« If You Like Your House, You Can Keep It..... | Main | Drought 2021: Here We Go Again »

February 23, 2021



At the risk of going somewhat off-topic (which we really don't approve of), I am going to repost a comment made today on the separate BSD post since it directly goes to SMUSHD transparency). Here it is:

The HVAC system at BHS has failed, yet this fact has been withheld from the public.

Why the lie?

The SMUHSD Board Meeting for Feb 25 shows the following.

A complete replacement of the HVAC system at Burlingame High School.

As reported last year, the HVAC system has not functioned and therefore BHS could not be opened during COVID.

Why did the Administration lead the public to believe that BHS COULD be re-opened when it knows this is not possible.

This is a major structural failure and a lie to the public.

Why has the public been allowed to believe that BHS could re-open when opening is not possible with a failed air system?

Why has the administration allowed "alternative" explanations to permeate the Burlingame Community rather than state the truth?

In April of 2020, the administration should have informed both the Board and the BHS Public, "We cannot open BHS, the HVAC system has failed and needs to be replaced."

If there is a claim that this is a funding issue, where is the $5 million CARES money sent to the SMUHSD?

M.1. Approval of Architectural Services Proposal with Quattrocchi Kwok Architects (QKA) for Architectural Services on the Burlingame High School HVAC Replacement

Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the Board of Trustees approve the Architectural Services proposal with Quattrocchi Kwok Architects for the Burlingame High School HVAC Replacement Project.

Quick Summary / Abstract:
The Board is being asked to approve the proposal for architectural services with Quattrocchi Kwok Architects for the Burlingame High School HVAC Replacement Project which consists of the replacement of roofing and HVAC equipment at the main building at Burlingame High School.

Financial Impact:
The fee for Architectural Services is not to exceed $527,000.00. QKA’s proposal also includes a reimbursable allowance of $25,000.00. The total amount of their proposal is $552,000.00.

Gov. Gerry- Redistricting Politics-

How will I keep my seat?

The discussion regarding the redistricting mandate by board members and a single public speaker revolved around incumbency, their ideology, and how to preservation of their seats. It was disclosed that three members live in 94404 and the other two live in 94010.

A public speaker (addressed by his first name since he was known personally by the members) “How do we draw these district to preserve your current seats?”

On member stated, “How do we draw these districts so that we do not place one school against another since this Board ALWAYS represents all of the schools?”

This mandate may be a blessing as currently no single board member can be held responsible for anything, as they are responsible to the at large community and can always blame someone else. When something (or someone) is failing at a single school, a single representative IS responsible.

Incumbency is the casualty of redistricting.

One thing is very clear, the current Board members and the administration should NOT be allowed to participate in the drawing of these new districts as they have an interest in perpetuating their incumbency.

While the legal mandate is offensive, the underlying implied gerrymandering to allow the current incumbents to keep their free healthcare and stipends is even more offensive. It is assumed that the new measure will require the member to live in the district they represent.

The SMUHSD incorporates San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, Hillsborough, San Mateo, and Foster City. San Mateo holds 60% of the district’s residents and will therefore derive 3/5ths of the seats. The current members will be allowed to remain in their seats until their legal term is completed while the new districts are drawn. This does not mean that Trustees Land and Zuniga Andrade will be the de-facto representatives of Burlingame and San Mateo, they will just keep those seat warms until the new lines are drawn. The other three will be required to live in one of the new districts to win the seat. (SMCCD

The objective of the mandate (as offensive as it may be) is to actually represent the people, not the incumbents. Burlingame has held three seats for a period of time, but that has not seemed to produce any benefit for Burlingame High School.

An independent committee of the public should be formed and provided the necessary socioeconomic data as well as the current K-8 and high school geographic boundaries for the schools. Since these are seats for a Board of Education, factors related to providing education (and not geography) should drive construction of the redistricting. Since the SMUHSD is not connected to its feeder schools, but its students and parents ARE, the, middle school boundaries seem to be a natural place to start as most students move through elementary and middle school as a group. This would be a natural constituent base.

The Independent Redistricting Committee could collectively construct the five equal districts and present their plan with data rational to the public for a comment period. After the comment period, the Independent Redistricting Committee could make changes as needed from the comments and produce a final map for a single “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” approval without comment by the current SMUHSD Board.

Gov. Gerry- HVAC-Failed- The new one we already paid for.

The BHS HVAC system is a complete failure and will need to be replace at a cost of over $500,000 and cannot be done until the Summer of 2022.

Superintendent Skelly writes, "good thing we have Bond money."

We already paid for a new HVAC system during the last BHS remodel and it has never properly worked stated one teacher.

There is not a single member of the Board who took responsibility for this action which has been known to the BHS Administration, students, teachers, and public for years.

A single member district would hold THAT incumbent individual responsible for the failure, who in turn would ask (very tough and pointed) questions of the district administration of why and how it failed to ensure the proper functioning of BHS. This representative would be responsible FOR the constituents of BHS and not the other five schools.

Linda Lees Dwyer

This is my individual opinion. I speak only for myself. I do not like posts by people who make up names and make statements as fact that are not fact. Hiding does not add credibility. If anyone wants to call me and talk about any of the things that are stated on this site, please do so.

I spoke to the re-districting issue at the meeting and I reiterate--it is a good thing. Each board member represents 6 cities and having a more geographic split makes sense for this school district-in my individual opinion. No matter how the district is split, the trustees are elected to represent the whole district-not individual parts of it. The geographic split is intended to be to the benefit of all students, all schools and all constituents-to increase perspective and enhance the diversity of the board.

I anticipate being out after the re-districting. I understand it and I accept it. We have to look to the best interest of the people we represent-that is our job--that is my job. What I take issue with is the cost that the public faces to accomplish this task. $32,000 in attorney fees for a letter-the hiring of district counsel, hiring a professional demographer, staff costs, meeting costs-this is not in any way a good use of public dollars-months of work and meetings. In my individual opinion-we need a change in the law that limits or funds the cost-if the process is kept in place as is. Changing the process may be a better way to go. The re-districting is the right thing to do for SMUHSD and it has to be done without any consideration of where the current trustees reside. This is not about the current-but about the future. The cost should not come from taxpayer dollars dedicated to the funding of education .


If it's such a great idea why did it take a legal threat to make it happen?

Barking Dog

Linda, What do you say to the families you represent about the total lack of transparency and the laundry list of grossly mismanaged blunders made during your time as a SMUHSD Trustee?

New blood needed. Finally. I for one am thrilled to see Hanley, Griffin and Dwyer's time is up with the redistricting.

Gov. Gerry, Publius, Cato & Brutus-  Environment of Fear

Looking in from the outside-

California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”)

•Prohibits the use of “at-large” elections that impair the ability of a protected class to: elect candidates of its choice; or to influence the outcome of an election.
•(Elec. Code, § 14027)
• “Racially Polarized Voting” (Elec. Code, § 14028)
• Proof of intent to discriminate not required
SMUHSD Board presentation

Trustees have both an advantage and a responsibility. They need to use both and not just one.

This is a Civil Rights law that was enacted to correct elements of de facto (some would argue de jure) segregation in voting. While there might be opposition to the mandated costs, we can look to history to find that no city ever wants to pay for Civil Rights “adjustments” because they feel these are being mandated. These same Civil Rights laws are being implemented in cities across the state after election results have been announced such as Millbrae and Burlingame.

Trusteee Lees Dwyer,you may not like the fact that individuals feel the need to comment in an anonymous manner, but this is how the SMUHSD was placed under the CVRA, by an anonymous individual who contacted the So Cal Lawyer.

This environment of fear and retaliation was created and perpetuated by the SMUHSD for its constituents who oppose its wrath or negligence. The facts below are current and documented.

The SMUHSD's own students (of Color) had to leave the school site administrations to seek legal support and refuge from abuse. They were forced to create an Instagram Account to voice their grievances in order to get the attention of the district administration and Board These students were clearly articulating Civil Rights violations that are taking place inside of the schools.

The students and parents themselves have cited “Fears of Retaliation” by the administration or teachers as their need to go below ground. The Grand Jury had to level the Hate@Schools findings in order for the administration to take any meaningful action to protect students. The student who had swastikas painted on his locker (and his parent) had to address the Board as little was being done. The Board rejected the assistance of the Anti Defamation League's Anti-Hate program (run by a BHS Grad) as it was an outside source .
Parents who openly voiced an opinion in a desire for grades and/or an opposition to online school last spring were singled out and became targets of retaliation at school and in the community.

While Trustees Friedman and Lees Dwyer did take a stand for student grades, the recording of the meeting shows the superintendent “manipulated” requested information to a Board member in order to sway the vote.

Equity is when every individual gets what they need, which may not be equal. The vote to remove student grades by the Board did not represents All Students and many parent strongly believe that this decision punished one group and rewarded another when better solutions were available.

Many local parents have cited the vote to remove grades as their point of departure from further trusting the district.

These are the facts that have been in the headlines. Don’t blame the messengers for the message. In attempting to please everyone, the administration has pleased no one and the application of the CVRA is just the next step in the process.

While members of the current Board came into office under an administration who engaged in extreme financial negligence, the remedies put in place to ensure a more transparent and ethical process are gone The district named a building after the fraudulent superintendent who engaged in the financial negligence costing the taxpayers some $85 million. How does that make sense?

Civil Rights changes are very expensive in both financial and related costs. If members of the Board are going to support the change, then you also need to support the costs.

Why is there outrage over the CVRA cost of $32,000 to create more equitable elections yet nothing for the well over $500,000 for the failed HVAC at BHS or the $60,000 cost overrun when the administration attempted to sneak a non-approved negligence driven cost overrun past the Board for the Edgenuity independent study program (paid to the equity firm who owns the product) with a best descriptions by students and parents as “incredibly sh*#ty” (Trustee Lees Dwyer caught the item in the budget). How about the legal expenses of the district (the people’s money) as members of the administration uses the district’s legal firm as personal defense attorney?

There is not a single Board member with a child attending any of the district’s schools. The Board has no skin in the game and does not bear the impact of any of its decisions.

The SMUHSD has continued to to “talk” about equity, yet it has an all-Caucasian district leadership team composed of three White Males and one White Female. The district has only one non-white high school principal. The administration internally selected another white female to fill a school site opening last year.

Where is the change?

Three Board members live in the 94404-zip code and the other two live in 94010.

The district makes statements about “diversity” yet it is led by individuals who live in two neighborhoods and then sends all-white male delegations to “diversity hiring” events to attract teachers of color.

Newsflash- It isn't working.

The Board is the problem. The change that is desired can only come from a directive to the Superintendent, but that would mean that a Board member or an administrator will have to either sacrifice their benefits or sacrifice someone else.

The Board just hired a new money guy which is necessary, so it will need to be one of the other three. One of them has been sitting for many years with no desire or aspirations be promoted to another district and little change of becoming the leader here.

Why does the public have to resort to social media sites such as Facebook, Nextdoor, Burlingame Voice, Instagram, or Parler to get the facts?

Its elected officials cannot or will not produce these facts or is willing to stand behind them.

At every Board Meeting this past year, the CTA President has had to issue a rebuke and corrections to the district administration, correcting the false statements and intentional misdirections put into the public record by the administration the meeting prior.

It is painful to watch our elected leaders allow the misinformation flow as fact, until it is corrected the following week.

As Resident states above, If this were such a great idea, then why did the district have to be forced to do it? You could have save the $32,000 and spent it on the kids.

BSD is now $3 million
Cato, Brutus, and Publius were just a few other folks who have written under another name. It’s how change happens.

Gov. Gerry, Publius, Cato & Brutus-  Environment of Fear

**BSD is now $3 million in deficit- anyone know the facts that transpired to produce this result?

Publication by the Board to the taxpayers?

The public needs the facts, not the spin at all levels of Burlingame.


@Linda, Thank you for engaging. As I said in the original post, dividing up the SMUSHD Board makes some sense compared to the idiocy of dividing up the B'game City Council. Having said that, you state:

"No matter how the district is split, the trustees are elected to represent the whole district-not individual parts of it."

That feels a bit aspirational to me--just as saying the same thing about the City Council. As a south Burlingamer, today I can reach out to five councilmembers and they all feel like they should listen. With districts, I can only imagine a response like "you should call YOUR council member". Why is SMUSHD any different?

On the plus side, "Gov. Gerry et al" does note that having 3 of 5 trustees from B'game for years has not delivered any special benefits to BHS. That is as it should be.

@Gov. Gerry-- let's start treating BSD and SMUSHD issues separately and on the appropriate posts--you now have one of each to work with. I personally appreciate your input as you are educating us.




It's a done deal:

The San Mateo Union High School District is the newest adopter of by-district elections, as education officials agreed to take on the new election format sweeping across the county.

The district Board of Trustees unanimously agreed Thursday, Feb. 25, to abandon the at-large election system after receiving a lawsuit threatening to force the overhaul.

The first by-district election in the school system will be 2022.


Dick n The Box-(DNB) The Cover Up and Board Failures-

A single Board member exclusively dedicated to each high school will form a strong bond between the representative and the schools, its principal, its parents, and its needs. The exclusive representative will represent THESE constituents to the Board and hold the administration responsible for the needs of THAT campus. This will ensure the voices of these specific students and help to prevent the negligence and abuse that has transpired.

The negligence at BHS- 2014-2016- The cover up-
(Everything below is fact based- The “receipts” can be produced as needed)

During the year 2014-2016, the Burlingame Parents Groups exhausted itself in its efforts to remove BHS Principal Di Yim due to her extreme negligence and failure as a leader. The Parent Group’s leadership and a rank and file members wrote to, petitioned, and personally address the district administration and Board members to remove Principal Yim at the end of both the 13-14 and 14-15 school years.

The Parents Group also lined up students and parents to address the Board for well over 20 minutes in April 2015 regarding the ongoing disaster of Yim’s Master Schedule and student’s inability to obtain courses for college admission.

At the same time the parents acting to remove Principal Yim, the United States Office of Civil Rights (OCR) began (what would become) a four -month investigation of Principal Di Yim, Deputy Superintendent Kirk Black, and specific BHS teachers for multiple civil rights violations, including Principal Yim’s “Dick in the Box” bump and grind dance during the Little Big Game Rally.

The SMUHSD Board and its members were blocked from information related to the OCR and related investigations and remained clueless of what transpired on the campus.

How can the United States Office of Civil Rights open an investigation on a Deputy Superintendent and a school site principal, and the Governing Board knows absolutely NOTHING about it?

What is the legal responsibility of the administration who failed to inform Board of these actions?

The district administration settled the complaints and buried the evidence before the information could be discovered by the Board or reach new Superintendent Skelly.

In the aftermath of this incident, instead of being fired, Principal Yim was advanced with a positive recommendation (by the same Deputy Superintendent) to be returned to BHS for a third year running the school into the ground.

If the Board had access to this internal information and the OCR investigation of a Deputy Superintendent and BHS Principal Di Yim, would the Board has even thought for a second on re-appointing her as Principal?

The five members of the SMUHSD Board, who represents “all of the schools,” were intentionally lied to and information was intentionally withheld from them as they had no idea what had taken place.

The SMUHSD District Administration stated that they were “concerned” about the Board seeing the Principal Yim “Dick in the Box” video that had surfaced.

So… what came next AFTER the Principal Yim was returned to BHS in the Fall of 2015?

Barking Dog


Skully fumbling through the meeting. Completely overwhelmed

Comment of the night came towards the end when a gentleman(didn't pick up his name)called in and said they should all be fired for their incompetence.

Gov. Gerry-Dumping on Bgame-The NIMBYEST Town

Taking a dump on BHS.

In his comments above Joe writes:
“I can reach out to five council members and they all feel like they should listen. With districts, I can only imagine a response like "you should call YOUR council member". Why is SMUSHD any different?”

“note that having 3 of 5 trustees from B'game for years has not delivered any special benefits to BHS. That is as it should be.”

Burlingame is a small town, (whose residents were recently slandered as the NIMBYEST town in the area by Nicole Fernandez, former chair of the county Democratic Party and now director for Sen. Josh Becker where the five representatives DO engage with the entirety and town and wish to see it collectively thrive.

The SMUHSD is a vast and extremely differentiated district (socioeconomics) where the values of one school or area are often sacrificed to benefit another.

In the last SMUHSD at-large election, an exceptionally over-qualified candidate, could not win a Trustee seat as the election boundaries are packed with the opposition political party who do not live in Burlingame. This has been indicative of any at large elections in the SMUHSD, and a detriment to our town.

While having 3 of 5 trustees from the NIMBYIEST town on the peninsula should not generate any benefits, it should at least protect Burlingame from harm or negligence.

The record shows that the 3 of 5 have ignored Burlingame, often placing the town and the high school into a negative position because THEY did not want to look as if they were granting “preference.”

Let’s face it, Burlingame is a place that many people love to HATE for a variety of reasons but money and politics come to mind first. (The NIMBYEST town? Really- No response from the Senator?)

Burlingame Parents are organized, active, and informed on issues. They speak out, defend their children, and are not afraid to take on a fight. (Is this entitled?)

In April of 2015, State Senator Jerry Hill had to come to the SMUHSD Board meeting with a threat of (another) Grand Jury investigation regarding SMUHSD Board’s negative behavior regarding shared pool. Senator Hill and his office staff were exceptionally was pissed that the 3 of 5 would not work with the people of their own town!

The three of five SMUHSD Board members took a “giant dump” on BHS with the Principal Yim scandal, returning her as Principal of BHS AFTER they knew of her “extensive and ongoing negligence” as well as the external investigations of Principal Yim and Deputy Superintendent Black by the United States Office of Civil Rights and California State investigators.

This abdication of responsibility adds to the ongoing pool debacle, swastikas, as well as a host of other issues and general attitude of just screwing BHS. A applicant for the BHS Principal position made available upon Di Yim’s resignation pulled their application from consideration once s/he researched the recent action on the campus and stated, “I want nothing to do with that S*&t Show.” BHS was once a school where every education leader wanted to be appointed as principal. Fact check -There have been as many principals AFTER Larry Teshara as there were before him.

Parents once flocked to Burlingame, paying excessive rents or home prices SO they could attend Burlingame High School. These same parent now flee to private schools, paying high tuition costs so that they can avoid what has become of the neglected campus.

The Board knowingly sacrificed the values of the Burlingame students, parents, and community in deference to known misconduct of the district administration.

The at-large trustees refused to stand up for honesty and ethics and instead sacrificed Burlingame High School because the majority of the at large district would not care and they would all be re-elected.

Trustee Land openly acknowledge that he was sacrificing the beneficial opportunities of his own child by supporting actions that were adverse to Burlingame and its high school.

A by-district SMUHSD will allow Burlingame to elect a Trustee that will prioritize the values of Burlingame and promote (and stand for) the needs of BHS students, parents and alumna.

The 100th Anniversary of Burlingame High School is coming in 2023. The 75-year anniversary had a grand celebration with a parade down Burlingame Ave. At this point, the history and traditions of BHS have been so damaged and eradicated by outsiders that school and district leaders may not know what to celebrate.

Burlingame, the NIMBYEST town on the Peninsula and a place where its own representatives cannot find the time or space to support its own high school.

A Burlingame Trustee designated to represent the local constituents will promote the needs and values of Burlingame and not sacrifice the students and parents to the political pressures from outside the its boundaries or inside the district office itself.



This probably won't end well:

A Mills High School teacher is alleging San Mateo Union High School District officials negligently disregarded her attempt to blow the whistle on abusive students, urged her to inflate grades and retaliated against her, according to a recent lawsuit.

Patricia Petersen, an English teacher at the Millbrae high school for two decades, claimed that administrators discouraged her from reporting a violent attack by a student, attempted to sweep other incidents under the rug and coerce her through intimidation, according the lawsuit.

A lawsuit filed Wednesday, March 10, in San Mateo County Superior Court detailed these allegations and an assortment of other claims painting Mills High School as an oppressive working environment with an overbearing, mistrustful administration.



Retaliation is a standard practice in the SMUHSD.

Nelson's Involuntary Transfer from BHS was extreme Whistleblower Retaliation directly from the individuals who were the recipients of the Civil Rights complaints.

Dr. Skelly and the Board have granted far too much trust in the individual in charge of the evidence room.

The SMUHSD will engaged in an ongoing barrage of retaliation and threats to keep people silent.

An almost $300k a year salary needs protection.

Joe is correct, this probably won't end well as a "can o worms" just got opened up.

-This was all pre-COVID- don't take the pressures of COVID as an excuse

SMUHSD Retaliation Lawsuit

The details of the Whistleblower retaliation lawsuit (on file with the SM Superior Court) illustrates the destructive nature of an administration with an ego out of control.

There is nothing in the details addressed in the suit that would justify a threat of termination.

Article States:

“The district’s conduct was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing Petersen to suffer humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical distress,” according to the lawsuit.

Petersen hopes the lawsuit will bring awareness to the concerns she claimed are shared among her colleagues and ultimately give way to greater administrative accountability.

“I’m kind of going out on a limb by challenging the school with all of this and I’m not the only one this has happened to,”

Petersen is correct, she is NOT the only one.

Does the Board remain silent and give tacit approval (again) or does it realize that it has been mislead by the leadership and needs to change course NOW.

Teacher Lawsuit- Ethics?-Widespread Problems

Board Members are asleep at the wheel.

Mills Teacher Sues SMUHSD- What comes next

The info moving around states that SMUHSD leadership is being investigated by State Official and the teacher lawsuit will bring depositions of the district leaders. (The SMUHSD will not fare well in depositions-No too many illegal actions)

Above, Trustee Lee's Dwyer points out that posts on the BV claim facts that are not true. Others claim the facts are real, the Board is blocked from the facts or pays no attention to the dam which is about to burst. (Former Trustee Sue Lempert points to the current CSM scandal as a reference)

As Lees Dwyer states she most likely will not run, the transition to District Elections makes Trustee Land the de-facto SMUHSD representative to Burlingame, its students, parents, and campus. You will be the sole elected official to address the parents of Burlingame who will mandate truthful responses to their questions.

As the de-facto Burlingame representative-Trustee Land- What are YOU planning on doing to make BHS Great Again? (The school is Red and White- The hats can be printed-MBHSGA.

Yes- The BHS that this city embraced, rallied around, and the reason why MANY people here or chose to stay rather than moving. That school.

Over the past years, the Board has ignored the pleas/complaints from the parents of Burlingame (a deaf ear to the well off?) allowing the school and campus to fall from its prior status.

Former SMUHSD Trustee Lempert states:
"No matter whether there are district or citywide and countywide elections, the work of an elected official is serious stuff."

"One needs to know enough about its operations and finances to ask questions and provide oversight. While the superintendent, city or county manager is in charge of operations, the elected board sets the policy. That’s not an excuse for relying on staff for all the answers. Plenty of examples of that locally with the community college board and its failure to catch the unethical practices of the last chancellor."

"When the city of Stockton went bankrupt and council members were before the grand jury, one council member said he had no idea city finances were so bad. He relied on staff. Somehow he forgot he was ultimately responsible."-SM Daily Journal

So, if/when the S*&T does hit the fan, how will the Board respond to the public?

How did you NOT know about these ongoing issues- How were YOU advised by STAFF?

"(teacher) Petersen hopes the lawsuit will bring awareness to the concerns she claimed are shared among her colleagues and ultimately give way to greater administrative accountability.

“I’m kind of going out on a limb by challenging the school with all of this and I’m not the only one this has happened to,”

The Petersen lawsuit is different, she doesn't want your money- she wants the Board to find its ethical base and direct the SMUHSD Administration to do the same.

The Petersen lawsuit is asking how widespread are these problems?


I would not be too quick to determine who, or even if there will, be a de-facto SMUHSD representative from Burlingame. A lot of things can happen between now and a district-based election. People can decide they have had enough (contributed enough), they can be more heavily loaded at work, they can have new or different family responsibilities.

I would keep an open mind on who will be most attuned to BHS on the Board in a couple years.

Teacher Lawsuit- Ethics-KnownProblems-Depositions(?)

The current representation system allows all the Trustee to ignore the issues and no one representative has to take the blame.

Former Trustee Lempert offers precautionary advice regarding Board members blindly trusting STAFF. The SMCCD Chancellor is under criminal investigation.

"Plenty of examples of that locally with the community college board and its failure to catch the unethical practices of the last chancellor"

One issue that is not in dispute is the significant increase in conflicts, damaging issues, and legitimate complaints regarding BHS and the SMUHSD.

The SMUHSD stopped producing Public Record Requests of essential documents out of fear that their actions would be disclosed to the Board and public. (They are prohibited by law from using cost as a reason to NOT disclose)

The Petersen Lawsuit is disclosing some of these flaws. The suit, filed in SM Superior Court indicates that Petersen is going after the administration over ethics and the law, not money.

This could prove problematic for the district administration if they can't scare off or buy off this teacher.

The publicity of this case has caused others who have been "run off" by the hostile environment to also come forward and tell their stories of blame and shame.

(The Petersen article has been the top trending piece on the SM Daily Journal for over a week)

If the Petersen case gets to depositions, it's all over. The Board will have some explaining to do regarding how they missed these issues that have been in plain sight.

So, yes... after these issues are brought to the public's attention, there may well be a different group of people on the Board over the next few elections.

Abusive Behavior-Class Action Coming(?)

The details of the Petersen Lawsuit illustrate some abusive issues regarding the SMUHSD management.

The elements of emotionally abusive behavior and tactics by management seems to be an ongoing issue and practice with the SMUHSD.

The verbal and emotional abuse is targeted at individuals who dare make Whistleblower Reports on the negligence of district level leaders who are well known as abusive individuals.

There is discussion among those who have been abused to file a class action against the district since the Board has been advised of these issues by the victims, yet it continues to be a "do nothing" body.

This should not be news to many as emotionally abused students have also had to "go into hiding" as district leadership sits by and does nothing.


Look what Santa Clara schools are up to https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2021/04/14/a-california-county-urges-teachers-to-hide-anti-american-lessons-for-children-from-parents-and-administrators-n360889

If it ain't woke, don't fix it- Common Sense Please

If it ain’t Woke- Don’t Fix it

SMUHSD Board Agenda Item:
SMUHSD Racial Equity Systems Transformation Phase I Scope of Work Summary of Phase I: Racial equity consultants will help SMUHSD leaders to develop a root causes analysis of previous events so that the district is able to uncover underlying patterns, systemic structures, and mindsets that must shift in order to create lasting equitable change.

Cost: $190,000

The SMUHSD district leadership and/or its membership is (or has recently been) under investigation by the following:

• Petersen v. SMUHSD Lawsuit-Whistleblower, Retaliation,
• California Labor Board- Whistleblower, Retaliation
• California Department of Fair Employment and Housing- Whistleblowing, Retaliation
• United States Department of Education- Civil Rights Division- Retaliation
• California Teacher Credentialing Commission- Educator Misconduct
• San Mateo Superior Court- Grand Jury

The SMUHSD is led by three white males and one white female. There is one high school principal that is not white. (There are three women)

The $190,000 study seeks to ask the people of color why they are targets of racism and discrimination.

The people of color are not the problem

The racial problems (and many others) in the SMUHSD come from an inability of the leadership to recognize, understand, and take action on common sense issues. If the leadership has an unconscious racial bias because they have absolutely no experience with race besides attending a workshop, then the problems will proliferate.

The SMUHSD has NOT addressed its civil rights problems more than throwing the tax-payers’ dollars at them.

The following was sent out in August 2020- The complaints civil rights complaints not only INCREASED, but students and parents started coming to SPEAK at the Board meeting since there was NOTHING being done.

Message to the public
The San Mateo Union High School District takes all allegations seriously and investigates all complaints.

Students can make complaints to administrative staff at their site or contact Dr. Kirk Black, Deputy Superintendent at 650-558-2208 or [email protected].

Our District is genuinely committed to students’ well-being and holds people accountable when their actions violate school rules or policies.

Kirk Black
Deputy Superintendent of Human Resources and Student Services

A person of color who has experienced racism or discrimination (or anyone with common sense) would take action to remedy these issues, not allow them to continue. The statement that the district takes these “allegations seriously” is laughable.

Since we don’t have leaders with common sense, we should most likely appoint a person of color to the SMUHSD Leadership so they can point out the obvious, Civil Rights violations are not tolerated.

If the SMUHSD took these complaints seriously, they would not continue to proliferate

The SMUHSD has done nothing and allows these violations to continue-

The investigations of the leadership, the complaints, and the lawsuits should signal a clear problem to the Board that cannot be fixed… by the people creating the problem.

There is a clear and easy way to save $190,000 of tax-payer money- Replace the people who ignore the problems.

To the members of the Board. You have been informed how bad these problems have become, yet you do nothing. Unless you do something, you too are part of the problem.

Educator Misconduct Charges-Superintendent Investigated

Commission on Teacher Credentialing- Educator Misconduct Investigations-Patricia Petersen

Formal Review by Educator Misconduct Board
-SMUHSD Superintendent Kevin Skelly
-SMUHSD Deputy Superintendent Kirk Black
-Mills High School Principal Pam Duzzynski

This state level investigation currently at the Level Five-Deposition state (where the accused are deposed with the evidence against them) that is required prior to the CTC Educator Misconduct Committee issuing an Adverse Action or revoking a credential.

These investigation are normally reserved for the inaproppriate behavior of rank-and-file teachers, not the leaders of an entire school district.

Initial reports indicate that this investigation has been going on for over six months and at least 15 Mills High School teachers have provided testimony, supporting Petersen’s complaint. Additional teachers have also given testimony but requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.

The SMUHSD Board has no knowledge of this CTC Misconduct investigation or the fact that Superintendent Skelly and Deputy Superintendent Black are being deposed at the final stages of an investigation before their credentials can be revoked.

At the same time the SMUHSD’s Superintendents (both!) are being deposed for Educator Misconduct, the SM Grand Jury had to bring charges against the district to get ANY action regarding race or swastikas.

In addition, in each week for the past few months, the children of the district are coming to the Board each week to personally report incident of racial and sexual assault, only to be ignored.

The Board is asleep, ignorant of the facts, or both.


Do you have some source links that one could review on all of these latest developments? Thanks.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About the Voice

  • The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

    Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Contributing to the Voice

  • If you would like more information on the Burlingame Voice, send an email to [email protected] with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.