Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

Contra Costa college board to hold redistricting hearing Dec. 8, but no online mapping tool offered for public input

Wednesday, December 1st, 2021

Source: 4CD

Only one proposed map to be presented by district staff, attorney and only one public hearing will be held; wards aren’t required to be equal in size, can have a 5% population deviation from average, so they can match the Supervisors’ new map; Trustees Walters, Sandoval committed to an independent redistricting body/commission during their 2020 campaigns; Sandoval will request it at Dec. 8 meeting; Board President Li offers to consider one after process is completed; deadline is Feb. 28, 2022

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Nov. 10, the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) Board of Trustees received a presentation about Ward Equalization Based on the 2020 Census. The process will begin during a public hearing at their Dec. 8 meeting, with one map presented by District staff and attorney, and must be completed by the end of February. However, there will be no online mapping tool for the public to use to submit proposed, alternative maps, like the Board of Supervisors and some cities like Antioch and Brentwood have offered. 111021-4CD Trustee Area Redistricting presentation

According to the 2020 Census, the population of the District is now 1,165,927 a growth of 116,902 since 2010. That results in an average ward population of 233,186. Ward 5 has experienced the greatest population growth in the previous decade and is now 7.1% over average. Although state education code requires the population of each ward be equal “as nearly as may be”, according to 4CD staff the wards can legally have a population deviation from one to the other as great as 10%, just like the Board of Supervisors are allowed. Their final map has a total deviation of 9.77%. (See related article)

The 2011 ward map splits a variety of cities, including Pinole in West County, Martinez and Concord in Central County, and Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood in East County. Concord, Pleasant Hill, Pacheco and portions of Martinez and Pittsburg are included in Ward 2 The map includes Clayton and portions of Antioch and Brentwood with Danville, San Ramon, Blackhawk and Camino Tassajara in the Ward 4. Alamo is included in Ward 2 with Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda, as well as Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett, and portions of Pinole and Martinez.

In which cities the current board members live will be taken into consideration. Ward 2 Trustee Dr. Judy Walters lives in Martinez, and Ward 5 Trustee Fernando Sandoval, a Pittsburg resident, were elected last year. Ward 1 Trustee and Richmond resident, John Marquez, Ward 3 Trustee Rebecca Barrett who also lives in Martinez and Ward 4 Trustee Andy Li, a San Ramon resident, are up for election, next year.

According to the staff report on the Nov. 10th presentation, “Pursuant to Education Code Section 5019.5, following each decennial federal census, and using population figures as validated by the Demographic Research Unit of the Department of Finance as a basis, the governing board of each school district or community college district in which trustee areas have been established, and in which each trustee is elected by the residents of the area the trustee represents, shall adjust the boundaries of any or all of the trustee areas of the district such that the population of each is, as nearly as may be, the same proportion of the total population of the district as each of the other areas. 4CD must update ward boundaries as needed to achieve this equalization by February 28, 2022. The attached presentation is informational and represents the first phase of this process.”

Since there was nothing mentioning the districts ward equalization process on the 4CD website, several questions were asked of Executive Vice Chancellor Mojdeh Mezhdizadeh, in charge of the redistricting process, and District PIO Timothy Leong.

Q. Will there be an online mapping tool for the public to use to submit proposed maps on the district’s website, as other agencies, including Contra Costa County and the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, as well as the state are offering.?

A. No. The process you are referring to are related to municipality actions being done in compliance with the Fair Maps Act, which are to be followed when cities and counties address the redistricting challenge following the 2020 Census. Community college districts are governed by different legal standards, specifically Education Code section 5019.5.

That code also reads:

“(a)(1) The population of each area is, as nearly as may be, the same proportion of the total population of the district as the ratio that the number of governing board members elected from the area bears to the total number of members of the governing board.

(2) The population of each area is, as nearly as may be, the same proportion of the total population of the district as each of the other areas.

(b) The boundaries of the trustee areas shall be adjusted by the governing board of each school district or community college district, in accordance with subdivision (a), before the first day of March of the year following the year in which the results of each decennial census are released. If the governing board fails to adjust the boundaries before the first day of March of the year following the year in which the results of each decennial census are released, the county committee on school district organization shall do so before the 30th day of April of the same year.”

Q. Will there be a hearing schedule for the public to participate in the process?

A. A public hearing on redistricting will be scheduled at the Governing Board’s December 8, 2021, meeting, to obtain community input on the District’s draft redistricting recommendation. In addition, a proposed draft map will be shared and described at this meeting.

Q. The presentation during the Nov. 10th board meeting and the staff report reads, “4CD must update ward boundaries as needed to achieve this equalization by February 28, 2022” and the “presentation is informational and represents the first phase of this process.” What is that process going to beand when, please? When will the next board meeting be held? It doesn’t show on the Board Docs webpage.

A. The presentation at the November 10, 2021, Governing Board meeting, was the first phase of the redistricting process. Since that meeting, 4CD research staff, under the direction of legal counsel, have been analyzing the 2020 Census information and are finalizing a draft recommendation to adjust the five wards in order to meet the population balance and proportions as required by Education Code.  This will be presented at the December 8, 2021, Governing Board meeting.

Q. Why doesn’t the board simply use the same map approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors? While I recognize there is a small portion of the county on the south end, east of San Ramon and Camino Tassajara is outside of the district. That would not change the deviation percentage much.

A. The development of supervisorial wards were done at a different time and separately from those of the 4CD trustees. The processes are also governed by different legal requirements. The College District is in the process of following applicable laws to meet the needs of its constituency.

Q. But why would that preclude the board from offering an online mapping tool for the public to use to submit proposed maps for consideration?

A. The opportunity for community input on 4CD’s redistricting process and proposal will be available during the Governing Board’s December 8, 2021, meeting. I understand you submitted a proposed redistricting map to the Board of Supervisors, and if you wish for our trustees to consider that map, I would recommend you submit it to Pat Kaya atpkaya@4cd.eduby December 3, 2021, so that it can be considered.

Q. Why will only one draft map be shared by staff at the Dec. 8 board meeting and not several alternatives?

A. Our recommendation to the Governing Board at the November 10, 2021, meeting, and based on past practice, was for staff to provide one map of a proposed adjustment to the ward boundaries. Trustees will have the opportunity to review the proposal at their December 8, 2021, meeting, and along with community input, can decide if it meets their approval or ask staff to make further adjustments to the proposal for review at their January 12, 2022, meeting.

Q. A very small portion of the county east of San Ramon and Camino Tassajara, is not in the 4CD, but is part of the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District. What is the population of the area of Contra Costa County not included in the district?

A. We are seeking the County’s assistance to determine the population of the county that is not covered within the 4CD service territory because we do not track that information.

Q. After reading that education code section, it appears school and college district boards must follow the same guideline as the U.S. House of Representatives in having equal population per district, with no 5% maximum deviation like the Board of Supervisors can have.

A. Legal counsel advises us that we do not follow the same standard as the House of Representatives. For example, school (districts) having a 10% and below deviation are presumptively balanced for legal purposes.

Q. In response Mezhdizadeh and Leong were asked, “does that mean a 5% deviation from average? If so, why can’t the maps created for the Board of Supervisors work for the college district?”

12/2/21 UPDATE: Leong responded, “We are required to assess based on variance, and our max is 10%. Based on the data we received from the 2020 Census, we learned the variance was over 10%, triggering the work to rebalance our wards. Our recommended draft ward boundaries now have a variance of 1.7%.”

As for using the map created for the Board of Supervisors, he responded, “That is a conversation and decision for the Governing Board to make.”

Regarding the population of the area of Contra Costa County not included in the district, Leong wrote, “According to the County Elections Office, Census Tract 3551.12 contains 116 census blocks, and has a population of 1,593.”

Two Trustees Committed to Independent Redistricting Body/Commission

During the 2020 election campaign, Ward 2 Trustee Dr. Walters said she would support an independent redistricting body to redraw districts, in response to a question from the League of Women Voters.

“After the 2020 Census is completed, districts will need to be redrawn in 2021. If elected, will you support an independent redistricting body to redraw districts? Why or why not?

Answer from Judy E. Walters: Yes, independent redistricting bodies have drawn impartial boundaries and avoid gerrymandering, or drawing district lines that benefit certain incumbent legislators and/or the political party in power.”

In response to the same question, Ward 5 Trustee Fernando Sandoval also gave his support for an independent redistricting commission.

Answer from Fernando Sandoval: I will wholeheartedly support an independent redistricting commission to redraw districts for Contra Costa Community Colleges. Both the State of California and municipalities like the City of Berkeley and several others have passed measures to create commissions that are free of political influence. This, in turn, has ensured that the districts that are ultimately agreed upon are more representative of the communities of interest that reside there.”

Board Can Increase the Number of Trustees

That same code section also reads: “the authority to establish or abolish trustee areas, rearrange the boundaries of trustee areas, increase or decrease the number of members of the governing board, or adopt any method of electing governing board members may be exercised only as otherwise provided under this article.”

Q. Does that mean the college board can increase the number of trustees on the board and corresponding districts? If they choose to do so, does that need to occur during the redistricting process? What is the maximum number of trustees allowed on the board?

A. The Governing Board can decide to change the number of elected trustees at any time and does not have to coincide with this redistricting process. It is a completely separate topic from the post-census Redistricting process, which is the District’s main focus at this time in order to meet the February 28, 2022, deadline.

Questions for Trustees

In an email on Saturday afternoon, all five trustees were asked the following questions:

Will you support forming an independent redistricting commission of residents to assist you with the Ward Equalization, this year?

Will you also commit to basing the new boundaries on principles of:

  1. One person one vote with as little population deviation from one district to the other;
  1. Compactness;
  2. Communities of Interest – such as keeping all the San Ramon Valley cities and communities together, and not including East County with the San Ramon Valley as the current Ward 4 does; and
  3. Splitting the larger cities, first, such as Concord, Antioch and Walnut Creek

If you choose to have ward populations with a deviation as much as 10%, recognizing a very small portion of the county is not in the college district, why not simply adopt the same map the Board of Supervisors adopted?

Would you support increasing the number of trustees and corresponding districts to seven, as the Las Positas-Chabot Community College District and Peralta Community College District have? Why or why not?

Finally, in which city do each of you live? Only President Li includes that he lives in San Ramon in his bio on the 4CD website Board page. Since that will be a consideration in redrawing the ward boundaries, that’s important for the public to know when giving input to you during the process.

Board President Li Responds

Only Board President Li responded to the Herald’s questions with the following:

“The Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) is working closely with legal counsel to ensure we administer a fair and impartial redistricting process following Education Code section 5019.5. Since 2020 Census data was released about 6 months later than usual, 4CD did not receive the final 2020 census data until the last week of September and we are required to complete our post-census redistricting process by February 28, 2022 as required by law.

4CD is following a process to re-draw ward boundaries to ensure population balance and proportion as stipulated in Education Code. Other considerations presented and discussed at the Governing Board’s November 10, 2021, meeting, included ensuring compliance with the federal voter rights act, compact and contiguous areas, respecting communities of interest as much as possible, and respecting incumbency.

The questions in your November 27, 2021, email refers to your interest in obtaining support for an independent redistricting body to redraw our ward boundaries that could be consistent with ward areas similar to those recently approved by the Board of Supervisors. This was not the direction we provided staff during our November 10, 2021, public meeting.

If there was interest by the trustees to pursue this idea to completely redraw our ward boundaries and other proposals such as increasing the number of trustees, the Governing Board would place this item on a future meeting agenda so the conversation could be done publicly, and it would take place after we have rebalanced our existing wards based on populations changes outlined in the 2020 Census.

Regarding the use of a public mapping tool, the Governing Board did not feel this it was necessary to rebalancing the population as required by Education Code 5019.5. If, after the completion of the redistricting work is completed, and the Governing Board chooses to pursue the idea to completely revamp our trustee wards, a mapping tool could also be considered.”

Since he didn’t answer some of the questions, Li was asked the following, again: “If you choose to have ward populations with a deviation as much as 10%, recognizing a very small portion of the county is not in the college district, why not simply adopt the same map the Board of Supervisors adopted? Would you support increasing the number of trustees and corresponding districts to seven, as the Las Positas-Chabot Community College District and Peralta Community College District have? Why or why not?”

Four Other Board Members Asked, Again

The other four board members were sent the same questions, again asking for each of them to respond. In addition, Walters and Sandoval were specifically asked, “why didn’t you propose appointing an independent citizens commission for redistricting as you committed during your campaigns, last year?”

Sandoval Responds, Commits to Requesting Independent Commission

“The board in open session has not had a discussion on redistricting, yet because we haven’t seen the data,” Sandoval said when reached for comment. “I want to ensure the public has the opportunity to weigh in on the process and the work that will be done by district staff. That’s part of the transparency we need to have for the process.”

“I will fulfill my commitment to ask for the independent redistricting commission,” he added. “Speaking on my own behalf, I will also ask for more transparency.”

Regarding expanding the board to seven members, Sandoval said, “that’s something for the board to discuss. It isn’t something I ran on in 2016 or 2020 and was elected to do. But I’m open to having that discussion. Having seven board members is a mixed bag for several different reasons. But we have to discuss it and let the public weigh in on it.

Minutes of the November 10th board meeting was not yet available on the 4CD website as of publication time. It has been requested of Leong, Wednesday afternoon, Dec. 1. Minutes of past meetings are only available in the agenda of the next meeting. The Dec. 8 board meeting agenda is not yet posted on the 4CD’s Board Docs website. The links to the archive of board meeting videos are also not easy to find. They’re available, here: https://www.4cd.edu/gb/videos.html.

To contact each of the trustees, please see their phone and email contact information, here.

Please check back later for updates to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

Contra Costa Community College District students get access to online courses statewide

Wednesday, November 24th, 2021

Source: California Community Colleges

By Timothy Leong, PIO, 4CD

Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) colleges — Contra Costa College, Diablo Valley College and its San Ramon Campus, and Los Medanos College and its Brentwood Center — are among the first 15 colleges in the state to become Teaching Colleges on the California Virtual Campus – Online Education Initiative (CVC-OEI) Exchange cross-enrollment platform. CVC-OEI is designed to ensure more students are able to successfully complete their educational goals and achieve their higher education degree or certificate by increasing access to and success in high-quality online courses.

4CD students can now quickly enroll in online courses offered at other eligible community colleges in the state without completing another college application, and vice versa. In addition, transcripts and financial aid are also coordinated to streamline these processes for students.

“If students can’t find the class they need that suits their schedule at their own campus, the CVC-OEI Exchange provides an easy and seamless way for them take a course online at other community colleges in the system,” says 4CD Dean of Distance Education Joanna Miller. “This expanded access to online classes will ultimately help our students complete their educational goals and advance more quickly toward their careers or 4-year colleges.”

The CVC-OEI is a collaborative project among California’s community colleges and is funded by a grant disbursed by the California Community College Chancellor’s Office. CCC and DVC have been members of the CVC Consortium since 2018, with Los Medanos College joining in 2020. For more information about the CVC-OEI, visit https://cvc.edu/about-the-oei/ or contact Andrea Hanstein at ahanstein@cvc.edu.

About 4CD

The Contra Costa Community College District is one of the largest multi-college community college districts in California. The 4CD serves a population of 1,159,540 people, and its boundaries encompass all but 48 of the 734-square-mile land area of Contra Costa County. 4CD is home to Contra Costa College in San Pablo, Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, Los Medanos College in Pittsburg, as well as educational centers in Brentwood and San Ramon. The District headquarters is located in downtown Martinez. For more information visit www.4cd.edu.

 

 

Kiwanis Delta-Antioch club to hold 4th Annual Holiday Run virtually

Sunday, November 21st, 2021

https://runsignup.com/Race/CA/KiwanisHolidayRun

Contra Costa College District COVID-19 vaccine mandate for staff, students now in effect

Saturday, November 20th, 2021

Photo source: CDC

Unanimous vote by trustees; all visitors, including vendors and subcontractors, required to complete health assessment prior to visiting a 4CD facility.

By Timothy Leung, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa Community College District

At their September 8, 2021, meeting, the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) Governing Board passed a resolution on a unanimous vote establishing a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for all employees, and students who attend at least one in-person class or visits a 4CD facility or campus. All visitors, including vendors and subcontractors, are strongly encouraged to be vaccinated and will be required to complete a health assessment prior to visiting a 4CD facility. Ward 2 Trustee and Board Vic President Dr. Walters made the motion, and it was seconded by Ward 5 Trustee Fernando Sandoval. The vote was unanimous, including the student trustee. (See Item 21.A.)

The vaccine requirement became effective on Monday, November 1, 2021, in order to provide time for those currently unvaccinated to become fully vaccinated. The 4CD Governing Board determined that requiring vaccines for students and employees is necessary to ensure the health and safety of the 4CD community.

Employees and students can apply for a vaccination exception or deferral in the following situations: (a) medical excuse from receiving COVID-19 vaccine due to medical conditions or precaution; b) disability; (c) during the period of any pregnancy; or (d) religious objection based on a person’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practice or observance. When an exception or deferral has been approved, regular weekly COVID-19 testing with evidence of negative test results will be required for any unvaccinated person accessing District campuses or facilities.

4CD is evaluating various technology solutions that will track the vaccination status and test results in a secure system designed to protect the privacy of students and employees in accordance with applicable laws.

“In making this decision, 4CD reached out to its students, faculty, classified professionals, and managers and received overwhelming support to take this action,” said Chancellor Bryan Reece. “COVID-19 and its many variants will be with us for a while, so we must take prudent steps like this one so we can continue providing face-to-face instruction and services for our students, while ensuring we have a safe place to learn and work for our students and staff.”

4CD continues to monitor and adhere to health guidelines from federal, state and local health authorities, and advocates vaccination is the most effective way to prevent transmission and limit COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths.

Visit 4CD’s website at https://www.4cd.edu/covid19/index.html for more information.

About the College District

The Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) is one of the largest multi-college community college districts in California. The 4CD serves a population of 1,019,640 people, and its boundaries encompass all but 48 of the 734-square-mile land area of Contra Costa County. 4CD is home to Contra Costa College in San Pablo, Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, Los Medanos College in Pittsburg, as well as educational centers in Brentwood and San Ramon. The District headquarters is located in downtown Martinez. For more information visit www.4cd.edu.

Letters: Householder recall proponent refutes what was said in KPIX report

Friday, November 5th, 2021

Ellie Householder during a KPIX TV interview on October 31, 2021. Video screenshot

“She brought us all together, many of us strangers just one month ago, to form a united effort to demand better leadership for our students.  We are not frightened, divided, or ‘old Antioch.’”

Lindsey Amezcua during KPIX TV interview on Oct. 31, 2021. Video screenshot

For the past 18-months, as America dealt with the impact of COVID-19 which impacted every decision we made from homelife to work to traveling and education to shutdowns, often what went unchecked by the news stations was what was going on with decisions and actions of our local elected officials.

As COVID19 gripped America, this deadly and divisive pandemic provided a cover for an arguably more insidious and detrimental “virus” raging unchecked; political activists with inflated egos and grandiose ideas of their own importance and impact. Antioch has not escaped unscathed in this political arena.

Antioch Unified School Board (AUSD) President Ellie Householder stated her “Progressive ideas frighten people” and that is why citizens began the arduous effort to recall her.  On the surface this is a powerful and persuasive argument, implying that she is working hard for the students of AUSD and recall proponents are unwilling to accept her ideas.

Is this really the case?

Ms. Householder was voted in as president by her fellow trustees in December of 2020.  Since taking on this role she has presided over 24 meetings of the Board of Education, including 7 special meetings.

In these meetings there have been 57 agenda items under the category Items for Information/Discussion/Action by Board. Of these 57 items, 26 of them were brought forward by Ms. Householder.

  • District-wide Use of Force Policies and Procedures (Householder) 09/02/2021 & 10/27/2021
  • Policy Regarding Law Enforcement Interaction with Students (Householder) 10/27/2021
  • Bullying Prevention Policy (Householder) 10/27/2021
  • Agenda Setting/Organization (Householder) 01/27/2021 & 10/27/2021
  • Public Communication Policy (Householder) 9/8/2021
  • Early Education Options (Householder) 9/8/2021
  • Review of Inter- and Intra-District Transfer Board Policies (Householder) 9/8/2021
  • Board of Education Notification Policies and Procedures (Householder) 9/8/2021
  • Data Supports (Householder) 02/24/2021 & 8/25/2021
  • Bay Area Community Resources (BACR) Presentation (Householder) 8/11/2021
  • Graduation Attire (Householder) 6/23/2021
  • Out and About” Report (Householder) 6/9/2021
  • Cleaner Contra Costa Challenge (Householder) 04/28/2021 & 5/12/2021
  • Special Board Recognitions (Householder) 5/12/2021
  • Bicycle Garden Presentation to the Board (Householder) 5/12/2021
  • District-wide Mission Statement(s) (Householder) 4/28/2021
  • District Logo (Householder) 4/28/2021
  • Manhood Development Program Updates (Householder) 3/10/2021
  • Change Order Reports Provided by Staff to the Board (Householder) 3/10/2021
  • School Reopening (Householder) 3/10/2021
  • School Safety (Householder) 2/24/2021
  • Highlighting Resolutions for the Month (Householder) 2/24/2021
  • Single Board Email Address (Householder) 12/16/2020 & 1/13/2021
  • Goldman School of Public Policy Graduate Student Research Proposal (Householder) 12/16/2020 & 1/13/2021
  • Board Meeting Protocols (Householder) 1/13/2021

Of the items presented, which progressive ideas frighten us as Ms. Householder claims? Furthermore, of these items, which actually have a direct impact on improving student achievement? I can see none. She focuses on test scores as she belittles the district. I can see no agenda item she brought forward that would improve test scores.

Meanwhile, other trustees have highlighted the digital divide, pushed for cultural inclusion, requested ROTC and JROTC programs, and sought out grant writing options. There are countless other examples.

What does Householder propose? She has three times pushed for a single board email address, twice discussed the Cleaner Contra Costa Challenge, discussed the city’s bicycle garden initiative, focused on old data, and a variety of other items that have no impact on our students.

We aren’t frightened by her progressive ideas; we are terrified by her lack of discernible action. She has provided a lot of words and media interviews but, has provided the district little to no substance with actual action.

It is interesting that for a sound bite in a recent KPIX interview, she calls herself the “most hated person in America” but fails to see we do not hate her, we dislike her leadership style which by her own admittance is “heavy handed”. Most importantly, her heavy-handed leadership has failed to focus on the students while instead attacking school leadership, employees and even parents.

Many of us who support the recall effort initially supported her for election because of how she was going to change the district. Seeing her in action, now we just want a trustee with a focus on the students and our children – not a personal vendetta.

During these same 24 meetings, the discussion to evaluate/fire the superintendent took place on six separate occasions, including twice under the guise of an emergency Special Board Meeting.  Evaluating the superintendent was seemingly important to Ms. Householder, but she failed to complete one of the primary duties of the president; the coordination and completion of the formal evaluation of the superintendent, due annually on June 30th.

Instead, her laser focus to discredit and fire the superintendent has wasted the time of the other trustees and staff, taken resources away from the students, and illustrated that the priority of her tenure as a board member and president is not focused on our students.

In that KPIX 5 interview she claims her reckless and biased behavior isn’t “dividing anybody” and the “folks behind this recall effort represent old Antioch.”  This very statement is divisive and creates an US v THEM narrative that is completely false.

There is no old or new, there is just Antioch. She also fails to remember that AUSD also encompasses part of the city of Oakley and City of Pittsburg.

The recall proponents represent all areas of AUSD and the diversity of our district.  We are grandparents, parents, recent graduates, teachers, staff, coaches, and administrators.  Our age range spans many decades from teenagers to those in their 90’s. We are members of all three AUSD unions, across all schools and cities within AUSD boundaries. We represent AUSD.

In the interview, Ms. Householder got one thing correct.  She stated, “I believe that I’m actually bringing people together” and this is true.

She brought us all together, many of us strangers just one month ago, to form a united effort to demand better leadership for our students.  We are not frightened, divided, or “old Antioch.”

#WeAreAUSD and we hope to see you at a signing location this weekend or in the near future.

Website: https://recallelliehouseholder.com/

Facebook: Recall Ellie Householder

Twitter: RecallEllieHH

Instagram: recall_elliehouseholder

Lindsey Amezcua

Community member, AUSD parent, Recall proponent, and advocate for ALL children.

 

Signature gathering for recall of Antioch School Board president begins

Thursday, October 28th, 2021

Householder does not provide response for petition, won’t say why

Effort has until April 6, 2022 to gather 9,913 signatures of voters in the district

By Allen Payton

Following receipt of a letter from the Contra Costa Elections office, on Wednesday, approving the petition to recall Antioch School Board President Ellie Householder, one of the leaders of the effort, Lindsey Amezcua said signature gathering has begun. HouseholderRecallPetitionApprovalLetter

Householder was served on Friday, Oct. 8 with the notice of intent to circulate the recall petition, and it was submitted to the county on Tuesday, Oct. 12. Householder then had seven days to provide a response, of up to 200 words, to the reasons given on the petition for the recall. But Amezcua said she did not provide one. (See related article)

Then the notice had to be published in a local newspaper, which was done in the East Bay Times on Friday, Oct. 22. The necessary paperwork was then submitted to the county elections office that same day.  A minor correction had to be made to the paperwork, which was submitted on Tuesday, Oct. 26, Amezcua explained.

The effort included gathering signatures at Wednesday’s school board meeting. Amezcua announced it during public comments at the beginning of the regular meeting.

They will also be gathering signatures during the Rivertown Trick or Treat event in downtown on Saturday, and will be in front of grocery stores, have them available in a variety of businesses, as well as door-to-door directly to voters, she shared.

According to the letter from the county elections office, the effort has 160 days, until April 5, 2022, to gather “not less than 9,913 valid signatures of properly registered voters in the Antioch Unified School District at large”. That’s based on 15% of the total 66,087 voters in the district.

“That’s more than who voted for her in 2018,” Amezcua pointed out. According to the election results, Householder received 8,705 votes when she was elected that year, placing second behind Mary Rocha who received 13,148 votes.

Questions were sent late Wednesday afternoon to Householder asking why she didn’t submit a response, if she missed the seven-day deadline, and if she didn’t care to defend herself, or if she doesn’t consider the recall a serious matter. But she did not respond as of publication time Thursday afternoon.

For more information visit www.RecallEllieHouseholder.com.

Please check back later for any updates to this response.

Antioch School Board censure of Householder fails with Lewis abstaining

Wednesday, October 27th, 2021

During Wednesday night’s school board meeting in the Deer Valley High School theater AUSD teachers and staff wore shirts with the words “You are not Recognized” mocking Householder for her comments to Trustee Mary Rocha and Superintendent Stephanie Anello at a previous board meeting.

Wanted to discuss hiring a board consultant, first; board agrees to hire consultant to help with governance and evaluating the superintendent

By Allen Payton

Antioch School Board Trustee Mary Rocha moved forward with her effort to censure Board President Ellie Householder, also at the request of leaders of the recall against the embattled trustee, during the board meeting, Wednesday night. Their first in-person meeting in 20 months was held at the Deer Valley High School theater.

“From the time you were voted onto the school board you have been nothing but disruptive,” Rocha said reading prepared remarks, offering her reasons for the censure vote. “You encouraged protesters who tried to intimidate a council member to vote a certain way.  In fact, not only did you encourage it you participated in the protest.”

“You encouraged a protest at the Antioch district office which resulted in some of your friends breaking into the building, destroying district facilities and pushing and shoving that resulted in two board members and one employee getting injured,” she continued. “You were censured for further encouraging friends to intimidate board members in order to push your agenda. You posted and applauded your friends on social media for screaming ‘f… Gary’, ‘f… Mary’, ‘f… Diane’, repeatedly.”

“You participated in a taped forum when the moderator spent over an hour saying horrible things about our superintendent, many which were lies, and rather than correct him or offer the truth you said, ‘I like where this is going’,” Rocha stated. “Most recently you posted a video on your social media that included the faces of our students and insinuated staff had mistreated the student, yet you never asked about the facts.  If I were the parent, I would be furious.”

“Finally, you call a ridiculous special meeting asking the superintendent to violate employee and students’ privacy rights as well as board policy. You continue to call special meetings requesting an attorney and when speaking with staff costing the district money,” she added.

Rocha then made a motion to return with a formal vote to censure Householder. Trustee Gary Hack seconded the motion.

Public comments were then heard, most of them in support of the censure of Householder and three who spoke against it. Several district teachers, staff and other members of the public in the audience wore shirts with the words “You are not Recognized” mocking Householder for what she had said to both Rocha and Superintendent Stephanie Anello when they tried to speak during a previous board meeting. (See related article)

“During board meetings there is no dictator. I think Ellie should stay away from social media…and study up on Robert’s Rules of Order. That might be a better use of her time,” said Teacher of the Year Crystal Van Dyke.

“Trustee Rocha is not acting alone,” said Lindsey Amezcua, who is one of the recall leaders.

“This biweekly decent into nonsense,” said another speaker describing the board meetings in opposition to the vote to censure.

Willie Mims said, “I’m totally against this. You should look into the mirror and ask did you respect this young lady? No, you did not. I’m up here to support Ellie Householder.”

“There’s so much to unpack with this,” Householder said. “We don’t really have a policy on this. I just don’t think this belongs on our school board. I don’t think this should be a discussion we should have, here. We’re not in the business of punishing each other.”

“I call for the vote,” Rocha said.

“It’s an unpopular and uncomfortable situation when you’re talking about punishing someone,” Board Vice President Clyde Lewis said. He compared the experience of a young man he’s been mentoring and had “been counted out. But with the proper support…he’s going on to college.”

“This is a conversation. There is validity to the feelings of those who support the censure,” District 1 Trustee Antonio Hernandez said. “There have been a number of comments about coming together and working together as a board. Some of our best moments have been during closed session. I wish we could share those with the public. There are some deep issues on this board that we need to work through.”

“It’s not in good faith that we censure someone on the board and then deal with hiring a board consultant. If we censure her, we still have to work with her,” he continued. “It’s just so hard to untangle things and it’s hard…when we accidentally mix in the more personal things. The best that I can say, I hear you.”

“I think I’ve made it very clear,” said Rocha. “You’ve used your media…you’ve criticized our staff…I’ve brought things and I’ve been ignored.” She also mentioned Householder posting the video of the student being held down by security and Antioch police officers at Antioch High School, last month.

“Your chairmanship has not been a positive one,” Rocha continued. “I admired you when you were a trustee. I don’t admire your tactics because you put yourself above us. This has been an issue that has been brewing and brewing.”

“I do understand that my leadership style is sometimes heavy handed at times,” Householder said. “But…this board has gotten way off the rails…with the district leading this board…and I’m not going to apologize for it.”

“The part about the video, that’s totally valid,” she said. “It seems like every time we disagree it becomes like really extreme with removal or a censure.”

Householder then asked community member Melissa Case, who had spoken out from the audience several times, to “please leave. You keep having these outbursts” and asked for security to remove her.

“I really have to caution…it has to be a substantial disruption that prevents the board from doing its work,” said Superintendent Stephanie Anello. Householder dropped the matter and Case remained at the meeting.

“I just think my leadership style just doesn’t resonate with the board. But I don’t think I have been disrespectful of other board members,” Householder continued, speaking about the censure vote. “After the last censure…I changed. It’s been a month since this happened (referring to her posting of the video of the student being detained).”

The vote then failed on a 2-2-1 vote with Lewis voting to abstain, to which groans could be heard from those in the audience.

“I think that this conversation should happen after we discuss having a consultant,” Lewis explained.

“When you became the chair it changed you,” Rocha added, speaking to Householder. “I’m willing to have a consultant. But I wanted to clear the air and have the public understand what it’s like for you to be the chair.”

Board Consultant

After discussing three individuals to be hired as a consultant to assist the board in governance and the evaluation of the superintendent, the board members agreed to hire one and gave direction to Anello to do so. The board will make a final hiring decision during a future meeting.

Antioch School Board approves $30.5 million plan for federal Emergency Relief funds, Householder abstains

Wednesday, October 27th, 2021

Will be used to address students’ academic, social, emotional, and mental health needs, as well as the opportunity gaps that existed before, and were exacerbated by, COVID-19

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Wednesday, October 27, 2021, the Antioch School Board approved an expenditure plan for $30.5 million in federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds on a 4-0-1 vote with Board President Ellie Householder voting to abstain. ESSER III Expenditure Plan Presentation

According to the district staff report, all school districts that receive ESSER funds under the American Rescue Plan, referred to as ESSER III funds, are required to develop an Expenditure Plan for how ESSER III funds will be used to address students’ academic, social, emotional, and mental health needs, as well as the opportunity gaps that existed before, and were exacerbated by, the COVID-19 pandemic.

AUSD staff participated “in meaningful stakeholder engagement to solicit input in the development of the plan”. Antioch Unified is due to receive $30,531,253 in ESSER III funds. Under the terms of ESSER III, a plan must be approved by the Board of Education and presented to the County Office of Education by October 31, 2021.

It was that tight timeframe and short notice, and because the information wasn’t also provided in Spanish, which Householder gave as reasons she didn’t want to vote on the plan.

Expenditure Plan Overview

According to the details of the Expenditure Plan, $12.25 million will be used to implement strategies for continuous and safe in-person learning; almost $9 million will be spent to address the academic impact of lost instructional time; $4.5 million to recruit and retain staff; and $4.8 million for facilities improvements and repairs.

The ESSER III funds may be expended during the period of March 1, 2020, through September 30, 2024. According to staff, no funds were expended prior to the creation and approval of the plan presented at the meeting.