A deeper look at board’s ‘positive steps’

Last Friday's editorial about the April 7 School Board meeting was deeply disturbing in what it ignored. Yes, there were two Chico High students who bravely advocated for mental health resources (well done, ladies!). I was at that meeting. Some never-explained tech glitch meant that people who were prepared to speak were not on the list (all of whom were pro-reopening … coincidence?) Matt Tennis advocated for them to speak. Eileen Robinson repeatedly made excuses to avoid listening to those speakers. Kathleen Kaiser insisted that she was only willing to listen to students. President Robinson tried to require, in that moment (and utterly against the rules), that the two students be “pro/con” (what does that even mean???) Basically there was clear pressure to avoid hearing the comments.

Ultimately the board voted to allocate more than originally budgeted towards mental health resources (thank goodness), but it didn't happen without some heavy lifting by Matt Tennis. Thankfully, Tom Lando was also helpful. Dr. Kaiser went so far as to characterize Mr. Tennis' proposed amendment to her motion as “unfriendly” when all he asked for was to consider flexibility for increased spending in the budget item for mental health counsellors.

If not for Matt Tennis, the “positive steps” mentioned in the editorial wouldn't have happened. The rank partisanship of our lives is so destructive and is frankly becoming quite tiresome. It's bad enough when the school board members do it.

But must we get it from our editorial board as well?

— Arwen Funk, Chico