Like most people I think that the candidates for School Board are a much harder group to understand fully. Unless someone is an incumbent, there is much less of a record of service for most of the candidates who decide to run for School Board than, for example, the City Council. Most of the candidates are a big mystery and it’s not until they are on the School Board that you really start understanding what their agenda is, because everyone dresses up their campaign materials in doing it “for the kids.” It’s all about kids, as it should be.
I think a lot of people end up voting for candidates that don’t necessarily represent their interests because they look good on paper or sound good in one minute sound-bytes at candidate forums, where a good speaker can master the art of not saying anything of substance, but offering up feel good platitudes that people want to hear, not what people need to hear. One of those candidates is definitely Clay Pollard, running for School Board.
When I first saw his website and read his candidate statement, it all sounded really good. He sounded inclusive and forward thinking, but then again, everyone does. But here’s the thing about Clay Pollard, while he appears to be a great candidate, there are some big red flags about him and his campaign. The first is the “candlelight vigil” that was planned for last Tuesday that asked people to “Save Our Schools” and was timed to coincide with School Board meeting that would turn out hundreds of swimmers to protest the closure of the two swimming pools. There was an attempt to co-opt the name of the new parcel tax advocacy group and mask the intent of the rally disguised as a vigil as well as piggyback on to the energy of the community united to try to re-open the pools. Susan Davis on In Alameda reported that:
I discovered the “vigil” was actually a rally organized by a new group, The Committee to Change the AUSD School Board, which is endorsing Clay Pollard and James Pruitt for school board. The small crowd included most of the primary opponents to Lesson 9, including members of Alameda Concerned Parents and SERVE Alameda, some of whom were waving Pruitt and Pollard signs and wearing Clay Pollard shirts.
…
I talked to two parents who went to the vigil because they thought it was about keeping schools and sports programs open; they were unnerved to discover it was actually a campaign event (neither the email nor the flier mentioned the candidates). And I talked to two teens who said they came because they’re worried about the schools and they had been handed a flier that said there would be free pizza. They also hadn’t realized it was a rally for two candidates.
Brief digression on the topic of the pool closures, thanks to the Aquatics Fan blog who I believe was the first to break the news last night, Emma Hood will reopen by next week and Encinal Swim Center sometime around Thanksgiving. He goes on to thank some folks for helping to open the appropriate communication lines between the various City and County departments:
A HUGE THANK YOU to Lena Tam, Marie Gilmore, and Rob Bonta for working together to get Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker involved. I think it’s important to understand that they listened, understood the problem, thought of a solution, and acted quickly to make this happen while working together (and not wasting time duplicating their efforts.) I am personally impressed with their responsiveness, thoughtfulness, and follow-through.
But back to Clay Pollard, some folks may not remember this, and I certainly didn’t given the hours and hours and hours of public comment on the whole anti-bullying curriculum business, but apparently Clay Pollard was one of the parents firmly in the “hell no” category when it came to the curriculum. But rather than leaving it at “hell no,” his remarks during a School Board meeting makes me wonder if he will really be able to be open to considering the input of all community members:
Such as:
I think this K-5 booklist, this whole anti-bullying campaign for kids from Kindergarten through Fifth grade is pretty much criminal. It’s criminal…From the actual loss of the kid’s innocence to the downright homosexual proselytizing.
I’m a conservative. I’m a Christian. I’m a Republican. But I don’t go around waiving flags and running up people’s flagpoles and forcing — and bullying other people into my positions on things. And I don’t think it’s right for anyone to tell my little child that it’s okay for her brother to wear 10,000 dresses. It’s completely wrong. Completely wrong.
…
It’s shame for this Board and this community to approve this, it’s shameful on every level.
…
No 3rd grader needs to know what a lesbian is. Mine doesn’t need to know that…and I would appreciated it if the school district doesn’t try to ram it down his or her throat.
I guess I don’t have much faith in a person that characterizes an attempt to curb bullying as “ homosexual proselytizing.” Given the recent attention to bullying related suicides, this condemnation of the School District’s efforts seems particularly callous.
And then there is this video, which makes you wonder who Clay Pollard is really working for.
The speech that he gives is identical to the one published as a Letter to the Editor by someone completely different. Is Clay Pollard really running to represent the best interests of all Alameda’s kids, or just the interests of Alameda Concerned Parents and SERVE Alameda which was set up for in one interest and one interest only, which was to keep any reference about equality of all types of people out of the classroom?
So, not necessarily relevant, but I found it pretty interesting. On Clay Pollard’s website there is a video explaining why you should vote for Clay Pollard. Turns out that video was uploaded by “Rainbowbeachful” who has also uploaded a video for School Board candidate James Pruitt as well. Rainbowbeachful has an ecletic mix of videos including the two School Board candidates. A “Dave” talking about drug use, a bunch of videos for a vacation home in Hawaii, a video about a yacht named Magic, and “fanger family fun.” I had heard that Gary Fanger was supporting James Pruitt’s campaign, which would make sense now given this YouTube support. Countdown until the videos start going private in 5…4…3…
James Pruitt’s Facebook page is informative too. (http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000344406678). He not only “likes” Alamedans for Fair Taxation — the organization that opposed Measure E, he “likes” the Institute on Religion and Democracy — which has a strong anti-gay agenda. (see http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=804)
Looks like Pollard and Pruitt are the stealth anti-gay slate. And make no mistake — Pruitt is the candidate of David Howard and his bunch.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — October 29, 2010 @ 6:43 am
“But I don’t go around waiving flags and running up people’s flagpoles and forcing — and bullying other people into my positions on things”
“…and I would appreciated it if the school district doesn’t try to ram it down his…his or her throat.”
Those statements sound like a pretty major case of internalized homophobia to me
Comment by Olivia S — October 29, 2010 @ 7:36 am
It wasn’t all that long ago that a “well-meaning” “concerned” parent could conceivably have addressed the board about his child being too young to discuss, acknowledge or associate with African-Americans.
Irony, thy name is Pollard…..
Comment by dave — October 29, 2010 @ 7:50 am
I know Clay Pollard slightly as he and my son were both students at West Wind karate school once upon a time. He has many fine qualities but I’m sorry to say his feelings about the anti-bullying curriculum disqualify him in my mind to serve on the school board. Clearly he wishes the world weren’t how it is and wants to change it. Problem is, what he wants to change is not practical, possible, or in all cases desirable to the general population. All families must send their kids to school. The board members represent all the kids, not just the ones who conform to the fantasy of the “normal” American family. I’m sure he would be hard-working, energetic, and dilligent in his duties but his fatal flaw makes him unsuitable for a job like this.
Comment by Denise Shelton — October 29, 2010 @ 7:57 am
How about the endorsement from the teachers union?
Comment by Barbara Kahn — October 29, 2010 @ 8:11 am
In addition to campaign financing, someone should study and release figures on the percentage of candidates signs located on public property. A higher percentage would indicate lack of support for the candidate from actual voters. I estimate that about 90% of Pollards signs have been posted by himself on public right-of-ways.
Comment by notadave — October 29, 2010 @ 8:29 am
The civil rights issue of today in America is gay rights, and it was only a few years ago that the Central Baptist Church of Alameda threw a hussy fit when Mayor Appezzato was asked to read a proclamation og gay rights.
That year a bunch of us serving as parade float judges in the Fourth of July Mayor’s Parade awarded First Prize to the Lesbian Cookout Society for their ingenious entry pushing barbecues and wearing aprons, (sometimes little else!) I was sitting next to Ralph in the reviewing stands on Webster, and when he returned to his seat after awarding the prize, he said to me, “You know, Dennis, I’m the mayor of ALL the people, not just the ones who helped get me elected.”
That week, he read the Gay Proclamation into the record, and many of his supporters turned their backs on him. The next year, I was still serving on the Mayor’s parade committee, but the leader announced, “We’ll have none of that nonsense we did last year!” And I was assigned to the parade poster sub-committee. So we awarded the design of the poster to a lesbian.
So much for Alameda recent history, but Pollard has no place on the school board. They’ve been doing a bad enough job already.
Comment by Dennis Green — October 29, 2010 @ 8:29 am
Barbara,
I hate to say it, but I think that Mr. Pruitt pulled a fast one on the union.
Comment by Oh the irony! — October 29, 2010 @ 8:33 am
See, he’s slick. That’s why I predicted he has a good chance of winning. (WARNING: The preceding statement is NOT an endorsement of Clay Pollard for School Board. I do not want him to win, will not vote for him and do not think you should either. I hope that’s clear enough for everybody.)
Comment by Denise Shelton — October 29, 2010 @ 8:40 am
4. “Clearly he wishes the world weren’t how it is and wants to change it.”
Don’t you have that backwards? It’s the curriculum that’s changing.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 29, 2010 @ 9:06 am
Perhaps, Jack, our people and our culture are edging toward a few more enlightened views in a few small corners of our society
My brothers-in-law, who live in Alameda, are a gay couple who often fly a rainbow flag. I was a witness at their wedding in San Francisco, and they witnessed mine on my 70th birthday to the woman I’ve been living with for 21 years.
Back in 1980, I dated a lesbian who taught at SF State, Loretta. We went out to dinner every week for about a year, and I never got so much as a good noght’s kiss, but also no pressure. And she was a delightful companion, took me to a lesbian dancehall near the Castro where I danced with the Femmes all night!
Comment by Dennis Green — October 29, 2010 @ 9:30 am
What I mean is that Pollard seems to want everybody back in the closet. Sorry about mixing my metaphors but that horse has left the barn. I have never held with the idea that children should be “shielded” from the realities of life at all costs. When the truth is known, you’re left with a lot of traumatized and pissed off teenagers, angry because they’ve been lied to. Yes, information should be presented in an age-appropriate way, but kids need information. Keeping them uninformed is not the answer.
Comment by Denise Shelton — October 29, 2010 @ 9:37 am
5, 8: The local teacher’s union has a strong bias against Mike McMahon, who does not shirk from opposing them. I’m betting that the local teacher’s union started from an “anybody but McMahon” position this fall and liked Pruitt’s history as a labor relations guy.
They also might not have done their due diligence in their zeal to select someone other than Mike McMahon…
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 29, 2010 @ 9:40 am
The only dissenting Trustee has been Trish Spencer. I’ve interviewed her twice, and find myself in agreement with much of what she says. Her take on the anti-bullying curriculum was that it, ironically, divided the community further, the whole debate and the way it was promoted. It pitted the very religious — including many ethnic minorities, African- American, Muslims, Chinese, Afghan awe refugees, conservative Jews — against gay parents and gay students. She supports the new and broadened curriculum.
But she’s often the only one who dares disagree with McMahon, who impressed me as a bully himself in my interview with him.
Comment by Dennis Green — October 29, 2010 @ 10:00 am
#14 —
Dennis,
Boardmember Spencer was the only boardmember to vote “no” on the expanded curriculum in April.
Comment by Susan Davis — October 29, 2010 @ 10:04 am
That’s right Susan, Trish Spencer also flip flopped from her position on the issue, first advocating for a curriculum that explicitly “goes to reducing bullying against all of our students and enumerating the six protected classes: religion, gender, LGBT, disability, race, ethnicity, and…um…uh…I’m not sure if I left one out…disability, and also disability” and after that curriculum and book list was developed she decided that a generic, off-the-rack anti-bullying curriculum was now more appropriate.
Comment by Lauren Do — October 29, 2010 @ 10:32 am
RE: http://www.alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6579&Itemid=11
Did Brad Cook write the letter to the SUN or did Clay Pollard?
In either case, someone was being disingenuous: either Brad Cook signed a LTE written by Clay Pollard (or yet someone else) and submitted it to the SUN, or Pollard is reading Brad Cook’s LTE almost verbatim and not providing proper attribution to the author.
Will the real Brad Cook/Clay Pollard please stand up? And which one of you is the clone?
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 29, 2010 @ 11:03 am
“See, he’s slick. That’s why I predicted he has a good chance of winning.”
Could it be that everyone who doesn’t agree with the left agenda gets elected because of slickness? Even papa-san green admits this isn’t about bullying, it’s about “enlightening” society and anyone who chooses to not be enlightened and who actually runs for office and who actually honestly states his views is only worthy of derision by the left.
“Slick” is covering up the truth by continually using a duplicitous phrase like anti-bullying when the true intent is something quite different.
The conspiratorial rant about hijacking a vigil is laughable. Good for Pollard if it’s true.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 29, 2010 @ 11:18 am
So just what was the “true intent” of the anti-bullying program?
Comment by dave — October 29, 2010 @ 11:25 am
The teachers union should remove their endorsement of James Pruitt in light of this information
Comment by Sean Cahill — October 29, 2010 @ 11:26 am
taking lgbt out of the barbecue and putting it on the dinner plate
Comment by Jack Richard — October 29, 2010 @ 11:47 am
Jack Richard is entitled to his views and laimoid name calling, and so am I. If his views of homosexuals sound like some 19th Century slaver, so be it. I suspect what he does with women is just as GROSS as anything gays do. But then, he’s too enlightened to notice, or does it all in the dark!
Slick
Comment by Dennis Green — October 29, 2010 @ 11:57 am
Voltaire would defend Clay Pollard’s right to have his say, even if he didn’t agree with it. Can we really do less? Bullying is a huge problem. Fifty percent of high school teenagers reported being bullied either at school or online based on an article in today’s Chronicle. There is also much discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians. Education is the key to changing biases along with strong teacher leadership. However, an opt out clause would have been a wise tactical move on the school board’s part. Their determination to advance this issue was a contributing factor in the close loss on the parcel tax. My recollection is that McMahon voted no because of the lack of an opt out besides Spencer. Pollard, like any other citizen, is free to express his opinion and run for the school board. He should not be condemned for deciding he knows what is right for his children. I think he has been open and honest about his position.
Comment by Hot R — October 29, 2010 @ 11:59 am
#3 – Thanks, my sentiments also.
Crikey, these are my “neighbors?”
Comment by Basel — October 29, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
Jack– I meant “slick” as in polished not “slick” as in insincerely. I believe Mr. Pollard is sincere but that those who are influenced by a nice looking package might be surprised to see what’s inside. Hot R — I don’t condemn Mr. Pollard for his views. Clearly they are shared by many. I just think the people on the school board should be supportive and represent all families, not just the ones like theirs. Yes, it’s refreshing that he’s upfront about his bias, but it’s a bias nonetheless and a polarizing one at that. We just don’t need the grief.
Comment by Denise Shelton — October 29, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
#23, Is there actually any proof that “Their determination to advance this issue was a contributing factor in the close loss on the parcel tax”? Who exactly has performed exit polling or an analysis on voting patterns to validate this statement? Pollard should be condemned for not supporting the anti-bullying curriculum because his views are based on his own religious beliefs rather than any objective facts. In other words he’s a bigot who obviously cannot be relied on to support all AUSD students.
Comment by Tom — October 29, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
22
Re. “laimoid name calling”, I guess I should have put the comment number in my response to:
Denise Shelton’s #9. “See, he’s slick. That’s why I predicted he has a good chance of winning.”
Hope that clears that up. Also, I don’t recall expressing my views on homosexuals, but I assure you they aren’t 19th century.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 29, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
Sorry, Jack. With such a controversial and heated subject, I’ll try to write with greater clarity and precision. I’ve just heard the stories of anguish and grief from gays and lesbians so many times over the years I tend to recoil too easily.
Comment by Dennis Green — October 29, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
18, 23: I also defend Clay Pollard’s right to say and believe whatever he wants in any legal manner.
What I object to – strenuously – is his use of campaign rhetoric that makes him *sound* like a supporter of the Lesson 9 curriculum and its successor when he is, in fact, on the record as opposing it. (Lauren’s two video examples are proof of his de facto opposition.)
His duplicity is disingenuous, misleading, and inappropriate for any candidate for public office.
If you do not believe Pollard (and probably Pruitt) are misleading the voters, watch and listen to the videos Lauren has posted above and contrast them to their statements at the LWVA school board forum here:
http://blip.tv/file/4294911
Pollard, in particular,has NEVER shown his true colors in his campaign appearances I have seen, nor in our several personal conversations. The closest he comes to being transparent is his reference to the primacy of “the community’s voice” and his claims about the district’s “lack of transparency” about the budget…
Would he call an anti-racism curriculum “criminal”? Do his children not “need” to understand racism or racist terms in the first grade? I am sure they have been exposed to racism already, even at that tender age….
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 29, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
26: Many, many opposition speakers threatened to vote against the still-undecided future parcel tax during the 2009 public hearings on Lesson 9 and the anti-bullying curriculum.
None of the Lesson 9 supporters made similar threats to not support a future parcel tax, BTW.
How many threats were there? At least dozens made for the record. if my memory is correct. projecting out how many speakers opposed the Lesson 9 curriculum and how many made the threats to oppose any parcel tax, it is absolutely justifiable to conclude, as Hot R does, that … this issue was a contributing factor in the close loss on the parcel tax…” ˆ
Political considerations aside, I believe the Board of Ed acted properly to adopt Lesson 9, but the opposition’s use of threats against the parcel tax was not morally justified.
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 29, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Its very common for closeted homosexuals to try and disguise same sex attraction by proselytizing the Christian and Conservative agenda.
Has anyone thought or wondered why this man feels so strongly against Gay men and Women.
I recommend you watch Oprah’s “Men on the Down Low show.” There is good chance Collard could potentially have a meltdown in the same way as Oprah’s guests. Have you noticed a pattern of anti-gay “devout Christians” and Conservative Republicans.
Just something to think about. I would not vote for this man let alone sit anywhere close to him.
Comment by Don — October 29, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
Ah, c’mon, Jon! Many of us who supported Lesson Nine opposed the parcel tax for perfectly legitimate reasons. I don’t even pay the damned things, but found Measure E regressive, excessive and unfair. PLUS, it lacked any accountability about how it would be spent, thanks to Mike McMahon. So climb down off that high horse, the nag is exhausted.
Comment by Dennis Green — October 29, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
30, You and Hot R are providing anecdotal rather than empirical evidence to support Hot R’s conclusion. The best you can say is that “it MAY have been a contributing factor”.
Comment by Tom — October 29, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
#20 — Sean, I agree with you completely. The teacher’s union needs to withdraw it’s endorsement of Pruitt. Pronto. Pruitt’s association with Gary Fanger, the union buster (http://www.sfbg.com/39/51/news_scab_master.html) should be very disturbing to them. In their zeal for “anyone but McMahon,” (or Pollard or Wrobel) they didn’t do their homework.
It’s late, but not too late, for the Union to fix its mistake and withdraw their endorsement of Pruitt. If they don’t, then they’ll have no right to complain when Pruitt, the friend of Union busters, parcel tax opponents, and opponents of gay rights gets elected to the Board.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — October 29, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
So I have a flyer titled Save our Schools. It has a website: http://www.committeetochangeausdschooldistrict.com to help save our schools.
When you get to the site it reads: http://67.59.185.92/committeetochangeausdschoolboard/
Now if you to go http://www.jamespruittforschoolboard.com you get http://67.59.185.92/alameda/
If you look who owns the IP address it is Gary Fanger.
Comment by Mike McMahon — October 29, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
It’s really sad that there is so much hiding going on. Both my kids (way too young to vote) have met Mr. Pollard and really like him … He’s quite affable. At a candidate’s forum the evening of the day people were wearing purple in support of the “it gets better” movement, my question about the anti-bullying curriculum was answered to my satisfaction by both Pollard and Pruitt. Both of the candidates came across rather well. So it’s amazing to see this bit of history brought to the spotlight, to see the huge difference between campaign rhetoric and reality.
Comment by Dan W. — October 29, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
The funniest part of the evening was Dan and Mrs. Wood herding their tow-headed son away from me saying “No, he’s not a candidate.”
But, at least you wore a purple shirt that night, Dan. Very big of you.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — October 29, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
28
28
Re, anguish and grief. Dennis, our second son died in San Francisco in 1992 from aids. Death certificate said Chronic Waste Syndrome caused by aids. He went from a healthy young man to a skeleton in six months.
He was 29. We took his body back to Kentucky and buried him next to his grandpa who died the same year.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 29, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
Jack R. – Very sorry to hear you had a beautiful son taken from you. I had a very dear cousin go the same way.
Anyone who has held a loved one in their arms and watched them waste away like that will recoil at the hateful bigotry expressed by Mr. Pollard. No one who has been through that can believe that being gay is anything but a beautiful, natural thing and no loving God would “punish” someone in that way.
Mr. Pollard should search his soul for some compassion and understanding. Having someone like that on the school board, or in any public position, would be a tremendous wound on our city.
If you have to resort to lying and obfuscation to get into office you certainly don’t have the character necessary to serve.
Comment by david burton — October 29, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
38: Jack, I am so sorry you lost your son to AIDS.
Just a few years after those such difficult times he might have been treated successfully.
I lost friends and a mentor to the AIDS epidemic, but cannot imagine the pain of losing a son.
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 29, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
Jack:
My daughter just receovered from a serious illness, during which I had to consider the possibility of losing her. Just thinking about it was nightmarish, and of course thinking about is nothing compared to living through it. Belated but sincere condolences.
Comment by dave — October 29, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Jack, I lost many good friends to AIDs, and had to listen to Ronnie Reagan deny it could possibly be a problem outside “THAT” community. The most infected now are in Africa and among IV drug users here in the States. Millions of unnecessary deaths, so I’m not only sympathetic to your grief, but really angry about the ignorance that let’s this happen. Power to the People, Right On!
Comment by Dennis Green — October 29, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
The hit pieces arriving in the mail today against Sweeney, DeHaan, Johnson, and Gallant are OUTRAGEOUS.
To those who have defended, supported, worked for, been paid by, or supported anyone who has supported SunCal can take the blame for debasing democracy and dragging this election into the gutters.
Comment by RM — October 29, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
It was probably a mistake to post that comment. My point was to acknowledge there is another human element that sometimes gets overlooked when discussing this subject.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 29, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
43: Rosemary, they ARE outrageous. And so have the hit pieces coming from some people who support
these targeted candidates.
It is really important for all of us – on both sides – to rein in the nastiness and be civil to each other. Next Wednesday we will all still be neighbors in this city…
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 29, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Lauren,
I applaud you for calling attention to Clay Pollard’s history of bigotry and discrimination. His campaign is devoid of any mention of his Lesson 9 activities, despite Lesson 9 being the primary reason that he is running for the board.
Alameda voters may not know the real Clay Pollard now, but if he wins, I suspect the entire Bay Area will be acutely aware of who Pollard really is.
Comment by John — October 29, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
Post #43 RM,is your mind so small and one tracked that you couldn’t follow what was being discussed on this thread. Boy you sure like to paint a whole lot of people with a broad brush. So anyone who does not agree with you is “debasing Democracy”
Comment by John piziali — October 29, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
Jack, Thanks for bringing out the Humanity in Dennis. Dennis I withdraw what I said about you, at least for now.
Comment by John piziali — October 29, 2010 @ 9:39 pm
John, among the several reasons that I disclosed here that I am dying of renal failure was a kind of warning. I have certain unfair advantages from this point of view, and also certain disabilities when I lose touch with my own humanity, one foot in the next world as it were. Sometimes that world is inhabited by demons, who writhe and pull me down beneath the surface. At other times I am blessed with the company of angelic hosts.
And sometimes, I’m just myself.
Comment by Dennis Green — October 30, 2010 @ 6:32 am
Trying to connect the many points here about Pollard and Pruitt, it looks like Pollard was not only opposed to Lesson 9 but was so against including LGBT issues in any anti-bullying curriculum that he continued to speak out even against the broader anti-bullying curriculum that replaced it, as shown in that first clip here. The purpose for that broader replacement curriculum was to teach students from a young age the basic principle that in a diverse classroom and in a democracy, they are to respect and not bully students in *any* of the “protected classes” including religion, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, gender and national origin. Do Alameda voters really agree that that effort to fix the narrow focus of Lesson 9 by broadening it to include all children is “criminal?”
Pollard identified himself in his remarks cited here as a Republican and conservative. Maybe he should read (Republic and conservative) Judge Walker’s decision from this summer finding Prop 8 unconstitutional. Or read some of what conservative Ted Olson has to say about conservative values and equal rights.
The fact that Pollard’s speech in the second clip here is word for word virtually identical to the letter to the editor from anti-Lesson 9 activist Brad Cook cited here in comment 17, the fact that the primary opponents of Lesson 9 and the subsequent broader anti-bullying curriculum are driving the Pollard and Pruitt campaigns — notice that those signs are very often paired, so one might legitimately call them a “slate” — even though he is now silent about those issues, and the fact that he and his and Pruitt’s supporters organized last week’s “vigil” to save the pools that was sold to students as something very different from the very small Pollard and Pruitt campaign rally it really was suggests Pollard has a very troubling dishonesty, lack of forthrightness and lack of transparency. Not good.
And despite having lived here a long time, it looks like Pollard has no experience or involvement in AUSD district issues other than trying to stop anti-bullying curriculum.
According to the comments here, Pruitt likes AFT, the group that sued the school district over Measure H and lost in court last spring but then continued to complain that the district spent money defending itself — successfully — against AFT. AFT consists of a very small and not representative subset of Alameda’s business community.
Pruitt also likes the “Institute on Religion and Democracy.” As the first comment here shows, that group has a strong anti-gay agenda. http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=804
And according to comments 34 and 35, Pruitt’s whole campaign website is owned by Gary Fanger, who organized the vigil that wasn’t a vigil but was really a campaign rally and reunion for the primary opponents of not only Lesson 9 but also the broader anti-bullying curriculum that replaced it. According to that article in the Bay Guardian cited in comment 34, Fanger is far out of the mainstream: http://www.sfbg.com/39/51/news_scab_master.html.
Fanger is one of Pruitt’s key people. Yikes.
No one except Pollard and Pruitt can know their true intentions. But there sure are a whole lot of red flags now that Alameda voters might be on the verge of voting for a secret right wing slate of Pollard and Pruitt for School Board.
Maybe those two should stick around and work on broader school district issues for a couple more years so Alameda gets to know them better before voting them into office. There will be three seats open on the school board in 2012.
Tuesday night will be interesting.
Comment by What Will Alameda Voters Say? — October 30, 2010 @ 8:04 am
Not sure where you get the idea that AFT is a tiny minority of Alameda businesses. As a former President of the Chamber of Commerce here, I’ve been in touch with many friends and colleagues in that community who opposed Measure E, (not, as a group, Measure H).
In fact it was in large part Melody Marr’s reluctance to allow the Chamber to take a clear stance against Measure E, as they voted to do, that led to her ouster. “We cannot support Measure E,” was her watered-down version. AFT and the Chamber had many reasons to oppose Measure E, not least the mismanagement of the schools, it’s duration and massive demands, no accountability, etc.
And they will oppose the March parcel tax proposal if it is as egregious as Measure E was.
Comment by Dennis Green — October 30, 2010 @ 9:50 am
The basis of Clay Pollard’s campaign is his opposition to Lesson 9. Clay Pollard is anti-gay.
James Pruitt supports the implementation of Lesson 9 without an opt-out option. That is a pro-gay position.
The incumbent, Mike McMahon, voted against Lesson 9, that is an anti-gay position.
Dave Howard has not endorsed anyone for public office but has campaigned against the candidates finance by SunCal, Gilmore, Tam and Bonta.
Comment by Leland Traiman — October 30, 2010 @ 10:05 am
so we know this now: any failure now to speak out against SunCal and it’s vituperate political communications—particularly if those communications benefit you [yes, I'm speaking to Bonta, Tam, Williams]—is an abomination. We are a community that has always held the best and highest goals for our common good even when ideas about how to do that differ. But Tam and Suncal have changed that game 100% into something degenerate, demoralizing, and inimical. On November 3rd, rather than moving forward in a trust-based collaboration excited about our future’s possibilities and despite our differing opinions and votes, we will continue to be consumed with suspicion and remain worried and vigilant about our future. Rhode Island celebrates all candidates–winners and losers–on November 3rd with a parade. I cannot even imagine that this kind of great political and social process would be possible in Alameda, the feelings are so bad here.
Comment by DHL — October 30, 2010 @ 10:15 am
The divisiveness began long before SunCal. The end-runs on Prop. 13 by parcel tax initiatives — a new library in the Age of the Internet, measures A & H instead of school reforms and tighter management, the Telecom fiasco, a parking garage that sits empty all day long and loses money very month in spite of the City doubling on-street parking meter fees — the list of public officials ripping us off would be hilarious if it weren’t so idiotic.
And we won’t even get into the Alameda Hospital thing,the mismanagement, the EMS protocols, the permanent parcel tax. Etc. Or will we?
Comment by Dennis Green — October 30, 2010 @ 10:23 am
Anguished lesbian here wondering what you’re all *doing* about Pollard and Priutt? I hate to throw a wrench in the mutual appreciation society here, but those of us who are still alive open the paper every day only to read another story about how degenerate we are, and turn on the radio for more of the same – the barrage is endless and soul-sapping – we could use some real help from those of you who are straight and sympathetic.
You may not like fighting fire with fire, but it stands a much better chance of getting something done than sitting in front of your computer congratulating each other for having all the right feelings about gays and lesbians.
I’ve got to say something about RM’s (43) comments being off-thread: Poppycock! Lauren opened that door with her none-too-subtle endorsement of the SunCal slate mid-article. Seems pretty on-point to me to comment on what’s in the article, wouldn’t you say?
Which brings me to comment 45. Jon, on Wednesday, I hope to God that not all of us will still be neighbors. I’m referring specifically to SunCal. They are flat-out lying about candidates as well as putting false return addresses on mailers, etc. Lying, thieving, hiding, bullying wretches: I do not want them as neighbors on Wednesday. Getting the word out about their duplicity requires punching back, just like with any bully. Hey – that’s kind of on-point too, isn’t it? Anti-bullying, I mean.
Lastly, comparing Dave Howard’s tactics with SunCal’s and Pollard/Pruitt’s is disingenuous at best, and vicious at worst. Whether or not you agree with Dave – and you clearly do not – he does his research and puts his name on what he publishes. He knows how to fight fire with fire too, something I’m not seeing much evidence of here.
While I’m on the playground getting beat up by those who would happily kill me, seeing a bunch of kids off in the corner psycho-analyzing my attackers is not helpful. Someone who wades in and does what it takes to get them off me? I’ll take as much of that as I can get.
Thank you for listening.
Comment by Liz Williams — October 30, 2010 @ 10:40 am
53: “so we know this now: any failure now to speak out against SunCal…and it’s vituperate political communications—particularly if those communications benefit you…is an abomination.”
DLH, EVERY Alameda candidate has spoken out against the SunCal ads, polls, and mailers at campaign forums.
In truth, the negative ads help no one and the supposed “beneficiaries” would like nothing more that for SCC Alameda/SunCal/Argent/Taxpayer Network to stop poisoning our elections and our community.
Nothing that anyone has done so far has had any influence on SunCal or its affiliates, sad to say. SunCal will keep spewing whatever it wants no matter what – and offering yet more abundant proof that they are not worthy partners for anyone.
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 30, 2010 @ 10:48 am
OMG, Alameda was just very briefly on Jon Stewart/Colbert’s rally to restore sanity/fear!!!!!!
appropriately, it was about this teaching gay stuff to students.
Comment by E — October 30, 2010 @ 11:36 am
#57….You type faster than I do. And it was on the Fear side of the argument…Hopefully the sanity side will win out in the end.
Comment by J.E.A. — October 30, 2010 @ 11:39 am
Acknowledging the difficulties that gay kids and the children of gay parents face in school and doing what we can to provide a safe enviornment for all kids is the sane and decent thing to do.
Comment by John — October 30, 2010 @ 11:45 am
Liz Williams, If you believe that David Howard puts his name on everthing he has put out there, I have a bridge to sell you.
Comment by John piziali — October 30, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Liz, you wanna have lunch with me? That’s the best way I know to hear your story and do something about it in an activist way. I have no fear of lesbians and gays, and am always looking for new ways to help out in my own modest way. Parties at the Eagles Club help, as well as anything bold in Alameda.
Comment by Dennis Green — October 30, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
47. ditto.
Comment by M.I. — October 30, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Mark, ate you a Ditto-head or a Do-Bot? Make up your mind.
Comment by Dennis Green — October 30, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
44. Jack, your comment was not a mistake by any means because you succeeded in injecting the human element, which is just what we need to focus on.
It’s a horribly bittersweet and ironic life lesson that through pain and suffering we gain wisdom and insight. I’ve lost a sibling, but as hard as that was I think I had it easier than my parents. Not a happy thing top join that club.
I dig Patty Smith, but I was never a huge fan of the whole dark and brooding New York scene, but I heard the rebroadcast of her book tour interview (“Just Kids”) about her career and her relationship with Robert Mapplethorpe etc. and her discussion of losing Robert, and her husband, and her brother to AIDS. Made me want to read the book.
To paraphrase, Smith said time doesn’t heal all wounds, it just allows us to live with them.
Comment by M.I. — October 30, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Well, finally, M.I., something we can agree on. “Horses” is a great album, and not just because of AIDs. “Pissin’ in a river/watching it rise…” I always question your sincerity, because I’ve not seen any evidence that you practice kindness in person, as I always try to do. More of your bullshit, and I’ll just trot out the tale of the Alameda Writers Group, which you sabotaged!
Comment by Dennis Green — October 30, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Dennis, a big yes to lunch. I’d welcome the opportunity. Zizzlah. At mac dot com
John, please show me the bridge you want to sell me.
Comment by liz williams — October 30, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
I want to give the people here credit for one thing- in all the mudslinging and sniping and backbiting that has gone on, never once, has my sexuality been an issue. I am an openly gay man, always have been in my adult life, and never shirked away from it.
I had a long chat with Clay Pollard during this campaign season and started it off with letting him know I was openly gay. He responded by telling me that two of his closest employees were gay and that he had no problem with it. His whole patter and delivery was very polished, but he still couldn’t get away from the fact of why he opposed the Lesson Nine program is that he is opposed to the “homosexual lifestyle” being taught in schools.
It may come as a surprise to some of you that I am an openly gay man, which goes to question what exactly a “homosexual lifestyle” is?
I appreciate that most of the people who come to this site understand that for the red herring it is. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are people who have unique lifestyles the same way heterosexual people have unique lifestyles.
Bullying amongst children for any reason causes years of misery and in extreme cases, suicide. The campaign going around right now called “It Gets Better,” rings true, but in my experience, at least, it takes a long time. Steps like the Lesson Nine program and teaching our children to be kind to each other are essential, but more adults than Clay Pollard could learn from them.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — October 30, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Okay, Liz, we’re on for lunch! I’ll follow up on that website. And Adam, I think you should run for Mayor! I’ll help with your campaign if you do. AlameDa can be not just a sge harbor, but in the forefront!
Comment by Dennis Green — October 30, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
It seems clear that Pollard opposes including LGBT students and families in even a broad anti-bullying curriculum. He decided not to be honest and decided not to tell voters about how “criminal” he thinks that is while he is campaigning. Pollard’s supporters are drawn from the core of the activists who were quite clear that they opposed the anti-bullying curriculum specifically because it included LGBT along with other protected classes.
No one has disputed any of this.
Pruitt likes a far right anti-gay group called Institute on Religion and Democracy. Pruitt’s campaign workers and core supporters are the same people as Pollard’s. Their supporters link Pollard and Pruitt signs all over the place. Pollard and Pruitt supporters organized a fake “vigil” last week that was in fact a campaign event for them both where Pollard spoke. Gary Fanger, the subject of that jaw-dropping article in the Bay Guardian cited above, hosts the website for Pruitt’s campaign and also the website for the group that organized and handout out campaign literature at the fake “vigil” that they tried to trick students into attending.
No one has disputed any of this either.
A voter wouldn’t be crazy to conclude they are working together. Would it be crazy to conclude that they aren’t?
Comment by What Will Alameda Voters Say? — October 30, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
#66 If you believe David Howard, then just pick any bridge you would like to own and send me a check. Thanks in advance for your check.
Comment by John piziali — October 30, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
#52 –
Mike McMahon voted “no” on the original Lesson 9, because he hoped an “opt out” provision would calm some of the controversy that, he feared, could endanger the next parcel tax.
He voted “yes” on the expanded version of the curriculum, which includes materials about anti-gay bullying.
To accuse him of being “anti-gay” because he voted down the first iteration of the curriculum is unfair and inaccurate.
Comment by Susan Davis — October 30, 2010 @ 5:20 pm
Clay Pollard says he is a successful business owner, but does not name either the business or type of business he owns. Does anyone know what his business backround is?
Comment by John — October 30, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
John P., you’re being cagey about Dave Howard. Still awaiting specifics about what he didn’t put his name on.
Comment by liz williams — October 30, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
Liz,
It’s not so much that he won’t put his name on things, it’s that he gets his “facts” wrong. We’re all entitled to our opinions but not our own facts.
Witness his jumping to conclusions on The Island the other day. He was so eager to disparage those with whom he disagrees that he maligned the blog of another Alamedan doing great work.
Facts are stubborn things.
Comment by David burton — October 30, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
No doubt AUSD’s way of supporting lgbt education in K-4 had a great deal to do with the failing of the parcel tax. Lesson 9 has been a tragedy for this city. Alameda schools are as far into decline as our country in into recession. Sadly AUSD is not on the rebound, it appears it will crash and burn , and not just because of State leadership. Had Sean Cahill been willing to work with the community rather than exerting unilateral authority that AUSD administration should never grant to a single side of any issue, the community would be far better off.
Up above (#7) exemplifies the extremist bigotry of the gay rights advocates and how promoting their own cause is of the highest importance, regardless of any other aspect of reality. This pattern has become a tragedy for our schools.
Voting in AUSD administrators to fill the role of the BOE would be the next tragedy, and I predict a more powerful failure of the next parcel tax unless the BOE becomes representative of the community rather than the AUSD bureaucratic administration. Running on bureaucraticacy cannot solve the District’s problems, we need change.
Comment by watchn — October 30, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
Well D. Burton – that is your opinion
Comment by watchn — October 30, 2010 @ 11:07 pm
Re 74:
Facts ARE stubborn things.
What are we to make of the now undeniable connection between SunCal and Lauren Do, and the candidates she and her cohorts at the CADC promote, much less their own connections to SunCal?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — October 30, 2010 @ 11:17 pm
I suspect that those who disparage Dave Howard have never sat down and talked with him at any length, as I have. And that’s why I publish op-ed pieces on his site. I’ve also met with Michele Ellson, and love teasing her about her claim, unlike Lauren, that she is a journalist and that hers is a news site and not a blog. Her recent decision to change her standards and not publish comments from readers who will not use their real, full names has so far resulted in a drastic drop in comments, so we’ll see how long that lasts.
I had a great friendship with Chip Brown, former publisher of the Alameda Journal, and tried, unsuccessfully, to connect with current editor Connie Rux. Had a column for four years in the Sun, and have spoken at length, and in person to current editor Dennis Evanosky. The more the merrier!
And Lauren does some very fine work. I don’t understand why some of her readers have to put everyone down who differs with them, but are generally decent people. The terminally toxic are very rare, in my own experience. And some of the most belligerent writers here wouldn’t last five minutes in my favorite pub!
Comment by Dennis Green — October 30, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
Mr.Pollard runs a auto repair shop in San Francisco. Based on the Yelp reviews he runs a very good business.
Comment by Mike McMahon — October 31, 2010 @ 9:49 am
Anti-gay bullying and tragic suicides by victims all over the country of such bullying has been well covered in the news lately. If Mr. Pollard gets elected to the school board and takes steps to weaken Alameda anti-bullying efforts, I can’t imagine that will be good for his San Francisco based business.
Comment by John — October 31, 2010 @ 10:45 am
Boycotts are a very powerful weapon. Threats from Measure E backers to boycott businesses that displayed “No on E” window signs were countered by threats from the business community to boycott advertising in the Journal and the Sun. At some point such threats become rather nasty and mean-spirited, but people forget that it’s a two-way street. I suspect news about Pollard is traveling across San Francisco even now.
Comment by Dennis Green — October 31, 2010 @ 11:50 am
Would someone please tell Mr. Pollard and Mr. Pruitt and their supporters that it’s illegal to place campaign signs on public property under section 4-3 of the Alameda Municipal Code? I even saw Pollard and Pruitt signs on public property in Oakland (where I’m reasonably confident that it’s illegal too). Seriously, their blatant disregard of local laws does not reflect well on them or on their campaigns.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — October 31, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
From the ICM to all candidates:
The irony is that it seems not just “icky” candidates are doing this, but many others, too… As Citizens, you have the right and duty to report any illegal sign placement.
Alternatively, since it’s public property, if you’re so incensed, you could just be proactive and remove the unwanted debris.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — October 31, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
The signs should not be returned to the candidates. Instead, the candidates should be fined for each illegally placed sign.
Comment by John — October 31, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
I have to say I think Jean Sweeney wins the prize for the most comprehensive sign placement. I don’t know if any of them are illegally placed, and I’m actually okay with that as long as someone removes them next week. I have to admire the sheer quantity and creativity in sign placement. Maybe there should be a contest like the best haunted house. The winner gets to clean up ALL the candidates signs.
Comment by Denise Shelton — October 31, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
Getting supporters to display signs in their yards, windows, cars, wherever on their own property is grass roots democracy at its best.
But intentionally violating the law by having organized distribution of signs on public property blanketing the main routes in and out of Alameda — as Pruitt and Pollard have done this weekend — is unconscionable and is yet another red flag about those two.
If either Pruitt or Pollard simply sent an email to supporters asking them not to engage in illegal activity and to remove the signs, it would stop.
The campaigns are breaking the law on purpose. Even if one believes the candidates didn’t organize this (quite a stretch), Pruitt and Pollard are now condoning blatantly illegal activity.
Maybe we should take Mr. Gillitt’s suggestion to heart and clean up public property.
Comment by What Will Alameda Voters Say? — October 31, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
Pollard has pushed the envelope pretty far with a pretty heavy over use of public domain and it will be interesting to see if the campaign cleans up after itself.
I’d be tempted to act as Adam suggests, but most of you have seen the negative blow back in San Jose over ballot initiative signs taken down legally by a councilman.
Last campaign there was some out cry about the public domain and while biking near the island drive bridge I crossed paths with Doug de Haan who was out taking down some of his signs zealous supporters had placed on the public median.
Comment by M.I. — October 31, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
87: last week I removed a Marie Gilmore sign from the Constitution Way median – at the request of Gilmore’s campaign ,manager, Kathie Woulfe. It went to a legal location in a supporter’s yard.
55: Liz, I have been supporting McMahon and Sherratt as much as I can, and also passing on the accurate info on Pollard and Pruitt to anyone and everyone who will listen. This included a former union organizer friendI saw yesterday who had a Pruitt sign in her yard.
I knew she would especially hate Pruitt’s connection to a union-busting convicted felon like Gary Fanker. Once she sees the light many people will hear about Pruitt from her. I just hope it is in time…
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 31, 2010 @ 8:08 pm
8, 36, 52, 71: Leland,
Make no mistake about it: Mike McMahon is your real friend and ally in this fight.
James Pruitt and Clay Pollard are both impostors and deceivers, and I am really sorry that you, Dan Wood, and others have been taken in by their friendly – and false – exterior attractiveness. If you are anti-union and pro-felon, go ahead and vote for James Pruitt.
Once they have deceived us once they will not shrink from deceiving us again.
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 31, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
Check this out. It shows what SunCal spent in negative propaganda about Alameda candidates.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54212193@N05/sets/72157625150043227/ Looks like they see Frank as the biggest threat.
I also got my latest robocall tonight. They stated that Frank was in third place and asked if he were to drop out would I vote for Gilmore or DeHaan. It did not come from Magellan but a new outfit whose name was not familiar: Kyocera International with a 510 area code.
Comment by Denise Shelton — October 31, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
Denise, that’s interesting. Do you know how that information was assembled? I sure wish I had collected all the mailers I got, they’re a piece of history.
I don’t think the SunCal campaign is what put Frank in third if that is accurate. I think it’s the polarity between the perception of the other two candidates.
I do think if the negative campaign does have a significant effect it will be to poison the efforts of Gilmore, Tam and possibly Bonta.
Do people remember when a flier on Johnson’s behalf appeared late in the campaign for mayor which was not paid for by her campaign but I think came out of the Perata camp? There was a huge stink about “outside influence”, but it was small potatoes compared to this.
No matter who wins I expect those elected to make or break themselves in the two years until the next election.
The school board election is really critical and what I’m most invested in right now in terms of the critical impact.
Comment by M.I. — October 31, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
Anti gay bulling is no more an issue than any other bullying. While any suicide is tragic, every suicide can be seen as s symptom or result of a preexisting mental illness. Almost 10 years prior to Lesson 9 AUSD had a board policy to prevent all bullying.
Lesson 9 is simply a demonstration that AUSD board policy is as useless as the people who were to abide by the policy, or, that the AUSD administration is incapable or unwilling (useless) to inform AUSD staff of policy and also fails to insure policy is followed. (More useless)
Since that is the case it is pointless to feed the bureaucracy more cash unless they can prove they can organize the organization. With over 10 years of steady failure it is defiantly time to reject the current school board,
Comment by J. Spangle Rangle — October 31, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
92:
The views of the anonymous poor speller who cannot punctuate and misappropriated my name in #92 bear no resemblance whatsoever to mine, just in case any responsible readers out there were wondering. (Reminds me of third grade schoolyard crap…)
This gutless wonder is certainly not posting under that moniker with my consent…
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 1, 2010 @ 12:44 am
Anti-gay bullying most certainly is more of an issue than other types of bullying. It is the only form of bullying that groups have organized to stop the district from addressing.
Comment by John — November 1, 2010 @ 9:59 am
75, Hey watchn, why not use your real name. Afraid to be bullied? No one has done more than me to support equity in Alameda and in AUSD. I’m sorry you lost your way but please know the door will remain open and we’ll keep the light on for you when your ready to come home.
Comment by Sean Cahill — November 1, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
Michael, your statement about Gary Fanger being related to James Pruitt’s website or address is completely false. Would you please retract your statement by tomorrow and forward me a copy of the retraction.
Thanks, and again thank you for your service over the last 8 years. Gary Fanger
Comment by Mike McMahon — November 1, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
How can you have a credible dialogue on this site if so many of the participants hide behind an alias? It’s easy to spew your hot air from behind a cloak of anonymity isn’t, but what would you do if you knew your neighbors might be reading it? If you are speaking the truth and had the facts to support what you claim (#75) there wouldn’t be any need to hide would there?
The cowardly way is to hide behind your keyboard and fill this site with nonsense. Have the balls and identify yourself. I applaud those that have the integrity to put their real name to the words they speak. Lauren you ought to have a comment policy that requires the poster identify themselves.
Comment by Karry Kelley — November 1, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
Interesting thing about the pool shutdown: Not once has the AR&PD aquatics webpage indicated anything about the pools being closed, and it’s been 17 days. How does one stay informed in this town?
Comment by nemo — November 1, 2010 @ 6:47 pm