[poll id=”250″]
PRESS RELEASE, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 23, 2010
Contact: Ken Lopez-Maddox 714-906-1797
Recall Leaders Challenged Not To Force Special Election
Special Election Would Cost Schools $800,000
Aliso Viejo, CA- Parents For Local Control served Capistrano Unified School District Trustees Lopez-Maddox and Winsten with their notice of intention to circulate a recall petition on February 2, 2010.
This leaves the recall leaders approximately 9 weeks to collect the required number of petition signatures in order to qualify for the November ballot. They will still be entitled to collect signatures for 23 weeks. However, failing to qualify for the November election would force the Capistrano Unified School District to spend $800,000 on a special election. This money would have to taken from classroom spending.
“I’m calling on the recall leaders to set aside their political agendas and do what’s right by the kids. I’m calling on them to commit to ceasing their recall efforts if they can’t qualify for the November ballot”, said Trustee Ken Lopez-Maddox.
“Any voter who is considering whether to sign the petition has a right to know whether or not the recall leaders will force CUSD to bear the expense of a costly recall special election in the middle of this staggering and historical budget crisis,even if they are unable to gather enough signatures to bring the issue to a vote at the November general election when the cost to CUSD would be minimal.” said Trustee Mike Winsten.
School districts around the state have had their budgets cut year after year by Sacramento. The Capistrano Unified School District has been forced to make tough decisions, and is currently planning for a $34 Million budget reduction for the 2010-2011 school year. It can’t afford to waste $800,000 to further the minority agenda of a political organization that has lost the last 3 school district elections. Frankly, our kids can’t afford it.
Mr. Maddox is showing a high level of hypocrisy with this appeal.
1) He and Winsten threatened a law suit against the original ten petition signers which was intended to delay approvals for the petitions so they could be circulated. This threat did cause a delay of several weeks.
2) Maddox had no problem forcing a special election that cost CUSD almost $800,000 when he was elected to office in 2008. This election was a few weeks after an already scheduled primary election and a few months before a general election. From his logic it is OK to take money out of the classroom for Ken to get elected in a special election but it isn’t OK to do so to remove him when he proves to be an ineffective representative?
There is no doubt that enough signatures will be gathered to qualify this recall for the November ballot. Mr. Maddox should be more concerned with his run away spending patterns and the hiring and support of his friends and associates and he should learn a little fiscal discipline on his part. He is not qualified to lecture anyone in South Orange County about avoiding the costs of special elections or how to save money.
There are thousands of volunteers about to hit the streets with the purpose of removing him from office. Statements like this only increase our resolve.
Although I live in this school district, I am staying on the sidelines expecting both sides to engage in the debate
One (successful) recall per year is all I can handle.
Ken, If you and your buddy Mike hadn’t sent a nasty letter after the first petitions were served and delayed them, they would have had a few more weeks to get this done. And now that you’ve pulled the wool over the eyes of the Central Committee you’ve got them on the wrong side too. If you truly want to ensure that this is NOT a special election, you would all be encouraging people to sign the petition whether they agree or not to make sure that it makes the ballot in November. They can always vote NO.
THAT WOULD BE THE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO.
All of your games and delay tactics will be to blame along with the Republican party if the signature gatherers are not successful so be careful what you say. You’re setting yourself up for a big fall!
And by the way, what are you doing putting out personal press releases during the business day? I’m pretty sure that is not in your job description nor is it a good use of my tax dollars!
Point of correction. Board members are paid stipends of less than $1000.00 a month and I beleive they cut their pay in half recently during the budget problems. They all have real jobs that pay the bills. Whatever they are doing in the middle of the day is on their own dime, not taxpayers. Please be informed if you are going to make comments; otherwise you look ignorant of the facts. BTW, I happen to support the recall efforts so I am not defending the man, just the truth.
“Thousands of volunteers” — oh really? Would those be the union members, also known as teachers? I have seen the inflammatory flyers produced by the union (CUEA), and they are disgusting. I hope everyone knows that these union thugs marched on the homes of trustees, and one of the trustees has young children. HOW DARE THEY call themselves “Children First”? These ME-FIRST thugs should get a grip on reality and be thankful they have jobs while everyone else is taking pay cuts if not being laid off.
Yes, thousands of volunteers! Parents, Republicans, Christians, “others” and even some teachers. None of us are “thugs”. You should be careful who you insult since many of us are life long Republicans and heavy donors.
This is ne election you can’t paint as a liberal vs. conservative or union bashing event.
Maddox and Winsten and NOT “true” Republicans.
Funny,
Where did Mr. Maddox get this information? Every article in the Register has stated that this recall will proceed only if enough petitions are collected to qualify for the November ballot. In fact, they are constantly pointing out the differences of how they refuse to spend $800,000 on a special recall election unlike Mr. Maddox who did even though he could have done it a few weeks prior on the primary and saved the district thousands or better yet just waited the few months and ran as a candidate since the old guard trustees only had 4 more months to serve and had already stated they would not run again for office.
This is much like his Republican hyperbole about how the unions are behind the recall. I believe his “proof” for this is because the teacher’s union has a link to the CUSD recall website. I guess his own words about not being able to get along (see his recall retort) rang true and he has gotten the teacher’s upset enough to give http://www.cusdrecall2010.org a free PR boost. But if you read enough media, you can see where both unions have posted they have not contributed financially or organized it. Here are such examples of those posts:
Direct quote from San Clemente Times Vol. 5, Issue 7, February 18–24, 2010
“Voters elected Trustees Lopez-Maddox and Winsten to bring positive change and reform to CUSD and that’s exactly what they’re doing,” Scott Baugh, Chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County said in a statement. “Sadly, this unjust recall attempt is being promoted by public employee unions who are fighting to preserve the unsustainable status quo.”
Not so, said recall organizers and Vicki Soderberg, who leads the 2,200-member Capistrano Unified Educators Association.
“Winsten and Lopez-Maddox (former California State Assemblyman) are employing one of oldest political tricks in the history of politics: divert the electorate’s attention away from the facts, and refocus that attention onto another target,” Soderberg said. “These pathetic political maneuvers, targeted against the very people to whom they rely to maintain the high academic achievement of the students in school district, aptly demonstrates why Winsten and Lopez-Maddox need to be removed from office.”
Another one posted on http://capistranoinsider.typepad.com/beyond_the_blackboard/
Ronda Walen, CSEA Capistrano Chapter 224 President commented on ‘OC Republicans Oppose Recall *Updated’
Yesterday, February 18, 2010, 8:15:01 PM | Ronda Walen, CSEA Capistrano Chapter 224 President
My name is Ronda Walen and I’m the President of CSEA Capistrano Chapter 224. I represent the classified employees of CUSD. The truth is we did not initiate the recall campaign, and we are not involved with the recall campaign. We have had absolutely no part in this. Neither has the teachers’ union.
Now Winsten and Maddox have involved their Republican Party backers in perpetuating their lies and the Republican Party was probably more than happy to help them union bash.
This document is based on a lie. The worst part is, not one person who endorsed it, including Winsten and Maddox bothered to contact me to check the facts. I will be working over the weekend to make sure that every Republican leader is made aware that Maddox and Winsten have mislead them and made liars and fools out of them. Hopefully they won’t be so quick to jump next time these two cry wolf.
TSK TSK Mr. Maddox….you are beginning to look desperate and childish- much like the last board meeting when you refused to turn on your mic and poor President Bryson had to repeat all you had to say. Is this the best you have…lying to the Republican party and putting them at risk- making them believe the teachers started this, that you are truly a godsend to CUSD….do you really believe this rubbish yourself? I am a Republican, I have informed my party leaders of their grave mistake in backing you. I only hope for my party’s sake it is not too late, and we do not lose too many to independents or Libertarians over these recent resolutions over a non-partisan position when they have not fully researched the truths.
No On Recall would have you believe this recall is a union issue. This is not true and they know it!!! It has already been stated on every discussion board: the union is NOT behind this recall. Parents and community activists are the ones behind this. If PTSA/PTA, staff, teachers and all others get behind it, then it only is because ALL the members of ALL the communities in CUSD are uniting behind this recall movement.
No On Recall also tried to blame Children First for the actions of some protesting in front of the trustees’ home. Once again, these are not affiliated groups, and everyone knows it.
Pay attention, people. There are some few that will attempt to mislead you. They will use keywords that will grab your attention. They will use issues near and dear to your hearts. They will distract you with issues that have nothing to do with CUSD. Don’t be blinded by the lies!
If any voter has difficulty deciding, I suggest they attend a CUSD board meeting and watch the union members heckle and shout down anyone they disagree with. When I was at a meeting, I was shocked at the behavior of teachers and other union members in the audience. The union claimed (in a newspaper article) it was parents acting up, but I saw almost no parents doing it.
This recall is about the union trying to take over. I felt intimidated by the union members, and I have not been back to a meeting because the union has become an angry mob.
What are the Charges behind the recall?
Dear No to Unions,
Were you at the board meetings a few years ago when Jennifer Beall used to get up to the podium and screech at the trustees? She gets up now and chastises the audience members in that oh-so-not-charming voice of hers. What about all the other CUSD recall members who used to heckle, shout, and totally disrupt those meetings during 2005 and 2006? I was there and they were absolutely horrible. Hypocrisy is nasty and karma is a b*tch.
Get a clue.
Just a quick comment that Ken does not write for this blog. What appears above is a Press Release. As such I do not know if he has read the comments, including yours.
I may have his email address in my system. If so, he will be sent all of the comments on this post which hopefully he will respond to.
Folks. I just sent Ken a copy of the post and the first 10 comments.
Teachers are not losers. They are why we have such great schools. They are the people who work with our kids day in and day out.
Both Trustees Lopez-Maddox and Winsten voted yes to award their campaign supporters thousands of dollars when other trustees recused themselves because of conflict of interest. They hired a pr firm during this financial crisis. These trustees promised transparency, no nepotism, facilities plan and positive change. What campaign promises have they fulfilled and is our district better because of them? Parent do you feel that these trustees are looking out for your children?
I believe Trustees Lopez-Maddox and Winstens are putting politics before our kids. They are trying to make this into some political statement.
Our teachers, the old board and the new board did not cause this budget crisis. It is the economy. The downturn was caused by many things but most will say it was banks and bad loans sold over and over again and inflated corporate numbers. The red ink was caused by the economy. School districts must balance budgets every year. The past boards balanced their budgets also.
Instead of trying to make a political name for themselves these trustees should be willing to work for our children.
My husband who has been a Republican for 30 years agrees that partisan politics do not belong in our district.
These trustees need to put our kids first instead of their political aspirations.
It was one of the board supporters, Jennifer Beall, who during public comment at a CUSD board meeting called a member of the audience a pinhead. I would hope that at a school board meeting where speakers are not being paid or getting television ratings that we could all remain civil. But this woman decided it would be funny to call someone a rude name while she was speaking to the audience which included CUSD students.
Since we are talking about behavior at board meetings we might want to discuss why a very qualified administrator who had accepted the position of Superintendent resigned after attending his first board meeting. The behavior of the audience (full of supporters of Lopez Maddox and Winsten) convinced him that CUSD was not a place he wanted to be. This happened in 2007 I believe…about 2 Superintendents ago.
Larry,
Can you resend your message to me?
Thank you Mr. Gilbert for sending them. He should be glad to hear that PLC is confident they will have the signatures needed for the November ballot. As Mr. Winsten stated in the press release, the opportunity for a recall in November “costs to CUSD would be minimal”. People should realize this is only the first step, you can’t see what the choices are in November unless you sign the petition right away. Come November if the petition qualifies, then you will have the choice to recall or not, along with the candidate’s profiles for a choice. At that time, you can decide if it is better to keep who we have or go with the other candidates. You will also see the other candidates running for the other 3 trustee positions in November to see what would make the best board as a whole.
I guess Trustee Lopez- Maddox is an expert at the cost of a special election, and the fact that it comes out of the classroom because that is how he was elected.
His recall election which could have waited 4 months cost the CUSD students $800,000.
Please tell everyone you know to sign the petitions so that we can have this on the November ballot.
There is no reason to do a special election for this recall like Maddox did to get himself elected. Save the money!
Ken and Mike
I want to thank you for working so hard and not giving up even though the union and old Fleming lovers keep insulting you with baseless comments. I have been to the CUEA website and it is clear they are involved. The parents at my school are very supportive of the entire board and will not support this recall. It is clear we will be in much better shape moving forward then other districts in large measure because you did not cave to the union tactics and stayed the course by asking for a reduction in compensation from the union. This is will benefit the students. I am glad you are not raising class size and cutting programs. Keep up the good work and thanks you for putting the students first!
Capomom of 3, it is impossible to take your comments seriously. Every school in the district has experienced raise class size and the cutting of programs so don’t claim they haven’t. Who are you trying to fool? I’m not sure how pointing out Mr. Maddox was elected in a $800,000 special election is a baseless comment. He is a hypocrite, plain and simple.
I agree with the comments that the union is behind this. The union bosses know public opinion is so against unions they are hiding. If the union didn’t show up at a board meeting, the meeting would be 100 percent devoted to taking care of school district business. I am very tired of the power struggle with the union pulling the strings of teachers and other employees.
Mr. Maddox, please consider encouraging local constituents to sign the petition. That would be the fiscally responsible thing to do, allowing the recall to more easily qualify for the November ballot. If you are confident in your performance and contribution, allow yourself to be judged by your constituents. You profess to value voters (being unable to choose area elections without their involvement ) It seems cowardly to avoid them on the issue of your own job performance.
To your lone supporter (capo mom of 3), you see so clearly that I wonder why you write without clarity. Can you explain why” It is clear we will be in much better shape moving forward then other districts in large measure because you did not cave to the union tactics and stayed the course by asking for a reduction in compensation from the union.” Did we reach a settlement with teachers? What districts do we compare favorably to? Or is it just his obstinance that you are applauding?
maybe we all need to go to capomom of 3’s school because obviously this school must be getting special treatment…maybe because they transfered local students to other local schools instead of adding more portables…I remember about reading about this school-is this Vista Del Mar? I didn’t realize they didn’t get programs cut also! I am so jealous…no wonder you want to keep your trustee…we have 38 in 4th, 38 in 5th, 43 in many middle school classes and who knows how many are in high school now…it is a joke they state class size is no higher than 29.9 in 4-8! I would like to know where they get their math figures!
Looks like CUEA has discovered this blog. Same hatchet throwers who write to each other on the Capo Dispatch. Three Fleming ex-Trustees, Two Union Thugs and One defeated candidate.
If you wonder why you can’t get traction with the community, listen to yourselves! YIPES!
Nope, I’m not CUEA…not a teacher…just a parent who has been paying attention to these two jokers through the media (OC Register and Beyond the Blackboard) since last summer.
WHAT does Lopez-Maddox think he’s doing throwing out an implication of $800,000 for a recall??!! That is exactly what the recall supporters are NOT going to put this district through…unlike the way Maddox and Winsten DID when they just had to have a special election 4 months before the general election. Lopez-Maddox–your dishonesty and charlatanism has reached new heights!
Who can’t get traction with the community? Look at the poll numbers. Consider the challenge Mr. Maddox has just offered us. Imagine the connections made in the last few months as parents, teachers, employees, former students – and all their friends, neighbors and family members – have attended board meetings, followed the events and researched the issues facing CUSD. Dismiss us with caution. If the union were to back us, it would be over for these trustees. And who’s being supportive of teachers?
Let’s see what the real score is (not how many times each of three people can vote in a poll). All seven old guard trustees are GONE. Fleming is GONE. Fleming’s administrators are GONE. Those challenging reform candidates LOST. All the elections were landslides for reformers.
If anyone needs yet another demonstration of what voters think, so be it.
28,
You can only vote once in our poll. Our software tracks your IP address and blocks attempts to vote twice from the same computer.
Ken. I will resend the post along with all of the 28 comments posted here.
In addition, last night I did send a copy to Anna Bryson as I had her address. If you are not getting my email perhaps she can forward a copy.
Ken. I sent the email to your home address.
This open forum is a result of the Press Release which is the topic of these exchanges. Are you saying that the Press Release is not accurate? Do you want me to forward the Press Release to you? Please advise. Thanks!
Gee, Larry. Is that the address in Rolling Hills, or the P.O. box in Dana Point?
Interesting how #28, Maddox supporter, was trying to vote more than once…just a mistake, I’m sure.
#32. You are joking of course. An email address is anywhere you can get on line and you know it.
Larry
#32 was raising a valid point on the addresses that Ken uses. His registered voter address is an apartment on Aliso Creek Road in Aliso Viejo which is in his trustee area. However, no one is home there when you knock on the door and no one near that unit has ever seen him. He has to live in the trustee area and there are serious doubts he does. He uses a UPS store mail box in Dana Point for his personal business address. That UPS store also is the location for the mailing address for Parents for Local Control which I think is hilarious. He uses addresses for his tax payer supported, pension earning job with the State Board of Equalization in Sacramento and Rolling Hills and he often uses that Rolling Hills address as his return address such as when he provided his official 200 word response to the notice of recall. Of course, his blog posts during working hours on weekdays and the use of State resources and during state working hours should be a concern to anyone let along fiscal conservatives that abhor those types of things. These are all part of a long list of reasons why Ken is about to lose his government job in CUSD and why he isn’t behaving like a Republican at all.
Ken and Mike have to be recalled for the sake of fiscal responsibility and open government in CUSD. I think everyone should ask themselves the very hard questions of why they chose to vote in favor of those out of court settlements and why Ken doesn’t seem to know where he lives and even if he is qualified to be on the board of trustees based upon whether he even lives in Aliso Viejo.
Anonymous #35. While I have seen Ken at several events I do not know where he resides. Therefore the residency question is valid.
Adress in Rolling hills? Thatis a joke ………..right?
I find it interesting that Mr. Maddox often makes comments on this site and other blogs, yet anytime someone questions his residency, we don’t hear from him at all…
Interesting. While I generally do not follow comments on other writer posts, I do not recall Ken Maddox ever commenting on one of mine until this post. If I am incorrect please provide the evidence. Thank you!
Larry
It was just confirmed that all seven CUSD trustees and their interim superintendent met in closed session at the CUSD offices on Sunday night. This was not an announced meeting and they set off the building’s alarm and the sheriff was called out. The Capistrano Dispatch has an article on Beyond the Blackboard where Maddox and other trustees are squirming trying to explain how this meeting didn’t violate The Brown Act. More importantly, Maddox and Winsten promised when they ran for these seats that there would be no more of these types of meetings.
The article can be read at: http://capistranoinsider.typepad.com/beyond_the_blackboard/2010/02/yes-trustees-met-sunday-.html
For total humor: From the CUSD Recall Website and the Winsten and Maddox campaigns:
“… a campaign dedicated to restoring honesty, integrity and accountability to public education.”
“The District Attorney takes note that…the newly elected [reform] trustees immediately upon their election, publicly committed themselves to end the Board’s past practice of violating the Brown Act. Together with the existing “ABC” Trustees this results in a new majority on the Board committed to compliance with the law.”
“The reform trustees have done a tremendous public service by exposing the ongoing corruption at CUSD – which is why they were elected and given a mandate for change,” said Tom Russell, Spokesperson for the CUSD Recall Committee.
Of course Tom Russell was one of the individuals that received part of that $655,000 out of court settlement money that Winsten and Maddox voted in favor of.
Anyone have any doubts about the need to remove these two from office?
Rotten in CUSD.
I will research your comment about a non agendized meeting if one occured and respond
From Sue Palazzo’s campaign statement:
“Every effort must be made to make meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. Exceptions are to be strictly interpreted. Public meetings, including meetings conducted by telephone, Internet or other electronic means, are to be held at reasonably convenient times and must be accessible to the public.”
and from MIke Winsten’s campaign staement:
“Eliminate Closed Session Board meetings except when and if required by law, not just when allowed by law. What happens behind those closed doors with attorneys, consultants and staff is allowed to occur in closed session, but that does not mean it is required to be handled in closed session. This one proposal alone can go a long way towards increasing transparency and restoring the public’s trust in how CUSD in being administered.”
Have they forgotten what they promised?
Rotten in CUSD..
From Jonathan Volzke’s blog:
February 25, 2010
“Yes, Trustees Met Sunday …
But apparently it wasn’t illegal.
Trustees indeed met Sunday for a closed session without any public notice. That seems unusual, but there’s actually a section of the government code that allows such closed-door meetings for employee negotiations.
The meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m., with all trustees in attendance — although Anna Bryson attended by telephone.
Superintendent Bobbi Mahler and the district’s lead negotiator were the only other attendees. No action was taken.
The meeting was called quickly as the deadline nears for the release of the independent mediator/fact finder’s report on the district’s impasse with the teachers. The 30-day deadline comes at the end of this month.
That is the report that will recommend a settlement. It will be a public document. The fact-finder was mutually agreed on by the district and teachers and travels the state doing the work, so it will be well versed in the current complications of school financing. The district will have 10 days to respond to the report.
Here’s the code:
California Government Code Section 3549.1 All the proceedings set forth in subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, are exempt from the provisions of Sections 35144 and 35145 of the Education Code, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act \ (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2), and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), unless the parties mutually agree otherwise:
(a) Any meeting and negotiating discussion between a public school employer and a recognized or certified employee organization.
(b) Any meeting of a mediator with either party or both parties to the meeting and negotiating process.
(c) Any hearing, meeting, or investigation conducted by a fact finder or arbitrator.
(d) Any executive session of the public school employer or between the public school employer and its designated representative for the purpose of discussing its position regarding any matter within the scope of representation and instructing its designated representatives.
That’s apparently OK, but unusual, Californians Aware attorney Terry Francke told me. He’s one of the top public-meeting laws experts in the state. “They can step out from under the Brown Act,” Francke told me. “But I have never seen a school district use it.”
I emailed six trustees — everyone but Larry Christensen (I just couldn’t put my hands on his email) — and only heard back from Trustee Ken Maddox. Maddox admitted it was a hastily called meeting, but said trustees are under the gun with the approaching deadline for the release of the independent report.
“None of us are working on Sunday,” he added.
A couple of side notes: Trustees set off the alarm when they got to district headquarters, which spurred response from the sheriff’s department. Also, as they left, some observer bolted from the bushes and ran through the parking lot. Maddox didn’t know his name, but recognized him from the board meetings.”
Larry
“I have never seen a School District use it” the legal expert says. And we have trustees that ran on a platform of more openness and accountability and there are specific quotes from their campaign materials stating that they would side with open over closed meetings. This is one of the many reasons why Mr. Maddox and Winsten are being recalled. They lied to get into office, lie not that they are in office and are lying to keep their office.
Rotten in CUSD is a nice way to put it
Larry
Have you visited the website for the current recall and examined their materials laying out the case for this action? There are detailed reasons with sources to back up all of the reasons Winsten and Maddox are being removed from office. One of the most interesting is the document detailing who contributed to their campaigns and who were recipients of the out of court settlements these two voted to approve.
I think a full story could be written about the connections between the campaign donors and recipients and these trustees
These can all be seen at http://www.caporecall2010.org
More from CUSD says:
Thank you for providing the yes side of the recall.
For balanced coverage I will provide a link to the NO side so that readers can come to their own conclussions as to which group makes the more compelling argument. Stay tuned!
Larry
Two of the charges against Fleming were dropped today. These were the counts that dealt with the “enemies list”. It was this “list” that led to those out of court settlements. It looks like CUSD paid out tons of money directly to the people that paid to get Winsten and Maddox elected.
Isn’t there rules against this type of thing?
More from the Flemming Issue
I’ve learned that we never know how a judge or a jury may rule. Therefore either side can negotiate in advance of final decisions.
Not well, when their judgment is clouded by debts, friendship and prejudice. A settlement during a trial of fact is totally reasonable. A settlement immediately after being sworn into office, given all the other circumstances — completely suspect.
Reality check.
Not being close to this case I cannot disagree with you. However, this forum is open to all sides. Hopefully someone can address the charges that were dropped as well as those which remain.
Reality Check:
Absolutely! When I learned that 2 charges were dropped against Fleming, including the charge regarding the “enemies list”, and that the board had settled with campaign donors (those that claimed damages from being on the “list”) shortly after being sworn in, i thought, first, get me on a list and then, second, were can I sign (recall!!!!!!!!)! Seriously, how can anyone believe that they should not have recused themselves from the vote to settle? It turns out that those individuals may have not have had a case. I am sure counsel would have told them so. Totally suspect!
Those on the board must think very little of us.
Where can I sign?
My kids are out of school, or will be in June. This will be prior to the full effect of the pending paycuts shower down on teachers and by extension, your students. Teachers are underpaid as it is and our country continues to fall behind the world in educational terms. We should not be so ignorantof what this portends;
1) Less capable kids in the business world
2) General degradation of knowledge in our youth
3) Disgruntled teachers where the trickle down effect will reach students and their parents.
4) Have you looked at what happens in educationally blighted areas? Economics turn sour as well over time in such areas.
5) Crime increases in many cases.
Prove it you say? Check test scores in blighted areas of Orange County and compare it to that local economy and you will find a corellation. Check them almost anywhere and you’ll find the same. Property values in the Cupertino District in the Bay Area are higher than other areas due in large part to the fine schools.
Vote to remove Advisory Board members who would deprive kids of a good education because of having motivated teachers who really do care about them. All voting members in my family – and the went to school in the CUSD signed. Make no mistake, teachers do what they do because the love kids and love to educate them. However, abuse them enough as with anyone giving their daily best, and you’ll wear them down and make the hate their career. With these pay cuts and treating them like second class citizens ,which they are not, we are abusing them if these people remain in their school board positions.
So if two our of three criminal charges are dropped but one is determined serious enough to keep to protect the public, your knee-jerk reaction is support a recall “Absolutely!” What a fruitcake. The Reform Trustees are trying to meet budget obligations while keeping class sizes down to assure a decent education. Last time I checked, Vicki Soderberg, CUEA president, waned all of us that class sizes were critical to the quality of education in CUSD. The board seeks to enhance the education of the kids, not deprive them. There does come a tipping point where there is no more to support the incessant movement of district resources away from educational programs and facilities for the children and into the pockets of union employees. Unfortuntely, at CUSD we have reached that point and the children and parents already have given enough. They played their part in those test scores as well. It’s time to get real.
Ignorant reform board bashing.
Having just been in Superior Court where MV Council Member Schlicht won 2 of 6 Causes of Action I agree with your position. Attorney’s can never know which of their allegations will stick. That is why multiple causes are part of the plaintiff package. Some arguments may be stronger than others in the eyes of the judge and jury.
Simply look at sheriff Carona who was acquited from five out of seven charges against him yet he was still found guilty on the last one.
Said another way as the Major League baseball season has begun. It’s like striking out with the bases loaded in your first three at bats yet hitting the game winning home run in the bottom of the 9th inning. You only need one poke to be the hero. Superintendent Jim Fleming must not be allowed to walk.