A Breakdown of the Choices before Martinez Unified School District Voters

Here's what to know if you're a MUSD voter about the Measure K bond proposal and the one school board race on the ballot

For this post, I’m taking a break from the mayor’s and City Council races to delve into what lies before voters in the Martinez Unified School District. But first some background and context (if you don’t want the background, skip ahead to the Measure K and Area 3 school board headings).

Some voters may assume that if they’re voting for the mayoral and City Council races, they’re also voting on MUSD ballot questions. But that is not necessarily the case.

For one, MUSD does not encompass the entire city of Martinez; a large swath of the city south of Highway 4 lies within the boundaries of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District (don’t ask me why; trying to figure out how and why school district boundary lines were drawn the way they are would take more time than reading “War and Peace”). For another, MUSD boundaries also encompass some unincorporated areas of town outside the city limits. So depending where you live, you might be voting for city candidates and ballot measures but not ones involving the school district, or vice versa.

If you do live within school district boundaries, you’ll have an opportunity vote on a bond measure (Measure K) to continue the district’s school rebuilding/renovation efforts. And if you live in one of the district’s five trustee areas (Area 3), you’ll have a choice for school board between Yazmin Llamas and Marcy LeBoeuf to fill the seat currently occupied by longtime incumbent Deidre Siguenza, who chose not to run for re-election. Not sure if you live in Area 3? Here’s the map of the area. You’ll also know by checking your ballot (if there’s no race listed, you don’t live in that area).

You might wonder why only one of the district’s five school board seats will be decided by voters on Nov. 8. There could have been as many as three races, but in the other two trustee areas where current board terms are expiring (1 and 5), only one candidate filed to run, eliminating the need for an election. Incumbent Carlos Melendez, who was appointed to a vacant seat last year in a process than can only be described as a fiasco (more on that later), will retain his seat for the next four years. And Tania Brugger will replace Jeremie Ginelli in Area 5 after Ginelli decided not to file for re-election.

Before I get into the merits of the bond measure and candidates for school board Area 3, it’s worth noting the turmoil in board politics the past few years and the revolving door of board members and superintendents.

In the 2018 election, Siguenza and fellow incumbent Bobbi Horack both filed for re-election. Siguenza defeated me in the Area 3 race and no one filed to run against Horack. A few months after Horack was seated for a new term, she announced that she would be resigning from the board because she had chosen to move to a new home outside her trustee area that was more compatible with her health issues (a one-story instead of a two-story, as I recall). Ginelli was appointed to fill her vacancy.

Then, in 2020, Ginelli won election to serve out the remainder of Horack’s term, incumbent Jonathan Wright was re-elected to another four-year term, and Anne Horack Martin (Bobbi Horack’s daughter) defeated longtime incumbent Kathi McLaughlin. John Fuller, another longtime incumbent, chose not to run for re-election, and Courtney Masella-O’Brien was elected to his seat.

As the school board headed into 2021 during the height of the pandemic and school closures, Siguenza and Wright were the only two-holdovers on the board from two years earlier. But then Wright, much as Horack had done two years earlier, announced he was resigning from the board for personal reasons less than a year into his new term. This left the remaining trustees with the responsibility to fill a vacant seat for the second time in two years. The craziness was just getting started.

One of the candidates who filed to fill Wright’s seat was none other than Bobbi Horack, who now lived in his trustee area. Beyond the oddity of having a board member who abruptly resigned her seat two years earlier now apply to get back on the board, the four trustees were tasked with deciding whether it should have two members of the same family on the board (raising obvious ethical questions owing to the fact that elected board members are supposed to be independent of one another and prepared to hold one another accountable for carrying out the public interest in their decisions).

During the board interview of applicants to fill Wright’s season, Anne Horack Martin recused herself from the vote because her mother was among the candidates. That left only Siguenza, Ginelli and Masella-O’Brien to make the choice. After interviewing the candidates, the three cast their votes, with Bobbi Horack being the choice of Siguenza and Ginelli (the person who had replaced her two years earlier). Bobbi Horack was declared the winner and seemingly back on the board she had left two years earlier.

Not so fast. The fact that only Siguenza and Ginelli had favored Horack meant that there was not the required majority three-person vote of the entire board to appoint her to the vacancy. A threat of legal action ensued, and the appointment was quickly rescinded when it became clear that it had violated the law. The board was then forced to call a special meeting (keep in mind this chaos was all happening amid the chaos of the pandemic’s shutdown of schools) to choose another candidate for the opening.

At a surreal special meeting called on a Friday afternoon, Siguenza and Ginelli refused to accept Masella-O’Brien’s nominee for the position; then Masella-O’Brien refused to accept their preferred choice. Finally, Melendez (who had run and lost against Wright in the 2020 election) was the last candidate standing, and the board’s only choice was to appoint him or call a special election for voters. Siguenza, Ginelli and Masella-O’Brien appointed Melendez, ending the week-long circus (Horack-Martin continued to recuse herself even after her mother was no longer a candidate).

But the turbulence was still far from over. Tasked with managing the board vacancy fiasco was the district’s new superintendent, Julie Synyard, who had taken over for CJ Cammack after he left shortly before the start of the 2020-2021 school year to take the top job for the Fremont Unified School District. What impact, if any, this crazy situation had on Synyard’s job is unknown to me, but her tenure in the district was short-lived. She abruptly announced her resignation in February of this year. The current superintendent is longtime district administrator Helen Rossi, who was Cammack’s deputy and briefly interim superintendent before the hiring of Synyard.

Whether any of this past turmoil matters to voters as they make their decision on the board measure and the one contested seat is ultimately up to them. But I think it’s worth knowing, nonetheless, because board members should be expected to earn the trust of voters and do all they can to provide stability and steadiness to the operations of the district, especially now given the huge challenges facing our education system in the aftermath of the pandemic. Whatever comes of this election, MUSD desperately needs a competent, steady board that acts in the public’s best interests, with trustees who will rise above political agendas and individual alliances to put the interests of students and taxpayers first.

Now on to Measure K and the Trustee Area 3 race.

Measure K

Every voter who lives within the boundaries of the Martinez Unified School District will have the opportunity to vote on this bond measure, which the district says in its ballot language will “modernize and construct classrooms, restrooms, and school facilities; make health, safety, and security improvements; and upgrade infrastructure and systems for energy efficiency.” Detailed information about the measure and what property owners would pay to finance it is available at votersedge.org (much more detailed, I might say, than the mailer I received that discusses all the wonderful things it will do but never talks about how much it will actually cost taxpayers, or that it is even a tax!). A 55% majority vote is required for passage. The East Bay Times editorial board is recommending that voters reject this measure along with a slew of similar ones by other school districts.

The estimated tax rate to fund the purchase of bonds detailed in the measure is $39 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. That means if you own a home assessed at $500,000 (check your property tax bill), the measure will cost you around $200 per year.

One thing that voters can easily overlook, however, (and which supporters of the measure won’t point out), is that district property owners are already paying for two other MUSD bond measures, one passed in 2010 (at a rate of $47 per $100,000 in assessed valuation) and 2016 (at a rate of $47.50 per $100,000 in assessed valuation). Property tax bills recently arrived in mailboxes, so if you are a property owner within MUSD boundaries, you can see exactly for yourself how much you are currently paying for those two bonds (in my case, it’s $509.26). If Measure K passes, my total bill for MUSD bonds next year (assuming my home’s assessed valuation were to remain the same) would be roughly $720.

Bond measures are the primary means school districts use to raise the funds to rebuild and renovate dilapidated or outdated facilities, so there’s nothing unique in and of itself for voters to see a measure like this on their ballot and for property owners to see such taxes on their property tax bills. The question for voters becomes when they are truly necessary and when they veer into placing an undue burden on taxpayers (there was an infamous case in the West Contra Costa Unified School District a few years back where its bond program spiraled into disarray with allegations of waste and fraud after district voters had approved one measure after another after another). I haven’t seen, nor do I have any reason to believe, that there have been any instances of waste or improper management of MUSD’s current bond measures (and there is a bond oversight committee tasked with making sure the money is spent responsibly).

A Measure K mailer that explains everything voters need to know except how much it will actually cost them, or even that it’s a property tax.

Then again, some voters might want to consider the chaos that has engulfed the board in recent years (as explained above) and whether this board has earned their trust for yet another school tax. Another consideration voters might want to weigh is the timing of a new bond measure, given the current 40-year-high inflation rate and prospect of higher interest rates that will be required to pay off these bonds.

We all want to provide our students the best facilities possible, but I think most education observers would agree that building up the emotional and social infrastructure of our students that has been so frayed by the pandemic is probably the most important thing we can do for them right now (to the district’s credit, it has appointed a student wellness coordinator to focus on just that). Personally, I would be more enthusiastic about supporting a tax to hire more mental and behavioral health counselors, provide more supports to disabled students, or open a school health center, perhaps modeled after the great one at El Cerrito High School.

Ultimately, this is a judgement call for voters about whether more should be asked right now of property taxpayers in the district than is already the case; whatever they decide, it certainly would be nice if supporters of tax measures such as K were more transparent in explaining to voters exactly how much it will cost property taxpayers on top of how much they’re already paying.

Now, on to the race for the Trustee Area 3 seat.

MUSD SCHOOL BOARD

Trustee Area 3

Marcy LeBoeuf

LeBoeuf, the longtime cheer adviser at Alhambra High School, plays up her Martinez roots in running to replace outgoing incumbent Deidre Siguenza (who endorsed her). She graduated from John Swett Elementary, Martinez Junior High and Alhambra and notes that her own children are Alhambra graduates and grandchildren are now attending Martinez schools. “I have witnessed the changes and transitions our district navigates and feel strongly that our community needs to actively participate as we raise the next generation,” she says in her official ballot statement.

She vows to support parents “as they navigate this new digital-age and help to graduate independent capable adults.” She also says, “Mentoring this generation means that sometimes they need consequences — now, before they have life-altering repercussions.” I don’t know about you, but talking about the need for unspecified “consequences” (she doesn’t indicate for what?) strikes me as odd given the significant emotional, mental and other challenges facing youths in the aftermath of the pandemic and school closures (the teen mental health crisis has been much discussed nationally). Much of the focus in education right now seems to be on how to support and empathize with students who have suffered greatly over the past two years, not on the need to properly discipline them.

She also states, “All students deserve to be safe while in school.” I’m not sure how she defines school safety, but this is a good place to note that LeBoeuf was a regular campaign contributor ($325 total by my count) throughout 2020 and early 2021 to WinRed, Donald Trump’s primary fundraising platform. Those campaign contributions furthered a political agenda that is in lockstep with the NRA and gun lobby in fiercely resisting any efforts to pass new gun safety laws such as universal background checks or limits on the types of high-capacity military-style rifles used in school massacres such as Sandy Hook, Uvalde and Parkland (which prompted school walkouts from students across the nation, including at Alhambra High, demanding action to address the epidemic of school shootings).

There is no mention in her statement about her feelings about the school district’s racial equity efforts in the wake of the Black Lives Matters protests of 2020 (in which incidents of racism on the Alhambra campus, such as offensive sports team dress-up days themed after rappers and cholas, among others, were brought to light). But it also is worth noting that her Trump/MAGA campaign contributions supported a political movement that vilified the Black Lives Mattes movement and has been openly hostile to efforts to teach more completely the nation’s racial history and its legacy, falsely alleging that what is often referred to as “critical race theory” is taught in K-12 public schools and that its purpose is to make White students feel guilt for the nation’s history of racism. It is also odd that the Martinez Education Association (which strongly supported Black Lives Matters and the district’s anti-racism efforts) has chosen to endorse LeBoeuf, and stick with that endorsement despite the campaign contributions revelation, given that her contributions also furthered a platform that largely blamed teachers unions (and their Democratic Party allies) for the length of school closures during the pandemic. My hunch is that the MEA endorsement committee failed to do its “homework” and knew nothing about LeBoeuf’s support for the Trump/MAGA movement when it chose to back her; either that, or it’s one of the few teachers unions in America that would knowingly endorse a supporter of a movement known for its hostility to teachers unions.

Ultimately, voters need to determine for themselves whether the broader political views of a candidate for school board reflects their own values and should be considered in voting for a non-partisan elective office, something I addressed in this recent post. There are plenty of candidates running for elective office who have contributed to Democratic Party campaign efforts, and voters also are free to consider whether those candidates’ views align with their own. However, there is a significant difference that should be noted. No money that was contributed to Democratic Party campaigns in 2020 and 2021 (or any other national campaign in American history) went toward a movement that sought to overthrow a free and fair election. What I’m saying here may strike some as veering too far into opinion, but I honestly believe that it’s more a statement of fact than opinion that history will show (and has already shown) that the Trump/MAGA movement was built on a degree of hate and lies unparalleled in modern political history, or perhaps all of American history. The Washington Post documented 30,573 false or misleading statements by Trump in his four years in office; and then there are the comments he made well before 2020 that insulted the disabled; insulted immigrants and refugees; and defended white supremacist protesters as “very fine people.”

A screenshot of campaign contributions from Marcy LeBoeuf made to WinRed, Donald Trump’s primary fundraising platform, including two donations recorded two days after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Source: Federal Elections Commission

Perhaps most troubling of all, LeBouef’s final two WinRed contributions were made on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the candidate and movement she supported incited an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol over lies that the 2020 election had been stolen. (Given her statement about “consequences” for Martinez students who presumably misbehave in unspecified ways, one wonders where LeBoeuf stands on the need for consequences for the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, the man who incited them, and even donors like herself who funded the flood of lies that led to it.) Education is largely about teaching students to think critically, discern truth from lies, understand and respect the principles of democracy and our Constitution, and treat others with understanding and respect. And it seems reasonable to expect our school board leaders to model those virtues, not fund efforts that trample on them, before turning around and talking about “consequences” for others.

Yazmin Llamas

The other candidate for the Area 3 seat is Yazmin Llamas, who ran for mayor in 2018 against longtime incumbent Rob Schroder, winning 36% of the vote. A mortgage loan administrator with a master’s degree in public administration from UC Berkeley, Llamas is a district parent. “The residents of Martinez have been good to me,” she says in her ballot statement, “and I want to continue to give back and serve the community in a larger capacity.”

As far as priorities, she cites advancing academic achievement for all children; addressing safety at school sites; promoting parent and community engagement; and encouraging transparency and accountability. She specifically mentions advocating for technical/vocational programs, smaller class sizes and diverse electives, and says she will “fight to remove educational barriers and close the achievement gap.” In her candidate submission to VotersEdge.org, Llamas says she will also “push to attain increased funding to be able to provide mental health services in our schools.” (Note: LeBoeuf has not provided information to Voters Edge as of this writing).

Llamas became active in school board politics in April 2019 when she played a significant role in rallying parents to pressure the school board to address a bullying problem at Martinez Junior High School (full disclosure, I worked with Llamas on this effort through the school safety Facebook group I had created; we’ve also had significant disagreements on issues over the years, as I’m sure she would freely acknowledge). Llamas was among scores of parents who attended a packed school board meeting and shared stories (many in emotional detail) about the bullying, harassment and assaults their children had suffered. KRON Channel 4 did a segment on the meeting that can be viewed here. Following the meeting, then-Superintendent CJ Cammack acknowledged publicly that there was a bullying problem at the school that needed to be addressed, and the school board soon thereafter implemented an action plan to deal with it.

Since I took some time to address LeBoeuf’s campaign contributions to the MAGA political machine, it’s only fair that I do the same for Llamas’ donor activity. I found 12 contributions (all but one in 2016) totaling $635.37 from Llamas to liberal/Democratic Party campaigns, including ActBlue (the Democratic Party’s version of WinRed) and Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Just as voters have every right to weigh LeBoeuf’s campaign contributions in deciding whether she reflects their political beliefs and values, they can do the same with Llamas. And while there is an understandable desire to try to keep the larger political polarization in our nation removed from elected school board positions to the extent possible, the fact of the matter is that the vast political differences separating the two parties right now extend to multiple issues directly affecting the safety and education of our children, from gun policies to teaching about race and gender/LGBTQ+ issues, to COVID-mitigation strategies to the influence of teachers unions on school operations. In fact, MAGA forces have made clear across the country over the past year their desire to target school board races to push their cultural agendas around race, LGBTQ+ and other hotly contested issues. I believe these things are relevant.

Screenshot of campaign contributions from Yazmin Llamas from the Federal Elections Commission website.

Finally, for those who might think my observations about this race and LeBoeuf’s Trump-related campaign contributions are a sign of my own political bias, I would just like to make the following point. I genuinely believe that both political parties in our nation, and the liberal and conservative political ideologies more broadly, have failed our children in many ways over the years as it pertains to education, and have routinely put special interest agendas and political alliances ahead of the interests of students. In fact, after my own run for school board in 2018, I wrote the following op-ed in the East Bay Times that was critical of what I observed from the local Democratic Party in terms of school district politics. The headline speaks for itself: “Democratic Party put labor’s interests before kids.”

Like many Americans of all political stripes these days, I just think there’s a fundamental difference between holding strong political views about important, divisive issues, and respecting basic truths and norms of politics and governance. It used to be that whatever our ideological differences or political allegiances, respecting democracy and acting with decency in public life weren’t subjects of partisan warfare; it was an American value that we all shared, and something our children could take pride in as part of what makes our nation great. It is sad that is not presently the case. Maybe some day, we can show and teach our children that it is true again.

Note: After a lengthy wait, I received a trove of campaign finance filings in the mayor’s and City Council races this week. I’ll try to sort through them over the next few days and put up a post about what I discovered over the weekend. Thanks as always for reading and your support of this newsletter.