MORGAN HILL
– Confirming rumors circulating for several weeks, a group of
Morgan Hill community members, parents and Morgan Hill School
District employees served recall notices on four School Board
trustees during Monday night’s board meeting.
MORGAN HILL – Confirming rumors circulating for several weeks, a group of Morgan Hill community members, parents and Morgan Hill School District employees served recall notices on four School Board trustees during Monday night’s board meeting.
An overflow crowd in the District Office board room watched as Robert Lund, a member of the Community Alliance for Responsible Education (CARE), served notices to Board President Tom Kinoshita and Trustees George Panos, Del Foster and Jan Masuda.
In a statement issued Monday, CARE cited a lack of trust in the four board members by the community, their continued support of embattled Superintendent Carolyn McKennan and various charges of financial mismanagement and lack of oversight as reasons for initiating the recall process.
“I understand the emotions. Not everyone agrees with the decisions we make,” said Kinoshita, who was elected in November to his third term.
“However, I don’t believe any official – be it the governor, legislator or school board member – should be recalled for taking positions. Recall should be reserved for malfeasance or breaking the law, not just because you disagree.”
Just before 11 p.m. Monday, the board voted to continue the meeting until 7 p.m. today at the district office.
According to Shannon Buchey, election division coordinator for the Santa Clara County Registrar’s Office, CARE must gather signatures in support of its petition from 20 percent of the registered voters in the Morgan Hill School District, which stretches from South San Jose to San Martin.
In the district, Buchey said, there are approximately 28,000 registered voters, so CARE must gather at least 5,600 signatures.
It is too late to complete the process in order to put the recall on the March 2 ballot, she said, so the recall would likely have to take place during a special election. Recall supporters have 120 days from Monday to collect the signatures. Carol Gomez, who works in the accounting department of the Registrar’s Office, said a special election would cost approximately $5 to $7 per signature on the recall petition or a minimum of $28,000.
Foster said the expense would come out of the district’s pockets, which are nearly empty.
“The (regular November) election is in only 11 more months,” said the two-term board member. “This is a waste of program money for a special election.”
A majority of voters would be necessary for the recall to succeed.
“Before this, I was pretty sure I’d step aside,” said Foster, who is up for re-election in November. “Now, I may have to run again.”
Masuda, who was elected to a second term in November 2000, said a special election would not serve the needs of the community.
“If a special election was held, and interim board members were appointed, they would only serve for approximately seven meetings before time to file for the November election,” she said Monday. “I would like to say, for those who are not happy, that they need to spend their time and energy beginning a campaign for one of the seats available in the November election.”
Panos, responding to charges by CARE that the four trustees have been unresponsive to the community, said more dialogue is necessary.
“I hope some dialogue with the board will occur – to air their concerns,” he said. “Obviously, some of this is incorrect (referring to a statement about the board eliminating extra-curricular activities). I was the champion of minor sports from the get-go this year.”
Another charge by CARE is that the four trustees “have allowed the district to become uncompetitive in teachers’ and classified employees’ compensation,” according to CARE spokeswoman Victoria Battison, who did not address trustees during the meeting.
