By Elizabeth Coolbrith
The issue facing Davis is no longer Measure V. The issue is trust.
For months, Davis parents were told that declining enrollment posed a serious threat to our schools. School closures, boundary changes, and district restructuring were presented as looming possibilities. Families understandably worried about the future of their neighborhood schools.
At the same time, Davis Joint Unified School District leadership became deeply involved in the public discussion surrounding Measure V. District leaders repeatedly linked the Village Farms development to the future health of Davis schools, arguing that new housing would bring students and revenue. Many residents came away with a clear message: support Measure V or face the possibility of school closures.
That perception matters because California school districts are expected to follow a clear principle during election campaigns: educate, don’t advocate. Public agencies may provide information about ballot measures, but they should not use their positions or public resources to persuade voters toward a particular outcome. The distinction exists for a reason. Public institutions are entrusted with informing the public, not campaigning.
Many parents questioned whether that line remained clear during the Measure V campaign. Superintendent Matt Best conducted presentations throughout the community discussing why the district supported the project and how its approval could benefit local schools. Whether intentional or not, many residents felt these communications sounded less like neutral information and more like advocacy.
Questions about transparency were compounded by the district’s response to community involvement. While school closures were being discussed, parents organized and collected more than 1,000 signatures supporting the creation of a parent-based District Advisory Committee to help explore alternatives. Yet the proposal was not advanced for formal discussion. Regardless of one’s position on Measure V, many parents felt their efforts to participate meaningfully in the process were dismissed.
Then came the announcement that has done the most damage to public confidence.
Immediately after the election, the Board announced that discussions regarding school closures and boundary changes would be paused until at least Spring 2027. Parents were left asking an obvious question: if school closures were an urgent crisis before the election, why were they suddenly not urgent afterward?
Additional concerns stem from the district’s longstanding relationship with Village Farms interests. Public reporting has documented substantial developer-related donations to district programs over many years. Public records have also revealed communications suggesting discussions regarding Measure V were moved off district email. While these facts do not prove wrongdoing, they raise legitimate questions about transparency, independence, and whether district leadership became too closely aligned with a private development campaign.
Public officials are entitled to their personal opinions. But when they speak from positions of public authority, residents must be confident they are receiving balanced information rather than political persuasion. That confidence has been weakened.
The Board owes the community clear answers. Why were school closures emphasized before the election and deferred afterward? Why was a parent advisory process not embraced? What safeguards were in place to ensure district communications remained informational rather than advocacy-oriented?
This is no longer simply a debate about Measure V. It is a question of whether the public can trust its school district to place students, families, and transparent decision-making above politics.
Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain. Rebuilding it will require more than assurances. It will require openness, accountability, and a genuine willingness to engage the community the district was elected to serve.
Davisite 
Leave a comment