The situation with the Jefferson School District Board is truly unfortunate. It has been stated rather vociferously that I am the cause of this. I sincerely hope not. Perhaps instead, it merely looks that way because I am bringing to light issues that have thus far remained obscure. I would like to think the latter. I have no desire or motive to create disunion merely for the sake of disunion. However, given the choice between unity and truth – well, I’ve made my decision.
The seat on the Board of trustees is by definition non-partisan. That means that a political party is not declared during candidacy, and that all candidates are listed under one category on the ballot. While no party has been declared, it has been my experience that there indeed exists a platform on which the majority of the board is operating.
Part of that platform seems to be an ideology that tends to use a well-known political tactic of stifling consideration of input that does not conform to the way of thinking that is shared by a majority of the board. That way of thinking is one that holds dear the tried and true methods despite the fact that the situation to which these methods are applied is changing around them.
It is understandable why this board takes such a conservative posture. Most of the members held seats on the board when they managed to restore fiscal soundness to the district in a very difficult time. For this they should be commended. I am certainly grateful for those efforts.
However, the Jefferson School District is not a rural, one-school district anymore. It is also no longer in dire financial straits. Outside-of-the-box ideas and suggestions designed to accommodate for these changes that have been offered have been given little if any consideration. Incidentally, these suggestions are hardly far-fetched. They use common sense and facts as a basis, and have been proven effective in other innovative districts.
It has been suggested that I believe my ideas to be superior. In fact, I do think some of them may very well be, otherwise I would not put them forth. The only way to be sure is to offer them the same unbiased consideration that all ideas should be offered – regardless of their source.
Sadly, this has not been done. Despite my providing documented research proving the benefits of early childhood music education, and with no evidence offered to the contrary, the program remains unfunded, even though district residents have voiced their desire for the continuation of this program, and the existing surplus could easily fund it without any harm to the fiscal soundness of the district.
I pointed out in my prior commentary that decisions were being made that were harmful to the district. The most recent was a decision to pay for legal advice as to whether the board could legally ignore my letter of resignation as Clerk of the Board, and instead move to have me removed from the ceremonial position.
If the motivation of the action to consider my removal was to not have me be the Clerk, fine – but wouldn’t acceptance of the resignation letter have accomplished this? What would be the motivation to seek to ignore the resignation other than a personal vendetta or a smear campaign to attack my character, which brings us right back to politics? How does doing this help our district?
As a taxpaying district resident, not even considering the fact that I am the target of this campaign, I am furious that my tax dollars are being wasted in such a frivolous and political fashion. I would rather these funds be allocated toward the betterment of my children’s education – wouldn’t you?
I can tell you that this is not the first time that the board has directed the district to pay for legal opinion against me. It would seem that the intent is to damage my credibility, thereby validating their decision to deem my input not worthy of consideration.
The board has voted to discontinue availability of the district web sites. A valid reason has not been offered. They have been taken off-line. I know for a fact that there have been class lessons that utilize this availability. Also, the availability of homework assignments online has been nixed. Only some of the functionality that had been available will be restorable on a county server. How can this be good for the district?
It continues to be my goal to open to the realm of consideration on an equal footing, all possible ideas no matter which board member or community member may have put them forth. This is what I understand to be the desire of those that elected me to this position.
The bottom line is that as a statesman, I should act in a manner consistent to that which I understand my constituency thinks to be right – not necessarily what I might think is right. Should I be admonished for standing up for what I believe even in the face of adversity? If so, perhaps I am in the wrong place at the wrong time. I thought I was in the United States of America – and in the ‘here and now’ – not the ‘then and gone’.
At a recent board meeting, I asked board member Debbie Wingo if the gloves were still off, referring to a time when she offered that such was the case because I insisted on posting what I perceived to be the truth about the budget on a non-district affiliated web site. I guess I have my answer.
Perhaps you should make your way to the next meeting to be sure that those you have asked to represent you are doing just that, and in the way you would have them do so. That meeting will take place February 8 at 6:30 pm in the Jefferson School cafeteria at 7500 W. Linne Road in Tracy.