News

What a Week: Who do you represent? PUSD ponders area-based elections

I have election on the brain this week.

No, not just because the costly statewide recall attempt failed by an embarrassing margin at the ballot box Tuesday.

Jeremy Walsh, editor.

The Pleasanton Unified School District has tapped the brakes to slow down its consideration of an in-house proposal to shift Board of Trustees elections from at-large to area-based.

Now, I'm going to commit what some might consider a cardinal sin in opinion-writing (though a tact that would help social discourse and progress if taken more often): I don't love this idea for PUSD, but I don't hate it either.

The debate -- and how authentic it is -- does very much intrigue me, however.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support PleasantonWeekly.com for as little as $5/month.

Join

You may remember this issue taking prominence in the Tri-Valley amid a wave of legal challenges up and down the I-680 corridor a couple of years ago to spur conversion to district-based elections for local agencies, most of which came in the form of threat letters on behalf of the Bay Area Voting Rights Initiative.

The argument via the California Voting Rights Act, which is all but futile to fight based on past court rulings, is that at-large elections can in some cases impair the ability of voters in protected classes (race, religion or language minority populations) to influence the outcome of an election. You may be more familiar with the term "racially polarized voting."

Area-based elections, because of how neighborhoods and communities can be clustered, create more fair contests is the conclusion.

Interestingly to me at the time, Pleasanton Unified -- and the Pleasanton City Council -- were among the few Tri-Valley agencies unchallenged back in 2018 and 2019.

Then this summer, the issue was introduced at PUSD seemingly out of the blue. And unlike nearby jurisdictions, this push was brought by the board itself without any public challenge as the impetus.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

It seemed like full steam ahead, a forgone conclusion, for PUSD until the board agreed on Sept. 9 to slow the process to allow time for more community input before adopting the resolution and to avoid making final boundary decisions during the winter holidays.

In PUSD's case, the change would mean that instead of a resident voting on two trustees district-wide one year and then all other three seats two years later, that resident would vote only for the single trustee in their geographic sub-area every four years.

Board President Joan Laursen was the trustee who first asked that the discussion come before the board, so I emailed her this week to talk about what inspired the timing of her unexpected request.

"Overall, we have seen a shift to by-trustee area elections in cities and school districts across the state and wanted to be proactive, rather than reactive, in our conversation and consideration of this change," Laursen told me, in part.

She said the fact she and Trustee Mark Miller aren't running for re-election in 2022 would help make the map-drawing simpler. Plus, the district is already working with a demographer on data for school boundary changes, and the new census data makes for great timing too.

"I believe that as our community demographics are changing, our representation should change to reflect that," Laursen added. "By-trustee area elections will lower the barrier to participate -- both in campaign financing terms and voter outreach, because you have a smaller campaign area -- and should help to increase our diversity."

I wonder if the fact PUSD has no trustees of color for the first time in at least 12 years, surprising for a city as diverse as Pleasanton, is playing a role in the timing too. Our local elected bodies are best when fairly reflective of the communities they represent.

What I see as missing from Laursen's comments, and PUSD's public debate thus far, is convincing evidence that the neighborhood layout of Pleasanton, geographically, demonstrates that defined protected classes are disadvantaged in election competition based on where they live compared to other residents.

Area-based elections make more sense to me for agencies with boundaries that span multiple cities (like Alameda County supervisors) or for cities with large populations of 500,000 to 1 million or more where neighborhood designs have segregated minority groups.

I'm unsure how productive it would be toward achieving those diversity goals to subdivide a city as relatively small-to-moderate as Pleasanton.

Change for change's sake can be good sometimes. Change to achieve diversity, on the other hand, is vital. But change in the name of diversity that is not backed by appropriate evidence and perspective is severely at risk of failing to accomplish those important goals, and therefore comes off as an inauthentic exercise.

I don't necessarily espouse the argument that such an election switch will automatically create more social division in a community. We do that well enough on our own these days, with how many of us tend to interact on an individual level (e.g., Town Square comments, anyone?).

The move does leave a governing body open to the strong possibility of in-fighting though, prioritizing their area's needs over the district's overall needs. That sort of silo decision-making can be very unproductive, and even detrimental.

If I were Pleasanton Unified, absent a legal challenge that would promise sure defeat, I would consider taking time to study how the other Tri-Valley agencies who recently made the switch are navigating the new waters before jumping into the deep end myself. The city of San Ramon seems pretty productive in its first year while Dublin Unified still isn't exactly the poster child for togetherness -- as just two examples.

Because this change very likely cannot be undone.

I wouldn't make the switch in PUSD given the facts currently in front of us, but I won't fret much if they do. Embracing evolution is essential.

I just hope that though they'll represent voting constituencies in their specific geographic area, the trustees understand that they should always make decisions in the best interests of all PUSD students and the district as a whole first and foremost.

I also hope you, the Pleasanton voter, pay close attention to this process and voice your opinion, whatever it is. Because these next few months could be just as important as the November 2022 election in determining who represents you.

Editor's note: Jeremy Walsh has been the editor of the Pleasanton Weekly since February 2017. His "What a Week" column runs on the first and third Fridays of the month.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Looking for more Livermore stories? The Livermore Vine will be your new source of vital news and information. Sign up to be among the first to get our daily local news headlines sent to your inbox for free.

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Get uninterrupted access to important local city government news. Become a member today.

What a Week: Who do you represent? PUSD ponders area-based elections

by / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 4:41 pm

I have election on the brain this week.

No, not just because the costly statewide recall attempt failed by an embarrassing margin at the ballot box Tuesday.

The Pleasanton Unified School District has tapped the brakes to slow down its consideration of an in-house proposal to shift Board of Trustees elections from at-large to area-based.

Now, I'm going to commit what some might consider a cardinal sin in opinion-writing (though a tact that would help social discourse and progress if taken more often): I don't love this idea for PUSD, but I don't hate it either.

The debate -- and how authentic it is -- does very much intrigue me, however.

You may remember this issue taking prominence in the Tri-Valley amid a wave of legal challenges up and down the I-680 corridor a couple of years ago to spur conversion to district-based elections for local agencies, most of which came in the form of threat letters on behalf of the Bay Area Voting Rights Initiative.

The argument via the California Voting Rights Act, which is all but futile to fight based on past court rulings, is that at-large elections can in some cases impair the ability of voters in protected classes (race, religion or language minority populations) to influence the outcome of an election. You may be more familiar with the term "racially polarized voting."

Area-based elections, because of how neighborhoods and communities can be clustered, create more fair contests is the conclusion.

Interestingly to me at the time, Pleasanton Unified -- and the Pleasanton City Council -- were among the few Tri-Valley agencies unchallenged back in 2018 and 2019.

Then this summer, the issue was introduced at PUSD seemingly out of the blue. And unlike nearby jurisdictions, this push was brought by the board itself without any public challenge as the impetus.

It seemed like full steam ahead, a forgone conclusion, for PUSD until the board agreed on Sept. 9 to slow the process to allow time for more community input before adopting the resolution and to avoid making final boundary decisions during the winter holidays.

In PUSD's case, the change would mean that instead of a resident voting on two trustees district-wide one year and then all other three seats two years later, that resident would vote only for the single trustee in their geographic sub-area every four years.

Board President Joan Laursen was the trustee who first asked that the discussion come before the board, so I emailed her this week to talk about what inspired the timing of her unexpected request.

"Overall, we have seen a shift to by-trustee area elections in cities and school districts across the state and wanted to be proactive, rather than reactive, in our conversation and consideration of this change," Laursen told me, in part.

She said the fact she and Trustee Mark Miller aren't running for re-election in 2022 would help make the map-drawing simpler. Plus, the district is already working with a demographer on data for school boundary changes, and the new census data makes for great timing too.

"I believe that as our community demographics are changing, our representation should change to reflect that," Laursen added. "By-trustee area elections will lower the barrier to participate -- both in campaign financing terms and voter outreach, because you have a smaller campaign area -- and should help to increase our diversity."

I wonder if the fact PUSD has no trustees of color for the first time in at least 12 years, surprising for a city as diverse as Pleasanton, is playing a role in the timing too. Our local elected bodies are best when fairly reflective of the communities they represent.

What I see as missing from Laursen's comments, and PUSD's public debate thus far, is convincing evidence that the neighborhood layout of Pleasanton, geographically, demonstrates that defined protected classes are disadvantaged in election competition based on where they live compared to other residents.

Area-based elections make more sense to me for agencies with boundaries that span multiple cities (like Alameda County supervisors) or for cities with large populations of 500,000 to 1 million or more where neighborhood designs have segregated minority groups.

I'm unsure how productive it would be toward achieving those diversity goals to subdivide a city as relatively small-to-moderate as Pleasanton.

Change for change's sake can be good sometimes. Change to achieve diversity, on the other hand, is vital. But change in the name of diversity that is not backed by appropriate evidence and perspective is severely at risk of failing to accomplish those important goals, and therefore comes off as an inauthentic exercise.

I don't necessarily espouse the argument that such an election switch will automatically create more social division in a community. We do that well enough on our own these days, with how many of us tend to interact on an individual level (e.g., Town Square comments, anyone?).

The move does leave a governing body open to the strong possibility of in-fighting though, prioritizing their area's needs over the district's overall needs. That sort of silo decision-making can be very unproductive, and even detrimental.

If I were Pleasanton Unified, absent a legal challenge that would promise sure defeat, I would consider taking time to study how the other Tri-Valley agencies who recently made the switch are navigating the new waters before jumping into the deep end myself. The city of San Ramon seems pretty productive in its first year while Dublin Unified still isn't exactly the poster child for togetherness -- as just two examples.

Because this change very likely cannot be undone.

I wouldn't make the switch in PUSD given the facts currently in front of us, but I won't fret much if they do. Embracing evolution is essential.

I just hope that though they'll represent voting constituencies in their specific geographic area, the trustees understand that they should always make decisions in the best interests of all PUSD students and the district as a whole first and foremost.

I also hope you, the Pleasanton voter, pay close attention to this process and voice your opinion, whatever it is. Because these next few months could be just as important as the November 2022 election in determining who represents you.

Editor's note: Jeremy Walsh has been the editor of the Pleasanton Weekly since February 2017. His "What a Week" column runs on the first and third Fridays of the month.

Comments

Michael Austin
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 16, 2021 at 9:21 pm
Michael Austin , Pleasanton Meadows
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2021 at 9:21 pm

Relationship between journalists and politicians - Media helping Media

Roles and responsibilities:
In democracies, the role of the journalist is supposed to be to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices.

The role of politicians is supposed to be to represent those who elected them, and to ensure that the concerns of the electorate are listened to, considered, and where appropriate, acted upon.

In such a political system, the journalist should act on behalf of the audience to ensure that politicians do their job.

The journalist should be exploring and covering the issues that most concern their readers and listeners.

In doing so they should include a diversity of voices and political opinions in order to offer the richest and most complete coverage possible.

If they achieve that, they are more likely to offer journalism that enhances understanding and encourages dialog and debate.


MichaelB
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 17, 2021 at 4:55 am
MichaelB, Pleasanton Meadows
Registered user
on Sep 17, 2021 at 4:55 am

"Roles and responsibilities:
In democracies, the role of the journalist is supposed to be to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices."

Not anymore. They make the (left wing) choice for you and/or withhold alternative viewpoints. Not inform to make educated choices.

Look no further than the 2008 elections where the same "journalists" bent over backwards to accuse practically anyone who criticized the far left background/voting record/paper thin resume' of then candidate Barack Obama as being "racist". Do you think that a conservative candidate with a Bill Ayers and/or Jeremiah Wright type association would not be called out/closely scrutinized for it by the media - and then subsequently forced out of the nomination process as "unsuitable"?

When was the last time you saw "journalists" scrutinize and/or question so called "progressive" politicians regarding their proposals to raise taxes, create new entitlements, get rid of fossil fuels, or impose additional gun control measures? Where are the media "fact checkers" and record keeping of the "number of lies" we had under the Trump Administration as it relates to what Biden is currently doing and/or saying?


Joe V
Registered user
Birdland
on Sep 17, 2021 at 10:07 am
Joe V, Birdland
Registered user
on Sep 17, 2021 at 10:07 am

The first two comments have no relevance to the subject on this story.

PUSD showed integrity in looking at this subject without any outside influence.
Would area based elections require a candidate to reside in the area? If it does, you could loose better qualified candidates.
We currently have a very good school system, many move to our city for that reason.
PUSD taking their time to study the impact of this change would is prudent.


Fifty Years Here
Registered user
Pleasanton Heights
on Sep 21, 2021 at 6:46 am
Fifty Years Here, Pleasanton Heights
Registered user
on Sep 21, 2021 at 6:46 am

Can the attention of the Board get any further away from the campuses and classrooms of Pleasanton? Area elections?


Kathleen Ruegsegger
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Sep 21, 2021 at 7:35 am
Kathleen Ruegsegger, Vintage Hills
Registered user
on Sep 21, 2021 at 7:35 am

“You may remember this issue taking prominence in the Tri-Valley amid a wave of legal challenges up and down the I-680 corridor a couple of years ago to spur conversion to district-based elections for local agencies, most of which came in the form of threat letters on behalf of the Bay Area Voting Rights Initiative.”

As Jeremy points out, this threat has not faced Pleasanton. But, it is possible more candidates would step up if they ran for a smaller area. It could make elections less costly. It could also make it possible for, let’s say the north or east parts of town, to lobby their representative about overcrowding and east side development. This is not an awful idea. We shall see where we end up.


Joe V
Registered user
Birdland
on Sep 21, 2021 at 3:51 pm
Joe V, Birdland
Registered user
on Sep 21, 2021 at 3:51 pm

Tuesday's City Council meeting shared with us how the city has to go to District Base elections, after being threatened with a lawsuit. Is that the reason for PUSD looking into the area representation change?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.