Activists from Anaheim Hills and Orange have collected and submitted 3,670 voter signatures in order to terminate the provisional appointment of Gregory Salas to the Area 1 seat on the Orange Unified School District Board of Education, and force a special election instead. Andrea Yamasaki, the vacancy applicant favored by the petitioners, will run in the special election to fill the vacancy originally created when incumbent Diane Singer resigned after moving from Anaheim Hills into Orange, and a different trustee area.
If at least 1,587 of those signatures are valid, then Salas is out and a special election is on.
This outcome isn’t a surprise to anyone familiar with always OUSD turbulent politics. The pro-Yamasaki forces are organized and highly-motivated. They sensed things wouldn’t go their way during the appointment process and were printing up petition forms a few days before the September 21 OUSD Board meeting at which Salas was appointed; although their expectation (and mine) was the OUSD Board majority would appoint Chris Nguyen, not Salas. Petitioners went to work gathering signatures the next day, and never let up in an campaign led by former Trustee Singer.
OUSD Board politics have been so fractious and toxic for so long, characterized by deep mutual suspicion, it is difficult to imagine them being otherwise – regardless of which majority is in power. The reaction of the pro-Yamasaki group to the Salas appointment is indicative of that. Even labeling them “pro-Yamasaki group” is insufficient. It’s more a network of parents, teachers and residents with interests they feel are threatened by the appointment of any trustee they see as part of the governing majority. For example, a key element of the petition drive were residents who live behind The Village shopping center (still commonly known as the Orange Mall). They don’t want OUSD to sell the Peralta property on Canal Street for re-development as higher-density housing, and were convinced that is what a Chris Nguyen or Greg Salas appointment would mean.
The OUSD Board majority botched the appointment process. Todd Spitzer aide and political consultant Chris Nguyen was recruited to apply. He would have made a very good trustee: he is hard-working policy wonk who is smart as all get-out, and a graduate of OUSD schools. However, he was also the consultant for the campaign against Measure K, the OUSD school bond that narrowly failed in November 2014. When it became clear the response to a Nguyen appointment would be a special election petition drive, Nguyen was thrown under the bus without so much as a heads up and Salas appointed instead.
The OUSD board majority should have apprehended that would be the response to their appointing anyone other than Andrea Yamasaki, dispensed with an appointment altogether and gone straight ahead with a special election. Now, their critics are doubly motivated and there is going to be a special election – a very, very low-turnout special election — anyway.
For their part, the opponents of the OUSD Board majority have disingenuously tried to paint a black-and-white picture of a power-mad, politically partisan board majority riding roughshod over the grass-roots, ignoring the Choice of the People in favor of an unqualified crony.
Yes, the board majority voted to appoint their candidate, not the opposition’s choice. Did anyone expect otherwise? After all, the board majority were all elected by the voters in contested races, and can legitimately claim to represent the will of the voters. If this vacancy had occurred under the previous board majority, does anyone believe they would not have appointed one of their own supporters, and rejected applicants associated with their critics? It’s a prerogative of the majority.
The reality is more complex, and in this video clip posted by the OUSD teachers union, Board of Education member Tim Surridge explains why he went with Salas:
Again, I think Chris Nguyen was treated shabbily by Surridge and the other trustees (with the exception of Alexia Deligianna and Kathy Moffat). At the same time, Surridge gives an entirely reasonable, rational explanation for why he appointed Salas. Not least among those reasons is Salas is a Republican while Yamasaki is a Democrat.
The OUSD Board’s top priority is passage of a school bond next year. Measure K lost by a whisker. The reality is the OUSD has a very conservative, anti-tax electorate. Two-thirds of the voters do not have children in OUSD schools. OUSD voters have never approved a school bond. So convincing 55% of OUSD voters to tax themselves to fund a facilities bond for schools most of them don’t use is a tall order. We have sent all our children to Catholic schools, but I cast a “yes” vote for Measure K because OUSD schools are falling apart. It was also the first time in my life I have voted for a school bond.
The Yes on Measure K coalition was the broadest I have ever seen for an OUSD school bond, and passing the next bond means enlisting the support of GOP leaders, and keeping the OC Republican Party neutral, if not supportive. It would be tough for Surridge and other members of the OUSD Board of Education to convince the OC GOP not to oppose the next bond while appointing a Democrat to fill the OUSD vacancy. Active opposition from the OC Republican Party would doom the next bond. That’s just political reality.
As I wrote earlier, the OUSD Board should have discerned the predictable reaction to their appointing anyone opposed by their organized critics, and instead fought it out in a special election. Instead, they’ve been given a public black eye, accelerated the organizing of their opponents and the district will have to spend $500,000 on a special election anyway.
The California EDUCATION CODE SECTION 5090-5095 states EXACTLY how a vacancy on a school board is to be filled (all available to anyone, online, you just have to look). It can also be found on OUSD Website. The OUSD school board claimed they did not know how to fill the vacancy and therefore needed legal counsel to guide them. What they wanted was a “legal” way to bypass the entire process and appoint Mr Surridges friend. You will see there is no mention of a “paper screening” and narrowing it down to 3 candidates. CA Ed code states how to conduct the process, which OUSD school board completely ignored. Since your blog has a lot to say, but really isn’t a factual reflection of what went on, let me clarify for people that may not know why the petition was circulated. There is not a disgruntled Pro-Yamasaki activist group running through AH, there are however,parents that have had enough of this boards antics. The petition was not circulated because Mrs Yamasaki was not appointed, the petition was circulated because the OUSD board flagrantly ignored the process and created their own to get what they wanted. The board member that resigned knew that the board was up to no good and therefore had petitions ready to go. There were 9 candidates that should have been interviewed in a public forum and considered for that position, they were not. The board made a mockery of the entire process, and told the voting public they don’t care about rules or their constituents. OUSD school board, we all know when your terms are up and we will be voting, you can be sure of that. So Anaheim Blog that is the reason why the petition was circulated, no one trusts this board and the voters want to have a election so that we can choose the person to fill the spot
Ms. Kent:
I was not defending the process by which the OUSD Board made its selection, and I’m sorry if you got that impression. As I stated above, I think the Board should have bypassed the appointment altogether and just called a special election.
But I want to be sure I understand your comment correctly:
If the Board had followed all the Education Code procedures you point to and publicly interviewed all 9 applicants at the September 21 board meeting, and then appointed Greg Salas — then the group that has organized and executed the special election petition drive would have instead accepted that appointment?
Mr Cunningham, you are asking me to speculate on whether the petition would be circulating if the board had followed the CA Ed Code & OUSD policies, I can’t answer that because the fact is they willfully and knowingly did not follow the rules. I can only tell you the facts as they stand today. The petitioners have collected more than the legally required signatures and a special election will be held, the community will be able to exercise their right to vote.
Mr Cunningham, I never mentioned “defending” but I think you should re-read your article and see that you portray the peitioners in a negative light. You flat out state that the only reason the petition is being circulated, is that the “Pro-Yamasaki” group didn’t get their way. The fact is the board contacted the applicants they didn’t want and told them they didn’t make the paper screening (a completely made up step by this board). Then at the school board meeting they planned on having the 3 finalists make a statement. But in the meantime, the other candidates were contacted (that very day) and now told that they could come to the meeting and make statements. OUSD counsel must have told them they HAD to do this or be in violation of the CA ED Code.
As far as Mr. Nguyen being treated poorly, he was not treated with any more disrespect (shabbily is how i think you stated it) than any of the other candidates and community members, this board treated everyone with equal disrespect in this entire charade. As far as believing whether the petition drive is because of one candidate not being appointed, I can only speak for myself. This is about the process and this board’s continual disregard for the law & the community that it is supposed to represent.
Ms. Kent:
I’m not asking you to speculate on anything. I just wanted to be sure that what you wrote is what you meant: that the reason for the special election petition drive is because the OUSD Board did not interview all the applicants, and not because Salas was appointed.
I used the phrase “pro-Yamasaki group” as convenient short-hand because the petition group seemed united in supporting her for the appointment, not to suggest that support for her is their be-all and end-all. It is a clumsy descriptor and I should probably find another way.
Mr. Cunningham, I mean what I say, and say what I mean
Alright. I wanted to be sure that is what you meant, because claiming the petition drive was sparked by anger over the appointment process, and not the Salas appointment itself, is pretty much impossible to believe.
With all due respect, accepting that claim requires me and others to believe there would have been no special election petition drive if the Board had publicly interviewed every applicant and appointed Salas anyway.
Planning for the petition drive was clearly underway well before the “paper screening” and the Salas appointment. It began as soon as it became known Chris Nguyen applied for the appointment. This is from a September 12 post on the unofficial voice of the petition drive, the Greater Orange Service:
“Nguyen’s political appointment could have dire consequences for the future of the Peralta Property and plans for a new 2016 OUSD School Bond effort. Reports circulating throughout Greater Orange are that a political appointment of Chris Nguyen is unacceptable to the Anaheim Hills Community and that a group is ready to join with community advocates across Greater Orange to petition for a Special Election-which will again throw the Greater Communities into the center of a political firestorm. It is estimated that 2,500 valid signatures from registered voters in OUSD are needed to force a Special Election. The signatures must be turned in within 30 days of September 15th.”
Let’s look at it another way: if the Board had conducted the “paper screening,” interviewed only Nguyen, Yamasaki and Salas, and then appointed Yamasaki to the vacancy, would a special election petition drive been launched out of anger over not following the Ed Code?
Of course not.
Organizers of the petition drive would have instead hailed the wisdom of the Board and thanked them for “listening to the community.”
I’ll say it again: I think the Board botched the endorsement process and should have gone straight to a special election. What’s hard to swallow is pretending the petition drive is divorced from support or opposition to the vacancy applicants.
I find it very hard time to believe Lisa Kent’s claim that this petition drive is only about the appointment process, and was not driven by trying to get Andrea Yamasaki on the OUSD board. The e-mails going out from petition organizers don’t say we’re doing this because the Board didn’t follow the Ed Code and interview all the applicants. They’re all about ousting Salas and attacking Surridge and the rest and “taking back our board.”
This is all politics.
Believe it MR anonymous……it was about the process. We would not be here today, if T Surridge did not base his vote on party affiliation as he admitted. There were other qualified candidates that outshined Salas who didn’t get a fair chance. This was not a transparent process.
How would you like it if a incompetent person was appointed to a job at your work place and had to represent you and make business decisions in your behalf when there were other highly qualified people who you would be a better fit????? Right is right. We have higher standard in wanting representation, and it shouldn’t be based on party affiliation.
“Believe it MR anonymous……it was about the process.”
“How would you like it if a incompetent person was appointed to a job…”
Ms. Javadi, it’s pretty clear your real beef isn’t with “the process” but with the appointment.
If the same process had resulted in the appointment of Ms. Yamasaki, can you honestly tell me you would have still supported a petition drive to terminate her appointment and hold a special election?
Mr Cunningham….my main concern is the process, but having the majority on the board vote the most incompetent person (Salas) in really took the cake. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Mr Cunningham- a good jurnalist does their homework on facts, and interviews parties before writing a article. I like to know where you received your facts and who you spoke to before I can decide how credible you commentary is here. No disrespect intended, but I like to know where you’re getting your claims from and who you interviewed. Thank you.
Which facts are you disputing?
Your statement: “Again, I think Chris Nguyen was treated shabbily by Surridge and the other trustees (with the exception of Alexia Deligianna and Kathy Moffat). At the same time, Surridge gives an entirely reasonable, rational explanation for why he appointed Salas. Not least among those reasons is Salas is a Republican while Yamasaki is a Democrat.”
You yourself mentioned that Nguyen was a consultant against the Measure K campaign …..why should he be considered for the trustee seat when the majority of the community he wants to serve is in support of the measure.
And no, Surridge did not give a reasonable and rational explanation for his appointment. Your political partisan and affiliation is not a requirement for this position…..nor is it for any job you apply for. How do you know what party Mrs. Yamasaki is affiliated with……did you interview her? You did not answer my question…….did you interview anyone that you have mentioned in your article??? How much do you really know about each candidate???? Why did you not include any information regarding all the other candidates???
I like to know where you received your information from Mr. Cunningham.
“You yourself mentioned that Nguyen was a consultant against the Measure K campaign …..why should he be considered for the trustee seat when the majority of the community he wants to serve is in support of the measure.”
A good question, and I would respond by pointing out that:
A) 45.4% of OUSD voters also opposed the bond (for the record, I voted for Measure K); are they to be disregarded?
B) the OUSD Board members whom petition drive supporters castigate were themselves elected by a majority of the community.
If opposition Measure K disqualifies an applicant because a majority of OUSD voters supported Measure K, then opposition to the Board majority should also be disallowed because they were elected by a majority of OUSD voters.
The criteria you’re applying is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways; I’d be cautious about swinging it so freely.
It’s obvious that your pro Nuyen Mr Cunningham……and that’s fine with me. You are entitled.
Your point A and B are known facts…..I wanted you to answer my questions asked of you…..but for some reason you are dodging them.😊
Ms. Javadi:
My point about A and B is that you are applying a double-standard.
And I’m not dodging your questions. It just that who I did and did not interview isn’t relevant. If something I wrote is incorrect or untrue, please point it out and we can discuss it.
You only interwied Mr Surridge, and not anyone else……I think it’s very relevant Mr Cunningham…. It’s not a fair and balanced article, I’m sorry.
The point takenn here is that this is a non partisan position…..plain and simple. I’m done.
Actually, I didn’t interview Mr. Surridge. Would you like to make any more untrue allegations?
And I didn’t claim to be unbiased. I was pretty clear in stating these were my opinions, but they’re fact-based opinions.
Also, it is a non-partisan position in the sense that a candidate’s party registration isn’t listed on the ballot, unlike legislative offices. But even in non-partisan races, party registration matters to a lot of voters, just as other considerations – teacher union endorsements, being active in PTA, etc. also matter to voters. Party affiliation gives voters an idea of what a candidate’s governing philosophy is, and that is directly relevant.