Let’s restore the ‘trust’ in trustees

There has been a lot of discussion and downright anxiety around the country, not so much in California, about so-called voter fraud. Mostly Republican-dominated state legislatures have tried to make it more difficult to vote and courts increasingly are tossing out the plans as inadvertently discriminatory at best and intentionally racist at worst, which disenfranchise thousands.
Opponents of these measures have noted that instances of fraud and/or abuse of the electoral system are in fact few and far between. The fears, it turns out, are more a reaction to continued demographic shifts.
Thankfully, California has gone in the other direction with regard to both voting and registration. It remains to be seen what impact this might have on the national elections in November.
Locally, it may be different story. I’m not talking about voter fraud, or abuse. And I’m not even talking about voters. I’m talking about a different kind of abuse: the abuse of the system by well-intentioned local politicians, specifically, school board candidates.
It should be noted that school district trustees have essentially thankless jobs – which aren’t really even jobs because they get no compensation or benefits. Many tie their service to local education the time when their children or grandchildren are in school or recently graduated – much like the flings at coaching or refereeing youth sports. School board trustees in our twin valleys  are elected by the two largest political constituent groups in the region, manage budgets in the millions of dollars and sort out priorities and policies that affect the lives and fortunes of hundreds of children and their families every day. They are criticized more often than they are praised.
Maybe this is why in the San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District the candidates for the two board seats are unopposed. Or, maybe folks are totally satisfied with the status quo. Or, maybe it’s because they are disillusioned by the school district electoral process.
That cynicism may have gotten a boost this month when 10-year school board veteran Kip Tellez, an education professor at UC Santa Cruz, waited until a little over two weeks past the filing deadline to announce he was resigning from the board. This guaranteed that his replacement would be appointed, not elected, to serve out the remainder of his term. He matter-of-fact states in the letter on this page that his timing of the announcement was intentional, not inadvertent, to save the district money. Is this denial of SLV voters their right to vote in school board elections that different from the latest disenfranchisement campaigns in the Deep South?
Then there is Scotts Valley.
Two school board candidates, Cathie Simonovich and Stephanie Espinola, were hired by the district for jobs that they must have applied for, perhaps even been interview for, or at least were contemplating at the time they filed as candidates, when they also took an oath that pledged to serve in that office if elected. So much for the oath. One candidate, Simonovich, at least has the honesty to tell voters – well not exactly all voters, just her Facebook friends – that she will not serve as a school trustee if elected. Another, Espinola, is saying – again to a narrow group of Facebook followers – that she may or may not serve if elected to a post she now says she is not campaigning for. Her campaign Facebook page is still functioning.  Both names will be on the ballot. Voters who select them are rolling the dice: disenfranchisement, just in another form.