Proponents include parents, teachers, staff and a principal

“the students of Antioch Unified School District were no longer the focus of the Board of Education and drastic action was needed” – David and Lindsey Amezcua

Second Antioch official to currently face potential recall including the city’s mayor

By Allen Payton

On Friday afternoon, Oct. 8, 2021, Antioch School Board President Ellie Householder was served with a notice of recall by David Amezcua, a registered voter and resident of the school district. She was served in the parking lot of her home at 4:41 p.m. according to Amezcua’s wife, Lindsey who was with him.

Householder is the second Antioch official to currently face potential recall including the Mayor Lamar Thorpe. But unlike the mayor, who tossed his recall notice on the ground, twice, when served with his papers, the embattled trustee accepted them and simply said, “Beautiful,” Amezcua shared. (See related article)

The notice includes a list of 20 registered voters who reside within the district and are parents, teachers, staff and a principal.

“The decision to initiate a recall was not made lightly. We discussed the seriousness of taking this action for several months before we decided to act,” the Amezcaus said on behalf of the signers. “It became apparent to us that the students of Antioch Unified School District were no longer the focus of the Board of Education and drastic action was needed to correct the direction we are headed.”

“When the Vote of No Confidence (by AUSD faculty and staff) wasn’t enough to get the trustees to vote to remove Householder as president, we decided to start this process. We are a group of parents, teachers, staff, and administrators that know AUSD needs a leader that wants to work with our educators to achieve collective goals, a leader that is supportive, a leader that wants to effect change in a constructive manner,” they added. “As has been the rally cry for several years, #WeAreAUSD and we demand better.” (See related article)

The notice offers the reasons for the recall including abuse of power and violations of state Education Code and federal law, which are cited in the notice.

“NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE Elizabeth Householder: Pursuant to Section 11020, California Elections Code, t he undersigned registered qualified voters of the Antioch Unified School District (AUSD), in the State of California, hereby give notice that we are the proponents of a recall petition and that we intend to seek your recall and removal from the office of AUSD Trustee, Antioch, California, and to demand election of a successor in that office.

The grounds f or the recall are as follows:

You are disrespectful of Board Members, Staff and Public who disagree with you during AUSD Board meetings. You have committed Brown Act violations by blocking/deleting comments on Social Media (eliminating equal access). You assert the president must not only collaborate on, but approve, the board agenda. (Ed. Code/Board Policy does not require board president’s approval); You abuse your authority by calling and/or adding agenda items at special meetings that were neither urgent nor necessary. You violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), by publicly posting an unauthorized video of students without permission. You have committed numerous Robert’s Rules of Order Violations during meetings presided over by you: Allowed a substitute motion on a non-debatable “motion to table”; Ongoing efforts to limit or eliminate public comment by removing agenda items without consensus of the board; Stopping public comments midstream when you felt it wasn’t appropriate or directly related to the agenda item; Requesting staff to use personal judgement on which public comments should be entered into public record and which should not; and Abused presidential authority by not recognizing staff / board members’ requests to speak/provide input during a public meeting.”

Recall Proponents

The 20 signers of the recall petition include Lindsey Amezcua, John Muir Elementary School Principal Michael Flosi, former Antioch Council Member and current Planning Commissioner Martha Parsons, former Antioch Planning Commission Chair Janet Rossini Zacharatos, Contra Costa County 2021 Humanitarian of the Year Velma Wilson, and Allison Pantell, April Scott-Garrett, Baltazar and Celestina Perez, Daniel and Denise Rundall, Elizabeth Rieger, Gregory Andelin, Jessica Fernandez, Jessie Allen Lee Wison, Joshua David Isenbarger, Kathleen Cabrera (who served Thorpe his recall notice), Kelsey Martinez, Lakisha Monique Jarvis, Laura Young, Leslie and Robert Scudero, Mary-Ann Bellante, Nancy Mauri, Norma Barela, Shanae Nicole Souza, Susan Jimenez, Tamara Daste, Victoria Lee Virgen.

Recall Process

Householder’s term ends in December 2022, and she currently lives in Area 1 which is represented by Trustee Antonio Hernandez. So, unless the board decides to redraw the current trustee area lines to move her into Area 2, during this year’s redistricting process, Householder will not be able to run for reelection. Householder is also Antioch’s elected city clerk serving in a term that continues through December 2024.

She has seven days to offer a written response to the notice which will be included with the reasons and printed on the petitions which will be used to gather signatures. The district includes all of Antioch and portions of both Oakley and Pittsburg. Householder was elected in 2018 and serves in an at large seat representing the entire school district. (See  map)

According to the Procedure for Recalling State and Local Officials on the California Secretary of State’s website, and the Guide for Recalls on the Contra Costa County Elections website, organizers must gather the signatures of at least 15% of registered voters in the Antioch Unified School District, if the registration is between 50,000 and 100,000, to qualify the recall for the ballot. There are approximately 70,000 registered voters in the district which requires organizers gather approximately 10,500 signatures within 160 days or about 66 per day on average. (Actual figures cannot be determined until the County Elections office reopens on Monday.)

The notice also includes the following details for the recall process:

The original notice and proof of service will be filed with the Contra Costa County Clerk/Recorder.

Elections Code section 11023. (a) Within seven days after the filing of the notice of intention, the officer sought to be recalled may file with the elections official, or in the case of a state officer, the Secretary of State, an answer, in not more than 200 words, to the statement of the proponents.

(b) If an answer is filed, the officer shall, within seven days after the filing of the notice of intention, also serve a copy of it, by personal delivery or by certified mail, on one of the proponents named in the notice of intention.

(c) The answer shall be signed and shall be accompanied by the printed name and business or residence address of the officer sought to be recalled.

Efforts to reach Householder for comment were unsuccessful prior to publication. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Would allow creation of “Education Savings Account” for each K-12 student; organizers will need to gather signatures of one million voters

By Michael Alexander

Labor Day is the traditional end of the summer and the beginning of fall.  Before government created the perpetual school year, Labor Day also marked the beginning of the school year. This year, Labor Day marked the beginning of what will be a decisive and tumultuous year.  Californians will have the opportunity to establish true educational freedom in our wonderful Golden State.

School Choice Initiative Filed with Attorney General

In August, key leaders of the California School Choice Foundation joined other Californians to formally present a school choice initiative to the California Attorney General’s office for what is known as “Title and Summary.”  We expect to receive that summary no later than October 12, 2021.  Once that happens, we can then begin to gather the 1.0 million valid signatures necessary to place it on the November 2022 ballot.  Just to make sure, we plan to gather 1.5 million signatures.

Empowers Parents and Revolutionizes Education in California

The key four points of the initiative are these:

Educational Freedom Act

1. An Education Savings Account (“ESA”) will be established for each K-12 child in California on request.
2. Each year, that account will be credited with the student’s share of what are known as Prop 98 funds. That share will begin at $14,000 per year per student.
3. The parent will be able to direct the ESA trust funds to a participating, accredited private or parochial school. The money will follow the student not the politicians.
4. Any unspent funds will accumulate and can be spent on college, vocational training or other qualified educational expense.

This plan is both simple and revolutionary.  Once passed, California will become the first state to enact universal school choice.  More important, it will be the first state to recognize that It’s Your Kids, Your Money and Your Choice!

Get Ready and Get Involved NOW!

I need not tell you that school choice is the hottest issue in the country.  It was the linchpin of at least two candidates in the recall election:  Larry Elder and Kevin Kiley.  Each endorsed our school choice initiative. You can understand why this is initiative is already driving bureaucrats and social engineers insane.  No matter what happened in the recall election, school choice is not going anywhere.  Thousands of supporters are now mobilizing to get it on the ballot and pass it.  Scores of candidates for statewide and local offices will make school choice the focal point of their campaigns.

This is why you need to get involved right now.  We don’t have a moment to lose.

Super Sunday – Happy Halloween!  Trick or Treat? 

As I mentioned above, we are not standing still for a moment.  We know we will be able to start gathering signatures a month from now.  We have been organizing and advocating for the last three years.

We want to hit the ground running.  That’s why we are pre-planning a major event for October 30-31.  Whether you call it Super Sunday or Halloween, you need to let us know what church or other venue you will be covering on that weekend.  Our goal is to calendar at least 1,000 events statewide.  Nothing will send a more powerful message than this.  Friends and foes alike will know we are serious about our freedom and the future of our children.

This campaign will run for the next 13 months, ending in victory on Tuesday, November 8, 2022.

The following was provided by Stephen Smith.

Q1.  What about California’s public education system led to this grassroots effort for the initiative?

The reasons are legion.

1. California schools can hardly be called an “education” system. Despite spending $20,000 per student per year – – that’s an average of $500,000 per classroom of 25 – – California schools rank near the bottom of the nation at 48th place. This has happened even though per pupil spending has almost doubled in the last decade.
2. Increasingly, California schools preferred to indoctrinate rather than educate. In the face of vigorous parental opposition, social engineers (*1) disguised as “educators” continue their efforts to implement critical race theory. They also have frustrated efforts of parents to opt out of equally controversial “sex-ed” programs. (*2)
3. Parents are outraged by the closure of the schools and mask mandates. Eighteen months after the start of the Covid panic, schools are still not fully reopened.
4. Parents are frustrated by being ignored by school boards, teachers’ unions and politicians. They feel strongly – – and correctly – – that they are the parents and should be making basic decisions about the health, education and formation of their children. This is a basic human right that is frustrated daily by a leviathan system that cares little for them for their children. (*3)

(*1) https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/la-teachers-union-president-there-is-no-such-thing-as-learning-loss/  “There is no such thing as learning loss,” the union president told Los Angeles Magazine. “Our kids didn’t lose anything. It’s OK that our babies may not have learned all their times tables. They learned resilience. They learned survival. They learned critical thinking skills. They know the difference between a riot and a protest. They know the words insurrection and coup.” Cecily Myart-Cruz, president of the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA)

(*2) https://capitolresource.org/ca-sex-education/

(*3) CPC report and polling data https://californiapolicycenter.org/new-polling-shows-covid-19-shifted-california-voters-opinions-on-schools-2/

Q2. How will the state provide the $14K per student?

1. The principal source will be Proposition 98 tax revenues which, in the coming school year, will average approximately $14,000 per student. In fact, as noted above, the State spends approximately $20,000 per student per year.
2. Ultimately, of course, parents, like every other taxpayer in California, will pay dearly for their own K-12 education as well as that of their children. Politicians and other advocates of centralized, inefficient, and incompetent government schools, never let on that under proposition 98, 40% of California state tax revenues are earmarked for what they are pleased to call “education.” As a practical matter, therefore, everyone in California will pay for K-12 education their entire lives. The only question is whether they get the education they pay for. Therefore, we say: It’s Your Kids, Your Money, and Your Choice.

Q3. Why do students and families need school choice?

1. It should be recognized that what we call “school choice” is another way of describing parental choice. As discussed above, California schools, dominated by corrupt teachers’ unions and politicians have utterly failed to educate our children. This system particularly affects poor and minority communities who have no ability to escape the system. Therefore, they have no opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty and ignorance that so often characterizes our inner cities.
2. It is not only that they need school choice. It benefits all of us. In California, indeed in America itself, real progress depends upon economic, social, and political mobility. The foundation of this mobility is a decent education without which our poorest citizens cannot hope to participate fully in our complex economy and our form of government. The current government school monopoly both creates and sustains a permanent underclass. This system is not only immoral, but also dangerous.  Therefore, our school choice initiative must first be understood as a preferential option for the poor.
3. School choice is wildly popular among parents and citizens at large. There are several polls showing that approximately 70% of black and Latino Democrat parents desire some form of school choice.
4. Another example is homeschooling. It is estimated that there were only 73,000 homeschooled children in 1973.  In the wake of school closures and the rapid decline in education, that number has swollen to as much as 5 million.  These parents are tired of arguing with the teacher unions and politicians.

Q4. Is this the first ballot initiative of its kind in the U.S.?

1. This is not the first time that Californians have tried to get some form of school choice. There was an initiative on the ballot in the early 90’s and again in 2000.  Both failed.  That said, there are several states that have various forms of school choice that often include the ability of parents to choose a public school to attend but only within the system.  Other state programs do allow limited funds to attend a private school or provide funds for certain educational expenses procured outside the system.  Arizona and Florida are examples of each.  Some states have put Education Savings Accounts into place to implement parental choice.
2. The Educational Freedom Act initiative goes further than any other proposal of which we are aware. It grants the right of any parent to request the creation and funding of an Education Savings Account that they can use to enroll their child in any accredited school of their choice and save anything left over for college or vocational training.  It is both simple and revolutionary.

Q5. Why does it need to happen through a voter referendum instead of the state legislature?

1. This is simple. The politicians, special interests and the teachers’ unions have a monopoly on what millions of Californians say, think and do.  They also control for their own benefit 40% — over $100 billion – of the California budget.  They will not give up this power willingly.  We anticipate that the enemies of educational freedom will spend $100 – 200 million to defeat parents’ rights.

Q6. What is most important for people to know?

1. The most important thing for people to know is that help is on the way. For the first time:
2. Parents, not politicians, bureaucrats or zip codes, will determine how and where their children will be education.
3. Because all schools, both public and private, will have to compete for students, ALL schools will get better.
4. Because of competition, all schools will have to deal respectfully with parents who will be customers with a choice.
5. Parents, including homeschoolers, will be able to shape their children’s education in a way best suited to their needs and talents, not the government’s.
6. Because educational funding will now follow the student and empower parents, California will experience unprecedented innovation in education. California will once again lead the nation in educational innovation and excellence.

For more information visit www.CaliforniaSchoolChoice.org or our Facebook page.

Michael Alexander is President and Chairman of the Board and Stephen Smith is Vice President of Californians for School Choice.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

AUSD rankd 248 out of the 287 districts included that enroll 72% of students from over 1,000 districts in California; statewide results show over half of all third graders, 3+ million, reading below grade level

“…the primary drivers are district focus on reading, management practices, and curriculum and instruction choices.” – report

No ideas to address situation shared by district’s trustees

By Allen Payton

As the Antioch school board president and trustees continue to participate in a power struggle for control of the board and an internecine Robert’s Rules of Order battle, 76% of the district’s third graders are reading below grade level. That’s according to the California Reading Report Card, which ranks districts based on their effectiveness in teaching reading by 3rd grade. It is produced by the California Reading Coalition and includes data from the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years, since no testing took place in 2020.

In addition, the report shows 73% of the district’s third graders are “High Need Students”.

According to their website, the California Reading Coalition, founded this year, “is made up of educators, advocates, researchers, and policy makers committed to improved reading outcomes for all California students.” They “support school districts and advocacy groups in focusing on the California reading crisis and working to improve curriculum, instruction, teacher development, and ultimately outcomes for every student.”

According to the report, “The clear message is that it is not the students themselves, or the level of resources, that drive student reading achievement – the primary drivers are district focus on reading, management practices, and curriculum and instruction choices.  The Top 30 Districts come in all types: urban, rural, and suburban, across 10 different counties, with high-need students levels ranging from 39% to 96%.  Any district can succeed at teaching reading.”

The organization offered additional details about their research and report:

“Key Findings (read the presentation for more)

Top districts had double the percent of students* in our analysis at grade level vs. low-performing districts (50% vs. 25%), serving similar students and with lower funding.  On average high performing districts have a similar share of high-need enrollment (62% vs. 75%), while low performing districts have higher funding levels ($14 thousand per pupil vs. $12 thousand). There are top performing districts with over 90% high-need enrollment, and low performing districts with less than 20%.

​A surprising finding is that none of the top performing districts are located in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Bay Area contains nearly half of the lowest performing districts, including large districts like San Francisco Unified, Oakland Unified, and West Contra Costa County Unified.  By contrast, Southern California has 80% of the high performing districts, led by Los Angeles County, where over half of all ranked districts are in the top 20% statewide. Fresno County is also a standout, with 4 of the top 30 districts (including 2 of the top 5), while making up only 1% of all ranked districts.

How the Rankings Work

Districts are ranked by the percent of socio-economically disadvantaged (SED) Hispanic/Latino (Latinx) students who “meet or exceed” grade level for the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) 3rd grade ELA test.  We combined the two most recent CAASPP cycles (2017-18 and 2018-19; no testing took place in 2020) to account for variation between years.

​Our rankings are based on one particular student group – SED Latinx 3rd graders (for a more detail, visit our ‘Why Latinx 3rd Graders?’ page). District comparisons must focus on specific sub-groups – an “apples to apples” comparison. Not only do SED Latinx students make up 43% of California K-12 enrollment, they are also less likely to have outside learning supports than families with more resources, higher educational attainment, and more English literacy. Results for these students therefore help us see how effectively schools teach reading, separate from the contribution from parents and outside resources. We believe that better results for these students almost certainly mean better reading instruction for all.

The rankings include districts with 100 or more SED Latinx 3rd graders.  This provides a larger sample for each district, less susceptible to year-to-year variation.  These districts make up 287 of California’s over 1,000 school districts, and enroll 72% of all students.

For data sources, visit our Sources & Notes page.”

——-

Comparison With Neighboring Districts

Neighboring districts scored better than Antioch, but not by much, with Brentwood Union Elementary having the fewest third graders reading below grade level at 64% and the lowest percentage of high need students at 31%.

In Pittsburg Unified 66% performed below grade level and 76% were high need, and in the Oakley Union Elementary School District 73% of third graders tested below grade level and 47% were high need.

Questions for AUSD Trustees, Superintendent & Staff

The following questions were sent to the five Antioch School Board trustees and Superintendent Stephanie Anello, on Friday.

What is being done to rectify this situation? What ideas, programs or suggestions have any of the trustees proposed during their terms on the board? Have any been approved and implemented? If so, what are the results? If so or if not, what do you propose be done?

Since education begins at home, what is being done to work with the parents or guardians of the students reading below grade level to help them?

For the Hispanic/Latino students, is it a matter of Spanish being the primary language at home? How many ESL students are there in the district, please?

Have there been any efforts to work with Rocketship Delta Prep to learn what their best practices are which, according to their reports, show significant advancement among their students and in just one school year, and implement them in district schools?

On whom does the responsibility lay for this, the board, superintendent, principals, teachers and/or parents?

Are there subject matters being taught in the classroom that aren’t required that take time away from focusing on reading skills?”

In response, Board President Ellie Householder wrote, “Answers to most of your data questions (i.e. demographics) can be found via Data Quest: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/” and “In terms of the nuanced and programmatic questions, I refer to District staff.”

However, that website only answered the question about how many third-grade English learners are in the district. The answer is 300 out of all 1,224 for a total of 24%. Householder did not share what ideas she has proposed or answer the other questions, so they were resent to her.

Board Vice President Clyde Lewis responded, “Thank you for pointing this out. These numbers should receive the attention and plans should be developed to address them. I believe that by working with those on the ground and listening to educators, we can work with parents to develop sound strategies.”

Anello was out of the office both Friday and Monday,  Sept. 24 and 27 An automatic response referred to Associate Superintendent Christine Ibarra and Deputy Superintendent Jessica Romeo. They were then sent the same information and questions after work hours on Monday.

9/30/21 UPDATE: AUSD Responds – Following are the Herald’s questions repeated and the answers from Associate Superintendent Christine Ibarra:

Q – What is being done to rectify this situation? What ideas, programs, or suggestions have any of the trustees proposed during their terms on the board? Have any been approved and implemented? If so, what are the results? If so or if not, what do you propose be done?

A – AUSD is heavily invested in a computer adaptive instructional program known as iReady.  All students in grades K-8th participate in this research-based program.  This program provides three diagnostic assessments per year and produces individualized placement levels in reading.  The students then engage in a pathway of instruction that is both done within the computerized program itself and supported by intervention prep teachers on campuses with direct instruction that is tailored to the individual levels and needs of each student.  Since this is our third year utilizing this program, we have data that shows significant growth in students’ reading levels and abilities at all grade levels even during distance learning.

Furthermore, AUSD has provided every elementary school with a full time intervention teacher who works with small groups providing intentional and targeted support in areas of need, specifically in fluency skills and reading comprehension. These intervention teachers utilize a wide array of differentiation strategies and support to ensure their time with student groups is maximized for the greatest impact on student growth and achievement.

In addition, AUSD has an MOU with UC Berkeley’s California Reading and Literacy Project for the 2021-2022 school year.  This partnership provides professional learning for all teachers TK-6th grade specifically focused on developing teachers’ content knowledge and expanding their teaching strategies guided by the state-adopted frameworks, content standards, and the science of reading.

Read 180 is a research-based program being reintroduced to AUSD intended for secondary students who are performing two or more years behind grade level in Reading.

AUSD is also heavily invested in the AVID programming and professional learning community which has provided hundreds of teachers across all grade levels with outstanding workshops focused on critical reading strategies across content areas so that all teachers have tools and supports to support reading levels at any grade level.  This summer alone, we had 50 teachers attend virtually.

The iReady program, Read 180, the AVID program, and the UC Berkeley partnership are Board approved contracts and the intervention teaching positions were board approved via the LCAP and Expanded Learning Opportunities grant.

Q – Since education begins at home, what is being done to work with the parents or guardians of the students reading below grade level to help them?

A – We provided ongoing trainings and support during school closures remotely in both English and Spanish. The parent trainings were not only for technology support efforts but were designed to also increase parents’ capacity to support their students at home and in their academics.  iReady specifically provided parent institutes that were widely attended virtually.  Since returning to in-person learning, we have worked closely with our District English Language Advisory Committees (DELAC) as well as our Parent Advisory Committees (PACs) and Site Councils from all schools across the district to assess what parents need and are interested in engaging in to support their students’ academic achievement.  Most, if not all of our elementary and middle schools, host parent training nights focused on both literacy and mathematics and are working to determine how to continue that effort with COVID-19 protocols in place this year.

Q – For the Hispanic/Latino students, is it a matter of Spanish being the primary language at home? How many ESL students are there in the district, please?

A – AUSD currently serves 2,687 English Learners (EL) and has over 450 students being tested to determine their English Learner status as of today.  Although Spanish is the largest group of English Learners’ population in AUSD, we have over 30 different languages spoken within our EL population.

Q – Have there been any efforts to work with Rocketship Delta Prep to learn what their best practices are which, according to their reports, show significant advancement among their students and in just one school year, and implement them in district schools?

A – The AUSD Educational Services department meets annually with Rocketship and reviews their programming efforts as required. Best practices are shared and exchanged during those meetings.  Since we have not had summative state data results in the last two years, the conversation has not been directly about the improvement of test scores.  In the 2019 CAASPP, AUSD students performed higher in English Language Arts.

Q – On whom does the responsibility lay for this, the board, superintendent, principals, teachers and/or parents?

Are there subject matters being taught in the classroom that aren’t required that take time away from focusing on reading skills?

A – Educating students and ensuring students have all the supports and opportunities they deserve and require is a collective responsibility.  When we can work together to that end, we will see students reach their full potential.

 

Takes swipe at Board VP Lewis claiming he’s missed three “critical votes”

By Allen Payton

The Herald learned on Friday that in a post on Tuesday, on her blog, which has 11 followers, Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson took the unusual step of injecting herself and opinion into a school district issue, supporting Board President Ellie Householder’s efforts to fire Superintendent Stephanie Anello. The move failed with only four trustees in attendance at Tuesday night’s urgently called special closed session meeting, since Board Vice President Clyde Lewis was absent for a work conflict and personal matters. Because of that, Wilson took a swipe at him and claims he missed other “critical votes”, as well. (See related articles here and here)

Wilson also, once again, injected a race into an issue, by reminding Lewis that he’s the only Black member of the school board, and writing “our community cannot afford to lose another generation of students but in particular Black and Latino students.”

Statement from Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson Regarding Antioch Unified School District Special Meeting of September 21, 2021

“I’ve learned the hard way as an elected official that doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity and only serves to reinforce the status quo.

For far too long, the Antioch Unified School District administration has created a subpar environment that has made it difficult for students, in particular students of color, to have the necessary support and environment for success in the classroom.

For this reason, I would like to take this moment to commend Board President Ellie Householder for having the courage to call for a special meeting in her efforts to change the leadership of the Antioch Unified School District’s administration.

As Board President Householder has said, this is a fight for the future of Antioch, as our community cannot afford to lose another generation of students but in particular Black and Latino students because they did not receive an adequate education.

I would also like to take this moment to publicly call on Dr. Clyde Lewis to be present at the meeting, and to vote in support of our students and families by supporting change.

As the only Black leader on the Antioch Unified School Board, Trustee Lewis needs to realize that we in the community have noticed his pattern of missing critical votes. We are watching, and are fully expecting him to rise to the moment, and vote for the children of Antioch.

To not be present for this vote would mark the third time that Trustee Lewis has missed a key vote. In doing so, he will be making it clear that he is not prepared for the pressures and intensity of serving in elected office.”

Questions for Wilson and Lewis

The following questions were sent to Wilson and Lewis early Friday afternoon.

Since it wasn’t posted on either her official Facebook page nor sent to the Herald, and her blog only has 11 followers, Wilson was asked, “did you not want that many people to read it? Was it part of an effort to run for school board or higher office, next year? Or was it to take a swipe at a potential political opponent, Board VP Clyde Lewis, who lives in the same council district you currently represent, in an attempt to eliminate your competition should you decide to run for reelection?”

In addition, she was asked, “do you think it’s appropriate for a council member to interject their opinion into school district business? Would you want school board members, other than (City Clerk) Ellie Householder, doing the same for city matters?” and “don’t you have enough city issues to deal with?”

Lewis was asked if he had any comments about Wilson’s blog post and “to which other critical votes do you think she’s referring?” He responded writing, “Leadership aims to build bridges and collaboration. I’m not really sure the aim of this statement, but I hope she is having a blessed day.”

09/27/21 UPDATE: Lewis offered additional comments on Monday, Sept. 27 writing, “I have no idea which votes she is referring. I have not missed but two meetings during my tenure, only one of which was a regularly scheduled meeting. I cannot speak to her motives and frankly, I’m more disappointed with the lack of attention given to students and solving issues in the community.”

Wilson had not yet responded as of Monday evening, Sept. 27.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

“…the employees of the AUSD have No Confidence in Ellie Householder’s ability to lead the Antioch Unified School District.”

Separate online petition started to remove her from school board

By Allen Payton

The Antioch Unified School District staff, including teachers, classified and management employees, announced Wednesday night, that 97.5% approved a Vote of No Confidence in Antioch School Board President Ellie Householder. A total of 669 staff members voted in favor, only 15 district employees voted no and three voted to abstain.

The three groups are the Antioch Education Association (AEA) representing the teachers, California School Employees Association Antioch Chapter 85 (CSEA) and the Antioch Management Association (AMA), representing the principals and district leadership. The A A members voted 441-8-0, the CS A members voted 213-6-2 and the AMA members voted 45-1-1.

The AEA announced on their Facebook page, Wednesday night, Sept. 22, “The employees of the Antioch Unified School District have overwhelmingly voted in support of a Vote of No Confidence in School Board President Ellie Householder.”

Also on Wed. night, on the CSEA’s Facebook page, the AEA’s post was reposted with the comment, “Resounding vote of ‘no confidence’ in Ellie Householder.”

In addition, during public comments of the school board regular meeting, representatives of the three employ groups issued the following statement:

“A vote of no confidence is defined as ‘a formal vote by which people indicate that they do not support a leader, government, etc.

In an electronic secret ballot election held from September 18-22, 2021, 97.5% percent of votes cast were in support of a Vote of No Confidence in Ellie Householder as the President of the AUSD School Board. Only 15 votes were cast in opposition, representing only 0.02% of the total ballots cast. The breakdown of votes is as follows: 98.2% of certificated staff (AEA), 97.8% of management staff (AMA), and 97.3% of classified staff (CSEA) stated their lack of confidence in the Board President.

The following violations of Roberts Rules of Order and the Brown Act have occurred at board meetings presided by President Ellie Householder:

• Allowing a substitute motion to go through on a non-debatable motion such as “motion to table”
• Efforts to limit or eliminate public comment by removing agenda items without consensus of the board
• Efforts to shorten public comment by reducing the time limit allowed after comments had been submitted
• Stopping public comments midstream when she felt it wasn’t appropriate or directly related to the agenda item
• Requesting staff to use personal judgement on which public comments should be entered into public record and which should not
• Abusing her presidential authority by not recognizing staff and board members’ requests to speak or provide input during a public meeting
• Asserting that the president must not only collaborate on, but approve, the board agenda. Ed. Code and Board Policy do not require the board president’s approval, just collaboration on the development
• Abusing her authority by calling and/or adding agenda items at special meetings, that were neither urgent, nor necessary
• Violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), by publicly posting unauthorized video of students without permission

For all of these reasons, the employees of the AUSD have No Confidence in Ellie Householder’s ability to lead the Antioch Unified School District.

Valorie Luke, President, Antioch Education Association

Scott Bergerhouse, President, Antioch Management Association

Josh Isenbarger, President, California School Employees Association, Chapter 85”

————–

Online Petition Launched to Remove Householder from School Board

In addition, Change.org petition was started by Emily Smith with the title, “Remove Ellie Householder from the District Board”. As of Thursday afternoon, Sept. 23 it had garnered 144 signatures.

It includes the message, “As we have watched multiple ‘emergency’ meetings set up by Ellie Householder, it has become evident that she is not fit for her position. She has unilaterally removed the agenda item involving her removal, TWICE! She has violated The Brown Act and does not follow Roberts Rules unless it is convenient for her argument.  Ellie has turned out district into a laughing stock [sic] and has silenced the other trustees on the board. These are just a few examples of why Ellie Householder is not fit to be the board president. She is refusing to allow the Board to act as a board, silencing them and refusing to recognize them. These are all elected officials. She has been abusing her power, and refuses to listen to other trustees. Let your opinion be heard and let the district know the community wants Ellie Householder out!”

Efforts to reach Householder for comment on both the vote and petition were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

District’s attorney who said, “I wasn’t at the meeting” argues in support, citing Robert’s Rules of Order

“I don’t want just you, making that decision” – Trustee Rocha, regarding removing the item from the agenda

Also, unilaterally removes the one item from closed session

Board agrees to hire a parliamentarian for meetings – even though Householder, as Antioch City Clerk serves as the council’s parliamentarian

Rocha calls for censuring Householder

School district staff announce 97.5% vote of no confidence in Householder

“This is uncomfortable” – VP Lewis

By Allen Payton

During the Antioch School Board meeting Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2021, before the regular open session began, a closed session was to be held to discuss one item entitled, “Student Discipline or Other Confidential Student Matter: Interdistrict Transfer Permit”. However, Board President Ellie Householder unilaterally removed it from the agenda, cancelling the closed session, which according to the agenda was scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. (See meeting agenda)

“There was a request that this item be pulled for tonight,” Householder explained. “So, I’m going to pull it and we are going to have a separate meeting to discuss that matter. So, we won’t have any items for closed session.”

“I did just want to have it on the record that I did not consult with the superintendent in the development of this agenda,” she continued. “So, a way that we can, you know, continue tonight, and discuss everything on this agenda, I just want to get a consensus from my colleagues, are we OK with this agenda. Because that is in essence what is done by the board president, before the meeting,

All four other trustees agreed to the agenda – which included item 12B, the vote on Householder’s removal as board president.

“Apologies for this false start, here,” Householder said.

“I believe you’re going to have to have a motion and a second in order to remove that from the, just so it’s clean, the closed session item,” Superintendent Stephanie Anello.

“I don’t have to,” Householder responded. So, if there is a motion, that’s fine. But I was requested by the individual that this is regarding to have this item removed. So, we’re not going to discuss it.”

An attempt to ask Anello why Householder didn’t receive a draft agenda for her review before the final version was sent out was unsuccessful before publication time.

Open Session Householder Unilaterally Removes Item for Vote on Her Removal as Board President

Then, at the beginning of the open session that began at the regular time of 7:00 p.m., Householder again, unilaterally removed the item for a vote on her removal as board president, invoking the same Robert’s Rules of Order she has violated during recent meetings. This time it was placed on the agenda by Trustee Mary Rocha and Area 5 Trustee Gary Hack.

“Because our board follows Robert’s Rules of Order, folks on a losing side of a motion cannot bring back a motion for reconsideration,” Householder explained as reason for her action.

Rocha responded, “I’ve gone through the proper channels and put it on the agenda as I was told. It’s not a reconsideration it’s a renewing.”

“Thank you for that information, Trustee Rocha. “If you recall the motion was made and because you were on the losing side you can’t bring it back for reconsideration.”

“It’s not for reconsideration, ma’am,” Rocha shot back. “It’s renewing, which is a different way of looking at it, which it can be heard.”

“I would agree with you,” Hack said.

“I will pose this question to our attorney. It is because we are a board that’s dictated by Robert’s Rules of Order,” Householder said. “I’ve never heard of this…

The district’s attorney, Lou Lozano said, “I wasn’t at that meeting. If there was a motion and if that motion failed, under Robert’s Rules of Order, reconsideration is done when a member on the winning side of the motion asks for reconsideration of the motion. I understand you operate under Robert’s Rules of Order. It’s up to the board to waive those or not. It would take someone on the winning side of the motion to bring that back.”

Rocha continued to argue her point that it was a “renewal of main motion.”

“It’s up to the board if they want to waive Robert’s Rules of Order,” Lozano said. “It would take a member on the winning side of the vote. It’s up to the board. If the board chooses to say we want to hear this motion…it’s really up to the board to decide to hear it.

Area 1 Trustee Antonio Hernandez said, “That’s pretty clear to me in following Robert’s Rules of Order. Mr. Lozano brings a very good point.”

“I can’t believe you’re letting this go,” Rocha said as Householder tried to move on to the flag salute. “I have a right to have a motion on the table. I’m sorry I’m not dropping it. I’d rather that you look at your own book and find out.”

Board Vice President and Area 3 Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis was the only member to not comment about the matter.

ANALYSIS: During their last regular meeting on Wed., Sept. 8, Householder unilaterally removed the same item on a vote to remove her as board president from the agenda, claiming she didn’t approve it to be there, which was later proven false. She then unilaterally moved the public comments for that agenda item to the general public comments for items not on the agenda, at the beginning of the meeting. Once that occurred, the item and any motion, discussion or vote on it was moot. Yet, when the time for that item arrived, Rocha was allowed to make a motion, seconded by Hack and Householder allowed a vote on it, which failed 2-3. Yet, again, the motion and vote were moot. Therefore, having the same item placed on the agenda for the Sept. 22nd meeting was not a reconsideration of the previous motion and vote, but a new one.

Had the district’s attorney, Mr. Lozano, reviewed the video of the Sept. 8th meeting to be fully informed before participating, tonight, he most likely would have given the same advice. However, as Lozano said during the meeting, he was asked at the last minute, to participate by Householder, which is why he was dressed so casually. So, instead, while it would have been correct in a usual situation of a motion, the advice he offered was standard information from Robert’s Rules of Order and not specific to this unusual situation.  (See related article)

Householder Unilaterally Moves Agenda Item 12B Comments to End of Meeting

Following agenda item 12A, Householder was going to allow the public comments for the item 12B, which would have been a vote on her removal as board president. However, since she’d already removed it from the meeting agenda, for the second regular meeting in a row, Householder unilaterally moved the public comments for that agenda item, to item 20 for the general public comments for items not on the agenda, at the end of the meeting.

Rocha Tries Again for Vote to Remove Householder as Board President

Rocha then continued her effort for a vote to remove Householder as board president.

“Madame Chair, 12B is still the same one that I had put down for removal of board chair. Actually, Board Member Hack also brought this item up,” Rocha stated. “Again, this is a different motion than the motion, before. It’s a renewing motion not a reconsideration motion. So, I don’t believe you can remove it. Unless you want to ask the rest of the board members to renew it, then I have no choice, but to accept what the board members wanted to do.”

“Alright, so moving on. Section 7 district reports, we don’t have any this evening…” Householder said.

“I’m asking for a motion, Madame Chair,” Rocha said, interrupting her.

“You can make a motion,” said Householder.

“I’m asking for a motion for the board members that are against this motion,” Rocha said. “So, I’m saying it should be placed on there because it’s a renewing one, not a reconsideration.”

“I hear your comment, noted,” Householder said. “My suggestion would be to talk offline with any one of us. But right now, I mean…”

“If you want a motion, OK, I’ll place the motion, in place and that is to remove you as chair,” Rocha stated. “That’s my motion. I just need a second.”

“The thing is, though, Trustee Rocha, that’s not valid because you already made that motion, last time,” Householder said. “So, if there’s a motion to reconsider of myself…”

“It’s not reconsider, it’s renewing,” Rocha repeated.

“But that’s not a valid motion, so I can’t recognize it. I understand, I’ve fully noted what you said,” Householder repeated. “So, I have to insist we move on with our agenda. So, Section 7…”

“Well, Madame Chair, you can’t remove it without the rest of the board agreeing to remove it,” Rocha stated. “You did not take action.”

“Trustee Rocha, I did take action,” Householder replied.

“No, you didn’t. You didn’t take the vote,” Rocha said.

“Trustee Rocha, I’m not going to argue with you,” Householder said.

“I’m just trying to tell you, it wasn’t voted on,” Rocha said.

“OK, I’m noting your concerns,” Householder responded. “But I’m telling you that it was voted on at the last…”

“There was no vote, when it was taken earlier,” Rocha repeated.

“That’s not a valid motion that you can make, legally, per Robert’s Rules of Order,” Householder stated. “So, I cannot recognize it.”

“Renewing is,” Rocha said.

“I cannot. We just had our attorney on here, Trustee Rocha that said…” Householder said.

“It was reconsideration, but not renewing,” Rocha responded. “So, I want the board to take action. Either they want it on the board (she meant agenda) or they don’t want it. I don’t want just you making that decision.”

“Trustee Rocha, I appreciate your concerns,” Householder said. “So, Section 7 District Reports…”

“You did not take action, Madame Chair, you did not take action,” Rocha repeated. “So, that item is still on the agenda.”

Householder continued with the meeting agenda.

Other Matters

The board members discussed holding in-person meetings, again. They’ll make their decision at their October meeting.

Agree to Hire Parliamentarian

In other board action, they then discussed and approved hiring a parliamentarian, which was placed on the agenda by Anello.

“Thank you for introducing that, Superintendent Anello,” Householder said, then public comments were read, all in support of the proposal.

“I think this is a great idea. My only direction that I would provide, is it’s someone…who hasn’t been to our prior meetings, so we have a fresh start,” said Householder, who as Antioch City Clerk is the parliamentarian to the city council.

“I think it’s a healthy addition,” Lewis said. “I think the challenge will be to ensure that person is neutral. I’m a big process guy. I don’t make decisions willy nilly…around emotions. All of my decisions are based around logic and reason. Again, I think disagreement is healthy and I think a parliamentarian can add to that.”

“Both you and I are in agreement with that,” Householder said.

“I think it’s healthy. It would be good to have someone tell us,” Rocha said. “I think it’s also good for us to know what the rules are.”

“I’m absolutely in support of this,” Hernandez said. “We all have to be in agreement with who the person is. Just want to make sure we’re all working together as a board and all on the same page about things like that.”

Hack said, “I would agree it’s 5-0. Absolutely.”

“Is this a paid person?” Rocha asked.

“If we’re going to bring someone in, a contract would be brought before the board,” said Deputy Superintendent Jessica Romeo.

“Hopefully, we can have a contract on the agenda in October,” Householder said.

Future Agenda Items

Under Future Agenda Items Rocha called for a vote to censure Householder on the next meeting agenda.

“At this time, I’d like to bring forward a censureship of Trustee Householder and the need for Vice President Lewis to bring it forward, so the chair does not remove it,” Rocha said.

Public Comments

There were still 140 pages of public comments remaining to be read at the end of the meeting.

“I don’t know if we’re going to be able to make it all the way to the end,” Householder said, suggesting reading comments for 30 minutes and then taking a break. “We’ll decide that later.”

Many of the public comments were against forcing students in the district to wear masks. See all those read during general public comments, here:

Comments for 9.22.2021 RBOE – Part 1   Additional Comments for 6A 9.22.2021

More Additional Comments for 6A 9.22.2021    Two More Additional Comments for 6A 9.22.2021

Additional Comments for 6B 9.22.2021    Additional Comments for Items 12A, 12B, and 12C

School District Staff Announce Vote of No Confidence

During the public comments, one was submitted and read from the three school district staff groups, the faculty, classified and management employees, announcing their vote of no confidence in Householder by 97.5% with only 15 staff members voting no. (See related article and article with further details to be posted on this website, later)

Rocha Makes One More Attempt

During the Reports/Comments from Board Members section of the agenda, Rocha tried again to have a vote on removing Householder as board president.

“Madam Chair, point of order. Trustee Hack and myself, placed on the agenda, as required, a motion to remove board chair, Ellie Householder. I have this book, right in front of me, that says Robert’s Rules of Order. It shows you that on chapter 10, section 38, page 85…the renewal of the motion.”

Householder attempted to stop Rocha saying, “We’ve already discussed this” but Rocha continued to speak.

“So, I’m reading to you, Robert’s Rules of Order makes it easy to reintroduce a defeated motion at a future meeting,” Rocha stated. “This is called renewing the motion. So, all members have to do is request the motion to be placed on the agenda, which I have done the proper way. And so, I am ordering, at least call for the motion. I need a second. I think we should take action and then bury it.”

“Any other reports?” Householder asked, trying to move forward with the agenda.

“I need a second on this motion,” Rocha continued. “I’m calling for the motion.”

“Trustee Rocha, we’re not going to back and forth. This is an illegal motion,” Householder said. “Is there other reports?”

“No, it isn’t. I just read to you it’s a renewing motion,” Rocha responded. “So, it was placed officially, the way you wanted it.”

Householder continued to speak and try to get Rocha to stop.

“I’m not giving it up,” Rocha said. “I need a second, so we can clear this item.”

“Trustee Rocha, please, for, please,” Householder exclaimed.

“I need a second,” Rocha repeated.

“Trustee Rocha, this is an illegal motion,” Householder repeated.

“I gave you a second,” Hack said, simultaneously.

“OK. Mr. Hack just gave me a second. I’m calling for the motion to be called,” Rocha said. “Call for the motion to be done.”

“But there are other reports,” Householder then said.

“I’m calling for the motion,” Rocha repeated.

“You’re not the board president,” Householder stated. “Are there other reports?”

“But you are, and you have the right to do what I’m asking you for,” Rocha responded. “I’m asking for you…”

Raising her voice, Householder asked, “Trustee Rocha, are you calling for a motion to reconsider my judgement as board chair?”

“I’m calling for the motion for the renewal of the motion I had placed on the agenda,” Rocha responded. “I just want it voted on, so we can clear it and it’s out of the area.”

“Trustee Rocha, you’re out of order,” Householder said speaking over her fellow trustee. “You’re out of order.”

“I’m not out of order,” Rocha shot back. “I have a second on a motion. So, I’m calling for the motion.”

“Do we have any other reports or comments?” Householder asked.

“Again, you’ve misused your power,” said Rocha.

Householder moved on, again asking for any reports or comments from other trustees.

Lewis Finally Speaks Out, Apologizes for Missing Monday’s Meeting

“I have something,” Lewis said, weighing in on the matter for the first time. “You know, I think in terms of being mature about this whole situation, I think a deeper conversation is needed. We are a policy developing board. If the goal is, or if the conversation revolves around justifications for actions against a particular board member, I think that’s a healthy conversation, at some point to have. However, that conversation has not happened, and we haven’t laid out criteria for which that request should happen. I think we should have that conversation.”

“I myself, as a…trained administrator, I’m all about protocol, I’m not about emotion. I’m not about any of that stuff,” he continued. “Any decision I make, any action I take is process oriented. So, you know, I think that is a healthy conversation that should happen.”

“Obviously…as vice president I don’t have the power to put something on the board (agenda),” Lewis stated. “I did recognize your comment, earlier, Trustee Rocha, and I’ll make sure that conversation happens. But I think that’s a conversation we need to have in terms of like, OK, if there are actions taken by a board member, or if there are some things that happen by a board member, how do we move forward as a board? You know. I think those conversations should happen. Those should be clearly defined. It shouldn’t be, ‘Oh, you know, this person made a decision I don’t like, so now I want to get rid of them.’ I don’t think that’s healthy. It sets a precedence that’s unhealthy for the board moving forward. That’s my opinion about that.”

“Now, I apologize to the board and to the public for not being here, last night,” he stated. “I had some personal matters I had to attend to. I won’t go into detail about it. I made a statement about why I wasn’t here. They were personal matters I had to attend to and that’s that.”

“We need a rebalancing, and I don’t know if that requires sort of a consultant to come in,” Lewis continued. “If this is the level of conversation that we’re having amongst ourselves, what message or what tone are we setting for our teachers as well as our students? The students and the public are watching us. Regardless of what side of this conversation you’re on, the students and the public are watching us. This is uncomfortable. And I don’t mean to reprimand. I’m not speaking down to anybody. It’s uncomfortable. So, I’m going to leave it there.”

Householder Returns to Rocha’s Motion

Householder then said about the motion to remove her as board president, “so, just for clarity to address your point, Dr. Lewis, yourself, Trustee Hernandez or me can bring back, what Trustee Rocha is requesting, per what our attorney said to us at the beginning and said to us, last night.”

Rocha could be seen shaking her head, wagging her finger, showing her copy of Robert’s Rules of Order, and speaking, but couldn’t be heard by those watching, to which Householder said, “OK, Trustee Rocha.”

“Our attorney told us, last night in our discussion, as well as at the beginning of this meeting, that those are the only three people that can bring this discussion back,” Householder continued. “I’m trying to be as open to hearing. I believe discussion is great, too. That’s why I asked Trustee Rocha, is she making a motion to appeal my decision. Because then we can have a discussion about it. But frankly, I cannot allow illegal discussion to continue to happen. Because that is one of my very explicitly, enumerated duties as board president to ensure that our board bylaws are followed, adhered to, and by making illegal motions they’re not.”

“I’m trying to tell you how to make the motion so that we can continue the conversation on and that’s ignored,” she continued. “I can’t do anything about that. We’re all individuals.”

“So, with that I really must insist that if this is about the motion on the table and if we, whatever,” Householder said stopping abruptly.

She then recognized Lewis, who shared “some positive things happening in the community.”

“I’m looking forward to a time we can overcome our differences. It’s clear there’s division, here and I think we need to find a way to get past that and work together as a board, work together with the superintendent,” Hernandez said. “Because we’re here to serve the students and the longer that we spend our time having these back and forths, it’s going to keep us away from doing what we need to do to be serving these students.”

“That’s why I came on here,” he continued. “I didn’t come on here to do any of these little political things that are going on. I care about the students and that’s what I’m here for. So, I just hope that we can all, like take a moment to really dig into our own selves and get to work for these students and realize there’s a much bigger thing, here at stake, which is the education our students get every day.”

He then recognized Lewis for “a massive promotion” at work in Alameda County.

“I’d love to see this board continue to focus on positive things and not things that are going to divide us,” Hernandez added.

Use of Force Policy

Lewis asked Anello, “how close are we to getting the conversation going, again about the contract for the use of force? Are we two weeks out or 14 days, something like that?”

“It’s been 14 days. So, we’re definitely working on it,” Anello responded.

“OK. Alright,” Lewis responded.

The meeting ended at 12:35 a.m.

Check back later for any updates to this report.

Teaches at Antioch’s Mission Elementary School; gala will be broadcast virtually

Selected as the Antioch Unified School District’s 2021 Teacher of the Year (TOY), earlier this year, Mission Elementary School’s Crystal Van Dyke will be honored this Thursday night at the county’s annual Teacher of the Year Gala. She is one of 21 TOYs from 15 school districts of Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Community College District and Contra Costa County Office of Education. (See related article)

This year’s gala is being broadcast virtually on the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) website, on YouTube and on edTV (Comcast Cable Channel 32). It will include the four finalists giving their three- to five-minute speeches (same speeches given in July). The excitement-filled evening will come to a dramatic close with the announcement of the 2021-2022 Contra Costa County Teachers of the Year.

The four finalists were announced by Superintendent of Schools Lynn Mackey in June: Alisha Douglass, a ceramics teacher at Liberty High School in Brentwood; Kristen Plant, an English teacher at Miramonte High School in Orinda; Michelle Wilson, an English teacher at Dougherty Valley High School in San Ramon; and Christina Zenzano, an English teacher at Rancho Medanos Junior High School in Pittsburg. They were selected from the 21 Teacher of the Year winners within 15 school districts of Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Community College District and Contra Costa County Office of Education.

“It is my pleasure to congratulate the four finalists on the honor of being named one of the county’s top teachers,” Superintendent Mackey said. “All of the professional educators who are being considered for this prestigious award are to be commended and thanked for their professionalism and leadership, especially throughout this pandemic. These four are prominent examples of the great work teachers throughout the county have done over the last year.”

TOY Selection Process

The county’s TOY program is directed by the CCCOE. With such a high caliber of teaching professionals to draw from, the CCCOE’s TOY program uses a three-stage selection process, with a point and percentage system to determine the final candidate as follows:

I Application Screening:

In April/May, a committee representing the county’s education, business, and public-sector partners will meticulously review the applications submitted by the school districts. This committee independently rates each application. After the application screening and scoring are completed, four teachers will be selected to advance to the next phase as semifinalists.

II Classroom Observation and Interview:

In May, a committee of former County Teachers of the Year will observe the semifinalists interacting with their students. Immediately following, the committee interviews the candidates, discussing topics such as their teaching philosophy and techniques. The results of the two screening processes are then combined to determine the four finalists.

III Speech Presentation:

In July, the four TOY finalists will each give a three- to five-minute speech to another panel of a dozen educators, business, and public-sector representatives who will judge the finalists on their speech and presentation skills.

List of past Contra Costa County Teacher of the Year Representatives from 1977 to present (PDF)

The County representatives are announced at the awards dinner gala affair. Local business and community organizations generously donate classroom grants, services and other items to each of the district winners. (See list of donors, here)

History of the TOY Program

In 1972, California began recognizing outstanding teachers, establishing the Teachers of the Year Program. This program is open to all teachers in public schools who teach pre-kindergarten through college. Contra Costa County has participated in the program since its beginning, when Joseph E. Davis, Jr., of the Acalanes Union High School District, was named the county’s first representative.

Since that time, eight teachers from this county have been State finalists: Janet Neill, San Ramon Valley Unified (1975); David Eakin, John Swett Unified (1981); William Thomas, Mt. Diablo Unified (1982); Janice Bergamini, Mt. Diablo Unified (1991); Shauna Hawes, Mt. Diablo Unified (2017); and Kelly Perkins (Mt. Diablo Unified (2019). The County has had four State winners: Mary Allan, Antioch Unified (2001); Janet Gower, Mt. Diablo Unified (2002); and William Pence, San Ramon Valley Unified (1999); and Rosie Reid, Mt. Diablo Unified (2019). Both William Pence and Rosie Reid were selected to represent California at the National Teacher of the Year level.

Follow Contra Costa County’s Teacher of the Year program on Twitter and Instagram at @CoCoSchools and through the hashtag #cocotoy.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

No action taken with VP Lewis absent; split 2-2 on how long public comments should be, Householder unilaterally reduces them from 3 to 2 minutes; she violates Robert’s Rules of Order, again

“We can’t just get filibustered all night” – Area 1 Trustee Hernandez

“It sounds like a poorly written soap opera” – public comment

By Allen Payton

Before holding the closed session to discipline, dismiss or remove Superintendent Stephanie Anello during their special meeting on Tuesday night, the four members of the Antioch School Board in attendance split 2-2 on how many minutes would be allotted to each public comment. It was the second special meeting called by Board President Ellie Householder, this month and during which nothing was accomplished. She shared in a statement issued Monday, as her reasons for calling the meeting and wanting to take the action against Anello, district students’ poor performance and test scores over the past few years. (See related articles here, here and here) (See meeting video)

Following the closed session, Householder announced that no action had been taken, as was expected with the continued split on the board and only four trustees in attendance.

This is also the second time Householder has gone after Anello, and during a special board meeting, as well. The first time was last December, just four days after Householder was elected board president on a 3-2 vote of the trustees, hoping she had the support of the two new members who gave her the one-year title and position. It was done under her explanation of discussing the evaluation process of Anello, which wasn’t scheduled to happen until this June. But the public wasn’t buying that and submitted over 260 public comments and a petition with over 1,400 signatures in support of Anello.

But residents weren’t buying that and submitted over 260 public comments, mostly in support of Anello, as well as an online petition with over 1,400 signatures in support of the superintendent.

During that meeting, as the Herald previously reported, Householder claimed there was a misperception due to an “issue of language” saying it was not for the actual evaluation. She expressed concern over “establishing metrics for the evaluation amidst a pandemic with constantly changing circumstances as it pertains to the education of children in the district.” She also said she wanted to involve new trustees, Antonio Hernandez and Dr. Clyde Lewis, in the process.” (See  related article)

Tuesday’s meeting began at 5:30 p.m. with the district’s outside attorney, Lou Lozano, present at Householder’s request, but Board Vice President and Area 3 Trustee Lewis absent, of which he informed the Herald on Monday, due to a work conflict.

Householder estimated the public comments submitted might last as long as three hours. She asked the other three trustees if the time should be reduced to two minutes for each. Trustee Mary Rocha and Area 4 Trustee Gary Hack supported keeping them three minutes

“We can’t just get filibustered all night and not get our work done,” Area 1 Trustee Hernandez said, speaking in support of reducing the public comments to two minutes.

“I just wondered, if it was your employment, would you want public comment limited?” asked Superintendent Stephanie Anello.

“I’m going to say, I’m the board president and they will be two minutes,” Householder then said.

“Wow. You’re being a bully” Rocha said.

“You don’t have the authority,” Hack interjected.

“Trustee Hack, you are not recognized,” Householder said.

“We have our attorney with us and I’m trying to be respectful,” Householder said.

“You don’t have the authority,” Hack said, again, without being recognized.

“Trustee Hack, I’m trying to be very kind right now but we’re going to be moving on,” Householder said.

Public Comments

AUSD BOE Public Comments 9.21.2021 Pt1     AUSD BOE Public Comments 9.21.2021 Pt 2

The 127 pages of public comments were then read and almost all of them were in support of Anello and critical of Householder. Some were also critical of Hernandez, Lewis and the board as a whole. Many called for Householder to resign or be removed as board president, which is on the board’s regular meeting agenda for a vote on Wednesday night. (See related article)

“It sounds like a poorly written soap opera,” read one public comment, regarding the calling of the special meeting.

“Why do I feel like I moved to Jerry Springer’s hometown?” another member of the public asked in their written comments.

The most serious comment made against Anello was by Willie Mims, representing the NAACP East County Branch for which he serves as Education Chair.

The board took a brief break at 7:50 p.m. with 50 pages of comments left to be read.

Where Was Lewis?

On Monday Lewis told the Herald, “Tuesday, I’m not available. I have to work. I can’t make that meeting. I have a work meeting at that time.”

Efforts to reach him shortly after 8 p.m. asking if his work meeting was done, and if he could join the meeting, since the public comments were still being read, and then again at 9:20 p.m. after the reading of the public comments were finished, asking if he was still at work, were unsuccessful.

Rocha Tries to Adjourn Before Going into Closed Session

At 9:20 p.m., after over three-and-a-half hours of public comments, during which only seven exceeded the two-minute time limit, the board took another brief break.

When they returned, Rocha asked Householder, “Is Dr. Lewis going to be in attendance?”

“I don’t know,” Householder replied.

“In that case, I move to adjourn this meeting,” Rocha said.

Householder Violates Robert’s Rules of Order, Again

The sound cut out briefly, but then Householder, ignoring Rocha’s motion said to her, “let’s go into closed session and you will have the floor, then,” giving Rocha the chance to bring it up, again in closed session.

According to Robert’s Rules of Order, Rocha’s motion to adjourn carries the second highest level of precedence of all motions, and Householder was required to recognize it and, if seconded, immediately hold a vote on it, without interruption, debate or amendment.

No Action Taken During Closed Session

Then the four board members and the district’s attorney adjourned to the closed session and the district’s YouTube channel feed was cut off. It lasted until 10:30 p.m. and when the board returned, Householder reported out and merely said, “Report from closed session, no action was taken.”

They then voted to adjourn the meeting and it passed on a 4-0 vote, with Lewis still absent.