On Thursday, Superintendent John Bowes during his comments noted that an appointment process was used to appoint a replacement to Cindy Pickett, whose term would have expired in December 2022.
The result of that process was the provisional appointment of Joy Klineberg. A community petition to nullify that appointment was submitted to the Yolo County Office of Education.
“The requisite number of signatures were gathered, submitted and then certified,” Superintendent Bowes said. “With the provisional appointment nullified and as a function of law, the district is now served by four trustees instead of five through December 2020.
“The district thanks Joy Klineberg for her second round of service in two years as a trustee,” he said. The open at-large board seat will be on the November ballot with the term expiring in December 2022. This will be the last at-large seat on the ballot.
In a statement from YCDIE, the group that collected the ballot signatures, they said, “The Yolo Committee for Diverse and Inclusive Elections (YCDIE) is looking forward to the November general election when the public will be able to vote for who should fill all three Davis Joint Unified School District trustee seats: area 2, area 5, and one at-large seat.
“YCDIE thanks the many volunteers who worked to make this happen and who were committed to a democratic process for selecting our school board representatives. YCDIE’s mission is to support political 
candidates who will contribute to diverse governing bodies in Yolo County,” they said. “Members of the public who want to learn more about becoming a candidate or how they can volunteer for a campaign are encouraged to reach out to YCDIE at ycdiedavis@gmail.com.”
The announcement comes less than ten days after the group announced they had turned in 1700 signatures. They were required to get about 1.5 percent of the registered voters, calculated roughly at 658.
In a previous statement, they noted, “The vacated seat was originally filled through a provisional appointment made by the DJUSD Board of Trustees on July 2, 2020. This appointment resulted in an overwhelmingly white board that does not reflect the diversity of Davis.”
They add, “A successful petition will terminate that appointment and allow the voters to decide on who should fill the seat.”
YCDIE representative, Peggy Enderle, said, “We believe strongly in the importance of representation and of allowing the public to select their representatives through a democratic process.”
Along with the petition proponents—Robb Davis, Peggy Enderle, Cathy Farman, Calvin Handy, and Jenni Biggs—over 100 community volunteers circulated the petition and gathered signatures. Volunteer coordinator, Joanna Friesner, said, “This outpouring of volunteerism reflected loud and clear that our community values, and will work towards, equitable representation on the school board.”
YCDIE’s mission is to support political candidates who will contribute to diverse elected bodies in Yolo County. Echoing this, YCDIE representative Dzokerayi Minya said, “This effort was led by women of color and white allies. We want to continue to create opportunities for women of color to lead in politics. Seeing the community support our efforts in this way solidifies that diversity is wanted and needed.”
“By putting the seat up for election in November 2020, the voters will be able to decide for themselves who should fill this seat and represent them on the school board,” former Mayor Robb Davis wrote in a letter a few weeks ago. “Deeply qualified women of color have run for public office in Davis and won, indicating a desire on the part of this community to have a board that more fully represents the perspectives, experiences, and needs of our diverse—and historically underrepresented—population.”
He added, “I think most Davis residents would agree that having diverse and informed perspectives on local government bodies like the DJUSD Board of Trustees is critically important to making sure that the needs of all citizens—students and parents in this case—are considered in the decisions that directly affect them.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
After all, that’s the reason the highly qualified and experienced Klineberg was nullified, because she was white. If a female person of color had been selected there wouldn’t have been any petition.
Don’t be too sure of that… may well have been different initiators, different signatories (or for those who objected to the process, and how it was arrived at, like me, likely same signatories) but there were many upset by the process, and the 4 remaining Board members, who went from a 1-0 motion for appointment, and a 2 vote motion to do election, to a 3-1 vote for appointment.
For me and many, it was never about the individual, or gender, or race, it was about ‘process’… it may have been for some, to be sure…
My unconfirmed understanding is that she is not going to run.
That wouldn’t surprise me. Just speculating but a couple of reasons why she might not want to run is the treatment she’s received as a result of her appointment or maybe because she’s not the correct skin color?
My understanding is that it’s not that.
I agree with Bill. I signed the petition asking for an election in November, not a recall of Joy. A recall was not my intent, and I may very well have voted for Joy. I still would have signed the petition if the school board put us in the position of having to either recall her or have an appointed position for two plus years while skipping over an obvious opportunity at the next general election. This mistake is entirely on the school board for making the wrong decision. This has NOTHING to do with Joy or whether she checked certain boxes.
“A recall was not my intent…”
Seems like it might have been a more preferable option. Any public official can be recalled. Following a recall process would have left the seat occupied the whole time.
That statement is foolish/ill-informed… a recall would have probably extended any election out past November… different rules as to timing… harder to recall an official (presumably elected in the first place) even if they are an appointee… can’t cite the Codes, but am 80% sure that the results would have been worse…
The only two options were the appointment or the current course… this way, Ms Klineberg can run, without prejudice (pun unintended) had it been a recall, no way should she be viable as a candidate to replace herself!
Grey Davis didn’t run in his recall…
Unless, of course, that was your desired outcome…
You have to wait six months in order to recall them.
I recommend to Ms Klineberg to not see this as a personal rejection, and seriously consider running either for the at-large seat, or one of the new ‘district’ seats, if eligible. I would seriously consider for her or any of the top-tier finalists…
Thanks to Ms. Klineberg for her service.
I agree with Bill Marshall. I would love to see Ms.Klineberg as a candidate if she still desires the position. By all accounts, she is highly qualified. Like many others, I signed the petition on the basis of process and largely because of our highly unusual situation with COVID, felt it was vital for the entire community to hear the thought processes of all our candidates with regard to this issue which I feel should not be left in the hands of 4 individuals no matter how well-intentioned.
Amen.
And if you want to save typing, you can refer to me as WM… I went by William, or Will much of my life… partly to avoid the “other” initials…
And, would be interested to know why the District ‘nullified’ the appointment… it was done as “interim”, so see no reason why Ms Klineberg should not serve until the victor in November is ‘installed’… who knows… might be Ms Klineberg…
And, if the response is, “it’s the law”, will expect a cite… I have relatives in MO, the “show me state”… seems counter-intuitive…
It’s the law…
“If the petition is determined to be legally sufficient by the county superintendent of schools, the provisional appointment is terminated, and the county superintendent of schools shall order a special election to be conducted no later than the 130th day after the determination. ”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§ionNum=5091&fbclid=IwAR1hvspTZMGNm2LTUfnkA86hNvCJsmGRZ0WG9Ki-CSM4yItFKfwz-LKTn3A
Good answer… the “is” and “shall” are the key words… thx…
Gonna’ write to our State “reps” and ask for a bill to amend that to provide at least a “may continue to serve, until such election takes place and is certified…” Or something that effectively accomplishes that… that would be intuitive, and actually matches the situation when Ms Klineberg last served…
Bill – If it’s discretionary as to whether the candidate will continue to serve pending the election, I’m wondering who you think should be making the decision if not the board that made the appointment.
I would guess that, unlike here, in many instances a petition is initiated because voters believe that the selection process was tainted (e.g., by cronyism) or that the appointee is totally unqualified. I don’t think the voters would want the same board that made the appointment to be deciding if the appointee should continue to serve pending the election.
Seems to me, the only viable alternatives are non-discretionary: Either to continue the interim appointment or, as in current law, to terminate it.
What was the wording of the petition you signed, WM? Regardless of what petition signers “wanted” or “intended,” the weight of law is on the exact wording of the petition. If the wording stated “void” or “nullify” the appointment of Ms Klineberg, those who signed the petition got exactly what they requested.
And if the crafters of the petition and the people who signed it didn’t know what they were actually requesting, is that the fault of the Board, too?
Rick… do you have the precise language of the petition?
And no, either way, the Board was not at fault for anything except ignoring the motion (seconded) for an election… again I point out that the motion for appointment failed when first made, for lack of a second…
Do you have concerns about an election? If so, for what reasons?
Petition Drive Certified, Appointment of Klineberg Cancelled
So who here honestly thinks that if there had been a woman of color assigned to the school board there would’ve ever been a petition or a nullification?
Keith: There’s not even a question, regarding that. From the group which initiated the petition:
Exactly Ron, looking back at some of the articles and comments it’s obvious what the intent was.
Actually, the de-facto recall effort has already resulted in an increase in the percentage of “people of color” on the board.
(1 out of 4 = 25%, versus 1 out of 5 =20%.)
But, no women.
Some were saying that this is a challenging period of time for the board, due to the impacts of Covid. And, that this was the one of the reasons that they supported this effort.
Congratulations. 😉
You mean for three months…
So, here’s what I’d suggest as a possibility (for the future):
Create an “improved” policy/procedure to address situations like this (where someone leaves with lots of time left on their appointment). Presumably, including a temporary appointment (for someone willing to accept it) until the next regular election.
And hopefully, no one will have a “problem” with the selection of the temporary appointee.
That would require changes to the state law – which they should pursue.
I hadn’t realized that.
Well, I guess boards had “better” appoint a person of color in such situations, until then. 😉
It’s hard for me to wrap my head around why some think this is so important, and what difference it actually makes regarding results (or even “opportunity”, for that matter).
(Other than creating a 4-person board, during this challenging period. That’s probably the most important thing that arose out of this effort. Well, that – and possibly creating some divisiveness.)
To some, everything is all about race.
It’s actually very sad.
They may not have recognized the fact that the threshold was so low this time, but given the number of comments they received in favor of Fulp and Asmundson and the few amount for Joy, they did not read the tea leaves well. Given that part of their goal was to avoid a prolonged four member board, that miscalculation is magnified.
David: If those who were driven to advocate for Fulp or Asmundson were doing so solely out of a desire to have a person of color as a replacement, I’m not sure that they’re the best folks to be listening to.
Just my opinion.
Certainly, that is the goal of those behind the petition drive. They freely acknowledge that, in their statements.
Obviously, folks who don’t think that skin color should be used as a “criteria” in such situations are fading into a “minority”. (How’s that for a pun?) But, I suspect that this minority is not limited to “whites” or “males”.
And since Robb Davis is one of these people (as noted in the article), how does he “reconcile” his skin color with his previous occupancy of a position on the council?
Did he wake up apologizing every day regarding his skin color (and corresponding pursuit of office), or was he simply an “extra-special” white male – who was able to “transcend” his skin color?
When a group is mobilized that’s not surprising. I don’t think the number of emails should ever be a determining factor in how a community feels. It often comes down to who is more organized than the true feelings of a community. Take the recent U Mall discussion and how the council is somewhat backing down on making a decision because of 30 more pro-project Zoom calls than anti-project. Really, 30 Zoom calls might sway a project when we know they were most likely more mobilized.
So you believe that if their stated overriding consideration which was to fill the seat and not have four members at a crucial was not fulfilled, they still made the right call?
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here David? That they shouldn’t have appointed a white woman so there wouldn’t be any chance of her being nullified?
Basically I’m saying they didn’t do a great job of reading the political winds. Given that like 1000 had marched the Sunday before, it shouldn’t have been that difficult.
So just say it, they should’ve appointed a woman of color. Right?????
I think that was said
Cindy Pickett on July 3 said, “I didn’t have a problem with the process per se, it was just the choice.”
Me on July 3: “Whether you believe that Joy Klineberg was the most qualified—and she was certainly up there—the board being tone-deaf to the optics of 2020 is troubling. The board was more boxed in than they sensed”
There has been no ambiguity here.
So it wasn’t about the process, it’s all about the choice (of a white woman).
Keith: I have explained this at least five times to you. Remember the dyads. Or did you not understand the point? The key is that bad process and bad result leads to action.
Two comments from David, within the same thread:
You’re wasting your time, Keith. So am I.
One was my opinion. One was Cindy’s opinion. What is confusing you?
I suppose that depends upon what we’re referring to (e.g., the reason for the de facto recall effort).
Then, there’s this (from you):
Maybe so.
But this also means that the board was indeed “following the existing process”, required by law. So, you apparently have a problem with the law, while Cindy has a problem with the result.
Regardless, in this case – the result is that selecting a white person was apparently something that shouldn’t have been considered, according to those behind the petition. And that only the voters can do that.
I am going to take this as a sincere and guilelessly-asked question. Like most people, my understanding of the importance of diversity and its value to public policy formation has changed in recent years.
You will note that I only ran for a single term. There were several reasons why I did not run for a second—family, time, and a sense that others were better suited to the role among them. But one thing I clearly stated is that by not running, I was opening up the seat to others who may not otherwise run.
As my own understanding of the effects of historical oppression of certain voices has grown, I have changed my views. I would not run today but would, and have offered, to help prepare others to serve (via workshops on the in and outs of meeting organization, policy formation, etc.). That is an important role too.
I have also learned that there are many ways for people with my background and experience to serve the community outside of City Council. I try to serve in those ways to make the City a better place.
I am committed to having more diverse representation in policy making and have stated that clearly. To me it is an important goal. I can find plenty of ways to use what I have learned to work in the community.
Robb Davis ran for office in a competitive race determined by the entire electorate. Cindy Pickett’s replacement was annointed by 4 people. I hope the difference is obvious.
So 20,000 people picking a white person is less racist than 4 people picking a white person?
When I read these comments, it is a reminder how far we still have to go
Exactly, when a white woman is nullified out of a school board position simply because of the color of her skin I too realize how far we still have to go.
Wow, wish I had gotten 20K votes. I would be, like, famous.
Gets to David’s comment about “political winds” (or ‘wind’ in the “other sense”… say that, just in passing)…
Folk can’t have it both ways… IMNSHO… appointing someone who is POC, is ‘cool’… appointing someone not POC uncool… the latter is not ‘following the political winds’ (?)… but an election is (inherently political) is ‘wrong’… because it would not be ‘following the political winds’?
Much hypocrisy as to race/gender outcomes… and ‘metrics’…
My issue was/is process, to fill a 2-year term, when an election was coming up anyhow… NOT on the person selected, NOT on their gender/ethnicity…
I have lost some respect for Ms Pickett, who was OK on process, until it didn’t turn out as she hoped…
May the Almighty (and/or law) prevent POTUS, with Republican backing, from doing a similar thing… negating an election because they don’t like the outcome… not really that much of a “stretch” as I see it… they have already laid the groundwork by questioning VBM… even tho’ many of them vote that way…
Good question, the answerve reminds me of,
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=i+know+a+secret+i+won%27t+tell%2c+injun+joe&&view=detail&mid=0E2FEC26AD6667819C270E2FEC26AD6667819C27&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Di%2Bknow%2Ba%2Bsecret%2Bi%2Bwon%2527t%2Btell%252c%2Binjun%2Bjoe%26FORM%3DVQFRAF
Mayor Robb: “Wow, wish I had gotten 20K votes. I would be, like, famous.”
This is how legends get started! In ten more years it will grow to 40K votes. 🙂
[“Anointed.” I tried to edit immediately, but it didn’t take.]
Fair enough, but this is essentially implying that it’s “o.k.” if the voters elect a white male, but “not o.k.” if the board appoints one. (Or in this case, a white female.)
So, I would assume that someone like Robb would “disqualify” himself from being selected as a replacement, by the board.
Voters have to “approve” a potential white replacement. And, under no circumstances should a white person be appointed, unless there’s no qualified people of color available for appointment.
I think I understand, now. 😉
Except that I still don’t understand how Asians (or some groups of Asians) fit into this scenario, for example.
A visit to Moore Village might help illuminate one’s understanding on this subject. But I doubt it.
2 of them did… they moved and seconded a motion to have it put to an election, in November… turns out they judged correctly as to “political winds”… the reversal going to a 3-1 appointment was weird… the original motion for an appointment process didn’t even get a second…
How many people understood that they were nullifying the appointee? I never heard that mentioned. Is having an even numbered, all-male, partly-filled board for several month a good result of all this?
What is your understanding, then?
I’m not at liberty to say at the moment
I am not at liberty to disclose the witty comeback I have for your above statement.
I wonder if the Vanguard is going to write and article about the latest school board member?
You must be referring to the apparent appointment of David’s wife, Cecilia.
Do you suppose that David (and folks like Robb Davis) will insist upon an election, rather than an appointment? As they did last time?
It was an election
I don’t recall any election which resulted in her winning a seat on the school board.
You can look things up, I’m not going to continue this.
There’s nothing online, since the year 2020 – the last time she ran for a seat.
In fact, she’s not shown (yet) as a board member on the DJUSD website.
I needed a good laugh today. Thanks.
Klineberg was a provisional appointment.
When Betsy Hyder resigned, the board decided at their 6/19 meeting to call a special election. The filing period ended with only one candidate submitting papers and qualifying for the ballot. So her election was automatic.