Barring something truly extraordinary, it appears that the school board decision to appoint Joy Klineberg to fill the vacancy left by Cindy Pickett will go to the voters in November in a special election that would be an at-large election for the remainder of Cindy Pickett’s term—the final such election now that DJUSD, like the city of Davis, has gone to district elections.
The group announced in a release on Tuesday that in a span of seven days, the Yolo Committee for Diverse and Inclusive Elections (YCDIE) collected over 1,700 signatures (1,472 of which were submitted this morning) for a petition calling for a special election to fill the seat on the Davis Joint Unified School District’s governing board that was vacated when Board President Cindy Pickett resigned on June 30, 2020.
In fact, the signature gathering took place over just four days.
They were required to get about 1.5 percent of the registered voters in order to qualify. That means meant 658 signatures, based on the last election. While the signatures still have to be checked, it would seem that this matter is headed for the ballot.
In a release the group 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.”
The petition was submitted to the Yolo County Office of Education on July 14, 2020. The Yolo County Superintendent of Schools, Garth Lewis, now has up to 30 days to verify the signatures and call 
for a special election.
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 over the weekend. “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.”
All of this happened extraordinarily quickly, which is particularly remarkable given the constraints of a pandemic.
The board met on July 2, 2020, and by a 3-1 vote with Bob Poppenga dissenting voted to appoint Joy Klineberg to replace Cindy Pickett, whose final day was June 30.
However, Cindy Pickett was unhappy with the board’s choice. Nor did she remain silent. Posting a statement on Thursday July 2, she wrote, “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.”
That triggered hundreds of comments and a fiery back and forth with former board member Barbara Archer.
When the Vanguard caught up with Ms. Pickett the next day, she identified a potential remedy—that the community could put the matter on the ballot with a sufficient number of signatures.
She clarified to the Vanguard, “I didn’t have a problem with the process per se, it was just the choice.”
The problem, she said, was with appointments in general.
“They may or may not reflect the will of the voters,” she said. “In this case, there was the assumption by some voters that the board would actually think in terms of racial diversity in addition to gender diversity.” She added, “People’s expectations were just not met.”
Later she added, “I think we operate in a system that gives opportunities to certain people.”
She said, “I think that’s an area of disappointment too for some residents—there was not a recognition of the system, the systemic injustice.”
She cited a quote from the poet Maya Angelou, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
Now it would appear that the voters will get to pick her replacement on the board.
On Tuesday the group announced that they are actively looking for candidates to run for various offices in Yolo County this November. Members of the public are encouraged to contact YCDIE about being a potential candidate.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It also appeals that you were short on caffeine in the office this morning.
I’m short of caffeine every morning
Lions & Tigers & Overwhelmingly White Boards — Oh My!
Way to show sensitivity on this issue.
There is ‘lack of sensitivity’ and ‘uber-sensitivity’… I am not on either end of that bell curve…
You can say that again Bill.
“If I only had a heart” – The Tin Man
Shame on you Alan you insensitive person you. 😉
Would the services of a cynical Jew help assist with their diversity palette?
Go for it Alan. Run Alan Run.
Great news, RG! I am going to run!
. . . as far away from the Council Dias as possible.
Translation?
The lack of recognition by the school board of systemic injustice is an area of disappointment for some residents.
“Translation?”
The School Board was tone deaf to the moment and selected someone that made many people unhappy.
I just wanted to thank Robb Davis ( who happened to be the member of the intrepid band) who showed up on my doorstep (thanks to Coronavirus) to collect my signature. The entire group is to be thanked & congratulated on their rapid and successful response in these difficult times.
Well, with Poppenga apparently not seeking another term, Fernandes unclear, there will likely be 3 seats open in the November election… an opportunity to have a “minority majority” on the Board… who knows we could even end up with three ‘women of color’ on the Board…
Depending who runs, with two seats being decided by district, one at-large…
With also could turn out, depending who runs, with an all ‘white male’ Board…
In any case, a field day (weeks, months) for Dunning, D. Greenwald, others, with easy fodder for commentary, articles, etc. Might ‘improve circulation’ for
Should be interesting… but at least it will be the electorate/’the people’ to decide the make-up (complexion? ‘color’?) of the Board…
“Should be interesting… but at least it will be the electorate/’the people’ to decide the make-up (complexion? ‘color’?) of the Board…”
To this, I would add the ability to absorb new information rapidly, creativity in problem-solving, and the ability to weigh the pros and cons of different paths given the unprecedented challenges of Covid-19. I am hoping for a board that will be broadly representative of our entire community and capable of rational decision making.
They could get 10,000 signatures, but it’s still a form of racism to “recall” someone based upon their skin color.
(Unless one believes that it was racism which led to the appointment, in the first place – and this just “corrects” that process.)
True, the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, but what’s not being said, at least until you did Ron.
Ron: what role do you envision yourself assuming we are witnessing a historic moment? Do you see yourself as the defender of white privilege? Or do you wish to play a more positive role?
Also you make a mistake calling it racism. Racism is discriminating against someone because of their race. In this case, they are trying to give people opportunities and gain representation of underprivileged people. It is not an attempt to deny – it is an attempt to level the field that was unfairly erected.
David, talk about loaded questions and framing them to try and make someone look bad.
David, what role do you envision yourself assuming? Was it white privilege that got Klineberg the position, or did the school board feel she was the most qualified applicant regardless of her race? Do you wish to try and unite people and play a more positive role in the community?
I think my role is pretty obvious and I’m pretty pleased with it in fact.
I’d like to see you use your blog for more uniting rather than dividing.
So, what you are saying is that are pleased with yourself.
DG, have you considered a career in comedy?
These are nothing but progressive gotcha questions. Except they only ‘work’ in the defined construct. If one does not step in the tar, it does not stick.
I do not agree for the simple reason that if a female person of color was selected would a call for an election be taking place?
I think you have to look at this as a decision dyad.
Bad method + Good Choice = no action
Bad method + Bad Choice = action
Good method + Bad choice = no action
Good method + Good Choice = no action
So likely unless both the method and the choice are bad, there is going to be no action on the part of the activists. That doesn’t make it a good method, it just means you are willing to live with the result.
So you’re saying the choice was bad.
Why is the choice bad David?
The choice being bad is the subjective assessment of the individual making the choice as to whether or not to act
Please note… the current appointee is welcome to run for one or perhaps 2 of the seats…
For the record, Keith, I see no question from you, to me… I see a question you asked David… I feel no need, in this matter, to answer a question to David… in fact, David and I have very different views on this… to him, it appears a problem with results, and perhaps would like to see a “do-over”… I, on the other hand, see it as a process problem… one that appears orchestrated by one particular member, who couldn’t manage a second to his ‘appointment motion’, but managed to prevail. I watched the video of the meeting… still don’t understand the flip-flop from only one ‘vote’ for appointment, to majority vote supporting appointment. ‘Tis’ a puzzlement”…
If the appointee runs for the at-large seat, may end up voting for her… not sure what the final ‘districts’ are from looking at the DJUSD site… so, I may only be able to vote for the ‘at-large’ seat…
I don’t frame it in that manner, nor do I think I have a particular “role”. (I assume you’re referring to this in a broad manner, and not just this particular non-paid position.)
Just pointing out that it is, in fact, a form of racism to remove someone (or not “hire” them in the first place), due to the color of their skin. Or, whether or not they have a penis vs. a vagina, for example.
And, it will ultimately breed resentment (and court challenges), most likely. As it’s done in the past.
However, I also made this statement (above):
Tried to edit that, but this would be an example of discrimination based upon gender.
There’s all kinds of discrimination that goes on, including age discrimination. (Some people think that’s “o.k.”, and have pretty much implied that on this blog.)
Within the past MONTH, the Supreme court finally ended LEGAL employment discrimination based upon LGBT status.
There are all kinds of discrimination that go on, but now you’re in the all lives matter territory. Think about it – they got 1700 signatures in four days – what does that tell you?
I think you need to think about it in that way – because every single time one of these issues comes up you are crying racism against white people. You ignore the privilege that you live in every time you do so.
Listen to you. Every time one of these issues comes up David what are you crying?
And the problem is that you don’t get the difference.
He does seem rather “defensive”, doesn’t he Keith?
Pretty much questions the underlying justification (or “cause”) of the Vanguard, itself.
I don’t question the fact that white people (and perhaps Asians) are on average “born” into a more well-off position (e.g., financially) than African-Americans, for example. There are also differences within the “Asian” group, in that regard.
And, within that “white people” group, I assume that it includes some who are Jewish, I guess.
With Hispanics “catching up”, as well (I think).
I also don’t doubt that innocent African-Americans (in particular) have been detained by police at a higher rate, than other groups. (However, I don’t necessarily attribute all of that to some nefarious reason, on the part of police.)
“And the problem is that you don’t get the difference.”
No, in my opinion the problem is not everything is rooted in racism as you seem to see the world.
A lot of things are rooted in racism. You can’t have a nation that enslaved people for 250 years and then left them as quasi-slaves for another hundred, and then mass incarcerated them for another 50 without having huge swaths of systemic racism. Until we clear that – we are not going to have the kind of egalitarian society you want.
I’m not sure who the following is addressed to, but in case it’s me:
That’s something I suggested the other day (e.g., if “XX” amount of time is remaining on a vacancy caused by someone leaving).
I’m not “making” anything out of this, other than to note that the sole reason behind it is because some would prefer an appointee who has a different color of skin than Joy apparently has. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Two different things. This would be akin to Gloria resigning, and a “white” person being temporarily appointed in her place (thereby causing an “uproar”).
Which probably wouldn’t occur if Dan resigned, and was replaced by someone of a different color.
Personally, I’d like to see both of those two “replaced” – without regard their skin color, or those replacing them. Depending upon the positions of those replacing them. 😉
Though at least Dan supports Measure R renewal, unequivocally.
No probably about it.
I think you need to take more seriously my dyad chart that I posted earlier today. You kind of blew it off.
I signed the petition because I believe that ALL replacement appointments should be followed up with an election in the next available regular election. It turns out we conveniently have a general coming up. I know Joy and am just as likely to support her as any other candidate once I see who’s running. You’re making something of this which it is not. The electorate has every right to exercise its discretion as legally allowed. Why are you now against allowing a vote when you support Measure J/R so strongly on the other side?
Amen… all points… except the question at the end, addressed to ??????…
Had this been a truly interim appointment, only until next regular election, like happened when the currently appointed person was previously appointed (for a few months), I wouldn’t have even ‘raised my hand’… but that is NOT how it went down this time!
Ron
Unless of course, you believe the process was inherently wrong and the decision belonged in the hands of the voters.
Tia: The initiative was clearly initiated due to concerns over skin color over the appointee. That concern was not “hidden”. No one – not a single person, has suggested that the appointee is not (otherwise) a fine choice.
If the process is “inherently wrong” – then it should apply every time – regardless of skin color. (Something that I’ve suggested 3 times, now.)
The ONLY reason (in this instance) that this has come up is due to concerns over skin color, and what that “means” to folks. Had they selected someone of a more preferable color, this would not have come up at all.
Exactly Ron, well stated.
The year is 2020. I’m sorry you had to use that phrase.
Not only sorry but it’s very sad.
A majority of Californians also voted against gay marriage, a few years ago. What does that tell you, about popular opinion (in regard to civil rights, for example)?
There’s lots of examples of “popular opinion”, throughout history. So that (in-and-of-itself) is not always “proof” of something.
It’s a proof of something if it’s an issue that David agrees with.
It’s tough to tell if we’re actually moving toward a more “equal” America.
Maybe the turmoil will ultimately nudge it in that direction, some more.
And, I think we all do actually want that. (Tried to edit the above, in time.)
You know – if this is responded to (even by posting it again here, as I’m doing), this conversation will never end. 😉
Ron, because you and I and I’m sure many others already know the answer.
Keith
Or perhaps you are just very satisfied with your belief that you know more about what others think than they do, as I posted earlier.
No, Tia – they’ve already told us (starting with the person who is leaving).
It’s skin color, and what that means to them.
Ron, once again you’re correct, it’s not like it’s been kept a big secret.
Ron, have you noticed that David’s comment about bad process and bad choice is now missing.
To which I responded:
The 11:43 post from David is still there… as is your response…
BTW, I disagree with David… to me,
Bad process = no possibility of ‘good’ choice
Good process = reasonable choice
I think the process was at least bad, and possibly ‘corrupt’….
I still don’t see it, in fact there’s several comments missing.
Well, to show you I do,
David GreenwaldPost authorJuly 15, 2020 at 11:43 am
I think you have to look at this as a decision dyad.
Bad method + Good Choice = no action
Bad method + Bad Choice = action
Good method + Bad choice = no action
Good method + Good Choice = no action
So likely unless both the method and the choice are bad, there is going to be no action on the part of the activists. That doesn’t make it a good method, it just means you are willing to live with the result.
Ignore Commenter
Report comment↓
Keith OlsenJuly 15, 2020 at 11:48 am
So likely unless both the method and the choice are bad, there is going to be no action on the part of the activists.
So you’re saying the choice was bad.
Why is the choice bad David?
That’s the comment but it doesn’t show for me.
Keith… did you accidentally hit the “ignore commenter” thingy? I’ve done that more than once, so no ‘fault’… David can ‘reset’ if asked @ the “info@davisvanguard.org” e-mail…
Several of us have ‘dumbthumbed’ one or more times…
I offer this as a friendly post… although you may not take it that way… your choice…
That’s not it because several other comments from David still show up. I even tried to log out and see if that was it. Weird….
This (in a nutshell) describes a major difference in perspectives.
I don’t know of anyone on here who denies that racism exists, or that wants to “protect” their own “group”, at the expense of other groups.
(I’m not even convinced that anyone cares about their “own” group more than any other group, with the exception of those who “sign up” to support that goal – at least for those within those subgroups.)
As long as folks acknowledge that this is actually about skin color (and what that means to them), there wouldn’t be any argument (regarding that fact, at least).
The problem starts when folks TELL you what the reason is UP-FRONT, and then deny or change it afterward (within a very short period of time, to boot). (Or, their lackeys do it for them, to put a “political spin” on it.) 😉
It starts bordering on absurdity (or surrealism), at some point.
It’s kind of embarrassing to see this type of thing from those who claim to be politically forthcoming and “liberal”.
All people have to do is read many of the comments and articles right here on the Vanguard to see what this is really all about. It’s out in plain sight.
Now, if one is actually concerned about persistent racism, maybe they should start with a development proposal that is STILL ATTEMPTING to prevent those without a “connection” to Davis from living at that development. And, whose potential clientele are predominantly “white” as a result of that, combined with their age.
There’s only a handful on here (well – one guy, in particular) who is CONSISTENT regarding this type of issue. Most of the rest (especially David) “pick and choose” their concerns, regarding racism.
Though I suppose the proper terminology is that it would provide a “preference” (whatever that means) to those with a connection to Davis, and are of retirement age.
I find it amusing when people who consistently deny that racism is an issue are the first to whine about what they see as reverse racism.
I find it amusing that people who claim racism is rooted in everything can’t see what in my opinion is the obvious racism being exhibited with the reaction to the school board selection.
I don’t know who those people are. Never met one, or heard from one on here.
There’s really only one “type”. And, it’s very similar to ageism, sexism, etc.
Seems to me that this issue (in general) is not unlike those of any particular race (skin color) “rooting” for a boxer of their own race. Makes me uncomfortable to see people doing that.