“YOU ARE DOOMED” SDUHSD AREA 5: PUBLIC OFFICE BEGINS WITH PUBLIC TRUST
“YOU ARE DOOMED” SDUHSD AREA 5: PUBLIC OFFICE BEGINS WITH PUBLIC TRUST.
KEEP GINNY IN TH BOTTLE.
Public trust begins before a candidate takes office. It is earned through honesty, transparency, and a willingness to answer difficult questions about one’s conduct.
A school board trustee makes consequential decisions affecting children, employees, public policy, and taxpayer dollars. Before granting that authority, voters should examine how a candidate has handled trust, shared responsibilities, and accountability.
That is why I am sharing my firsthand experience with Ginny Merrifield, a candidate for San Dieguito Union High School District Area 5 and my neighbor of more than 25 years.
Carl DeMaio’s Reform California voter guide delivers a blunt assessment of the race: “You Are Doomed.” Although Merrifield is endorsed by the Republican Party of San Diego County, DeMaio, a fellow Republican, has warned against her candidacy.
My concerns arise from my own experience. The standard I apply should hold for anyone seeking public office, regardless of party. An endorsement cannot substitute for examining a candidate’s conduct.
WHY THIS EXPERIENCE MATTERS
Through Let’s Speak Up™, which I co-founded, we have helped families challenge institutional failures involving bullying, hazing, antisemitism, sexual misconduct, and school discipline. In recent years, our advocacy developed into a concrete reform proposal: the GOAI Act, designed to strengthen independent oversight and hold institutional leaders accountable.
That work reflects a principle: accountability must follow authority.
In 2020, we led the recall initiative against Trustee Kristen Gibson with other community members as part of our campaign to reopen schools. At the same time, we were organizing an independent parent association to support families and help them navigate school board decisions.
Because Ginny and I were aligned on many of these issues, I invited her into our meetings. I shared our plans, documents, ideas, and contacts. We had countless conversations, and I continued updating her even while she traveled.
She did not disclose to me that she was pursuing a parallel effort with others.
On December 14, 2020, a local article announced that an unidentified parent was forming a North County organization and filing for 501(c)(4) status. People began calling me, asking why I had chosen to remain anonymous.
But the anonymous parent was not me.
Ginny had repeatedly told me during our meetings, “I do not want my name out there.”
I texted her the article and asked, “Is this you?”
In her response, Ginny blamed another parent for leaking the information and the reporter for publishing it before she could speak with me. She described the situation as a “misunderstanding” and said, “I care about you.” I still have the recording.
Those responses did not answer my central question: Why had she concealed her parallel effort with a community member while working with us?
Ginny was free to organize with anyone she chose. We would have respected that decision. The concern was her withholding relevant information while we continued sharing our work in good faith. Even when confronted, she deflected and blamed others rather than explain why she had concealed the parallel effort.
I consider this conduct deceptive and double-crossing. A breach of trust. We were working toward a shared mission for the community; her actions demonstrated, to me, self-serving behavior.
When I kept pressing her about transparency, she told me, “Lea, do not worry. You can still volunteer.” That was the breaking point for me: her entitlement and arrogance.
What audacity. True chutzpah. Her dismissive response presumed that she could breach our trust and still expect us to volunteer. Her actions further fragmented an effort that should have brought families together around a shared purpose.
WHY THE RECENT OUTREACH MATTERS
For years after our disagreement, Ginny made no effort to address the breach with me. We did not exchange a word, despite being next-door neighbors.
Recently, at a candidate event, she approached me with a handshake as though nothing had happened. I found her platitudes and formalities repellent because they appeared focused on preserving her public image while leaving the breach of trust unaddressed. She later contacted my husband and enlisted others in the community to sway me from publishing an article.
To me, the timing of her attempt at reconciliation suggests she is seeking to preserve her image and protect her electoral support. In this community, people know I do not compromise on principles or truth. I am outspoken about abusive behavior against students and their families and have often called out the abhorrent behavior of school board trustees and school officials.
Her outreach through my husband and others further confirms my view that she cannot be trusted to serve the public when her actions continue to serve her own interests.
Seeking to prevent criticism from becoming public, while leaving the underlying conduct unaddressed, demonstrates to me a consistent pattern of self-serving behavior that is incompatible with public service.
THE STANDARD FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
This progression began during community organizing and continues through her candidacy today. It matters because voters must assess how candidates handle responsibility, disclosure, and scrutiny before entrusting them with public authority.
Ginny’s campaign promises “Clear Information,” “Open Discussion,” “Transparency,” and “Accountable Leadership.”
Voters should ask whether her conduct supports those promises. Accountability becomes meaningful when someone must explain a decision, acknowledge a failure, or answer a question they would prefer to avoid.
My concern extends beyond whether Ginny and I can mend our differences. It concerns whether someone seeking authority over our schools demonstrates the honesty and accountability she asks voters to trust.
When a candidate withholds relevant information during a shared community effort and fails to explain it when confronted, voters have reason to question how that candidate would practice transparency when the stakes involve students, district decisions, and taxpayer dollars.
The same standard should apply to every candidate: When your conduct is questioned, answer directly. Explain your decisions. Address the substance. Take responsibility where it is due.
WHAT VOTERS SHOULD EXPECT
Trustees will face disagreement, competing interests, and scrutiny. Families need confidence that their questions will receive substantive answers and that concerns will be addressed even when doing so is uncomfortable.
Courtesy matters. So does the integrity behind it. Polished manners cannot repair a breach that remains unaddressed.
I do not know how Carl DeMaio reached his assessment. I know what I experienced: concealment, blame, dismissal, deflection, downplaying, years of silence, and outreach when she needed something from me. That pattern informs my judgment.
Collective accountability begins with public awareness. Whether Ginny is elected or not, the community deserves answers and should hold her to her promises of “Clear Information,” “Open Discussion,” “Transparency,” and “Accountable Leadership.”
I have spoken up. Ginny is responsible for answering the questions and accounting for her actions. She can spin it any way she wants; the questions remain unanswered.
I leave you with this question: If people are not forthcoming when the stakes are low, what might they conceal when the stakes are high?
TRUTH MATTERS. CHARACTER MATTERS. ACCOUNTABILITY MUST FOLLOW AUTHORITY.
ABOUT LEA WOLF
Lea Wolf is co-founder of Let’s Speak Up™, CAPE-Ed™, Deeds by Kids™, and ICIARA™. A former San Dieguito Union High School District board candidate, she advocates for student safety, parental rights, and institutional accountability. Her SELF-Ex™ method helps people navigate adversity responsibly and confidently. It was recognized as a top educational solution in a 2021 global school-reopening challenge sponsored by the University of Southern California, IDEO, and the Nikou Foundation.
