I mentioned John Lane in a September 19 posting and that posting is worth repeating:

John Lane is running for a seat on the SRV School Board. In another publication he describes his position at CSU East Bay as "a Special Projects Manager." In a different article in the same publication, his title is "program director" At CSU East Bay. Which one should we believe, Mr Lane?

These titles sound suspiciously contrived. And why do I say that? Because the CSU East Bay website gives his title as "Management Intern."

Is this a case of title exaggeration? Here's the CSU website:

Web Link

John Lane is the person who is costing the SRV School District $50,000. If he weren't running the district wouldn't have to spend that money to pay for its share of the election.

First, thank you for publishing profiles on all candidates for SRVUSD Board. Then let's thank John for creating the democratic opportunity to ELECT our SRVUSD board members. We certainly do not want any repeat of council members re-appointing themselves as democracy INACTION!

Let's also note that John fully explained the misreporting of his position at CSU East Bay in the previous referenced posting. It should also be noted that all candidates have been very earnest in reporting their background and approaches.

Let us never accept any absence of elections when our rights are at stake. Let us always expect full communication from our board candidates, current SRVUSD board members, and especially the SRVUSD administration.

Best wishes to John and thank you,

[email protected]

Perhaps I too should do a "copy & paste" of my reply the last time Mr. Pshaw commented. Or a "copy & paste" of Mr. Lane's response from the previous posting.

But let's move away from the "old news" and realize that in a democracy - or more specifically a representative republic - there is the freedom to run for office, to serve, and to freely express your opinions. In many School District elections in the East Bay there are 8, 10 , or more candidates running. Does this mean anyone of those candidates is responsible for the cost of the election process? You can certainly answer that question yourselves!

John Lane is presenting and managing an intelligent and well-executed campaign that is capturing the interest of residents within the District.

He is energizing the discussion and focusing on issues of concern to the constituents - whether or not they have children in the schools.
And, by the way, the question of "Children in the District" is itself somewhat prejudicial since everyone has a stake in the schools' and the students' success. In fact I have been told there are app. 25% of the registered voters that do not have any children in the schools. Does this make them less interested, concerned, or qualified to serve?

Perhaps a better question would be "Graduated from which school in the district", eh?

Rick Pshaw-
The fact that you believe that "John Lane is the person who is costing the SRV School District $50,000. [and that] If he weren't running the district wouldn't have to spend that money to pay for its share of the election." shows that you are undemocratic. Why don’t you claim that Denise Jennison is the one “costing the SRV School District $50,000?” Denise is not an incumbent…she, as John, decided that they wanted to make a difference in education and both thought running for the school board would be the place to do this. If five new people wanted to run for school board this year, would you still blame John for “costing the SRV school district $50,000?” The school had this in their budget and knew that when election time came around they would need to spend that money on elections. The school district should never assume that there will not be an election for school board. If there is no election needs for school board something in the community is not right. That would mean no one cares about school board and the people on it. But guess what? People do care and that is why there is an election. I guess you have not noticed but we live in a country where anyone can run for any office if they meet the minimum requirements (registered to vote in the geographical area in which you are running, age, and residency) and because they decide to run for office gives NO ONE ANY RIGHT to claim they are costing anyone or anything any money. Every person in the SRV School District has the RIGHT to run for School Board and even the thought of you suggesting that John Lane is costing the school money is extremely unfair. The school board election, as any election, should ALWAYS be competitive. We should be thankful that John and Denise decided to run for School Board. The two of them running allows us to have the freedom of choice.

Mr. Rick Pshaw,

I am a Special Projects Manager at CSU East Bay and have been for the past 3 years. I have been involved in a number of projects ranging from:

• Creating a more efficient identification process called the One Card System

• Working with trade unions, students and administrators in creating University Hill a renovation project that is becoming the new marquee of CSUEB

• Helping the University move to Division II athletics

I am very proud of my work and the institution I belong too…I am sorry if a publication misrepresented my title.

After reviewing all of the candidates, I am a strong supporter of John Lane. Why?
1. When John Lane decided to run, a member of the board encouraged him not to run. (Turns out they somewhat promised the three others running that they would get the seats. The only way to keep that promise was not to have an election.) Thanks to John we can vote. Please read Harald’s comment.
2. I have not heard from any other candidates in my area, hadn’t noticed any signs and no one coming to my door. – did they think it was a no-brainer? They are playing dirty politics but John hasn’t changed his values. How democratic is it for them to all campaign on one sign? Please re-read Harald’s comment.
3. A lot is asked about his qualifications? Well, he’s running so he has met the base qualifications otherwise the County would have denied his application. Many have said he has no experience, however he has attended and graduated from this school system (all the way through to his BS and MBA). In my company we try to get a variety of skillsets. I would like to see that one of the new seats is filled by someone who might offer something new and/or different. We may even find that John’s energy is a preferred background.
4. He’s brought up some great points and stuck with them. One is that wants to improve the classroom time. John has an open mind along with great ideas of how to gain money to do so.
5. He’s taken a month of personal vacation from his job to campaign. He has met with and talked to most of the High School Principals. He has gone door to door all over the school district. He’s working very hard for this and his determination in his campaign will certainly carry into his determination to make a difference on the Board. He’s also very honest and has not soured over the nasty politics that have been thrown his way. He’s not a mud-slinger and takes the high road. A good guy … and since he’s running for a position on a team, it’s all good.

It is joyous to see four individuals running for SRVUSD Board. More, it is wonderful to see a majority of voters rejecting SLATE politics in any and all of our governments and districts. What is so specifically real about this SRVUSD election is the willingness of four candidates to come out NOW as individuals in your on-line pages and state their considered contributions to ALL stakeholder as the SRVUSD voters.

We must celebrate that result, as an elimination of SLATE politics, and recognize that exceptionally intelligent voters will make exceptional choices among INDIVIDUALS to serve our stakeholders' interests.

Readers, how good is that?

[email protected]

The last thing we need is Joan Buchanan clone on the school board.

Rick - keep your silly comments to yourself - unless your point is to continue making us laugh at your nonsense :)

From a 2009 article at CSU website.


Student organizations planning to paint their logos on the hill will receive written guidelines to help maintain a unified look. CSUEB Management Intern John Lane will work with students during the design phase.

Did he get a new title for 2010 possibly???

Rickshaw....anything you send in I immediately disregard. I am not alone in finding your repeated diatribes to be tiresome, ill informed and downright mean. Keep it up, you are the best friend Joan and Jerry could have in this upcoming election. Your daily posts about "Obamacare" in any blog that will accept your comments are inane
and do not represent you well. Thank goodness my vote will cancel yours.

Mr. Rick Pshaw - You are comparing me to Joan Buchanan, now that’s funny. Outside of providing the best education for our students I am certain that we do not see eye to eye on most other political issues. If elected I do not plan on staying for 18 years nor do I plan to vacate my office in the middle of my term in order to pursue other political aspirations. I believe the School Board offers an opportunity for citizens to enter into local politics and serve their community.

If you follow the money you will see Assemblywoman Buchanan has endorsed financially Rachel Hurd and Denise Jennison. And if we take the time to see where Assemblywoman Buchanan receives her contributions it is from the Teacher’s Union…the same Union that endorsed the other 3 other candidates for this School Board Office. So the real question is:

If you do not want a Union Backed Buchanan Clone why vote for them?

At least John is taking the election seriously and putting effort into it. I haven't seen a yard sign or anything for the other three candidates. Do they think they will just get the seats automatically because they are "older and wiser?" So what if they have children that are going or have gone through the schools in the district. I'm not sure that makes them any better qualified.

Dear Emily,

Neighborhoods via their e-exchanges are becoming concerned that much of the commentary in this exchange is drifting toward violating your efforts to clean up this forum. We now have four earnest individuals being judged individually by voters yet to vote. The focus I would recommend is readers posting their requests for candidates' positions and approaches so rational voting decisions can be made.

Personally, I applaud all four candidates for their individual campaigns and hope that slate politics is gone forever from SRVUSD elections and board decisions.

Best wishes to all candidates,

[email protected]

Mr. Rick Pshaw, I know you and Hal and the likes are having great fun with all of this but seeing my son's good intentions and caring heart being filleted in the press is concerning to me. He could easly seek corporate employment with the credentials he's earned and experiences lived, but he's chosen to serve the greater community rather than seeking self gratification. I know that if he were only one of three candidates for the three seats his accomplishments would be viewed in a much better light and he'd be heralded for stepping up to the responsiblity and filling it. Who really believes that a school board of five people wouldn't perform better with at least one passionate YOUNG adult. The real problem is the slate of OLD guards deciding to work the system in their collective favor. Are the voters going to fall for it?

John Lane-
Thank you for throwing your hat into the ring! And thank you for your comments and responses here (especially your last informative response)!


As for ALL of the Candidate Profiles-
They all seem to be fairly vague, full of "fluff" language, and lacking in specific plans that would truly educate voters as to how the candidates will act and decide. Too bad that the Express didn't directly ask them about the ISSUES ("what would they do about" and "how would they accomplish it"):
budget cuts and prioritizing cuts,
teacher's union negotiations,
overcrowding,
needed facilities,
parking and commuting flows,
improving educational experiences and real-life training.

I think all of you are missing the point here.

Just because a seat on the school board is an elected position does not make it a political office. School board members are trustees of our youth’s education. I don’t want a politician in charge of my children’s education. I want to know which candidate is passionate about the issues that face SRVUSD. I want to know which candidate attends board meetings (of the two who are not incumbents) and participates in them. Does either candidate engage in the school board activities or are they just running for a “political office?”

Relevant experience matters for this office. Just because you went to a school in this district (or any other district) does not mean you are qualified to lead the SRVUSD. I am an outstanding leader in my field but I would not consider that experience as a qualification to sit on the SRVUSD board of education.

It does NOT matter how enthusiastic you are about running for this office. It DOES matter how involved you are AND how knowledgeable you are about education. I was a 3.95 student in college but I do not know how to educate children.

I want to know what each candidate knows about education and how education is funded in this state. I want to know what each candidate knows about the schools in THIS district and what state they are in. I don’t care about the candidate’s broad political views. I want someone who will serve MY school district!

Dear Emily,

Neighbors have been discussing SRVUSD politics this weekend with focus on the current board and the slate politics that would allow the current board to maintain a unified position on the funding of operations in our district. After nearly 20 years of such slate politics, and its "sacred cows" and preferences, voters including a majority of parents are looking to break the bond that holds slate politics together.

Neighbors, especially parents, are very concerned that PTA, SRVUSD administration, unions and local political groups have created a political machine that designates our board members as a one-voice slate. Let's ask your readers for their views on politics within SRVUSD.

[email protected]

I beg to differ with the gentleman that believes that you are not holding a political office when you are elected to a school board. It may not be a partisan office. That doesn't mean that positions are not taken based upon the individual candidates partisan (political) viewpoints.
The reason I am supporting John D. Lane is I believe he will bring to our school board another perspective from those which we have seen over the past decade or two throughout the State of California. The electorate is finally coming around to understand that you can't solve problems with money alone. You need diverse positions to come to a valid consensus which will be necessary to priortize agendas and to econmize, particularly in hard times.
It appears from the comments of those who voice opposion to John D. Lane for the School Board is they want a Board that is in "lock-step" with each other. I do not currently have children of school age. I moved from San Francisco to Contra Costa County in the late 1960s when my 3 children were not receiving the kind or quality education they needed in San Francisco schools. Each of my children's educational needs were different and the Acalanes School District recognized those needs within the 1st six months of my childrens attendance. Members of our School Board need to be cognizant of many factors in providing the educational tools to fulfill each childs educational needs. A school Board Member needs to know current challenges faced by our students as they prepare for their future. Recognizing and meeting these challenges are essential to providing our children with the best possible education in the primary and secondary levels. Some, who question John D. Lane's qualifications to be a member of the School Board should be questioning the motives of those who selected this slate. What do they bring to the "table that will beneft our children and schools"? John has been closer to the educational process than any of the other candidates. Those who may question his age should think about a host of young men and women who have served our Country, State and Communities at a young age very well with new and innovated ideas.
Thank You.

Kindly forgive the repetition, but I would like to ask each candidate for SRVUSD School Board to contribute their thoughts on the issue of bullying in our schools, including, but not limited to bullying based on real or perceived sexual orientation.

This may be our best opportunity to learn where you stand on this issue, which will certainly affect my vote, and perhaps that of other readers.

Do you agree with the State Department of Education’s model anti-bullying policy? Will you make prevention a high personal priority, if elected? If so, how?