Thoughts from Last Night’s Meeting

Resolution Against Hate

We recently decided that, as a result of having too many items requested for placement on the agenda for board discussion, we would cut back on the future agenda items and hold a vote to determine whether a matter should go on the agenda for board action/discussion going forward.

Given the significant funding disparities between our district and others, I asked to agendize discussion of fair funding under LCFF, including potential litigation against the State (which Rep. Ted Lieu and Sen. Ben Allen both recommended). Mine was the only yes vote. This is a fundamentally important issue given the critical impacts the unfair funding system has on the district’s ability to pay our teachers salaries on par with neighboring districts, and our ability to provide challenging and unique experiences for our students, among other core problems.

So, I am frustrated by the vote last night to agendize a “resolution against hate.” On its face, the idea is ridiculous. Is the assumption that we are “pro-hate”? Do we actually need to spend time drafting, discussing, and voting on a resolution (which is just a statement and carries no enforcement mechanism or meaningful action), to demonstrate that we’re “against hate”? The opportunity costs associated with allocating staff and legal time to write a performative and unnecessary resolution were enough for me to oppose. But my bigger concern is that this is just another virtue signaling, box-checking exercise to absolve the district of having to take any meaningful action to address the root problems: ignorance, lack of social connection, groupthink, social media, fear, intolerance and absence of moral courage.

We cannot fix a problem without naming it. A “resolution against hate” does not name a problem, nor would it do anything to solve the problems our district (and others) are experiencing. It does satisfy the need to “do something”—and replaces actually doing something with performative action. Teaching unbiased and objective history, cultivating cross-cultural connection and understanding in early grades, and applying discipline in an equitable manner without regard to race or religion would be logical and common sense ways for the district to actually do something.

Questionable Legal Spending

I pulled consent item 1(d) last night, which was a contract for Title 9 investigation services with a law firm that charges $585/hr for their highest level partner. The law firm is not on our RFQ approval list. There are firms on the list we approved in March (following a very in-depth RFQ process) that provide this same service at much lower rates, including Lozano Smith, which charges $295-395/hr for their highest level partners.

As I asked during the meeting, what was the point of going through the exercise of reviewing proposals from a large group of firms and approving a list of law firm options if we’re just going to allow AALRR to pick their favored firms that charge higher rates? My hope and expectation is that this practice will end, and the district will utilize the list of firms the board reviewed and approved. At the very least, the district should inquire with the board-approved firms first as to services provided, instead of relying on recommendations from AALRR. I am tired of this firm driving district decisions and letting the board know after the fact, which is a constant problem (including with negotiations).

Town Hall Tonight and Next Tuesday

The District is hosting a town hall regarding bond prioritization tonight at 5:30 at the District Offices (375 Via Almar) and next Tuesday via Zoom at 8:00 a.m. (no details are available yet).

As always, this is just one lady’s opinion. I don’t speak for the board and no one else speaks for me.