Another email against Monterey's Shepherd surfaces

Periodically an email accusing the Monterey Peninsual Unified School District of being dysfunctional begins traveling through the cyber grapevine.

It usually goes like this: discontent in the district is growing, there are serious problems rooted in "irresponsible, dysfunctional and toxic leadership" and the only way to stop them is to demand the Board of Trustees hold Superintendent Marilyn Shepherd accountable.

The emails usually end up in my mailbox. I puzzle over what to do with them. Write a story about the growing discontent in the district? The discontent seems to have held steady since I began covering MPUSD in 2009. That more board members are questioning Supt. Shepherd? There was a rumor that she was losing support back in 2010, when the board was about to place a bond measure on the ballot. Well, we know how that story ended.

There were suggestions Shepherd was losing support earlier this year, when she was questioned harshly about a couple of budget issues. Yet, the only one to vote against renewing her contract -- and only because it did not include accountability measures -- was Jon Hill, the new trustee on the block.

At Monday night's meeting, two board members voted against two separate proposals by her-- one each. This minor resistance notwithstanding, Shepherd seems to have the backing of the board more than ever.

How's her support eroding, then?

Am I supposed to report on the "toxic" leadership? And how can I do that, when nobody will speak on the record? Not even those who have left, now that they should have no fear of being fired?

It is clear that Shepherd is disliked by many, that she makes unpopular decisions, that she rubs people the wrong way. But how are these emails useful? The drafters acknowledge they don't want to get Shepherd fired, just to hold her accountable. And for her to answer questions.

The same questions that she gets asked over and over again, the questions that make her roll her eyes.

So what's the end game here? For Shepherd to undergo a personality makeover? For her to stop making unpopular decisions? And how will she guess what decisions will be unpopular?

Or maybe, maybe, the emails are just and end to itself. To let Superintendent Shepherd and the Board know that people are watching. With a magnifying glass.

So, if people are watching so intently, how come nobody in the public said a peep about "fiscal accountability"? Am I the only one who believes this is mega-important?

Or is this decision destined to become an "unpopular" one?