Householder claims her colleagues are punishing her over ideological differences

By Allen Payton

Drama and controversy continued for the Antioch School Board Wednesday night, as the board majority, on a 3-2 split, voted to censure one of their own. Trustee Mary Rocha requested the item be placed on  the agenda for Trustee Ellie Householder’s comments on Twitter praising those who participated in a protest and for pressuring Rocha regarding  her plan to ask the board to remove Householder from the City-School Subcommittee for her comments. (See related article)

Householder’s Twitter comments on Aug. 14 have since been deleted. The three comments read, “I want Antioch student demonstrators to know they had and continue to have a VISIBLE AFFECT (sic) on school board members. At last night Board meeting Trustee Rocha decided to table an item she submitted for discussion regarding the city-school subcommittee…which I just so happen to sit on (presumably she did this to try to boot me off following BLM demonstration at Joy Motts house). For the last week I’ve heard students chant ‘we will vote you out’ and ‘f*** Mary, Gary, and Diane.’ & folx lemme tell you…Rocha said plainly / sheepishly ‘I think we should wait after the election…I just don’t think this is good to talk about now…’ She is SHOOK YA’LL!! Just a happy reminder your voice has impact and to never stop fighting! #BLM #StandUpFightBack.”

However, the attempt to remove Householder from the subcommittee was debated at the next school board meeting on Aug. 26, and the vote to remove her failed on a 1-4 vote, with just Rocha voting yes. During that meeting Householder apologized for her Twitter comments, but said the other board members were misinterpreting them, which could perhaps be due to them not understanding how Twitter works.

Censure Resolution Resolution 20-21-07 Censure of Trustee E Householder

The resolution up for discussion was read by Board President Diane Gibson-Gray, which includes part of what Householder wrote:

“Trustee Householder, on her Twitter page, which identifies her as an Antioch Unified School District Board Member, tweeted support for the conduct of demonstrators whose stated goal (and actions thereafter) were designed to deliberately prevent the Antioch Unified School District Board from conducting its lawful business at a public meeting (which is a violation of Penal Code section 403). Householder went on to tweet that ‘For the last week I’ve heard students chant “we will vote you out” and “f*** Mary, Gary, and Diane” and further stated ‘She is SHOOK YA’LL!! Just a happy reminder your voice has impact to never stop fighting!’ To publicly voice approval and support of speech that denigrates her fellow Trustees violates the Board Policies cited above and exceed the bounds of common decency and professionalism that should be a part of all board members’ speech and conduct.”

The resolution refers to the district’s Board Bylaw 9005 which reads, “Board members are expected to govern responsibly and hold themselves to the highest standards of ethical conduct;” and “Each individual Board member shall… Act with dignity, and understand the implications of demeanor and behavior;” as well as “Board members also shall assume collective responsibility for building unity and creating a positive organizational culture” and “Govern in a dignified and professional manner, treating everyone with civility and respect.”

The resolution also refers to Bylaw 9010, “Public Statements” states that “… the Board encourages members who participate on social networking sites, blogs, or other discussion or informational sites to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous, and professional manner and to model good behavior for district students and the community;” and 9012, “Board Member Electronic Communications” states that “Board members shall make every effort to ensure that their electronic communications conform to the same standards and protocols established for other forms of communication.”

The final clause giving the reason for censuring Householder reads, “the Governing Board determines that Trustee Householder’s conduct is unacceptable, unprofessional, and a violation of the Board Bylaws cited above.”

Public Comments

Householder spoke first saying, “I would just request that Ms. Cavallaro read the comments so it would be someone more neutral.”

Gibson-Gray said “we’ve already made arrangements to have Superintendent Stephanie Anello read the comments. She is neutral.”

“She’s the secretary, Madam Chair. That’s a conflict of interest,” said Trustee Crystal Sawyer-White.

“I don’t believe so. I used to read them,” Gibson-Gray said. “But I have asthma.”

Rocha then said, “I’d like to put that in motion.”

“No, let’s hear from the public, please if you don’t mind,” Gibson-Gray said. “OK,” responded Rocha.

“Just for clarification the reason I wanted someone more neutral is just given some of the comments on social media from those close to the superintendent,” Householder said. “Given that this is really sensitive that’s why I wanted to request someone more neutral read the comments. Even you.”

“I don’t have the public comments…they are in Superintendent’s hands, now,” Gibson-Gray responded.

Anello said that one of the district’s attorneys was on the line in case any of the trustees had any questions. She then read about 100 public comments on both sides of the issue, some supporting Householder, others criticizing her and supporting her censure, including form letters submitted by those on both sides.

Council Discussion and Vote

Following the public comments, Rocha immediately made the motion to approve the resolution.

“Madam Chair, we need a discussion,” Sawyer-White said, interrupting and talking over Rocha.

“You can discuss it after it’s put on the table,” Rocha shot back.

“I seconded it for discussion,” Gibson-Gray said.

“As a board trustee…I find a censure is a distraction for the board,” Sawyer-White said. “Trustee Householder’s tweet was taken out of context and were comments of students. Students are frustrated…with not having a voice. I am not in favor of having this censorship. I am disheartened by the comments…when new trustees aren’t mentored. Nobody has reached out to mentor us.”

“I think the resolution in the beginning before these 80 some comments were shared…I have no disagreement with it and have no problem with it,” Hack said.

Sawyer-White then said, “It’s infringing on her First Amendment right.”

Householder Responds

“I am truly disappointed in my colleagues for putting forward this resolution,” Householder said, reading prepared remarks. “Because we had an ideological disagreement about racial injustices in our district and how to address them, you have retaliated against me by claiming a technical violation. I would have welcomed a discussion about a way we could mediate this issue as a Board, such as workshops or trainings. Instead, my colleagues decided to take punitive action against me. And for that, I really am disappointed.

I’d like to make this crystal clear, the issue here is that I am bringing up racial injustices. That is what they don’t like. And that is what this resolution is about.

The reality is what is happening here is a part of a national awakening to issues of race and racism in our public institutions. For example, it is no secret that AUSD suspends Black boys at a rate seven times higher than their white counterparts. It’s no secret that our higher-level management lacks the same diversity that our larger population has. And it’s no secret that across the board our students of color perform worse academically.

The students of this district understand these facts. And they understand how our district perpetuates inequalities. That is why I will continue to stand in support of their efforts to change our community for the better.

While my colleagues are focused on silencing me, I am going to continue focusing on uplifting voices. I am going to continue talking about issues of race and inequity in our district, and I am going to continue fighting for the rights of our students to advocate for themselves and against injustices. Because we need to talk about these things if we are going to do the jobs the community trusted in us, and that is to educate our students.

Again, I really am disappointed that this is what we have come to. Ideological differences shouldn’t be met with punitive action.

Thank you.”

Gibson-Gray made no comments and the motion passed on a 3-2 with Sawyer-White and Householder voting against.

“Ellie you have blocked me on your Twitter feed. That is your own personal choice, but I would appreciate you unblocking me,” Gibson-Gray added.

The resolution adopted by the board concludes, “the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct…that based on these recitals, the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby formally censures Trustee Ellie Householder and proclaims publicly that this Board disapproves of the aforementioned conduct and finds it to be a violation of the Board Bylaws and unacceptable behavior that shall not be tolerated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that Trustee Householder shall treat fellow Board members and District staff with dignity and respect at all times and in all forums.”

This is the second time in three years that the board has censured one of its members for something they’ve written, said or done. The last time was in 2017 when the board majority voted to censure Debra Vinson for allegations of bullying and intimidating staff members.

Other Social Media Posts by Householder About the Censure Vote

About the proposed censure vote, on her Twitter feed on Aug. 27 Householder wrote, “They want to silence me for calling out racial inequities. Yet there is a clear pattern of behavior where Black and brown folks are held to a different standard. They can censure me all they want I am not going to stop pointing out these injustices.”

Then on Sept. 4 Householder wrote, “Rocha requested an item for DISCUSSION regarding my tweets in support of student demonstrators (8/26). Now there is an ACTION item Resolution re: Censure of me for upcoming 9/9 BOE mtg. They’re trying to silence me for supporting the youth in their fight against racial injustice.”

Then on Sept. 5, Householder posted, “Rather than have a real conversation about race they’ve engaged in a pattern of tactics meant to silence me—meant to silence a movement & generation of folks who are saying enough is enough. Use the link in my bio to submit a comment letting them know theyre wrong side of history twitter.com/householder925…”

Finally, on Tuesday, Sept. 8 she wrote, “Please help me drown out the hatred by putting in a public comment. It’s agenda item 10B.”

In a post on her School Board Facebook page on Sept. 5, Householder wrote, “My colleagues disagree with my support of student and youth activist in their fight against racial injustices. Rather than have a real conversation about race, they’ve decided to engage in a pattern of tactics meant to silence me – meant to silence a movement and generation of folks who are saying enough is enough. Fill out this public comment card ahead of this Wednesday’s Board meeting to let them know how they’re on the wrong side of history.”

Householder Censors Comments on School Board Facebook Page

As mentioned during public comments, Householder also posted on her School Board Facebook page on Sept. 6, “I welcome discussion on my page and posts. I will not, however, allow this forum to be used for personal threats, nasty language, or spamming. ‘An official speaking as a government actor cannot limit interactions based on viewpoint, but they can limit other kinds of interactions. Depending on the circumstances, a person can be blocked for posting personal threats or profane language, including in accordance with the social media platform’s terms of service. An official can also preclude all comments or in certain circumstances limit discussions to certain subjects – in other words, government officials may have no obligation to open the social media account up for public comment, but if they do, they cannot discriminate as to which views get to be expressed in those comments.’”

A censure is a non-binding action, carries no legal consequences and is merely a strong condemnation of an official’s actions or comments.

To watch the entire school board meeting click here and to hear all the public comments on this item, scroll to the 2:16:45 point.

 

 

Online event to celebrate the start of 2020-2021 School Year for local youth

Travis Credit Union invites students and their families to attend a free virtual ‘Back-to-School Rally,’ scheduled for Wednesday, September 16 from 4-5 p.m. The Zoom event is also the culmination of TCU’s month-long ‘Back to School Challenge,’ where students who complete the weekly online financial education activities are entered into a drawing to win the grand prize, a new laptop.

“Starting a new school year is an exciting time. Since this year is unlike any other, we are proud to introduce a digital financial education program to compliment distance learning to help families and guardians,” said Damian Alarcon, Director of Community Relations for Travis Credit Union. “The Back-to-School rally is our way of helping to bring youth together to celebrate financial education and all the new opportunities that this school year will bring.”

The rally will feature guest speakers from across the 12 counties served by TCU, including:

• Edgar Lampkin, Superintendent of the Williams Unified School District, will provide a welcome to students.
• Youth leaders from the Woodland Teen Advisory Board, the San Pablo Youth Commission, RYSE Center (in Richmond) and the Fairfield Police Activities League will share teen projects they are launching to support the return to schools.
• The grand prize winner of the Back-to-School Challenge will be announced live

Woodland Teen Advisory Board, https://woodlandpubliclibrary.com

City of San Pablo Youth Commission, https://www.sanpabloca.gov/881/Youth-Commission

Fairfield Police Activities League, https://www.fairfield.ca.gov/gov/depts/police/pal_matt_garcia_youth_center/

RYSE Center, https://rysecenter.org

Williams Unified School District, http://www.williamsusd.net

To register for this free event, click here.

Youth aged 13 to 18 have until September 9 to complete the contest requirements to be eligible for the giveaway. More information is available at traviscu.org/back-to-school.

Headquartered in Vacaville, California, Travis Credit Union is a not-for-profit cooperative financial institution serving those who live, work, worship, or attend school in Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Merced, Napa, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, and Yolo Counties. Currently, Travis Credit Union is the 13th largest credit union in California with more than 214,000 members and more than $3.9 billion in assets. As one of the leading financial institutions in Solano, Contra Costa, Napa, Yolo and Merced Counties, Travis Credit Union’s strength lies in its faithful commitment to its members and the community; its solid, secure history; and its long-standing track record of dedicated service.

 

Fails to remove Householder from School-City Standing Committee on 1-4 vote after she offers multiple apologies

By Allen Payton

Following another heated exchange amongst Antioch School Board members during their meeting Wednesday night, over Twitter comments by Trustee Ellie Householder about Trustee Mary Rocha, the board chose not to remove Householder from the School-City Standing Committee on a 1-4 vote. Only Rocha, who made the motion, voted in favor, after Householder offered multiple apologies during the meeting.

The comments posted on Twitter, which have since been deleted, referred to Rocha’s decision at the last board meeting to withdraw her agenda item about removing Householder from the committee, and how the recent demonstrations by the students were having an effect, using the phrase “she is SHOOK YA’LL”.

“Madame Chair, I am interested in putting a motion in place would that be proper?” Rocha asked.

“Yes, you can make a motion whenever you want,” Board President Diane Gibson-Gray stated.

At this time I will make my statement, then,” Rocha said. At the last meeting I had put the school and city subcommittee on the agenda for discussion. But I decided to move the item until after the November election. I felt we needed to be respectful of the timing and consideration of the trustees in the election, which includes both of our representatives to this committee.”

“I was appalled at the tweets that Trustee Householder wrote encouraging more harassment against me and she was encouraging more people to bully me to influence my vote similar to what she did to Councilwoman Joy Motts.”

“Madame Chair, point of order, point of order, point of order,” Trustee Crystal Sawyer-White said interrupting Rocha, who continued to read her statement. “Excuse me, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this has never happened, before,”

“Excuse me. Excuse me. Trustee Sawyer-White, she has the floor,” Gibson-Gray responded.

“At this time, I’m putting a motion to remove Trustee Householder from the School-City Subcommittee,” Rocha added.

“OK. That’s a motion. Before we go, Trustee Sawyer-White was saying point of order,” Gibson-Gray said. “What is the point of order?”

“That’s totally disrespectful. That’s disrespectful. She could have motioned without the comments,” Sawyer-White said. “That’s totally disrespectful. As the president you can motion a point of order.”

“That’s not a point of order,” Gibson-Gray explained. “She’s allowed whatever she likes. So, she has made a motion to remove Trustee Householder. Is there a second so we can have conversation?  I will second it for conversation. Does anyone want to say something.”

“I’ll say something. So, I apologize if what I said on Twitter was hurtful,” Householder then said. “But I just want to be clear, because I’m sure that Trustee Rocha didn’t actually read the tweet herself. But I was not in any way calling for any violence to be perpetrated against any one of my fellow trustees or anyone in the community, for that matter. My tweet was rather to encourage the students to continue demonstrating and exercising their First Amendment right. You know, I understand, I mean I’ve heard since then that there have been other altercations during or after that meeting regarding SRO’s. I was in no way condoning any particular tactic. But I was in fact saying student’s rights to exercise their First Amendment was right and it had an affect.”

“And so I understand how if you don’t understand Twitter that could be definitely taken out of context. But as somebody who uses Twitter a lot, ask anybody who’s on my Twitter feed, that was definitely not the intention,” she continued. “But, regardless of my intent was, I do deeply apologize, because I can understand as a fellow trustee how alarming it must be to hear that there’s another trustee calling for violence or bullying. But I can assure you that definitely that was not my intention, at all. But I do apologize because I can understand how upsetting that is.”

“And with that I mean do understand why that type of emotional, visceral response would lead to ‘well, she doesn’t belong on the city subcommittee,’” said Householder. “But I kind of view those, I don’t kind of, those are two very separate things. And I think that if we, you know, want to have a discussion offline, I’d be more than happy to talk with my fellow trustee about that and to have a heart to heart about that and to just clear the air. But I think to move to say ‘oh, well, she doesn’t belong on the city subcommittee’ is a little odd to me.”

“But, you know, whatever, as President Gibson-Gray pointed out people can make a motion about whatever they want to make a motion on. That’s kind of how this kind of thing works, right? But, you know, I do apologize if those comments were hurtful. Our school-city subcommittee hasn’t met for a long time and we only met twice. So, it’s necessarily moving and sharking things.”

“Three out of the four elected officials are up for election. I anticipate that this committee is going to change, and I’ll be really shocked if we met before the election,” Householder concluded. “I obviously respect whatever motion people want to put on the table.”

“I actually asked Trustee Rocha to pull it back,” Gibson-Gray said. “It was as a result of the visit to Councilmember Motts’ house. I didn’t want another open letter to a board member from you to be put out if this happened. Unfortunately, you know, there are things that are disagreed on, you know and the way it’s worked out in public is not good.”

“I am a Twitter user. I did not show her that. I follow you on Twitter. I saw it. I believe that ‘all shook up’ is  you know, frightening,” she continued. “I don’t care how you couch it, I don’t think that was appropriate language. Do I think it’s enough to pull you off the committee? No. So, I’m going to vote no.”

“But, you know, this is a conversation that needed to be had in public,” Gibson-Gray stated. Because there was no conversation outside of your Twitter feed and I think it was very disrespectful in my opinion.”

“I just want to offer the same thing that’s been told to me time and time, again. You all have my phone number. If there is any confusion about anything please feel free to call, text me, whatever,” Householder responded. “I am the youngest person on this board, and the way that local leaders, or leaders in general engage with their constituents is a little bit different. And so, I understand that there is just that kind of like knowledge gap about the use of Twitter and I also think it’s not inappropriate to go to the public, as a public figure, to express opinions. But you know you guys have my number. So, call me in the future if there’s anything confusing to you.”

“The ageism comment is offensive to me,” Gibson-Gray responded. “I’ve been on social media long before you have. So, to say that because of our age we don’t understand that is challenging for me.”

“The thing I wanted to say is, I did this, at the last meeting I was doing it, as I said, so that we didn’t have any problems with the issues of the elections, etc. And so, I took it off for that reason,” Rocha explained. “But I resent it how it came back as if I was a weak person. I have over 30 years of working in the community, 30 years in public life and I’ve never backed off on anything. And believe you I sleep well. I don’t have issues with what my decisions are. Thank you.”

Then, before Superintendent Stephanie Anello read the public comments, she said, “There are so many comments that I just heard that were offensive, but it’s not my place to say that.”

The two public comments chastised Householder for her Twitter comments, and included them verbatim.

“I know I said I’d vote no, but I’m waffling,” Gibson-Gray then said. “But to hear them read out loud is a little bit different. What I just heard was a little disturbing. I do appreciate the fact that Trustee Householder did apologize and that will have some weight on my vote.”

“I was a little confused by what you’re saying, “Householder then said, “I think there were a few type-os.”

“Maybe I was a bit pre-emptive in saying how I’d vote,” Gibson-Gray said. “These were more than just ‘shook’. Your message was not appropriate for a board member.”

“I’m going to take back my vote no and I’m going to vote yes,” Gibson-Gray then said. “I’m changing my mind as I’m listening.”

“Again, this is our democracy at work,” Householder said. “And so, like I’m not offended at any of this. What I think for me since we’re talking about what I meant. That was actually in response to what a lot of intense things students were saying, they are having an effect on what the board is doing. I do standby my message, my larger message that it’s very clear demonstrations do have an affect on our politics. I do not take away the fact that I did upset my fellow trustee. In all of these comments it’s never my intent to be hurtful.”

“I do appreciate your apology,” Gibson-Gray said. “Regardless, I am a board member 24-hours a day. So, I’m very careful what I say. Board members are held to a higher standard. Perhaps we can learn something from this.”

She then called for the vote.

“Mary you made the motion to remove Trustee Householder from the subcommittee,” Gibson-Gray said.

Sawyer-White then wanted to make a comment. “I just wanted to say Ellie has a great heart. I know we conduct ourselves in a different manner and Twitter is a different ballgame. And Ellie is qualified to be on this committee and on this board.”

The motion failed on a 1-4 vote with Trustee Gary Hack saying, “with trepidation, no” and only Rocha voting in favor of it.

“I understand, in my mind, Trustee Rocha’s justified offense. I’m hoping we learn and move forward,” Gibson-Gray said. “The motion fails 4-1. So, am I done with that one, everyone? Sounds like a yes.”

“We’ll move on to 11, which I tried to start earlier,” she continued. “Resolutions for immediate action.”

“Madame Chair, what was the vote, the voting outcome?” asked Sawyer-White. “I’m sorry.”

“The vote failed 4-1,” Gibson-Gray responded.

“I said ‘no’,” Sawyer-White stated.

“Yes, that’s correct. So, it failed. Trustee Householder is still on the standing committee,” Gibson-Gray responded.

“OK. Thank you,” Sawyer-White responded.

“Yes. Can I move onto 11, now?” asked Gibson-Gray.

“I’m sorry. I was confused on the vote,” Sawyer-White said.

“I know. It was an unusual one. It was an unusual one,” Gibson-Gray then said.

“Mine was yes. It was yes. I’m not in favor,” Sawyer-White said.

“I know. It was an unusual vote. We’re all good, now, right?” Gibson-Gray asked.

“Well, I’m in favor. I’m the only one that voted ‘no’”? Sawyer-White asked.

“No. The vote was 4-1 that the vote failed. Trustee Householder is still on the standing committee by a vote of 4-1,” Gibson-Gray reiterated.

“And I’m the one,” Sawyer-White then said.

“No. No. No. You are the four. You’re part of the four,” Gibson-Gray explained, again.

“OK. Thank you,” Sawyer-White responded.

“Superintendent Anello, am I misstating that? I just want to make sure,” Gibson-Gray asked.

“No, you’re correct,” Anello responded.

“And Trustee Sawyer-White, you’re good now, right?” Gibson-Gray asked.

“Yes. Thank you for clarifying,” Sawyer-White responded.

“The vote was 1-4, not 4-1. I mean it’s either or,” Anello added.

“Yeah, four meant she stays on the committee,” Gibson-Gray stated. “That’s the way it works. It’s like when you vote in the ballot. It’s confusing. But the outcome is she stays on the committee.”

 

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Wednesday, August 26, 2020, the Antioch School Board approved compensation agreements for the top three staff in the district to comply with changes in state law.

AB 1344 makes changes to the Elections Code and Government Code concerning city charter elections, employment contracts for local agency executives, new notice requirements for open meetings, and penalties for misuse of public office. The law impacts principal entities and K-12 education agencies. These contracts incorporate the necessary provisions under state law.

Employment contracts for senior management must be approved at a regularly scheduled board meeting. The amendments to the contracts include a one-year extension and a step increase effective July 1, 2020.

Retroactively to July 1, 2020, Superintendent Stephanie Anello will be paid $270,585; Deputy Superintendent Jessica Romero will be paid $250,651; and Associate Superintendent Christine Ibarra will be paid $216,135.

Trustee Ellie Householder, “I was hoping Ms. Romero could explain to us how this is related to what we voted on at the last board meeting.”

“No, it’s not the same. The last one was looking at the ’19-20 school year. This is for the ’20-21 school year,” Romero explained.

“At the last meeting it was retroactive, although we have the management listed, it’s not saying it’s guaranteed for the next three years. Whoever was in these roles would get this over the next t three years,” Householder said.

“No. The three of us were not at the top step and this takes into account our years of service,” Romero shared. “Your step is generally based on the amount of years with the district.”

“How does this compare with similar positions in neighboring districts?” Householder then asked.

“I think you’ll find it’s in the ballpark of neighboring districts,” said Romero.

“Were these calculations taken into consideration in the budget revise we looked at?” Householder asked. “I’m just concerned about our longevity over the next three years.”

“It was taken into consideration when we looked at the budget,” said Romero. “We calculate a 1% increase across the board for all employees.”

“I will be saying ‘no’ on this…I’m just worried about us being able to afford it. It’s nothing personal. I just don’t think we can afford it,” Householder said.

Trustee Crystal Sawyer-White spoke on the matter next, saying, “I echo Trustee Householder. I review other districts. Parents are unemployed. To extend this contract out until 20-23 we can’t predict the future. Why we can’t take into account the new

“Each year on July 1st, our right to a step increase

“Yes, but we’re in a pandemic, and other districts are required to present a performance review which we haven’t done for the past two years or so,” Sawyer-White said. “I will be voting ‘no’, too. This is not appropriate use of state funds.”

“If you’re going to use that argument, we could use it for every…employee,” said Trustee Gary Hack. “There is precedence on this. It’s brought to us every year. It’s been an agreement for a long time.”

“I’d have to disagree. Classified and certificated employees are not making six-figure incomes,” Sawyer-White responded.

Hack moved approval and Trustee Mary Rocha seconded the motion.

It passed 3-2 with Board President Diane Gibson-Gray voting along with Hack and Rocha.

Public and private elementary schools (TK – 6th grade) in Contra Costa County can now submit applications to allow in-person instruction at their campuses. In accordance with state guidelines, waivers may be granted “when requested by a local superintendent (or equivalent for charter or private schools), in consultation with labor, parent and community organizations. Local health officers must review local community epidemiological data, consider other public health interventions, and consult with the California Department of Public Health when considering a waiver request.

School districts will be asked to detail how they would safely conduct in-person classes and prevent the spread of COVID-19. Applications will go to the Contra Costa County Office of Education for an initial review before being sent to Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) for further analysis.

CCHS and the County Office of Education have developed a checklist with safety measures schools must take in order to reopen. These measures include:

• A plan for testing of students and staff with COVID symptoms. Schools must also show they have a plan for periodically testing asymptomatic staff members.
• Each school must identify a person to help CCHS with contact tracing efforts if there is a positive case
• Showing how shared surfaces will be regularly cleaned and disinfected and how use of shared items will be minimized.
• Proper use of face coverings
• How students will be kept in small, stable, groups with fixed membership that stay together for all activities (e.g., instruction, lunch, recess) and minimize/avoid contact with other groups

Review by local and state officials will take approximately ten days. The state will make the final decision to approve or deny requests. Schools in counties such as Contra Costa that are on the state’s COVID-19 monitoring list can’t reopen unless granted a waiver by local and state health officials.

“We feel like we’ve reached a point where it makes sense to consider requests from elementary schools to reopen,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, health officer for Contra Costa County. “Our role will be to ensure that schools have a solid plan in place to protect their students and staff and show us how they will work with the health department when there is a case to prevent further spread of the virus.

The state outlined the waiver process for elementary schools two weeks ago. CCHS did not immediately begin accepting waiver applications because of the increasing prevalence of COVID-19 in our community at the time.

Since then, the situation has stabilized enough to begin reviewing school-waiver applications, said Dr. Farnitano. Case rates and COVID-related hospitalizations, for instance, have leveled off in August after spiking in July.

While school districts are invited to apply, waiver requests may not be granted if the plan does not meet state or local health requirements, or if data show worsening conditions in the community. Some districts may choose not to submit an application if they cannot meet the requirements outlined in local and state guidelines. Middle schools and high schools are not eligible for waivers.

“School supplies are a necessity not a want” –  organizer Claryssa Wilson

Antioch 19-year-old Claryssa Wilson will host her 9th Annual Stuff the Bus School Supply Giveaway Saturday, August 15, 2020. This event will enable students in Antioch and the surrounding communities an opportunity to receive a pre-filled backpack full of FREE school supplies at Somersville Towne Center in Antioch from 11:00 am – 2 pm on Saturday, August 15th. This will be a drive-up event to comply with social distancing due to COVID-19. Face coverings are required. Last year Claryssa served thousands of students and this year will be no different as the need is much greater. She has received support from Adonal Foyle and his Kerosene Lamp Foundation, the Antioch Schools Education Foundation, Antioch Rotary, Antioch Education Association, Kiwanis and so many more.

“No student should not be successful due to a lack of needed school supplies, despite us all going into a distance learning platform students will not have access to commonly used classroom supplies as well,” said Claryssa, creator and host of the annual giveaway. “School supplies are a necessity not a want.”

Many students have already benefited from the free school supplies, students will start school better prepared and ready to learn with these free school supplies from pencils and pens to calculators, notebooks and paper in addition to earbuds for their laptops.

Claryssa created this program in her 6th/7th grade year  and now she is a sophomore attending San Diego State University who will also start her Fall Semester with distance learning except for in person science labs and still giving back to her community with the Annual Stuff the Bus School Supply Giveaway because she had peers that were disruptive in class because they did not have the basics like a pen, paper or notebook.

Some of the students she noted came from low income homes like herself and she just had to do something to help. She vows to continue the program and prepare the students in her mentoring groups at the elementary and middle schools to develop them as she firmly believes in training our youth to be future leaders.

To donate school supplies, call or text 925-237-1867 or drop them off Saturday at Somersville Towne Center, 2550 Somersville Road, Antioch.

Dear Editor:

First let me start by saying how proud I am to see the Antioch youth finding their voices, and working to make a difference in this town.  I am also proud of the parents that have been supporting their children’s voices, took the time to listen, and also provide comments to public forms, both for and against SRO’s entering the Antioch Schools.  I am excited to hear how these conversations went between parents, students, and teachers as they discussed what this might mean for our schools going forward.  The students of Antioch asked for security evaluations within their schools, heightened security measures, and while they may not be pleased with the initial outcome of the process, there is some movement within their request.

Youth of Antioch, I know you feel your voices were not heard, but do not let this discourage you from continuing to speak up. The coordination of SRO’s entering your schools is not over, you can still have a say in how this happens.  During the 8/5 meeting Trustee Crystal Sawyer-White requested that safety commissions should be set up as campus organizations, and they should include students. I urge you to push for these safety organizations to be implemented, become part of it, maybe even volunteer to organize such a group at your school.

SRO’s are going to happen, that is a reality. So, let us work to ensure there is a positive outcome from this joint effort between APD and AUSD.  On Aug. 12 the MLU of how these officers will be implemented into the school environment will be discussed, let us have a say in that.  As an Army instructor and security evaluator, I personally would be happy to speak to anyone who would like to discuss their schools campus procedures, I am even willing to offer up my experience and training to assist the AUSD, APD and AUSB for no cost to evaluate campuses, security and emergency procedures, and help to implement how SRO’s can safely work on campuses.   I have worked on joint task forces that trained American Soldiers on how to work in other countries during deployment and helped to arrange training sessions, safety protocols, and Army immersion in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In my civilian career, I have over 10 years’ experience developing and implementing customized training sessions for military and law enforcement agencies here in the United States and in countries have created and assisted in training exhibitions at events such as Urban Shield in Oakland CA, multi-day law enforcement and military training expo and real-world scenario training event, and Shotshow in Las Vegas, Nevada. In my military career, I served on a security planning commission that was in charge of selecting and securing the polling sites in three major cities in Iraq for their first-ever government elections in 2005. I consulted and assisted in the training leading up to and including the security turnover from US forces back to the Iraqi National Guard and Iraqi Police which was placed under the direction of the Ministry of Defence. I managed a Civil-Military Operations Command Center as part of a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Khowst, a province in Afghanistan less than 40 miles from the Pakistan border. With that being said, I know that 40 hours of additional training is in no way enough to make students and parents feel that an officer is qualified to work on campus.

Below are my suggestions for bringing SRO’s to campus without having full exposure to Chief Brookes SRO plans:

• Ideally, RSO’s should be assigned in pairs. Require all SRO’s to attend, in paired teams, and complete all sensitivity training, diversity training, conflict resolution training, and safety training on all campuses they are assigned to work along with campus staff
• Require refresher courses annually
• Officers should not carry a firearm while walking around campus during the school day. There are plenty of other techniques and tools to subdue a student, break up a fight, or conflict management without the fear of a gun. However, the officers should have access to a firearm available that can get to quickly in case it is needed. There should be a discussion on whether officers carry firearms, less than lethal launchers, or a combination of both.
• Officers should be in street clothes, or a school appointed uniform, not in full APD uniform, and should be completely integrated into the school staff.
• AUSB mentioned they would like the officers to be role models to students. For this to happen, the hiring practices will be paramount. Offers should be handpicked for the school that they will be working. Officers need to be able to connect with the students at the school they will be serving. If possible, there should be every attempt at finding applicants that either went to the school they would be serving or went to a school that resembles their potential work site in demographics and social/economic at least one officer should be female. Students are more likely to approach a female officer when reporting rape, abuse, bullying, or domestic issues. Also, students should be represented in the final interview process.
• Create campus safety committees that include at least 3 parents, and are open to students, make it mandatory that officers attend these meetings and address concerns
• SRO’s are to attend all after school activities (fully armed) and provide security at school-sanctioned events, staying the entire length of the event + 1 hour to help clear any loitering on campus following event conclusion

I would be happy to meet with anyone in our community to further discuss security plans on our campuses, and while I was unable to have a say in the SRO Grant, my goal if elected to the Board for District 1 is that my unique experience will assist in making the SRO program a positive for students, staff, and officers.

Thank you,

George Young III

SSG, Civil Affairs Section NCOIC;

Team Leader; Observer/Controller – Trainer

1005th Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Training CO, Airborne

1st Training Brigade; Special Operations

georgeyoung4change.com

george.young4change@gmail.com

925.783.5663

2020 Antioch Unified School District District 1 Candidate

Futile protest outside school district building as board members met elsewhere Thursday night

“The money we spend right now for private security…the cost for six SRO’s is pretty much what we spend already (for private security)” – Trustee Gary Hack

Details will be worked out by Sept. 23 deadline on the school district-city Memorandum of Understanding

By Allen Payton

During their continued meeting that was interrupted twice by protesters, Wednesday night, the Antioch School Board voted 3-2 to approve spending $378,000 per year over the next three years to match the city’s share of the federal grant for six School Resource Officers (SRO’s). The action will place one sworn Antioch Police Officer on each of three middle schools and three high schools in the district. As expected, Trustees Crystal Sawyer-White and Ellie Householder cast the dissenting votes, because both had previously made public comments at last week’s city council meeting against the SRO’s. The City had until Sunday, August 9 to accept the $750,000 three-year grant. (See meeting video on YouTube) (See related article)

Although protesters again showed up at the AUSD office building, pounding on the walls and doors, according to one witness, their effort was futile as the board members and district staff were not there for the online meeting, Thursday night, according to Board President Diane Gibson-Gray.

Public Comments Continued

Superintendent Stephanie Anello continued reading public comments submitted for the meeting.

“I’m a recent AUSD graduate of the Class of 2020,” wrote one member of the public I am asking you to vote no on the six school resource officers. Listen to us who will be most affected. SRO’s mainly hurt black and brown kids.

Jerelle Wilkinson, whose wife is a teacher in a Title I school, urged the board vote no on spending money on SRO’s. He incorrectly claimed the City of Antioch spends 62% of the city budget on police. (The police budget is 62% of the General Fund which makes up 44% of the city budget. Police spending is actually only 27.3% of the overall city budget).

As a 31-year employee of the Antioch school district I am full in support of the SRO’s. Please hear our need for safer school sites,” wrote a staff member.

Janet Wesenhagen, a staff member at Antioch High School, wrote in favor of the SRO’s. “Often times we get complaints of police response times. Having a police officer on campus will solve that.” She wrote that having officers on campus makes parents feel safe about sending their kids to school. “If the campuses are not safe will anyone really apply for AUSD? I’m here to shout out from the rooftop I am in favor of placing SRO’s on the campuses.”

Destiny Parker-Roles wrote in favor of the SRO’s. “Many are just saying what the alumni page are saying. Those who do have children in AUSD schools are urging you to vote yes, tonight.”

“I have to go back to school and want to be safe,” a student wrote. “Please vote yes.”

Quincy Plumber wrote, “I was picking up my student the night the shooting happened at Deer Valley. It was chaos. Please vote yes.”

“Please vote for our children, not for a political agenda,” wrote another parent.

“There mere presence was largely intimidating,” a recent graduate wrote against the SRO’s. “

Robert Young, an AUSD staff member wrote, “I would urge the board to ask several questions of where will the officers be stationed? How far off campus will their authority extend?”

A parent of an incoming high school freshman wrote, “Having an SRO present…may deter bad behavior that often causes a bad distraction. At a time when budgets are being cut I see it as a privilege of being offered this grant.”

Bernice Gutierrez wrote, “Videos show how SRO’s have aggressively hurt students when handcuffing them.”

Ellie Householder has an agenda that calls for defunding the police and calling city council members

“I know firsthand having police on campus makes a difference. I now have two kids in middle school. I can’t believe we don’t have cops on campuses,” wrote another member of the public.

Teresa Ward, a former Antioch High School student from 2003 to 2008 wrote of her experience with an SRO and getting a year of probation for a fight. “The cops never tried to create a relationship with students.”

Jamella Jackson Walker has students in AUSD schools wrote in favor of the SRO’s and the good experience her children had with police officers on their campuses.

“I wonder what does Householder want to be when she grows up? I just read she thinks officers protect students at sporting events but doesn’t think they can protect students for six or seven hours a day,” another member of the public wrote and supported the SRO’s.

“These students aren’t animals they just get treated that way. Do your research. We need counselors, not cops. Wake up and vote no,” wrote another person.

“Householder grandstanded on the Jonathan Parker homicide. It is clear she does not take the family’s concerns seriously,” wrote another member of the public.

Megan Watson, a long-time resident of Antioch wrote against hiring the SRO’s. I graduated from Deer Valley High School 10 years ago and nothing has changed. Instead of being met with violence from these SRO’s…work toward hiring more counselors.”

“People get discouraged from coming to school with so much police presence,” another student wrote.

“Please bring back SRO’s to our schools,” wrote another member of the public.

“Please protect our students,” wrote another. “I’ve heard some AUSD trustees calling the SRO’s ‘Trump cops.’” They asked the school board members to keep politics out of their decision.

Rachel Deit wrote, “the last thing we need on AUSD campuses are police. This is not how we should be spending our money.”

“It is terrible to think the district would prioritize money for police on campuses. Students should not be perceived as criminals,” wrote another person.

Stephanie wrote, “It’s time to put students first. SRO’s don’t make students safe.”

“It’s a complete denial of the Black Lives Matter movement,” wrote another member of the public against the SRO’s.  We see where our school board members’ priorities lie.”

“A lot has happened since (the shooting of Jonathan Parker),” wrote another. “We are in the midst of a civil rights wave in which people of color say police don’t make them feel safe. We need to listen to each other. Bringing the police into the schools full-time is like dropping a bomb in your house because of a rat”

“All of you encouraged this, that’s why I’m confused about some of you making comments on social media and at the council meeting against the grant,” wrote another. “We need good people on our campus to keep students safe.”

Tony simply wrote, “No more policing.”

Celestine Press, a staff member, wrote in favor of the COPS grant for the SRO. “That’s what we’ve been asking for. I attended several meetings in which parents and even two school board members demanded this. My son is a student athlete said, ‘maybe it will make kids think twice before starting a fight. I bet Deer Valley would feel like a more peaceful place.’”

“The school to prison pipeline was not mentioned by anyone when people were talking about safety earlier this year,” wrote another member of the public.

“Shame on you, Trustee Householder for criticizing the district for not having enough safety when Jonathan Parker was shot, then you changed your position for political gain,” wrote another.

Another wrote about how the hiring of SRO’s goes against the Black Lives Matter movement.

Another member of the public wrote about how students couldn’t trust Antioch Police due to the hiring of Officer Michael Mellone who shot and killed a homeless man in San Francisco in 2016 before being hired by the Antioch Police Department, again, last year.

Fabby Camacho wrote against placing police officers on AUSD campuses.

Natalie Gutierrez wrote, “wanting to put SRO’s in school campuses is a frightening idea.”

“As a secondary educator in the Bay Area I’ve been able to work with teams of SRO’s,” wrote another in support of the SRO’s. “SRO’s help support the climate” on a campus. “Building positive relationships with students…at sporting events and dances…creates a safe place for children to learn.”

Gretchen Tofflemeir wrote, “Students need counselors not police on school campuses. Where are all these matching funds coming from? Antioch School Board do the right thing.”

Edgar Romero, “I go to AHS and I’m all in support of SRO’s. Students won’t like it but they will think twice before bullying other students.”

“I can’t imagine having an armed officer of the law on campuses,” another wrote. “Hire three officers at the high schools. But don’t place them at the middle schools. These are children who do stupid stuff.”

“I grew up in Antioch and I teach in Antioch and someday my children will attend school,” wrote another. “The officers had no positive impact on me. It served as a vehicle for me to think I want to a dangerous and terrible school. What my students need now is access to more support staff.”

Jennifer Johnson wrote, “Please vote yes. It wasn’t long ago that some board members were calling for more police officers on campus. Now they’re against them.”

“Police presence on campuses present more harm than protection,” wrote another.

“Ellie and Crystal, I wish you all would stop being so divisive,” wrote Velma Wilson. “Ellie you were at the meeting where the Chief talked about this grant and you were all for it.”

“Please keep our students safe by denying this grant,” wrote another member of the public. “Many black and brown youth…should not see their abusers when they show up on school campuses.”

Lucille Meinhardt wrote, “School districts money should go to counselors.”

“I was appalled when I learned that there were no officers on school campuses,” wrote another.

“AUSD has counselors but not SRO’s. Antioch…should have both,” wrote another member of the public.

Antonio Hernandez, school board candidate, wrote against the SRO’s. “Cops on school campuses are not an effective solution. Academic achievement is a much better indicator of school safety. We will have to spend over $3 million for this grant.”

Patricia Granados wrote, “How confident are you all having police officers on campus will benefit students? Bridge those gaps but not by hiring police officers for school campuses.”

“Police officers can’t be the only response we offer to trouble students,” wrote another. “Our students need support and compassion. Why does a kid need to end up in jail before seeing a mental health counselor? We also need to put the responsibility…on our teachers. I urge you to think more creatively.”

Sandy Rogers, President of the Deer Valley PTO wrote in favor the SRO’s. “We should be working together to be improving our schools and our city.”

Laura Young wrote about the district receiving a grant for 10 counselors. “To this day I remember our SRO, Dan Sweeney,” when she attended Antioch schools.

Board Members Deliberate, Approve Six SRO’s

Chief T Brooks was on the line and available to answer questions of the board members.

Trustee Mary Rocha spoke first and was ready to make a motion, but Sawyer-White wanted to discuss the matter, first and Gibson-Gray allowed it.

“As the only African American on the school board, this is unbelievable we wouldn’t want to discuss this,” Sawyer-White said. “Number one, we’re in a pandemic, why the urgency? Will this be put on hold, Chief Brooks?”

“No. This grant has a deadline by August 9th,” Brooks responded.

“If we’re still distance learning where will these officers be?” Sawyer-White asked.

“That is something we have to discuss. Even with distant learning teachers and staff will still be having contact with students. So, if there’s some kind of crime or sexual activity…the officer can respond to their house and respond to the situation,” Brooks explained.

Sawyer-White then spoke of “an alternative safety plan” from the Black Organizing Project in Oakland Unified School District.

“Is there a charge for their services?” asked Board President Gibson-Gray.

“I’m not aware of it,” said Sawyer-White.

But, Gibson-Gray said it could not be discussed further since the idea was not on the agenda.

“Will these SRO’s have the authority to arrest students in the classroom?” Sawyer-White asked.

“All sworn officers in California have the authority to make arrests,” said Brooks.

“I’m concerned we’re not hiring parents on school campuses of people of color…who do not have a gun,” Sawyer-White then said.

“I kept a tally of the speakers of the documents that were read. The yesses were 43, the noes were 32, so we’re split,” said Trustee Gary Hack. “I assume that accepting SRO’s on campus is not addressing all of it. But it is an answer. The money we spend right now for private security…the cost for six SRO’s is pretty much what we spend already.”

Trustee Ellie Householder wrote, “I think the thing that’s weighing on my heart…is what happened, yesterday and what’s happening, I assume at the district office, and that’s youth standing up and asking us to vote no on SRO’s. It goes to show how deeply concerning having police on our campuses is. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to be a young person watching videos of officers brutalizing people then seeing armed officers walking through the halls between classes.”

The evidence given by Superintendent Anello is that Brentwood have SRO’s and we used to have them. I haven’t seen…how these SRO’s are going to directly impact the students.

There was a significant decrease

There is not a single documented case of an SRO preventing a school shooting,” she said. “The last thing I want to say, ideology aside, philosophy…we just cut $1.8 million in classified staff. Then to revert around and hire…it’s disrespectful to our classified staff. We need a comprehensive safety plan…like restorative justice. Unequivocally, our Antioch Police need to be part of that plan. We need cops at after school events, undoubtedly. But not patrolling the

Sawyer-White then thanked for Chief Brooks for attending and suggested having events aside from school events, like dinners on Saturday nights. We need YMCA’s we need

Rocha then asked, “Everyone was yelling at us that it was a safety issue. At this time, we have the opportunity to have a federal grant that was processed back in February. We already are spending $250,000 for private security. We don’t we go for the six and then moved approval.”

Gibson-Gray seconded the motion.

Sawyer-White then said, “Right now we don’t have a homeless liaison.”

Gibson-Gray then interrupted her and said “:e have a motion on the floor.”

Householder asked Rocha to clarify her motion.

“My motion was to approve the SRO grant…and to accept all six SRO’s,” Rocha responded.

Gibson-Gray then seconded it, again.

“We cannot be collaborative. This is the only thing on the agenda. I don’t know why you don’t want to discuss it, Trustee Rocha”

“I still want to discuss it,” Gibson-Gray said.

“But she doesn’t want to discuss it,” Sawyer-White responded.

“Point of order. It says on the agenda, the district and city would negotiate an MOU. Can the motion be just to approve the SRO’s?” Householder asked.

“I did send in questions to the superintendent and Chief Brooks and asked them not to answer, but answer us all at once,” Gibson-Gray said.

“I keep hearing the $1.8 million in cuts” then spoke of the governor’s May revise. “Can you tell us, how that’s going?” she asked of Anello.

Assistant Superintendent Jessica Romeo responded instead saying, “since the action was taken by the board on the classified layoffs there have been changes. It absolutely did impact extra employees. Six instructional assistants have had their layoff notices rescinded. We created three new registrar employees. Two of our impacted employees have been placed in those positions. Finally, as far as a rescind, we did rescind the print shop and records. We have rescinded about $500,000. We have also placed about 20 individuals into positions in the district. We have two individuals…who chose to retire, and we have three individuals who chose to continue with the layoffs. We are still working with some individuals…to see if sites will use their funds differently. I’d like to say six of seven, but that changes every day.”

Householder then asked, “Since we paid for STM, the private security…from our supplementary concentration grant funding…since we’re talking instead of entering a separate contract with APD, will we be using” the same funds?

“It does not necessarily have to come from the same funding source,” Romeo responded.

Gibson-Gray then asked about how many guidance counselors saying, “We currently have 31 counselors.”

“Yes. With the 14 mental clinicians, that brings us to 45,” Anello said.

“Are these mental health specialists,

“They have at least a master’s degree in social work or marriage and family counseling, etc.,” Anello responded.

Gibson-Gray then asked about how many homeless students are in the district.

“I don’t see how going over blow by blow the homeless population is pertinent to the agenda item,” Householder said.

“It is a question I heard,” Gibson-Gray stated. “How many of our students need permanent shelter.”

“We have 23 students who are currently, temporarily unsheltered,” Anello stated.

Gibson-Gray then asked Chief Brooks about community policing model and what the SRO’s would be doing with students.

“Community engagement…that will be included on our school campuses,” he responded. “Play sports with them, hang out with them during lunch. All the feedback I’ve received back from our students, our parents and even our officers has been extremely positive. The vast majority of the work of our officers on campuses will be building relationships. Be able to resolve conflict…with the hopes of encouraging young men and women…to see that the people who wear these uniforms are just human beings and have feelings.”

“Can you tell me how the hiring works…if we approve the grant,” Gibson-Gray asked.

“The school resource officers will be officers we already have on the source, they will have to apply for the program,” Brooks responded.

“Will someone from the district be involved in the hiring process, perhaps even a student?” Householder asked.

“There is the possibility of getting people from the school district and even the possibility of having students involved in the process,” stated Brooks.

“How long will it take…to get into the schools from today?” Gibson-Gray asked.

“If we choose all six, my hope is to have three this school year and three the following school year,” Brooks explained. “We generally don’t hire in clumps of people So, as officers are brought on to the force and they complete their field training, we can fill that position for the officer who becomes an SRO.”

Gibson-Gray then asked about the impacts on the SRO program of vacancies in the police department.

“I think we can keep up with attrition without impacting the school resource officers. Once we assign someone to the SRO that’s what they’ll be assigned to unless something extreme happens,” said Brooks.

“Will you be willing to bill the district quarterly, not in advance?” asked Gibson-Gray.

“That is a discussion that would have to involve the city manager and the city finance director,” Brooks responded.

“If this isn’t working for us, can we stop the grant?” Gibson-Gray then asked.

“We can ask for a modification,” Brooks explained. “That would have to be approved by the DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice).”

“I feel if we decline the grant, as the City of Antioch tries to go for more COPS grants, I don’t think it looks good for us,” Gibson-Gray stated. She then asked for a six-month review.

“There’s a stipulation in the grant that a semi-annual report is required,” Brooks explained.

Sawyer-White then said, “My suggestion is that the students want to be inclusive. Would the board be open to a student safety task force…working together with the youth to be inclusive?”

“Yes, of course we’d be willing to survey the youth,” said Anello.

“Not to survey, but to actually establish a task force,” Sawyer-White responded.

“That’s something that can be discussed,” Gibson-Gray said.

“The MOU has to be completed no later than September 23,” Brooks stated.

“So, we have some time,” Gibson-Gray said.

She then called for the vote with Hack, Rocha and Gibson-Gray voting in favor of the grant and district expenditure for the six SRO’s and Sawyer-White and Householder voting against.