At the March 26 School Board meeting, I spoke out on parents and students fearing retaliation by the school district for challenging School Board policy. To the board member who asked, “Who is this guy Christopher Kling anyway?” My answer is: resident, taxpayer, voter.
Board member Vickers officiously quizzed board member Perry on the political pedigree of constituents who told Perry they were disturbed by the video and audio blackout at a December 2018 meeting. That was when the board suspended its own legally binding bylaw on rotation of officers and denied Perry her turn. When Perry reported she was investigating the blackout at the Jan. 15 meeting, Vickers demanded demographics as if some constituents matter more than others.
The superintendent held up his hand and scolded Perry, aggressively asserting “You have no right” to investigate the blackout. Wrong, pal. Not only does Perry have the right, but fact-finding on lack of transparency is her duty.
The superintendent also bungled defense of his failure to contact the recording system vendor when video podcast live streaming went down. He claimed he “thought” the system was recording even if not live streaming, but having the live streaming crash the day of a meeting at which a new board chair would be elected was the very reason Perry called the vendor herself.
But the system was not recording video or audio. Thus, suspicion about the blackout on December due to “technical glitch” increased when the superintendent and Vickers posted the agenda for the meeting on Jan. 22, announcing: “This is a board governance meeting and will not be live streamed or recorded.”
The immediate public reaction and objection from Perry so rattled the superintendent and Vickers that a revised agenda was posted. It reversed the previous order and confirmed, “All open board meetings will be live streamed and recorded.”
Now live streaming is suspended again on false pretenses, and board member Vickers has referred to criticism of the blackouts and other bizarre secrecy tactics as “attacks” against the board. Since when is disagreement an “attack” instead of democracy in action?
Finally, since Vickers was not elected chairperson (according to her own past interpretation of the rotation bylaw) and since the board repealed the bylaw after illegitimately installing Vickers as president, shouldn’t the board hold a new election under the new bylaw to restore lawful civic order to the board?
Christopher Kling, Laguna Beach
