Tuesday night I watched the School Board meeting. The husband was at a company holiday party so I had full control of the television after the kids went to bed. So naturally, Alameda Unified School District Board meeting would be at the top of anyone’s must see TV, right?
The first thing that I witnessed when I turned on the television was School Boardmember Trish Spencer going on a tear after School Boardmember Ron Mooney nominated Boardmember Margie Sherratt as president for the next term. Naturally I immediately hit record on my Tivo. For those that were not aware, at the end of every year they switch up the officeholders by a simple election among themselves. Apparently Boardmember Spencer was under the impression that, like grade school kickball, everyone gets a turn at being president.
She obviously felt slighted that she was not nominated this time around and expressed how she felt she was being “shut out.” I think she used different terminology, but I’m doing this from memory. There was something about bringing up how former Boardmember Janet Gibson was also shut out of being elected as President and then the fact the former Boardmember Tracy Jensen only served one term as President. She also went on and on about how during her election cycle, Niel Tam came in first, she came in second, and Ron Mooney came in third, but Ron Mooney had already gotten to serve two terms as president. I literally was anticipating her saying “It’s not fair!” at the conclusion.
When Boardmember Mike McMahon said before the vote that generally that the president is someone who can build consensus among the other Boardmembers I thought that was actually a pretty fair assessment of why she probably would not be the best candidate.
I know that right now some people are enamored of Boardmember Trish Spencer, particularly because of her “support” of the teacher’s union, but I think that it’s strange little instances like this that make her a less effective champion, when she gets mired in the petty politics instead of working on, you know, building consensus with her other Boardmembers, she becomes marginalized and ineffective for whatever cause she is backing.
I have some other thoughts about the Board meeting, but I’m going to save that for another post. And I have to say I’m disappointed that the School Board meetings are not yet on-line, when I believe that they were supposed to be available in late November.
Is this the same school board who gave raises to all the administrators along with a performance bonus, hired two new administrators at $100,000 each to oversee Measure A funds, but has no money to retain good teachers as advertised in Measure A?
Comment by Really? — December 15, 2011 @ 6:19 am
I’ve sat through at least 10 school board meetings in person… and I’ve never seen Neil Tam contribute anything. Barely even talks. Just rubber stamps.
I appreciate that Trish Spencer asks questions that need to be asked. And I’ll bet many agree with me.
Comment by Jack B. — December 15, 2011 @ 7:04 am
Action Alameda, the parcel tax plaintiffs and the lesson 9 bigots are some that agree with you re: Spencer. That’s some fine company….
Comment by Tapan Venäläiset — December 15, 2011 @ 7:45 am
Tapan, add to your list: Most of the teachers I know at AUSD, if not all.
Comment by Jack B. — December 15, 2011 @ 7:52 am
It’s always the case…the term “building consensus” always means lining up behind and supporting whomever uses the term.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 15, 2011 @ 8:21 am
Margie is the golden girl. Everybody loves her. I thought she was a good choice too until 1. She voted for Vital’s raise. 2. Surfaced briefly to defend her decision only to beat a hasty retreat when asked to open up about multiple pensions and the millionaire AUSD administration retirees. She knows that the retirement benefits she receives would make the average citizen of Alameda see red. So it’s back to hoping everybody remembers what a sweet gal she is and forgets that her service on the board isn’t community service, it’s a chance for Alameda to get a little return on the money it shells out every year to keep her in the style to which she has become accustomed. I have nothing against the lady personally and her reputation is good, but her pensions are the elephant in the room. If I’m wrong, let’s open the books and see how big an issue these pensions are. I’ll gladly provide a public apology. I just don’t think I’ll have to. Her actions speak louder than anything I could come up with to say.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 15, 2011 @ 9:28 am
#2, #3, #4 So that’s actually pretty scary, Jack — the idea that the teachers would join forces with a board member who has been backed by people who a) adamantly oppose gay rights and anti-gay bullying curricula; b) fought the last three parcel taxes tooth and nail; and c) are suing the district over Measures A and H.
I agree that Boardmember Spencer does sometimes ask good questions — as one would hope of a board member. Those who supported the anti-gay bullying lessons in this district are also painfully aware that Ms. Spencer is capable of asking question after question after question after question, literally for hours, in an attempt to derail an initiative. At this point I’m not sure if AEA members simply don’t know that Ms. Spencer tried to single-handedly torpedo the anti-gay bullying lessons in this district or if it no longer matters to them.
(Actually it wasn’t a single-handed effort — she was joined by one group that believes gays are perverts who are on a mission to convert America’s youth to homosexuality and another group that believes gays can be converted back to heterosexuality via therapy.)
I am also curious if the AEA is aware of Ms. Spencer’s history of advocating for closing schools and raising class sizes to save money. I’m not sure how that gels with her current mission to help the teachers get a raise. I suspect it may have something to do with the November 12th elections.
In my mind the whole situation is pretty tragic. At a time when we should be celebrating the fact that Measure A prevented teacher lay-offs, salary cuts, school closures, and furlough days — when we should be focused on getting the state to give ALL public schools more money — AUSD is being torn apart from within.
I truly worry that the teachers don’t know what they’re getting into here, politically. If the AEA manages to turn this community against the school district, the long-term effects on all of us – parents, children, teachers, and community members – will be devastating.
Put another way: Want to know why the district haters in this town are so quiet right now? It’s probably because they’re so happy they can’t speak.
Comment by Susan Davis — December 15, 2011 @ 9:42 am
Tapan, I’m with you on this one, the teachers who support Spencer at some point will regret it. She was against the parcel tax and in favor of the lesson 9 bigots. Teachers usually will support other teachers or administrators who run for school board, then they get buyers remorse. One last comment, I have always felt that school board meetings in Alameda are the most poorly run of any board or commission meetings. They are fun to watch.
Comment by John P. — December 15, 2011 @ 9:47 am
#1 — Really, Really?? If you think that the teachers are not getting money from Measure A, you have not been paying attention. But for Measure A, there would have been layoffs and salary cuts. Implying that the teachers are not getting money — and lots of it — from Measure A is patently absurd.
As for Trish Spencer, Susan sums it up pretty nicely. Plus, you have to act respectfully to earn respect — which is a concept that Ms. Spencer and certain members of the AEA apparently can’t grasp.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — December 15, 2011 @ 9:52 am
Susan, fought the last 3 parcel taxes tooth and nail? Did she not support Measure A?
I recall being at the meeting where she voted for it… and I saw her campaigning for it.
Comment by Jack B. — December 15, 2011 @ 9:56 am
Jack, Trish Spencer voted to put the parcel tax on the ballot, but then refused to endorse it. Check out the list of endorsers on Alameda SOS’s website. http://www.alamedasos.org/supporters/ Her name is absent.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — December 15, 2011 @ 10:00 am
Denise, this multiple pension thing you continue to harp on is as speculative as your supposition that parking meter revenue drove the whole tree cutting. Did you get anywhere on that one? You write as if you actually know how much Margie’s pension is. I’m fairly certain that pensions for multiple consecutive positions would somehow be prorated as opposed to some double dip scenario. I don’t doubt Margie may have a fat pension, but at least she is doing unpaid stint on a board. You’d prefer she be on a cruise or what? I’m not defending performance here just objecting to continued loose speculation. I could do a public record search but I’m not the one making all the conjecture here.
Comment by M.I. — December 15, 2011 @ 10:06 am
I endorsed it too but I don’t see my name on that list. I (thought I was) part of that organization too… registering voters at Lum and such.
I saw w/ my own eyes Trish out in the community campaigning for Measure A. It is also my understanding that she showed up for debates to argue for it when nobody else did. Is there any evidence that she fought it besides her name not being on that list?
I didn’t witness the meetings w/ the anti-bay bullying curricula so that isn’t burned into my brain. And I’m sure I don’t agree with Trish on everything. I follow issues, not the people. But, as far as disrespect goes… I *have* witnessed at board meetings Trish asking very thoughtful and pertinent questions while other board members rolled their eyes.
Comment by Jack B. — December 15, 2011 @ 10:09 am
I voted for the parcel tax and am mad as hell at what they did with the money. There are too many conflicts of interest among the board members. It would be great if we could elect a school board made up of people who have never been employees of the district or, if we could, elect one rep from parents, one from administration, one from the teachers, one from taxpayers with no kids in schools, and one from the staff. Then you might have a balance of power. As it is, the relationships these folks have with AUSD and with each other muddy the waters. At least if the board was made up of reps from each group, you’d know where loyalties lie. There would be checks and balances. There are reasons aplenty why these ideas wouldn’t work, I suppose. But the current arrangement is not working out so well either. You can’t even answer a consumer survey in this country if you or anyone in your family has ever worked in a related industry. Why do you think that is? Shouldn’t we be as careful soliciting guidance for AUSD as market researchers are about getting an honest opinion about what dog food you buy?
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 15, 2011 @ 10:25 am
Jack, Trish and all the other board members were asked to endorse Measure A. The others agreed to endorse it; Trish refused. That’s why her name is not on the list. It was not neglect or oversight. I don’t know, she may have done her own thing once she realized that she was likely jeopardizing her chances at reelection, but she did pointedly refuse to endorse Measure A.
As for your own endorsement, you needed to fill out a card or contact the committee to have your name added to the list. People who worked on the campaign weren’t added as endorsers without their express permission to be named as endorsers. That’s likely why your name is not on the list.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — December 15, 2011 @ 10:26 am
I said she is *backed* by people who fought those measures tooth and nail, not that she herself fought all three measures tooth and nail. So yes, she supported Measure A. But many in this district believe she has ties to Action Alameda and the groups that opposed Measures A and H, in part because her comments during board meetings have so often parroted what those groups themselves are saying.
Perhaps it’s just politics as usual to support the person who is supporting your short-term interests. I tend to take a longer-term perspective of officials’ records.
Comment by Susan Davis — December 15, 2011 @ 10:28 am
PENSIONS: Alameda’s $100k club
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2011/04/pensions-alamedas-100k-club/
“For his service, Ojala earns a pension of $179,730 a year, according to a database compiled by the conservative California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility that lists retired public employees earning pensions of $100,000 or more a year – more than any other retiree from the City of Alameda.
Ojala is one of 50 people who have retired from the city with six-figure pensions, the database shows, with the CalPERS pension fund’s annual payouts for those employees alone totaling $6,248,187. The list is topped by former police and fire brass and includes an assortment of former managers and even some members of the city’s rank and file.”
* Pensions over $100K for AUSD:
http://www.californiapensionreform.com/database.asp?vtsearchname=&vtsearchemploy=ALAMEDA+CITY+UNIFIED&vtquery=1&vttable=calstrs
* Pensions over $100K for the city:
http://www.californiapensionreform.com/database.asp?vtsearchname=&vtsearchemploy=alameda&vtquery=1&vttable=calpers
Comment by dlm — December 15, 2011 @ 10:36 am
Oh!, I found the endorsement invite in my email archives. I believe I signed up but maybe didn’t, don’t know for sure. Anyway… I suppose that if you are on the board and support it, that would mean you endorse it.
Susan, being that my kids are still in elementary, I don’t think any of my school-related interests are “short-term.” I have found that following the BOE has not been entertaining like John P. Sometimes I wish I knew less.
It’s real important that somebody on BOE asks tough questions of the supe/admin. If not Trish Spencer, who? The school board is supposed to direct staff, not the other way around. (Maybe I’m wrong?) Lauren may very well be right that the prez of school board should be capable of leading consensus. I would feel a lot more comfortable it that consensus was more questioning and contentious w/ staff.
Comment by Jack B. — December 15, 2011 @ 10:48 am
I meant to say >> I suppose that if you are on the board and support it, that would mean you SHOULD endorse it.
I don’t know what’s up with that.
Comment by Jack B. — December 15, 2011 @ 10:50 am
I have attended almost every BOE meeting for the past two years – truly a gluten for punishment! I have seen every Board Member ask questions, look for clarifications, witnessed discussions and seen staff recommendations returned to the drawing board for additional work. What many people don’t seem to take into consideration is board members use their time away from the dais to educate themselves on the issues, ask questions of staff and request supporting back up so when they arrive they are prepared to take action on action items.
Using the dais to grandstand or pander is not respectful to fellow board members or the public. Voting no on almost every action is also a form of rubber stamping. As Ms Davis stated, I too have seen Member Spencer ask the same question over and over and over again. I’ve witnessed her badgering fellow board members and breaking protocol for her own political benefit. To be fair, I too have seen Member Spencer ask very thought provoking questions that bring valuable discussion resulting in improved results.
History is taught for a reason, we can use the knowledge to help us form the future. In addition to some of the items noted above, I would suggest supporters look back to her vote of No on Measure E. E failed by a few hundred votes. Passage would have eliminated the need for any furlough days in the 2009/10 school year, saved many programs and jobs lost due to lack of funding and AUSD would be in an even stronger position to protect jobs and programs in the coming years. As Member Spencer stated, she carried the second highest vote in the election, one can only presume her support would have made a difference.
With regards to the comments of #1, I am aware of one administrator hired to oversee Measure A not aware of a second, not to say there isn’t one. However, the salary of oversight is included as a use of the funds in both the ballot measure and board policy – “Available Revenues” shall mean the amount of money provided by the Measure after the deduction of one and one-half (1½%) to two percent (2%) of the Measure’s revenues to pay for the following: the cost of the parcel tax election, authorized collection charges by the county or city for collection of the tax, payment of necessary fees and expenses to administer the District’s parcel tax, and costs to implement accountability provisions to ensure fiscal transparency.
Comment by Anne DeBardeleben — December 15, 2011 @ 11:00 am
12. My suspicions are based on what I know about someone in the district whose career there was similar in trajectory to hers. He told me he makes more in retirement than he did when working thanks to multiple pensions. This was not a surprise to him. He engineered his career to take full advantage of the quirks in the system and is proud of it. If he did it, I’m guessing he wasn’t the only person who took advantage of the opportunity. As I stated, this may be a tempest in a teapot, maybe it amounts to very little. If so, why not post the data and prove me wrong? Shouldn’t the sunshine shine on AUSD as well? As to the tree cutting, of course it’s about replacing the meters and increased revenue. The timing sucks for merchants, not because anyone was unaware, but because there was a deadline on the funding and the only contractor who provided the estimate that was within budget would not extend it beyond the date work started.I spoke to several people who aren’t going on record about the issue, hearsay which satisfies me but which doesn’t hold up in the court of public opinion, so I haven’t posted anything about it. I grew up in the tree nursery business. I know they grow back. Cutting down trees is no more brutal than cutting hair if they are replaced. It depends on the species. (I would never support cutting a healthy redwood for instance.) I’m not even opposed to more money in the meters, God knows Alameda needs whatever money it can get. My point about that was, the flap about the trees was a waste of time and a distraction from more important issues that we have time to do something about. What was done was done and it was never going to go down differently. As to Margie’s service on the board, one of the reasons I voted for her was so she could earn some of the additional money to which she is currently entitled. I knew about her background and voted for her in spite of it. I won’t hold good fortune against anybody as long as they are willing to give back, and I thought surely she could bring some good experience and judgement to the table. My gripe is that her background and experience, instead of making her more sensitive to the issues, appears to have made her timid about confronting what’s wrong with the system. I would like to be wrong and maybe the rest of her tenure will be wonderful but as of right now, I won’t vote for any of the current board members again. As to doing public records searches, I’ll leave that to Lauren and JKW. They’re a lot faster and better at it than I could ever be. Unfortunately, they don’t seem interested.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 15, 2011 @ 11:04 am
#18, Jack, I wasn’t referring to you, personally, when I was talking about short-term interests. I was talking about the teacher’s union. Sorry for the confusion.
So to clarify, I am puzzled by (and concerned about) the union’s alliance with board member Spencer. I understand that union members are thrilled that she supports their desire for a raise. I’m not sure they have a clear understanding of her record.
Also by way of clarification and context — I am a long-time, passionate supporter of public schools and public school teachers. I could not even begin to quantify how much time I have spent voluteering in this district over the last 9 years — including advocating for parcel taxes that I believe benefited our whole community, including teachers. I will continue to support our schools and our teachers in years to come. I am just really worried about the long-term consequences of the tone of this current debate.
Comment by Susan Davis — December 15, 2011 @ 11:04 am
Thanks to dlm for the data. It’s up to the rest of you to determine whether or not you care. I just think it’s unfair to point fingers at police and firefighter retirees, people who actually put their lives on the line every day, and give retired teachers and admins a free pass.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 15, 2011 @ 11:19 am
I didn’t tune in until the nominating was over-the rest of the meeting was much more interesting & Spencer received quite a bit of applause during it from the audience. But re:”AUSD elections” Couldn’t Trish Spencer just have nominated herself? A nomination is not usually the same as an election.
Comment by vigi — December 15, 2011 @ 12:40 pm
That’s a good question. All I could find in the rules called out in California School Boards Association (CSBA) via GamutOnline is the five members elect a president. I guess the internal election nuts and bolds differ depending on the District.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 15, 2011 @ 3:29 pm
Jack B. You have to be more current of BOE meetings than I am, having not attended any since speaking in favor of E. Even that may have been when I spoke to City Council when they were asked to endorse it. At any rate, from meetings I have managed to attend in last three years and watch live I think descriptions in 7 and 20 accurately capture the down side of Ms. Spencer’s service. I’ve mentioned the broken clock being correct twice a day. I don’t mean to be totally denigrating, but Trish Spencer sometimes seems to get literally stuck on being in opposition to those she perceives to be shutting her out without regard to consistency of position. It is as if she has a broken part. And I don’t think she is paranoid. Her fellow board members are probably not thrilled about her holding meetings hostage long after her point has been made, so they don’t want her to be president, it’s just that she seems blind to her own contribution to that fate. That blindness is part and parcel of why she can seem like a liability even though she will ask questions we are happy to have asked.
I think that many folks who helped pass the parcel tax feel that because it did apparently prevent teachers from being in an even less tenable position, that teachers should be content with what they have, period. At least it seems that way. Step increases do give teachers raises, but as I tried to argue in the previous thread, the low starting salary makes comparing their raises to administrative raises apples and oranges in many respects. Also continued rise in out of pocket cost for health care is a serious offset to those raises. I know this from my own household.
Still, I am dismayed if AEA people are still asking for same 3% and full health at this point. It was fine that they called for once to make a point, but things are now getting muddled. If I understand correctly, the articles in temp MOU which are officially at impasse don’t even include salary, which I think many folks may not even understand. On the other hand if AEA is somehow forced to negotiate class size and seniority separately ( those being part of MOU at impasse) then when the over all contract is open for negotiation they may have lost two important tools in their bargaining kit for salary and other articles. I don’t think that we bloggers can try to arbitrate an agreement here either, but I hope teachers at large can be reached through public comments.
With specific regard to shows of support for Trish Spencer by teachers at BOE meetings I think myopia related to short term interests does exist and it bums me out, but to an extent this speaks to many teachers being immersed in their work and simply not being up to speed on the actions of their own board until they are pushed to jump in at the eleventh hour over what is admittedly their self interest. Lack of familiarity with local players, etc. can be an extreme liability. I heard that last night’s BOE meeting was sort of side show with regard to showing by AEA, though I haven’t watched it. I did get a terribly snarky email last night about how lame teachers at meeting were being, that from a former Measure A “teammate”. It makes me sick, because these teachers may be doing their cause a disservice with their actions, but even if they were sitting quietly at home, I think teachers are misunderstood in a number of ways. I’m short on time but will try to revisit this with some more particulars.
Comment by M.I. — December 15, 2011 @ 5:52 pm
So teachers should just bend over and take it. Be quiet, and be happy you have a job even though the amount of the surplus is exactly even to the amount saved on the furlough days which the teachers voluntarily contributed to help the District (which it turns out it didn’t need). Meanwhile there is enough money for administrative raises and the adminisrative bonus is tied to teacher work effort. That seems fair. I wonder why they are upset? it’s not the teachers who are undermining the District it’s the School Board.
Comment by Really? — December 15, 2011 @ 7:28 pm
What is your evidence for this claim:
“amount of the surplus is exactly even to the amount saved on the furlough days”
Comment by Tapan Venäläiset — December 15, 2011 @ 7:59 pm
27
Doesn’t a union represent the teachers? If you have a beef about wages, work rules or benefits shouldn’t you address those issues with your Union? Maybe THEY think that you should bend over and take it. Just who is it you should be unhappy with?
Comment by Jack Richard — December 15, 2011 @ 8:28 pm