The Del Mar Union School District faces an evening of wrestling with tough and important questions at its March 26 meeting (a day after presstime for this newspaper).
Its trustees must decide how to replace a recently resigned board member, whether to make a major shift in the funding of enrichment classes, and if comments made in the press by a board member violated bylaws.
The school board will also hear a report on the financial impacts of a recent decision to buy out the remainder of Superintendent Thomas Bishop’s contract, vote on another contract making Assistant Superintendent Janet Bernard his interim replacement, and begin deciding how to find a permanent leader in the wake of Bishop’s resignation one month ago.
The packed agenda for the March regular meeting illustrates the continuing reverberations of the Feb. 26 decision. Several of the biggest issues to be decided are directly or indirectly related to the departure of the superintendent.
Since then, trustee Linda Crawford has resigned, a tenuous recall campaign has begun against the majority of the board, and donations to the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation have dropped off, according to its president.
In her letter of resignation, Crawford did not specify Bishop’s ouster as her reason for resigning. Rather, she cited “philosophical differences,” and said the board should exercise its “fiduciary responsibilities … particularly with reference to the sale of the Shores property in Del Mar.”
Crawford was part of a unanimous vote to sell the 5-acre property to the city of Del Mar, but, when reached by phone, would not comment further on that issue.
“I found it extremely difficult and was compromising my beliefs in just working with this board,” Crawford said.
It is all but certain that the remaining four board members will vote to appoint a temporary replacement for Crawford, who was up for re-election in November. The district would have to wait until Nov. 4 to hold an election for a temporary replacement, leaving it with only four members for more than seven months.
“If we were to have an election that would essentially leave the seat vacant,” Board President Annette Easton said.
She said the board will likely issue a questionnaire allowing community members to nominate themselves for the temporary seat, then interview the candidates at a special meeting and vote to choose one. The candidate would be free to run for the permanent seat in the fall.
Less certain is the process for finding a permanent superintendent, though trustees have said they hope to hire one over the summer. The March agenda includes information about three search firms the district could use to help find a replacement for Bishop, and the group may vote to choose one and begin the process.
The board will likely ratify a contract for Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum Janet Bernard to take on duties as Interim Superintendent, a post she took days after Bishop’s departure.
It will also consider a report documenting the financial impacts to the district of the decision to end Bishop’s tenure early. Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Dena Whittington calculated the net cost the decision to the district at $262,383 over three fiscal years.
Under the agreement, Bishop would receive salary and health benefits through October 2009, totaling over $287,000.
Staff recommends that the district use a one-time payout of $255,946 to cover the costs remaining in the resignation agreement. That money is from unexpected, excess equity in the district’s worker’s compensation fund and is currently held in a special reserve account.
One issue likely to stimulate debate is a proposal from Del Mar Schools Education Foundation Chairman Bob Gans to change the current fundraising system, where the Foundation’s contributions to the district pay for enrichment teachers in the current year, to a system where the funds go toward the costs of the following year. The Foundation is due to make a $500,000 payment to the district for the costs of the enrichment program in May.
The immediate impact of the proposed change would be a $500,000 hit to the district’s general fund. But the shifting of fundraising to one year ahead has been a long-time goal of many in the district and foundation.
Yet the reason for the change request is rife with controversy. Gans says the Foundation has been hurting for donations since Bishop resigned, and that shifting funding focus to the next year would help assuage those who’ve withheld contributions in protest.
What influence the district has on Foundation donations is somewhat murky. Trustee Katherine White said it has to accept donations with whatever terms come attached.
“However they give us the money is how we’re going to accept and use the money,” White said. “It’s a gift to us and whatever restrictions they place on the gift, we’ll abide by them.”
Bernard, the interim chief of the district, agreed, saying the district’s reserves could afford such an impact this year, but not sustained into the future.
“We can’t tell them how they are to use the money,” said Bernard, who did not make a recommendation on the issue in a staff report. “Our reserves are healthy, so it is something that the board could consider at this time.”
While the district may have to respect earmarks on donations, in order for Gans’ proposal to defuse protests against the district to work as planned, the district must plan an arrangement for next year similar to the current one, where schools may raise money for their own sites only, and it must maintain the same number of standard enrichment teachers allocated to each school. Those decisions are up to the school board.
The board may also discuss — though is unlikely to take any action on — a complaint by group calling itself the “Concerned Citizens of the Del Mar Union School District” that trustee Katherine White violated board bylaws in statements she made in an article on the news Web site Voiceofsandiego.org about goings-on in the district.
The complaint, voiced in a letter with dozens of signatures, says White violated board bylaws of governing standards and the disclosure of confidential and privileged information.
Bernard said that no evidence of any of the events White referred to could be found in district files, so there are no grounds for punishing her for having disclosed confidential or privileged information.
But whether the statement violated governance standards for school boards was a matter of interpretation, and would have to be discussed by the board, Bernard said.
White said that there was no way to censure a member in the board’s bylaws.
“I don’t think it violated any bylaws,” White said. “But if we do think they violated a bylaw, we have no mechanism to do anything about it.”
POSTED: 10:32 am PDT March 27, 2008 UPDATED: 10:34 am PDT March 27, 2008
DEL MAR, Calif. -- A Del Mar school board trustee has resigned after dissenting on a controversial vote, and the remaining trustees have decided they'll appoint a replacement rather than hold a special election, it was reported Thursday.
The Del Mar Union School District Board of Trustees voted 3-2 on Feb. 26 to buy out Superintendent Tom Bishop's contract, citing problems with his management style. Trustee Linda Crawford was one of the two who voted against the buyout and has since resigned.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that the remaining board voted Wednesday night to appoint her replacement rather than hold a special election.
Those interested in the seat must apply by April 25 and will be given five minutes during the board's May 7 meeting to plead their case to trustees.
Crawford's replacement will finish out her term, which expires in November.
The Del Mar school board will appoint a replacement for Linda Crawford instead of holding an election. Crawford resigned earlier this month.
The Del Mar Union School District board yesterday approved procedures and a timeline for the appointment to be made May 7 at a public meeting at which applicants will each have five minutes to speak. The meeting will be at Ocean Air School, 11444 Canter Heights Drive. Applicants will start addressing the board at 3:15 p.m.
The district will advertise the vacancy in newspapers between Tuesday and April 15. Application packets will be available Tuesday on the district's Web site at www.dmusd.org and at district offices, 225 Ninth St.
Applications are due by 3 p.m. April 25 by fax, mail or delivery to the district's offices. Applications are public records and will be available for review.
Crawford was one of two trustees who voted Feb. 26 against buying out Superintendent Tom Bishop's contract. The board approved the buyout with a 3-2 vote.
Crawford resigned March 12. Her term expires in November, and her replacement will serve until then.
DMUSD Regular Board Meeting
Del Mar Hills Academy – Multi-Purpose Room
14085 Mango Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
Wednesday, March 26, 2008, 5:45 pm (Click here for map)
The below letter was sent to the DMUSD on March 11, signed by over 100 community members, requesting that Katherine White be censured for her comments in the Voice of San Diego article, Del Mar's Missing Money, Mysterious Politics.
This issue is on the agenda for the March 26 Board Meeting.
March 11, 2008
The Office of the Superintendent
Del Mar Union School District
225 9th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: Agenda item for March 26, 2008 Board of Trustees meeting
We request that the Board of Trustees consider disciplinary action against Board Member Katherine White because of possible violations of Board Bylaws due to her inappropriate and offensive public comments in Ian S. Port's article in the voiceofsandiego.org on 2/19/08 titled Del Mar's Missing Money, Mysterious Politics. Her quote from the article is as follows:
School board member Katherine White said the circumstances -- the leak of an embarrassing story when only a few knew about it -- "are something. "
"I didn't read about it in the paper when there was a principal drunk in a school event," White said. "And I didn't read in the paper when a school employee was using drugs on campus. And I don't read about the principal that screams at his employees. And I don't read about the other thefts that have happened in the schools this year ... I don't understand what makes this such a reportable event when those other things I've never even been officially told about."
We believe Ms. White's comments violate the following Board Bylaws (see attached):
Board Bylaw 9005: GOVERNMENT STANDARDS
Board Bylaw 9011: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL / PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Please include this request as an agenda item for the March 26, 2008 Board of Trustees meeting.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizens of the Del Mar Union School District
Caryn Anderton
Ed Arevalo
Jennifer Arevalo
John Arnold
April Barduson
Ted Barduson
Doug Bell
Kathy Bell
Shelly Bingham
Anne Boucher
Toby Boucher
Brian Burgoon
Wendy Burgoon
Ian Byrne
Stacey Byrne
D J Carney
Theresa Carter
Tracey Chester
Tonya Cohen
Blake Colburn
Jill Colburn
Pamela Covingnou
Phillippe Covingnou
Sally DeVito
Charles Doherty
Lisa Doherty
Ed Domanico
Susan Domanico
Kim Dort
George Duff
Kathy Duff
Jennifer Eastlack
Robert Eastlack
Bill Eiffert
Adrienne Espinoza
Bill Fanning
Debbie Fanning
Bill Farrell
Mary Farrell
Brian Ffrench
Katie Ffrench
Pat Freeman
Richard Freeman
Noelle Gately
Becky Giacalone
Joe Giacalone
Dean Gilbert
Charles Gilbreth
Maria Gilbreth
Mary Jo Gleeson
Terri Harbison
Janet Henzel
Rae Nell Hicks
Richard Hicks
Leslie Hodge
Eileen Hoppen
Chris Howe
Erin How
Bob Husband
Sue Husband
Thanh Huyen
Cathy Ingrassia
Joe Ingrassia
Bret Johnsen
Catherine Johnsen
Bruce Kahn
Janet Kahn
Amir Kalali
Denise Kalali
J D Katzin
Margaret Katzin
Monica Kiy
Richard Kiy
Kristen Low
Elizabeth Mackey
Michael Mackey
Mario Manzano
Svetlana Maric
Svetislav Maric
Gina Maruska
Keith Maruska
Kelly Mauzey
Beverly McGinty
Nadia Merk
Christina Mendelsohn
Dan Mendelsohn
Ellen Mitgang
Steve Mitgang
Bill Morgan
Gretchen Morgan
Ken Morris
Catherine Murano
Carl Murano
Andrew Murphy
Jeanine Neeley
Scott Neeley
Joan Nichols
Martin Nichols
Terri O'Brien
Maria Olson
Myra Pelowski
Rina Poplawski
Sergio Poplawski
Lawrence Poteet
Ravindra Prabu
Arthur Regottaz
Debbie Regottaz
Comischell Rodriguez
Roberto Rodriguez
Cristina Rusconi
Sheri Salameh
Tamer Salameh
Cathy Scheg
Timothy Scheg
David Silva
Laura Silva
Mary Taylor
Kiim Tieman
Pat Tieman
Joan Tyson
Ulisse Vicinanza
Christina Wachs
Steven Wachs
Jason Walton
Kristen Walton
Nancy Wheeler
Chris Wood
Stephanie Wood
March 19, 2008
To:
From:
Subject:
Board Members
Janet Bernard, Interim Superintendent
Board Discussion, Possible Violations of Board Bylaws
On March 11, 2008, the administration received a letter from the Concerned Citizens of the Del Mar Union School District. (Attachment A) This letter requested that the "Board of Trustees consider disciplinary action against Board Member Katherine White because of possible violations of Board Bylaws." The Concerned Citizens group cited the following two Board Bylaws that may have been violated:
Board Bylaw 9005: Governance Standards
Board Bylaw 9011: Disclosure of Confidential/Privileged Information
Copies of both of these Bylaws are attached. (Attachments B & C)
After conducting a review of personnel records, the administration found no evidence to indicate that any of the alleged comments made by Member White were documented. Therefore, the alleged remarks could not be considered a breach of confidential or privileged information as outlined in Bylaws 9005 and 90 II. Rather, the comments could only be perceived as an opinion based on hearsay and innuendo.
Board Bylaw 9010: Public Statements (Attachment D) could be used by the Board to determine if a violation occurred. This Bylaw states the following:
The Governing Board recognizes the rights of Board members to freely express their views and encourages open discussion of issues during the Board meeting. The Board believes that effective Board members have a responsibility to express themselves, whether in agreement or disagreement with the Board majority, in ways that promote the Board's ability to govern the district.
Guiding question for the discussion: Were the alleged public statements by Board Member White expressed in a manner that would promote the Board's ability to govern the District?
Board Bylaw 9010 further states:
When speaking to community groups, the media, or other members of the public, individual Board members should recognize that their statements may be perceived as reflecting their views and positions of the Board. Board members have a responsibility to identify personal viewpoints as such and not as a viewpoint of the Board.
Guiding questions for the discussion: Could the alleged comments possibly be perceived as a viewpoint of all Board members? Did the Board member specifically identify the comments as a personal viewpoint?
FISCAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDED:
None.
The Interim Superintendent recommends that the Board discuss whether or not Board Bylaw 9010 was violated and determine what action, if any, should be taken.
DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Bylaws/Administrative Regulations of the Board
Board Bylaw 9005: GOVERNANCE STANDARDS
Board Responsibility to Community
A Governing Board Member should honor the high responsibility which Board membership demands:
BY thinking always in tenus of "children fIrst."
BY understanding that the basic function of the School Board member is "policy making" and not "administrative," and by accepting the responsibility of learning to intelligently discriminate between these two functions.
BY accepting the responsibility along with fellow Board members of seeing that the maximum facilities and resources are provided for the proper functioning of the schools.
BY refusing to "play politics" in either the traditional partisan, or in any petty sense.
BY representing at all times the entire school community.
BY accepting the responsibility of becoming well informed concerning the duties of Board members, and the proper functions of public schools.
BY recognizing responsibility as a state offIcial to seek the improvement of education throughout the state.
A Governing Board Member should meet his/her responsibilities to the community:
BY attempting to appraise fairly both the present and future educational needs of the community.
BY regarding it as a major responsibility of the Board to interpret the aims and the methods of the schools to the community.
BY insisting that all school business transactions be on an open, ethical, and aboveboard basis.
BY vigorously seeking adequate financial support for the schools.
BY refusing to discuss personnel matters or any other confidential business of the Board outside of an official Board meeting.
A Governing Board member should respect relationships with other members of the Board.
BY recognizing that authority rests only with the Board in official meetings, and that the individual member has no legal status to bind the Board outside of such meetings.
BY recognizing that integrity of his/her predecessors and associates, and the merit of their work.
BY refusing to make statements or promises as to how the member will vote on a matter, which should properly come before the Board as a whole.
BY making decisions only after all facts bearing on a question have been presented and discussed.
BY respecting the opinion of others and by graciously conforming to the principle of majority rules.
Board - Superintendent Relationship
A Governing Board member should maintain desirable relations with the Superintendent of schools and staff:
BY striving to procure, when the vacancy exists, the best professional leader available for the head administrative post.
BY giving the Superintendent full administrative authority for properly discharging the Superintendent's professional duties, and by also holding the Superintendent responsible.
BY acting only after receiving the recommendation of the Superintendent in matters of employment or dismissal of school personnel.
BY having the Superintendent present at all meetings of the Board except when the Superintendent's contract and salary are under consideration.
BY referring all complaints to the proper administrative office and by discussing them only at a regular meeting after failure of administrative solution.
BY striving to provide adequate safeguards around the Superintendent and other staff members to the end that they can live happily and comfortably in the community and discharge their educational functions on a thoroughly professional basis.
BY presenting personal criticism of any employee directly to the Superintendent in accordance with sound principles of personnel policies and procedures.
The Board has the power of establishing its own procedures (Education Code 35010).
The Board shall provide guides of discretionary action to those agents of the district to whom the Board delegates authority. This right shall be retained solely by the Board. These guides for discretionary action shall constitute the policies governing the operation of the school system.
The formulation and adoption of these written policies shall constitute the basic method by which the Board shall exercise its leadership in the operation of the school system. The study and evaluation of reports concerning the execution of its written policies shall constitute the basic method by which the Board shall exercise its management of the schools.
The formal adoption of policies shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board. Only those written statements so adopted and so recorded shall be regarded as official Board policy.
The implementation of policies is an administrative task to be performed by the Superintendent and the Superintendent's staff, who shall be held responsible for the effective administration and supervision of the entire school system.
All actions of the Board shall be taken only in official Board meetings called, scheduled, and conducted according to these bylaws and the statutes of the state.
DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Bylaws/Administrative Regulations of the Board
Board Bylaw 9011: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL / PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Confidential/privileged information shall be released only as allowed by law.
Confidential/privileged information is defined as:
Information that is not a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act
Information that "by law" may not be disclosed
Information that may have a material financial effect on the Governing Board member
The Governing Board holds that information which is produced for or which comes out during closed meetings of the Board concerning subjects which are lawful matters for consideration at closed meetings is privileged information, and shall not be divulged or released by any member of the Board or by any employee of the district, unless and until a majority of the Board members agree to release the information. This is not to permit withholding information about the purpose and subject(s) of the closed session as required for public information under Government Code Section 54957.7. Information from closed sessions shall be released by the Board President or Chair of the meeting in which the closed session is held.
Release of privileged information contrary to the provisions of this bylaw by a member of the Board may result in public censure of the member by a majority vote of the members of the Board.
Release of privileged information by an employee of the district shall be considered by the Board to be unprofessional and/or unethical conduct, and a serious violation of the reasonable regularities of the Board of this district, and shall be grounds for disciplinary action under applicable policies and regulations.
Board Members
Janet Berard, Interim Superintendent
Board Discussion, Board Vacancy - Approval of Provisional Appointment/Election and of Timeline/Procedures
The resignation of former Board Member, Linda Crawford, on March 12, 2008 has prompted a need for the Board to determine the best option for filling the vacancy. Mrs. Crawford's letter of resignation is attached.
When a letter of resignation is filed with the County Superintendent's Office, the Governing Board has sixty (60) days to either call an election or make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy. The sixtieth day is May 12, 2008.
Legal references, including Board Bylaw 9223: Filling Vacancies are attached for the Board's information and review.
Peg Marks, Legal Analyst at the San Diego County Office of Education advised the administration on the following options for filling the vacancy.
Election
If the Board determines to order an election to fill the vacancy, it must be held on November 4, 2008. The Board may adopt a resolution to authorize an all-mail ballot election. The form for adopting a resolution may be obtained from Legal Services at SDCOE.
OR
Appointment (The overwhelming choice by almost all districts In San Diego County)
The Board may determine its own procedures for advertising the vacancy, interviewing candidates, and making a provisional appointment. The Board may not discuss or act upon the appointment in closed session.
The appointed Board member will be in office until November 2008 when Linda Crawford's term would have expired. Unless a petition for a special election is filed with the County Superintendent of Schools within thirty (30) days after the Regular Board Meeting of March 26, 2008 Regular Board Meeting of March 26, 2008 date of the provisional appointment, the appointment will remain effective until November. Ms. Marks advised the District that a petition for a special June election could not be a consideration at this time because the deadline for filing was March 17, 2008. She also advised the District that a special election would be a very costly process.
After the provisional appointment, a notice of the action must be posted in three (3) public places and published in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Del Mar School community.
The normal procedure for filling board vacancies is as follows:
Publish the vacancy in local newspapers for two weeks
Accept applications, which become part of the public record
Make the provisional appointment
Attached for the Board's review are a sample timeline and application for the Board's consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDED:
None at this time.
The Interim Superintendent recommends that the Board approve a provisional appointment to fill the Board member vacancy and also approve the recommended timeline and application.
March 10, 2008
Dr. Randolph E. Ward
San Diego County Superintendent of Schools
6401 Linda Vista Road
San Diego, CA 92111
Dear Dr. Ward:
This is to notify you that I am resigning as a School Board Trustee of the Del Mar Union School District, effective March 12, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
[ Linda Crawford ]
Del Mar Union School District
225 9th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
March 11, 2008
Janet Bernard
Interim Superintendent
Del Mar Union School District
225 Ninth Street
Del Mar, CA 92014-2716
Dear Ms. Bernard:
We have received and filed a letter of resignation from Del Mar Union School District Governing Board Member Linda Crawford. Pursuant to Education Code section 5090, her resignation is effective on March 12, 2008.
Whenever a letter of resignation is filed with the County Superintendent of Schools, within 60 days the members of the governing board shall either call an election or make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy. The sixtieth day is May 12, 2008.
A detailed outline of the procedures for filling a board vacancy and the necessary forms are enclosed. If the Board chooses to fill the vacancy by appointment, please note that we would appreciate receiving copies of the Notice of Provisional Appointment and the Roster of Public Agencies Filing.
Please do not hesitate to call Peg Marks, legal services analyst, at (858) 292-3746, if our office can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
RANDOLPH E. WARD
County Superintendent of Schools
By
Carole A. Parks, Deputy
Vacancies on school district governing boards or community college district boards are caused by any of the events specified in Section 1770 of the Government Code, or by a failure to elect. A vacancy resulting from resignation occurs when the written resignation is filed with the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction over the district, except where a deferred effective date is specified in the resignation so filed, in which case the resignation shall become effective on that date. A written resignation, whether specifying a deferred effective date or otherwise, shall, upon being filed with the county superintendent of schools be irrevocable.
5091.
Whenever a vacancy occurs, or whenever a resignation has been filed with the county superintendent of schools containing a deferred effective date, the school district or community college district governing board shall, within 60 days of the vacancy or the filing of the deferred resignation, either order an election or make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy. A governing board member may not defer the effective date of his or her resignation for more than 60 days after he or she files the resignation with the county superintendent of schools.
In the event that a governing board fails to make a provisional appointment or order an election within the prescribed 60-day period as required by this section, the county superintendent of schools shall order an election to fill the vacancy.
When an election is ordered, it shall be held on the next established election date provided pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1000) of Division 1 of the Elections Code not less than 130 days after the order of the election.
If a provisional appointment is made within the 60-day period, the registered voters of the district may, within 30 days from the date of the appointment, petition for the conduct of a special election to fill the vacancy. A petition shall be deemed to bear a sufficient number of signatures if signed by at least the number of registered voters of the district equal to 11/2 percent of the number of registered voters of the district at the time of the last regular election for governing board members, or 25 registered voters, whichever is greater. However, in districts with registered voters of less than 2,000 persons, a petition shall be deemed to bear a sufficient number of signatures if signed by at least 5 percent of the number of registered voters of the district at the time of the last regular election for governing board members.
The petition shall be submitted to the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction who shall have 30 days to verify the signatures. 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. However, if an established election date, as defined in Section 1000 of the Elections Code, occurs between the 130th day and the 150th day following the order of the election, the county superintendent of schools may order the special election to be conducted on the regular election date.
A provisional appointment made pursuant to Subdivision (a) confers all powers and duties of a governing board member upon the appointee immediately following his or her appointment.
A person appointed to fill a vacancy shall hold office only until the next regularly scheduled election for district governing board members, whereupon an election shall be held to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term. A person elected at an election to fill the vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the term in which the vacancy occurs or will occur.
Whenever a petition calling for a special election is circulated, the petition shall meet all of the following requirements:
The petition shall contain the estimate of the elections official of the cost of conducting the special election.
The name and residence address of at least one, but not more than five, of the proponents of the petition shall appear on the petition, each of which proponents shall be a registered voter of the school district or community college district, as applicable.
None of the text or other language of the petition shall appear in less than six-point type.
The petition shall be prepared and circulated in conformity with Sections 100 and 104 of the Elections Code.
If any of the requirements of this subdivision are not met as to any petition calling for a special election, the county superintendent of schools shall not verify the signatures, nor shall any further action be taken with respect to the petition.
No person shall permit the list of names on petitions prescribed by this section to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the petition for the purpose of holding an election pursuant to this section.
The petition filed with the county superintendent of schools shall be subject to the restrictions in Section 6253.5 of the Government Code.
Elections held pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (C) shall be conducted in as nearly the same manner as practicable as other governing board member elections.
5092.
Whenever a provisional appointment is made to the governing board of a school district pursuant to section 5091, the board shall, within 10 days of the provisional appointment of a person to fill a vacancy which occurs or will occur, post notices of both the actual vacancy or the filing of a deferred resignation and also the provisional appointment in three public places in the district and shall publish a notice pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code. If there is no newspaper of general circulation published in the district, notice need not be published.
The notice shall state the fact of the vacancy or resignation and the date of the occurrence of the vacancy or the date of the filing of, and the effective date of, the resignation. The notice shall also contain the full name of the provisional appointee to the board and the date of his appointment, and a statement that unless a petition calling for a special election, containing a sufficient number of signatures, is filed in the office of county superintendent of schools within 30 days of the date of the provisional appointment, it shall become an effective appointment.
5093.
There shall be no special election or appointment to fill a vacancy on a governing board if the vacancy occurs within four months of the end of the term of that position.
Section 5091 shall not apply to a vacancy on a governing board if the vacancy occurs, or a resignation specifying a deferred effective date is filed with the county superintendent of schools, during the period between six months and 130 days prior to a regularly scheduled governing board election and the position is not scheduled to be filled at such election. In such a case, the position shall be filled at a special election for that position to be consolidated with the regular election. A person elected to fill a position under this subdivision shall take office at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the governing board following the certification of the election and shall serve only until the end of the term of the position which he or she was elected to fill.
If a special election pursuant to Section 5091 could be consolidated with the next regular election for governing board members, and the vacant position is scheduled to be filled at such regular election, there shall be no special election.
5094.
If for any reason vacancies should occur in a majority of the offices on any school district or community college district governing board, the president of the county board of education having jurisdiction may appoint members of the county board of education to the district governing board until new members of the governing board are elected or appointed.
5095.
Whenever any of the offices on any school district governing board or community college district governing board is vacant, the remaining governing board member or members, if any, and any governing board member or members elected or appointed to fill the vacancies, who have qualified, shall have all the powers and perform all the duties of the governing board.
DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Bylaws/Administrative Regulations of the Board
Board Bylaw 9223: FILLING VACANCIES
A vacancy exists when a member of the Board submits his/her resignation in writing to the San Diego County Superintendent of Schools (Education Code 5090).
A vacancy may be declared by remaining members of the Board if a Board member fails to comply with all the requirements for continuing in public office in the State of California, including, but not limited to, failure to attend Board meetings for three consecutive months unless prevented by illness or unless absent from California with permission required by law (Government Code Section 1770).
Whenever a vacancy occurs, or whenever a resignation has been filed with the County Superintendent of Schools containing a deferred effective date, the Board shall, within 60 days of the vacancy of the filing of the deferred resignation, either call an election or make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy (Education Code 5091).
Del Mar Union School District
TIMELINE FOR BOARD APPOINTMENT
2008
March 26
Board adopts timeline and application document for filling the vacancy on the Del Mar Union School District Governing Board
April 1
Application packet available to the public online (www.dmusd.org) or pick-up at the Del Mar Union School District, 225 9th Street, Del Mar.
April 1 to 15
Advertise vacancy in local newspapers
April 25
Deadline at 3:00 p.m. for all applications. They may be mailed, faxed or hand delivered to the District Office.
April 29
Copies of all applications mailed to Board members for review.
May 7
Special Board meeting at Ocean Air School to review applications and applicants in public and make the appointment. Each candidate will have five minutes to address the Board commencing at 3:15 p.m.
CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNCIATIONS This section of the agenda is provided for the public to address any item which lies within the governing board’s jurisdiction that is not on the agenda. State law prohibits the Board of Trustees from discussing any item not on the agenda.
Correspondence: None
Public Comments: Corinne Hackbart submitted a speaker slip to the Board, which was read aloud by President Easton.
Public Input: None
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Text of speech read by Annette Easton:
We have one speaker slip for public comment... submitted by Corinne Hackbart who asked to register her position and she turned in an item to read.
Dear Editor,
This is in response to the December 6 column that was written by Marsha Sutton.
I have nothing more to say than that I am apalled. I was feeling as if this new board was beginning to work in a collaborative effort, to make positive decisions that would be benefiting the Del Mar Union School District and the community.
Now I see through the paper that not only have a couple of board members, one being Linda Crawford and our superintendent Tom Bishop, been lying to all of the PTA presidents, staff and school board members, but Linda Crawford intended to spin this scenario of ill will displayed by the parents toward Tom Bishop because of his attempts to manipulate the immersion program to a school that clearly does not want it, and make the blame appear to be the board's fault.
This clearly indicates that something very wrong is going on in the district level including our superintendent Tom Bishop and board trustee Linda Crawford.
Honestly I feel this whole thing has come about because Tom and a few staff members, along with Linda, realized that there is a possibility that the district offices may be housed at Sycamore Ridge for a temporary timeframe.
Is the thought of the possibility of placing the district office at Sycamore Ridge for a temporary basis that bad? Is the thought of the district not building the Tom Mahal, aka the new district office, so upsetting to some of the board members, staff and Tom, that they will stop at nothing to get the district office built, even if it means lying to the parents and the people of this community?
This group appears so desperate to get this district office built that they are willing to attempt to ramrod this immersion program through without a budget.
That in itself is fiscally irresponsible, and those responsible should be reprimanded.
I am asking for the immediate resignation of Linda Crawford and Tom Bishop.
At its meeting on lanuary 23, the Board of Trustees asked to have a future discussion regarding written statements presented to the Board on a Blue Speaker Slip by a member of the public who opt not to speak.
Attached is a copy of Board Bylaw 9323 that governs public participation as school board meetings. Under "Public Participation" in Section 3 of Board Bylaw 9323 states, "A person wishing to be heard by the Board shall first be recognized by the President. He/she shall then identify himself/herself and proceed to comment as briefly as the subject permits."
Section 3 under "Public Participation" of Board Bylaw 9323 requires that the person be recognized by the President and that the person identify himself/herself and proceed to comment. Current Board Bylaw 9323 requires that the actual person be recognized by the President and also requires that the actual person proceed with comments.
If the Board wants to modify Board Bylaw 9323 to allow persons to submit written statements and have the Board President read the statement at a public meeting, then the Board will need to modify Board Bylaw 9323.
In January, Board Member Lamborghini pointed out several risks that may be associated with allowing persons not in attendance to submit written statements and to have the Board President read the statement of the "absent" person. Board Member Lamborghini may wish to elaborate on her concern over having statements from "absent" individuals being read during the Board meeting by the Board President.
The Board may wish to consider a revision to Board Bylaw 9323 that specifically requires any person who wishes to address the board during a board meeting to be present to make his/her comments.
Board Bylaw 9323 might be revised as follows:
#8. Any person who wishes to address the board during a board meeting is required to be present to make his/her comments, and all speakers must follow Board Bylaw 9323 in order to participate.
This possible revision is noted in bold italics in Board Bylaw 9323 included herein.
The superintendent is seeking board guidance on this possible revision.
Subject: 2nd Reading and Approval, Board Bylaw 9323, Meeting Conduct
Board Bylaw 9323 on Meeting Conduct is being presented to the Board this evening for a second reading and approval. No additional changes have been added since the first reading.
The administration conferred with legal counsel regarding public interaction with the Board. Specific guidance was requested on the registering of opinion and the reading of letters into the public record without the author of the letter being present.
Counsel affirmed that the law is clear that a member of the public has the right to directly address the Board. However, there is no provision for entitling a member of the public to have a written statement made part of the Board meeting's public record without addressing the Board. Additionally, there is not a provision entitling a member of the public to complete a speaker slip to register a preference or position on an agenda topic. Counsel also stated that he is unaware of any governing board that allows members of the public to enter written testimony into the record without being present nor allows expressions of support or opposition on a particular issue.
Therefore, the administration does not recommend adding additional language to the policy that would support the registering of an opinion without addressing the Board. The administration also recommends that the speaker slip be modified to reflect the public comment form used in the Solana Beach, Cardiff and Encinitas School Districts included herein.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDED: The Interim Superintendent recommends approval of Board Bylaw 9323, Meeting Conduct.
DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Bylaws/Administrative Regulations of the Board
Board Bylaw 9323: MEETING CONDUCT
The Governing Board desires to conduct its meetings effectively and efficiently. All Board meetings shall begin on time and shall be guided by an agenda prepared and delivered in advance to all Board members and other designated people.
Board meetings shall be conducted by the President in a manner consistent with adopted Board bylaws and parliamentary procedure.
Meeting agenda items that are discussion items, that is, not part of the approved consent calendar or a report, will follow this presentation format:
The Board President calls for the item on the agenda.
The District Superintendent or designee presents the item in a manner that allows for concise, accurate understanding of the item or issue.
Board members may then ask clarifying questions of the District Superintendent or his designee.
The Board President then calls for Public Input on the agenda item.
At the conclusion of Public Input, the Board President calls for Board discussion of the item.
At the conclusion of Board discussion. the Board President calls for a motion, which may then be seconded, followed by a vote or more discussion.
Action on motions shall follow" established parliamentary procedure until the vote is cast and the item concluded.
Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum (Education Code 5095, 35165).
Unless otherwise provided by law, affirmative votes by a majority of the Board's membership are required to approve any action under consideration, regardless of the number of members present (Education Code 35164).
Public Participation
Because the Board has a responsibility to conduct district business in an orderly and efficient manner, the following procedures shall regulate public presentations to the Board.
The Board shall give members of the public an opportunity to address the Board either before or during the Board's consideration of each agenda item (Education Code 35145.5, Government Code 54954.3).
At a time so designated on the agenda, members of the public also may bring before the Board matters that are not listed on the agenda of a regular meeting.
The Board may refer such a matter to the Superintendent or designee or take it under advisement, but shall not take action at that time. The matter may be placed on the agenda of a subsequent meeting for action or discussion by the Board (Education Code 35145.5, Government Code 54954.3).
A person wishing to be heard by the Board shall first be recognized by the President. He/she shall then identify himself/herself and proceed to comment as briefly as the subject permits.
Individual speakers shall be allowed up to three minutes to address the Board on each agenda or non-agenda item during "public comments." A speaker's allotted time may not be increased by a donation of time from members of the Public in attendance. The Board shall limit the total time for public input on each item to 20 minutes. With Board consent, the President may increase or decrease the time allowed for individual public presentation, depending on the topic and the number of persons wishing to be heard. The president may take a poll of speakers for or against a particular issue and may ask that additional persons speak only if they have something new to add.
With Board consent. the President may modifY the time allowed for public presentation.
The Board President may rule on the appropriateness of a topic. If the topic would be more suitably addressed at a later time, the President may indicate the time and place when it should be presented.
The Board shall not prohibit public criticism of its policies, procedures, programs, services, acts or omissions.
Whenever a member of the public initiates specific complaints or charges against an employee, the Board president shall inform the complainant that in order to protect the employee's right to adequate notice before hearing of such complaints and charges, and also to preserve the ability of the Board to legally consider the complaints or charges in any subsequent evaluation of the employee, it is the policy of the Board to hear such complaints or charges in closed session unless otherwise requested by the employee pursuant to Government Code 54957.
In the event of willful interruption by individuals or groups so as to render the orderly conduct of any open meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of the individuals or groups who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the Board may order the meeting room cleared and continue the session.
Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Representatives of the media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend such session.
After the room is cleared, the Board shall determine on either an individual or group basis whether the individual or group shall be readmitted to the meeting. Individuals or groups not responsible for the interruption or who did not participate in the interruption shall be readmitted.
Regular Board meetings shall be adjourned no later than 10:30 p.m. unless extended to a time certain by a majority of the Board. The meeting shall be extended no more than once for a maximum of 30 minutes and may be adjourned to a later time.
Any person who wishes to address the board during a board meeting is required to be present to make his/her comments, and all speakers must follow Board Bylaw 9323 in order to participate.
CALL TO ORDER - OPEN SESSION – 3:30 pm
BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED WILL BE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
Board President Calls For Blue Speaker Slips
Public Input Concerning Items On The Closed Session Agenda
Adjourn To Closed Session
(In the Del Mar Hills Academy -
Administration Office Conference Room
14085 Mango Drive, Del Mar, CA 92014)
CALL TO ORDER – CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session Agenda:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator (G.C. 54956.8)—
Property: 225 9th Street, Del Mar, California 92014—
Agency Negotiators: Janet Bernard, Interim Superintendent
Rodger Smith, Director of Facilities/Personnal-
Negotiating Parties: DMUSD and the City of Del Mar-
Under Negotiation: Sale/Lease Terms Between the City of Del Mar and the DMUSD
Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release pursuant to (Government Code 54957)
Conference with Legal Counsel –
Anticipated Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(b);
Name of Case: Significant Exposure to Litigation: One case
Public Employment Appointment/Employment: Title: Interim Superintendent (G.C.54957)
Adjourn To Open Session
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
Report Of Action Taken In Closed Session:
CALL TO ORDER, REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES – 5:45 P.M.
Flag Salute
Student Recognition - Del Mar Hills Academy
Approval Of The Agenda
Correspondence / Communications
Reports, Recognitions and Hearings
... (See agenda for full description)
BOARD PRESIDENT CALLS FOR BLUE SPEAKER SLIPS
Approval of Minutes and Consent Items
Curriculum and Instruction
Administration and Policy
Board Discussion, Board Vacancy – Approval of Provisional Appointment/Election and Approval of Timeline/Procedures
Board Discussion, Superintendent Selection Process
Board Discussion, Enrichment Programs Funding
2nd Reading and Approval, 2008/2009 Site/Grade Level Caps
2nd Reading and Approval, Board Bylaw 9323, Meeting Conduct
2nd Reading and Approval, Proposed Modification to Attendance Area Boundary for Sage Canyon and Ocean Air Schools
Discussion, Possible Violations of Board Bylaws
Board Representative, PTA Advisory Committee Meeting and the DMCTA/Administration Professional Relations Committee Meeting
The resignation Feb. 26 of former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Tom Bishop elicited the expected outcry from loyal supporters, but it should have come as no surprise to anyone paying close attention this past year.
When a board majority of devoted Bishop followers was replaced in November 2006 by three Bishop critics who ran as a slate, the die was cast. These three individuals — returning board member Annette Easton and newcomers Steven McDowell and Katherine White — were quite open about their agenda.
The prior board was weak and provided little oversight, they said repeatedly, resulting in a superintendent with too much unchecked power. They contended that bad decisions had been made, an alienating, autocratic management style was intimidating those who dared to question, unhealthy backroom political alliances were undermining effective collaboration, and factions were splintering a suspicious community.
The three trustees never ran for school board to fire Bishop, but they were completely transparent about their concerns over Del Mar's administrative chief. The slate's campaign was an open appeal to voters to return power to the school board. They effectively tapped into pockets of quiet resistance in the community, where dissenters had been silenced for too long.
When all three were elected, defeating a two-term incumbent board president in the process, it was a clear signal that parents and voters had had enough and fully supported the slate's campaign platform to rein in the superintendent. Anything less than a full accounting of his behavior and limitations on his excessive exercise of power would have been a betrayal to those citizens who voted into office this new board majority to do exactly what they promised to do.
So the only surprise is that Bishop was unable to adapt to increased oversight in the year the board majority gave him to improve communication, embrace collaboration, reduce secrecy and eliminate heavy-handed decision-making. To blow a dream gig like he had in Del Mar reflected either an unwillingness to abide by the new rules or a bewildering lack of awareness of new expectations, which were clearly delineated during a rather heated fall 2006 campaign.
If there is another surprise, it is that this resignation took as long as it did to come about, given Bishop's apparent disregard for the board's new performance standards.
Ten years ago, Bishop was hired to replace another long-time Del Mar superintendent, Robert Harriman, whose iron rule and controlling presence during his 13 years at the helm became particularly apparent at the end of his tenure — before the board finally stepped in, placed him on paid administrative leave, and then settled with the standard 18-month buyout.
Seems there is a long tradition in Del Mar of over-eager superintendents ready to fill the power void emanating from decades of weak school boards — and a precedent of costly superintendent buyouts, the reasons for which remain largely unexplained.
Transcripts of a school board meeting held Sept. 10, 1997 show Harriman in full battlefield mode. The issue was overcrowding — primarily at one school, Del Mar Heights, which seems to have a long and colorful history of boisterous civil disobedience when parents feel threatened and bullied.
“I would suggest you take your child out of the school if there are too many, and place them in a private school or somewhere else,” an enraged Harriman told protesting parents in the packed auditorium that night.
In response to one parent in particular, who had been raising concerns about the overcrowding for months, Harriman singled her out by name and said to the crowd, “We don't deserve that. We're not going to take it from any human being on this earth. We have first amendment rights just as any other people. We are not going to work 14 hours a day to have a mouth like that.”
Oddly, Harriman's buyout came just months after the board gave him a glowing performance review in May 1997, complete with a raise and an extension of his contract to four full years. You didn't see that with Bishop.
Similarities between then and now include the fact that no formal explanation was ever given to the public for Harriman's 18-month buyout, no one besides lawyers and board members were involved, informed in advance, or consulted in the decision, and it was a time of great financial hardship for education at the state and local levels.
Harriman's “Voluntary Resignation Agreement,” signed Dec. 4, 1997 and effective Dec. 31, 1997, awarded him 18 months' salary totaling $166,421.46, health benefits for 18 months, and unused vacation days.
Besides board president Jeanne Waite, two of the other four board members back then were Linda Crawford and Janet Lamborghini, both of whom still serve today.
The signed agreement between Harriman and the DMUSD also included the following two delusional clauses that succeeded in fooling no one:
“The employee and the district agree that the employee successfully served the district as its superintendent for thirteen years, and that the employee was a dedicated, hard-working and competent superintendent. The employee always received good evaluations.”
“The employee and the district wish each other well and sincerely hope that each will be successful in the future.”
Bishop's settlement agreement also includes 18 months' pay, health benefits and vacation time. But noticeably missing is any language similar to the above.
The only comparable statement in Bishop's agreement is the “non-disparagement” clause that states: “The members of the board of trustees agree not to publicly disparage employee or this agreement, and employee agrees not to publicly disparage the district.”
Tying the board's hands both times was the absence of any clauses for termination in either contract. Unusual by almost every standard, this omission seriously impairs a board's ability to dismiss an employee “for cause” or “at will.”
Because the two contracts were so similar in format and language, one might imagine that the board that dismissed Harriman and was forced to pay him 18 months' salary would have learned a lesson and framed its next superintendent's contract to include those vital missing pieces. But trustees did not.
Ricardo Soto, attorney with Best Best & Krieger, represented the school board in its negotiations with Bishop and said “it's unusual” to have a contract written with no termination clauses, either for cause or at will.
When asked if board members had grievances that were of a nature that would normally be covered by a “for cause” clause, Soto hesitated for several moments before replying succinctly, “There were concerns raised by the board about the superintendent.”
Without termination clauses in a contract, a school board can still find its superintendent in breach of contract and fire him without the standard 18 months' pay. But Soto explained that this too often results in litigation that can end up costing far more than 18 months' worth of salary and can drag on for years without resolution.
The 18-month buyout, he said, is “very common,” and differences are “typically resolved in that manner.”
At the Feb. 26 board meeting when Bishop's resignation was approved, several speakers denounced the “secrecy,” demanding to be told why he was leaving. One speaker even suggested there was precedent for this disclosure with Harriman's settlement.
I covered every bit of the Harriman exit as a reporter, trying desperately to uncover the reasons for his dismissal. Although obvious that his unacceptable public behavior had to be a factor, people wanted to know what the actual grievances were. But to this day, those who sat on the board at the time are faithfully refusing to disclose details and will most likely carry their secret to the grave.
I worship at the altar of Ralph M. Brown, whose open-meeting Brown Act broke new ground in California for the people's right to know. Enacted in 1953, the Brown Act severely limits a public agency's ability to meet in closed session and withhold information from the public.
But in personnel cases, even the Brown Act requires that public agencies, including school boards, protect the privacy of employees by prohibiting closed session personnel matters from being divulged.
So the charge that this current school board is choosing to keep secrets is a manipulative strategy by critics who know full well this information cannot be publicly discussed.
It sounds good to accuse trustees of withholding information — it serves a political purpose, to make them look bad. But imagine if they were to violate confidentiality laws, exposing the district and themselves to punitive legal action by revealing private details.
Although we'll never know all the facts, anyone who's paid the slightest bit of attention to the issues can make a pretty good guess, just like we did with Harriman.
Bishop stumbled mightily on a number of issues: boundaries, busing, hot lunch money, the Torrey Hills biotech issue, the Ashley Falls laptop controversy, funding for enrichment teachers, the sale of the Shores property which cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation fees to fight two lawsuits, the mess with the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, the intra-district transfer policy and, most recently, the lack of communication over the Sycamore Ridge Spanish language immersion program.
Bishop did many things right, of course, and probably could have been a fine superintendent with a secure place in this district for years to come had there been better oversight and occasional course corrections by a more engaged, involved, former board.
As it is, he exceeded by a long shot the average superintendent tenure of three to four years in one place.
Bishop's contract had more than two years left to run, through June 30, 2010. With the settlement, he will be paid $15,991.77 per month, beginning May 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009. The total buyout will take place over three fiscal years and amounts to less than 1 percent of the district's total $37 million budget.
No dollars will be sacrificed in the classroom, and kids won't feel a pinch in any way, board president Easton said.
Bishop, of course, could have chosen to settle for less than 18 months' pay. Better yet, he could have chosen to work with the new board and alter his management style. But it was not to be.
Those feigning shock over Bishop's departure either weren't paying attention to the obvious or were being deliberately disingenuous. There were many surprising things said at the board meeting that night, but accepting Bishop's resignation was not one of them.
… and the Sideshow
By Marsha Sutton
Life would be so simple if everything were black and white. Issues would be clear, not muddied by nuances and degrees. People could be sorted neatly into two polarized groups.
Unfortunately, life is not like that, and neither are people. Very few are pure evil, or entirely angelic. We are all a complicated mixture of black-and-white — a palate of shades of gray.
When passionate about an issue, it is tempting to push opponents into a villainous corner — a place where there are no redeeming qualities, where individuals can be demonized and vilified. Taking a stand becomes so much clearer when people question the character of their opponents by deflecting focus from the issue to the person's moral fiber.
At the Del Mar Union School District's board meeting on Feb. 26, when the board voted 3-2 to accept Superintendent Tom Bishop's resignation, the temptation to portray three members of the school board as the embodiment of diabolical malfeasance was too great for many to resist.
With a ferocity normally reserved for the despots and tyrants of the world, speakers gave the board an earful. In defense of Bishop, many comments were blistering character assassinations that seemed to gain momentum as the night wore on.
Emboldened by each speech and the tumultuous applause, speakers delivered hurtful words that seemed to spiral out of control, culminating in a diatribe by the former co-president of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, Debra McGinty-Poteet, who unleashed a vicious condemnation of trustees Annette Easton, Steven McDowell and Katherine White that many believe distorted facts, misrepresented events, turned false rumors into “truths,” and incited the crowd to a near-fevered pitch.
Exceeding the limits of acceptable civil discourse, her dramatic tirade ended with great flourish, when she proffered her written speech, the entire appalling screed, to the board secretary to be entered into the minutes. Her invective vividly demonstrated why so many people recoiled under her leadership.
McGinty-Poteet's torrent of pent-up hostility maligned not just the three-member board majority but also anyone else who may have crossed her over the years. Her targets included:
former Del Mar mayor Carl Hilliard, whom she implied conspired with McDowell, his neighbor, to negotiate a realistic purchase price of DMUSD's Del Mar Shores property for the city, a price that was actually based on current market appraisals rather than her inflated, pie-in-the-sky numbers
tireless fundraiser and DMUSD parent and volunteer Laura DeMarco, whom she suggested had a role in “stealing the Shores property from the students of this district”
Del Mar Heights School principal Wendy Wardlow, who was accused of withholding information about a school theft when it was widely reported that it was Bishop himself who issued the gag order
Katherine White, criticized for generously donating scads of money over the years to Del Mar's schools (this was a truly bewildering charge: to be ruthlessly hammered for being too charitable)
the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, for not disclosing information on its Web site
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
There were many others who chose to engage in denigrating attacks. Even the usually classy Jeanne Waite, former DMUSD board member, began her three minutes at the podium by slinging some below-the-belt mud at Easton's husband, prompting George Easton to shout, “That's a lie!” from the back of the room.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Board members sat quietly, listening to speakers respectfully, giving each of them their three minutes in the spotlight and the courtesy they themselves were frequently denied.
There were moments of decency. Dignified Martha Cox, Bishop's former executive assistant, praised Bishop and spoke eloquently about his contributions to the school district.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Not all, but most teachers were equally respectful, expressing remorse over the loss of their champion and the end of an era. “We will dearly miss our leader,” one said softly.
Yes, he was good to teachers. But Bishop does not walk on water, contrary to what observers might have been led to believe from the adoration he received that night. Nor, because they have been frustrated by some of Bishop's very real leadership flaws, are Easton, McDowell and White the Devil incarnate.
Portraying any of these individuals as anything less than a complex blend of human qualities is a simplistic attempt to bolster shaky positions by advancing divisive and extremist value judgments.
People don't neatly fall into two clearly defined categories. The two-valued orientation system — that everything and everyone is either good or bad, black or white, pure or evil — is a false dichotomy, one that ignores conflicting evidence that makes clear-cut choices not quite so neat and easy.
It is this two-valued orientation that has made the centrist an endangered species these days. Someone who sees both sides is viewed as untrustworthy, spineless or deeply misguided.
Just as Easton, McDowell and White are not malevolent beings, neither should Bishop, or trustees Linda Crawford and Janet Lamborghini, be assigned the blame for every problem in the district. We dishonor these individuals when we categorically dismiss all the good that each of them has done.
At the Feb. 26 board meeting, the 20th speaker of 33 was second-grade teacher Cindy Ralston who, sadly, received only a smattering of applause after speaking shyly about her personal experience with three of the board members.
Ralston spoke about McDowell whom she said spent many a volunteer hour in her classroom, engaging kids in educational discussions that were entertaining and meaningful. White, she said, never failed to support her with a kind word when she thought she might lose her job due to state budget cuts several years ago. And Lamborghini was also praised by Ralston, who said she always offered her a warm, friendly smile when she visited the school.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Unfortunately, this crowd was in no mood to consider the possibility that White and McDowell might actually be compassionate, caring individuals. Humanizing the enemy was not the message these folks wanted to hear.
I now understand how lynchings can occur. A mob mentality can suppress thoughtful dissent and reasoned statements. It took a brave soul, and there were a few, to stand before this angry multitude and express support for the board's actions.
It's hard to say whether the saddest moment of the night was when Ralston's attempt to humanize board members was greeted with stony silence or when McGinty-Poteet's bitter rant elicited wild cheers.
When elected officials are doing the right thing, there's no need to show up at public meetings, as speaker Mary Farrell stated. But those who support the board majority, those residents who voted into office these three trustees 16 months ago, may have been showing confidence in them and their actions by staying home, blissfully unaware of the emotional carnage that took place that night.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
So the evening belonged to the dissenters, those loyal Bishop supporters who expressed staged shock over the resignation and wanted a reckoning, a public hanging of sorts.
Will this be Bishop's legacy? A district torn apart by several dozen vocal board opponents whose unbridled fury over his departure is sure to leave scars for years to come? Is this the behavior that defines our community?
The unrestrained force of the words uttered that night was so unsettling that I felt the urge to shower when I returned home, to remove the stink.
The former superintendent started out great, back in 1998. I was a true believer those first few years. He had to work hard to make me a critic; it did not come easy.
But eventually, he over-reached, and made some bad decisions that have had lasting negative effects. The public finally came to see that and elected a new board in 2006 for a change in direction.
Comments suggesting that the stellar reputation of the Del Mar Union School District is due entirely to Bishop, and that his departure means the imminent demise of the district's renowned academic record, are nonsense.
“I don't believe for one minute that the reputation of this district … will diminish one bit,” said parent Catherine Weselak, to the board that night. “Our school district is bigger than one man, one woman and one issue.”
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
No one starring in this little small-town drama deserved the kind of vitriolic assault witnessed that night - whether pro- or anti-Bishop. We are supposed to be the grown-ups.
As we take tentative steps to heal these raw wounds and look for ways to forgive, we should heed the wise advice of Weselak when she said to the crowd, “Let's watch how our children all get along with each other, and let's learn from our children.”
Moving forward under the wise and steady hand of newly appointed interim superintendent Janet Bernard, who was endorsed by the school board unanimously to guide the district during this transitional phase, may be just the salve needed to soothe an aching community.
As we support Bernard in her efforts to build bridges, let's take a collective deep breath and try to resist the urge to categorize people as either virtuous or abominable. We are all a unique fusion of traits, a canvas of qualities, a balance of idiosyncratic attributes — in other words, only human. And let's save the bad stuff for the truly wicked.
