The motion would have disallowed P.E. credit for the JROTC program, which is being phased out of SFUSD schools. If students couldn’t get P.E. credit, it would be well-nigh impossible for them to schedule JROTC into their day, which would effectively kill the program abruptly.
But the resolution got a split 3-3 vote on June 17, which based on standard procedure and past practice means it failed. According to board member Jill Wynns, however, board President Mark Sanchez declared that failure to get enough votes to pass leaves the resolution still on the table, and called today's meeting, at an unusual time of day, with the minimum 24 hours’ notice. (Board member Jane Kim, a co-sponsor of the resolution, was absent at that meeting and is expected to be present at today's meeting, while the Chronicle reports that two opponents of the resolution, Hydra Mendoza and Kim-Shree Maufas, are expected to be absent.)
Wynns, a supporter of keeping JROTC, says she has asked the board’s lawyer to rule on the claim that failure to pass leaves a motion on the table, and to go over past meeting agendas to identify past votes that are still on the table under that policy. Sanchez’ interpretation is inconsistent with the longstanding view of the board’s parliamentarian, who routinely declares “motion fails” when a proposal lacks enough votes to pass, Wynns notes.
If the board’s legal counsel upholds the new interpretation, the board may be too busy addressing the past motions that are now still on the table to deal further with the JROTC controversy, let alone any other current issues facing the school district.
Today's meeting will be held at 4 p.m. in the board room at school district headquarters, 555 Franklin St. at McAllister.
Comments
ms grannan,
while we stand on the same side regarding "in-kind services" and i hope to be in attendance at the budget committee meeting this morning, the fact that i may not be able to attend will depend on how much time i have to spend responding to your knowingly slanted and unfair accusations.
your bio refers to your contributions to other forums and one of those is sfschools http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sfschools/message/30590, where i am of absolute certainty that you read my account of how this thursday session came to pass.
unacknowledged in your account (which implies that mark "the evil one" sanchez is the driving force behind this) is the fact that this was instigated solely by former school board member (and staunch ally of the aforementioned jill wynns) dan kelly, who appeared personally before the board this past tuesday and described rules (by number and subheading) which HE he hepled write (during his tenure as president of the board - during which time he censured mark sanchez and in general treated both he and the board's progressives in a manner in which the now progressive majority has decidely NOT responded).
so, to put it mildly, dan kelly is not someone to act on behalf of mark sanchez.
as it so happens, kelly believes that the military has no place in our schools. sanchez believes similarly, but as board president, sanchez is also obligated to avoid encumbering the district with cash draining lawsuits, and the board and board's attorney has been advised that one such suit will be filed if they continue to allow non credentialed military personnel to award educational credit to students for a jrotc program which, according to state superintendant jack o'connell, does NOT meet the state curriculum standards.
one might say that sanchez should just "take that chance", but i don't think you would advocate such a reckless policy, ms. grannan.
and, as far as the sfusd attorneys finding no merit in mr. kelly's stated position that a 3-3 tie represents the "tyranny of the minority" if that ends the issue, i challenge you to print that opinion here. mr. kelly has cited the board's bylaws (which, as he pointed out, he wrote - and i'll wager ms. wynns voted for) and unless you have a better legal opinion than just your own, you might want to rethink your position on this.
progressive-bashing is an all too common sport on the right (met with a turn the other cheek policy under the progressive board president for the last two years), but you should at least report all the facts, including the most important: that this meeting was set into motion by dan kelly, based on board bylaws that he wrote (and that i presume ms. wynns approved of - at the time).
brock estes
Carolilne, thank you for bringing to light what has been happening at the school board. For a Board that has professed to want open government and input from all of its consituents of students, parents and the community, the recent calling of last minute Special Meetings (multiple for emphasis)and different procedural rules is quite astounding.
Let's stay on point here. There was a vote on June 17th on this resolution. The vote was 3-3 and did not pass. No one on the Board, including Mark Sanchez, Eric Mar and Norman Yee took any action at the time to state that the resolution was NOT defeated but was to be continued at a latter date. Per Board precedent and parlimentarian rules, the resolution failed.
Suddenly Dan Kelly appears at a subsequent meeting and tells the Board that "no" the vote at the prior meeting did not fail and it is still in front of the Board to deal with. As a Board member for the last 4 years and President in the last year, I would think that there should be no surprises for Mark Sanchez when it comes to procedural matters. Also, why is this now coming up when 2 commissioners who voted against the resolution are out of town (and this was known to the entire board) and Jane Kim who was one of the sponsors of the resuliton and absent at the first meeting to vote on the resolution is now suddently back in town? This is all just too coincidental.
Above board, open and honest government? I do not think so. What kind of civics lesson is our Board teaching our students? Not a very good one.
Leadership is about setting an example. The recent actions are very poor examples of leadership.
Proponents of the JROTC program stress how it teaches our young people pride, responsibility, and leadership skills. Given that the lefties are hell-bent on dismantling a program that is popular among a significant number of students and their parents, perhaps it's a fear that a young student who completes the JROTC program may be far more suitable to participate in government, and make many of the current Board of Education members look incompetent and unqualified in comparison?
is the comment below from quincy yu the very same quincy yu pictured in the tuesday chronicle as accepting the jrtoc petitions (turned in this past monday)on behalf of the department of elections who today told a caller that it was ok if people who were not eligible to vote collected signatures to qualify it for a ballot measure, "so long as an adult was with them"?...
how does one know?... i mean, OBVIOUSLY there would be an adult with them whenever someone signed, because the SIGNEE has to be an adult to be eligible to sign?...
but i repeat my question - is the quincy yu below who speaks so favorably on behalf of the jrotc program the same individual who is expected to play a part in determining the validity of the signatures turned in?...
well?... (and i guess i should add, "did the blogger, ms. grannan, know that when she published the comment - and does she plan on asking about the impartiality in that department?")...
I only know this because I happen to know Quincy Yu -- she and I served together on the PTSA board at Aptos Middle School -- but the Chronicle caption was in error in stating that she works for the Elections Department. I'd be flummoxed by that caption if I DIDN'T know her. I assume she accompanied the students delivering their petitions, because she helped organize that drive, and some overworked Chron editor got confused when he or she wrote the caption.
Mr. Brock Estes says:
"but as board president, sanchez is also obligated to avoid encumbering the district with cash draining lawsuits."
Wow. A pogrom of lawyers threatens a suit against SFUSD (and SFUSD alone, not the hundreds of other districts with JROTC programs) and the board flinches.
Next time I want to get my way on an issue, I'll merely get my lawyer friends to threaten a suit. Like Estes' friends did.
Cowardice!
my dear morgan,
i'm not sure why you believe that i have any "friends" who have threatened lawsuits (or enticed attorneys into doing same)...
for the record, i have never had any discussions with attorneys on this matter, nor any discussions with anyone on the SUBJECT of "encouraging lawsuits"...
i have never met with any of the attorneys in this group (don't know how many there even are) and i know almost nothing about the firm...
i DID hear the attorney for sfusd suggest that such a suit could be very costly, at the same time i heard private attorney douglas chan say that he didn't believe they would really file a suit (but pointedly NOT offer to defend the district pro bono, IF a suit was filed - and such an assurance might well have changed the outcome of the vote)...
lastly, lest you doubt the power of a lawsuit to alter district goals and planning, it was exactly a lawsuit against the district over (lack of) ada compliance that eventually caused the district to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (after losing)... in that suit, the district chose to fight - and lost (and had to pay hundreds of thousands of opposing attorney's fees at something like $500+ an hour)...
it's very clear that the military instructors have made no efforts to become credentialed (obviously, they COULD have) and that the program is not state sanctioned... why you would suggest that we should just "take a chance that we won't get sued" is really beyond me... unless you are one of the military instructors on whom we spend six figures each and every year...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!