Hi reader! What a whirlwind it has been these last few weeks, to say the least! There’s so much happening nationally that deserves attention, but with about 800 words at my disposal, let’s keep this discussion local, where our voices can actually make a difference.
It wasn’t long ago that campaign season was upon us (though honestly, it feels like it never ends anymore). Local Republican candidates flooded mailboxes with promises of better transparency, accountability, putting parents first in grade school decisions, and creating more inclusive environments for everyone. Noble goals that resonated with voters across party lines.
Yet here we are, witnessing the stark contrast between campaign rhetoric and governing reality.
Take College of the Canyons for example. The three most recently elected board members — Fred Arnold, Sharlene Johnson and Darlene Trevino — voted together to terminate the interim president. Now, I understand that closed session discussions involve confidential information the public cannot access. However, the optics are absolutely stunning.
These are the same individuals who campaigned relentlessly on transparency and accountability regarding our tax dollars. Yet while an ongoing investigation examines how millions of our taxpayer dollars were allegedly misused for years, they terminated the interim president who strongly supported this audit.
The timing couldn’t be more suspicious.
Perhaps there are legitimate reasons behind closed session confidentiality, but here’s the irony: During campaign season, independent expenditure mailers flooded our mailboxes accusing the incumbents (and yes, myself) of working to “cover something up” and lacking transparency.
These same trustees who benefited and never once condemned those attacks somehow forgot to distance themselves from such accusations. Funny how transparency became the rallying cry when attacking opponents, but suddenly becomes inconvenient when the public questions their own closed-door decisions.
Almost like transparency is just a convenient phrase rather than an actual governing principle intended to follow.
Hopefully, the district attorney will investigate thoroughly and uncover the truth about any financial misconduct that may have occurred. Taxpayers deserve accountability, regardless of which political party controls the board.
Meanwhile, in the same week, the William S. Hart Union High School District discussed banning all flags except the American and California flags.
Let’s be honest about what this really targets: Rainbow flags that show acceptance and support for LGBTQ+ students. Because apparently, nothing is more threatening to education than demonstrating that all students deserve to feel safe and welcomed.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
These are the same people who screamed about “freedom of speech” just a few years ago when controversy erupted over a blue line flag at a school game. Suddenly, their passion for free speech has evaporated, replaced by the convenient argument that “no flags are best.”
What changed? Their commitment to free speech principles didn’t evolve, but their target did. When the speech involved something they support, they were First Amendment warriors. When it involves LGBTQ+ acceptance, suddenly they discover the virtues of restriction.
If anything trumps their proclaimed love of freedom of speech, it’s their obvious hatred.
This should concern everyone, regardless of political affiliation. Sure, let’s ban the flags, what’s next? Do they start prohibiting other things they personally dislike? They’ve already tried. Do we begin restricting what educators can display in their classrooms?
They’ve attempted that, too.
The irony is that groups like Moms for Liberty seem oblivious to a fundamental truth about political power: pendulums swing.
Today’s majority becomes tomorrow’s minority. The rules you establish to suppress viewpoints you oppose will inevitably be used against you when control shifts. History teaches us this lesson repeatedly, yet each generation seems convinced they’ll maintain permanent political dominance.
I’m curious whether these same advocates will celebrate their restrictive policies when the political tide turns as it always does. Will they still applaud censorship when it targets their preferred messages? Will they still champion board authority when that authority reflects different values?
Unlikely.
The beauty of democratic principles is their universality. Free speech protects popular and unpopular ideas alike. Transparency requirements apply regardless of who holds power. Accountability measures should function whether your preferred candidates win or lose. But if you design systems solely to advance partisan objectives rather than democratic principles, don’t be surprised when those same systems are weaponized against you by future opponents.
Local politics matter because this is where democracy either thrives or dies. National headlines grab attention, but school boards shape daily experiences. Community college trustees manage millions in taxpayer funds. These positions require genuine public servants, not political opportunists or seat holders.
We deserve better than campaign season promises that evaporate the moment voting ends.
We deserve leaders who govern according to principles rather than partisan advantage.
The question is whether we’ll demand that consistency at the ballot box, or continue rewarding politicians who say whatever it takes to get elected, then govern however they please once in power.
Andrew Taban is a former legislative staffer. “Democratic Voices” appears Tuesdays and rotates among several local Democrats.