Following months of tense meetings, vitriol and campaigning, two board members of the Sunol Glen Unified School District voted to set the date for their own recall to be considered by voters.
Related Articles
Letters: Costly delays | Remedy service | Nonprofit utility
Wilders unable to form coalition to become Dutch leader
San Mateo County secures extra $4 million for farmworker housing, playground
Opponents of Newsom’s Prop. 1 mental health bond concede likely defeat
Trump wins delegates needed to become GOP’s presumptive nominee for third straight election
“I would like it to be as late as possible, but we can compromise,” said Ryan Jergensen, the president of the board, who is facing a recall along with fellow board member Linda Hurley. “So, I’m saying July 2 is the date.”
The looming recall hung over much of the board meeting. At the end of a presentation by a talent recruitment firm, Ted Romo – the lone member not facing a recall – asked how the firm would handle being hired by a board that may look radically different in six months. Both Jergensen and Hurley gave extended comments about how they were being unfairly targeted and victimized.
“Even if there is a majority, it is not right for a majority to step on a minority,” Jergensen said. “This recall has created a negative atmosphere.”
The strange situation, in which two members of the three-person board were tasked with determining when they would face an election that will determine their future role in the Sunol Glen education district, was months in the making.
Although the recall effort began in earnest after the school board banned the flying of the Pride flag on campus flagpoles, the rationale for removal by parents and other community members has now evolved to include bad policy-making and fractured trust.
According to Matthew Sylvester, a parent at the school and one of the recall organizers, the signature-gathering effort was a tedious but satisfying exercise of democracy. After knocking on hundreds of doors, he’s convinced the community recognizes the need to remove Hurley and Jergensen.
“This wasn’t an outsider-run recall campaign, it was made up of Sunolians and former school board members of Sunol Glen,” Sylvester said. “I believe Sunol will come out to vote.”
To initiate a recall, advocates were required to gather signatures from 30% of registered voters, which in the tiny town of Sunol is just 246. Ultimately the recall group obtained a little more than 300 signatures, and their petitions to recall Jergensen and Hurley were certified by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters on Feb. 28.
It fell to the Sunol Glen school board to set a date for the recall election, which will cost about $15,000. Because Jergensen and Hurley form the majority, they essentially could choose the date.
Although Jergensen expressed interest in the latest date possible in mid-July originally, the board ultimately decided to hold the recall election on July 2, a few weeks earlier. It is unclear if the proximity to the holiday could affect turnout.
In a press release, United for Sunol Glen, the group behind the recall effort, said the election was necessary due to the board’s “attempts to make policies motivated by personal agendas, refusal to take action against racism, and a lack of a fully transparent superintendent process.”