Debra Vinson recall, Antioch Unified School District, California (2017)

• Recall efforts
  • Recall efforts by state
  • Recall efforts by office
  • Recall efforts by year
  • Upcoming recall elections
• Local recalls
  • City council recalls
  • Mayoral recalls
  • County commission recalls
  • County official recalls
  • School board recalls
  • Sheriff recalls
  • Special district recalls
• State and federal recalls
  • State executive recalls
  • State legislator recalls
  • U.S. Congress recalls
• Laws governing recall
  • States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls
  • States that require grounds for recalls
• Analysis
  • What are recalls?
  • Recall terms
  • Analysis (2010-present)
  • 2025 mid-year analysis
  • 2024 year-end analysis
  • 2024 mid-year analysis
  • 2023 year-end analysis
  • 2023 mid-year analysis
  • 2022 year-end analysis
  • 2022 mid-year analysis
  • 2021 year-end analysis
  • 2021 mid-year analysis
  • 2020 year-end analysis
  • 2020 mid-year analysis
  • 2019 year-end analysis
  • 2019 mid-year analysis
  • 2018 year-end analysis
  • 2018 mid-year analysis
  • 2017 year-end analysis
  • 2017 mid-year analysis
  • 2016 year-end analysis
  • 2016 mid-year analysis

Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees recall
Officeholders
Debra Vinson
Recall status
Did not go to a vote
See also
Recall overview Political recall efforts, 2017 Recalls in California California recall laws School board recalls Recall reports

An effort to recall Debra Vinson from her position on the Antioch Unified School District board of trustees in California did not make it to the ballot. The effort was started on May 11, 2017, when Nicole Cedano, an employee of the district, filed a notice of intention with the Contra Costa County Elections Division. The recall petition was not submitted by the deadline on November 1, 2017. Cedano started the effort after Vinson allegedly berated and made offensive comments to a district employee, according to the Antioch Herald. Vinson said the accusations against her were false and that she refuted all allegations.
This was the third recall effort Cedano started against Vinson. The first was started in October 2016, but due to a paperwork error, it was unable to move forward. The second was started in March 2017, but it did not meet formatting requirements. The recall petition from the third effort was approved for circulation on May 25, 2017.

In August 2017, Vinson was directed by the rest of the board to not have direct contact with district employees after a law firm investigated an allegation unrelated to those included in the recall effort. Vinson was first elected to a four-year term on the five-member board of trustees on November 4, 2014. The next regularly scheduled election for the board was held on November 6, 2018.

Recall supporters

Cedano said she began the initial process to recall Vinson after she overheard an alleged incident in August 2016 between Vinson and the district employee, who worked at Antioch Middle School. Cedano said Vinson told the employee that she had poor customer service skills. Cedano said the employee did not understand what she had done that would constitute poor customer service skills. "We always had great customer service and we greet our parents to the fullest of our ability,” said Cedano, who also worked at Antioch Middle School.

In addition to berating the employee in front of others, Vinson questioned whether the employee had received the district's training in cultural tolerance and fostering empathy, according to the employee's written statement about the incident. The employee said Vinson had implied she was a bigot.

Cedano spoke against Vinson's alleged actions at two board meetings before serving her a notice of intent to recall, which was ultimately denied by the county, at a third meeting. “She has failed to issue an apology or show remorse for her actions,” Cedano said after she served Vinson the recall papers on October 26, 2016. “I came before you in previous meetings supporting her recall, and I still feel that way.”

Cedano said Vinson had disrespected employees and had made racially divisive comments, according to the East Bay Times. “Her attitude and the way she has conducted herself is not someone who should be setting an example for children,” Cedano said.

Before she was notified of the recall notice's denial, Cedano said she hoped Vinson would step down rather than force the district to pay for a recall election.

Retired Antioch Police Chief Allan Cantando came out in support of the recall in July 2017.

“	When I was the police chief, I had the opportunity to meet with Debra Vinson with then City Manager Steve Duran. During that lunch, there was a conversation in which she referred to the City of Antioch as Ferguson (Missouri). At that point I realized I took her views as racist and I don’t feel it’s appropriate for someone whom I perceive to have those types of racist views to be sitting on our school board especially having a child in the school district.	”
—Allan Cantando (2017)

Recall opponents

After she was served with a second notice of intent to recall, Vinson said that the recall felt like retaliation. “The people (who) are behind this don’t seem to be concerned about our students and their academics and how poorly they have done.”

Former board member Fernando Navarro, who lost his re-election bid on November 8, 2016, spoke in support of Vinson after the first recall attempt was started. He said any residents with questions about the incident should contact Vinson directly. He also questioned the timing of the recall starting so close to the regularly scheduled school board election. “I question the timing of this recall, considering the election,” Navarro said. “She is not up for reelection and we have four candidates running for three seats.”

District resident Reginald Johnagin also spoke in support of Vinson at a school board meeting on October 26, 2016. “Just because there was a personal disagreement with someone doesn’t mean someone should be immediately recalled,” Johnagin said. He called Vinson dependable and likable and said she responded to inquiries in a positive, timely way. He also said Vinson brought sensitivity to issues with Antioch's diversity.

Board President Diane Gibson-Gray said the board consulted with an attorney and investigated the matter after the employee made a formal complaint about the incident. The investigation led Vinson to send the employee an apology by email.

Response by Vinson

Vinson responded to the second recall notice with the following statement.

“	I am wholeheartedly saddened by the recall procedures and feel that this is initiated with questionable merit; however, I fully respect the efforts of the law involved. These accusations are false and I refute all allegations against me. It is my due diligence to always uphold AUSD policies with professionalism as I am the change agent the voters elected in 2014. Since then, I have worked to make AUSD a destination District. I have tirelessly worked hand in hand with teachers, staff and strongly supported parents and community efforts in advancing our School District. I have and will continue to focus on putting our students first. I have focused on financial accountability & transparency; fiscal responsibility with taxpayer’s money & reduced the financial crisis, improved emergency preparedness; and focused on school climate & safety. I strive for positive academic outcomes which can be achieved by continuing to work together so that our students receive the best quality public education they so rightfully deserve! Let us be reminded that our student’s future is at stake when unexpected expenditures is forcefully poured in unwarranted recall proceedings instead of the classroom where it is urgently needed. Debra Vinson, MA, DAPA, BCPC School Board Trustee Antioch Unified School District	”
—Debra Vinson (2017)

Background

Board votes 3-2 to censure Vinson and restrict her communication with district staff

The Antioch Unified board of trustees voted 3-2 to instruct Vinson to refrain from directly communicating with district staff for six months at a public board meeting on August 23, 2017, and they voted 3-2 to censure Vinson for overstepping her role as a board member a few weeks later in September 2017. Vinson and Crystal Sawyer-White cast the dissenting votes for both motions. Vinson was instructed to direct all of her questions for staff to the superintendent.

The two votes stemmed from the same incident. The board hired a law firm in February 2017 to investigate allegations that Vinson had pressured district employees to accept an intra-district transfer at a site that was not accepting them. Board policy did not allow trustees to act as individuals and required instructions to be given to the superintendent, not directly to district employees. The law firm reported the following findings, according to East County Today:

“	Vinson engaged in intimidating conduct towards two employees. Vinson improperly attempted to exercise administrative responsibility and commanded the services of two school employees. Vinson used her position to pressure two District employees into making a decision that was contrary to Board policy.	”
—East County Today (August 24, 2017)

The law firm documented 15 attempts to reach Vinson during its three-month investigation, but the report said it was unable to interview her. Vinson either did not respond or said she was unavailable, according to the law firm's report. The district spent $20,119 in legal fees to investigate the allegations.

At the board meeting on August 23, 2017, Vinson called the allegations perplexing and said she had never intimidated someone. "I would never, ever tell someone ‘You better do this or else,’" said Vinson.

In a written statement, Vinson said she did not think she had knowingly violated board policy, and she said there was a possibility that the employees had been coerced into providing their allegations. “I do have a strong voice,” said Vinson. “I do have a strong tone — I know different people have told me that before — but when they get to know me they know my heart.”

After the censure vote, Vinson said she knew the school was not supposed to accept intra-district transfers, but she said exceptions had been made in the past. She said she asked, rather than ordered, the school to accept the transfer. “I did not exert any form of authority … there were no demands to put a student anywhere,” said Vinson. “I have not overstepped any boundaries.”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing recall in California

A notice of intention to circulate a recall petition was filed with the Contra Costa County Elections Division on May 11, 2017. It was approved for circulation on May 25, 2017. Recall supporters had until November 1, 2017, to collect signatures from 15 percent of registered voters in the school district to get the recall on the ballot. With approximately 54,810 registered voters in the district, over 8,200 signatures had to be collected. The petitions were not submitted by the deadline.

Vinson was served her first notice of intent to recall at a board of trustees meeting on October 26, 2016. The notice was denied by the county, however, as it exceeded the 200-word limit. Vinson was served with a second notice of intent to recall at a board of trustees meeting on March 22, 2017, but it was also denied by the county in May 2017.

About the district

See also: Antioch Unified School District, California

The Antioch Unified School District is located in Contra Costa County, California.

The Antioch Unified School District is located in Contra Costa County in central California. The county seat is Martinez. Contra Costa County was home to an estimated 1,135,127 residents in 2016, according to the United States Census Bureau. The district was the 86th-largest school district in the state in the 2013–2014 school year and served 18,352 students.

Demographics

Contra Costa County outperformed California as a whole in terms of higher education achievement between 2011 and 2015. The United States Census Bureau found that 39.6 percent of county residents aged 25 years and older had attained a bachelor's degree, compared to 31.4 percent of state residents. The median household income for Contra Costa County during that same time period was $80,185, compared to $61,818 for the entire state. The percentage of people in poverty in the county was 10.2 percent, while it was 15.3 percent statewide.

Racial Demographics, 2015
Race	Contra Costa County (%)	California (%)
White	66.8	72.9
Black or African American	9.6	6.5
American Indian and Alaska Native	1.0	1.7
Asian	16.8	14.7
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.6	0.5
Two or more races	5.2	3.8
Hispanic or Latino	25.3	38.8

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms 'Debra Vinson' 'Antioch Unified School District' recall. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Debra Vinson recall, Antioch Unified School District, California (2017) - Google News

See also

• Antioch Unified School District, California
• Antioch Unified School District elections (2016)
• Antioch Unified School District elections (2014)
• Recall campaigns in California
• Political recall efforts, 2017
• School board recalls

External links

• Antioch Unified School District
• Contra Costa County Elections Division
• Debra Vinson Recall Facebook page

Footnotes

Political recall elections

Recalls
by year

Upcoming recalls • 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • Historical recalls • Recall statistics and analysis

Recalls
by office

Governors • State legislators • County officials • County commission • Sheriffs • Mayors • City officials • City council • School board • Special district

Recalls
by state

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • District of Columbia • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Recall
laws

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Kansas • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Rhode Island • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming • States that require grounds for recalls • States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls