COMMUNITY COMMENTARY -- Wendy Leece

In a few days, the Newport-Mesa Unified School District Board of

Trustees will select officers for the next year. Judy Franco, current

vice president, is queued up to be board president for the fourth time in

20 years.

I am a twice-elected trustee who received 24,704 votes in 1994, when I

defeated a longtime incumbent and another write-in candidate. In 1998, I

ran unopposed, a sign the community believed I was doing a good job. In

my seven years on the board, I have served as board clerk briefly. This

year, as I did last year, I have asked my colleagues to elect me board

president.

Each year at this time, I am hopeful my colleagues will allow me to

serve them and the community as president. The bylaws are silent about

any qualifications for president or other offices, although district

tradition is that each board member moves up the “chain of command” as

the offices and committee responsibilities are rotated. There have been

times when this tradition has not been followed, such as in 1995, when

the county went bankrupt. Judy Franco was elected president out of

sequence to serve during a difficult time.

The board president has a lot of clout: He or she communicates almost

daily with the superintendent and other administrators. The president is

able to have a whole year to work on his or her priorities. Usually those

priorities include some improvements in the trustee’s own zone. As a

district ambassador, the president is a position of influence and honor

in and out of the district.

In April 1998, I was named clerk when trustee Ed Decker resigned. I

was excited. I finally got “in line” to be president. However, at the end

of that year, at lunch in San Diego, where we discussed upcoming offices,

I was told I would not be vice president because I had not taken a

position to support the “idea” of a tax increase to repair our schools.

“We don’t know if you are going to support the bond,” someone said.

That was true, but at that time no one had determined the specifics about

the need and how much the bond might cost. A year and a half later, after

hours of study, I did support the bond and worked very hard like my

colleagues because it was a reasonable, conservative tax increase. I did

get criticism because it meant raising taxes, which I oppose. But I

supported it because there is ongoing community oversight permanently

written into the bond. We celebrated our hard-won victory together, but I

have continued to be excluded from any board office.

Last year, I sent a letter to the board and asked them to tell me why

I shouldn’t be board president or, at the very least, clerk. I wrote:

“You all say you value ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism.’ Yet in reality

you don’t. There is duplicity in your continued marginalization of me

because of my strong ‘different’ views. God help us if we all thought

alike on this board. You have to admit that I am sidelined, not because I

lack the qualifications, but I am sidelined because of disagreement over

my views.”

But it was too late; they had already made up their minds on the

officers for the next year. Franco said she wanted to be vice president

so she could be president in her last year on the board. Only David

Brooks and Jim Ferryman answered questions. It was a “trust” issue, they

both said. They were afraid of what I might do as president. But, as

president, you cannot do anything official without the agreement of a

majority of the board. Their argument against me is a straw man with no

factual basis. It is based only on fear of the unknown.

So why don’t my colleagues elect me into leadership? Why do they, year

after year, continue to marginalize me? Am I not qualified and capable?

Have I done something that disqualifies me? Have I behaved

inappropriately or embarrassed the district? Have I done something

illegal? Above all, doesn’t the Westside deserve to have its trustee as

board president?

Over the years, I have done my homework and often reach a different

conclusion from the rest of the board. I believe there are other, better

ways to improve public education than the one way presented to me by the

staff. If staff knows what is best, why do we need an elected board? But

my colleagues don’t like that. They say I am not a “team player.” I

create “conflict on the board and in the community.” In most cases, I do

vote in agreement with them, but not 100% of the time.

Often, I change my mind after reconsidering. I have consistently voted

for “back to basics” programs instead of progressive, touchy feely ideas.

I favor moral literature instead of R-rated books in classrooms,

abstinence education instead of safe sex (according to State Education

Code 51553), local control, parent rights and accountability to all

taxpayers. I have repeatedly called for more character education. I alone

supported Proposition 227. I visit schools, listen to parents and

teachers, and go to seminars. I don’t always attend the meetings put on

by the California School Board Assn.

But I am vice president of membership of the California School Board

Leadership Council, another organization of school board members that

studies public education issues and reform. I am exercising my freedom of

speech, my God-given liberty to disagree with the education establishment

that never saw a grant of taxpayer money it didn’t like. Often, grants

are based on faulty research or do not comply with state education codes.

It is taxpayer money. And if a program expands the role of government

into the home and family or infringes on free speech, then usually I will

oppose it.

I represent the voters and the best interests of all the children,

regardless of ethnicity. Parents are experts, too, and sometimes they are

right and the staff is wrong. I side with the parents most of the time.

As president, you run the meetings, but you still have your opinion and

vote, even if it is the minority.

My colleagues preach tolerance, but they don’t show it. They espouse

tolerance and equality, but when it comes to Wendy Leece being board

president, they are intolerant and prejudiced. It’s viewpoint

discrimination. But there are many people in the community who agree with

me. Last month, I had a parent call me who described herself as a

liberal. She said she’d vote for me anyway because I always stand up for

my beliefs. It is a gross injustice, especially to the Westside residents

and to the people who voted for me in 1994 and reelected me in 1998. It

is a purposeful disenfranchisement of Westside and conservative

representation.

The board will meet at 7 p.m. Tuesday for its annual organizational

meeting to elect a new president and other officers. There is time at the

beginning of the meeting for community input. I hope those who agree with

me attend the meeting.

Even those who disagree should come out. Healthy debate and expression

of different viewpoints are desperately needed in the district. Isn’t

that what the 1st Amendment and public education are all about?

The coming year, as with each day, promises to be filled with

challenges, difficulties and hardships. The governor is threatening to

slash the education budget by millions. Our schools are being repaired,

but there is still much work to be done to improve education in our

classrooms.

I am capable of leading the district as board president, and it is

time for me to be given the same support that I have given my colleagues

over the years. I have paid my dues. A board under my leadership as

president is nothing to fear.

* WENDY LEECE is a Westside resident and seven-year school trustee.