Eric, I am so pleased with the renewed and enhanced cokverage of issues. As a followup to last night’s Theater of the Absurd, tonight okught to be marvellous entertainment. Again, thank you for abetting democracy and suborning discourse. Well done.
Attended the candidates night and was impressed by those new people who are running. Please think about attending the next one at Chabot College.
My only personal comment would be about Mr. Armas. Those of you who have watched his quiet but none the less disrespecful behavoir would have seen the exact same thing tonight. In the middle of another candidate attempting to answer a question, he stood up from the candidates’ table, walked to the coffee pot and poured himself a cup of coffee and then sauntered back to his seat. At another time, his total dislike for the tone of another answer led him to chuckle and smirk. Thank goodness the others who were under the microscope had the common decency to be respectful and keep their personal feelings in check.
I too attended the candidates night. It was not as entertaining as the Board Meeting, but it was still filled with itself.
The three candidates present for the short term race, Jesus Armas, Annette Walker and Larry Fitzpatrick were each shown in their best light. In terms of political acumen, Jesus Armas had the clearest message, followed by Annette Walker. Annette was the most professional with clearest program. Jesus was slicker. Larry is a fine man but he was woefully unprepared and really raw and frankly not qualified, in my opinion.
I thought that Annette Walker had the edge in the debate and that Jesus Armas was the most polished. If the election has a large turnout I expect Walker to win. If the turnout is small, I expect Armas to win. The winner will be the one who goes door to door and gets out their partisans voters.
In the race for the two four year positions, I thought that William McGee and Audie Bock had the clearest messages for change and success. William had the best presentation, followed by Audie, Lisa, Sheila and Sue. If the election has a large turnout I expect McGee and Bock to win. If the turnout is small I expect Simmons and McGee to win. I think that Audie has hurt herself by running for both HARD and the school board. I think that people will not vote her in to both positions. This will be won by the person who gets the most people to go to the polls.
Lisa Brunner seems very nice and is a fine advocate for the parents. If you believe that parents should run the school board, she is a good candidate. You would pick her instead of William. William is younger and closer to the students and better educated.
Sheila Sims is the incumbent and is a good example of why there is the anger and discourtesy always present. She is disconnected from her constituency, the students and the teachers. If you like how the Board is now, she should be retained.
Sue Lafferty represents those who thought she was a fine teacher twenty years ago and want it to be like what it was when Sunset was a school. She might be a good trustee, but my sense was that she was clueless. If you want a clueless School Board she is your candidate. Choose her instead of Audie Bock.
At the very least, all six of the folks seated on the dais Wednesday night should do the honorable thing and resign. They should apologize to the students, teachers, parents and voters.
After the election the new 3 person board could select a new Superintendent and 2 temporary board members. Maybe then the HUSD will improve. From what I have seen, the partisanship is too bitter and rancorous to be effective.
you made some interesting observations. I particularly support the idea of finding a new superintendent. I have not made up my mind about the two others. Perhaps with a different tone on the board there may be some changes, for the positive, in them.
SEE THE POST DONE BY MR. KURHI OCCURING IN MARCH 2010 WHICH WAS CENTERED ON AUDIE BOCK’S REACTION TO THE BOARD’S APPOINTMENT OF MR. ARMAS. IT WAS SHE WHO INSPIRED THE RECALL MOVEMENT OUT OF PERSONAL DISAPPOINTMENT THAT SHE WAS NOT APPOINTED.
See the Lady’s history in Wikepedia. Ask Mr. Kurhi for the route to the web site. He removed that information from the story he printed in March 2010. Removal apparently occurred on moving the March Input to ‘archives….section for March 2010. YOU MIGHT CLICK ON MARCH 2010 AT RIGHT SIDE OF THE BLOG’S INTRODUCTORY PAGE.
Ms Bock had moved fast, almost immediately after the Board‘s decision to appoint Armas. Her chosen leader in that recall attempt was Mr. Fitzpatrick. Can you imagine ?
Mr. Fitzpatrick ‘paired’ his attempt for election to the HUSD Board in 2008, with Mr. Reynoso who won, largely because his name was at the top of the list on the ballot. (Luck of the draw ?) Mr. Fitzpatrick could not have won under any circumstances of that moment. He is, as you indicate, no orator!
Fitz also ran for City Council earlier on this year. His campaign platform was built on his ‘top of the list‘ campaign idea that solution of the City‘s money problem would be found in the creation or change over of Mission Blvd., to a ‘toll road‘ with toll collection booth etc. WHAT does that state about Bock’s choice of leaders for her recall campaign? To say nothing of the expense of a recall election heaped upon HUSD’s budget when the regular election is so near?
Ms. Bock stated last night that she had been a member of the California. State Assembly for two years. Her term may have extended into two calendar years but not 24 months. She was elected to the assembly on a fluke! The seat had been vacated by a person who contested for a seat in the Senate and won…. during his term in the assembly.
\There was a tumultuous period for the election to fill the assembly seat…. in the first go around none won the required majority of 50% or more of the votes…. finally in the run off between the former Mayor of Oakland, Elihu Harris and Ms. Bock, the former Mayor was caught violating election law… was disqualified and Ms. Bock won by default since after a series of election attempts she was the only survivor to oppose the discredited former Mayor who was eliminated and thus Ms. Bock won by default.
During her ‘term‘, Ms. Bock was tossed from the Green Party for having accepted $500 checks from each of two major, competing oil refineries in Richmond Ca.
During her limited term… Ms Bock claims to have written laws but has not met the challenge, to state which of the laws she had written, actually met the test of being supported by the Senate. One might also have wondered if she had gained the plurality needed in the assembly, necessary to send her intentions to the state senate.
She ran again for ‘her’ seat at the end of her ’fill in period’. I recall that she changed her party registration again in attempts to retain the Assembly seat. If really curious and you gain access to her Wikepedia item… check the party registration changes.
Next, the Lady took on Barbara Lee, a rock solid campaigner and holder of membership in the US House of Representatives who was definitely not in trouble with her constituency. Again Bock lost that contest.
Guess what happened next ? Do you recall that crazy year when about 3,500 California voters were on the ballot in the race for California Governor? Well, Ms. Audie Bock tried for that office too. Finally, she actually sought a seat on the HARD Board of Directors, against Mr. Paul Hodges. Paul won of course, he is a long time former teacher, turned local business man, who has had long involvment with youth soccer leagues in this area. Bock lost again!
Now, just in case she loses at the school board attempt, the woman seems to think she can gain Paul’s seat!
In her submission of data prior to the interview process which Mr. Armas won, Ms Bock identified herself as a substitute teacher at San Lorenzo school district…. Where Ms. Duran’s retirement from the position of Supt. Probably explains the APPARENT vendetta revealed as being possessed by Ms. Bock. Be aware that Ms. Bock has appeared at regular and special public meetings of HUSD holding up a large sign which simply states “Fire Duran”. Thus do I suspect that something went on at San Lorenzo which finds Duran legally required to be silent under confidentiality laws imposed upon Ms. Bock’s former ‘boss’.
I would hope that Ms. Bock’s ‘leadership’ involvement with some sort of group seeking grants to aid children to gain familiarity with equestrian sports is not in conflict with her interest in a nearby stable.
Some day, some where in California Ms. Bock will win an election! Right?
Now, concerning the Superintendent. I do not know how long you have lived in Hayward nor how keen is your knowledge of HUSD
Dr Vigil departed under adverse conditions for reasons I will not again dscuss. He was hired after the firing of his predecessor. At the time immediately preceeding his hire, Ms.Duran was the temporary replacement for the previous person dismissed by the board. ( So far there have been four successive firings of the Superintendent.) We have a tough reputation ! Which might easily discourage applicants who have done their homework, ( as if the budget was not enough to turn qualified applicants away from our famous ‘job opportuniy’! )
It was known that Ms Duran had some misgivings about Dr. Vigil. With his quick departure at some period in early December, Ms. Duran responded to ‘the emergency’ existent at the time. The woman is highly knowledgeable and was familiar with HUSD DUE TO PRIOR EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS HAVING POSSESSED THE POSITION IN ADJACENT SAN lORENZO SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THE SEARCH FOR A PERMANENT REPLACEMENT DID NOT GO WELL GIVEN THE FINANCIAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE NEW HIRE MIGHT BE PUSHED ASIDE BY THE STATE, THAT WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM FACED BY THE ‘HEAD HUNTERS’. MS. DURAM HAS GRACIOUSLY TAKEN OVER THE JOB ‘OFFICALLY’ UNDER DIRE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN A STILL RISKY SITUATION WHERE THE JOB WILL BE PUShED ASIDE BY A STATE TAKEOVER.
HAVING BEEN ADVISED OF THAT WHICH HAS CAUSED MS DURAN TO ESSENTIALLY GIVE UP A FAIRLY LARGE PERCENBTAGE OF HER ENJOYMENT OF LIFE IN ARIZONA…. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PUNISH HER BY DISMISSING HER DURING A TIME WHEN NO REASONABLE PROSPECT HAS OPPORTUNITY TO ANALYZE THE POSITION CONDUITION. AN ACTION WHICH IF WE FOLLOWED YOUR ADVUICE WOULD MAKE OUR PRESENT PROBLEM MUCH WORSE THAN IT IS PRESENTLY!
Thank heavens I’m no longer working that dysfunctional school district. It may not be illegal to have the HUSD HR director as school board member as husband and wife and apparently their adult children working for the district, but it seems unethical. As I have seen so much other nonsense associated with the way the district handles its subs, none of this is surprising.
Sorry about the GI kraut…. the expression was a favorite of a HQ company sargent, educated in East Kentucky or West Virginia coal mining type schools and whose ambition was limited to three hots, a cot and a little ‘bread’. However we admired him…. he was good at role call calling, a guy could go AWOL for a wekk before being missed. It was my task to drive some to the Mannheim ‘lock up’ before they went to a US based lock up!
NO, WITH TAKE OVER BY THE STATE, THE FINGER POINTING WILL INTENSIFY, BETTERNESS WILL BOIL OVER, Employers, especially the Manufacturers will easily be enticed away by communities playing games with with promisea of superior local help.
Real Estate value decline will become more rapid; a consequence of all that is the unsold real estate will become rentals and the paroled feloh problem together with even higher rates of recidivism will become more apparent and worst of all, the cash flash at some local street corners ‘will heighten’ the drop out rate.
The more qualified teachers will transfer out ! Why would they hang about?
The takeover, if it occurs will not happen until next spring!
If the state takes over, will it just manage the district’s fiscal dept. or affect teaching and learning, too? If real estate values decline, then the property tax base will shrink and we will have even less revenue for the schools. Bad news, bad news. I think the more qualified teachers will stick around, though. If you change districts, you lose your seniority, and in this economy, that means trading your secure job for getting laid off (and hopefully rehired) every year.
All of you seem to miss the key component in the schools, that being the education of children to at least meet a standard. Look to Oakland for a success. Their momentum and issues all improved. And they are better than HUSD. That will not happen until the state takes over. Children in the district cannot wait for the state and this sorry district to get its act in gear. The parties generate so much acrimonious debate that the end result is lost. The discussions, based on the years of debate, do not go anywhere. The teachers, administrators, parents, taxpayers, students and the community cannot agree and provide lots of answers to questions but no solutions.
You have a good point there. Had the board completed the search for a new superintendent, instead of capitulating to Ms. Duran’s insistance that she was the best solution, perhaps we would have had some choice in the matter. Now, just as Ms. Duran had planned, we are stuck with her manipulation of the majority of the board.
There is absolutely no proof that the search team that was hired was unable to find interested and qualified candidates. Of course we will never really know since the president of the board is our only resource for information regarding it.
By the way that “act” that the president put on with reading a vote from closed session regarding hiring Duran, was not the information that Reynoso or others were asking for. What they wanted was a record of the vote to stop the search, interesting how somehow Mr. Frumpkin just ignored that request.
I am sure, in my heart of hearts, that there was no formal vote to end the search for a new superintendent. I am sure that the decision was made by Mr. Frumpkin and others including Ms. Duran.
They knew that the majority of the public is so uninformed there would never be a demand to see/hear a report of the vote to end it. They knew that they could “dazzel the public with words, and baffle them with BS” and never have to admit there was no formal vote to end the search. For the most part they were correct, and now it is a moot point. The deed is done and the students, employees, and families of HUSD are out of luck.
As authors of #10, #11 and #12 above and all interested.
Mr. Moore; you seem a bit presumptuous in your remark, ..”all of you miss the key component in the schools…etc, “ You lean to an attitude of despair, the opposite of ‘Hope’.
I have been pleading for an event known as a “Town Hall Meeting” the purpose of which would be to create open, organized volunteerism. At which event, we attempt recruitment of empty nest types, retired business folk, and others who feel excluded from a process meant to encourage proactive participation in aid of HUSD. Through volunteerism, organized to offer opportunity for life skills matched to a specific need of HUSD. Thus becoming more comfortable when meeting a greater need than is found by involvement in other aspects of the larger community.
Turn away from negativity! Accept the fact that pro-active effort is needed for greater success of students. It goes beyond what is needed; it cannot derive what is neded, solely from among a single group known as ‘parents and guardians‘.
I do not deny that involvement of parents is also a great need here in Hayward. Did you know that HUSD has a ‘plan‘ consisting of 31 ‘meetings‘ occurring between Tuesday Sept 21, 2010. and Tuesday May 17, 2011 either in the Board room at HQ or at ’Large & Small’ Elmhurst ! ( Is ’Large and small Elmhurst’ a specific site known to all ?) The schedule is handed out through school offices and apparently is not mailed or thought needed for the general public use. ( The shut out? )
Apparently, if you are not a parent or guardian, do not attend as those facilities are fairly small……thus discouraging attendance by mere taxpayers.??
Ms. Booth: How in the world did you develop the idea that Board ‘capitulated’ to Ms. Duran’s ‘insistence’ and then .. ‘now, just as Ms. Duran had planned…’ ??
In my opinion, one of the failures of ‘higher education’ ( College level!) is the general lack of understanding of the need to know ’how to search for a job’,
Some of the more erudite turn to ‘head hunters’ when specialties in a business ( read. ‘School District‘) require searching in a broad area of the U.S. and an obviously required willingness to … move to distant opportunity.
Once touted to a particular opportunity, the highly intelligent will travel, at their own expense, as a means of searching out the pitfalls in any proffered job. Now, given that we are searching for an intelligent being to guide us through the forest of problems facing HUSD, is it not reasonable to think about as well as consider the general lack of substantive support from the broader community as well as, the parents?
Is it not true those facts are uncovered by personal investigation ? Raking the leaves and turning over the rocks in search of information easily grasped by candidates to our ‘job opening’ is not to hard to understand. Ergo, the handicap was too difficult for the hired ’ head hunter !”
HUSD is seen as a poor job opportunity. Especially since the last four Superintendents have been fired! Add the idea that the job might easily be a disaster to the newly hired Supt., if HUSD is taken over by the state!
Ms. Booth, your negativity seems incessant. Can you correct that problem?
While “qdrn’s” remarks may be well intended, they are poorly formulated and thus not germane to this conversation. Mr. Moore’s message is one of despair, A violation of Hope, while Ms. Booth’s message, if that is how we are to describe it, is off the field, lost in the very tall grass, along the base line!
You have got to be kidding! I too was there and here is what I saw. Sue Lafferty was not clueless. She was there representing the way it use to be and the way we want it to be again and that goes a long a long way! You are totally wrong in calling her clueless! She had good answer to tough questions that i bet you couldn’t answer on your best day! She represents real solutions to real problems and a chance to bring us back to the way it was. The way it was when Hayward schools were near the top, the way it was when it was an honor to teach in Hayward. So she might be a not so good candidate, but don’t let that full you that she won’t be a good board memeber. She will be better than any other up there! The only reason people like McGee is because he is young, he dosnt present any real solutions, he dosn’t reprenent anything! Bock is a nut case that shouldn’t run for office in anything, not even for dog catcher. I cam lump Fitzpatrick in that catagory as well, and Aramas we will just leave alone. Simms is a one time trustee and Brunner is just a pissed off parent. So you tell me who is better than an experienced teacher that remembers how it was when our schools were near the top. i have worked in politics for nearly ten years and here is how I see it. Though he represents NO, ZERO, NONE, no solutions to the problems, McGee is a shoe in. Bock won’t get it because she is running for another office and that will hurt her, and she is a nut case. Sims is the incimbant, and Brunner has no experience and the last thing this city wants to do is put someone on the board that has no expierence. That is why Sue Lafferty will be the other one to get the seat. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!!!!!
GODRNi DO NOT THINK Every one or any one IS NOT intereested.
I DO NOT THINK I SAID OR IMPLIED THAT THE DISTRICT MEETINGS SEEM TO BE MORE LIP SERVICE THAN ANYTHING ELSE…… SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT HAVE DONE THAT BUT NOT MYSELF.
I DO FEEL HOWEVER THAT THE ‘REYNOSO SHOW’ IS A DRAG ON PRODUCTIVITY ! THAT MUCH STAFF TIME AS WELL AS THAT OF sUPR. AND tRUSTEES ARE BEING ‘PUT UPON’ BY THE UNNECESSARY LENGTH OF TOME BEING USED BY rEYNOSO. STAFF NEED THEIR SLEEP ! sOME MEETINGS JUST DRAG ON UNTILL WELL AFTER 11 pm OR ABOUT 6 HOURS PILED UPON THE 8 OR 9 THEY HAVE ALREADY WORKED!
Long meetings come with the job. If Trustees aren’t prepared to work until the job is done, no matter how long, then they should resign.
Quite often in the past, meetings went well into the late night,not due to a “Reynoso” but to significantly important agenda items, that called for public input, and discussion by the board. The lengthy meetings of late are not unique.
Sample ballots came in the mail today. If you can’t make it to a candidates’ night, you can get a “flavor” for what each candidate brings to the table. Remind your friends/relatives/neighbors to read the ballot statements.
There are some voters who, because they don’t know much about the candidate, will simply mark the first two names and “call it a day”. Please encourage them to take some time and read before they decide.