Editorial:

When Lorena Gonzalez was elected assembly member her position as head of the Labor Council was vacated and then quickly filled, the day after, with the election of Richard Barrera as the new Labor Council president.

As an elected member of the San Diego Unified School Board, Barrera’s new position, drew an immediate response and has drawn considerable attention since then. Accordingly, lawyers from both the school district and the union vetted this turn of events and both say according to the law Barrera is within his right to hold both positions.

In our minds, this is not a legal question but an ethical question that needs to be asked and answered.

We agree that school board members have the right to a full time job. It is a known that serving on the school board is a part-time position where the board members make about $18,000 a year.

The question lies in the type of job Barrera now holds.

As a school board member Barrera votes on labor issues which include, salary, retirement, health care, evaluations, grade testing, accountability and a whole host of other issues that the school board must deal with and upon which the teacher unions, administrator unions, classified unions all have an opinion on. The district spends more than 90 percent of its day-to-day budget on salaries and benefits for employees.

Barrera must now recuse himself from votes that deal with labor issues.

Then there are the issues of closed-door meetings. When the board goes into closed-door session union representatives are barred from attending. Now at every closed-door meeting, sitting there will be the president of the Labor Council now gathering information and providing information as a board member. You can’t separate one from the other.

We don’t assume that Barrera will leave the closed door meetings and head to his union office to share this information, but in making his decisions on behalf of the Labor Council he will be armed with information that will determine his advice, position, action with the knowledge of the closed door meetings.

From a legal perspective and as long as he sticks to a strict regimen of not voting on labor issues, Barrera is allowed to serve both positions. However, as we first stated this is not about legal opinion. It is about what is right and in the best interest of the voters.

Barrera was elected to represent the voters of his district. As labor leader, Barrera is no longer able to fully, represent those voters. Sub-district D which, includes such areas of Logan Heights, Sherman Heights, Barrio Logan, Golden Hills, will no longer have a voice on many of the board’s decisions.

Then there is the fact that Barrera was also elected to represent the some 200,000 union members. Barrera is now bound to represent their best interest.

Barrera was elected to represent the Hispanic voice on the board and he receives $18,000 per year as compenstation.

Barrera was elected to represent the union workers and receive his pay of, his pay is not a public record but we have to assume it is in the neighborhood of $100,000 per year. Just from an economical perspective, it is not too hard to see where as a family man Barrera’s best interest lie.

Barrera represents a predominately Hispanic district and those voters and children need a full time representative who will be there on every vote representing their best interest and working to his fullest capacity to see that these children receive the best education possible.

This district deserves more than just a part-time representative. Barrera needs to do the right thing and choose one elected position over the other. As the elected school board member he is acquiescing a lot of power and information to his elected position as head of the Labor Council, which in turn greatly benefits the union membership while depriving the voters of his Hispanic district of equal representation on the board.