Prioritizing his family and the needs of local students seeking higher education, former San Mateo County Community College District administrator Eugene Whitlock announced the withdrawal of his candidacy from the district’s Board of Trustees race.
“This really was a personal decision about primarily what is best for my family and me … but also about what is in the best interest of the students. All things considered, it is best for me to step aside at this time,” said Whitlock, a father to three young children and the chief Human Resource officer at the University of California, Berkeley.
Whitlock, who during his campaign advocated for broadening student access to technology and social support services in light of COVID-19, faced scrutiny over a settlement agreement with the college district that would have potentially hindered his success as a trustee. In 2019, Whitlock signed a $2.3 million settlement when leaving his position as vice chancellor of the San Mateo County Community College District.
District officials disagreed with Whitlock’s interpretation of the enforceability of the agreement. Richard Rojo, the district spokesman, said in an email the settlement was intended to “avoid the distractions and considerable expense of protracted litigation.” Whitlock ultimately opted to end his candidacy for both his family and the college district student body.
“This decision was not an easy one, but it is the right one for my family and for me. In addition, I do not want my candidacy — or presence on the board — to be a distraction from the issues that we need to focus on to improve our colleges,” Whitlock said in an email statement.
Recommended for you
“I am very grateful to the many people who supported my candidacy. Although we did not succeed in our ultimate goal, we did succeed in bringing attention to changes that can be made to improve access and outcomes for our students, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds,” the statement continued.
Though Whitlock said in an email he has no intention of running for public office in the future, he noted he remains committed to his work of advancing diversity, equity and inclusion. He also expressed faith in educator and nonprofit CEO Lisa Petrides’ ability to advance these values. With Whitlock’s departure from the race, Petrides is left uncontested for the trustee seat in Area 1.
“I was just notified today that my opponent has withdrawn from his campaign. Therefore, it now appears that this trustee race is uncontested. I will be continuing to outreach and engage with our stakeholders and voters in Trustee Area 1 to share my visions and hear your ideas for our future,” Petrides said in an email statement.
As of Monday, Whitlock had not formally withdrawn his candidacy with the county Elections Office, said Jim Irizarry, assistant assessor-county clerk recorder and chief elections officer. Regardless, his name will still appear on the ballot come this election cycle, Irizarry noted.
I do not know Mr. Whitlock personally. He departed SMCCCD before I arrived in December 2018. I did have contact with Chancellor Galatolo during my brief stay at the district, giving me enough time to form an opinion.
As I am no longer a resident of San Mateo County, I have no skin in this game. However, as an academic of thirty years, I am fascinated by what I perceive as hypocrisy (of course, this is only my opinion).
The article indicates, “The signed agreement expressly states that he (Whitlock) agrees to “have no further contact of any kind, whether direct or indirect, with the [San Mateo County Community College District] or its colleges, including taking any measures that would create any type of relationship with [the district].” Whitlock contended those terms were unenforceable saying nothing could stop him from running for office..... District officials disagreed with Whitlock’s interpretation of the enforceability of the agreement.”
Can trustees of a community college district act as prosecutor, judge and jury denying a citizen, who has committed no crime, the right to run for public office? Mr. Whitlock qualified to be a candidate. Shouldn’t his fate be left to the voters? If they are upset with his large payout and signature on a settlement agreement, that is the voters’ discretion to decide, not the District's.
Compare that to the Board’s deal with former Chancellor Galatolo. Many believe he was removed from office because the District Attorney was doing an investigation. He was sent to the Gulag with $1.2M and remains an employee with a fancy title of Chancellor Emeritus. Furthermore, he was given a bogus job, to “development and administration the CSU-Cañada campus,” a project that never got past the feasibility stage with the CSU.
Chancellor Emeritus Galatolo’s new employment contract requires him to work from home or some remote location under the direct and sole supervision of the Chancellor, Mr. Mike Claire, a former subordinate of Mr. Galatolo’s.
How could Galatolo develop a university on the Cañada College grounds without an office at the District? Where will he do this work?
Do you catch my drift? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, but the Board appears to treat these two individuals quite differently. As the Board hides behind the vile of “we don’t discuss personnel issues,” these decisions appear arbitrary and capricious.
Maybe if we the public were told the truth about these lawsuits and settlements maybe you might have a point Mr. Reiner, but the taxpayer is left in the dark about what really happened at the SMCCCD. It is not fair to us and it looks bad.
Thanks, Mr. Conway. I agree 100% and have written about this elsewhere:
Should the government pay “hush money” with taxpayer dollars in settlement agreements?
While standard in private industry to protect a corporation’s “brand,” the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against government silencing dissent even if a “contract” was signed in a settlement.
Such agreements raise serious political accountability questions. Why did the government offer the payout? Why the secret? Who is being protected and why? Don’t citizens have a right to know how their money is spent?
In matters of public concern, if the electorate learns the government requires parties to sign such agreements in a quid pro quo for cash, the people may speculate the government is trying to hide something.
Suppression of truth happens in Washington daily. Powerful people (i.e., the President ) fire Inspector Generals investigating his administration. Whistleblowers are discredited as “disgruntled employees” (didn’t Trump call General Mattis a “disgruntled employee”? - Really?)
Perhaps individuals who sign settlement agreements are coerced into doing so? (I was once told “do this or I’ll ruin your career” – I refused).
Using taxpayer dollars in a quid pro quo violates principles of government transparency & integrity.
Except for national security issues, “We don’t discuss personnel matters” is like a person on trial taking the 5th.
Excellent comments and explanations. When I read the line that people may speculate the government is trying to hide something, the first thing that came to mind is the current administration in Washington. A few lines down you correctly pointed out the conditions in Washington.
Just a day or two ago was the news that the Pentagon used portions of the CARES act money to buy jet engine parts and body armor among other items not related to COVID-19. True, a few hundred million dollars is not much when talking about billions, but a saying comes to mind, "If you take care of the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves".
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(4) comments
I do not know Mr. Whitlock personally. He departed SMCCCD before I arrived in December 2018. I did have contact with Chancellor Galatolo during my brief stay at the district, giving me enough time to form an opinion.
As I am no longer a resident of San Mateo County, I have no skin in this game. However, as an academic of thirty years, I am fascinated by what I perceive as hypocrisy (of course, this is only my opinion).
The article indicates, “The signed agreement expressly states that he (Whitlock) agrees to “have no further contact of any kind, whether direct or indirect, with the [San Mateo County Community College District] or its colleges, including taking any measures that would create any type of relationship with [the district].” Whitlock contended those terms were unenforceable saying nothing could stop him from running for office..... District officials disagreed with Whitlock’s interpretation of the enforceability of the agreement.”
Can trustees of a community college district act as prosecutor, judge and jury denying a citizen, who has committed no crime, the right to run for public office? Mr. Whitlock qualified to be a candidate. Shouldn’t his fate be left to the voters? If they are upset with his large payout and signature on a settlement agreement, that is the voters’ discretion to decide, not the District's.
Compare that to the Board’s deal with former Chancellor Galatolo. Many believe he was removed from office because the District Attorney was doing an investigation. He was sent to the Gulag with $1.2M and remains an employee with a fancy title of Chancellor Emeritus. Furthermore, he was given a bogus job, to “development and administration the CSU-Cañada campus,” a project that never got past the feasibility stage with the CSU.
Chancellor Emeritus Galatolo’s new employment contract requires him to work from home or some remote location under the direct and sole supervision of the Chancellor, Mr. Mike Claire, a former subordinate of Mr. Galatolo’s.
How could Galatolo develop a university on the Cañada College grounds without an office at the District? Where will he do this work?
Do you catch my drift? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, but the Board appears to treat these two individuals quite differently. As the Board hides behind the vile of “we don’t discuss personnel issues,” these decisions appear arbitrary and capricious.
Maybe if we the public were told the truth about these lawsuits and settlements maybe you might have a point Mr. Reiner, but the taxpayer is left in the dark about what really happened at the SMCCCD. It is not fair to us and it looks bad.
Thanks, Mr. Conway. I agree 100% and have written about this elsewhere:
Should the government pay “hush money” with taxpayer dollars in settlement agreements?
While standard in private industry to protect a corporation’s “brand,” the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against government silencing dissent even if a “contract” was signed in a settlement.
Such agreements raise serious political accountability questions. Why did the government offer the payout? Why the secret? Who is being protected and why? Don’t citizens have a right to know how their money is spent?
In matters of public concern, if the electorate learns the government requires parties to sign such agreements in a quid pro quo for cash, the people may speculate the government is trying to hide something.
Suppression of truth happens in Washington daily. Powerful people (i.e., the President ) fire Inspector Generals investigating his administration. Whistleblowers are discredited as “disgruntled employees” (didn’t Trump call General Mattis a “disgruntled employee”? - Really?)
Perhaps individuals who sign settlement agreements are coerced into doing so? (I was once told “do this or I’ll ruin your career” – I refused).
Using taxpayer dollars in a quid pro quo violates principles of government transparency & integrity.
Except for national security issues, “We don’t discuss personnel matters” is like a person on trial taking the 5th.
Mr. Reiner,
Excellent comments and explanations. When I read the line that people may speculate the government is trying to hide something, the first thing that came to mind is the current administration in Washington. A few lines down you correctly pointed out the conditions in Washington.
Just a day or two ago was the news that the Pentagon used portions of the CARES act money to buy jet engine parts and body armor among other items not related to COVID-19. True, a few hundred million dollars is not much when talking about billions, but a saying comes to mind, "If you take care of the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves".
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.