That's right. Keep the good ol'club moving. Find some one who agrees with them. Who cares about community input anyway...

If the citizens don't care to both speak out on this vacancy and also offer themselves as candidates then don't complain if the remaining four board members simply chose someone who shares their values and priorities.

Whoever is chosen will have a big advantage in the next election.

Demand that the board recruit candidates for this vacancy widely and that they then give the community the opportunity to provide public comment on these candidates before the board makes its choice. And make sure that the board has a strong and diverse slate of candidates from which to choose.

I'm surprised the public was even notified of the vacancy rather than presented with a fait accompli. Usually, when someone decides not to run for another term, the board figures out whom they want as a member and asks that person to join. The fact that there is an opening is kept under wraps as much as possible. Normally, there is no election because the only people who run are the selected candidates.

Occasionally, someone who has not been handpicked decides to run, in which case there is an election. I have never met any of these renegade candidates so cannot speak to their character or accomplishments, but I have seen them defamed and maligned. The first complaint is "if not for this candidate we really don't want, we wouldn't have had to have an election -- she is costing the district a lot of money!" Why would any sane person want to volunteer for that kind of gang bang?

It would be best to clean house and elect an entirely new slate. But that's never going to happen. And Peter, I cannot run because I already have a significant community volunteer position that consumes all my free time. But I know many people who would be great on the board -- and they don't have to be parents to run.

not our MPCSD states:"I'm surprised the public was even notified of the vacancy rather than presented with a fait accompli."

I suggest that publicizing this vacancy is a direct result of the whistle being blown on the board's repeated violations of the Brown Act.

Now it is up to the public to respond.

What about a candidate who represents the non-parent taxpayers?

What about a candidate that will push for consolidation?

What about a candidate who will push for pension reform?

On its own the board would never appoint such individuals.

not our MPCSD -

I think you've broken the code. Let's appoint someone we know to fill the vacant position and then support them when they run for office. This is how things are done.

Very insightful post.

Much to the chagrin of the posters on this blog, there is NO conspiracy. This is a very public position, one that any of you could run for in the future. It was a very good call on possibly having this position appointed, I guess all of you have not read the school funding issues this state has, that is basically in every edition of the SF Chronicle. Just because statements like, "..the fact that there is an opening is kept under wraps as much as possible" and "the board's repeated violations...." are written in a blog, does not necessarily mean they are true, quite the contrary. This board, for more than two decades now, has been able to weather a very difficult financial storm, reconstruct 4 different campuses, dealt with a very difficult union, absorbed a huge influx of additional students and are now faced with a new superintendent. There have hardly been any REAL negative issues, that are actually factual, . Unfortunately, the same old negative cronies get on this post and start blabbering on and on about things they really don't know, or untruths, or the good ol' Brown Act garbage. Can't you just look at it objectively, and appreciate the fact that we have great schools, the school district is one of the top districts in the state, and all of you are reaping the benefits of having homes that don't appreciate? Enough with the conspiracies. If you don't like it, go to a meeting, or better yet, find something wrong that they've done over the past 20+ years..

The last School Board election was the first contested one in years. These seats are not "fought" over. So ease up with the conspiracy theories.

If you want to be on the school board, put your name in the hat. You MIGHT be the only one.

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Excuse me, correction: "DO appreciate". "....having homes that DO appreciate?"

Here we ....states:"Enough with the conspiracies. "

I have reread all of the above postings and don't see any that posit a conspiracy. Why not just deal with what other posters have actually said rather than try to dismiss them with a cute word?

Peter

Tracy said there was a "good ol'club". implying there would be a back rooom conspiracy deal. When in fact there is a greateer than average chance there will be a limited number or applicants. Tracy should put her name in the hat, she might be the winner by default.

Roy

"Tracy said there was a "good ol'club". implying there would be a back rooom conspiracy deal"

Why not just deal with what other posters have actually said rather than speculating on something else?

It is not conspiratorial to suggest that good people acting in their own perceived best interests may well make decisions that do not reflect the best interests of all the citizens.

Maybe Jeff Childs will throw in his hat for the temp job. I don't think he wants it after December, but he has some experience. I may not agree with all that he says, but he's far from a "yes" man.

And in the end, just because you don't agree with someone's views doesn't mean they are representing their own self interests over those of the citizens. They are just representing citizens who don't agree with you.

good people acting in their own perceived best interests MAY well make decisions that do not reflect the best interests of all the citizens.

It's pretty common for any board or council to fill a vacancy with a "friend" who later stands for election.

That appointment is important and, the fact of the matter is that it is RARELY done by an impartial, open application process. Someone is usually approached by a member of the body and specifically asked to apply or fill the spot. It becomes a fait accompli and that's not an accident.

The appointee then has a distinct advantage when running for the office, if for no other reason than other potential competitors will perceive them as the "inside" candidate and an uphill fight.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's the way it's done.

Since nobody bothered to show up at the recent board meeting to challenge/question the selection of the new superintendent, I don't think anyone really cares. So why shouldn't the board go ahead and find someone who cares enough to be willing to serve, and appoint them? This isn't a political "plum", it isn't a paying job, and its probably a fair amount of work--not a position I would think would motivate a conspiracy.

In the last election - there was a candidate that got about 2,000 votes. I believe she was a district parent. Perhaps they could reach out and see if she is interested since she was interested enought to run in an election, and got fair amount of support.

In the Redwood City School District School, it is usual practice for board members to resign in mid-term with the superintendent appointing a replacement. Currently we have 3 out of the 5 trustees who have been appointed at some point (Masur, MacAvoy, Paulson). MacAvoy has never been challenged in an election.
The result is very little oversight and a superintendent with lots and lots of power. oh, and overall mediocre schools.

I am not a nut job or a conspiracy theorist but someone who has volunteered in different capacities for the schools, who has been invited to the election fundraisers, and who is friends with several past and current board members. If I wanted to join the board, I would quietly let my friends on the board know of my interest, and if they agreed that it made sense for me to join them, and if Ken Ranella didn't have issues with me, I would be given the green light.

Bottom line, the process is more political than you might think.

We have an excellent school district, primarily because this is a affluent area with parents who will volunteer wherever needed, a foundation that raises millions of dollars each year, and a supportive community that backs every parcel tax and bond measure. Although the board has made some poor decisions, I would agree that in general the members are bright, dedicated people who truly have our children's best interests at heart. I am grateful that they are so generous with this time.

However, that does not excuse the fact that the board has been a clique for as long as I can remember. The members don't want anyone on the board who would upset the status quo. They prefer to avoid scrutiny, and have privately said so. Those of us who have been around for a while know that if we have an issue with something that is going on in our schools, we need to talk to the board members and let them know about our concerns. Speaking up at a board meeting is a waste of time.

In the last election, the three "chosen" members banded together against the outsider. She had no chance. I think the suggestion to appoint her to the Box vacancy is brilliant and one that I would support. I suspect it will never happen.

It is hard to argue against the financial responsibility of appointing a temporary replacement rather than wasting taxpayer dollars to fill a seat for six months. As a previous poster said, choosing a person from the "in crowd" versus someone who already ran as an independent candidate and won over 2,000 votes in a general election is a bad sign.

An inside appointment by the school board will be a perfect set-up for the new superintendent Ghysels to run his business-as-usual scams that benefit only him and the power and money connected.

There needs to be an election, regardless of the cost.

Carla,

As already posted:

If the citizens don't care to both speak out on this vacancy and also offer themselves as candidates then don't complain if the remaining four board members simply chose someone who shares their values and priorities.

Whoever is chosen will have a big advantage in the next election.

Demand that the board recruit candidates for this vacancy widely and that they then give the community the opportunity to provide public comment on these candidates before the board makes its choice. And make sure that the board has a strong and diverse slate of candidates from which to choose.

Congraduations to Ana Ruiz for announcing her interest in being appointed to the school board. She received over 2500 votes in the fall election.

Thanx to Ana, there was an election last fall! As "not in MPCSD" stated, appointments to the school board are given to insiders. Ana attempted to change that - to give the voters a choice.

The community should demand broader representation on the school board.

The notion that only the MPAEF inner circle are the only individuals qualified and dedicated enough to serve effectively on the school board is ridiculous. It is, sadly, insulting to those who have worked in many other capacities and whose feedback to the administration and board has been summarily dismissed.

Ana provides a new perspective; the ability to ask critical questions. She has experience in other school districts (New Jersey), which will enable her to challenge the status quo. She is an independent voice and can efectively represent the many segments that make up our school district.

Ana's interests is a good sign. The fact that she received so many votes at the last election should mean something. We'll see.

As an aside: Do you ever wonder how so many Catholic school kids with one nun teaching all subjects to classes of fifty got into top Ivies and top professions? The parents in those days supported the teachers.

Save all the problems of cost! CONSOLIDATE - MPCSD, Los Lomitas, Woodside, Portola Valley! This would save the taxpayer thousands upon thousands of $$ each year. One sup, one school board, one administrative staff, great programs and education for kids with NO new tax parcels! CONSOLIDATE! CONSOLIDATE into one great school district! (Of course, the superintendents will be against this since they would have to sacrifice their $225,000 annual salaries EACH.

"CONSOLIDATE - MPCSD, Los Lomitas, Woodside, Portola Valley! "

and Ravenswood

@retired teacher

Great idea! And a doable one!!

Voters didn't want Ms. Ruiz in November -- why do we want a niche representative now?

Out of 13,863 voters, only 3050 cast votes for Ms. Ruiz. 22%. Why? Each of us had three votes. (Indeed, of the total votes cast [19,546], she only got 16%.)

Well, between "closing the achievement gap" for Hispanic and African-Amerian kids and "addressing special needs," MPCSD already spends a highly disproportionate amount of time and money on a small proportion of kids.

The last thing most residents wanted was a Board Member (Ms. Uribe-Ruiz) committed to expanding this at the expense of the vast majority of kids in the system ... a Board Member committed to "challenging the status quo" who "understand[s] the importance of fair and appropriate education for all our children" (quotes from her campaign website).

If you are familiar with the concept of 'advocating' for your 'special needs child' under the 'fair and appropriate' clauses of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (1997), you know that this also means 'free' -- as in, the school district has to somehow find the money to address all your childs' learning disabilities -- at the expense of all the other kids in the district.

78% of the voters cast 84% of the votes against Ms. Ruiz. I hope the Board, in considering a replacement for Mr. Box, is not swayed by the desperate few determined to hijack what little flexibility MPCSD still has to serve the many.

It is really sad to see a parent who professes to be concerned express so much vitriol against people less fortunate than she is.

I doubt anyone cast a vote against Ruiz. Rather, voters chose the familiar names -- the ones who had the board's backing. (I voted for Ruiz even though I don't know her just because I am weary of the backroom board dealings.)

Ruiz has shown the interest to be on the board, and she has obviously thought about the issues. Whether everyone agrees with her or not is a different matter, but it would be refreshing to have a board not dominated by groupthink.

By the way, those of you who fear that your little darlings will be deprived if Ruiz gets on the board and starts allocating resources to those undesirable minorities, fear not. There will still be four members voting the "right" way!