By Jose J. Granda
What is the biggest lesson we should take away from the Peterson scandal from last winter and what steps would you take as a school board member to prevent its recurrence in the future?
I think the biggest lesson is that School Board members need to recognize when they have a conflict of interest whether it is in their actions, their beliefs, their campaigns or their own agendas. The position of School Board trustee should never be used to advance personal beliefs or favor family members or friends. Nancy Peterson’s biggest problem was that failure to recognize a conflict of interest of her beliefs regarding volleyball coaching and their relation to her own personal feelings towards the coach in a situation which involved Nancy’s daughter. On the other hand I understand her feelings as a mother which in this case got mixed with her position as a trustee.
We have a situation in this race with similar potential conflict of interest. Everyone seems to think Madhavi Sunder or Barbara Archer can do no wrong. That needs to be explored with a magnifying glass. Madhavi Sunder wrote an article 10/14/2014 in the Vanguard entitled: “Respect for All in Davis Classrooms“. For the record, I agree with her that discrimination, racism and bullying are wrong against anyone and should never be tolerated in schools, and all children need to find in school a safe place. However on close examination of her article I see a conflict of interest that she fails to recognize. She starts the article saying:
“Schools must be safe spaces for children of all races, and for LGBT children. As School Board Trustee, I will work to my utmost to ensure that all our children feel valued and respected. While Davis is a wonderful community and I feel lucky to raise my children here, we are hardly immune from issues of racism and homophobia. We live in a country and a world where racism and homophobia sadly persist.”
By LGBT children she means Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual and Transgender children. For the record I also am against any discrimination against these groups. However, Madhavi uses the word “homophobia.” The problem here is that she fails to see that calling anyone a homophobic is equally discriminatory against those children who hold religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. If you take 10 children of any classroom in Davis, at least 7 belong to groups like Catholics, Christians, Muslims and Mormons. Are the beliefs and values of these children also to be respected, included, and not ridiculed by calling them homophobic? Injecting an issue so private to these children and making it a public discussion in a classroom, I am not sure falls in the duties of a trustee as she clearly indicates she intends to use her position as a trustee to impose her beliefs in this area. I do not think I am misinterpreting her article because in another part she states:
‘If elected to the Davis School Board I would support safe, inclusive environments that promote engagement and learning for all students.”
Note the use of the words “support” and “inclusive”. Does this include support and inclusion of Catholics, Christians, Muslims and Mormons?
“8) Offer diverse images. We must ensure that students of color and LGBT students see themselves reflected in the school curriculum, in the people we celebrate through naming, and in the images that they see around them.”
Clearly these statements have Madhavi telling the public that she intends to use her position as a trustee to promote her own personal beliefs on the subject. When she states that Lesbian, Gays, Bisexual and Transgender students should see themselves “reflected in the school curriculum”, I believe she has gone overboard. I respect what Madhavi believes but her position as a trustee is not the place to trample the personal beliefs of others.
Madhavi fails to see other conflicts of interest in her campaign. Raising thousands of dollars for the campaign from outside the district and injecting the Democratic Party in a nonpartisan race, does not give a comfortable feeling that this campaign is local and nonpartisan. Moreover there is a grave situation when in her mailer distributed to homes in Davis she lists the endorsement of the County Clerk, Freddy Oakley. For those of you who may be wondering what is the issue here: Freddy Oakley is in charge of counting the votes for Madhavi Sunder and for other School Board candidates including me. If the person in charge of the vote count endorses one of the candidates she has violated the public trust on the fairness of the election and has put that count under scrutiny for fraud. Madhavi sees no wrong in listing the County Clerk as endorsing her, the very person who will count the votes in this election. I do not deny Ms. Oakley her right to pick and to vote for whomever she wants, but using her position as County Clerk to promote one of the candidates is also a conflict of interest for her. For Madhavi to accept that favor from the County Clerk raises serious questions.
Barbara Archer also has a conflict of interest regarding the parcel taxes. She has co-chaired the campaign in favor of Measure C and she has every right to do so because that is what she believes. However at the same time she has been a member of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee for measures C, E and A that evaluates the use of those funds. The evaluation has to be done by someone impartial, independent, not by those who campaigned to pass the measures; otherwise there is no credibility in such evaluation. If she is elected, would she still continue in that position? She has been silent on this issue.
What do I suggest we do in the future? School Board trustees should reflect on the lesson we learned from the Nancy Peterson ordeal: conflicts of interest should be avoided at all cost, regardless of what the issue is or how dear some beliefs are to them.
If I am elected, I will quickly point out conflicts of interest that potentially may carry us down the wrong path. I will excuse myself from any issue that has the slightest color of conflict of interest. For this reason and before the election, I invite all candidates to reflect on this and take steps to separate their interests from the position of a trustee whose duty is to represent all Davis voters, including me..!
Dr. Granda’s point about Madhavi Sunder’s statement is quite solid.
With that said, what he points out through his example is that we are getting to a point in our society where it is almost impossible to say anything. Saying something puts a person at risk of making a mistake.
In his comment on the answers provided by the candidates in yesterday’s school board election article, hpierce said, “I am disappointed in all the answers. […] Alas, these candidates are not “stand up”, they’re politicians. Based on the answers to this question, cannot positively support ANY of these candidates.”
Saying what hpierce said in a different way, “The candidates’ answers show a strong aversion to making a mistake in what they say. As a result none of the answers really say anything substantive.”
I’m not sure it was Dr. Granda’s intention to make the point that hpierce has illuminated, but make it he did.
“Dr. Granda’s point about Madhavi Sunder’s statement is quite solid.”
Um, what? You consider the quote below a “solid” point? I don’t.
“The problem here is that she fails to see that calling anyone a homophobic is equally discriminatory against those children who hold religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong.”
Been gone all day. Sorry for the slow response. Why don’t you think it is a solid point? As I read his point, it centered around the use of the heightened rhetoric of the term “homophobic” since it paints with a broad “irrational fear” brush, as opposed to a less sweeping and less fear-oriented alternative such as “concerns based on religious beliefs.”
I personally have none of those concerns, but I do acknowledge that others do. The key is for them to keep those beliefs to themselves and not impose their beliefs on others … not take something that is private and make it public.
It’s a big leap from (a) “homophobia exists” to (b) “everyone with religious concerns about homosexuality is homophobic.” Madhavi said (a); Granda accused her of saying (b).
As a side point, Granda’s 7 out of 10 number is unsupported and seems wrong to me.
Granda’s comments are hyporcritical:
There is nothing discriminatory about observing homophobic behavior. If I profess to hold religious beliefs that a black person or a Hispanic is inherently flawed or in some way ‘wrong’ because of a characteristic over which they have no control (race), I would accurately be called a racist. Same thing is true for homophobes. Apparently Granda somehow believes his religious beliefs relieve him of legal and moral responsibilities. Of all the candidates for DJUSD Board, Granda is not just unqualified but should be considered disqualified.
Dave, I didn’t read Dr. Granda’s remark as addressing the beliefs, but rather the public name calling … Beliefs can be, and very often are, personal and private. Our Constitution grants us all the freedom of belief … but not the right to impose those beliefs on others.
Read his quote again, Matt. Granda states that, depending on one’s religious beliefs, it is not discriminatory to discriminate. He advocates a “get out of jail free card” for anyone who wants to hide behind their religious belief. It is not “name-calling” to describe a person accurately as long as it is in fact accurate. If the shoe fits, wear it, especially when one is running for public office. How are we better off by using euphemisms to describe anti-social behavior and thereby aid and abet that behavior? I can only conclude that aversion to accurate descriptions of behavior are uncomfortable when the person who objects “resembles that remark”.
Dave, I have copied and pasted Dr. Granda’s words below. Where does he say it is not discriminitory to discriminate? His words argue for a middle/neutral ground where private personal beliefs are kept private. His question “Does this include support and inclusion of Catholics, Christians, Muslims and Mormons?” challenges us to achieve that middle/neutral ground.
One of the major challenges of achieving neutral ground (where the incidents of judgmental rhetoric are absent) is that we start from the outer “swings of the pendulum” and mutually dampen those “swings.” In his point B) I do think Dr. Granda may be interpreting “reflected in the school curriculum” in a more extreme way than Madhavi Sunder meant. Those words could mean “including one or more for-credit courses on gender identity in the DJUSD course catalog” or “using school materials that fully reflect the melting pot of diverse peoples that make up our society … not promoting one group over another … being inclusive not exclusive.” Both those meanings are “affirmative action.” The latter promotes student self identification of themselves as all on equal footing, all part of the melting pot. It also allows each student to not have to throw their private beliefs into the melting pot unless and until they want to … and then, when they do throw those beliefs into the pot, do it with respect for all the others in the pot.
.
.
Please note Dave, that I may be wrong in the beliefs I have expressed above, and I respect the fact that you may disagree with me. They are my beliefs though. I simply don’t think Dr. Granda swung the pendulum back as far as you do. Did he stop the pendulum at dead-center/neutral? No. But as I said in my initial comment, I do think the point he raised has merit.
I can understand why someone like her would want to be on the oversight committee. She would want to make sure that parcel tax moneys are being spent as promised in the language of the campaign information submitted to the county.
I doubt she would continue in that position if she were elected. If Granda is tabling at the Farmer’s Market with Archer, it would be as easy as walking over to her and asking, “Hi, Barbara, if you’re elected as a school board member, then will you continue to serve on the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee?” I have the feeling it is convenient to not ask, because if he got a “no” answer from Archer, then he would lose this criticism.
I think it would be worth it for Granda to ask to be on this committee. I would wonder if he asked previously to be on the committee. And if not, I wonder if he has attended any of the committee meetings.
I think it is very easy to identify possible conflicts of interest in others, and much more difficult to identify them in ourselves.
For instance, what would be the position of Mr. Granda, or any of the candidates on an enforced “moment of silence” which used to be called a “moment of prayer ” in our schools. As a candidate for public office, it is often a losing strategy to admit that your are not a member of any identified religion the default position in our society being that one is a “person of faith”. It is at least as difficult for a child to be singled out as “different” in this way.
What about the recitation of the pledge of allegiance at assemblies ? Does this not favor children who are being raised to be patriotic over those who are being raised as pacifists and feel that the flag should not be glorified ?
What would be of much more interest to me would have been for each of the candidates, Mr. Granda included to point out their own potential areas of conflict and the kind of situation from which they would recuse themselves rather pointing out the potential pitfalls for others.