I would be entirely remiss if I didn’t address the issue of the failed recall attempt on the part of S.E.R.V.E. Alameda to get the three members of the School Board bounced.
Now, Michele Ellson and Susan Davis have been nice enough to phrase it in the terms that the S.E.R.V.E. folks would prefer us all to think about it, that they had retracted their recall efforts in hopes to “heal” the community. But let’s call a spade a spade. They waited till the very last day before they had to turn in their signatures and are not telling how close they were to getting the requisite number of signatures. They failed. Period.
It wasn’t just a failure, it was an epic fail.
Because if they really wanted to make a point they would have dispensed with this whole recall business when the school district decided to expand the anti-bullying curriculum to explicitly cover all protected classes. Or, they could have dispensed with the recall when the School Board voted to adopt the new curriculum in early December. At least then, they would have some semblance of ending the recall attempt before the 11th hour. Because at least if they had done it back in early December, they could have very well used those additional weeks to get the required number of signatures, but going up the the very last minute and not turning in your signatures if you have them, well that speaks volumes as to the persuasiveness of their argument. Or the level of support for their position in this community.
Seriously though, I can’t wait to see who S.E.R.V.E. will be serving up in the form of a “slate” of candidates to run in November. Who apparently will be “people of quality…willing and able to address the clear and present instructional and financial issues facing Alameda’s educational system.” The ironic part of their attempt to run a slate against two of the five School Board members (Tracy Jensen and Mike McMahon) is that I don’t think that you would find a ton of other candidates that understand school finances and instructional issues like Mike McMahon does. If S.E.R.V.E. is indeed concerned about these issues then maybe they would be involved in more AUSD issues than ones that have to do with anti-bullying curriculum. And maybe they could lay off on the threats of fighting a parcel tax which the money would go toward directly benefiting Alameda school children financially.
“If S.E.R.V.E. is indeed concerned about these issues then maybe they would be involved in more AUSD issues than ones that have to do with anti-bullying curriculum.”
Amen to that. Now if we could just maybe get AUSD concerned about other issues.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 31, 2009 @ 8:49 am
J.R.T. come out from under that rock and run for School Board, back up all of your rants.
Comment by John Piziali — December 31, 2009 @ 9:16 am
I’d love to know how many signatures they actually had. Maybe…32?
Comment by verybusyspider — December 31, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Since S.E.R.V.E Alameda is viewed by so many as essentially a hate group, I can’t see why anyone who had any desire to win a seat on the school board would want to be linked to S.E.R.V.E. It doesn’t seem likely to gain them many votes.
Anybody running on their “Slate” would have to answer uncomfortable questions about the long paranoid anti-gay rant that Kevin Woods posted on the groups website as well as elsewhere. The format, the conspiratorial paranoia and everything about it reminds you of old anti-Semetic tracts.
Woods says that he is going to destroy the petitions. But conidering that many in the future are going to go out of their way to distance themselves from Woods, I wouldn’t be suprised if he doesn’t keep copies of the names. If I signed one of those petitions, I would be damn careful about badmouthing Kevin Woods in the future.
Comment by John — December 31, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Nobody who signed that petition has the brains to think that far ahead.
Comment by David Hart — December 31, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
I prefer to see it more as an epic win for tolerance and a reaffirmation of our community values. However if the lessons of tolerance are really to have an impact, then forgiveness is also required.
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
Martin Luther King
Happy New Year, everyone!
Comment by notadave — December 31, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Also, it shows that without paid signature gatherers and having to have the recall petition circulated by Alameda registered voters, how high a bar it is to hurdle to get the required signatures. If only ballot initiatives had the same requirements, we would have less of them and the ones we do get might be more worthwhile.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — December 31, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
7. Kevis, your point on paid signature gatherers is valid, but I don’t think it was the main issue here. This recall simply did not have significant support.
In terms of tolerance and forgiveness versus vindictive behavior, what warrants watching is whether S.E.R.V.E. supporters really dedicate themselves to bringing down any parcel tax effort and the district at large as an extension to that.
I think any such effort would be a colossal act of hubris and unjustifiable selfishness, but that does not mean it will not come to pass.
As has been previously alluded, the petition likely had more signatures than the margin by which H won, and you know these folks will remain focused on that, especially zealots who have no forgiveness in their hearts.
If a new tax were to fail by a margin for which these folks could take credit, they might consider it a victory in the short term, but in the not too distant future it would make them pariahs among the the majority of the public school community and it’s supporters.
I don’t want to be bullied or swayed one inch by the possible leverage they could have in an election, but I hear notdave’s post #6 loud and clear.
Regardless of whether they take real action to start a healing process themselves, I would like to focus on reconciliation. I don’t want to relegate them to pariah status prematurely.
However, if they are unresponsive to ovations of inclusion and do make a concerted effort to mess with the parcel tax, I will wish a wrath of biblical proportion to rain on them for eternity.
Comment by M.I. — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Hey I am gay and a Christian…I forgive them..some people don’t think you can be both…but I know what is in my heart.
Comment by Joaquin — January 1, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
I’m guessing that most folks in Alameda don’t believe you can be a non-homophobic homophobe as Kevin Woods belienves he is.
Comment by Gary Paul — January 1, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
That’s because, fortunately, most folks know the difference between a false dichotomy (gay vs. Christian) and an oxymoron.
Comment by Michael Williams — January 1, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
I totally agree with #6-
And yes, it is an aside, but say the same rules had applied to Prop 8– would it have qualified for the ballot? I think probably not. It is a high hurdle and rightfully so, because recalls should not be undertaken lightly, but I also think that initiatives under the current rules are too easy to qualify and are disrupting out legislative process at all levels from state to local.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — January 1, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
I agree with Kevis about initiatives being too easy.
I also think it’s important to keep in mind that qualifying for the ballot isn’t the same as winning the election. Likewise, the people who signed the petition were signing that they wanted this to come to a vote. All (both?) of them may or may not have ended up voting for the recall itself.
Okay, maybe a stretch, but with others in this conversation I’m hopeful that many at least won’t be willing to risk the financial well-being of our schools over their disagreement on one part of the curriculum.
It’s worth note too that SERVE, as they allude in their own press release, had (has) School Board candidates in mind through all this. This means that possibly three individuals have been in a position of seeing here–from all of the division that has been stirred up through SERVE’s disinformation and rhetoric–an opportunity for advancing their own political careers.
How intentional or how cynically self-serving any individual’s involvement may have been, only they can know for sure. But any parent whose fears about the curriculum were played upon might want to take a critical look at their sources of information.
Comment by Michael Williams — January 2, 2010 @ 12:15 am
It seems the use of the recall is used more in Southern CA.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/politics/stories/PE_News_Local_S_recalls02.3b91be8.html
Comment by Mike McMahon — January 2, 2010 @ 8:37 am
It’s one thing to impugn the motivation of citizens exercising their rights. It’s quite another to impugn that right. The idea that, “…current rules are too easy and are disrupting out {sic} legislative process at all levels from state to local.” implies the Legislative process ought not be bothered with the mere wishes of the electorate and their desires to be heard. That these weighty matters are far above the plebes who elected them.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 2, 2010 @ 10:13 am
To all of those at S.E.R.V.E. this is for you
Comment by Gary Paul — January 4, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
Silly people
The way this was handled was the epic failure of AUSD and the BOE and it is the prelude to the epic failure of an education saving parcel tax. It will be a LONG time before the next parcel tax is passed in this town. Are the BOE members so blind to not see this?
It is NOT homophobia to oppose the way this was handled. People who want the future of our local public education system to succeed opposed this because of the future affect of the untrustworthy manipulation the BOE allowed. That is the sad reality.
There were many better options to try to encourage more positive and accepting lessons. AUSD lost my support and my vote despite my support for such socially responsible programs as they were attempting.
Perhaps you think I am in the minority – but I think parcel tax supporting votes will also be in the minority. Any bets on the next parcel tax?
Comment by reality check — January 6, 2010 @ 1:17 am
I don’t know how to characterize the reasoning for opposing a parcel tax in #17.
Is it bully logic? (“It’s your fault I’m beating you up.”)
Or just dysfunctional grown-up? (“Let’s punish the kids since we don’t like what the adults did.”)
You may not consider yourself homophobic, but Lauren’s original post was about SERVE, and one need take only take a glancing scan of their web site to see the anti-gay rhetoric that was behind the Recall petition.
Comment by Michael Williams — January 6, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
#16. Love it! I think I’ll go and have another listen…
Comment by J.E.A. — January 7, 2010 @ 8:25 am