Let me see if I've got this right. The board is about to appoint its first African-American member, but before they give him the final OK, they want to fingerprint him and see if he has a criminal record. And this is a new requirement -- the board hasn't done this before? Would the board be doing this if they were going to pick a white businessman?

I've added more information about that discussion to the story. Basically, the board voted, before choosing whom to appoint, that the person would have to pass a background check.
The district requires all volunteers and employees to pass background checks, but had not asked the fire board applicants to do so in advance.

The decision to do a background check on whichever candidate was preferred was made before the vote on the candidates and would have applied to whichever candidate emerged as the first choice.

It would seem that Mr Jones is already an official volunteer with the District as a board member of CERT, and met any needed criterea. No other elected (or appointed) official I know of has had to pass a background check.

Why wouldn't the district have decided whether to not to do fingerprinting and background checks before the application period began? Making that decision at the last minute, just before picking an African American for the post, sure looks bad. I mean the 4 board members walked into last night's meeting probably knowing who they would pick, and given the Almanac's editorial last week, it was a pretty good guess that Mr. Jones would get the nod. If this fingerprinting exercise wasn't about him, why wouldn't it be something that was stated to applicants at the beginning? Whoever was in charge of this process really screwed up!

"I mean the 4 board members walked into last night's meeting probably knowing who they would pick"

Read the story - that is not the way it happened. There were five rounds of voting before Jones received the 3 votes required.

First, I would take a look at the district's bylaws to see if this requirement is one it can impose on a directors? This requirement seems problematic as applied to an elected, rather than appointed, director.

Second, I would want to clarify what sorts of things in a background check would disqualify a prospective director. A minimum credit score? A bankruptcy filing? A student loan default? A previous criminal conviction?

Third, if the district can, and does, impose this requirement on new directors, I would hope that the incumbent directors would also submit to a background check.

I voted against this requirement so do not expect me to defend it.

"In the end, with only board President Peter Carpenter dissenting, the board voted to require a background check for whomever at least three board members could agree on. "

When will the current Board Members be submitting their background check?

Having served on a number of Boards, Board Members are certainly welcome to disagree and debate at the meeting, but once a decision is made, it is a Board decision and all members are exepected to support it and represent it. When that doesn’t happen - Boards quickly become divisive and begin attacking each other instead of representing the issues they were appointed or elected to represent. It’s unfortunate. I hope Robert knows what he’s getting himself into and I hope that he can help bring things back together.

I do not subscribe to Team's lemmings and sheep philosophy.

I believe the background check policy is wrong and I voted against it.

My arguments and my vote are a matter of public record.

You do not have to be a lemming to be a team player. An answer like “While the record is clear, I did not vote for the motion, it passed. The rationale the Board came to is that we are acting in our capacity as a Board to appoint a member that would traditionally be elected. The Board felt we had a higher duty to vet the appointee. Again, while I did not vote for it, it is the direction we are taking and it represents the decision of the Board.”

It’s not hard. It’s not adversarial. It’s not confrontational and you still preserve your integrity and the integrity of the Board. If it’s illegal - stand up, but if it’s not, you had your say at the Board meeting, a decision was made and it’s now time to move on like adults.

Adults do not allow bad decisions to be perpetuated.

I have been appointed to the Board twice and elected to the Board three times and I have never been required to get a background check.

This ad hoc decision is not in the adopted Board Policy Manual and was not part of the application process.

I consider this ad hoc policy to be improper and unwise and I will urge my colleagues to change it.

Good. But save it for the Board Meeting.

Team - To be clear, I have not and will not impede the policy adopted by the Board but I will endeavor to have that policy, which I believe to be both unwise and inappropriate, rescinded.

Thank you Fire Board for picking a board member and saving us money to have an election. As to background checks, in this situation since the board was voting for an member, and not the voters, it was a good decision to have this procedure. Did all the candidates agree before the voting? Did any withdraw?

Mr. Carpenter,
You got a good candidate. Is he electable? Will the others run against him? Only time will tell....Peter, thank you for your years of service to our community too.

We started with 7 candidates.

One candidate withdrew before the meeting.

After the background check requirement was adopted I gave the candidates who were present the opportunity to withdraw. None of them withdrew.

The community is fortunate that we had so many well qualified individuals who were prepared to serve.

Three of the candidates were subsequently invited to serve as Board appointed Citizen Representatives on the Finance, Strategic Planning and Public Communications committees.

Thank you Mr. Carpenter. That's fair.

Interesting that Virginia Chang Kiraly would demand a background check based on the new guy being appointed.

Virginia was appointed to the San Mateo Harbor District and nobody asked for her to submit to a background check. But Virginia Chang Kiraly is not Black.

Let's not make a racial issue out of this. I am so tired of the race card or race used as why something, you name it, happened.

Did anyone ask the candidates for 1) their political party, 2) their religion, 3) their weight, 4) health condition, 4) prior surgeries, 5) financial condition, 6) conflicts of interest, 7) children at home, 8) gender, 9) prior bankruptcies and 10) other matters that may be of interest to the general public is picking the right person for the right job? Just wondering.

It should be noted that the requirement for a "criminal background check" did not include fingerprinting.

"It should be noted that the requirement for a "criminal background check" did not include fingerprinting."

Not much of a background check without fingerprints.

What's the rationale for a background check if your appointed rather than being elected. Frauds and been elected to office, at all levels, regardless of the public "vetting" process.

I was one of the seven candidates for the Fire Board appointment. The board selected a good person and relevant candidate in Robert Jones to fill the vacant seat. I serve with him on the CERT/Community Crisis Management Executive Board and have worked with him on civilian emergency preparedness for a number of years. I think Robert will represent the District well and he will add an important voice for East Palo Alto on the board.

The appointment process, while a bit bumpy and protracted, allowed the board to get to know each candidate and make an informed decision, from my vantage point. It was indeed good for the board and District to have a large number of able candidates to consider. Some of the candidates were not as well known to the board members as other candidates. The board took time to get to know everyone. The appointment saved the District hundreds of thousands of dollars in election costs that weren't necessary, given the number of good candidates involved. Personally, I had no issue with submitting to a background check nor would any of the other candidates, I suspect. One could argue that such a check should have been announced ahead of time as part of the process, but it wasn't a big issue and certainly there was nothing sinister about it.

My only suggestion to the board, should there be a future appointment, is to publicly specify what the board as a whole or each Director individually, is looking for in the candidate (requirements, qualifications, characteristics, experience, etc.) beyond a basic job description, so that it is apparent to the public and the candidates themselves what is being sought. Only Chuck Bernstein provided a well-reasoned perspective to us candidates and the rest of the Board and MPFD management of what he was looking for and why. Chuck's vote was consistent with what he told us he was seeking.

I wish Robert Jones well in his new role and encourage the full board to take advantage of Robert's addition to further improve its collaboration in the stewardship of its responsibilities.

At a Special Meeting this afternoon the Board unanimously elected Robert Jones to fill the Board vacancy created by Rex Ianson's departure.