When the school board evaluated their selection to replace Cindy Pickett early this month they made the pick as though we were still playing under 2018 rules—quite literally—as in they selected the same person to head up the board. But the ground shifted on them, not only before the selection was made, but during it.
In late May, the school board knew it was facing two crises—the first was figuring out whether to re-open schools in the fall and the second, a longer term crisis was going to be the fallout of the economic collapse that has followed the pandemic.
In that lens they made what had appeared to be the safe choice to them—a person who had already served for a few months on the school board in 2018. A person who had ten years of service as a volunteer, serving on the PTA and the Site Counsel.
They had also made two other crucial choices. They saw the need to avoid the extra costs of a special election while, at the same time, not wanting to face these crises with a four-person board.
Ironically, their choices led them to the very place they hoped to avoid—a four-person board until perhaps December.
I would probably argue that the hindrance of four people on the board is probably less than you might think. The board rarely makes decisions on 3-2 votes. The toughest call has probably already been made, with the district determining that they cannot restart on campus instruction in the fall—and the state really took that choice away anyway, by setting up state guidelines that would eliminate DJUSD from being able to open on campus in the fall.
In 2018, there was a deadlock between Joy Klineberg and Donna Neville for the appointment with, at that time, Barbara Archer and Tom Adams lining up squarely for Klineberg and Alan Fernandes and Bob Poppenga going to for Neville. In the tenth round, facing the prospect of the coin flip, Fernandes flipped and supported Klineberg, breaking the draw.
Facing perhaps a similar prospect this time with Vigdis Asmundson as a finalist along with Klineberg, Fernandes made the immediate move to support Klineberg, joining Adams and Joe DiNunzio on the 3-1.
In 2018, with the position being temporary, with it clear that Cindy Pickett and Joe DiNunzio would join the board in December, no one balked at the appointment.
Why did 2020 go so differently?
The landscape was different. In a normal year, a person like Hiram Jackson would have been an incredibly strong candidate. In fact, he got past the first round of voting with support from all four board members. But, as a white man on a board that was already four men, the optics of that was not going to work.
In addition, the landscape in the middle of the process shifted. Even before May 25 and the death of George Floyd, the public was pushing for a woman of color on the board. A woman of color was leaving. The board was all male and mostly white. The public comments that came in heavily weighed toward two people—Rachel Fulp-Cooke and Vigdis Asmundson.
The board didn’t read this shift in landscape. But they should have—by the time they voted in early July, there had been a full month of protests, including a 1000 person march the weekend prior to the vote.
The second key ingredient was the reaction of Cindy Pickett. She could have done what most people do in this position—leave and largely allow her former colleagues to make their selection. That’s certainly what Madhavi Sunder did two years before. But Cindy Pickett didn’t stay quiet.
Her first post on Facebook was a screenshot of the definition of cronyism: “the appointment of friends and associates to position of authority without proper regard to their qualifications.”
She then did a second post: “At the school board meeting when the decision to appoint my replacement on the DJUSD school board was made, I pointed out that the recent history in Davis is that women of color get into office when they are elected… and they have been the top vote getters. Tonight’s decision by the DJUSD board to not appoint any of the women of color who applied and who were amply qualified is appalling.”
It’s difficult to know if the response of Barbara Archer—the former school board member and friend of Joy Klineberg—played a part, as she not only defended her friend and her “10 years of experience working with the district” but took what read like a potshot: “keeping a commitment is hard.”
Opinion might have been galvanized anyway, but this threw fuel on the fire.
Anger and disappointment turned to action. One person who was on the inside told me that it wasn’t even really anger driving this process. It was a sense of purpose.
The driver of this is interesting. Parents who had never been involved got active. The group was large. But it was a bidirectional drive. The large number of people involved in gathering signatures meant in some cases people were getting hit up multiple times for signatures. At the same time, people were actively reaching out to people wanting to sign the petition.
The end result was flooring—four days, nearly 2000 signatures and within two weeks of the decision it was effectively overturned.
A big question is what does this mean? That is far from clear. One thing it has not meant so far—a huge number of candidates. There have been some curious alignments in the past.
In 2014 when Nancy Peterson resigned, there were a large number of candidates for the two full-term seats, but only Alan Fernandes ran for the two-year term. In 2018, there were tons of applicants for the temporary board position, but only four candidates for three seats for the actual election—and, really, one was token at best. The same thing might be happening here. So far, there is a low number of announced candidates for effectively three seats, with just over a week to go.
There is a good possibility that there will be no incumbents, though Alan Fernandes has not made that decision final yet. Bob Poppenga announced he was leaving.
Finally is the question about the overall political climate—which appears to be in chaos, at least at the national level.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“the first was figuring out whether to re-open schools in the fall and the second, a longer term crisis was going to be the fall out of the economy collapse that has followed the pandemic.
I would not be too confident in assessing shorter or longer term effects with regard to the pandemic. We often hear optimistic talk about a vaccine by the end of the year. What we do not hear so much is what actually did happen at the time of our last comparable epidemic, the flu of 1917. That epidemic did not end in the US until 1921, so over 3 years. I make no predictions about the duration of this pandemic, but stress this point as it may be an issue for all elected decision making bodies for the foreseeable future, not just the relative short run.
It is likely to take longer for the economy to recover as well. The optimistic talk about a v-shaped recession is fading rapidly as COVID-19 resurges and is expected to surge again in fall and winter. The last recession officially lasted 18 months and full retail recovery took another year or more.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/covid-19-coronavirus-recession-shape/
This recession is decimating sectors of the economy that are disproportionately present in Davis such as the restaurant industry that are unlikely to get back to pre-COVID revenue levels for many, many months. Tax revenues to the city, county, and school district are likely to be suppressed for at least a year, perhaps 2 – 3 years.
The next school board is going to have to make some tough retrenchment decisions, as will the city council, and those are not going to be popular.
DS: “Tax revenues to the city, county, and school district are likely to be suppressed for at least a year, perhaps 2 – 3 years.”
And to the state? It’s usually a drop in state revenue that most affects revenue to local school districts. But I agree that it would take additional years to recover.
DJUSD revenues, via State, are still tax revenues… those unique to the District are MR assessments, or parcel taxes… the unique ones cannot be affected by any recession, no matter how severe. They are set. Independent of other taxes based on spending or income, and on assessed valuations.
Scary…
Instead of qualifications, experience, knowledge, positions on matters pertinent to the position, decisions are supposed to be made on “optics”… whose eyes are those ‘optics’ evaluated?
Well, will concede the ‘optics’ of a 2+ year appointment vs. election did not sit well with me… had the petition been spawned from those who were focused on the “process”, instead of the “outcome”, I suspect there would be pretty much the same # of signatures gathered… I would have signed it, and I strongly suspect many others who had issue with the process would have… as would those who would see it as a ‘do-over’ as to ‘outcome’.
To me, major issue was the process… to others, major issue was the outcome… end result… they had a ‘common enemy’… the board… who made one bad decision (IMO, and that of others) that led to a second (in the opinion of others).
It is what it is… if Fernandes was running in a district I could vote in, I’d be strongly inclined to vote for his opponent… the ‘waffler’, Adams isn’t on the ballot this year.
Suggesting we move forward, and stop picking scabs on wounds inflicted in the last couple of months…
You’re making the same mistake as some of the others…
“Instead of qualifications, experience, knowledge, positions on matters”
Isn’t part of the consideration “experience” and doesn’t a white man have a vastly different array of experience than a woman or woman of color?
Also, part of any consideration whether it’s an appointment or a hire is how well the individuals fits within the culture of the group. You have to take all of that into account.
No. Sexist and bigoted… at an individual level… I have interviewed many job applicants… I have found that patently untrue. In some professions, it is true there are few POC pursue certain fields… I know not why… pretty sure you’ll opine that it is due to bias, etc.
But, when they show up for an interview, I cannot, or should not consider more general ‘society’ issues… I have to look at “qualifications, experience, knowledge”, tempered by, “how well the individuals fits within the culture of the group”… HR wanted me to make sure (implied, as they could not come out and say that) that the hire was a POC and/or female. Most (probably 75%) of the most qualified candidates I ranked highest, or hired, were female or POC.
You’re barking up the wrong tree with my behaviors… an inherent bias against white males, that we can’t be gender/color blind?
We’re drifting…
We are not talking about a technical field. We’re talking about a school board appointment. Why is Joy clearly more qualified than say Hiram, Rachael or Vigdis? I don’t think you can objectively argument that. You may have subjective arguments for it. But then it comes down to the factors you cited. All I’m arguing is that you end up sorting through values judgments here and one of them should be make up of the board overall.
The downside of that, is it can easily lead to exactly the thing you regale against… lack of diversity… you’re getting close to speaking out of both sides of your mouth, with that part of the post.
You’re making an assumption there that the idea would be to have everyone from the same background rather than mine which is to create as much diversity as possible.
It can become a “good old (pick your noun) club”… it is up to voters to decide who ‘fits within the culture’ of the general community. My concern is that district elections may actually work against diversity. But that is a fait accompli… it is what it is… we’ll see after 2-3 election cycles, how that will work out…
And the new question… would/could a Board or Council be representative of the community, fit your idea of ‘justice/diversity’, if it was composed of one male POC, two White females, two POC females?
I know what my answer would be.
I think a better way to frame it is: is the current board reflective of the community that it needs to be reflective of and if no, in what ways should it change. The problem you ultimately end up with is in the end it is a body of five, which means one shift is a 40 percent swing – you could from 80-20 to 60-40 with one shift. That means you can change it quickly, but it also means you can’t really fine tune it.
You might want to ask that of the Seattle police chief (in reference to the article from yesterday), regarding the scope of decisions within a given position.
What you are actually advocating for is a de facto quota, based upon skin color and/or gender. The very definition of “institutional racism”.
This erroneous assertion is made in comments responding to virtually every article on the Vanguard in which diversity is brought up and, to me anyway, it’s quite tiresome.
Diversity is not about skin color. Race is not a biologically defined characteristic; races can’t be distinguished by reference to any specific genetic or biological features or characteristics of significance. Race is a social construct. Skin color is a superficial characteristic that is used as a ground for discrimination in many contexts resulting in what is referred to as institutional or systemic racism.
Diversity is about variations in culture and life experiences, not about skin color, except insofar as skin color has been the basis of lowered societal and institutional expectations, abuses, and discriminatory treatment and, thus, disparate life experiences and opportunities.
Having representation on boards, commissions, and governing bodies of individuals with diverse life experiences is a way to help ensure that varied perspectives are heard, particularly those of groups that have been most disadvantaged by historical and ongoing discrimination and mistreatment based on skin color, national origin, gender, and other characteristics. Let’s not minimize the significance of diversity by saying it’s just a matter of skin color (or sex chromosomes, etc.).
I agree. But for others (such as David), it seems to be a basic/essential factor to consider when selecting someone for a given position. (Note his consistent “counting” of how many whites there are, how many males, etc.)
Strangely enough, he doesn’t seem to know “how” to count Asians, for example.
Perhaps you should take this up with him, as it’s not something I’m advocating.
It’s institutional racism. Does anyone ever wonder how this message impacts kids – and not just “white” or “Asian” kids?
Purposeful selection of race or gender (for a position) is a different animal, vs. barring a population from ownership at a given development, for example.
how well the individuals fits within the culture of the group.
I would argue that how well an individual fits within the culture of a group, may or may not match how well that individual will serve the needs of the community they are serving. I am thinking of my own field in which there is virtually no argument that the addition of women to the surgical field of OB/GYN ( in which the initial women definitely did not “fit within the culture of the group”) ultimately led to better care for the women served.
I didn’t explain it very well but that was more along the lines of what I was trying to get at
And, yes… what is your opinion (if you made the hiring decisions) of the chances of a White male in applying for a surgical OB-Gyn position? They are obviously “unfit” as to gender and ethnicity… or for that matter, ANY male?
I fully agree as to,
Bill
I was indeed involved in hiring decisions, but not prior to having achieved an approximately 50-50 gender split in our department. I did advocate for the hiring of minority physicians in our department on the basis of obvious underrepresentation disadvantaging many of our patients. I advocated for hiring more Spanish speakers ( who tended to be Hispanic) and for more blacks based on the appalling disparity in outcomes for black women in OB & Gyn related outcomes.
You also (as I recall you stating) advocated for a male gynecologist, despite what might be described as “systemic sexism” as exhibited by your colleagues.
I don’t recall that you mentioned the skin color of that person, though.
Alllllllrighteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeethen
Since I just responded to Eric (above), perhaps he can address this constant “keeping of score” based upon such factors.
One thing I’d agree with is that it’s “tiresome” (and likely harmful to kids and adults).
There almost seems to be an industry around this push toward “legitimized” institutional racism and sexism. Reminds me of the “homeless/industrial complex” idea that someone else mentioned.
It’s the same sh*t that I grew up listening to, and it’s harmful.
Very tiresome.
“There almost seems to be an industry around this push toward “legitimized” institutional racism and sexism. ”
The problem is that you have it backwards – it’s not white men that are being discriminated against.
That’s exactly what you’re advocating.
Though you “downplay” the discrimination you’re advocating against white women, Asians, etc.
What you’re advocating is actually harmful, and not at all benign.
What I’m advocating is leveling the current playing field – I put out the stats last week, it’s not a close call. This is the problem – you are viewing a leveling of the huge resource advantage that white males have as discrimination. There’s a word for that.
Resource advantage?
Compared to Ph.D. Cindy Picket, for example? Or, the doctor who complained about the police response – in regard to some old white woman living in an apartment?
Or, the fact that “white men” are no longer then “number one” wage earners, according to you?
Or, the fact that white males are now under-represented at UCD?
Do tell. And, what difference does this make on an individual level (e.g., when some kid loses out on a job opportunity due to the color of his skin or sexual organs)?
We are talking systemic racism, not individuals
We are talking about systemic racism, which you are attempting to “legitimize”.
All racism, whether it’s labeled as “systemic” or not affects individuals.
Racism itself originates from individuals – not systems.
There is no “system” in the U.S. (at this point) that legally favors one group over another, with the exception of any “backdoor” affirmative action efforts.
For some reason, California voters themselves will soon be asked whether or not to “legalize” system racism (e.g., re-establishment of affirmative action).
And again – despite how you would prefer to view it that way, the negative impact of that would not be limited to “white males”. It would likely impact Asians, as well (e.g., regarding college enrollments).
Those with your point of view are soon going to have to find another “scapegoat”. And, it won’t be as politically-palatable. What will you do, then?
Ron – Yours is the argument that’s been leveled against affirmative action programs for decades (e.g., Baake v. Univ. of Calif.).
Obviously, if there are a limited number of seats on a board or slots in a medical school class, efforts to increase representation by an historically disadvantaged group will have the effect of reducing the number of positions for other groups. It’s simple arithmetic.
Remedying past discrimination that has disadvantaged one group for centuries is not the same as discriminating against the group that has historically benefited from that prior discrimination (e.g., in employment, educational opportunities)—even though it may feel “unfair” on an individual basis. If you disagree, I’d ask what alternative would you suggest?
Merely leveling the playing field in the middle of a race does not remedy the effects of prior discrimination. Moreover, it’s not as if systemic discrimination has been eliminated; so, the playing field is far from level.
Again, I would ask how that concept would apply regarding denying entrance to college for Asians (as a result), for example. Or, perhaps denying entrance to females.
If the goal is to bring up those at the bottom of the economic ladder (which at any given time is going to be more representative of one group, or another), I’d suggest that “preference” or efforts to “level the playing field” (in general) be based upon income, for example.
“Merely leveling” is another word for implementing system discrimination. But I agree, that it doesn’t “remedy” the situation for long-dead people, nor does it remedy the situation regarding the impacts of current generations. (For the latter, I’d suggest remedies based upon income.)
Pretty much similar to stating that the system is “stacked” to allow “too many Asians” at UCD, for example.
One thing I wouldn’t recommend is limiting home ownership at a given development to those who already have a connection to an “unbalanced” city. And yet, many of the people who claim to be concerned about such issues seem to overlook this, willingly. (Not you.)
“Again, I would ask how that concept would apply regarding denying entrance to college for Asians”
Are people being “denied” or are they simply expanding overall enrollment?
I understand that quite a few people are “denied” enrollment at universities. I also understand that the process for denial is not entirely disclosed, and may include “guesses” regarding skin color. (That part, I’m less sure of.)
As you know, the UC system itself demanded extra payments to admit California residents, since they are subsidized. That alone tells you that unless students pay full tuition costs, some will be denied. Unless the legislature provides sufficient money to allow anyone who is qualified to attend.
You clearly didn’t understand my point. Maybe someone else will continue with you. I’m out of time for the day.
That’s two words.
There’s a word for THAT . . . one word.
Are you saying that having popular vote determine who serves, inconsistent with what should happen? Voters might reflect “systemic racism” after all…
Can’t avoid that. But the voters are significantly more diverse than the appointers.
Ahh… but would you prefer another method, assuming it was possible? To guarantee diversity?
We’ve done what we reasonably can
“If the goal is to bring up those at the bottom of the economic ladder (which at any given time is going to be more representative of one group, or another),”
I fundamentally disagree with your second clause. In a system in which there is true equality of opportunity, no one group should be expected to be at the bottom of the economic ladder. If equality of opportunity does not exist, then steps should be taken to ensure it applies. I feel that systemic racism in the past and its present consequences and manifestations blatantly perpetuate inequality of opportunity.
Providing equal opportunity does not ensure equal results. Never has, never will.
There may, in fact, be group/cultural differences which aren’t accounted for by providing equal opportunity.
At some point, if you’re a member of a group that’s not getting ahead – maybe look to other groups to emulate. Some people do exactly that.
Then, there’s the impact of immigrants (who are never perfectly “aligned” with the distribution of the existing, resident population in terms of skin color, for example).
Despite starting out much poorer than average, immigrants (in general) often “figuratively” kick the butts of those who are more focused on blaming others for their problems. (And, immigrants are often “people of color”.) Why do you suppose that is?
“Providing equal opportunity does not ensure equal results. Never has, never will.”
That’s a strawman argument.
“Despite starting out much poorer than average, immigrants (in general) often “figuratively” kick the butts of those who are more focused on blaming others for their problems. (And, immigrants are often “people of color”.) Why do you suppose that is?”
First-generation immigrants generally do not.
Maybe not, but they seem to instill a work ethic in their children. Those are the “booty-kickers”, and more power to them!
You do realize, that the “straw man” was actually the smartest of the bunch, despite having no brain. Dealt with situations quite well, actually.
All he needed was a diploma. (Well, maybe nowadays not quite so valuable, if you study the wrong thing – and create student debt as a result, to boot.)
Ever notice how the Lyon was the only one who didn’t naturally/already have what he sought?
You realize a straw man argument is not a reference to the wizard of Oz. It refers to putting up a false argument that can easily be knocked down.
?
All I know is that even after the guy had the stuffing kicked out of him, he went on to demonstrate his resiliency. He and his diverse group of friends succeeded.
Oh, no – did I just inadvertently demonstrate the power of diversity, working together?
That “suggestion” can apply to white people, as well. And, it increasingly will.
STEM. (But even that’s no guarantee, in a global economy.)
After the outcome of a highly qualified white woman being assigned to a temporary position then subsequently being nullified because of the color of her skin it’s hilarious watching people now try to cover for and justify the obvious racism involved.
Guess you believe my repeated concerns about “process” is just a cover for ‘my’ racism (or reverse racism… which is still racist)… tu est bete. At best…
And you are el wrongo, in aggregating people with very different views… I can readily think of two groups, very divergent, who supported the initiative… process, and outcome… whole different referents… but, I’ve said that before, and you seem to believe I am spinning this… whatever…
Why do you think everyone is always talking about you?
Seriously now, I tend to ignore you and your posts.
Good! You have affirmed my belief…
David, Ron and Keith are mere children in their self awareness. Please stop enticing them into exposing themselves in public until their parents can have a chat with them in private.
I would agree with you – regarding David! 😉
But really, comments like that should be deleted.
And hopefully, no one will be “exposing themselves” on here, regardless. But, might make it easier to discriminate via gender, though. (Or, maybe not, these days.)
By the way, do we know for sure what gender the straw man and tin man were? (I suspect that the lion might have been more obvious.)
Ron, some liberals hate it that not all white people are self hating apologists for being born white. They suffer with their white guilt and white privilege and think other whites should feel the same. That sounds like a terrible way to go through life.
Kind of surprised to see some of the comments “reappear”.
I don’t necessarily attribute negative attributes toward those whose goal is “diversity”. Seems to me that most who have that goal do so out of some sense of fairness, and a desire to achieve a more equitable society.
But, I am not supportive of quotas (or implied quotas) to accomplish that. Even if that means that “representative diversity” is not consistently achieved.
I would say, however, some who support diversity goals are not necessarily open-minded or accepting of other views.
And personally, I think it’s somewhat of a disgrace (almost amusingly so) when someone is essentially recalled due to skin color. Same goes for anyone who states that they wouldn’t vote for someone based upon skin color, gender, etc. I don’t see how anyone can say (or even think) that, and not be embarrassed by it.
None of the current DJUSD board members have posted here, but I do believe they should be given some slack in the sense that they are facing what may likely be the biggest crisis that the district has ever faced. It’s only natural that they would want to put another member on the board with some experience to face some very tough and unpopular decisions in the next months. I confess I haven’t watched DJUSD board decisions closely and have no idea how likely 2-2 votes are with the current board membership. If that is indeed a likely scenario, it makes sense they wanted to get a fifth person on the board sooner than later. My bigger concern is that the board doesn’t see a way to get to consensus rather than a majority. In times of crisis, 4-1 and 5-0 votes mean more to the community and therefore makes the fifth position relatively less important.
On that, completely agree… with exceptions… a 4-member board had a 1-0 motion for appointment process… a 2-0 motion for election… to get to ‘consensus’, they went to a 3-1 vote for appointment… overturned by referendum…
If it was legal, would have preferred an interim appointment, until an election in Nov 2020…
I am thinking (but don’t have legal cites), that’s what they should have strived to do.
Would have a good process, and still had 5 members during the supposed crisis…
I’m a little late to the party here, but I wanted to point out the following:
“The role of the trustees who sit on locally elected school boards is to ensure that school districts are responsive to the values, beliefs and priorities of their communities. Boards fulfill this role by performing five major responsibilities. These are setting direction; establishing an effective and efficient structure; providing support; ensuring accountability; and providing community leadership as advocates for children, the school district and public schools.” (California School Boards Association)
One of the reasons that I have been focused on the diversity of the school board is because it is hard to ensure that a district is responsive to the entire community if only certain viewpoints and perspectives are given voice. When we use the term “qualified,” we need to keep in mind that the district administrators and staff are the ones who carry out the work of the district. The Board is there to represent the community, establish direction, etc. In my opinion, a diverse board is better able to carry out those functions. And I use the term “diverse” inclusively — e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, occupation, age.
Thank you for posting that. Best to you and yours in your new endeavors …