Why I'm Running

By Walter Maurer

On routine schoolboard issues, I believe that any of my fellow candidates could do just as good a job as I could - but what about controversial issues like Parental Notification, pro-gay curriculum, and educational choice?

Just about everyone I know is capable of serving as a SSUSD Board member for most issues that the Board routinely deals with. After all, it's not too difficult to attend meetings (most of which are ignored by the public), follow the Superintendent's lead, cast a few consensus votes, and receive $50/meeting monetary compensation along with free health insurance. Lest you think I'm being sarcastic, consider the following:

- Attendance at Board of Education meetings is typically very low, e.g. less than 20 parents (unless there are student award ceremonies, in which case parents generally don't stick around for the Board's main business items). Furthermore, I occasionally ask parents if they know who serves on their Board of Education; most can't name more than 1 or 2 persons. Some have absolutely no idea, and don't even know who the Superintendent is.

- The SSUSD Superintendent recently told candidates that the Board has voted against his recommendations only twice.

- Examining the voting record for the past few years will reveal plenty of unanimous or near-unanimous votes.

- This year, taxpayers will pay about $11,300 for each Board member's free medical and dental insurance. That's a total of $79,000. (I've definitely got more to say about this in the "Free Health Insurance" item on my website.)

Furthermore, the SSUSD Chief Financial Officer informed candidates that about 87% of the District's $31M budget is spent on salaries and benefits. In other words, only 13% of the budget is available for everything else, e.g. textbooks, buses, and building maintenance. As I see it, approving District expenditures in conformance with the budget is a major part of a Boardmember's duties, but one that is easily accomplished by casting a "Yes" vote on consent calendar items. Practically speaking, this cut-and-dried financial situation doesn't present too much opportunity for innovative Board actions. Thus, on routine issues, I believe that any of my fellow candidates could do just as good a job as I could.

But what about the so-called controversial issues that can pit a Board member's convictions against those of teachers' unions, school administrators, attorneys, and state legislators? What about issues like Parental Notification, pro-gay curriculum, and educational choice? Given Kern County's extraordinarily high rates of teen pregnancy & STDs, why haven't we complemented the DARE program with a "Just Say No to Sex" program years ago? While I applaud recent achievements in SSUSD's endeavors to increase test scores, I also believe that those endeavors could be significantly enhanced by enacting and/or enforcing Board policies that address these issues. Given the federal government's "No Child Left Behind" emphasis on an individual student's academic progression, should our society be any less concerned about that student's learning environment as it pertains to his or her social and moral progression?

Any parent who shares my concerns - especially those who supported the Parental Notification effort five years ago - would do well to ask the other candidates where they stand on such issues. In particular, have the three incumbents proposed, promoted, and diligently fought to enact such policies? I believe the answer to that question is NO, and that's primarily why I'm running for office. Will I propose, promote, and fight to enact such policies if elected? Absolutely YES.