For the first time in recent memory, Morgan Hill School District
Trustee can’t find common ground
Disagreement dominated the end of Tuesday’s regular School Board meeting as members heatedly debated a motion authorizing Superintendent Alan Nishino to negotiate school sites in Coyote Valley.
Some board members fear the 4-3 vote will evolve into a de facto decision that permanently binds the district into building Coyote’s schools, effectively doubling the number of school sites in the district.
Trustee Shelle Thomas told the board she worried that by authorizing Nishino to negotiate, they would be placing the district’s “handprint” on the proposed development and proceeding on the assumption that the area north of the city to Bernal Road would remain in the Morgan Hill School District forever.
Thomas has been an advocate for the district to seek public opinion before making any concrete decisions on the district’s future role in Coyote Valley. She also feared the action would send the district’s involvement in planning the area that will eventually be home to 80,000 people behind closed doors.
“I don’t even know who you’re going to be talking to, what deals you’re going to broker,” Thomas said to Nishino.
The word “negotiate” bothered several trustees, including Thomas, who read to her fellow board members a definition of the word.
“It’s not the idea to cut a deal,” Nishino responded. “What I would do is negotiate terms and conditions for what the board would like to see and make sure I protect the interests of the board.”
Trustees voted 4-3 to direct Nishino to begin negotiations.
The Coyote Valley Specific Plan Task Force is creating a development blueprint for San Jose’s city council to consider for the area just north of Morgan Hill and west of Highway 101. The general plan is to create a densely populated transit community with 80,000 residents, 50,000 jobs and 25,000 homes over the next 30 or so years.
Though the board has conducted a workshop and held a discussion or two about abandoning Coyote Valley and forcing the area to create its own school district, no formal decisions have been made by the board.
Nishino said Friday that he has had no direction from the board to consider removing Coyote Valley from the district, and hosting a public forum or hearing to gather community input “would be strictly a board decision.”
Like Thomas, trustees Julia Hover-Smoot and Amina Khemici share concerns that directing Nishino to negotiate would prevent public disclosure of developments. Nishino said that was not necessarily the case.
“Normally you negotiate in closed sessions because you are negotiating against someone else,” he said. “You negotiate so you can protect some of the interest that you have.”
Trustee Kathy Sullivan told Thomas, Hover-Smoot and Khemici that a “yes” vote did not mean the public would not know what was going on.
“I agree with you that things should not be done behind closed doors,” she said. “We have plenty of time at our meetings for public comment, the Coyote Valley meetings are public … We are giving our superintendent the go ahead to be aware of what is happening, to do his best to protect our interests.”
Trustees also debated if it was appropriate to begin financial negotiations for land in a plan that was still being conceived. Thomas, Hover-Smoot and Khemici preferred to wait for the Environmental Impact Report due this summer. Gavilan College, however, which will also build a Coyote campus, secured land in January.
But the three dissenting trustees also worry the district may not have time to deal with Coyote negotiations during the campaign for a parcel tax voters will see in the June election, and the fact that the district has no money to pay for the construction of the 13 new schools described in the current Coyote plan, including two new high schools and middle schools.
“There’s just a little sense of urgency about this issue that has come up tonight that concerns me,” Hover-Smoot said.
Hickey explained he has had this step in mind since Nishino was hired less than a year ago.
“I asked for it to be on the agenda tonight,” he said. “I’ve been asking for it to be on here for six months, as soon as we hired Alan. I wanted him to take over Coyote Valley, that’s his job description. Some of you will say that wasn’t a part of your plan. Well, it was a part of many people’s plan. We’re making it larger, we’re informing the public more with this decision. We’re making him come back and report to us and the public. I don’t understand what the problem is.”
Hover-Smoot said she thought the board needed more discussion before making a decision.
“Because there’s so much dissent, I think we need to bring it back, get more information,” she said.
Thomas, Hover-Smoot and Khemici tried to table the motion as the meeting stretched into its fourth hour with hopes of bringing the issue back for more discussion in the future.
Their motion was denied on a 3-4 vote.
Trustee Don Moody said he felt comfortable in moving forward with negotiations.
“I don’t feel threatened, quite the contrary,” he said. “I would much prefer to have someone with expertise represent us. I’m still not sure if I’m going to support Coyote Valley, but I have enough confidence in this individual, in his expertise. That was part of my decision when we hired him.”
Thomas asked if Moody could see the issue of formal negotiations as she feared the community and San Jose would see it.
“You don’t think that by stepping forward and negotiating … that we’re moving forward with Coyote Valley?” she asked.
Moody disagreed, stating that he’s more concerned that only Thomas and Mandel, through their participation on a Coyote subcommittee, have been the district’s only voices on Coyote development so far.
“I think it’s odd that we’ve gone this far with two board members,” he said.
