BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
Well that was curious.
On Friday, the Post began working on a story about how Linda Henigin was getting a helping hand with her Palo Alto school board campaign from the school district itself.
The district had posted an ad on its Schoology website saying the Henigin campaign was looking for student interns (see above).
The ad was part of a slide deck under “innovation-agility/work-experience” and it was slide No. 19.
The ad had the headline, “Join Our School Board Campaign.” The ad said the hours would be flexible. The ad didn’t say what Henigin would be paying, but the minimum wage in Palo Alto is $18.70 an hour.
We started calling people on Friday to find out what was going on. Was the school district going to endorse Henigin? After all, she’s the candidate who seemed to be on the side of maintaining the status quo while her two opponents, John Craig and Avery Wang, are the reformers in the race.
Then, on Saturday, the ad disappeared from the website.
Maybe they figured out at 25 Churchill that it’s illegal for the school district to assist a school board candidate’s campaign. You may recall that in 2022, the vice chancellor of the San Mateo County Community College District, Jose Nunez, was arrested and later pleaded guilty to two felony counts for unlawfully using district computers and time to back a local board candidate and support bond measure.
Another ad had been removed from the Schoology site too. On Page 10 of the slide deck, there had been an ad seeking interns to work on the campaign pushing the Cubberley sales tax known as Measure J.
That ad also represented a conflict of interest for the district. If the sales tax is approved, the city would send $65.5 million of the money raised to the school district to buy seven acres of land at the Cubberley Community Center. So the school district certainly has a reason to help the measure’s campaign — more like 65 million reasons.
Both ads disappeared.
Very curious.
Where’s the appraisal?
Speaking of the Cubberley sales tax, the city still hasn’t released the real estate appraisal that city council used when it decided to pay the school district $65.5 million for the Cubberley land.
I don’t get the council’s thinking on this — why would they give the voters the impression that they’re hiding a key piece of information in this transaction? If the appraisal justifies the $65.5 million price, why not show the voters?
If council decides to keep the appraisal secret, people will assume that the city is overpaying for the property.
It’s now a police tax?
Another problem with Measure J is its title — the “Community Safety/Services Measure.” That makes it sound as if the city is raising the tax to improve community safety. In previous campaigns, the term “community safety” has meant police and firefighters.
Cubberley isn’t going to be a big police station — we just built one of those — or a fire station — there’s a new one under construction just up the street from Cubberley.
Using the term “community safety” is misleading. Maybe the city is saying that if they remove the sidewalks at Cubberley and replace them with ones that are even, it will be safer. Or maybe they’re saying that if they replace the buildings built in the 1950s, the place won’t be as a fire prone. But really, calling it a “community safety” measure is a stretch. Why should voters trust the city when they play silly tricks like this?
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.
Here’s a link to the entire Schoology slide deck before it was changed on Aug. 22. The Cubberley tax measure campaign ad is on page 10 and ad seeking interns for Henigin campaign is on page 19.
Henigin promised to increase teacher pay in her kick off, so it’s no surprise teachers would be working for her behind the scenes.
How is this even possible? The school district is so bureaucratic and process oriented, they couldn’t even ask their own school principals to teach a popular math class since it would mean violating board policies.
Still shaking my head over keeping the appraisal secret. First, seems like a CPRA violation, since there is no longer a negotiation going on. Second, it seems like a basic public trust violation that will cost votes in a tight election. The city council is burning its credibility (though not as bad as the school board at this point).
Who thought it was a good idea to put campaign ads on the PAUSD website? I’m surprised they don’t have a policy against this, though that wouldn’t matter in this district where they ignore laws all the time.
If the city doesn’t remove the RVs off my block, I’m voting NO on Measure J.
Don Austin hasn’t really left town.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mean Girls (Julie Lythcott-Haims, Jennifer DiBrienza, Nicole Chiu‑Wang and Nana Chancellor) had something to do with this ad, given their previous behavior.
JDB is spearheading the Yes on J campaign which also had a recruitment slide on the website. Since JDB knows the work experience teacher and her supervisors, Principals Brent Kline @ Paly and Eric Olah @ Gunn (formerly from Paly) as well as head of “Agility” Ms. Jeong Choe,through her work as a trustee, it would not be surprising that she was be behind the posting of these political ads.
In defense of the teacher who posted it, if a former board member requested it, I think it’s fair for her to assume that a former trustee wouldn’t ask her to do something highly inappropriate or criminal. Who are we kidding? This is Palo Alto; it happens all the time with the administration.
Bingo
A “community safety” measure to give the city money to buy Cubberley? It’s false advertising. This measure has nothing to do with “safety”. This needs to be corrected before the ballots are mailed out.
I got an email last night from the teachers union. They were trying to shirk responsibility for the $33 million budget hole. Where did the union get our email addresses? Does the district just hand them out to anyone who asks? Will the same person who gave the union our addresses give them to the Henigin campaign? Rowena, if you’re reading this, would you please ask at the next school board meeting why the staff is handing out our email addresses to the union. Ask who made this decision. There’s nothing in the MOU that allows the union to get these addresses. Have they already been given to the Henigin campaign?
Linda Henigin is running for school board – but her campaign couldn’t even make it through August without violating school board policy and illegally abusing school resources to promote her campaign. That’s not a learning curve; it’s a disqualification.
I really hope Avery and John beat Linda in this upcoming school board race. Linda represents a small, progressive community of voters (the Nicole Chui Wang voters from last election) – and the community spoke loud in clear then. Reasonable people will be coming out in full force against Linda and her dangerous agenda. This was a serious mistake.
PAUSD posting an ad for a friendly candidate on a district website? Sure, it’s illegal if they get caught. They figured they wouldn’t get caught. Who looks at Schoology except students, teachers and parents — certainly not members of the media! Good job, Daily Post!
The city needs to pull Measure J and renegotiate the deal. Obviously the appraisal says the city is overpaying (or else the city would have released it). The city should lease the property from PAUSD on a long-term basis. The city can still demolish the buildings and build new ones on leased property. Long-term tenants do that all the time. Did you know that every single store at the Stanford Shopping Center leases its space — none of them own the land — and they have gone ahead and built elaborate stores on the space. They have 50 year leases. The city can do that too, reducing the cash needed in a sales tax measure. Once the city has renegotiated a new deal, it can put the measure back on the ballot — maybe in 2027 or 28 — and see if voters will approve it.
How embarrassing for PAUSD, especially given all the other conflicts and controversies surrounding the district right now. Posting a school board candidate’s campaign recruitment ad on a district platform is an extraordinarily serious lapse in judgment and oversight.
PAUSD should acknowledge what happened, conduct a real investigation, and hold the responsible people accountable. If an employee knowingly participated in using district resources for a political campaign, there should be meaningful consequences including termination of Linda if warranted. At a minimum, the district needs to take responsibility and act decisively to restore public trust. Removing the ad after the fact isn’t enough.
This district has suffered for years from a lack of transparency, accountability, and integrity under Don Austin’s administration. We cannot afford another year of the same. Using Schoology—a district platform—to gain an unfair advantage in a school board campaign crosses a line. At best, it shows extremely poor judgment; at worst, it raises serious questions about Ms. Henigin and her campaign team’s integrity.
Just when you think PAUSD couldn’t get any worse, this happens—and right under the new superintendent’s watch. Unbelievable. Honestly, maybe I was too quick to judge someone like Colombo. With everything coming to light, it is looking more and more likely that he was just a scapegoat for PAUSD’s systemic ineptitude. If I ever see him in person, I might actually owe him an apology. I cannot believe how PAUSD keeps failing on a daily basis!
Wow! I am NOT voting for Ms. Henigin after this! Posing to be a “math” teacher so that she gets the votes; but doesn’t actually care if struggling students or students requiring challenge are being served! We’ve had enough board members who lied on their campaigns – please NO MORE!!!!
The Cubberly appraisal can and must be released to the public. Although there is an exception to the CPRA for appraisals during the course of a negotiation — which is, IIUC, the situation here — all that means is that the City has the RIGHT but not the obligation to withhold the information from the public. The public entity, and in this case, the two public entities, have the legal right and ethical obligation to be transparent with the people they seek to tax.
The nonsensical exception from mandatory disclosure relied on by COPA was created by legislators who mostly lack meaningful experience negotiating transactions. It relies on an false assumption that full knowledge of the appraisal of the land being sold would harm negotiations. One need not be a realtor or real estate lawyer to recognize that more information almost always facilitates (rather than interferes with) deal closings.
Fortunately, under the CPRA, exemptions from disclosure do not prohibit voluntary disclosure (with non-applicable exceptions to that rule). The City can and should choose disclosure.
It is common sense: a property buyer would not buy purchase without an appraisal, so voters being asked to fund that purchase reasonably deserve the appraisal too. The City loses credibility by relying on its “rights” over common sense and ethics.
As it turns out, there is one thing that many studies agree facilitates successful negotiations: a relationship of trust between the parties. Trust is built in large part through transparency. COPA: take note.
OK, what’s COPA? Is it short for the nightclub Copacabana?
City of Palo Alto.