Why the Chula Vista School Board Mess Matters

There is a cluster-F in the Chula Vista Board of Education

There is a cluster-F in the Chula Vista Board of Education (CVBOE). In one of the most Democratic cities in our county, a school board with a Democratic majority recently appointed a Republican to an open seat. The addition adds another Christian Fundamentalist to the largest elementary school district in the state of California. Over two-thirds of the children in the Chula Vista Elementary School District are Latino, large numbers of them with an undocumented family member. Moreover, the Democratic members of that board are currently under threat of being censored by the County Democratic Party for their actions. How could this happen?

Unfortunately, it is a complicated and depressing story. There is a long piece in the Voice of San Diego that describes the events leading up to this situation, but here is a condensed version. Kate Bishop, a previous CVBOE board member, had gotten crosswise with both the local teachers’ union, the Chula Vista Educators (CVE), and her fellow Democratic Board members. As a result, the CVE chose to oppose her in the recent election. Initially, another Democratic candidate, Alexis Avina, was supported by the CVE, but she dropped out a few months after beginning her campaign (full disclosure: I am president of the Labor Democratic Club which endorsed Avina out of union solidarity, we then chose to endorse Bishop after Avina ended her campaign).

Another Democratic member of the Board, Francisco Tamayo, then chose to run against Bishop because of the peculiarity of elections in Chula Vista. While any school board candidate in Chula Vista must choose which district they wish to represent, the election itself is held in the city at-large, making these races expensive. This meant that while Tamayo was an incumbent in another district, he was technically able to run to represent Bishop’s district. The CVE supported him with the kind of funds that are a prerequisite to effectively running in a city with over 270,000 residents, and Tamayo won.

This then set up a need to fill two vacancies on the board—both Tamayo’s old seat as well as that of Cesar Fernandez who had been elected to the Chula Vista City Council. The debate that ensued is described in more depth in the Voice of San Diego article, but to simplify, the current Christian Fundamentalist (Delia Cervantes) Board member, through a technicality in the Board by-laws, was able force a second Fundamentalist to be selected. The Democrats were able to fill one seat with a Democrat, but one who may be fairly conservative given her employment by Homeland Security.

The crucial questions are: why was there such hostility to Bishop in the first place and why would that lead Tamayo to run against her? My analysis will be based on my commitment to both unions and to progressive politics.

Kate Bishop is a dynamic and principled activist in the Democratic Party, and is committed to social justice, particularly for LGBTQ+ people (she herself is LGBTQ). She is also a forceful and outspoken advocate for the causes she believes in. While there are a number of criticisms of her by her other Board members, justifiable concerns are twofold. First, she is not a team player. Bishop is professionally employed in the theatre. She is loud, funny, and charismatic, but also oblivious to how she can make others feel who are not so gifted. Given her theatrical background, she has a gut level understanding of how to grab a spot light which for some can be irritating.

The second, and more substantive, criticism revolves around her politics, and is a microcosm of the dilemma that faces the Democratic Party in Latino communities. Kate Bishop is an activist who would be more at home in a district like Hillcrest, rather than a culturally conservative Latino community like Chula Vista. Before the election, I was approached by a number of people from the community worried that if Bishop ran again she could be defeated by a Christian Conservative because of some of the things she has said on social media in support of the LGBTQ+ community. We saw this kind of vulnerability in the last election where a significant portion of the Latino electorate, especially working-class male Latinos, were uncomfortable with LGBTQ+ issues, especially those around Trans rights.

These two factors led both the CVE and other board members to look for an alternative to Bishop. If Avina had not dropped out, the actions of the CVE would have still been questionable, but understandable, given the circumstances. However, once Avina was gone, supporting Tamayo’s desire to change seats was a different matter. This decisionironically produced the very outcome most feared: an additional Christian Fundamentalist on the Board.

The anger at this series of events has led the local Democratic Party South Caucus (the Democratic Party is divided into geographically based caucuses) head, Jason Bercovitch, to put on its agenda the censoring of both Tamayo and the other Democratic Board member, Lucy Ugarte. Ugarte did not formally support Tamayo, but was placed on the same mailers that CVE sent out. This caused the confusion that she was actively supporting the move to replace Bishop with Tamayo.

The CVE has doubled down on defending both members of the Board. Ugly rumors have been flying around about the motivations behind all of this. Tamayo is rumored to have threatened to join the Republican Party if the censorship succeeds. Accusations about personal improprieties have been leveled at both Board members and Union leadership. This kind of self-destructive conflict would be bad at any time, but under present conditions with Trump attacking our undocumented and Trans children, it is tragic. So what is to be done?

It is easy to see what is the best response to this disaster on the basis of principles: Bishop should have been supported, and Tamayo and the CVE should admit their mistakes. On the basis of realism, it is also easy: all recriminations and accusations should cease so that everyone can get back to the business of education and protecting our children and their families from Trump’s assaults. The hard part is balancing the two. Here is my suggestion.

First, we have to admit that our principles as progressive Democrats and supporters of LGBTQ rights were violated by the hostility to Bishop. Second, the censorship initiative against Ugarte should be dropped. Finally, Tamayo should be criticized in a resolution by the Democratic Party, but not formally censored.

I don’t want to sound naïve, but this situation sounds a lot like Gandhi’s concern that “an eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind.” We have bigger issues to confront. We are arguing over who won the shuffle-board contest while the Titanic is sinking. Let’s support a level of principle that does not further either inflame things or, more importantly, empower the right-wing. This is why the Chula Vista School Board Mess Matters

Gregg Robinson is a long-time activist, retired Grossmont College Sociology professor, San Diego County Board of Education member, and a member of the AFT Guild, Local 1931 Retiree Chapter.