Comments on: Another investigation, allegations, more allegations

By: Brian Marion

Brian Marion — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:24:46 +0000

When “Father of a Child” can prove that he is in fact “Father of a Child” my inner skeptic
will be more satisfied.

How do we really know “Father of a Child” is not really “Sleezy-Greasy Developper with
an axe to grind”?

I think David Kakishiba, who is my Dist BoE Director, would be more honest than
purported “Father”

By: Father of child

Father of child — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:19:37 +0000

David Kakishiba is the Executive Director of an organizations, EBAYC, that distributed a political flyer to the children of my neighborhood school. In my investigations, the principals did NOT know about the flyer. Office workers were instructed by organizers with EBAYC and OCO to distribute the flyers to the children. David Kakishiba is accountable for the information that is dissmenated by his organization. He cannot hide behind ignorance. As a school board member he has an ethical duty to ensure that his organization, EBAYC, acts above board and does not politicize the children. He should be censured. And Mrs. Spearman should be ashamed of herself for proclaiming his innocence before the investigation is complete. What kind of sham is that? No wonder the state doesn’t want to give us our schools back!!!!

By: Jim Mordecai

Jim Mordecai — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 06:24:52 +0000

The Board wrote its Board Bylaw 9012 in such a fashion that all charges brought against any board member must be investigated. I quote from B.B. 9012 “it is incumbent upon the Board to address all complaints of unethical and/or illegal behavior on the part of its members.”

The only issue here is whether or not Board President Kakishiba was involved in the passing out of the anti-development literature and he denies that is the case.

As the Board bylaw is centered on the actions of the Board President it is clear to me that the Vice President of the Board appropriately would have the charge of Board President Kakishiba using his influence to have an anti-development flyer distributed at two Oakland Unified schools investigated.

I felt that it was unwise for the Board to have written BB 9012 because it was written in reaction to charges brought against a Board member and it was really, in my judgment, a form of a bill of attainer or a rule written to get one person. Now the time and expense of investigating all charges against board members is the unintended consequence of that action.

But, the board is obligated to follow the rules it made no matter how unwise.