of its members, to oversee the audit process, the UT article quoted Trustee Smith again: “She additionally opposed ‘a trustee inserting themselves into the audit process,’ saying that it would cast doubt on the independence of the audit and undermine staff’s ability to do their jobs.” I believe that it is equally important to also reiterate President Viskanta’s comments from the October meeting. When Trustee Allman suggested that the two of them work together as a committee to expedite the process, President Viskanta responded that she was not comfortable with that proposal. She said: “I believe that open and public forums foster a more measured and appropriate level of discourse. I feel that over the past months, we’ve had several negative interactions, Trustee Allman, that created an uncomfortable work environment. There were verbal threats to go to the media with unfounded allegations when things didn’t go your way. There were actions and things you said that created an atmosphere of intimidation in our last meetings. So I’m not comfortable working with you, Trustee Allman, in any setting that is not fully transparent and public. So for the sake of my well being and the integrity of our work, I must decline involvement in the proposed sub-committee. Given the importance of the Foundation audit and the public attention it has received, I believe that it would be in everyone’s best interest to oversee this process as a full Board in open session.” In an Op-Ed letter I wrote last month, I alluded to the toxic work environment I believe has been created by Trustee Allman. President Viskanta verbalized a small portion of what I have witnessed and felt over the last four years. In fact, after a fairly recent Board meeting, I and other Board members were compelled to seek and retain legal counsel regarding threats made against us personally and/or in the capacity of our rights and responsibilities as a Trustee. All of this is an important reminder of why, how, and (certainly) if and when Board members should take action on specific issues. There is no place for harassment, intimidation, threats, bullying, lies, misrepresentation, or grandstanding on any school board. Moving forward, I hope our Board continues to minimize any of the negative factors affecting the functionality of our district to the greatest extent possible.
As I prepare to officially step down from my responsibilities next week, there are so many things I would love to say to our community. However, I will end this summary in the same way in which I started it - with a call for decency, respect and civility to all. Next week, Jodie Williams will be sworn in to take my place as the Area 2 Trustee of SDUHSD. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the candidates for their willingness to serve our community. Last week, Kevin Sabellico, candidate for Area 4, shared on social media that he had called his opponent, Trustee Allman, to congratulate him on his re-election. I was sad to see that several members of the community, including a candidate for the Area 2 seat who also lost her race, posted hateful messages in response. We, as the literal adults in the room, need to do better. We can not say we support students by advocating against hate, discrimination and bullying then turn around and engage in those same practices ourselves. Back in 2022, I published the following Op-Ed letter. While I wrote it in response to similar levels of hate and division in our community waged against a former Superintendent, it bears repeating. The content is different, but the message is the same:
“In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” After 18 months of serving on the SDUHSD Board, this is the second time I have evoked Eleanor Roosevelt’s wisdom. As a duly elected Board member, my primary responsibility is to act in the best interest of every student in the district. This is clearly and repeatedly asserted in our Board bylaws. Last week, we did not accomplish that goal. We didn’t even come close. And if I do not call attention to that fact, then I fail to do my job.
When I arrived at the District Office 30 minutes early last Thursday, there was already a crowd in the parking lot; the Boardroom was filled to capacity. It was disclosed that some members of the public were given advanced notice to show up early because comments would be accepted and heard on a first-come, first-serve basis. That communication went out by a fellow Board member [Trustee Allman]. Over 40 individuals filled out public comment forms for Closed Session agenda items, two of which related to our Superintendent and her employment status; only 15 were permitted to speak on a topic that has deeply divided our community. Before the meeting even began, community members were already pitted against each other.
Throughout the thirty minutes of public comments, alternating “sides'' continued to argue and hurl insults at one another with uncoiled rancor. The room was so thick with tension, it wrapped itself firmly around the postures and even facial expressions of everyone present - from the subdued sighs of the despondent to the wide eyes of the fiery indignant. On more than one occasion, the hired security guard was forced to handle disputes. Multiple executive staff members also patrolled the room to enforce decorum and some semblance of mutual respect. Each time, I was grateful that our Student Board members were not yet present. But then again, maybe we would have been better off.
A few months ago, after a display of poor behavior in the Boardroom, one of our Student representatives prefaced her Board report by reprimanding us. She remarked, “If we had just acted like that inside the classroom, all of us would have been sent to the principal's office.” And she was absolutely right. Why do we hold the children for whom we are supposed to act as role-models to a higher standard? We yell, argue, and castigate each other all presumably in the name of educating our children. Yet, we do nothing to teach them how to behave and interact with others.
And, in my opinion, none of that is okay. A properly governed Board room is perhaps the purest example of democracy. With a focus on children and their education, it is an opportunity for parents, teachers, and even students themselves to advocate for the best possible academic opportunities. While differences are bound to exist, we should never expect to resolve our issues unanimously or perfectly; yet, we can strive to do so respectfully and cohesively.
When it comes to public education there should never be “true enemies,” but rather fellow community members with opposing viewpoints. As such, we would be better off if we established a few ground rules: (1) Let’s all strive to understand the true purpose of any proposed decision. (2) Let’s conduct our own independent research, trusting but always verifying even the most reliable sources. (3) Finally, let’s show the same respect and understanding to others as we would want for ourselves, and certainty all want for our children. We fail to support our students if we don’t actively seek middle ground. Unless we want more meetings like last week, we need to give each other both the space and the grace to work together. And when push literally comes to shove, let’s refer back to what our own parents taught us: “If we don't have anything nice to say, just don’t say anything at all.” There are better ways to express ourselves than what we are presently displaying.
I look forward, with hope, to the Board’s continued adherence to good governance. I will, as a private citizen and grateful former district parent, be watching and cheering on the SDUHSD Board (and all of the students it serves) from the sidelines.
