Community

ELITE Charter School Conducts Sit-In Protest at Vallejo City Hall After City Council Vote

ELITE Public School staff and students staged a sit-in at Vallejo City Hall on Wednesday afternoon to protest the City Council’s decision to vote against their Major Use Permit to expand into downtown. “We are deeply troubled by the turnover of the 6-1 vote, which we believe to be red-lining in 2024,” said Dr. Ramona Bishop, CEO of ELITE Public Schools.

Published

12 months ago

May 4, 2024

Oakland Post

ELITE Sit in 1 & 2: ELITE Public School staff and students staged a sit-in at Vallejo City Hall on Wednesday afternoon to protest the City Council’s decision to vote against their Major Use Permit to expand into downtown. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

By Magaly Muñoz

“We are deeply troubled by the turnover of the 6-1 vote, which we believe to be red-lining in 2024,” said Dr. Ramona Bishop, CEO of ELITE Public Schools. “We have followed all the requirements set forth for approval by the city and are dismayed by this sudden reversal of fortune. Our sit-in at City Hall is a testament to our unwavering commitment to justice and fairness.”

The sit-in was triggered after the Vallejo City Council members held a lengthy, special meeting on Tuesday evening to continue discussing the April 23 appeal that was made against the Planning Commission’s decision to grant ELITE a permit for expanding their charter high school into a retrofitted building in the heart of downtown.

During the deliberations, various options were presented to the Council for approving the project. These included a provisionary review period for the permit and imposing extensive conditions, such as limiting student enrollment.

The ELITE plan was to accommodate a maximum capacity of 400 students at their proposed school site, starting with an initial rollout capacity of 200 students in the first year.

Bishop rejected the suggestion by the City Council for a smaller charter capacity because the funding for the school was based on the projected number of students they would eventually seat.

During the meeting, council members complained about the lack of availability of economic impact reports that assessed the school’s potential impact on Vallejo’s downtown area.

Economic Development Director Michael Nimon sent a letter to the City Council, stating that while there was no official report, schools serve as economic generators to the surrounding areas of where they’re located.

“Schools also diversify uses and create pedestrian activity by bringing more people to downtown. Diversification of uses makes local economy more resilient by balancing residential, commercial, office, entertainment, and institutional uses,” Nimon’s letter said.

The letter also states that foot traffic is needed in an area of Vallejo that currently has minimal activity and the presence of the proposed school will likely not disturb any future developments.

Despite this, the council dismissed the letter as “merely an opinion” and not anything based on fact or concrete data.

Councilmember Peter Bregenzer, who remained silent throughout most of the seven-hour discussion, ultimately motioned for City staff to draft a resolution to approve the appeal and deny the project. The motion passed by a 4-3 vote.

About 50 students gathered on the second floor of the City Hall building where they chanted “Say it loud, say it clear, we don’t want no racists here” and “Where is the mayor? Bring him out, bring him out.”

The proposed high school has sparked intense debate, with many speculating that those opposed to the school are saying no to the expansion because the majority of the students are Black and Brown.

Retired Solano County Judge Paul Beeman and his wife, Donna, who filed the appeal against the school, have consistently denied that their opposition stems from racism or personal feelings toward anyone associated with the school.

In interviews with the Post, the Beemans seem to regard the proposed high school as a “nuisance” and an ill-advised choice for downtown development. They claim that it would be ineffective in economically revitalizing the community. However, they have provided no substantial evidence to support their opinions.

In contrast, ELITE has drawn parallels to redlining in relation to the community’s opposition to the proposed school location. Redlining refers to the discriminatory practice in which mortgage companies and other financial services systematically withhold loans and access to predominantly white neighborhoods from racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Black and African American communities.

“We’ve been fighting for this school for two years. We’re going to make our emergency, their emergency,” one student said in reference to Vallejo Mayor Robert McConnell’s previous comments about not rushing to make a decision on the school permit.

Within two hours of the start of the sit-in at City Hall, the City of Vallejo issued a statement that the building would be closed for the rest of the day because of the protest. The statement said that the loud noise from the protesters “hindered staff and visitors’ ability to conduct regular business.”

Although the mayor was not present at City Hall on Wednesday afternoon, interim City Manager Beverli Marshall addressed the ELITE group to answer several questions the students had. She explained the appeal process, how the different city officials played a role in the decision, and what the possible outcomes could be after the Council makes its final decision in a few weeks.

Students and staff were ultimately upset that they were being treated like criminals and that all their work over the last two years might be in vain since they believed that the Council had zero intention of ever granting them the permit in the first place.

The City Council is scheduled to meet for another special meeting on June 4 at 7 p.m. to continue discussing the future of ELITE Public Schools.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Vallejo Continues to Accept Applications for Boards, Committees and Commissions

Don't Miss

East Bay Regional Park District Issues Rattlesnake Advisory

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Gov. Newsom Approves $170 Million to Fast Track Wildfire Resilience

AB 100 approves major investments in regional conservancies across the state, including over $30 million each for the Sierra Nevada, Santa Monica Mountains, State Coastal, and San Gabriel/Lower LA Rivers and Mountains conservancies. An additional $10 million will support wildfire response and resilience efforts.

Published

2 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Facebook page.

By Bo Tefu
California Black Media

With wildfire season approaching, last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 100, unlocking $170 million to fast-track wildfire prevention and forest management projects — many of which directly protect communities of color, who are often hardest hit by climate-driven disasters.

“With this latest round of funding, we’re continuing to increase the speed and size of forest and vegetation management essential to protecting communities,” said Newsom when he announced the funding on April 14.

“We are leaving no stone unturned — including cutting red tape — in our mission to ensure our neighborhoods are protected from destructive wildfires,” he said.

Newsom also signed an executive order suspending certain regulations to allow urgent work to move forward faster.

This funding builds on California’s broader Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, a $2.7 billion effort to reduce fuel loads, increase prescribed burning, and harden communities. The state has also launched new dashboards to keep the public informed and hold agencies accountable.

California has also committed to continue investing $200 million annually through 2028 to expand this effort, ensuring long-term resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Rideshare Drivers and Supporters Step Up Push to Unionize

Today in California, over 600,000 rideshare drivers want the ability to form or join unions for the sole purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It’s a right, and recently at the State Capitol, a large number of people, including some rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy, reaffirmed that they want to exercise it.

Published

3 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into federal law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Also known as the “Wagner Act,” the law paved the way for employees to have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,” and “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, according to the legislation’s language.

On April 8, the rideshare drivers held a rally with lawmakers to garner support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1340, the “Transportation Network Company Drivers (TNC) Labor Relations Act.”

Authored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1340 would allow drivers to create a union and negotiate contracts with industry leaders like Uber and Lyft.

“All work has dignity, and every worker deserves a voice — especially in these uncertain times,” Wicks said at the rally. “AB 1340 empowers drivers with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. When workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful forces for justice in California.”

Wicks and Berman were joined by three members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC): Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), and Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights).

Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; April Verrett, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU; and a host of others participated in the demonstration on the grounds of the state capitol.

“This is not a gig. This is your life. This is your job,” Bryan said at the rally. “When we organize and fight for our collective needs, it pulls from the people who have so much that they don’t know what to do with it and puts it in the hands of people who are struggling every single day.”

Existing law, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” created by Proposition (Prop) 22, a ballot initiative, categorizes app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors.

Prop 22 was approved by voters in the November 2020 statewide general election. Since then, Prop 22 has been in court facing challenges from groups trying to overturn it.

However, last July, Prop 22 was upheld by the California Supreme Court last July.

In a 2024, statement after the ruling, Lyft stated that 80% of the rideshare drivers they surveyed acknowledged that Prop 22 “was good for them” and “median hourly earnings of drivers on the Lyft platform in California were 22% higher in 2023 than in 2019.”

Wicks and Berman crafted AB 1340 to circumvent Prop 22.

“With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in their industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector,” Berman said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Holds the Line on DEI as Trump Administration Threatens School Funding

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

Published

4 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Joe W. Bowers Jr
California Black Media

California education leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration’s directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in its K-12 public schools — despite threats to take away billions in federal funding.

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

According to Trainor, “DEI programs discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

On April 3, the DOE escalated the pressure, sending a follow-up letter to states demanding that every local educational agency (LEA) certify — within 10 business days — that they were not using federal funds to support “illegal DEI.” The certification requirement, tied to continued federal aid, raised the stakes for California, which receives more than $16 billion annually in federal education funding.

So far, California has refused to comply with the DOE order.

“There is nothing in state or federal law that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote David Schapira, California’s Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an April 4 letter to superintendents and charter school administrators. Schapira noted that all of California’s more than 1,000 traditional public school districts submit Title VI compliance assurances annually and are subject to regular oversight by the state and the federal government.

In a formal response to the DOE on April 11, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond collectively rejected the certification demand, calling it vague, legally unsupported, and procedurally improper.

“California and its nearly 2,000 LEAs (including traditional public schools and charter schools) have already provided the requisite guarantee that its programs and services are, and will be, in compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulation,” the letter says.

Thurmond added in a statement, “Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students. As our responses to the United States Department of Education state and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity and inclusion. I am proud of our students, educators and school communities who continue to focus on teaching and learning, despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”

California officials say that the federal government cannot change existing civil rights enforcement standards without going through formal rule-making procedures, which require public notice and comment.

Other states are taking a similar approach. In a letter to the DOE, Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner and counsel for the New York State Education Department, wrote, “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’ But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”