Questions from the Press, Friday, April 21, 2023.

Siena Kelly.

Per past practice, questions from the Sonoma Index-Tribune I received about last night's Sonoma Valley Unified meeting, and the answers, are below. The questions concerned the school resource officer (SRO), Dunbar Elementary, school consolidation and configuration, and the naming of Midgley Field. The picture is of my daughter Siena, who was recently named the MVP of the JV soccer team at Sonoma Valley High, (well done Siena!). 

---

1. What was your impression of the discussion about possibly bringing back a school resource officer? Are any additional steps planned?

The School Resource Officer (SRO) program began as a partnership between the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office and the Sonoma Valley Unified School District (SVUSD) in 2004. From 2013 to 2020, the City of Sonoma joined the collaboration, forming a financial partnership among the Sheriff's Office, SVUSD, and the City. With an approximate cost of $240,000, the expense was shared by the three agencies. The SRO, a Sheriff's Office employee, served SVUSD with an office at Sonoma Valley High School and devoted their full time to various campuses within the School District.

In 2020, the City's budget saw significant reductions in the Police Services contract, including the elimination of three positions. Although the City's share of SRO program costs was included in the 2020 budget, the program was put on hold at the beginning of the fiscal year due to uncertainties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, organizational budget impacts, and the shift to virtual learning. Despite SVUSD approving a contract to continue the SRO program into 2021, it was discontinued when the Sonoma City Council voted against the proposal on December 14, 2020. At that time, a request was made by SVUSD to maintain the funding, if not for an SRO, then for mental health services. The City cut it anyway.

Now, the City of Sonoma has included school services in its contract with the Sheriff's Department for 2022-23 using one-time funding. However, the City faces the same funding challenges as it did in 2020. The City of Sonoma's budget continues to be under pressure and relies on one-time funds for recurring expenses. The question remains: where is the stable funding mechanism that would allow the City to pursue an SRO contract, and why hasn't the City sought an agreement about that funding with SVUSD? If a future city council decides to reduce funding again, SVUSD would have to cover the shortfall, potentially facing long-term expenses to maintain the program.

In the context of School Resource Officers (SROs), it is helpful to understand the current presence of SROs in various high schools in the region. There is unconfirmed information about a temporary SRO at Montgomery High School, while Petaluma High, Casa Grande High, and the rest of the Santa Rosa High Schools are reported not to have SROs. It appears that Analy High School's SRO position may have lapsed. The Windsor Police Department states that they provide SRO services at Windsor High; however, it remains uncertain whether the high school has a dedicated SRO. Rohnert Park employs SRO Debbie Lamaison, who is believed to be on campus at Rancho Cotate. There is no available information about an SRO at Healdsburg High, but a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists between Cloverdale and their high school concerning the provision of an SRO.

It is important for elected officials to address these concerns and offer more information on the current status of SROs in the area. It appears that in many of these cases, cities may bear much of the expense for SROs. If the SRO contract from 2020 had been adopted by the City Council and the SRO program continued through today, the situation would be different. However, the fundamental funding questions remain unresolved, and consequently, no action can be taken at this time. My notes reflect that the direction to staff was to discuss funding with the incoming city manager, continue outreach and assessment with students and staff regarding the provision of mental health services, and otherwise seek to continue to collaborate with the Sheriff’s Department during that work.

2. What are your thoughts regarding the discussion and decision (if one was made) on regular agenda item No. 2, to suspend student enrollment at Dunbar Elementary School beginning in the 2023-24 school year?

The Dunbar students will, by and large, attend El Verano Elementary. That is the school located in the trustee area I serve. I know that the El Verano community will welcome the Dunbar students with open arms. El Verano is our healthiest, most community-oriented school, and with the outstanding new facilities at that location, the Dunbar students will be well served.

The relocation of those students from Dunbar, as difficult as it will be, allows the community to move forward. I strongly doubt the trustees will as a consequence be willing to disturb the new equilibrium that will be established at El Verano. We will not make these students, teachers, and staff move again.

For all practical purposes, the consequence of this decision is that El Verano will be off-limits to further changes. I think that is the right outcome. El Verano is our one walkable community school for our working-class families. Its unique combination of community services and social support is probably the future of our District. I hear from my constituents around El Verano that that is what they want. I am glad that looks like it will be the future they will receive.

Cojoined with that news was the letter from Woodland Star Charter School's board that they are interested in utilizing the Dunbar campus as soon as this August. This will result in an additional approximate savings for the District of $500,000. It further frees up capacity at Altimira Middle School, where Woodland Star had previously been located. Altimira Middle School is our one site that is large enough, as is, with the Woodland Star buildings, to serve all of our 6th, 7th, and 8th graders as a middle school. As a practical matter, the cooperative and collaborative approach of the Woodland Star community is helping the District be in a position to achieve a 3-1-1+1 configuration (three elementary, one middle, one high school, and one continuation high school) in the near future.

3. What are your thoughts regarding the discussion and decision (if one was made) on regular agenda item No. 3, to consider approval of the school configuration and consolidation plan?

The presentation was far different from the materials included in the packet. This was largely due to updated guidance from the California Attorney General to school districts on laws governing school closures and best practices for implementation. This guidance, issued on April 11, 2023, was and is consistent with our current plans outlined in the school reconfiguration presentation. However, and importantly, the guidance highlights steps to address racial equity, which we will ensure is integrated into our school configuration and consolidation process. I am very supportive of implementing the guidelines from the Attorney General with fidelity, as our District has in the past made a series of decisions that impact resources for schools primarily serving students of color. Sonoma Valley Unified must ensure equal educational opportunities for all students, even when resources come from external organizations like PTOs.

Based on the new information, the superintendent amended her recommendation during the meeting to establish a School Consolidation and Configuration ("SCC") Committee. This committee will recommend campuses for consolidation, develop a plan, and prioritize middle school consolidation before elementary school planning. The board agreed that the SCC committee will be charged with reviewing a 3-1-1 proposal, and the composition will include a parent of a special needs student, and a native Spanish speaker. I had wanted specific deadlines for the SCC Committee to present its work, specifically November of 2023 for the middle schools, and April of 2024 for the elementary schools, but the board, after discussion, chose to keep that flexible rather than set specific dates for the delivery of those reports. The committee will collaborate with the staff to create a plan that incorporates equity analyses, addressing past and current district decisions that impact resources for schools primarily serving students of color, and again ensuring equal educational opportunities for all students.

The District aims to link consolidation planning to the "Portrait of a Graduate" work and strategic planning. Ideally, this will establish baseline expectations for elementary, middle, and high school programming as the consolidation process proceeds. 

4. What was your impression of the discussion regarding the naming of the Sonoma Valley High School field, and the decision (if any) that was reached?

The Board decided to name the Sonoma Valley High School Athletic Field the Robert "Bob" Dale Midgley Jr. Field, to be known as "Midgley Field." Bob Midgley taught at Sonoma Valley High for 25 years before passing away on Saturday, Jan. 9, 2021. Bob passed just weeks after doctors discovered cancer, which had already spread throughout his body. Coach Midgley had attended Prestwood Elementary, Altimira Middle School and was a member of the class of 1984 at Sonoma Valley High School, before attending SRJC (where he played football) and Chico State. He earned his teaching credential at Sonoma State, where he played for the Seawolves (then Cossacks) football team as well. Bob had been a P.E. teacher at Altimira and Sonoma Valley High, as well as the head football coach and athletic director.

There were a number of meritorious individuals who were also suggested to have the field named after them. However, the loss of Coach Midgley so suddenly reminded me of how many families have been touched by cancer in our Valley. For so many years, Relay for Life has taken place at our high school track, and I closely associate (and I think many in our community do as well) the field and track at the high school with our community's efforts to grapple with the terrible impacts of that deadly disease. Naming the field after a coach we lost too soon to cancer somehow seems fitting, and recognizes that we will continue to all mourn the loss of our loved ones taken from us before their time.

Fox News' Settlement and Future Defamation Suits.

Justice William J. Brennan, 1972. 

(Author of opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan.)

Library of Congress, Public Domain.

via Wikimedia Commons. 

The Economist today reports on the recently settled defamation lawsuit between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5m over Fox's coverage of the 2020 US election. Dominion accused the network of knowingly spreading lies about its voting machines, resulting in Joe Biden's victory. The lawsuit revealed the extent to which Fox's coverage is shaped by a desire to tell its audience what it wants to hear and by its competition. The case also shed light on the network's tumultuous relationship with former President Donald Trump.

Fox's audience declined after the 2020 election, as Trump urged his supporters to switch to other networks. The network then sought to appease Trump's supporters, giving credibility to false claims made by his lawyers. Fox tried to shift its audience's focus to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, but viewers ultimately did not follow this lead. The network continued to defend Trump during various legal troubles, as its influence on viewers appeared limited.

Despite the significant financial settlement, the lawsuit's impact on Fox News is, in the opinion of the Economist, negligible. The network can afford the payout, which is about a quarter of its estimated revenue last year, and it will not have to air retractions or corrections. As the lawsuit did not receive extensive coverage on Fox, viewers who learned about it elsewhere were likely to take the network's side. Another voting technology company, Smartmatic, is suing Fox for $2.7bn over its 2020 election coverage, which may draw more attention to the problem.

I think the article misses an important potential consequence of this case. The article highlights the network's influence on the American right, but fails to address the broader implications for libel law jurisprudence. Despite Fox News' potentially defensible behavior under  New York Times v. Sullivan, which protects news organizations from defamation suits unless they knowingly published false information or exhibited "reckless disregard" for the truth, the article does not discuss how the case could affect future defamation suits.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the basis of New York Times v. Sullivan, and the Fox News case may impact the Supreme Court's willingness to maintain such a powerful shield for the press. The network's repeated dissemination of misinformation, deception, and conspiracy theories could prompt the Court to reevaluate the limits of defamation protections for news organizations.

Overall, the article provides a detailed account of the Dominion lawsuit, Fox News' influence on conservative politics, and the network's relationship with former President Donald Trump. However, it would have been valuable for the piece to discuss the potential consequences of the case for future libel law jurisprudence and the role of the Supreme Court in shaping these outcomes.

Fox News' $787.5M Settlement with Dominion: A Wake-Up Call for Media Accountability and the Future of Democracy.

"Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News."

© 2008 Xrmap.

Public Domain.

via Wikimedia Commons.

Jim Rutenberg and Katie Robertson of the New York report today that Fox News has reached a $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, avoiding a lengthy trial that would have seen its top executives and personalities face intense questioning over their role in spreading false claims about the 2020 election. The settlement, one of the largest defamation settlements in history, includes a rare admission by Fox News acknowledging that certain false claims about Dominion were aired on their network. However, the agreement did not require Fox to apologize for any wrongdoing in its programming, a point Dominion had been pushing for.

The settlement follows several pretrial findings by the presiding judge, Eric M. Davis, which cast Fox's programming in a negative light, significantly limiting its ability to argue that it was acting as a news network pursuing newsmaker claims. Dominion had collected substantial internal documentation from Fox, showing that many within the company knew the conspiracy theory about Dominion's election involvement was baseless. The settlement raises the question of whether Fox News will change its approach to handling defamatory conspiracy content in the future.

When I began writing online (blogging?) in 2012, the first significant post I made concerned the sale of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, The North Bay Business Journal, and the Petaluma Argus-Courier. While the sales price at the time was not disclosed, the value of the Press Democrat had dropped and related enterprises had, on the evidence, declined by over 90% since the purchase of the papers by the New York Times in 1985. That was consistent with the decline of the newspaper industry overall in recent times. I speculated then about the consequences of the collapse of the economics supporting newspapers and the possible impacts of the same. 

The experience since 2012 in America, and the decline of its papers, has been bigger news than I might have imagined. The end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 allowed conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh to dominate talk radio, as broadcasters no longer needed to present balanced viewpoints. The culture that developed in that context has since spread into newspapers and cable TV news. This change contributed to the polarization of political discourse in the United States and helped shape the nation's political landscape. 

Rather than merely be conservative, the Dominion case suggests that, over time, the lack of balance has led to Richard Hofstadter's "Paranoid Style" of American politics rising to the fore. A political culture founded on falsehoods, deceit, or misinformation can undermine trust in democratic institutions, erode the credibility of political leaders, and ultimately sap the stability and effectiveness of the political system as a whole. This has severe consequences for the functioning of a democratic society, leading to increased polarization, ineffective decision-making, and weakened accountability.

The decline in the economics supporting newspapers, the end of the Fairness Doctrine, and the subsequent rise of polarizing voices have significantly impacted the American political landscape. The Fox News settlement with Dominion Voting Systems highlights how unbalanced reporting and conspiracy theories have permeated mainstream media, eroding trust in democratic institutions and increasing political polarization. As we move forward, it is essential to address the challenges posed by this shifting media environment and work towards fostering a political culture that values accuracy, integrity, and balanced perspectives, to ensure the continued stability and effectiveness of our democratic system.

Beyond Market Mantras, and the Benefit-Cost Conundrum in Policy.

Takashi Negishi, 2014

 Gov't of Japan Standard ToU (Ver.2.0)

via Wikimedia Commons. 

In a brief post today, Brad DeLong, an economist and historian at Berkeley, shared his thoughts on the importance of benefit-cost analysis in policy-making, largely agreeing with Henry Farrell's views. Farrell's argument in question is that the long-held belief that the market knows best has left government policymakers ill-equipped to intervene in the economy effectively. The focus on neoclassical economics in elite US policy schools has resulted in a lack of understanding about how markets actually work. Farrell believes that the price signal cannot convey as much information as previously thought, and some goods are not efficiently provided by market arrangements. He suggests that the assumption that government actors lack the knowledge to intervene has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To address this issue, Farrell proposes rethinking public policy education to include not only traditional economic reasoning but also new approaches.

DeLong emphasizes that benefit-cost analysis, or "economistic reasoning," is more than just beneficial; it is essential. This approach requires policymakers to count and compare the benefits and costs of a proposed policy, helping them decide what should be done. DeLong also highlights the value of comprehensive benefit-cost analysis, which takes into account all externalities in a system. By driving shadow and real prices towards social-welfare maximizing values, this framework helps conceptualize policy goals. DeLong believes that checking whether these goals have been achieved is the only way to determine a policy's success. However, he acknowledges that benefit-cost analysis has its limitations, particularly in addressing wealth and inequality.

Despite its shortcomings, DeLong argues that considering wealth distribution and its correlation with political power is essential for effective policy-making. Ignoring this aspect could result in policies that threaten the existing distribution of power, which would make it impossible to implement any meaningful changes. In other words, technocracy can only succeed with the support of raw political power. In explaining this, DeLong turns to the work of Takashi Negishi, whose social welfare weights have been controversialy applied in a series of contexts, including the Kyoto Protocol. I had intuitivelly understood Negishi weights for a long time, but this was the first instance where the articulation of it in terms of his scholarship registered with me. I make this note todady as a marker for the future, and a recognition of a nascent idea in an earlier post. 

Economics and the Mona Lisa Smile.

"Mona Lisa."

Leonardo da Vinci.

Public domain.

via Wikimedia Commons.

The Economist this morning observes that economic forecasting has become increasingly unpredictable, with analysts struggling to accurately forecast many key international measures. Contributing to the confusion are challenges in data collection and interpretation due to Covid-19 disruptions and declining response rates to official surveys. The pandemic caused significant fluctuations in growth, complicating seasonal adjustments in economic numbers. Also, reduced response rates to surveys may have led to increased data volatility and potential bias, as non-respondents tend to be less prosperous, which could distort income statistics. The article uses the ambiguous "smile" of Mona Lisa, painted by Leonardo da Vinci via the sfumato technique, as a metaphor for the difficulty of discerning the true state of the economic environment given this unpredictable data. 

One source of confusion arises from the discrepancy between "hard" and "soft" data—objective indicators such as unemployment rates, and subjective variables like individuals' future expectations. Typically, these two classifications of data are congruent. However, at present, they exhibit a stark contrast. "Soft" measures indicate a recessionary trend, while "hard" measures suggest a reasonable economic expansion. This divergence may be attributed to the public's discontent with inflation. In affluent nations, prices continue to escalate at an annual rate of 9%.

Economic measures really matter for government budgeting, as California's Legislative Analyst's office (LAO) relies upon that data in planning future budgets. Necessarily, many of the points the Economist makes about uncertainty get resolved by the LAO in the "negative" (that is, they accept the more dire forecast). As the LAO (accurately) writes in their 23-24 budget analysis, the U.S. economy experienced rapid expansion from summer 2020 through 2021 due to pandemic-related federal stimulus. However, this growth was (as far as the LAO is concerned, and many others) unsustainable, leading to record low unemployment and supply chain challenges, causing consumer prices to rise 8% year-on-year. To combat inflation, the LAO points out that the Federal Reserve has enacted large interest rate increases throughout 2022. The LAO interprets the hard data it sees, that California is experiencing decreased home and car sales and falling stock prices, as well as weaker state tax collections, and concludes there is a slowdown in the economy. 

The LAO, though, is looking at some of the same data as the writers of the Economist, and thus notes that while overly optimistic projections could result in future shortfalls, an excessively pessimistic projection could lead to premature cuts to public services. Further, despite all the foregoing, the LAO points out that "the state can afford to maintain its existing school and community college programs and provide a cost-of-living adjustment of up to 8.38 percent in 2023-24," which would essentially meet the rate of inflation for educational funding in California. Despite the economy's sfumato, at least that is clear. 

Questions from the Press, April 15, 2023.

Today, Sonoma Valley Unified's board held a meeting to discuss its Superintendent search. Because I generally get questions shortly after meetings from the Sonoma Index-Tribune and the Sonoma Valley Sun, I took the time during the session to write down what I thought happpened, and my meeting notes are below. Also, the photograph included is of my daughter Siena, a lacrosse player for Sonoma Valley High School, of whom I am very proud. 

---

The public portion of the meeting concerned the findings in the Leadership Profile Assessment conducted by Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates (HYA) for the Superintendent position. The data was collected from virtual interviews, focus groups, and an online survey involving various stakeholder groups, conducted between March 10, 2023, and April 7, 2023. The purpose of this assessment was to assist the Board in determining the desired characteristics in the new superintendent, as well as to identify the district's strengths and upcoming challenges.

Participation in the data gathering process included a diverse range of stakeholders, with 621 respondents to the online survey, which was offered in both English and Spanish. Parents and support staff were well represented, with 325 individual responses. Sonoma Valley Unified School District's strengths include community partnerships, a value for diversity and inclusion, and talented, dedicated staff. Challenges and concerns facing the district include a pervasive sense of mistrust towards the district, a high rate of superintendent turnover, a need for improved governance practices, and addressing student mental health needs.

The focus group meetings allowed participants to build upon each other's comments and respond to questions regarding stakeholder values, current and future challenges, and desired characteristics in a new superintendent. The search team thanked all the participants and the SVUSD staff for their assistance, and particularly Kyra Sherman for organizing the stakeholder scheduling.

The data presented summarizes the participation of various stakeholder groups in personal interviews, focus groups, and an online survey conducted for the Sonoma Valley Unified School District Superintendent search. The key insights from this data were:

1. A total of 95 stakeholders participated in personal interviews or focus groups, while 621 stakeholders responded to the online survey.

2. The online survey had broad participation from different stakeholder groups, with the highest participation from parents (269), followed by support staff (56), students (22), and community partners (10).

3. Among the interviewed stakeholders, site level administrators had the highest participation (20), followed by teachers (103), and central office administrators (5).

This data indicates that there was considerable engagement from various stakeholder groups, particularly parents, support staff, and site level administrators, during the data gathering process for the Superintendent search.

The profile was essentially that SVUSD is seeking a Superintendent who: 

• Is Visionary and has a student-centered approach, emphasizing instructional focus, special education, and balancing district strategies with classroom innovation;

• Fosters trust, respect, and a positive climate among stakeholders, with an emphasis on relationship-building and engaging with the Latino community;

• Collaborates with the Board, supports teachers and staff, and seeks input from educational specialists in decision-making;

• Involves all stakeholders in strategic planning and implementation, maintaining a track record of positive working relationships and approachability across the community;

• Demonstrates experience in managing enrollment, reconfiguring schools, strong financial acumen, and commitment to biliteracy and biculturalism.

The trustees, before entering closed session, reviewed the analysis of the survey data from HYA. The data revealed a significant disparity between the opinions of administrators and community members, with no clustering observed on the State of the District. In contrast, more clustering was found in the weighted Leadership profile. Interestingly, "understanding and being sensitive to the needs of a diverse student population" ranked within the top concerns for both community members and students. Indeed, the two highest priorities of students were that the superintendent be visible throughout the district while actively engaging in community life, and understanding and catering to the needs of a diverse student population.

The trustees then entered closed session. The closed session adjourned at 12:20, with no action reported.

Santa Rosa's Caritas Homes: Addressing the Housing Crisis Amid Fairness Concerns.

 Mural by Christopher Statton and Megan Wilson, 2015

© Ponderosa Templeton 2017

CC BY-SA 4.0

via Wikimedia Commons.

Sarah Edwards of the Press Democrat writes today about new housing in Santa Rosa. Tenants will soon be selected to fill 33 affordable apartments in downtown Santa Rosa, as part of Burbank Housing's two-phase Caritas Homes development. The project aims to provide 126 units in total to address the housing shortage in North Bay. The first building of the Caritas Homes development is set to be completed by July 1, with half of the first phase's residents being chosen through an April 21 lottery and the remaining units allocated for those experiencing homelessness. The development will be located at 340 and 360 Seventh St., catering to households earning between 40% and 60% of the area median income or those with a Sonoma County Housing Choice Voucher or Section 8 voucher.

Caritas Homes will consist of two identical buildings, each with 63 units, offering studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments. The first 30 units in each building will be reserved for people experiencing homelessness. The development will also feature a secured parking garage, indoor community room, outdoor gathering space, and indoor bicycle storage. The first building cost $44 million to build, while the second will require $47 million due to inflation and rising construction costs.

Sonoma County behavioral health services and Catholic Charities will be available to support tenants who were previously homeless. The project, which provides around 90 units per acre, is different from the existing construction in downtown Santa Rosa. The development was initiated in response to the chronic housing shortage, which was further exacerbated by the 2017 Tubbs Fire, destroying 5,000 housing units in Sonoma County.

Two items struck me about this article. Firstly, the development doesn't look like 90 units per acre at all; instead, it looks attractive and friendly, with a mix of two, three, and four-storey elevations. The architects should be commended for that. Secondly, a more challenging and emotional point is that housing allocation is being determined here by a lottery system. Deciding where someone lives is a very high-stakes matter to decide on chance. The article mentions that around 10,000 people are on waiting lists for housing in the county, and nearly 3,000 are homeless. In a society that emphasizes distributive justice, resources should be allocated unequally only to the extent that it benefits the least advantaged members of the community. Instead of a lottery system, a  better way would involve assessing needs and prioritizing those in the most vulnerable situations. Only then will our shared sense of fairness be addressed, one of the crucial requirements of any effort to address our housing crisis.