School Board Recall Threatened

Yesterday, members of our school board, Jensen, Tam and Mooney, were served with paperwork announcing that a group of Alamedans have filed papers to initiate a recall of them on the school board. They are calling themselves SERVE, after the process to deliver legal papers on a weekend to people’s homes I guess, it’s a nice touch, wouldn’t want to, oh I don’t know, wait 3-4 days and do it at a meeting that all of them will be attending, like say, the School Board meeting.

My favorite section of the paperwork (image below, I blacked out the addresses)?

“Over the objections of 73% of the citizens addressing the board in three days of hearings….the board gave one group a near monopoly on the anti-bullying instruction.”

There are 10,000 kids in AUSD and 72,000 residents, and yet, apparently, the board of Ed is supposed to do whatever 100 people who show up and address them say. It makes the purpose of elections pretty moot. Why bother having the community elect people, when we can just tally the people who come to a particular meeting and see what should be done.

There was nothing representative about the concerned citizens who addressed the board. And they ignore the fact that 80% of Alamedans voted against Prop 8. It’s a sure sign that the folks arguing against the inclusion of anti-gay bullying in the schools anti-bullying curriculum were not representing a majority of the city. What a waste of energy and time.

And could these folks at least have their facts straight? While claiming that The Gays now have a “near monopoly” on anti-bullying lessons sounds really provocative, the anti-bullying criteria is less than 45 minutes long and is one of 9 lessons, which typically only get pulled out when there’s an incident that needs them.

It is honestly, not a big deal, in fact if kids stay away from calling people fags or homos, or pushing kids with two moms (the horror! The horror!) around, the lesson doesn’t even come out. It’s certainly not “teaching homosexuality.”

Here’s the thing, I don’t think the recall has a chance in hell in working. So SERVE can I guess feel good that they made some decent people’s lives stressful.  Congrats!


9 comments for “School Board Recall Threatened

  1. Andy Currid
    August 10, 2009 at 8:23 am

    Why black out the addresses? The law requires that the entire notice has to be published – with names and addresses – in a newspaper of general circulation.

    These signatories gave up their right to anonymity when they signed the notice of intent.

  2. August 10, 2009 at 10:39 am

    Yeah, I went back and forth on that. I figured I’d shy away from publishing publicly available personal information that’s not germane to any real conversation.

    As you note, it’s available for those who want to know. But I figured I’d retain the hurdle of having to do a tiny bit of research before firing off a nasty letter or throwing dog poop on people’s porches.

    Those who want to throw the first poop can easily get a hold of the info, I just don’t want to empower it.

  3. Helen Sause
    August 12, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    It is very sad to think that this sort of thinking exists in 2009 even in Alameda. Even sadder when you think that the children in the homes of those objecting to the distribution of information must be given messages that terribly confuses them.

    And even given the fact that some people apparently believe that there is danger in knowledge – they are upset because others may be allowed to benefit from such information and that our public places may be a little safer for all children.

  4. kaitee nguyen
    September 8, 2009 at 9:10 am

    I am sure any plaintiff in any legal case knows it’s public document and anyone with enough energy, motive (whatever that maybe), resources and drive can get the list. But I think we all know that we are not talking about the legality of posting names. We are talking about motives, and how hypocritical this motive is, especially in the context of this controversy.

    It is most naive and gullible to think that this author (and others) publicizes and highlights the names for the good of the community, and that it is not a vindictive act to silence opposition and stir up harassment. I don’t see how this list is germane to a real discussion of the issue.

  5. John
    September 8, 2009 at 11:18 am

    This notice of intent to pursue a recall has the names and addresses of those who signed and is publicly available.

    If SERVE goes ahead with their petition signature drive, will the names and addresses of those who sign the petition also be pulicly available?

  6. Page
    September 8, 2009 at 11:43 am


    There’s a really good summary of the law applicable to recalls at It looks like info about the signatories will not be publicly available. See pp. 23-24.

  7. John
    September 8, 2009 at 1:20 pm


    Thanks for the info.

Leave a Reply