School Board

Dec 222015
 

These are three of the four undercover officers which a parent recognized at the last San Leandro School Board meetings. Parents and children rallied against a program that will put police officers in the classroom to try to gain the trust of students so that they will snitch on one another. There were about forty parents and children protesting and speaking out against this program, and at least nine San Leandro Police officers, both in uniform and out, assigned to monitor them.

As the undercover police officers were not recognized until after the rally, it’s possible that some of them mixed with parents and kids pretending to be one of us. They may have tried to get information out of us, or even to suggest the commission of disruptive actions. If you were at the rally and recognize any of these three officers, or if you have photos of the rally or the school board meeting, please e-mail me.

IMG_3841

San Leandro Undercover Police OfficersThis man, seated in the center of the last row, is one of the SLPD undercover officers.

IMG_3842

San Leandro Undercover Police Officers

SLPD Sargent Troy Young was seated at the far right on the last row. He turned his face around when he saw this camera, but was recognized by one of the parents anyway. Here is a photo of him before he grew his beard and went undercover.

PastedGraphic-2

The SLPD had two SUVs parked across the street with officers monitoring the rally. One was marked and had police in uniform, the other one was this one.

Note: I thought carefully before publishing these photos, given that I did not want to endanger the undercover police officers. I decided to publish them, however, because

1) I think there is a real and great danger to our civil liberties when police feel free to infiltrate peaceful political rallies.  I can’t think of any legitimate reason why the SLPD wold put undercover officers (not just officer in plain clothing, but officers who are officially working undercover) to monitor us.  I’ve written to Mayor Pauline Cutter asking for explanations and received no answer.

and

2) If SLPD undercover police officers can so easily and readily be spotted by a parent, they don’t stand a chance of not being recognized by actual criminals. By exposing them here and letting them know their cover was so easily blown, I may be saving their lives.

Oct 222014
 

policeschoolThe following are tweets from last night’s San Leandro School Board meeting, made by parent Mia Ousley  (@Mia4Council), who is currently running for City Council District 5. The SLPD applied for a $500K COPS grant to put four resource officers in San Leandro schools. In return, the district would have to pay $1.7 million dollars, and cut programs accordingly. In addition to the people quoted below, several other parents and several teachers/counselors/nurses also spoke out against accepting the grant. The student trustee – who does not get a vote – did so as well. Only Board members Diana Prola and Ron Carey spoke in favor (but see comment below). 

Any parent who is concerned about using education money to fund police officers and/or has an opinion on what educational programs should be cut/not restored in order to pay for them, should speak out at the Nov. 18th School Board meeting and e-mail the Board.

For more information please e-mail School Board member Mike Katz-Lacabe: mkatz@slusd.us

Tweets from the School Board meeting

Evelyn Gonzalez approves of School Resource Officers, just asks for city to foot most of the bill.

Jessica Sievert – Mom of kindergardener, our work is to help change trajectory of at-risk youth so we don’t need police in schools.
Feels district is being forced to pay, district’s hand is being twisted. Feels politically inappropriate way to allocate money.
Any funding for students should not be pulled from other education resources to fund this.

Cynthia Chandler — Letter from district said Bancroft so deficient that parents have right to transfer out of district, so why spend money on police rather than on getting resources needed in classrooms and for teachers.

Liz Torres – 3 kids in 3rd, 6th, and 12th grade. We need safety and resources in schools, not more police.
$1.69 million should go to programs that uplift and inspire our children and prevent violence, not react to it.
Policing campuses is wrong direction and is misuse of our funds. After-school programs are what we need more of, what helps kids.

[School Board Trustee] Mike Katz-Lacabe – We have 1.8 nurses for 8800 students, this will prevent us from restoring cuts made in the past.
Doesn’t want to establish a precedent for the district funding SROs, outstanding Cathy Pickard notwithstanding.
Yet to see data showing SROs increase safety. Anecdotes are not evidence.
How many of our students get arrested instead of receiving school discipline  and what is their racial make-up? We (the school board) should NOT approve this grant.

[Mia Ousley‘s]  own statement — do not accept this grant because: (1) $$ needed for counselors, after-school programs, supplies, etc. – not police
(2) Hiring police to do job of counselors is harmful to students, and expensive to district.
(3) $1.7 million over 4 years is $106,250/year/officer . . . seems we’re paying MOST of their cost, not just some.
(4) Police shouldn’t help run student groups or after school programs, as the grant requires.
(5) Adding police to schools sends message that we expect kids to get into trouble.
(6) District should instead be teaching non-violent communication, implementing restorative justice, and hiring trained counselors.
And finally (7) It’s shameful this issue didn’t come before parents BEFORE SLPD applied for grant & BEFORE City Council voted on it.

Motion tabled ’til Nov. 18 meeting. Board President [Lance James] wants to give supporters a chance for public input to counter tonight’s public speakers.
Trustee Diana Prola only one to vote NO on tabling, saying “We need to have the cojones to vote the way we think.”
My opponent for City Council [Corina Lopez] was the only Trustee not to speak on the issue at all; perhaps she didn’t want to say anything controversial?

Aug 042014
 

A couple of weeks ago I pulled papers to run for San Leandro School Board (see below).  After much consideration, I’ve decided that I will not be running for the office.

I have several reasons, but they all come down to the fact that I don’t really want to do it.    A friend of mine, campaign manager Charles Gilcrest, told me once that if you had to chose between two equally good candidates, you should go for the one that has the fire in her belly.  I don’t feel fired up when I think about serving in the School Board.

My children still have many years in the San Leandro School District, and I am concerned about the quality of the board members that will be joining the board – though I’m excited at the possibility of Evelyn Gonzalez winning the at-large seat.  Still, I have great confidence on the Superintendent, and I know that my actual strengths lie as an activist.  I work better outside the system, not inside it.  And that, I will continue doing.

Thank you to everyone who encouraged me to run.

Jul. 18, 2014

I’ve Pulled Papers to Run for School Board

I have just pulled papers to run for the San Leandro School Board Area 4 race.  At this point, it’s not my intention to file to run.  But I want to make sure that there is at least one candidate in that race I can get behind.   So far, I’m not impressed by the other candidates that have puled papers – if for no other reason that they have not reached out to Mike Katz-Lacabe, the incumbent.  In general, the first thing you do when you think about running for a seat is to reach out to the incumbent to learn about their experiences and challenges on the seat.  Anyone who runs blindly, will likely serve blindly as well.

As I wrote in my letter to the San Leandro Times, I’m looking for a candidate who understands technology and can be a champion for turning the 9th grade campus into a High Tech campus.   I want someone who is intelligent, analytical, and makes data and research-oriented decisions.  But I want more.

I want someone who will fight to educate our students, rather than have them score well on standardized tests.  SLUSD’s focus on testing at the expense of education has pushed many high-achieving students away from our schools, I want to have them back and I want us to provide them the educational challenges they deserve.

I want someone who will also fight to embrace the diversity in our student body and make sure all students have the same opportunities to thrive without compromising their own selves.

I want someone who is forward thinking, who has a vision for the district in five and ten years, but also someone who is accessible to the community and who can act as a true representative for the concerns of parents /and/ students.

In other words, I want someone great – or, at the very least, better than me (not too hard, eh? 🙂  I think our kids deserve that.

My plan right now is to meet with any declared or potential candidates to this office.  If you are one, I urge you to contact me to arrange a meeting/conversation.  If I find I can get behind one or more candidate, I won’t file.  Otherwise, you’ll see me on the ballot 🙂

Jun 302013
 

politicianThe 2014 elections are just around the corner, and I can’t believe how dismal the candidate field is in San Leandro.  Actually, “dismal” is putting it lightly.

Mayor
Mayor Stephen Cassidy will be seeking re-election. His pitch of  “I’m not as incompetent as Tony Santos” narrowly won him the seat in 2010, but he now will have to run on a record that is only marginally better than his predecessor’s.  He did balance the budget – but only because voters passed Measure Z -, and he ended up getting the police union to agree to pay into their pensions, but only in exchange for raises.    His biggest accomplishment so far was giving the green light to the Lit San Leandro project, but he handicapped it by making zoning code changes incompatible with the “live-work-play” concept he now realizes the city needs to spouse.  Even then, there is nothing scarier to anyone seeking to invest in a town than a capricious regulatory system.  Still, Lit San Leandro has potential and if it can hook in a couple of big companies into town, his chances at re-election look good.

Councilmember Diana Souza, who is being termed out in 2014, and former councilmember Surlene Grant are giddily waiting on the sidelines preparing to jump in if something handicaps Cassidy – or, more likely, if he decides he doesn’t want to go through the rigors of a second campaign in which he will have to defend himself and his record.  While neither Souza nor Grant is particularly well positioned for defeating him by herself, rank choice voting opens up the possibility that they will both run, team up, and attack Cassidy from two different angles.

Neither Souza nor Grant, however, seem likely to be much of an improvement over Cassidy.  Neither can point to many accomplishments while in office, and neither has a history of leadership while in the Council.  I was not very active in politics while Grant was in office, so I cannot totally dismiss her yet – but Souza has proven herself unable to do anything but follow directions in the 7 years she’s been in office.

I am hoping that someone else will jump into the race, but I don’t know who it could be.   Councilmember Jim Prola seems unlikely to do it at this point and nobody else in the City Council has much to offer.  The School Board is mostly made up by new members without the experience to take on the reigns of the City.  The only exception is my husband, Mike Katz-Lacabe, but he has pulled papers to run for City Council District 1.  Former School Board President Morgan Mack-Rose was just narrowly defeated on her bid for the District 2 City Council seat, so she is likely to be out of the political picture for a while.    It’s possible, however, that someone will rise up from the community – though I haven’t seen much noise from anyone who might become a serious candidate.  Dan Dillman, of course, may decide to run again and this time do it seriously.  Depending on how badly Cassidy falters in the upcoming year, he might actually have a shot.

If no one else pans out, however, I might actually consider running myself.  I’ve never had political ambitions of my own, and this would really be a last-ditch solution; I hope it does not come to that.  But I do believe that this city needs to have someone at its helm that takes the responsibilities of the Mayor and its duties towards the community seriously.  Our Police Department needs to be audited and brought under civilian control – it is unconscionable that we have narcotic officers selling drugs of dubious origins, officers with a record of brutality killing unarmed civilians without any repercussions, false child porn charges filed against established members of our community, persecution of gay men and a Chief that lies to the community and the Council and tries to manipulate the political process, without any consequences whatsoever and, of course, turning San Leandro into a surveillance state.  This needs to be a campaign issue.  There are, unfortunately, many others.

Districts 1 , 3 & 5

San Leandro has a hybrid type of district elections.  Council members must live in a particular area of town, but they are voted on by residents of the whole city.

Michael Gregory is terming out from District 1 .  So far the only person I have heard that might be running for that seat is my own husband, Mike Katz-Lacabe.  He pulled papers last November.

Diana Souza is terming out from District 3 herself, so that will also be an open seat.  Board of Zoning Adjustments member Lee Thomas has already indicated that he will run for that seat.  I tried to meet with Thomas to get an idea of his political philosophy, only to find out that he doesn’t have any.  I give him credit for his honesty in refusing to engage on policy discussions before he has spent the time to learn about the issues and figure out what he thinks (though he might have considered putting off running, until he becomes acquainted with these little matters).  But if someone is unwilling to answer the question: “on a scale from one to ten, how progressive are you? “, then I can only conclude that he either has no political views at all or that he is unwilling to stand up for them.  In either case, that’s not what I want in a City Council member.  I much rather have someone who is conservative, but who is clear and honest about his political philosophy, than someone who will decide on issues as the wind blows or his pockets are filled.

This means that I am actively looking for someone to run for that seat.  In my view, the requirements for office are intelligence, integrity and a real commitment to the public good and the democratic process.  A tall order, any day.

Finally, Pauline Cutter seems likely to seek re-election for District 5, and I haven’t heard of anyone poised to challenge her.

School Board

Just like with the City Council, School Board members run for a district but are elected at large. The School Board has 7 members, only 2 of whom faced a contested election – the other 5 just walked into the office.  Katz-Lacabe has been trying to reduce the number of members from 7 to 5, to make it more likely that those serving are actually elected, but he has gotten little traction.

Three seats will be up for election in 2014.  Lance James, who represents the north-eastern area of town will be running for re-election.  Ron Carey, who represents the area south of Davis St., east of 880 up to the first railroad tracks, has said he’s not running.  He had been appointed to that seat.  If Mike Katz-Lacabe runs for City Council, then his School Board seat (adjacent on the east side to Carey’s, extending up to East 14th.) will be open.  So far I haven’t heard of anyone interested in running for either.

If you know more political gossip, if you’re interested in running for office and want to announce here or seek my help, or if you just want to gossip, please comment here or in Facebook.

Mar 152012
 

Short Answer: No

There are many things that voters should look into when choosing which candidate to vote for, but endorsements from politicians, parties, organizations and even prominent individuals is not one of them.  The unfortunate fact is that most politicos and organizations do not endorse based on the quality of the candidate, but based on factors such as personal ties, political advantage, likelihood of winning and willingness to do their bidding.

For Voters: How Candidates get Endorsements

Incumbency/Likelihood of Winning

Endorsements usually go to the candidate deemed most likely to win, which is usually thought to be either the incumbent or the candidate that has raised the most money.   This is true for both individual and institutional endorsers.  Most endorsers want something in return for their endorsement (even if simply access or future support), and they’re more likely to get it if their endorsee wins.  In addition, some candidates have a reputation for vindictiveness, and politicos or organizations may not want to irate them by endorsing their rivals.

A couple of examples.  During the 2010 Mayoral election, the Police Union initially endorsed City Council member Joyce Starosciak.  Not only was she a staunch police supporter (her husband is a sheriff deputy), but the conventional wisdom back then was that a woman candidate, going against two males, would win.  As the campaign developed and it became clear that Starosciak wasn’t doing well, the Police Union hurried to co-endorse the incumbent Mayor Tony Santos (who had a reputation for vindictiveness).  During the 2008 campaign, the San Leandro Teachers Union (SLTA) endorsed Carmen Sullivan for School Board, but only after it was clear that she was the only candidate running.  Sullivan was at the time a supporter of Superintendent, which the SLTA wanted to oust.

Personal and Political Ties

It makes sense, if a candidate is your friend you are likely to endorse him.  Some ties are very old and very strong.  For example, Congressman Pete Stark had a standing policy of not endorsing candidates in non-partisan races when more than one Democrat was running.  However, he broke his rule and endorsed Julian Polvorosa, a long time friend,  for City Council during the 2006 race.  Charlie Gilcrest, a local campaign manager who has been active in the Democratic party for close to forty years, obtained the endorsement of practically every politician in the East Bay when he ran for City Council in 2008, even though he’d never held elective office.

There is also an unwritten rule that if someone works in your campaign, you endorse them when they run for office.  For example, Governor and former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown recently endorsed Libby Schaaf for Mayor; she used to work for him.

Not everyone follows this rule. Ellen Corbett, in particular, is much criticized for putting political considerations above loyalty to her former supporters. That strategy came back to hurt her, however, when she ran against Eric Swalwell for Congress.  Most of those former supporters turned on her.  They knew she wouldn’t have their back.   Smart candidates, however, pay their political debts.

Political Alliances

Often times endorsements are the result of political alliances.  An endorser who doesn’t care much about the outcome of a given race, might endorse a candidate at the request of a political ally or, in case of politicians, big campaign contributors that do have a steak in that race.

Affinity Politics

African American politicos almost always back other African Americans.  This is less true for Latino and Asian politicos.  It makes sense.  As minorities, you want to build the influence of your community in the political arena.  The problem is that the candidates they back are not always going to be the best.

Similar Agenda

Organizations, in particular, are likely to endorse candidates who have similar agendas (or views) to their own.  This can be a good or bad thing, as far as voters are concerned, depending on whether they know what the actual agenda of the organization in question is.  For example, the SLTA backed Hermy Almonte and Morgan Mack-Rose in the 2008 School Board election, because they also wanted to get rid of the Superintendent.

Some membership nonprofit organizations, however, have been “infiltrated” by members who are more interesting in political power than furthering the cause. Endorsements from the Sierra Club, for example, are often suspect.

Tit-for-Tat

Business associations, in particular, are likely to endorse candidates based on what they think the candidates can do for them.  The Rental Housing Association and the Association of Realtors, for example, will endorse candidates that will vote against rent control measures. The Chamber of Commerce will likely endorse candidates that won’t vote to raise the minimum wage.  The Police and Fireman unions will endorse candidates that are willing to give their departments the most money, raise their salaries and pensions, and do not insist in holding their departments accountable.

Pettiness

Often times, endorsements are actually based on pettiness.  In 2010 the SLTA endorsed Corina Lopez for San Leandro City Council – even though they had never before endorsed in City Council races – because she was running against Pauline Cutter, whom they opposed because she had supported the Superintendent they didn’t like.  In 2012, the SLTA president endorsed Ursula Reed because she was running against Morgan Mack-Rose whom, as School Board president, had angered the SLTA leadership.  In the current election, Diana Prola endorsed Leo Sheridan, and worked hard to get him the endorsement of the Democratic party and of labor, because he’s running against Latrina Dumas.  Dumas was a parent supporter of that controversial Superintendent and often spoke out in her favor at School Board meetings.

Democratic Party

The candidates endorsed by the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee are often those that have powerful interests behind them.  Candidates often hire Alliance Campaign Strategies, a campaign management firm run by a member of the ACDCC’s executive committee, as a way of assuring themselves the Democratic endorsement or at least blocking that of their opponents. There is a lot of behind the scene deal making and threats.  Occasionally, the endorsements do go to the candidates that best exemplify Democratic values, but often that’s not the case.

The Democratic endorsement is considered very valuable, however.

Newspapers

A newspaper’s endorsement will be based on the political views of their current editorial board. In the case of the Bay Area Newsgroup papers (Oakland Tribune, Daily Review, etc.) their endorsement is based solely on how much a candidate knows about the financial situation of the city/district they are running for, how much they understand the nature of their unfunded liabilities and how they plan to address this issue.

Whose endorsement should you actually pay attention to?

My own, of course.  I’m sort of joking, but I do actually stand by the candidates I endorse, whom I’ve chosen based on their liberal ideology, knowledge base and ability to do the job.

The endorsements you really should pay attention to are those of people you know and respect, who know the candidates and, preferably, the requirements of the office for which they are running.  For example, I decided to vote for Latrina Dumas for San Leandro School Board in part due to the fact that a friend of mine, who has been involved in the schools for many years and understands what the School Board does, fully recommended her.  Sure, I did my research, but her first-hand opinion mattered greatly.

Beyond that, pay attention to endorsements that actually explain why a candidate is chosen over another.  The Green Party, for example, provides explanations of their endorsements, though unfortunately they don’t include San Leandro.  The East Bay Express and other newspapers do as well.

For Candidates: Which endorsements should you seek?

You should seek endorsements from organizations or people:

1- who will give your campaign financial contributions

2- who will get others to contribute to your campaigns or throw fundraisers for you

3- who will put elbow grease into your campaign

4 – who have a “base”.

One of the reasons why labor is so powerful in the Democratic party is that they can do all of those things for you.  While you can definitely win against a candidate endorsed by labor (Mayor Cassidy did in 2010 and Benny Lee in 2012), it’s definitely easier if they are behind you.

An endorsement from the Democratic Party, on the other hand, is much less powerful because it’s “passive,” i.e. it doesn’t come with anything attached.

In addition to the unions, there are several PACs that will give you campaign contributions, often considerable ones.  They usually won’t do anything more than that for you, but money is essential for running campaigns.  Of course, most of those PACs will want something from you in return.

Having big politicians endorse you is usually, in itself, not that useful – it may help your ego, but voters are seldom  impressed -, unless those politicians also contribute to your campaign directly or indirectly.  Mayor Cassidy, for example, gave Pauline Cutter’s Mayoral campaign $2,000 and has helped her campaign behind the scenes.   Other politicos, on the other hand, usually do little more than sign their names and, if you are lucky, record a robocall for you.  If you are running, it’d behoove you to find out which endorsements are worth pursuing.

The value of big-name endorsements, however, is in convincing other endorsers that you’re the most credible candidate, and thus generate the support of more endorsers, in particular those who will give you money because they believe you’ll win.

For local campaigns, volunteers are just as important as money, if not more so – so pursuing the endorsement of people and groups that are willing to put time and effort into your campaign is time well spent.  For example, the San Leandro Community Network, a now defunct local political and civics organization, did not make financial contributions to political candidates, but its members provided lots of very valuable volunteer work, from graphic design to data management and computer services, to phone banking, walking and flyering.  The candidates they supported saved thousands of dollars (tens of thousands, in the case of Cassidy) by having SLCAN members work on their behalf.  Similarly, in San Leandro you want to get Jim Prola’s endorsement (though he’ll rarely endorse someone until Labor endorses them first), because he LOVES walking door to door and he’s great at convincing people to vote for you and put up a lawn sign.

Finally, you want the endorsement of people who have influence among the voting population you are targeting.  Some times those people are politicians, but most often they are not. In general, the higher up the ladder the politician is, the less influence s/he has with the voters – at least for what I can see.  Stark’s endorsement did little to help Polvorosa, Corbett couldn’t help Santos and Hayashi didn’t help Starosciak.  That’s because people who are in Washington or Sacramento most of the time, are unlikely to be able to keep their bases energized and loyal.  But you can’t even count on local politicians to have bases – they need to be built, and that requires a lot of time and effort.  Currently, in San Leandro, I’d say there are only a couple of politicians that actually have influence over a large number of voters.

Non-politicians can actually be more influential.  Go after people who are thought to be “on the know” and reasonable by many members of the community.  Long-time teachers, coaches and principals are great endorsers, as hundreds if not thousands of voters may have personal experiences with them (just make sure the teachers were well thought of).  Endorsements by community leaders are great as well.  Religious ministers can endorse you in their personal capacity – so it’s not a bad idea to seek the endorsement of those who have particularly large congregations.

Some endorsements from well known people are more problematic.  My endorsement, for example, may lose you as many votes as it gains you.  The same can be true of PTA and Homeowner Association presidents – often times there are as many people who dislike them as who like them.

How to get the endorsements you want

Organizations, such as the Alameda Labor Council and the Democratic Party, usually have procedures for getting their endorsement and you should look them up on their website.  As for the rest, you need to call – and ask to meet with them.  And then you sell yourself to them.  To do so, you need to be prepared.  You need to know why you are running, how your values match theirs, what your position is or would be in a number of different issues, and how you differ from your opponents.  Cold calling is fine, but it’s best if you can have someone with influence with them call for you first, or at least let you use their name when you call (i.e. “I’m running for X, so-and-so suggested I meet with you).

Now, as I mentioned above, some endorsements are very political and a simple meeting won’t do it.  For those, try to find someone in the know to give you some hints on how to approach them.

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.

SLT’s Guide to Local Elections

This article was updated for the Nov. 2014 election.