I can no longer remain silent about this. The WJUSD School Board has not stayed quiet, nor has the Superintendent.
Soooo, me neither.
Serving on a School Board is a thankless job. Now we know why.
George Griffin can be an obnoxious asshat. Despite that, I love him. On the political spectrum, I could not see his position from mine even if I had a well-functioning Hubble telescope. So what?
What matters is there is a distinguished school award flying from the flagpole in front of the school. That's what matters. That's ALL that matters.
It is a fact that three Board members have wanted to get rid of George since the day they were elected. I am sure a wife being "allowed" to resign, as well as personal beefs over sports, field lights, and the grades of the child of one of the three had nothing to do with it. Really. I'm positive. Honest.
Brickey. Nickelson. Orosco.
Wait! Orosco? That's right. Do not be confused by his "no" vote. The Board President votes last. He saw the results, saw the chance to avoid the controversy, and took the invertebrate's way out.
"Daddy, what did you do on the School Board?" "I let others stab a guy in the back for me."
I have known Stephanie Atherton for a long time. The Sac Bee says she was on the verge of tears. Tears? What?!?! There is no goddamn crying in politics!
If there was something worth crying over, something really about what's "good" (READ: "bad") for "the children", George Griffin would have been fired on the spot, and the vote would have been unanimous. We have known and respected Jay Shepherd for long enough to know that for an absolute moral certainty.
As reported on the Save George Facebook page on Wednesday, March 31st, Board members Nickelson, Hyde, and Atherton were overheard at Chuey's tonight laughing about their decision and the e-mails they have gotten on the subject.
Really? What happened to the tears? Horrible, horrible judgement.
Of course, they will deny it- but I know what I believe.
There are currently 6 Board members of the WJUSD. The Brown Act prohibits a majority of an elected Board from meeting unless it is agendized, and notice is made to the public.
So, we now have had three members of a 6-member Board talking together in public about Board decisions. The three of them cannot make things happen, but the three of them can PREVENT things from happening.
Maybe they were also discussing who they do NOT want to appoint to the Board? Who they do NOT want to become principal at WHS? As it stands right now, these three, or any three, have veto power over anything that comes before the Board.
Hmmm.
The FPPC should be called, and consulted. 50% of a sitting Board getting together, even "accidentally", and discussing Board activities merits more scrutiny.
Regardless of the opinion of the FPPC, I believe these three have violated the Ralph Brown Act governing behavior of elected bodies.
Somebody might claim that these three "veterans" did not know that the laws regarding discussions by Board members are based upon the actual number of sitting Board members, and not on the number of slots? That they still had to have four of them together to violate the law?
Yeah, right. It's a disgrace. They should resign immediately.
Lastly, we come to the Superintendent. I had high hopes for her once upon a time, emphasis on "had". The Superintendent of the WJUSD has released a written statement commenting on the performance of WHS Principal George Griffin. In doing so, she has violated the law. Did she mention him by name? No. Do we have another High School Principal that the Sacramento Bee was asking about? No.
She, too, should resign immediately. Period.
Somebody with the smarts to run this District would know to sit there, shut up, and take the heat until it cools. Obviously, we do not have somebody with the smarts to run this District.
George Griffin, at the very least, deserved 15 months notice, not three. This whole episode has been both vindictive AND classless.
But, somebody famous did once say that you can't make a silk purse out of a bunch of sows rears.
Posts
Thank you, sir. A correct reading of the situation in all respects. What an ugly mess they've made.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see this reach more people. It will be such an injustice if this happens. I don't even live in Winters or have I ever had kids in that school dist. This comes from just plain knowing right from wrong. I've always heard what a great dist. it is. Too bad.
ReplyDeleteThere has got to be more to this whole situation. No one has the guts to say it, but there has got to be a valid reason behind this decision.
ReplyDeleteI hope Griffin is re-hired or un-fired, but all of your half-thoughts are confusing. Calling for the immediate resignation of a handful of people involved in the mess based on a rumored-meeting in Chuy's is sensationalist nonsense. And, whatever Orosco's motives, he voted against firing Griffin, so it's a waste of everyone's energies to focus on his so-called "invertebrate's way out."
ReplyDeleteMany people have said it, and have wondered about valid reasons- me included. If there were valid reasons, Jay Shepherd would have led the charge, not registered a "no" vote.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Griffin works for one person.
Life is pretty black-and-white for me- you are a public official, and you break the laws governing your position, you resign. Simple as that.
It is NOT a rumored meeting. They were seen, and overheard, by numerous people.
Orosco wanted to get his way on the Board without taking the grief to which the others are being subjected. I used the word "invertebrate" after I decided "coward" was too brutal.
A single vote by Orosco does not change what he has said over and over again since he got on the Board.
Sorry, brain fade. - George Griffin works for one person, but dozens work FOR him. None of them were consulted, nor were any of the students or parents. It's 2010. That's not how things are done in the public arena.
ReplyDeleteWoody needs to clarify his position, also. He started out by saying that he agreed with the Board, but then endorsed the 1-year attempt to straighten things out.
PS- I also think it was outrageous for some of them to bring their spouses along to sit in the front row during the meeting Thursday. THAT smacks of spineless- to me, anyway. But that's just me.
Did they bring their spouses? Or did their spouses choose to come? Do they not have the right to attend board meetings as well as the rest of us? I support George - I am the person who first spoke to the one-year reprieve idea - but I certainly don't want to attack anybody's family and in fact I admire them for coming, knowing full well that they would hear angry words directed at their husbands.
ReplyDelete"It is NOT a rumored meeting. They were seen, and overheard, by numerous people."
ReplyDeleteHearsay doesn't work in court. Why should it work here? Who were these 'numerous people'? Objective observers? Or members of George's family? What *exactly* did they hear?
Hate this decision. Also hate the semi-hysteria around it. I'll bet George does too.
The board members screwed up. Hopefully they weill un-screw up. Either way, we all have to live together.
More than one of the people who observed them and overheard them are identified by name by their membership and comments on the Facebook page. Become a member and see what they have to say. If they want to post here by name, that's up to them.
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter what was said? Yes- and no.
These "veterans" should know better than to group together as they did. Even if they had not said anything inappropriate, they invited criticism by their actions.
This has nothing to do with "Court". The FPPC handles these things, not the District Attorneys.
Spouses were there to show support for what? The decision? Or are you suggesting that these Board members shared closed-session information with their spouses? Wow...
And by bringing spouses, or having spouses show up, they are now fair game for the comments or complaints the spouses receive in the grocery store, the hardware store, or on the street.
I am sure it was random and spontaneous- that's how they all got seats in the front row, right?
It's a simple and basic unwritten rule, and is especially important in small towns: Your family is there for the social events, for being sworn in, etc., but not for the issues. As soon as you involve them in issues, they become fair game for the jerks in the community that will cross that line when they cross paths with little- and sometimes without- provocation.
One last thing. I don't like this anonymous thing- mine, not yours. However, I set this up that way for a variety of reasons, all of which are for people in other communities and states- not Winters.
I prefer the locals know who I am, so that I am always held to the same standards I espouse and/or criticize others about. If you don't know, and want to, ask somebody. Debra at the newspaper knows, as does Liz Coman, and Jiley, too.
Tom, this is Debbie Hemenway and the last 2 'anonymous' comments were mine. As for the families, they got front row seats by arriving early. I know, because I did too so that I could have a good seat. I AM part of the Facebook group and I know who has reported the Chuy's incident - members of George's family - so your notion that family should stay away from issues cuts both ways.
ReplyDeleteAs for 'grouping together' at dinner, it was my impression that 2 families were eating together and a third was there and stopped by their table to say hello. Maybe dumb, but probably not illegal.
Let me reiterate: I hate this decision and have spoken against it and sent a letter to the paper about it and contacted every board member twice about it. All that being said, they are not monsters and we all live together here and need to do so long after this issue dies, so I think we need a lot more light and a lot less heat being generated.
Debbie, you misunderstood my "anonymity" post. I fully expect anybody to post anonymously on my blog- except me. I believe blog owners should be known, as much as possible. I have no problem with others being nameless or faceless- if they are overboard with personal insults, I can always delete them.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding, too, is that two were eating, and a third stopped by. It is dumb. If they talked about District business or Board meetings, past or present, that's different.
And, of course, if families want to get involved, it's fine- but they do open themselves up to being "accosted" in public venues- which I have always hated to see happen.
Leave the poor spouses alone! It's their personal decision to attend the Board meeting and they were drug into this mess long before they chose to sit in the front row.
ReplyDeleteGrow up, this is becoming a bigger mess than anyone needs or wants and you're just contributing.
Then maybe tell a certain spouse not to show up drunk to a community meeting and make a fool of himself.
ReplyDeleteGrow up? Nice insightful commentary.
ReplyDeleteI may do so, someday, but don't get your hopes up- and on the grow up scale, I am way down on the list on this issue of those who should be told to do so.
Starting with the School Board, and why they have refused to broadcast their meetings on the Public Access channel? What do they have to hide? Or is it Hyde?
And if you ARE a spouse, as I suspect- you should say so. Not WHICH one, just that you are one.
Nobody gets "dragged" into being a spouse of a School Board member- I hope, anyway, not in 2010. Unless they are on "drugs"...
Not a spouse. Just a member of the community who thinks this is being blown out of proportion. Way out of proportion.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to start off with saying that even though I do respect Griffin, I do not know enough information to determine if I am for or against his contract not being renewed. This whole thing has turned out to be a mess, and now some people on the Facebook group that support Griffin have taken things into extremes and are blindly stating what they believe to be facts, but it just so happens to be their opinion.
ReplyDeleteI have no problems with the Facebook group being formed- I actually was a member of it until today. But I went on it this morning and read all the hate filled comments about the board members wives, I was shocked. I find it humorous how adults can act just like children when they get the chance to, and this whole griffin ordeal is no exception.
This comment made by Mrs.Calvert threw me off guard, "Thank goodness the eye rolling and snickering stopped. Hey, maybe that's why the wives were sitting in the front row...to make them behave!". How could someone just make an assumption that they were there to make their husbands behave? Can the board members' wives just go to support their husbands? The wives know first hand that their husbands are taking a beating and they have to just sit there and listen without saying a word. The wives are there for support, not to keep their husbands in check.
Another comment that was made by Mrs.Castro also caught my eye, it stated that, "I was very disappointed to be in Chueys tonight and hear Ms. Atherton, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Nickelsen sarcastically discussing the public emails they recieved on their decision and all laughing about it. If this is their conduct in public....I hate to think what it is out of the public eye. They need to be held accountable for their behavior! Some example for our children! Shame on them." First off- she overheard them talking about it. She was not joined in the conversation to hear what they were actually taking about. Secondly, Mrs.Castro also states in a sarcastic manor that this is 'some example for our children'. She needs to take into consideration that by her jumping to conclusions about what they were talking about is not setting a good example for anyone to follow.
Lastly, I'd just like to say that the school board is not allowed to tell why they did not renew his contract. The one person who is allowed to say is Griffin himself. I have heard that Griffin has said that he does not know why his contract was not renewed, but that does not mean there was no reason behind it.
Adults need to start acting like adults instead of pointing fingers and bashing on the opposing side. I am not for or against Griffin staying and I will not make my final decision until I know the true reason to why the board voted to not renew his contract.
Very nice to hear from a student! Time for this thread to end. See the new blog post!
ReplyDelete