“Ms. Avalos, you’ve been served.”

The words rumbled through the Cheryl A. Epple Board Room leaving those in attendance on Wednesday, June 3 stunned, especially Board President Carmen Avalos.

According to the Elections Office at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/ County Clerk’s office in Norwalk, an intent to recall was filed by Area 2 proponents on Tuesday, June 9 and as of Monday, June 15 it was deemed invalid.

The intent to recall was called off once four of the 10 needed signatures were declared null according to Brenda Duran, Public Information Officer for the County Clerk’s office.

No further information was released by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/ County Clerk’s office.

“For me, [I feel] relieved because I know I did nothing wrong. […] It’s validation. I’m doing a good job as a trustee and as an educator. It’s a good thing for the community,” Avalos said. “The issue is signatures, which means the community didn’t agree.”

A recall proponent thought differently on the day the intent letter was presented to Avalos.

“I represent and I am speaking on behalf of the area two registered voters who are not willing to put up with or tolerate the ineffectiveness of Ms. Avalos’ leadership. We need new leadership.”

The woman who failed to identify herself served Trustee Avalos the intent to recall documents at the Board Meeting.

“Unfortunately it’s come to this,” the unnamed woman said.

Although the proponents claim to be from Area 2, Avalos said she could not confirm that statement.

The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/ County Clerk’s office did not release information detailing the reasons listed for Avalos’ proposed recall.

“Well, I mean they listed 10 things; I think the majority of those things are perception versus realities. […] I’m not going to say anything other than some of the things they wrote were just plain things that I would not have any control over. […],” Avalos said of the reasons listed on the recall documents.

She added, “I mean if it were things that I would have done wrong, you know being corrupt, stealing, things like that, yes by all means that’s what its there for, but just because you don’t like someone, It’s not appropriate. It’s a waste of taxpayer money, in my personal opinion and I think the public should not stand for those kinds of things.”

Avalos also expressed her disappointment and confusion with the decision of the proponents to file for her recall from office in the first place.

“[It’s] disappointing because I think I take great pride in the work that I do. I don’t think that anybody who sits on these boards does it to enrich themselves, or to promote themselves, its really about making a difference in the communities that we serve, and I know that’s why I’m here, I never forget that, so for someone to attack me on a personal level like that, it’s discouraging,” she said.

Avalos added, “To get it from a colleague because they’re upset or because their husbands are upset, you know, they’re upset period, it’s just not right. As much as people don’t get along, it’s just mean spirited, because it sends the wrong message to the community about the work that we do.”

The board president stated that if she indeed wasn’t doing a good job she’d like to know and that is why open forums such as the board of trustee meetings are important.

“Carmen has done nothing wrong, I believe the person was frustrated. Maybe we need to better inform [people] of their petition rights,” John Paul Drayer, Area 3 Trustee said.

The trustee took into consideration the proponent’s feelings, but ultimately recognized that if a recall would have gone through, it would have taken away money from student services.

Drayer continued, “She has done everything in her leadership to help students, specifically Hispanic students.”

“Avalos is a civil rights leader […] She’s a female leader for our community.”

The board president emphasized how the failed intent to recall would have affected the community.

She said, “It does have an impact on the community, whether it’s tax payer dollars that go out the door for no reason whatsoever on an unnecessary recall, and then two I think the folks who are watching this out there in the public and say: ‘I never want to run for office.’ […] That takes a resource that the community has from within their community and those are good people who want to serve.”

For the time being, the intent to recall originally placed was found invalid.

Avalos stated, “[…]Bottom line is there is a response that needs to be filed. That response was not filed. The notice of intent is insufficient at this point, so that’s where we’re at.”