Clover Park School District announcement.
Aug. 8 Regular Meeting
During its Aug. 8 board meeting, the Clover Park School District (CPSD) Board of Directors heard a report from Superintendent Ron Banner.
Superintendent’s Report
In his report, Banner introduced the new assistant superintendent for secondary schools, Dr. Gloria Henderson, and discussed student achievement and community engagement.
Student Achievement
- Summer school sessions concluded on Aug. 5.
- Clover Park High School (CPHS) hosted its Leaders of Change presentation on Aug. 4. Leaders of Change is a partnership between CPHS staff and Communities in Schools of Lakewood.
- Students took part in a summer of building community, analyzing needs for change and planning for the implementation of strategies to support the climate at CPHS.
- Transition activities for middle and high school students began the week of Aug. 8.
Community Engagement
- Banner attended city of Lakewood’s SummerFEST, the National Night Out event at American Lake Park and the Lakewood Multicultural Coalition board meeting.
- Banner noted that three events were being held on Aug. 13: Caring for Kids Ready to Learn Fair, JBLM Beach Bash and the city of Lakewood’s Jazz Festival.
As part of the Individual Action Agenda, the Board of Directors:
- Authorized superintendent to enter into consultant agreement with Helping Hands to provide special education services for 2022-23 school year.
- Authorized superintendent to enter into consultant agreement with Pioneer Healthcare to provide special education services for 2022-23 school year.
- Accepted grant from Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to support the district and Clover Park High School’s efforts to change and replace its mascot.
- Approved project and budget increase for the Lochburn Middle School restroom improvement project.
- Approved contract award to Thompson Electrical Contractors for Clover Park High School high voltage service revision and feeder repair.
Aug. 22 Regular Meeting/Workshop
The school board held a regular meeting/workshop on Aug. 22. It heard a report on redistricting and discussed school board reports during the 2022-23 school year.
Director Redistricting
Executive Director for Capital Projects and Risk Management John Boatman provided a report on redistricting options for school director districts and timelines for adoption. Due to 2020 census data and the district’s recent transfer of territory from Bethel School District, CPSD must update its director districts to comply with state law (outlined in RCW 28A.343.040 and RCW 29A.76.010).
The report included a presentation by Parker Howell from the law firm Porter Foster Rorick LLP. He discussed legal requirements, criteria for determining districts and a timeline for adopting updated director districts. The initial timeline includes public comment in September and sets the Oct. 10 board meeting as the date to adopt the final plan.
Chris Melendez from Davis Demographics presented on district demographics, current district populations and three options on redistricting for the board to consider.
School Board Reports
The school board reviewed and provided input on the presentation template used for monthly school board reports provided by district schools. The board also reviewed the schedule for board meetings during the 2022-23 school year and discussed increasing the number of school board reports made each year.
The next regular meeting/workshop of the school board will be Monday, Sept. 26, at 5:30 p.m.
Aug. 29 Special Meeting
The school board held a special meeting on Aug. 29 to discuss director redistricting due to 2020 census data and the district’s recent transfer of territory from Bethel School District. At its previous meeting, the district was presented three options from outside organization Davis Demographics to consider for redistricting.
State law and district policy and procedure require the redistricting plan to result in the population of each internal director district being as nearly equal as possible, among other criteria. Based on updated federal census data, CPSD has a total population of 90,811, which means that each director district would contain about 18,162 people if all director districts had an equal population. Currently, Director District 5 has a total population that is significantly higher than that of the other four director districts (27.1% more than the target population).
At the Aug. 29 meeting, the board approved a draft plan for redistricting. At its next meeting, the board will consider option three, which would reduce the total population variance between director districts from 35.2% to 7.8%. The board directed the superintendent to take all steps necessary to satisfy the law for providing a full and reasonable notice of the draft redistricting plan, which includes publishing the plan and organizing a meeting for the purposes of public comment. Information on option three is available on the district website.
The school board will vote on the final redistricting plan at its Oct. 10 meeting.
“Re-district the Opposition Out
I find it telling that condescending board members are so threatened by opposition to their rhetoric that they push a redistricting option to “solidify” a board majority again. Directors Alyssa Anderson-Pearson and Carol Jacobs did just that with the help of Superintendent Ron Banner, and Director Veliz. They brought on Parker Howell from Porter, Foster, Rorick, LLP, and Christopher Melendez from Davis Demographics to help them come up with three options. Two of those options unseated Paul Wagemann. With haste, they opted to follow through with plan three because “it had the smallest deviation” between the districts with a 7% deviation when 10% is acceptable.
Director Paul Wagemann was voted in with over 60% of the vote. To put this into context, Carole won with 58% and Alyssa won with 53%. How is this fair to the constituents who voted him in to represent them? It’s not. Why is he so unpopular among the board? He was the only one, until Director David Anderson joined the board, that really considers the taxpayer, he questions the push for racially driven EDI policy and procedures, and mostly because he genuinely cares about the academic outcomes for all children. Then David Anderson joins the board. Now, it is 3 against 2. Now, their majority is threatened and there is more push-back to the mindless passing of the superintendent’s suggestions.
It would be hard to convince me this isn’t a political hit either. At every board meeting, Alyssa and Carol act like children whenever David or Paul speak. They are visibly annoyed, rolling their eyes, scoffing, and are grossly condescending. Alyssa, in particular, talks down to both of these men. As a dear friend and fellow parent in the district had pointed out in the last board meeting;
”Director Anderson Pearson….within the last year when you were running for re-election, you publicly stated that you “weren’t a politician and that you were just a lifelong Lakewood resident wanting to give back and improve our district”. Redistricting Director Wagemann is not the will of the people and does NOT improve our district.
Furthermore, you stated… “I’ll continue to do everything I can to continue to move the district forward”. Redistricting Director Wagemann does NOT move the district forward. Neither does your voting record against improving academic excellence.
You also publicly stated “The school board shouldn’t be political”, but as the Board President, you’ve done nothing but push your political ideology on this district.
Another public statement from you..”I made a promise to myself that I would choose kindness and remain respectful even when I didn’t get the same in return.” Do you REALLY consider your behavior towards Directors Wagemann and Anderson respectful?”
Where is the respect? These are the same people who try to tell us that we make everything political, but they do these kinds of things. There was an option where he wasn’t redistricted. They knew that plan was also an option that would have been acceptable. They had other motives. The superintendent had other motives.”
I’m thinking some people are no longer in touch with reality or just didn’t bother to watch the meetings where all the information was given. The August 22nd meeting explained the process, guidelines, timelines, laws, and that Davis Demographics used a blind study not knowing anything about the individual directors and where their districts were located.
The fact is Paul Wageman’s area was way out of sync based on the census. That is not anyone’s fault. The State law says clearly that the variance among districts must be as low as “possible” and that is Option #3. Why would we not follow the law? What a poor example if we didn’t.
The constant conspiracies by the same group of people are getting to be ridiculous. They come from political friends of Paul Wagemann. He doesn’t get special favors just because his friends throw fits.
Redistricting involves a lot more than just evening up district populations. It’s more than just a numbers game. Your focus on just the numbers without considering the voting system itself is to abide by a letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.
CPSD Policy 1105 P1 states “The district will ensure that its voting system does not impair the ability of a protected class or classes, as defined by the Washington Voting Rights Act, abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class or classes.”
While there are ostensibly five CPSD districts within which Directors must reside, voting for Directors is at-large and not by district. Redistricting without district elections is problematic with respect to Policy 1105 P1 and WVRA goals.
In essence at least 5000+ voters were shuffled around between districts to be represented by Board Directors they perhaps had never voted for or who previously lived within their district. This was an administrative approach to “even up” population numbers at the expense of voter representation. When it comes to protecting the voting rights of “protected classes” nothing has really changed.
At-large voting almost guarantees that high voting, high socio-economic, white neighborhoods get to elect their choice of Board Directors from theirs as well as everyone else’s district. Indeed this strengthens the political power of those voters while at the same time diluting that of typically “protected class” voters.
In “at-large” elections, campaigns tend to ignore poorer minority districts to focus on those that control the election. Perhaps that is part of the reason these poorer districts don’t vote as often. They simply lack representation. This reality is perhaps the most significant outcome of the current voting system and responsible for the continuing political apathy in poor voting districts.
Policy 1105 P1 also states the following:
“If the district changes its director boundaries under the WVRA, all director positions will be subject to election at the next regular election. The district may subsequently choose to stagger the terms of its positions.”
Nowhere in the course of the redistricting presentation or discussion was the requirement for “…all director positions will be subject to election at the next regular election.” Redistricting is not just a population numbers game: it is about having a voting system that preserves “…the rights of voters who are members of a protected class…”
Ultimately it is the exercise of those rights by protected class voters that determines whether they indeed deem the redistricting as in their representational interest. Moving over 5000 voters in and out of the very districts in which they have made that representational choice in the past would indicate the need for them to express their approval or disapproval of the Board representation they find themselves “stuck” with despite never having voted for them previously.
Without having all director positions subject to the next regular election, voters, especially protected class voters, will be “stuck” with representation that a five member Board deemed adequate rather than what the voters deemed adequate. This by definition impairs and is an abridgement of their voting rights in favor of Board members previously elected by a different group of voters.
Very well stated.
Thank you so much for saying this.
Politics, Gerrymandering and Disenfranchisement:
On Saturday, August 27th, notice was published in The Suburban Times of a special School Board meeting which would occur Monday, August 29th. No reason, which is required by Washington State law, for the meeting was stated. A link was provided to the District website for the meeting agenda which stated the meeting’s purpose, redistricting. Background information in the agenda stated (1) hired consultants had recommended three options for redistricting. (2) “…the District administration has recommended that the Board utilize Option 3, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit ‘A’…”, (3) “…the Board desires to utilize Option 3…”. A copy of Option 3 was not attached, thereby providing no opportunity for public understanding and preparation for public comment at the August 29th meeting. It was not true and also misleading to state that the Board desired to utilize Option 3 because the Board had no allowable opportunity to discuss Options 1,2 and 3 after they were presented at a board meeting on August 22nd. Furthermore, the agenda omitted Options 1 and 2 for public view. Clearly, the short notice and lack of stated purpose of the meeting, the incorrect statement that the Board desired Option 3, and the omission of the content of any of the options for the public before public comment and a Board vote on August 29th all prevented objective consideration.
Only after objections to Option 3 were voiced at the August 29th meeting by Board Directors Anderson and Wagemann was it revealed that Option 3 would prevent Director Wagemann from running for re-election at the end of his current term in 2023. However, Option 1 would not prevent him from running. Directors Pearson, Jacobs and Valiz have voted twice in the past to censor Wagemann on questionable grounds. Superintendent Banner recently filed a race based complaint against Wagemann which resulted in the second censor with votes by Directors Pearson, Jacobs and Valiz. Banner, who represents District administration to the Board, should have recused himself from recommending Option 3. Directors Anderson and Wagemann argued for a delay in voting in order to objectively consider all three options; but they were voted down by Directors Pearson, Jacobs and Valiz. Without timely notice and an opportunity for objective consideration Option 3 was railroaded through with Directors Pearson, Jacobs and Valiz voting for it and Directors Anderson and Wagemann voting against it.
Manipulation, inadequate notice and withholding of the three options for public awareness and consideration of a crucial matter for this community were at play. Voters who represent the over 60% majority vote for Director Wagemann in his last election are being unnecessarily disenfranchised from voting again for him in 2023.
I continue to hear ‘board reports’ from the superintendent, he boasts about his community involvement while our children continue to FAIL Academically. Where is the accountability???
To vote to redistrict a board member that ACTUALLY cares about our children, that actually tries to hold the super accountable….it’s pretty telling! Month after month we are forced to watch the Condescending ’board President’ shut down any attempt by Paul or David to hold the superintendent accountable….we are also forced to watch her Continually look to the superintendent for how to actually run the meeting…. No wonder she has chosen to send her children to private school. Claiming that paying thousands of dollars for private education was her ONLY OPTION! Is she really this disconnected from the very people she is suppose to represent??? Furthermore, why does she sit in a paid position on our public school board trying to convince us that numbers don’t matter? That Standardized testing isn’t equitable?!? Another board member, Carole jacobs, has grandkids that have been enrolled in our district, now taken out and moved to private school.
So strange that these women want to convince us, YOU, that we should turn a blind eye to our students declining numbers under mr banner. They want us to believe that Standardized testing isn’t Equitable, even racist, but yet they are willing to pay thousands of dollars to have their children and grandchildren go through vigorous state testing three times a year. Make it make sense!!!
It is disheartening to read and hear of the position of three Directors of the CPSD to: ‘re- district’ Director Wagemann from running for re-election in the next election cycle. It reveals their continued and longstanding record of fear of true public debate and discussions for the public benefit. It is cowardly to marginalize Mr Wagemann’s voice and that of our broader community. We need all voices and all points of view for the sake of our children and families.