Op Ed: In Support of a SBCC Board Member

July 19, 2023, 8:08 am 6.4k Views 45 Comments

By Rosanne Crawford

The upcoming Board retreat at Santa Barbara City College on Wednesday, July 19th will be an important prelude to the regular board meeting on Thursday, July 20th.

At Thursday’s meeting, the Board is considering censuring Board member Veronica Gallardo, the only Latino on the Board elected to serve in 2012. Targeted since 2019 was the sole voice to open the campus to in-person learning when the draconian Covid 19 closure was extended.

The current Board’s accusations against Gallardo lack specificity to charges levied at her, no details, or proof to warrant censuring her, which they can do by a Board majority vote even though she was elected by the public. Let the public decide next election what Board members are doing their job!

Attachments for both public meetings with participation details are available at https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sbcc/Board.nsf/Public

A board member’s primary duty is to keep the Administration accountable. There would be no reason to have a board if it was a mutual admiration society, we may as well just surround the president with high school cheerleaders…

In reviewing the Santa Barbara City College Board’s survey for their upcoming board retreat, what was most obvious was they are trying to single out Board member Monica Gallardo for doing her job as an elected trustee, often the sole vote against the rest of the board.  

Having differing points of view on the board is healthy.

Their survey states, “The Board is an independent nonpartisan policy-making body that reflects the public interest in the institution and in the Board’s role, responsibility, and actions”.  

This is precisely why there should be robust conversations and questioning. Balance is important so as not to have everything coming from one particular party or group. Diversity serves diversity best, yet we have only one Latino board member.

The Board holds the CEO and the college accountable for progress toward student goals and annual priorities. Lots of double talk here, but where is the data? Intentions are easy however results take work.

Setting clear goals, and obtaining data and evidence measuring how well the college is performing is what is needed to move things forward.

Trustee Gallardo was singled out here for stating that “all presidents need to be held accountable by this board, and all presidents should be held to the same standards.”H aving robust disagreements and working to achieve consensus when needed is important to come to the best decisions  It’s ok to respectfully agree to disagree with differing points of view.  

The Board creates a mutually supportive relationship with the CEO, balanced with accountability and full transparency.  Just because a board member questions or disagrees, they should not be labeled disrespectful. They in fact are upholding their duties as a publicly elected Trustee to the Board.

BP 2715 states that “it is the responsibility of every Board member to accept and support the decision that the Board as a whole has reached: There may be times when it is appropriate to refer to something in the past that has not worked out as an example to improve future outcomes.

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right. 

Please support Board Member Gallardo by attending one of the meetings or Emailing your remarks to pdkelly@pipeline.sbcc.edu with cc to SBCC trustee President jabboud@pipeline.sbcc.edu with name and the subject of your comment by 3:00 p.m. the day of the 7/20/23 meeting. 

Op-Ed’s are written by community members, not representatives of edhat. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat. [Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.]

Avatar

Written by Anonymous

What do you think?

0 Points

Comments

2 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

45 Comments

  1. Is the best defense of Veronica Gallardo’s misdeeds having Rosanne Crawford go on offense?
    Gallardo resigned as principal of Aliso Elementary School in March 2022 after parent and staff complaints about her behavior. Gallardo is now facing censure by fellow Trustees at SBCC. Seems to be a behavior pattern with Ms. Gallardo that she has not adequately addressed?

    0

  2. https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sbcc/Board.nsf/Public
    Hello
    231,
    Hawk,
    317,
    Hawk, you have accused Rosanne of intentionally omitting facts. Cheap Shot. Especially since she posted the board doc with all of SBCC’s evidence, thus she included all the facts.
    For those of you who don’t have time to read the “Evidence,” but sincerely want to know more, I have read it almost all of it. My summary of the facts will be posted in a comment immediately to follow.

    0

  5. Here’s my two cents: “Why are you so afraid of a 5’1″ Latina kindergarten teacher? She’s just a 1-6 vote, why is she such a threat to you? If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
    My conclusion: What they call micromanaging, I call holding the Superintendent accountable. There was no violation of ethics. She should not apologize. VG was doing her job as a diligent, passionate Trustee.
    Evidence in the board doc https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sbcc/Board.nsf/Public
    My summary of the Evidence:
    1. VG has a minority POV on vaccine mandate, mask mandate, in-person learning, fiscal responsibility, defunding the police, pro-life, and freedom of speech.
    2. VG is willing to voice her POV when other board members feel it is not on point in the agenda, but VG feels it is on point and is related to the agenda item. This is the primary ethics violation of which she has been charged. She disagrees with this board president and previous board presidents that she has violated any code of ethics re “bringing up items that have already been voted on,” and apparently she told them so in a meeting with Haslund and Sup. Read the Evidence. I agree with VG that overall, her comments are on point and are related to the agenda items. VG takes a broader view of what is on point and what are the consequences of the policies in place, and what needs to be re-evaluated in light of new information re: COVID.
    Her major crime was that she cared too much about disproportionately unvaccinated, hardworking Latinos who were deprived of access to SBCC during the pandemic, and she refused to stop talking about it at every opportunity.
    3. VG corresponded politely directly by email with the Superintendent occasionally on several small matters which were positive instances in which she wanted do her job as a liason to the community, and to include the community into the college life, totally appropriate and collegial, not nearly rising to the level of micromanaging the Sup.
    4. The Sup didn’t appreciate VG’s emails in which VG politely asked questions and make simple and reasonable requests; Sup and found dealing with VG’s passionate advocacy “exhausting.” EX of VG’s emails: “I hope you can come to the meeting!”
    5. The Sup asked for support from the board to censure VG and the Sup threatened to file a formal complaint against VG.
    6. Notable: all of the allegations (except missing meetings) against VG are for speech.
    7. At no time, was VG’s speech disrespectful.
    8. On the contrary, the speech and body language of the other members of the board and the Superintendent WAS disrespectful. I can interpret the body language because it is spoken about. The Superintendent, Abboud, Miller, Haslund, and Parker, in my opinion, all displayed (written right there within the evidence) written correspondence and spoke or used body language in board meetings which I consider inappropriate. Not up to my standards of courtesy, anyway. Whereas I find no fault in VG. Always courteous. Show me one thing she said in a board meeting or email that was rude. The fault I find with the Sup and the several board members mentioned above is that they made comments that showed they did not extend to VG the assumption of a positive motivation on VG’s part. This is the most important rule in working in a collegial manner with others in all relationships, whether they are personal, professional, or political.
    VG probably missed more meetings than other board members. This is a separate issue and I will not comment on it.
    Re: the issues of other SBCC employees, all I’ll say is that whatever VG said or did to protest their behavior was not nearly as bad as what they said and did to protest VG.

    0

    • Correction: Parker did not violate norms of courtesy. However, I disagree strongly with Parker’s assessment of VG’s correspondence with the Sup as “crossing a line” (interfering in administrative affairs). It did not cross a line . if VG asking to meet with Superintendent to ask for clarification on a matter is the best they can do…

      0

  6. I certainly support free speech and the duty of elected officials to voice their dissents, if present, to the action of the majority. However, the author of this has not presented me with information sufficient to understand the issue. She seems to have assumed that the rest of us know the back story. Hard to know what is happening from this essay.

    0

  8. Zerohawk, any interest in reading the evidence before making a judgment about validity? The evidence is all included in Rosanne’s post – just click on the link for 140+ pages of facts. There you go again with your cheap shots about the writer’s motivation to omit facts, when she did in fact include all the facts, just click on the link.

    0

    • There are no facts in this post and Gallardo’s supporters have not been able to form a coherent defense. Instead you’re ignoring ALLLLL the complaints about Gallardo and she’s saying it’s a “witch hunt.” That phrase sounds familiar…
      Why don’t you contact all the parents that complained about her and tell them they’re liars to their faces?

      0

  10. I agree, so political and such overexaggerated claims
    Billable hours for Griffith & Thornburgh’s Craig Price. Taxpayers have elevated Mr Price to multi-millionaire status for issues he creates at SBCC & SBUSD. Such a conflict of interest that he represents both institutions as well as the County Board of Education. All in bed together

    0

  11. Ms. Crawford used the classic GOP playbook for this Op-Ed. I don’t blame her, it worked to overturn Affirmative Action. She wrote a piece devoid of facts but instead chose to reimagine the scenario and use “racism” and “free speech” as dogwhistles. Especially towards the SBCC Board that is quite multicultural.
    Gallardo is accused of being rude and disrespectful to the interim president, missed 19 of the 63 meetings in the past two years, interfered in staff decisions and college operations, and violated other code of conduct/ethics rules. Other board members said they tried for 2 years to work with Gallardo to no avail.
    So Gallardo fails to show up to meetings where decisions are made then criticizes those decisions and calls it an “attack on free speech.” The hilarious thing is she tried to have 4 SBCC employees fired for… guess what… using their own FREE SPEECH.
    Ms. Crawford, your op-eds frequently align with conspiracies and GOP talking points that lack substance or any real deepening of thought. Perhaps take time to chat with others who look differently and think differently than you and take time to listen and expand your own mind.

    0

  12. Zerohawk, I wouldn’t jump to assumptions about details being omitted intentionally. Cheap shot.
    It was not inflammatory as was the court of “Noozhawk’s” which is suspiciously so one-sided.
    The links in this Op Ed include the link https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sbcc/Board.nsf/Public
    to grab the Zoom link for the meeting tomorrow at 4 pm where they will discuss the details at the 4 pm Thursday meeting. I want to hear it from them. I suspect the details were very probably miscommunications. The Latino people express themselves very directly when speaking in English than Spanish and that directness might be misunderstood as a lack of respect by people not of the Latino Culture.

    0

  13. Is this 2021 Noozhawk Letter to the editor the same Rosanne Crawford that wrote the opinion article in support of Gallardo (scroll to 2nd letter). In it Rosanne says “If a vaccine mandate is not enacted, we will consider a vote of no confidence in our president, the four trustees who voted to reject the mandate, or both”
    Gallardo voted to reject the mandate, which means Rosanne publicly voiced no confidence in Gallardo in 2021.
    https://www.noozhawk.com/from_our_inbox_letters_to_the_editor_for_the_week_ending_july_9_2021/

    0

  14. If Gallardo’s past history regarding her interaction with workers/parents is accurate, I’d say this a good indicator the current complaints are valid. I don’t care about her race or her politics. I don’t know if there is any “back story” to this issue other than it appears Gallardo has a problem getting along with people and she creates problems.

    0

  15. What’s with two SBCC Trustees announcing in Noozhawk their vote prior to hearing evidence at todays’s SBCC Trustee Meeting? DROP Resolution 1 Censure. It’s politically motivateD; and another tax paid wasted expense paying Craig Price and SBCC Staff. Board President Abboud is prejudiced against Trustee Gallardo since first elected. As the author behind the resolution that he presented at the July 6 Board meeting, he made it clear his prejudice and his intent. Trustees are VIOLATING their own ethical standards. Drop it. Focus on District students.

    0

  17. Have your sat; watch Thursday Trustee meeting.
    Instructions for addressing the Board In-person:
    Members of the public who wish to address the Board in-person at this meeting must complete a written request made available at the meeting, and return it to the Board’s Executive Assistant by 3:55 p.m. the day of the meeting.
    Zoom:
    Members of the public who wish to address the Board via Zoom may do so by using the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom during the public comment period, or by emailing pdkelly@pipeline.sbcc.edu with their name and the subject of their comment by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.
    https://sbcc.zoom.us/j/ 91283393384pwd=
    UW5FZDg3Z1RzT1Q3Z05×S2srNDhBQI
    09
    Passcode: 904543
    Number: +1 669 900 6833
    Webinar ID: 912 8339 3384
    Passcode: 904543
    Phone:
    If joining by phone, dial *9 to raise your

    0

  18. LOL Anne0505 you are absolutely wrong. Rosanne Crawford never wrote about no confidence in Gallardo
    if you open your own link , Crawford wrote about English acquisition which was the first letter,
    the second was from Robbie Fischer who wrote no confidence. Your comments should be removed for inaccuracy.
    https://www.noozhawk.com/from_our_inbox_letters_to_the_editor_for_the_week_ending_july_9_2021/

    0

“Mars Attacks!” Shown at Sunken Gardens Friday

Over $500M Delivered to Central Coast with Federal Infrastructure Law