Printer-friendly version
By Janis Russell
“We have the appearance of political gerrymandering.” – George Barnett, Alpine Education Foundation director, speaking against the redistricting plan.
Assigning Jim Kelly as Alpine’s trustee through redistricting “is like putting a hungry, vengeful fox in charge of an unprotected henhouse.” – Mark Price, past president of the Alpine Union School District..
“We have exercised zero influence…please look past the irrelevant rhetoric on building a high school...” -- Trustee Robert Shield, who voted for the plan.
“Funds spent on litigation would be better spent on children in our classrooms.” – Mike Fowler, Granite Hills principal, speaking in support over fear of a Voting Rights Act violations lawsuit.
April 7, 2016 (Alpine) - In the third of six meetings on the Grossmont Union High School District’s proposed new election system for trustees, dozens of Alpine residents attended the meeting and voiced strong criticisms of the plan to the County Board of Education’s Committee on School District Organization.
The outcome of redistricting has serious impacts for Alpine, a community that has a lawsuit pending against the GUHSD over its failure to build an Alpine High School despite two bond measures that voters approved. Parents have also filed a petition seeking to break away from the GUHSD and unify with the Alpine Union School District so that it can build the school.
Yet at a time when the Grossmont board will be making decisions crucial to the future of Alpine students, the redistricting map that Grossmont seeks County approval of would eliminate Priscilla Schreiber, the only trustee who has consistently supported an Alpine high school. Alpine would instead be represented by Jim Kelly, the most vocal opponent of the Alpine high school.
Theresa Meyerott, Joan Macqueen’s principal, and the County Education’s VP, Rick Shea, gave a welcome at the event, held at Joan MacQueen Middle School in Alpine.
Lora Dunzyk, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services at the County Office of Education, explained that the plan approved 4-1 by the GUHSD board (with Schreiber dissenting) would shift the GUHSD from at-large elections (in which all voters vote for all trustees) to smaller by-trustee districts. Normally this requires a vote of the people, but the GUHSD board has also submitted a request to the State Board of Education seeking a waiver that would allow the redistricting to take place in time for November’s elections.
The County’s committee will hold la meeting April 13 to determine whether to approve or deny the GUHSD redistrict plan and if approved, whether to recommend that the state grant the waiver or not. If voters are allowed to weigh in, it will only be on whether to approve a shift to trustee districts; voters will not be able to approve or disapprove the map.
Ralf Swenson, GUHSD superintendent, acted as spokesperson for the district. He commented how he’s enjoyed the meetings so much, that he’s even watched the last meeting again yesterday afternoon. Swenson clarified how all 112 school districts in CA have sent up waivers to the State Board. He encouraged the committee to “focus on the matter at hand.” Swenson also objected an April Fool’s Day story published in ECM regarding the redistricting issue.
The district’s attorney, Christopher Skinnell from Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP, gave a PowerPoint presentation. After he shared demographics from the 2010 census, Skinell showed how they mapped out Latinos and Asians/African Americans in La Presa/Lemon Grove. The redistricting principles include visible boundaries, census blocks, communities of interest, and avoid pairing incumbent trustees. Three draft plans were proposed: divided into cities, based on high school attendance, and on elementary school districts. The first plan was approved by the GUHSD. The plan leaves area 1, a majority-minority district in Lemon Grove/Spring Valley/La Prensa, with no incumbent trustee. That meant two trustees had to be paired in another district. Schreiber is paired with Robert Shield, but since her reelection is in November and his two years away, she would be off the board without a district in which to run for at least two years.
The public then shared their thoughts. There were 12 speakers, nearly all of whom were in opposition.
George Barnett, officer and director of the Alpine Education Association, was first to speak. He said the plan has “ unintended consequences.” He said notification by the district has been inadequate. “No one knew this until it was over…This removes Alpine’s only voice,” he stated, adding that Alpine would be represented by Jim Kelly, who has been a strong opponent of Alpine’s interests.” He noted that the board has spent money to deny Alpine its high school.
Barnett (pictured right), also a planning group member who has undergone ethics training for public officials, noted that ethics starts with appearances. “We have the appearance of political gerrymandering,” he stated. Though he supports the concept of trustee elections, he said he opposes the outcome because “the timing is wrong.” He wants to see all trustees run for election, not removed through redistricting.
Mark Price, former president of the Alpine Union School District Board, told the committee, “My goal is to encourage you to slow down the process.” He voiced strong opposition to Alpine being forced to have Kelly as its representative, noting that Kelly has been the person leading efforts to block the Alpine high school. “It’s like putting a hungry, vengeful fox in charge of an unprotected hen house.”
Price urged that the Alpine lawsuit first be resolved, as well as the unification issue, before any redistricting is done. The County Board of Education has recommended approval of unification to the state. If unification is ultimately approved by the state and local voters, that would likely trigger a need for redistricting again. “There is simply no reason to rush this process,” he concluded.
Mike Fowler, Granite Hills High Principal, was in support for two reasons: First, the district could face a lawsuit over possible violation of the Voting Rights Act. “Funds spent on litigation should be better spent on children and in our classrooms,” he emphasized. Second, he was at the La Mesa/Spring Valley hearing. “This community is different from La Prensa and Lemon Grove…one can better represent the different interests of the community.”
Sal Cassamassima, Chair of the Alpine High School Citizens Committee and a parent of an Alpine Union School District child, urged the committee, “Do not reward a long history of bad behavior by Grossmont Union High School District…This is a modern day version of Tammany Hall.”He noted that the GUHSD board mahjority’s “betrayal” of promises to build the Alpine high school led to a “scathing rebuke by the County Grand Jury.”
He mentioned how there are political rewards for those who comply with what the board wants, as well as history of pressuring opponents. He recalled the board’s “false accusations” against a Helix Charter High School principal and the board’s efforts to unseat him. He accused the GUHSD board of “misrepresentations to bond investors” adding that an article in Forbes Magazine “hinted at criminal” actions. He further pointed out that the district illegally used bond funds to set up an anti-Alpine Facebook page that he said contained false statements aimed at swaying voters to oppose unification. “Do the right things,” he concluded. “Hold the election off and let the voters decide.”
Beverly Keller, a resident of Alpine, voiced concern that Trustee Priscilla Schreiber’s term to serve will be cut off, depriving Alpine of an official they helped elect. She urged the committee to vote against the proposed map. She also opposed the waiver. In addition, she pointed out the GUHSD board has admitted it has not made any effort to contact the attorney who sent the letter putting the district on notice of possible Voting Rights Act violations. “Mr. Lemmo is not in favor of the map,” she said of that attorney. “Something does not add up here..I cannot believe this is anything except an effort to oust its dissenting member.” She noted that only 2.9 miles separates the homes of trustees Robert Shield (pictured below) and Gary Wood. “Why not a map pairing them?” she asked.
Nick Marinovich, a former member of the GUHSD’s Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, testified that he previously served on a bond oversight committee in the Sweetwater/South Bay that resulted in convictions of some school board members for wrongdoing. After joining the Grossmont oversight committee, he recalls, “I shook my head at how the bond money was being spent..” He said there was a lack of oversight, adding, “This district is so political at every single thing it does.” He indicated that at its meetings, the board seemed more concerned with “ how to one up Priscilla Schreiber” than caring about students.
He added, “If you believe timing has nothing to do with this November’s election, then you must believe in the tooth fairy. Do the right thing. Just say no to this bologna.”
Chris Loare said while he likes the concept of redistricting, he does not approve of this process. “I do believe the timing of this thing has horrible consequences.” He voiced skepticism over the board’s motives, adding that if the decision were “pushed out to two days after the election, we will have a new map.”
His solution is to have a run-off between trustees, not force Schreiber off through redistricting. “Don’t let the board pick winners and losers…let the people decide,”he urged. “With Mr. Kelly representing us, my rights as a voter will be stampeded upon.” He voiced fear that Kelly would tell the state he’s Alpine’s representative and downplay support for the high school as “just a small bunch of activists’ don’t listen to them.” He added that 3,000 people in Alpine signed a petition; this is not a small group.
Lin Moody, a resident of Blossom Valley, mentioned how she’s witnessed the births of Props H and U school bonds.. Her children are growing up yet she’s still paying taxes on those bonds that she supported to build a high school to serve Alpine and Blossom Valley, even though it was never built. “I was dismayed to learn that a trustee will be voted off…after all I’ve seen from Grossmont district, I think something is fishy… The decision should be put to the voters,” Moody concluded.
Albert Haven (pictured right), who’s a former Alpine superintendent, reflected on history. At the first meeting on redistricting, there were only three people from the public. At the unification meeting, no one showed up. “The people should vote on forming the trustee areas…the waiver should be denied.”
Sharon Haven, an Alpine resident, said, “There will probably be a need of re-districting when Alpine leaves for unification.” She called Kelly a “figurehead against unification who has said terribly things against Alpine.” She accused the board of “political maneuvering” to get Schreiber off the board, adding, “I hope you don’t fall for this.”
ECM’s own Miriam Raftery shared her thoughts. She voiced surprise that Superintendent Swenson would complain about an April Fool’s story, clearly marked as an April Fool’s parody (in which Alpine received approval of unification and residents celebrated in the streets), while voicing no concern over the slandering of ECM and herself by Trustee Kelly. She then noted that earlier in the day, the Supreme Court issued a ruling affirming that redistricting should be based on districts of equal population, not equal numbers of registered voters. She asked which method the GUHSD demographer used. (The demographer later clarified he used equal population, which complies with the court’s decision.) Raftery pointed out that the late start on redistricting so close to an election means candidates aren’t sure whether to run, not knowing if they must live in a particular district or not, and time is running out to raise money for a district-wide election. “I agree that the whole thing should be put off,” she added. Raftery also wondered why Chaldean and Native American members hadn’t been consulted by the district, noting that two major tribes live In Alpine. She added, “Priscilla Schreiber has been the only whistleblower” on the board. Without Schreiber, media and the public would be largely in the dark on much of the board’s questionable actions.
Richard Erhard from Alpine asked the committee to deny the request for the waiver. Noting that redistricting is “a formidable process” in such a large district, he said the committee should be sure that “the students are equally protected.”
Last, GUHSD board president Robert Shield spoke. “The type of presentation is what we have wrestled with ever since my election 9 years ago. He urged the committee to, “make a thoughtful, level-headed, analytical decision” and to “not be swayed by passion.”
He insisted that the letter from attorney Lemmo means that “now we are formally on notice” of Voting Rights Act violations. He said of the board, “We have exercised zero influence” on the process and relied on standard observations and criteria.
He noted here were a lot of accusations at the hearing. “Please look past the irrelevant rhetoric of promising a high school,” as well as concerns over unification and the lawsuit.
The committee then gave their feedback .
Mark Anderson from District 4 clarified a misunderstanding on the process. “We do not tell the school board what to do.” The County committee instead makes sure the district is following state regulations.” But he added, “It’s important to listen to the voices of the people…passion wouldn’t be there without something behind it…That needs to be dealt with at some level.” He urged people to get involved as voters and as candidates, or to support candidates for elections “if not this year, for 2018. If you think now is too early, you’re wrong.” He also said people can reach out directly to the state officials who can impact the decision on unification.
Guadalupe Gonzalez from District 2 shared, “This board was very concerned about geographic meetings.” She noted that the committee added extra hearings in Alpine and Lemon Grove, on top of the four originally scheduled.
Alicia Muñoz from the 3rd District expressed her appreciation to the public coming out. She found the passion that some people expressed to be “invigorating.” She echoed Anderson’s thoughts. “I don’t think we can deny the proposition for a waiver… Be assured we’ll think through this thoughtfully” as they take everyone’s comments into consideration.” Later she clarified that the county committee could potentially make a recommendation to the state, however, on whether to approve or deny the waiver.
The final hearing on redistricting in East County is scheduled at the Lakeside Union School District Administration Center (12335 Woodside Avenue, Lakeside) on April 11 at 6 p.m.
For more information, call the County Office of Education board’s executive assistant, Brenda Gomez, at 858-292-3515, or email her at brenda.gomez@sdcoe.net.
Recent comments