Mariselle Quijano was running for reelection to our school board in position two. As an employee of the district we are somewhat dialed in to these things, but I don’t live in the district where I work. So, I try not to get involved. Quijano had served for 12 years, but it appears that the term is coming to an end. At least that is what we thought.

It was a 51/49 percentage account, so by all accounts it was close. Now, the school board president is refusing to seat the winner. The district has an official statement I have highlighted below, but it has turned nasty. Crystal Davila (the winner) has complained publicly about the process and if you simply read the statement below it would seem that the issue shouldn’t be in doubt.

When you go to the official school district website this is what they have on the election results. They have already had two meetings since the election. In one of those meetings the board voted to give all of us a three percent across the board raise. So, in other words, they are doing some pretty significant stuff.

This is where we get into the politics of it. Davila ran as part of a cohort of current and former educators that thought there should be more teacher representation on the board. Beyond that, labels of liberal and conservative rarely ever enter into it on this level. At least that’s true in Pasadena. Candidates never have a letter by their name and few mention anything that would hint of larger political issues. That changed during this race.

The school board president lobbied hard for the three incumbents in the race and labeled the three challengers as wanting to install a socialist agenda. I’m not exactly sure how one does that on a school board, but who knows. While she did not specifically label Davila as a socialist I suppose the implication was clear enough. Now, she is refusing to seat her. I can only wonder where they are getting this idea from about recounts. Is there anyone out there that they are deriving their inspiration from to stonewall the process? Can anyone think of anyone? Obviously, I don’t know if the current board are Trump supporters and that’s not my implication.

The implication is simple. When you see someone do something and it seems to be successful then it gives you rise to do it. That might be the most dangerous outcome from the 2020 election. Now, everyone has cause to challenge an election when the results come back differently they think they should have. Again, I’m an innocent bystander here. I didn’t vote in the election and really didn’t have an opinion until I was bombarded with talk about socialism. Now, it seems the citizens of Pasadena are not being adequately represented because a few on the board don’t like the results. That’s not how America works. At least that’s not how it’s supposed to work. Maybe the last presidential election will change all of that.