Chapter 3: The Local Effort Gets Traction, Then Success

Chapter 3: The Local Effort Gets Traction, Then Success “Unification” of School Districts, January 1964 While the WUHSD Board and the Junior College Committee were awaiting word from Mr. Clemo and the State Board of Education on their petition for exemptions, significant changes occurred in the local organization of the various K-12 school districts. With the incorporations of the cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City a few years earlier, along with population growth and increased number of schools, a movement grew to centralize the oversight of the schools into “unified” school districts. This would take the place of the individual neighborhood school committees and create “unified” Boards. It was reported that enhanced state funding would be available under “unified” districts. The trend at the time was to encourage larger districts, which would be more cost effective and lead to more consistent curricula.

All three cities held “unification” elections in January of 1964. Unification was approved in Newark and Fremont (the Warm Springs district voted against it but was required to join given the overall vote in favor). Unification failed in Union City leaving Washington Union High School District now to include James Logan High School in Union City, along with the Alvarado and Decoto school districts.

Fremont Unified School District’s (FUSD) Board of Education was selected on the unification ballot: Donald G. Glankler (Alviso), Mary G. Rodrigues and Dr. Holger Rasmussen (Centerville), Dr. Walter Hughes (Niles), M.O. Sabraw and Dr. Gordon Dickerson (Irvington) and Lucien Trudel (Warm Springs). The Board was sworn in

by Wilcken Fox of the Alameda Country School Department on January 22, 1964.

Dr. Rasmussen was chosen President and Mrs. Rodrigues became Clerk of the Board. (Holmes/Rose, Introduction, p. iv) The new Board selected Dr. William Bolt, then Superintendent of the Washington Union High School District (WUHSD), to be Superintendent of the new FUSD. Gus Roberstson, former Irvington Superintendent, became Deputy Superintendent and Tom Maloney, former Centerville Superintendent, became Assistant Superintendent for Business Services. Anthony Scafani, Niles Superintendent, was named Assistant Superintendent for Employee Services. (Holmes/Rose, Introduction, p. iv) Gus Robertson would be the FUSD administrative leader advocating for the new junior college district. Dr. Rasmussen would be an active leader in the junior college effort and would head up the election campaign to form the district and also the bond campaigns for construction of a campus. (Holmes/Rose, Introduction, p. iv)

Newark Unified School District (NUSD) was the consolidation of 11 schools. Jack McGregor, then superintendent of the old Newark School District, became the first superintendent of the new unified district. (Wikipedia) Washington High School opened in 1892 and served as the lone high school for years. An indicator of the strong post-war population growth in the Fremont was the creation of three additional high schools during the early to mid-1960s; and a fourth in 1972 making a total of five high schools. Irvington High School was created in 1961. Mission San Jose and Kennedy High Schools followed in 1964 and 1965 respectively. American High School was opened in 1972.

The Political and Administrative Paths to the Local Junior College District: September 1964 – July 1965 School unification paved the way for a junior college district to be set within boundaries of FUSD and NUSD. However, the original application for the district had included all of Washington Township under the auspices of WUHSD. After the formation of FUSD and NUSD, WUHSD only included Logan High School in Hayward and the Decoto and Alvarado school districts.

Back in November of 1963, Mr. Clemo of the State Department of Education had predicted his study of the Washington Township junior college proposal would take five months. But it was not until ten months later, on September 30, 1964, that he finally issued a report. He informed the local school administrators that the State Department of Education denied the WUHSD petition for exemption from the assessed valuation per student requirement. (Factsheet) They found the assessed valuation to be still below the required level. Local support for a junior college district was undeterred. The argument for a separate district was strong: Township residents were paying taxes to outside districts accepting Township students and should have local control of how those funds should be spent.

While he was waiting for Mr. Clemo’s report, Gus Robertson had been preparing his own assessment of the situation. Once Clemo’s denial was received, Robertson published his report entitled, “Review and Preliminary Study of New Information Concerning a Junior College District in Washington Township” November 3, 1964, Prepared for Dr. Bolt by Gus C. Robertson. Robertson’s report indicated the Township would be able to qualify by 1966 with an estimated $156,518 behind each of an estimated 1,830 junior students. Robertson’s report predicted an annual wealth increase of $32,228,285 per year with yearly evaluation per student at 162,455 for 1967-68 and 219,016 for 1970-71. Further, Robertson’s report contended the Education Code 25431.5 requirement of $150,000 in assessed valuation for junior college students was unrealistic. A survey of junior college districts in the state showed that of the 37 in operation in 1961 had less than $150,000 minimum and 17 were below Washington Township.”

The report included a list of arguments for forming a local junior college district for Fremont and Newark:

         

More pupils could and would attend junior college.

A local junior college would be more responsive to local needs.

The local people would be more responsive to needs of a local junior college.

A local district would provide for more study time and less travel time.

More of family finances would be available for education because of less cost of transportation, this is important to a large family with limited resources.

The curriculum could be better tailored to meet the needs of the area.

Washington Township will provide a student body large enough to provide the finest educational programs.

Inter-district agreements could provide for exchange of students with other junior college districts, whenever such transfer would be beneficial to the training of the student.

Voter support for bond issues for a junior college with in Washington Township would more likely be favorable than in a combined South County Washington Township district.

A program of advanced standing for high school students…could more easily be established within a … (local) Junior College District.

After the unification votes, FUSD and NUSD were poised to continue the fight for their own junior college. But the remaining parts of the now smaller WUHSD (Logan High School in Hayward, and the Alvarado and Decoto school districts) and the city of Union City were on the fence about joining and seemed to favor annexing with Chabot. FUSD and NUSD did not support that, as the South County Junior College District (SCJCD) building plan did not call for a campus in Fremont or Newark for 10 to 15 years (the Chabot campus location on Hesperian Drive was more convenient for Hayward and Union City residents).

The situation was further complicated by that fact that the Union City schools were still attempting to unify. In fact, a second unification election had been set for December of 1964. In November 1964, in the midst of the election campaign, Board members and administrators from FUSD, NUSD and what remained of WUHSD in Union City, along with representatives from the Decoto and Alvarado school districts, met to determine if they would continue with a Washington Township Junior College District within the boundaries of the pre-unification proposal. They reviewed the original proposal, the denial issued by the SDE the month before, and Mr. Robertson’s report.

According to the Argus (007), SCJCD President/Superintendent Reed Buffington attended the meeting as an observer but gave a “brief review of the district and what it offered.” FUSD Trustee Holger Rasmussen pressed Buffington on the issue of representation on the SCJCD Board should the Township annex to the district.

Buffington stated there were no Trustee areas set up in their district; “all the voters voted on the members for the board and though the Livermore-Pleasanton (area) had annexed to the district it did not have (specific) representation on the board.”

FUSD and NUSD representatives expressed agreement to move ahead with an appeal of the state finding, while WUHSD, Decoto and Alvarado school district Trustees remained undecided. The looming unification vote surely influenced the

indecision of the “un-unified” districts. However, tax issues were also a part of the equation and, as will be seen, the indecision of these districts would continue even after their unification was approved.

In a follow up meeting in late November FUSD Trustees formally voted to join NUSD in the junior college effort. In early December they approved the submission of a “qualifying resolution” to the SBE petitioning for an election in Fremont and Newark on formation of a junior college district. This qualifying resolution would, in effect, allow Fremont and Newark to stand alone should WUHSD and Union City decide not to participate. Superintendent William Bolt said the step would save the district about five months involved in complete re-application.

The FUSD and NUSD Boards formed a Joint Junior College Committee to advocate for the junior college district. This essentially replaced the former Junior College Committee. The main purpose of the group was to organize the justifications for a local district and press the SBE for approval of a local election. On the committee FUSD was represented by Board President Holger Rasmussen and Trustee Gordon Dickerson. NUSD Trustees were represented by Paul Gygax and Louis Caldiera According to the Argus (008), the Joint Junior College Committee met again in December. They were joined by WUHSD Trustees Frank Borghi, Gail David and Gale Pagan, who was also a Trustee of the Decoto elementary school district.

William Bolt and Gus Robertson from FUSD, and Jack McGregor from NUSD, also attended. The group reviewed the conflicting Clemo and Robertson studies of the assessed valuation matter. FUSD and NUSD remained opposed to annexation with SCJCD because of the representation issue and the predicted long wait for a local campus. Further, according to the Argus, Mr. McGregor stated the taxes paid by Township residents to attend other districts, “may be pushed even higher in the future if junior colleges begin levying an additional charge for capital outlay purposes on each non-district student enrolled.”

That same month voters in Union City approved unification of WUHSD and Decoto and Alvarado school districts to form New Haven Unified School District. However, as stated above, this would not change the lack of decision on the part regarding a junior college district. Their options were to join the SCJCD, to become part of the Fremont and Newark effort, or move to form their own junior college district.

Unification did not move them any further toward a decision.

When they denied the request for a local election SDE officials suggested two alternatives for FUSD and NUSD: 1) annex to the SCJCD (Chabot College) or 2) seek a change in the state law. With interest in annexation waning local supporters called upon local State Assembly-man, Mr. Carlos Bee, of Hayward, to intervene.

Mr. Bee was speaker Pro-Tem in the Assembly and a leader in education matters (he had been a key player in the creation of California State University, Hayward (over the years since, many have driven on Carlos Bee Boulevard when entering the campus).

In an end of the year interview with the Argus (A-009) in December 1964, Bee repeated his pledge to introduce new school legislation if the SBE rejected a request for a Washington Township Junior College District. At the time, Bee appeared to hold out hope for an administrative solution by the SBE. However, it was considered essential for the SBE to act by June in order for legislation to be introduced in that session, if the SBE rejected the proposal.

The year 1965 would prove to be pivotal for the Fremont-Newark junior college effort. During January, Gus Robertson continued working with the Joint Junior College Committee to gain approval by the SBE for a local election. Both NUSD and FUSD approved resolutions to the SBE. In February the joint Junior College Committee led by Gus Robertson and Jack McGregor, made presentations to the Newark and Fremont City Councils. Both Councils voted to endorse the junior college proposal. In the meantime, the newly formed New Haven Unified School District asked the Alameda County Office of Education to study whether they should annex with SCJCD or join the Fremont-Newark effort.

According to the Argus (010), Newark Trustee Harry Lewis drew a comparison between the district request for school district unification and the junior college proposal. Lewis was quoted as saying, “…in both cases it seems to be a matter of simply proving to state education authorities that we are financially capable of going ahead with own.” Lewis noted that local studies showed the Washington Township area with a higher per-student assessed valuation than the SCJCD. He stated that would, “….seem to indicate that the township is in a better financial position than SCJCD to support a junior college district. Fellow NUSD Trustee Wes Sears said that annexation to SCJCD “…would plainly rule out the possibility for many Newark residents to attend a junior college simply because of the higher cost of attending an out of district school.”

By the end of March, both NUSD and FUSD filed their resolutions with the SBE. At first they were hoping for a May review but Mr. Clemo indicated it might not be on the agenda until June. Gus Robertson met with Jack McGregor and Fremont City Manager Howard Reese and Newark City Manager Bruce Altman to compile data to the State Board. New Haven Unified School District (NHUSD) would have until September to join with Newark and Fremont in time to be part of the December election. (A-010) A fairly rapid sequence of events took place between late April and early July culminating in the approval by the SBE for a local election to form the FremontNewark junior college district. These events were part of two separate but interrelated pathways. One was an overtly political and legislative path taken by Assemblyman Carlos Bee and the other an administrative path taken by FUSD and NUSD. Although the pathways were interrelated they will be described separately below for purposes of clarity.

Carlos Bee Legislation In April of 1965 Assemblyman Bee was no longer inclined to wait until June action by the State Board of Education (SBE). Bee moved forward and introduced legislation, AB 3279, on April 23 as an emergency measure to exempt the proposed Fremont-Newark junior college district from the state Education Code 25431.5. (A011) The legislation moved ahead very quickly. In May the Bee legislation received 66-0 approval from the state assembly. The State Senate approved the Bee legislation 33-0 on May 31, in a special Memorial Day session.

Governor Edmund “Pat” Brown signed AB 3279 on June 8 in Sacramento. A local delegation of school and city officials attended the signing ceremony. The Fremont News-Register (6/9/65) reported the following: The governor chatted with the southern Alameda County delegation and praised the work of Bee guiding the bill through the legislature. Brown declared he was “really pleased” to sign a bill permitting the formation of the new junior college. He noted the junior colleges are being called upon to bear much of the load of students seeking higher education in California.

The speed of the legislative process and the quick signing of the bill by Governor Brown, were indicators of growing frustration on the part of the legislature and the Governor’s office with the State Department of Education. This tension would continue to build over the next two years, leading to legislation in 1967 pulling junior college oversight from the SDE and establishing a separate Board of Governors (appointed by the Governor) and Chancellor to oversee the junior colleges in the state.

This expeditious action at the state level to help with a local issue would likely not be possible in the legislative process in California these days.

FUSD and NUSD Pursue Administrative Solution with CCHE, SDE and SBE In addition to the SDE and SBE another state group had entered the junior college approval process: the Coordinating Council on Higher Education (CCHE). This represented the first hurdle for local junior college advocates. The CCHE was slated to meet in late June in Los Angeles and the SBE was scheduled to meet in early July in San Francisco. As stated, the Governor had signed the Bee legislation on June 8. In addition, FUSD and NUSD needed to agree on the makeup of a Board of Trustees for the new district, should it eventually be approved by voters.

The CCHE met in Los Angeles on June 29. A local delegation attended, including Gus Robertson, Jack McGregor, Wes Sears, Newark City Manager Bruce Altman and Councilman Ken Foster, and Fremont Vice-Mayor Carl Martineau. The CCHE refused to pass judgement on the proposed district. Instead a sub-committee of the council referred the proposal to the Alameda County Committee on School District Organization for further study. The CCHE called for the county to act expeditiously and recommended that the SBE take no further action on the junior college district

petitions from Fremont and Newark until a county report and recommendations were completed. Earlier that year, New Haven Unified had asked the county committee to make a study on which district to join South County Junior College District, centered in Hayward, or the Fremont Newark district. (A-014) According to the Argus (A-014), Jack McGregor felt the state agencies were concerned that the Union City and South Hayward were not included in the proposal, and it was a key factor in the State’s desire for a county committee study.

State law required all areas of California be included in a junior college district.

Those areas not in district by 1967 were to be studied by country school officials.

McGregor indicated the Fremont-Newark delegation was surprised to learn that the staff recommendation from the SDE had not been affected by State Superintendent of Instruction Max Rafferty's decision to speak in favor of their proposal. His support was undoubtedly influenced by the Bee legislation and the Governor’s strong support of it.

The Argus reported (A-014) the CCHE conclusions paralleled those contained in the State Department of Education (SDE) report issued previously: 1. The Fremont Newark area has a higher growth rate the high school average daily attendance.

2. Average 1967-68 ADA estimated for the subject territory is above the legal minimum subunits of ADA required for the formation of a new Junior College District.

3. The proposed district is exempted by statute from the minimum amount per unit of ADA. 4. The local and state support and bonding capacity of the area are adequate to maintain the proposed district.

5. Income of the subject area is in excess of the average expenditures per ADA of other California Junior College District of comparable size.

6. Formation of the proposed district would leave the New Haven Unified School District the only area in Alameda County without a Junior College District 7. The Fremont Newark territory is contiguous to two existing junior college districts either of which can provide adequate administration for the subject area.

8. Formation of the proposed district is not in keeping with the recent trends in California for the formation of a larger junior college districts.

9. The Alameda County Committee on School Organization has not yet made a recommendation with regard to any area in the county not within a junior college district.

Ironically, back on the home front, and also on June 29, the New Haven Unified School District voted formally to seek annexation to the South County Junior College District (SCJCD). The lone dissenting vote was cast by Frank Borghie who favored joining with Fremont and Newark junior college plan. According to the Argus (015), less than 20 people turned out for the decisive. Annexation would

require a 2/3 approval by New Haven voters because it would involve assumption of a share of the bonded indebtedness of the new junior college district. New Haven officials said they could be part of SCJCD by July 1966, if voters approve the annexation before December 31st that year.

The local backers of the Fremont-Newark Junior College proposal felt they had the Governor, the legislature, and the Superintendent of Instruction, both city councils and both Chambers of Commerce on their side. Thus, they were definitely surprised when the CCHE dodged the decision. Members of the Joint Junior College Committee met at least twice after the CCHE meeting to prepare for the July 8 State Board of Education meeting in San Francisco, once at the Kiote Hills Country Club and once at the Fremont Unified Board Room.

According to the Argus (A-016), Holger Rasmussen laid out to the committee the key arguments to be presented to the SBE:  Fremont and Newark are the only school districts in Alameda County which are not in a junior college district and people should have a right to a choice.  The state Coordinating Council subcommittees objection to an additional administration is not valid because annexation will create need for an additional administration;  If Fremont and Newark should annex to South County there would be no board representation;  The county committee study was not required by law - neither Chabot nor Peralta junior colleges were referred to the county committee for study;  The size of the proposed district in square miles is comparable to San Diego with much of its population growth projected in the near future; and  The proposal has been studied for the past 8 years.

On the day before the State Board of Education (SBE) meeting both local newspapers, the Argus and the Fremont News-Register published editorials urging approval of a local college district. The Argus editorial provided an excellent set of arguments responding to the inaction of the CCHE. Both editorials are presented in full in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.

The Joint Junior College Committee also organized local officials and citizens to attend the State Board meeting on buses, one from Fremont and one from Newark.

On the morning of July 8, the day of the SBE meeting in San Francisco, two local delegations departed on buses, one leaving from Washington High School and the other from the Newark City Hall. According to the Argus, approximately 50 people attended from both cities, including Assemblyman Carlos Bee. A partial list of attendees is presented in Appendix 4.

At the SBE meeting the Fremont-Newark petitions were introduced by Ronald W Cox, Associate Superintendent of Public Instruction and Chief of the Division of Public School Administration. One has to think that Mr. Robert Clemo was in attendance, or at the least, very interested. Cox said there was no question of the need for a junior college in the Fremont Newark area, as there were more than 1000 students attending neighboring junior colleges. He was quoted in the Argus (A-017)

as saying the, “big question in regard to the petition (is) with the expense of an additional administration unit. They estimated such a unit would cost $75,000 to $200,000 per year, as compared to about $85,000 for administration by an existing district.” The Argus reported (A-017) Cox later said South County Junior College District officials had indicated to him they preferred Fremont and Newark not be annexed to them as their master plans had been drawn up without consideration for students from the two cities.

Cox said the state staff felt two questions were involved: 1) Does the State Board feel the county committee can do a better study than that done by the districts?; and 2) Was additional administration needed and whether or not the administration, if approved by the Board, is warranted in a low wealth community (assessed valuation less than $150,000 per potential student)?

Cox’s boss, State Superintendent of Instruction Max Rafferty said he agreed with Cox until he learned original objections had been removed. He was quoted by the Argus as saying, “I recommend the proposal be approved as the plan looks like a good one to me. So much of the road blocks have been removed, it would be grievous if the plan fails.” The work of Carlos Bee and Governor Brown may have had a good deal to do with Mr. Rafferty’s change of mind. The passage of Mr. Bee’s legislation and the Governor’s approval no doubt played a role in the SDE and State Superintendent of Schools Max Rafferty changing their stance on the FremontNewark proposal.

Assemblyman Carlos Bee also addressed the SBE. He reported on the purpose and success of his legislation in support of the new district. According to the Argus (A-017), he went on to say: I think we get confused when looking at a map and fail to realize that Fremont is the fourth largest city in area in the state. The governor signed the bill because of the feeling that a majority of Fremont and Newark residents supported formation of a junior college district. The support is shown here by the number of people who have come to this meeting in addition to city and school representatives.”

Newark Unified School District Board President Wesley Sears also commented on the need for the college district. He said taxpayers were already paying for students to go to SCJCD and if they were forced to annex to them, taxes would go up and they would not have representation on the Board. He also stated that SCJCD’s “somewhat general plan” shows a campus might be located in the Fremont-Newark area in 1990 if the entire district approved a bond election for the campus. He was quoted by the Argus as stating, “We need a campus before that time and we cannot wait… the area being discussed was about 140 square miles and virtually all of it was usable land and well planned. He said Newark alone had 36 industries and room for 100 more.”

The State Board of Education granted FUSD and NUSD permission to hold an election for the formation of the college district. The vote was 8-1. Mrs. Talcott Bates cast the dissenting vote. Board member Raymond Daba was absent State Board Member Talcott Bates expressed concern that NUSD had recently failed to gain approval of a proposed tax increase. NUSD Board President Wesley Sears said the failure was a very uncommon occurrence and cited two contributing factors. First, in an effort to save money the tax increase had been combined with a Trustee election. The result he said was that the tax increase also became a political issue and a candidate who was adamantly against it received only 175 votes while the tax increase lost by only 100 votes. Second, two weeks before the election virtually every resident in Newark received a new form for mortgage payments which indicated various increases. Sears said NUSD planned another tax increase election that fall and he was confident it would pass.

In their coverage of the SBE decision the Fremont News-Register (7/9/65) cited one of the first tasks of the college Board of Trustees, should the district be approved by the voters, would be to choose a district name. The article speculated, “Best bet now is Mission, with Washington and Dumbarton having some support.”

According to the Argus, the campaign to form the new junior college district had been “harmonious and staunch” until the issue of Trustee areas came up. On May 1 the Argus (A-012) reported the following: A disagreement over Trustee areas for the proposed Fremont-Newark Junior College District has prompted Fremont Unified School District’s Board of Education to request a joint meeting with Trustees of Newark Unified School District. Newark Trustees have suggested four Trustees for Fremont and three for Newark in the junior college district. Fremont Trustees, however, indicated this week that they feel any assignment of Trustees should more closely parallel the city’s population.

Newark’s population at that time was estimated at 21,500 while Fremont’s was estimated at above 80,000. The article went on to report that Fremont Trustees were seeking a joint meeting with Newark Unified Trustees on May 11, 1965, the date of the next Newark Unified Board of Education meeting. Eventually the two Boards agreed to a seven-member College Board, five representing Fremont and two representing Newark.

Campaign Gets Underway: August – December, 1965 Following the SBE action, a local election was set for December 7, 1965. Local planners felt would this allow classes to begin in fall of 1966. A Board of Trustees election was included as part of the vote. This was to ensure an elected body could immediately commence implementation work, if the district were approved.

The eventual building of a campus, particularly where it would be located, was clearly an issue during the campaign. Right after the decision by the State Board of

Education, the new Lido-Faire Homeowners’ Association in Newark urged, in their first edition of their newsletter (August 1965), that the new college campus be located in Newark. The Argus (A-019) quoted Association President Walter Thompson, “I urge all persons living in the association to support the measure…I also urge the local school districts to consider locating the college adjacent to the Coyotes Hills Aquatic Park, which will be developed shortly.” The location was described as part of the Patterson Ranch property on the northwesterly side of Jarvis Avenue near the Nimitz Freeway.

What had been the Joint Junior College Committee, a study and advocacy group, now became the Junior College Coordinating Committee to campaign for passage of the December 7 formation measure. NUSD named Trustee Wes Sears, and FUSD named Trustee Mary Rodrigues as co-chairs of the campaign committee. Fremont City Manager Howard Reese and Newark City Manager Bruce Altman were appointed to be co-secretaries. A Citizens Committee was formed and named Mrs. Howard Buschke to head the group. (A-013) A leader in the local junior college movement, Dr. Holger Rasmussen, a surgeon at Washington Hospital, had recently resigned his post as Trustee and Board President for FUSD, due to work demands. However, he spoke at an FUSD Board meeting and proposed the Trustees encourage Gus Robertson to run for the new College Board. Robertson suggested that members of the FUSD Board consider running for the college body.

There were several main arguments for approval of the new district. Residents of Fremont and Newark were being charged a junior college tax and the funds were going to the cities where the students from Fremont and Newark were attending.

The amount of money going to the other junior college districts, especially to SCJCD, was deemed sufficient along with anticipated state funding, to operate a separate college for Fremont and Newark. The cities would be able to build a local college campus much more quickly than through annexation to SCJCD. And there would be a locally elected Board of Trustees. A copy of a campaign flyer is presented in Appendix 5.

Fremont and Newark residents were informed to register, at any fire station, by October 14 in order to be eligible to vote in the December 7 election. Candidates for Board of Trustees seats had until October 22 to file at the County Superintendent of Schools Office in Hayward. It was reported that voters in both cities would vote for all seven board members. (A-020) The subject of the location of a permanent campus facility was addressed by Fremont Vice-Mayor Carl Martineau speaking at a late October meeting of the Fremont League of Women Voters. The Argus (A-021) quoted Martineau as saying, “I am only guessing, but I think they will probably select a site near or around Newark Boulevard and Jarvis Road…. any site towards the southerly end of the district would require transportation for everyone whereas a site in the northerly district would be within walking distance for many, and only a short drive for most.”

By the October 22 deadline, 18 candidates for Board seats had filed with the County Office. There were three candidates for the two Newark seats: Wes Sears, former Newark city councilman and a Trustee of NUSD; Mrs. Joan Bordman, a housewife; Rev. Travis Campbell, pastor, St. Paul’s Methodist Church. There were 15 candidates for the seven Fremont seats: Walter Aylward, an attorney; C.H. “Barney” Barnstable, real estate; Mrs. Marilyn Blawie, professor at California State College in Hayward; James W. Bottoms, owner of an appliance service; John Costello, principal of Eureka Elementary in Hayward; Lyle Edmison, dean of students at Cal State; John J. Finch, school teacher; Dr. Norman Freed, veterinarian and member of Fremont Planning Commission; Abraham Hochler, attorney and certified public accountant; Joseph McCord, newspaper editor; Dan Silva, telephone installer; Charles B. Snow, attorney; Bruce F. Wells, construction materials manager; Mrs. Patricia Wootton, housewife; R.W. Zwissing, food processing manager. (A-022) In early November the former Junior College Coordinating Committee created in July reorganized under the name Fremont-Newark Committee for Junior Colleges.

Shirley Bushke of Newark and Dr. Holger Rasmussen agreed to jointly head up the group. This was necessary as several of the members of the former group were not candidates in the election. The primary goal of the new group was to ensure passage of the December 7 ballot measure to form the district. (A-023) Appendix 6 shows a list of 30 local groups supporting the formation of the district.

Fremont-Newark Junior College District Approved The December 7, 1965 special election had two sections: 1) To create a FremontNewark Junior College District; and 2) To elect seven Board of Trustee members (five representing Fremont and two representing Newark) for the proposed district.

Only 19% of the voters showed up at the polls for the special election, but it was approved by a 74% margin.

Also elected were seven members of a Board of Trustees to administer the new District, five from Fremont and two from Newark. (A-024) Elected were three educators and two lawyers from Fremont and a minister and a businessman from Newark. (Factsheet) - Newark: Mr. Wesley Sears (who was first Board President), Rev. Travis Campbell; Fremont: Dr. Lyle Edmison, Mr. Charles B. Snow, Mr. John Costello, Dr. Marilyn Blawie and Mr. Abraham Hochler.

A majority of the new Board members were not new to education. Wesley Sears had been on the Washington Union High School District Board and was currently serving on the Newark Unified School District Board. Lyle Edmison was Dean of Students at Cal State Hayward and Marilyn Blawie was a professor there. John Costello for was Principal of Eureka Elementary School in Hayward.

This low turnout seems inauspicious indeed. But, one must keep in mind the situation in that moment in time 50 years ago. It was a special election set smack

dab in the middle of the busy holiday season. The population of Newark was only 20,000 (it is more than double that today) and Fremont was only 80,000 (it is nearly quadruple that today). High school students and others wishing to attend junior college had been doing so fairly easily by attending nearby Chabot College. The idea of a junior college district for most people was just that: an idea.

The main interest in forming the junior college district came from school district administrators and Board members, and local city officials, who were concerned about tax dollars being paid to other districts and cities. The press coverage of the political maneuvering in the several years leading up to the vote (and it was considerable) consistently reported strong support for the concept among the local leaders to the point that the approval could have been viewed as a forgone conclusion. Thus, for the most part, this did not seem to have been a burning issue with voters.