Anatomy of the School Board Selection of Joy Klineberg

Share:

The school board managed to get from 15 candidates to 1 in just three votes.

In round 1 on June 25, each board member had five votes.

Here is how they voted:

Tom Adams: Asmundson, Fulp-Cooke, Jackson, Klineberg and Taylor

Joe DiNunzio: Asmundson, Fulp-Cooke, Jackson, Klineberg and Panigrahi

Alan Fernandes: Asmundson, Jackson, Klineberg, Mauro and Taylor

Bob Poppenga: Asmundson, Darrah, Fulp-Cooke, Jackson, and Panigrahi.

That left Asmundson and Jackson with 4 votes, Klineberg and Fulp-Cooke with three, Taylor and Panigrahi with 2 going onto the next round with the other candidates as well as Darrah and Mauro not making the first cut.

Round 2 – each board member had two votes.

Adams voted for Jackson and Klineberg

DiNunzio voted for Asmunson and Klineberg

Fernandes for Asmundson and Klinberg

Poppenga for Asmundson and Fulp-Cooke

That left Asmundson and Klineberg with three votes each.

Round 3 – Asmundson versus Klineberg

Klineberg got three votes from Adams, DiNunzio and Fernandes

Bob Poppenga cast the lone vote for Asmundson.

It is worth noting that, at no point in time, did Bob Poppenga vote for Klineberg – which meant that Klineberg was not even in Bob Poppenga’s top 5.


Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$USD
Sign up for

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

10 thoughts on “Anatomy of the School Board Selection of Joy Klineberg”

  1. Keith Olsen

    It is worth noting that, at no point in time, did Bob Poppenga vote for Klineberg – which meant that Klineberg was not even in Bob Poppenga’s top 5.

    So?

      1. Keith Echols

        David,

        I think a better way of putting it is: why did you point this out?  What are your conclusions or assumptions based on the voting?  Mr. Olsen might know your background with this issue.  But in my case, I am just starting to read about it.

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          It was a controversial decision and it illustrates a split on the board as well as the community. This was not a consensus board decision, it was a 3-1 vote that would have been 3-2 had Cindy been able to vote on it.

        2. Bill Marshall

          Well, Poppenga and DiNunzio favored an election, in June (moved, and seconded)… Fernandes proposed (first) appointment… his motion died for lack of a ‘second’… Adams, who did not second the appointment proposal, did not support the election motion vote (curiouser and curiouser).  Fernandes eventually ‘got his way’…

          Well, Jackson and Asmundson had unanimous votes to move on to the second tier… the designee did not (interesting)…

          Asmundson and the designee got equal votes in second tier…

          The “finals”… designee chosen, by appointment, not election… on a 3-1 vote.

          I actually think David has not examined what was under the waterline (dark underbelly?) of the potential iceberg.  If there is one…  or is reticent to share what he has found.

          I sniff an effort by Fernandes to do it by appointment (with a specific person in mind?)… he went from not getting a ‘second’, to prevailing… and, on the flip side of what David pointed out, Klineberg ALWAYS had his vote.

          But it is what it is, and in 2020 and 2022, am strongly inclined as to who I will, or will not, support by my vote.

        3. Alan Miller

          and, on the flip side of what David pointed out, Klineberg ALWAYS had his vote.

          Wait, what?  The person who ‘we’-assumed-apparently-was-‘white’-and-‘we’-are-now-‘informed’-is-a-so-called-person-of-color (before examination by the Vanguard’s all-race-all-the-time spotlight/lens, did anybody care?) supported a so-called ‘white’ person for the board (who at least was of the ‘correct’-gender-to-be-voted-for category)?

          Don’t know ‘bou ‘chu, but I have enough trouble remembering names, much less all-prospects’ ‘race’, assumed ‘race’, gender, and gender identity, for purposes of government body representation-identity balance with the body they are governing.  Could we just mandatory-register every candidate for a 60-40 combo of racial self-identity plus 23-and-me DNA testing, plus a 70-30 combo of self-proclaimed gender identity and sex-assigned-at-birth, and set up a strict government-enforced quota system, so I never have to think about this again . . .

          Please?

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for