Belinda's Platform — Belinda Randolph For La Canada School Board

How can I learn more about Belinda Randolph and her platform.

Just press the "+" symbol on a topic that you want to read more about.

Now, just pick another topic to explore.

Remote Learning

the district is doing a great job in these challenging times of remote learning. Until we can return to the classroom, teachers will continue to develop tools that will enhance in-person learning as well.

The district is already doing a number of things right.

Every student has a device. The district has provided devices to the families that are unable to provide their own.
The district is actively working to improve internet connectivity on two fronts. It is providing hotspots to individual families in financial need. And, the district is actively working with the internet providers – Spectrum and AT&T – to improve the internet connectivity situation for the entire city.

Steps the district can put in place:

Embrace new methods of remote text based “class participation”. These were pre-pandemic skills that were undervalued … and they were also strengths of about one-third of the student body that is introverted. Embracing remote private text based class participation is an effective way to engage all students in class participation, and it can be utilized when student return to the classroom as well.
Embrace new methods of communicating assignments and schedules that are now necessary in the “remote learning” environment act to even the playing field for our LD students – and they serve to save time for the teachers themselves, as the written communication reduces the Q&A discussions, phone calls, and emails about missing assignments. These new methods will improve instructions in the post-pandemic world. This online communication approach is exactly what our students will be seeing when they start college, as college professors have been communicating this way for years.
Be more systematic in the approach to communication – the district needs to verify that communications are received. The pandemic has highlighted an area that needs improvement, and the district has stepped up to improve. The remote learning situation has put a spotlight on communication issues with our LD families, for example, it turns out that the district was sending emails to IEP families but were unaware that the families were not receiving those emails. As a result, the most vulnerable in our community were being left behind. (note: The pandemic has highlighted an area that needs improvement, and the district has stepped up to improve. District still needs to implement a pro-active verification process going forward).
Teachers should “flip the classroom” now that “live instruction” time is limited. The idea is that students watch a video lecture in advance of the live instruction time. The students arrive at class more prepared and the teacher can jump right into interaction with students, discussions on the lesson at hand, and helping students that have questions – thus a very efficient use of class time. And, it can be utilized post-pandemic as well.
Empower their students to utilize computers for their educational enrichment.
Bring our most vulnerable IEP students back to the classroom as soon as possible, as LA County Re-Opening protocols allow (relates to the 8/24/2020 Fair and Appropriate Education, FAPE, decision). The current proposal for Hybrid Schedule tool outlines how students can return to the classroom with supervision provided by supervised by paraprofessionals, substitute teachers, and administrators, while the teacher is delivers instruction remotely.
IEP plans will require updating. For example, IEP students that did not require any accommodations pre-pandemic do not necessarily have the technical skills to interact with their instructors and paraprofessionals at the same pace they did in person.

When our student return to the classroom, our teachers will have new tools in their tool box, and as a result, our students will benefit.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

the district needs a DEI consultant in order to create a productive learning environment for all students.

In May of 2018, a racist slur was written on a cup at our local Starbucks (https://www.lataco.com/this-week-in-starbucks-racism-the-case-of-the-beaner-cup-in-la-canada/). Whether it was a casual insult or a misunderstanding, it started an online conversation among parents in La Canada Flintridge – and opinions ranged from “our town is not racist” to “this person needs to be fired” and everything in between. While I participated in conversations on Facebook, I also had many private conversations as well. Within one month of the local Starbucks incident, a small group from La Canada organized and started meeting at our houses to talk about it.

I was one of the two white people in the group – and most certainly the one that knew the least about US history. At the time, I’m not sure I even realized how little I knew about both history and privilege. However, I knew something was wrong and that there had to be some changes in the future and I wanted to do something. Back then, our group goals were very small compared to what is going on now.

Then the Charlie Plowman article about the 2019 Basketball Slur happened – and talk renewed on the La Canada Flintridge Parents page – and our small discussion group added new members. And, then some serious activists convinced the LCUSD district that they needed some Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion assistance. I was present at the School Board meeting in May 2019, because I have been attending School Board meetings for about 10 years. I shared the proposed job description with my friends prior to that May meeting.

I have personally spoken to Christina Hale-Elliott on four different in-person occasions: School Board meeting on 9/10/2019, community organized workshop on 10/7/2019 at La Canada Presbyterian Church, district organized workshop 11/6/2019 at La Canada High School , and School Board meeting on 11/6/2019). I have exchanged more than a dozen emails with her, dating back to 9/11/2019. And, in one email, I shared with her specific Board Policy recommendations that would help to minimize unequal treatment of students.

I have started to read more history books – so that I could learn more about what I was hearing from Ms. Hale-Elliott and other members of our community. My three favorite reads over the past year are: "The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America" by Richard Rothstein, "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen, and "The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family" by Annette Gordon-Reed.

Back in early 2019, I was invited to an LCPC meeting to discuss the book Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson – so I read the book and attended. At the end of the meeting, we were all asked to come up with suggestions to combat racism in La Canada. Someone suggested that we get the teachers to assign the book. I know that teachers do not like to be told what to do, so I took a different approach. I counted the Language Arts teachers and Administrators at LCHS and I purchased about 25 copies of the book. I then delivered them to the high school in May 2019 with a very short note stating that “I enjoyed this book and thought you might also enjoy it.” One LCHS teacher did tell me that he had planned to cover a couple of chapters during the 2019-2020 year. This was a small victory.

I fully supported the district’s decision back in May 2019 to hire a DEI consultant and I feel strongly that our district still needs an outsider to continue to assess and educate our staff – and ultimately our students.

During my own on-campus experiences, I have regularly overheard racial and homophobic slurs. I asked my own children about this, and they had heard these words so frequently that they became normalized. When I pressed my children, they said that the adults ignore it and that “punishments” are not handed out consistently or fairly. The district has Board Policies against hate speech, but they are not enforced.

After an entire year of the DEI consultant studying the issue, there still has not been sufficient training for our district staff. Take the August 27th Back-To-School Night presentation for the 7/8 school. Despite the horrific events the same week in Kenosha, the LCHS 7/8 Principal chose to show a video showing imagery of a black man in jail clothes in a jail cell. Considering how infrequently black people are featured at LCHS, the principal's decision to feature this particular video showing a black man in this manner as an example of the 'growth mindset' was insensitive at best and oblivious at worst. We, as a community, need more help in combatting and recognizing the racism that is among us, and we have proven unable to improve the situation on our own. (see Outlook articles from 2017 basketball incident, and then the 2019 basketball incident to see that the district in unable to solve this type of issue on their own.)

There is work to be done. I recognize the need for DEI professional advice and I believe that one of the most important things we can do for students and the community is to prioritize Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. This is absolutely essential to a productive learning community for all of our students.

Board Policy on Suspension Needs to Change

Our Board policy on suspension is missing crucial language for parents and administators to work together to keep students on the right track.

In early September 2019, a friend of mine shared with me the story of her son getting suspended from a local non-LCUSD high school. The mother explained that her son was guilty of the accused infraction, and if that had been the whole story then the suspension was warranted. This mother later went to discuss the suspension with the administrator. This administrator told the mother that her son had been hanging with the wrong crowd. Her son's crowd was non-white, and a nice set of kids that regularly came to her home, and she knew her friends parents.

The Administrator went on to say that he had noticed her son, and had been "watching" him for more than a year, effectively waiting for him to make a serious mistake, so the Administrator could catch him.

After I heard this story, I did two things.

First, I looked up the relevavent suspension board policies at both LCUSD and at this local non-LCUSD district. I noticed that the administrator at the non-LCUSD school had clearly not followed his own district's board policy. The Board Policy that had not been followed was “A student’s parents/guardians shall be notified as soon as possible when there is an escalating pattern of misbehavior that could lead to on-campus or off-campus suspension.” Wow, if the Administrator had reached out to the parent a year earlier, the school and the parent could have partnered to help this student and his friends avoid future behaviors that led to his suspension. I shared this relevant Board Policy with the parent so she could advocate for her son.
I noticed that our LCUSD Board Policies were missing the very language that would have helped my friend's son. Later that same night 9/24/19, I sent Christina Hale Elliott my first of many emails. I shared with her two Board Policy revisions that were missing from the LCUSD Board Policy and that would help all students, and especially people-of-color who might be treated differently due to unconscious bias.

More recently, I read Christina Hale Elliott's report "Explanation of Recommendations" that she presented to the Board on 8/11/2020. In her report, she had specific recommendations that directly related to reviewing and fairly implementing Board Policies. When I read that portion of her report, it really is about having Board Policies consistently and fairly implemented, which was the exact situation that the other school district got wrong - despite already having the right Board Policy Language. I believe that at DEI consultant will help our administators avoid the mistakes made by my friends's non-LCUSD administrator.

Special Education

I strongly believe that our Special Education students should have equal access to quality education, and I have worked for that as well as their inclusion for the past decade.

Most of my advocacy for special education students has been in the form of making sure that proposed textbooks are accessible for this audience -- that they have versions or accommodations for those with reading, sight and/or hearing disabilities. I speak up on during each textbook adoption agenda item to confirm that there is an audio version of the textbook provided. I recently learned that district textbook adoption pilots do not attempt to pilot the materials with special education students in mind, and I will work to change that going forward. A few years ago, I realied that few parents were utilizing the official Special Education Local Plan Area, SELPA, group, so I started private discussions among some Special Education parents. This created a community and has resulted in some very significant outcomes. It was through this small community that the Special Education parents realized that they were not receiving emails - in particular, they never received the emails inviting them to their own Special Education Town Hall. Through this group, that technical issue was identified and resolved. The group discussions also have served as a support group of sorts -- and many in the group have made lasting friendships. I support the district crafting and submitting a waiver - such that a subset of special education students can return to the physical classroom. LA County recentlylost a ruling on Fair and Appropriate Education, FAPE, that resulted in the need for the waiver option to exist in the first place. While I support teacher safety, I overwhelmingly support the right for Special Education students to access education - and for many - what is currently provided is insufficient. The district needs to improve the situation for our most vulnerable students and families.

Instructor Feedback

I believe teacher quality matters and that parents should be informed as to how to file a complaint.

If a parent raises an issue with a school counselor or adminstrator, then the a school counselor or adminstrator should immediately hand the parent the complaint process. Over the years, I have worked to explain the teacher complaint process to parents. Most parents do not realize that verbal conversation or an email to a school Principal does not constitute a complaint. The teacher contract, article XX, outlines very specific rules about how to file a complaint, and it is a multi-step process that begins with a conversation with the teacher. There is also a way to file an anonymous complaint, but it is under more limited circumstances. “If the concern is a situation that affects the entire class and can be objectively documented or independently corroborated and is a violation of a Board Policy, the District's Administrative Regulations or agreed upon policies and procedures of the school site, then the principal can follow up on the concern without the teacher's permission and the parent or student expressing the concern may remain anonymous.” The complaint process is also described in detail in AR 1312.2. My feedback on AR 1312.2, led to the addition of the following text: "The immediate supervisor shall inform the complainant of the public complaint procedure by providing him/her with a copy of this administrative regulation during the informal complaint procedure." If elected, I will work hard to enforce that this portion of the complaint procedure is followed, so that it works for the students and parents.

Board Meeting Attendance

the district should work towards more public participation in board meetings. Before Zoom meetings, the audience was usually limited to the planned speakers, staff and one or two parents. I support efforts to increase stakeholder involvement.

At the beginning of every meeting, the public has always been allowed to make a public comment to the board on items not on the agenda - with a speaking time limit of 3 minutes. Due to Brown Act rules, the Board Members are only allowed to ask clarifying questions about these non-agendized public statements. The public is also allowed to make public comments on agendized items - and those comments/questions have typically been fielded after each Board member had a chance to complete asking their own questions and having their discussion. Until the last year, there was never a time limit imposed on these public comments on agendized items. The School Board recently added an agenda item to the 9/8/2020 meeting to address the details for public comments during Board meetings. Since the introduction of remote meetings via zoom, public comments have been more limited and subject to a word limit. Now, after 6 months, the district plans to discuss adopting Board apprpoved policy as to how and when the public can submit comments, and if there will be a word/time limit on their comments. In order to encourage Board attendance, I post the agenda items on Facebook pages prior to most School Board meetings.

Tests Go Home Policy

tests should be returned to students as much as possible. In the cases where it is necessary to the assessment process to not allow these tests to be taken home, board policies regarding test return waivers must be followed.

Back in 2002, when I lived in Northern California, I was tutoring a 7th grader in. Based on both the student and the parent’s description of the math class, I realized I needed to look at the actual graded tests to come up with a tutoring plan.

I was surprised to learn that this 7th grade math class teacher did not allow students to take home tests. At my request, the parent arranged with the math teacher for me to come to the classroom to look at her son’s tests. Seeing the tests clarified both the course expectations and the gaps in my client’s understanding.

When I was in 7th grade, digital cameras did not yet exist and copy machines in the home were extremely rare. As a result, there was little “sharing” of past tests to be used by current students; and teachers could re-use tests each year.

With new technology, the issue of cheating by studying from old tests became a realty. Teachers had to create multiple versions of the tests in order to get a reliable assessment of student abilities. Honor codes and district policies were modified to codify this type of cheating.

In La Canada, the district has a board policy on Student Assessment (6162.5) that covers this exact situation. And, this policy states that under most situations, teachers are expected to return tests to students (and allow the students to take home copies of their own graded tests). Under some situations, teachers are allowed not to return tests to students, but there are strict Board Policies that must be followed for these situations.

Exceptions can be granted for end-of-quarter and semester assessments and College Board provided practice AP test questions. The waiver process is very complicated and requires that the teacher demonstrate to the principal that 'releasing the test questions would limit the students' opportunities to practice how to respond in testing environments to information, prompts, and testing variables which they have never seen before.' (AR 6162.5)" Please note this waiver process must be followed for each individual test and requires at least two meetings between the teacher and the principal, as well as a written explanation by the teacher for why the waiver is required. Documentation of waivers granted for not returning tests is required to be kept in a log book for parents to review (after the test has been administered).

Does this matter? If the teacher goes over the test with the student in class, why is it necessary for the student to be able to take the test home? For the student that regularly earns top grades, it likely makes no difference at all. However, when the teacher returns a test with a large red C- or a score of 71% and then very visible red marks all over the test, it is demoralizing and embarrassing. Such a student might hide their tests from their peers and be so upset that they are not able to carefully listen as the teacher goes over each question on the test. Kids need to be in a comfortable mental state in order to benefit from a teacher’s review of the questions; and kids need to be able to see their own responses in order to learn from their own mistakes.

And, in some cases, a student may require extra help from a parent or tutor, but without a copy of a student’s tests, the parent or tutor may not be able to help. Also, the parent may have a full-time job, so the burden of visiting the school to see the test is high.

Before my oldest son started at LCHS, the waivers were being granted freely, without following the required steps. I understood that more than one teacher regularly submitted requests that covered all tests for the entire year – the Board policy makes it impossible for community members to verify such rumors. Parents are only allowed to see the waiver requests for the courses their student is enrolled in. When I had my chance to verify that the waiver process was being followed properly, it was in a brand-new binder, with brand-new dividers, which led me to believe that the log book had been created for my eyes.

At the beginning of the year, the teacher told the students that tests would not be taken home, but rather reviewed in class only (or by special appointment). As a result of my eyes, the teacher had to change the test return policy for the course. The course tests had two parts – and the teacher requested waivers for only Part 1, but had to begin returning Part 2 for the students to take home. A small win! (which I hope has persisted over the years so that many students in the course can benefit).

As a community member, the only test return waiver I saw was the one for a course my son was enrolled in. What I learned from reviewing this waiver was that the board policy had not been followed initially. I also learned that no district employee was verifying that this Board policy was being followed.

I did convince one current Board member to look at the other waivers (the ones that did not affect my student), but I do not believe that oversight continues.

I support a systematic monitoring process that does not rely on the complaint by one parent in order to ensure that the Board Policy is being followed.

Timely Feedback

tests, essays, and other assessments should be graded and returned in a timely manner to maximize the benefits to students. In the past I participated in clarifying the Board’s definition of “timely,” and continue to advocate that this policy is followed.

Part of the learning process is feedback from teachers. Tests and essays and projects are not simply graded, but they are also returned to students so that students can learn from their mistakes.

Research shows that immediate feedback is significantly more effective than delayed feedback. https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/1288

Board policy 6162.5 (http://www.gamutonline.net/district/lacanada/DisplayPolicy/375441/6) used to state that teachers need to return tests in a timely manner, but did not define “timely manner” at all. Without a clear definition of timely, tests and essays were not being returned – and learning opportunities were lost.

This issue of timely feedback became personal to me when my son’s teacher took 10 weeks to return an essay. It wasn’t a one-time thing. Most of the essays took at least 4-6 weeks for any feedback from the teacher. By the time the essay was returned, my student had moved on – and was not curious to re-read his long-forgotten words to understand the score on the test. Also, in the time that it took to return one essay, at least one more essay deadline had been reached. Thus, the students were turning in the next essay without the benefit of learning from the mistakes of the previous essay.

Other parents experienced similar delays for the return of tests as well, with a previous chapter test being returned only one day before the subsequent chapter test was given. In this situation, the teacher had sufficient time to grade the tests, but the student was not given sufficient time to learn from their mistakes, re-learn necessary skills they did not have on the previous chapter but that were also essential to success on the next chapter.

Why does this matter? The top students might not need tests or essays returned in a timely matter, but the struggling student absolutely needs it in order learn from their mistakes.

As a community member, I urged the Board to review this issue. And, I worked to improve the Board policy language in order to clearly define “timely.” The following sentence was added as a result of my efforts. “Specifically, teachers shall grade and review essays prior to collecting the next similar essay and shall grade and review tests prior to administering the next similar test in an instructional sequence or the next cumulative test in which the learning will be again measured.”

Since the addition of that sentence, I have still heard of cases where the Board Policy is not followed. I have worked to inform parents of the policy, so that they are better equipped to advocate for their children’s rights. I have also informed LCHS administrators, district administrators and Board members so that they can work on this issue.

I support a systematic monitoring process that does not rely on the complaint by one parent in order to ensure that the board policy is being followed.

Mid-Term Resignation

I believe that the district should have followed the California Education code when faced with the mid-term resignation of one of the five board members.

When Ellen Multari resigned from her School Board position on May 19, 2020, it looked as if the Board would follow California Education Code and it's own Board Policy. After 10 applicants (including myself) submitted a written application and participated in a zoom interview, the district then made a process error and in some people's opinion voted on an item not on the agenda when they chose to not select anyone to fill the open position.
I am all about following Board Policy. Many times in the past year, I have pointed out small issues with how a vote was conducted, and requested that the Board re-vote at the next Board meeting. In all the previous times I raised issues with Board process, I did not disagree with how the current Board members voted, rather whether the vote was legal.

This time, I disagreed with how the Board members voted.
I researched the LCUSD Board policy, the associated California Education code, and similar cases of Brown act violations. Another member of the public created a petition. And I created a video explaining the timeline and the legal issues involved.
In the end, the Board created a more clear agenda item and on June 30th, held a vote to fill the open seat. I fully supported the Board's decision on who they selected to fill the seat.

Community Outreach

The district should conduct surveys of all stakeholders – students, parents, teachers, and staff – and utilizing that data to make informed decisions to improve the quality of instruction..

Every year since 2012, the district has conduct a survey of students, teachers, and staff - and has used the survey data results in an intentional manner to improve student instruction.

Back in 2011, I spoke at a School Board meeting about the importance of hearing from all stakeholders, not just the squeaky wheels, in order to really understand how well things were working. To my knowledge, I was the first person to volunteer to be on the survey committee. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to serve on the Elementary Survey Committee. This committee drafted the first set of survey questions.
I was proud to get the homework question included on the survey. And, I believe that its inclusion and the student answers resulted in intentional changes to staffing the very next year.
I support the continued usage of the district wide survey, and I beleive it ss time to add questions that will provide understanding of how well remote instruction is working. I also believe that a new set of survey questions should be added to address the existing challenges of remote learning and the proposed new re-opening schedules..

Sagebrush

The Sagebrush neighborhood of La Canada should be part of LCUSD.

Right now, Sagebrush families are given priority to attend LCF schools ahead of the Allen Bill families and behind siblings of current students and children of district staff (see Administrative Regulation 5111). Limited by available spots, the district currently supports Sagebrush parents’ choice of schools for their students.
During the 3/20/2018 School Board agenda item of permit student admission (Discussion Regarding Updates and Revisions to Administrative Regulations 5111, 5111.1, 5111.12, and 5117.1 - Related to LCUSD as an Allen Bill District and its Inter-district Permit Guidelines and Practices, R110-17-18 ), I supported both the Sagebrush families and the Allen Bill families that did not work a full 40 hours per week. As a La Canada resident and homeowner, I support adjusting our school district borders to include all of our city residents. This fight has gone on far too long, and it should end. The schools are the basis of our city community, and leaving out about 900 homes or 10 percent of our residents leaves us unnecessarily divided. And while some 240 Sagebrush students are currently enrolled in LCUSD, their parents are unable to vote in the School Board elections.

Conflict of Interest with LCTA PAC

Due to a conflict of interest situation with an endorsement of a School Board candidate from a teacher that accepted a position as the Chair of the LCTA Political Action Committee to conduct interview, I withdrew from the interview process.

Prior to being appointed to a committee (LCTA PAC) to run the LCTA Candidate Interview and Endorsement process, a teacher in the district wrote a full pull-quote supporting one candidate. This endorsement was placed prominently on the candidate’s website. The LCTA PAC members was deliberately filled with teachers from each school site: PCY, PCR, LCE, 7/8, and 9-12 (twice). Then the teacher was appointed to the LCTA PAC as the Chair. The teacher should have resigned from the LCTA PAC before the group ever met, due to the Conflict of Interest. The LCTA PAC committee worked to develop a questionnaire that was ultimately sent to all four candidates – while the teacher with the conflict of interest was the Chair of the committee. (And the Chair may or may not have had a role in developing the interview questions themselves). At some point, the LCTA President advised the teacher to change her role to purely administrative and to remove all endorsements from public media – this was done quietly and away from the public view. In addition, the campaign staff of the endorsed candidate had to take actions to remove the endorsement from their website. The change in the role of the teacher on the LCTA PAC left one school site without representation on the committee. As it turned out, the three other candidates were aware of this, and I was not aware of it until Sunday 9/27 evening. All three other candidates knew that I withdrew due to this Conflict of Interest, and as I understand they all participated in the LCTA Interviews last night.

A teacher wrote a pull-quote endorsing one of the candidates. It read “As a community member and veteran teacher at [school name], I enthusiastically endorse [candidate] for the La Canada Governing Board. [candidate] has a vast knowledge of our district and has been actively involved on numerous committees over the years. What impresses me most is [pronoun] vision for the district, knowledge, experience, teacher perspective, positivity, and support for all stakeholders needing to be heard. Join me in voting for [candidate] this November!”
LCTA formed a Political Action Team (PAC) for the 2020 Candidates. This team would select interview questions, conduct the interview, vote on which candidates to recommend other teachers in LCTA to donate financially or donate their time in support of the recommended time.
One of the names selected to be on the LCTA PAC was the teacher that made the endorsement.
This teacher accepted the role on the LCTA PAC despite the very public prior endorsement. At this moment, the Conflict of Interest occurred.
On 9/16/2020, this teacher sent an email to announcing the interview the process and providing the four candidates with a written questionnaire to complete by 9/25/2020. This email was signed by the teacher, with the title of Political Action Committee Chair. It also listed the names of 5 additional committee member names. Next to each name, including the Committee Chair was the name of the school that they represent. The schools were: PCY, PCR, LCE, 7/8, 9-12, and 9-12. It appeared very intentional that each site was represented – with LCHS 9-12 represented twice. I had assumed that all six members, including the chair would be at the interview and would be voting on who LCTA would recommend – which is entirely consistent with having representation from every school site in the district.
Between 9/16 and 9/20, The LCTA President was informed that the Political Action Committee Chair had already endorsed a candidate. The LCTA President asked the Political Action Committee Chair to remove any endorsements that were out there (on candidate websites or other locations) and to proceed with the administrative work of setting up the interviews.
At some point, a campaign member of the endorsed candidate removed the actual endorsement from the candidate’s website.
On 9/20, the sent another email to the candidates. This email included the specify interview time (unique for each candidate) and the following statement “I will not be in the interviews (I am just collecting paperwork and setting up times for the committee).”
On 9/20/2020, upon my first reading of the email, I did not notice that if the LCTA PAC Chair was not participating in the interviews, that an entire school site would not be represented in the process. As it turned out, I was the only one of the four candidates that did not realize on 9/20/2020 that the LCTA PAC Chair had “withdrawn” from the original responsibilities.
On 9/25/2020, I spent a couple hours working on my LCTA Questionnaire.
On Sunday 9/27/2020, the LCTA PAC Chair sent a new email confirming the appointment times for the interviews (unique for each candidate) and provided 10 interview questions in advance of the interview (about 22 hours in advance of the first interview).
At 8:44 p.m. on Sunday, 9/28/2020 I was informed of most of the details above. I worked to confirm the above information that same night, and while the candidate confirmed a portion of the story, my specific question that I asked was never directly answered. The LCTA PAC Chair did not answer, but instead countered with a. “I am not sure why the question about my personal political beliefs. To clarify my role in the endorsement process for LCTA, it is limited to scheduling the interviews for all candidates. The teachers on the committee have never been through the process before so they needed set up. I will not have a role in the live interviews or endorsement selection process. I am not on Rep Council who votes for any recommendations.”
I respect everyone’s absolute right to endorse any candidate of their choice. However, once the endorsement has been made, in my mind, that disqualifies that person from belonging to a committee that states their intention is to have an open mind, interview candidates, and ultimately recommend one for the entire LCTA (all teachers in the district) to support as a block. I also respect LCTA’s right to endorse candidates, assuming they used a transparent process that is without conflict of interest.
The un-named person that informed me about the teacher endorsement in the first place told me that they had been talking to the two other candidates (that did not receive the quoted endorsement) at length. They both knew the salient points of the above timeline. And, the candidate also knew the salient points of the above timeline – which I know because I had a brief Facebook Messenger conversation with the candidate. So, all three candidates knew enough about the situation and all three chose to remain silent it all.
After a restless night’s sleep and further consultation, I made the decision to not participate in the LCTA process. I do not believe that the process was conducted without conflict of interest. I don’t not believe that the non-transparent corrective measures eliminated the conflict of interest. I also disagree with the lack of transparency about the change in the role of the LCTA PAC Chair – as opposed to a transparent statement of the events that occurred and the decision that were made. I made the decision to not participate in this flawed process. I posted my decision, without a full explanation, on my personal Facebook page. Then I waited.
I waited 30 hours after I confirmed that all three other candidates were aware of the details in the above timeline before publishing it on my Facebook page. I waited 20 hours after communicating with the LCTA President my wish that the LCTA publicize their version of events.

Conflict of Interest as it relates to Board Policy Revisions

In 2017, I pushed the School Board to revise Board Policy to prevent a perception of conflict of interest situation that had been raised by a member of the LCUSD community during a Board meeting in early June 2016.

I worked with the Board to convince them to create Administrative Regulation 4135, 4235, 4335 Soliciting and Selling.

Some of my volunteer activities

Here is some of my volunteer activities from the last 2 years:

Gifted a copy of “Just Mercy” to every LCHS English teacher, Counselor, and Administrator in May 2019
Participated in a “Racial Reconciliation & Justice Ministry book club on April 30th, 2019 (We read “Just Mercy” prior to meeting in person, and we discussed next steps during the in-person meeting)
Made 2 specific Board Policy Recommendations to Christina Hale Elliott on 9/24/2019 on the topic of School Suspensions
Attended DEI workshop at LCHS on Nov 5, 2019
Attended DEI workshop meeting at La Canada Presbyterian Church on 10/7/2019.
Administrator of a college Facebook page that deals with the Learning Differences Community. I started this page on June 6, 2017 and I am still both a member and an Administrator of this page.
Administrator of 1 other La Canada Facebook page that deals with the La Canada Learning Differences Community. I started this Facebook Page 10/11/2018 and I resigned as page Administrator on August 3, 2020. I resigned because I did not want to create the perception of a conflict of interest.
Girls Troop 502 (BSA), Assistant Scout Master
Face Shield 3-D printing, assembly and delivery to Atherton Baptist Homes and Twelve Oaks (more than 100 delivered)
Document scanner stand printing, assembly and delivery to IEP/504 students/tutors so that the material is as accessible as possible to IEP students. (5 delivered)
Reviewed Science book materials – before and after teacher piloting.
Attended and participated in most School Board meetings in past 10 years
Posted on La Canada High School Parents page and La Canada Flintridge Parent page about upcoming School Board meetings
Posted on La Canada High School Parents page and La Canada Flintridge Parent page about education issues – from math problems to college admissions process
Administrator of La Canada High School Facebook page from 2012 to August 3, 2020. I resigned because I did not want to create the perception of a conflict of interest.
Attended Back-to-School Night in 2018 and 2019 and helped direct parents to the classrooms
Volunteered at the Cal Men’s Gymnastics Benefit Fundraiser in Berkeley, CA from 1/11/2019 to 1/13/2019.
Volunteered at the USAG Region 1 Championship on April 7, 2019