This isn't about programs.
It's about how decisions get made.

A pattern of unanimous votes, not deliberation

Between December 2024 and March 2026, in an audit of 32 board meetings and 208 recorded votes in which the current three-member board majority was present together, that majority voted the same way as one another on 207 of 208 votes. That is 99.5 percent.

A five-member board is designed for deliberation. When 99.5 percent of recorded votes are unanimous within the majority, that is a caucus, not a deliberative body. This holds regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcomes.

Major decisions moving fast. Minor items receiving careful review.

Over the past school year, the same sequence has appeared across the district's most consequential decisions. Examples include the non-renewal of the contracts of the leaders of the Black Student Support Team at Tam High, the co-location of Tamiscal and San Andreas alternative schools, and the restructuring of TEAM Academy (a 30-year program serving approximately 52 students, communicated to families and students with a quick email from the principal), all of which followed the same arc.

In each of these decisions, the pattern is the same: a community or teacher recommendation or concern is surfaced, board questions on the underlying analysis are limited, alternative data or independent input is not requested, and the vote follows quickly.

However, topics this board wants to press forward are given ample time, endless debate, and are pushed through despite community objections.

The public understands that finances will drive hard decisions. What the public will not accept is decisions that arrive already made, with no thought, no shared understanding, and no collaboration on the way there.

The public record does not show a board unable to deliberate. It shows a board choosing to deliberate on some items and not on others.

A pattern of resistance to transparency

Local governance depends on the public's ability to see how decisions are being made. That requires timely responses to public records requests, substantive replies to constituent inquiries, and a willingness to make the reasoning behind board decisions available for review. On each of these fronts, the record shows a pattern of resistance.

Public records requests filed with the district over the past two school years have repeatedly missed the statutory response window and produced only a small fraction of the material the district's own search identified.

The same pattern appears in routine communication with the community. Emails from constituents on active board items have gone unread through the day of the vote, by trustees' own on-the-record acknowledgment. Requests for direct board communication about major program changes go unanswered and unaddressed. Community members raising documented concerns weeks and months before a board decision have found their questions unanswered.

Transparency is not a favor. It is the minimum standard the public has a right to expect from those it elects.

Community input treated as a formality

An analysis of the public-comment record documents more than 600 community requests made to the board, of which fewer than 0.5 percent resulted in an official board action.

Due to the lack of communication from the current board on key decisions, the volume of public comment has risen dramatically, and those comments remain unanswered.

Community engagement is not a metric this board struggles to generate. It is a resource this board is choosing not to use.

The example the board sets

Serving on a public board is not only a decision-making role. It is a modeling role. Children in this district watch how their elected representatives treat one another, treat community members, and treat the families sitting in the room. The record over the past year documents conduct the district would not accept from a student on its own campus.

Trustees have used district email accounts to curse at constituents and send personal insults. Grieving families have been treated with visible impatience during public comment. Student board representatives have been interrupted and dismissed in ways their adult counterparts would not be. Meeting recordings show trustees rolling their eyes and speaking over community members. On multiple occasions, board members have engaged in petty bickering and embarrassing behavior toward one another during public meetings, in a manner that has repeatedly reached local press coverage.

The district asks students every day to disagree respectfully, to hear each other out, and to conduct themselves in ways that reflect well on the school. The community is entitled to ask the same of the people who sit at the front of the room.

Two of three high schools declining; one holding

Comparing U.S. News & World Report rankings from 2019-20 to 2025-26:

• Redwood High School: #67 to #50 (improved)
• Tamalpais High School: #97 to #122 (down 25 places)
• Archie Williams High School: #163 to #250 (down 87 places)

Redwood's continued strength deserves acknowledgement. The trajectories at the other two schools deserve the district's serious attention.

State assessment scores have declined

Per California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress data, the share of 11th graders meeting or exceeding standard fell from 77.1 percent to 71.4 percent in English Language Arts, and from 58.2 percent to 53.5 percent in Mathematics, between the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years. Both are declines of approximately 5 percentage points in a single year. Board minutes from the intervening period document no substantive discussion of these results.

Community trust indicators point in one direction

On June 16, 2026, the board declined to continue the parcel-tax exploratory committee, effectively removing a potential renewal from the November 2026 ballot and deferring the question to 2028. Trustees raised the concern on the record that the district faces a fiscal cliff before 2028.

The Board President and one additional trustee are on the November 2026 ballot. The decision to defer the parcel-tax question past the election is a decision voters are entitled to see clearly, in that context.