{"id":21197,"date":"2022-01-24T18:11:36","date_gmt":"2022-01-25T02:11:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=21197"},"modified":"2022-01-24T18:11:40","modified_gmt":"2022-01-25T02:11:40","slug":"endorsement-competence-matters-even-for-progressives-vote-yes-to-recall-lopez-collins-and-moliga","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2022\/01\/24\/endorsement-competence-matters-even-for-progressives-vote-yes-to-recall-lopez-collins-and-moliga\/","title":{"rendered":"Endorsement: Competence matters, even for progressives. Vote yes to recall L\u00f3pez, Collins and Moliga"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Chronicle Editorial Board<\/a> Jan. 23, 2022 Updated: Jan. 24, 2022 (SFChronicle.com)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
A Feb. 15 special election will decide the fate of three members of the San Francisco Board of Education.Chronicle illustration and Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The foul stench of the recall attempt against Gov. Gavin Newsom is still wafting in the air, and San Francisco voters are already being asked to go back to the ballot box to consider the premature ejection of three members of the city\u2019s Board of Education<\/a>: board President Gabriela L\u00f3pez, former Vice President Faauuga Moliga and former Vice President Alison Collins. All three face the guillotine despite being up for re-election in less than a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recall under current rules in California is a blunt, expensive<\/a> and easily manipulable tool. The Chronicle editorial board opposes its use in all but the most dire of circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That said, we also believe in changing local and state rules<\/a> to raise the threshold for recall qualification, not summarily rejecting each and every recall attempt on principle. In our opposition to the Newsom recall,<\/a> we wrote that \u201ccutting an elected term short based solely on the incumbent\u2019s performance makes sense only in the context of abject failure or unfitness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do L\u00f3pez, Moliga and Collins meet this criterion?Special Election Resources<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FAQ: Everything you need to know about the special election<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

S.F. election: The school board recall vote explained<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assembly candidates debate tenderloin, fentanyl crisis<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Endorsement: Vote yes on school board recall<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Latest news, updates and candidate profiles<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

They do. All three should be recalled. (In fact, most, if not all, of San Francisco\u2019s school board members arguably deserve recall if election rules would permit it. They don\u2019t.)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our rationale in arriving at this decision was not ideological. Nor was it punitive. Even Collins\u2019 inflammatory tweets,<\/a> though unquestionably offensive, were not sufficient grounds alone for recall, as she published them two years before her 2018 election \u2014 ample time for voters to consider them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our decision was solely based on the board\u2019s competence in shepherding the district and its students through the gravest of times during the pandemic. And it is on that measure that L\u00f3pez, Collins and Moliga have failed irredeemably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take, for instance, the decision of the three board members to vote in favor of reversing the longstanding merit-based admissions policy at Lowell High School. Reasonable minds can disagree over this choice \u2014 and we do not begrudge board members for taking a controversial but defensible stance. It is, arguably, in keeping with the platform of equity and inclusion<\/a> that all three campaigned on in 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But consider the execution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its rush to make the change, the board not only outraged parents, who felt blindsided by a lack of outreach, it broke the law.<\/a> Its decision was reversed in court because board members didn\u2019t bother to follow the Brown Act \u2014 the most basic California transparency law \u2014 when implementing the policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This botched handling of Lowell admissions might actually be the high-water mark for a board that has consistently failed to rise to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much has been made about L\u00f3pez, Collins and Moliga\u2019s misplaced priorities in pursuing the renaming of 44 schools at a time when the district had yet to reopen from COVID closures. We certainly agree with that criticism.<\/a> But the board\u2019s renaming plan was more than a distraction; it was so poorly executed that it made a mockery of the broader push for historical reckoning<\/a> in the United States at a time of unprecedented receptivity to change. Board members bulled forward with a renaming proposal so farcical<\/a> and riddled with historical inaccuracies that it alienated instead of educated, and invited national ridicule.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competence matters. That\u2019s as true for those pursuing a progressive agenda as it as for anyone else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without question, however, all three board members\u2019 most grievous sins surround school reopening and mishandling the budget. Board members, particularly Collins, fought against the creation of in-person learning hubs<\/a> at a time when schools were still closed and a student mental health crisis<\/a> was snowballing out of control. All three recall candidates refused to grant Superintendent Vince Matthews\u2019 request to hire a consultant to help expedite reopening, with Collins grandstanding<\/a> for the cameras while doing so. Then there was the broader alienation of Matthews, who runs the district but serves at the board\u2019s discretion. If members disapproved of the job Matthews was doing, they could have found another superintendent whose views more closely aligned with their vision. Instead, they undermined Matthews\u2019 work, wasted staff time and money, and set back reopening, student recovery and COVID preparedness<\/a> in the process. After using Matthews as a political football, they then begged him to return<\/a> when he threatened to leave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students suffered immensely from these decisions, particularly students of color. The very educational equity gaps that all three board members were elected by their constituents to overcome have grown markedly worse<\/a> as a result of their actions. And what would have happened had Collins\u2019 $87 million lawsuit<\/a> against her colleagues proved victorious? How would funneling funds meant for kids into her bank account have helped ease racial disparities in education?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Out of the three board members, the case for recall against Moliga is the thinnest. He was not the outwardly disruptive force that Collins and L\u00f3pez were. But he did help cut their ill-advised path at most turns, voting in favor of almost every ill-fated decision the board made. San Francisco needs school board members who can lead us through a pandemic, not follow their colleagues down each and every dead-end trail they stumble upon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The stakes are too high for continued failure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most urgently, there is a need to find a replacement for Matthews, who will step away from the job on June 30, not-so-subtly hinting<\/a> at his unwillingness to continue working with this board. His replacement will be selected by board members and will be responsible for bringing the district back up to speed after years of missteps. We have no faith in the ability of these members to recruit a replacement who is up to this challenge \u2014 or to work suitably with one even if they should find that person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be clear, recall is no panacea for the challenges our schools face. But nine months until the next election is an eternity in the learning lives of students who have been chronically disadvantaged by this board\u2019s performance. San Francisco\u2019s kids shouldn\u2019t have to wait any longer for a chance to get on track.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The editorial positions of The Chronicle, including election recommendations, represent the consensus of the editorial board, consisting of the publisher, the editorial page editor and staff members of the opinion pages. Its judgments are made independent of the news operation, which covers the news without consideration of our editorial positions.VIEW COMMENTSTop of the News<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"newspaper's<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"HEARST<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u00a92022 Hearst<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Chronicle Editorial Board Jan. 23, 2022 Updated: Jan. 24, 2022 (SFChronicle.com) The foul stench of the recall attempt against Gov. Gavin Newsom is still wafting in the air, and San Francisco voters are already being asked to go back to the ballot box to consider the premature ejection of three… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21197"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21197"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21197\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21198,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21197\/revisions\/21198"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21197"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21197"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21197"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}