With four days until the deadline on Friday afternoon, no one
had applied as of Monday afternoon for appointment to the two-year
Morgan Hill School Board term vacated by former Trustee Tom
Kinoshita.
With four days until the deadline on Friday afternoon, no one had applied as of Monday afternoon for appointment to the two-year Morgan Hill School Board term vacated by former Trustee Tom Kinoshita.
The seat, which opened up when Kinoshita resigned March 15, has been the source of controversy in the district. Applications for the seat are due in the superintendent’s office, 15600 Concord Circle, by 4pm Friday. Late applications will not be accepted.
Anyone who is a resident of the Morgan Hill School District, 18 years of age or older and registered to vote in the district is eligible to apply.
Potential candidates should be able to attend interviews during a special School Board meeting at 6pm on Oct. 18 in the District Office.
The meeting could be continued to Oct. 19 if there are too many candidates to interview in one evening. Trustees are expected to take action after the interviews; the appointee would take the oath of office with the three newly elected board members Dec. 6.
After Kinoshita’s resignation, trustees discussed appointing a new member for the remainder of the term versus waiting for the election. They voted to fill the two-year term by election during the Nov. 2 regular election.
However, during the filing period in July and ending in early August, no one registered as a candidate for the two-year term. Because the incumbents for the other seats did not choose to run for re-election, the filing period was extended five days; since there was no incumbent for the two-year term, the filing period for that seat was not extended and closed Aug. 6 with no candidates.
Trustee Jan Masuda asked district staff to seek legal counsel, after the response from the Santa Clara County Office of Education to Superintendent Carolyn McKennan’s letter asking about the next step left open some possibilities.
During the Sept. 20 board meeting, trustees were told by Larry Schoenke of Miller, Brown and Danis that they had an obligation to at least try to fill the slot by appointment.
There was no discussion on a penalty if trustees did not attempt to appoint someone. District staff had drawn up a timeline for appointment in the event trustees would vote to go ahead; the vote was 6-0 to appoint, although some members expressed reluctance, and the process was under way.
It is unclear what the next step is if no one applies for appointment; Shoenke told trustees during the Sept. 20 meeting that they “don’t have any discretion; you are required by law to make the attempt to make the appointment before the election.”
He also told them if they could not agree on the appointment, if the vote on the candidates tied, then they had at least made the attempt to appoint.
Marilyn Dubil covers education and law enforcement for The Times. She can be reached by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (408) 779-4106 ext. 202.
