As I begin researching and drafting my Nov 2nd voter recommendations I thought to begin with one Ballot Measure in my own back yard. The debate over Measure H.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY COUNTY COUNSEL
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MEASURE H
Measure H proposes to change the manner in which members of the Board of Trustees of the Capistrano Unified School District are elected. The Capistrano Unified School District is divided into seven geographical regions or “trustee areas.” Currently, each governing board member must reside in the trustee area that he or she represents, but is elected “at large” by all voters living within the entire district.
The Measure proposes to change the current method of election to a “by trustee area” method of election. If adopted, the Measure would require that each member of the Board of Trustees reside within and be elected by the voters living within that particular trustee area. Only those voters residing within a trustee area would elect the trustee for that particular trustee area. Voters in a trustee area would not elect members of the Board of Trustees for other trustee areas.
A “Yes” vote would result in a change in the manner in which members of the Board of Trustees are elected to a “by trustee area” method of election. Only those voters residing within a trustee area would elect the trustee for that particular trustee area.
A “No” vote would not change the current method of electing members of the Board of Trustees. Each governing board member would continue to be elected “at large” by the voters of the entire school district.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Larry Gilbert is recommending a NO vote on Measure H.
Citing but one reason for this recommendation. There are residents within Mission Viejo who may have children attending CUSD schools outside the area assigned to our local Trustee should this Measure pass. As such, that single representative is not directly accountable for actions proposed or taken by his or her peers that will impact our children.
Mr. Gilbert, your concerns can be addressed through boundary adjustments, given time, and logic, given a board of trustees committed to students. There are few district issues that are relevant only to residents of one city in our district. And a facilities master plan will help prioritize those. Mission Viejo’s current boundary issues should not be allowed to disenfranchise the voters of all other areas. It is common to work, do business, send children to school, and care deeply about communities in which you do not vote. Our school district is not so large or diverse that we cannot trust each other to vote for one trustee who is willing and able to act in the best interest of all our communities’ children and know that he or she will be held to accountable by local voters.
Reality check.
Perhaps I should go back through my files and find the MV Council Meeting where they considered formation of our own school district, which I oppose.
FYI. Our current council majority has sued both CUSD and the Saddleback Valley Unified school Districts.
All the more reason not to let one city, unhappy with everyone and everything, it would seem, stand in the way of reform that would benefit the district as a whole. I understand they’ve abandoned the idea of secession and gotten over the environmental impact of reduced busing. Perhaps it’s time for MV to approach school governance as a team member.
Reality check.
My finger prints were not on either lawsuit. Furthermore, we have two elected bodies in play. While there surely is a concern for the best education of our children, the city council has enough on its plate not to interfere with the other elected body known as school board Trustees.
Then that same concern should extend to Measure H: too busy to interfere in a separate elected body.
Too bad it isn’t true that boundary adjustments will get it done.
There are only 6 high schools and 7 trustee areas. Regardless of what ever any of the union folks say, there will ALWAYS be approx 40,000 voters who be totally disenfranchised by this bad scheme.
I find it interesting that when you want to take 6/7th of the voters rights away you call that good. Somewhat upside down don’t you think?.
One vote that counts is all that matters, crock. Plenty of voters have no kids in school, have no kids, have no property — and they still vote in school board elections. It’s not about the school down the street. It’s about balancing the needs of society and its children. When you can get past the selfishness, you’ll see the big picture. It’s called reform.
Reality Check,
Are you saying that if someone doesn’t have kids in the schools then they shouldn’t have say over what happens in the district? Seems a bit selfish to me.
Are you SURE you want the voter to know that?
Oddly, I see that those that want to take 6/7th of our rights away are the selfish ones. And, let us not forget that you guys didn’t even want us to have a vote on it. Talk about selfish actions.
Not at all. I’m simply pointing out the fallacy in the logic that one area has no high school and that makes representation unequal. One vote per voter. What is selfish is creating a system that precludes local activists from running for a position that should be as far removed from a payoff as possible.
Reality check.
Based on your remark senior citizens should get a 40% rebate on their taxes.
If we do not have children in school why should we be burdened with 40% of the state revenue for education as mandated by Prop 98?
Many Californians who moved her from other states may not have attended a California public school removing the argument that perhaps we took advantage of the CA school system in the past.
My vision of my senior years may be different than yours. I have no desire to hang on to my money and live in an uneducated society. I do not believe that our economy is sustainable if we choose to withhold education from other people’s children. I hope that Orange County residents, who take luxuries for granted and enjoy a quality of live unheard of elsewhere, will act out from a place of gratitude, compassion, and vision.
If people entering the state feel their taxes are too high, that is the effect of Prop 13. It’s hard to justify taking that out on the kids a generation later.
Laws like the proposed Measure H are generally forced onto communities by courts following allegations that a minority group is being excluded by area wide elections. I have not heard anything in the current debate raising that allegation and have not heard any cogent argument supporting Measure H. Obviously this is a union effort to disenfranchise folks and take away voters rights to control their district. Too bad so much of the worst part of politics is still hidden behind the thin veil of lies. Mr. Gilbert has this one exactly right.
I’m having some trouble with your logic. Are you saying that if electing accountable trustees by area isn’t dictated by a court, then it must be supported by a union? Why not recognize it for what it is: a reform once championed by the current trustees, a fiscally responsible choice that will save $1 million per decade, and a move toward local control favored by Republican and Democratic voters alike!
We don’t need lawsuits and courts to tell us what will best serve voters and students, do we?
I love the twisted logic. No, we don’t need lawsuits and I said nothing to that effect. I merely said that changing voting methods without any claim of unfairness in the existing system is virtually unheard of and is almost universally resisted by voters. Voting area changes like this take significant time and money and are rarely if ever down without the significant financial backing of unions. I would love to see your citation and any proof whatsoever that there will be any form of public money save at all. Finally there is already “local” control and the election will tell us if this union backed move is a move favored by any voters.
You hide behind the cloak of anonymity of a fake name – I would love to have your union ID number or 1099 Mr. or Ms. Reality Check.
Campaigning in a single area rather than all seven provides the saving, approximately $200K every two years.
Area voting is only resisted when it is forced by a lawsuit. (In our case it represents a broken promise and is highly desired by frustrated constituents.) It is the method of choice in larger districts and follows the same republican model found in large city councils, state assemblies, and most federal and international councils and panels.
I’ve never even heard of a “union ID number” and my 1099s are private. Perhaps you are overly focused on the messenger, not the message?
Ah, now a bit of truth pops out Reality Check. You finally admit that this Union backed Measure will not save a single dime of taxpayer money, it will only make it easier for the Unions to buy hostile seats because the Measure will reduce the scope of campaign contributions. It will become that much cheaper for the Union to buy their way onto every board seat. Now THAT I believe.
Sadly, Reality Check didn’t put that right, not having had their coffee yet. Sure it DOES save whoever’s running lots of money campaigning. The $200K is saved by the taxpayers and the district each election cycle, by only having to put one name on the ballot in each area. You didn’t know that, Geoff? That’s a long-established fact.
Plus, Geoff, this is the first time I’ve heard someone spout that nonsense UNDER THEIR OWN NAME (What a Crock and JR say it nonstop) – that somehow making it less expensive to run is especially beneficial to the UNIONS? It lowers the cost for ANYONE who wants to run, or contribute; why the obsession with Unions? Who contributed to the runs of the current board? – CRA, the Education Alliance, Pacific Research Institute, Family something – they won’t have to fork out so much money for their handpicked candidates either!
But the important thing that pops your balloon is that a candidate who doesn’t want to take contributions from ANY outside special interests – Union or anti-union – will be able to do that under Measure H, and not feel beholden to anyone. Is that so hard to see? Measure H does not privilege Union contributions in any way.
Crock is still doing that thing, where supposedly since one area doesn’t have a high school in it, and the kids of the parents who live in that area obviously go to a high school outside of their voting area, that somehow those parents are being ripped off democratically?
Again. The trustee those parents would vote in would obviously take an interest in the high school their kids go to, and keep in touch with issues concerning that high school. That high school would possibly get more attention than other high schools. A problem does not arise here as far as I can see.
Number two, larry and Crock are totally (purposely) misunderstanding Reality Check, who never said that voters who don’t have kids attending school shouldn’t have a voice on the school board. Just look at you two putting words in his/her mouth! I’ll take it from here:
Certainly, who runs the school board is ALL voters’ concern, first of all as taxpayers, and also because it is in every citizen’s interest to have well-educated youth in their neighborhood and nation. So, I’m sure Reality Check wasn’t saying anything like what you’re pretending they were. (And if I’m misrepresenting you RC, say so.)
It IS a question of a little more relevance, whether someone running for the Board, or stating their opinion, has a kid in the district (as I obviously don’t, but I love the discussion!)
Vern,
Well, I think your second to last paragraph says it all, and instead of me putting ‘words into Reality’s mouth’ as you suggest. I will share your words:
“Certainly, who runs the school board is ALL voters’ concern, first of all as taxpayers, and also because it is in every citizen’s interest to have well-educated youth in their neighborhood and nation.”
I guess you’ve now agreed that Measure H is wrong because Measure H removes the opportunity for ALL voters to have an influence on who runs our school boards.
Thanks.
Well, I realize you’re trying to pull off some kind of cute jiu-jitsu here, but… how does Measure H remove “the opportunity for ALL voters to have an influence on who runs our school boards?”
Never mind, we’ve read everything you have to say. You just never quite got to THAT point. I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in Measure H that stops anybody in the district from voting.
Hey Vern,
It is really simple.
If there is a pie with 7 pieces, and I only allow you to have one, then you don’t have control over anything but your 1 piece. There remains 6 that are outside of your influence.
The concept is REALLY quite basic, but it seems like you are hellbent on misinterpreting such a simple reality.
All this whole scheme is about is a resource management tool for the Union and the ability to limit the public from having much say in what happens throughout their district.
Try as you might, your arguments keep falling away.
Hey Greg,
Have you conveniently forgotten – or did you never bother reading – or did you skim thru without comprehending – or did you disagree but never bother arguing – my point that:
the fact that your vote for ONE local candidate (who on top of everything else, you have a much greater chance of getting to know and hold accountable) is SEVEN TIMES more powerful of a vote than a vote for someone who’s running throughout the whole district. This is mathematically true. Your vote is ONE out of 35,000 as opposed to one out of 220,000. Again, cherrypick cherrypick ya propagandist!
PS. And would that be cherry pie you were describing?
Seriously to complete the metaphor, you’d have to envision a very very thin pie with the status quo. Let’s say a half-inch thick – I can’t hardly envision any cherry filling in there at all, certainly no real cherries, although voters sure get a big wide pie to chomp on, full of lotsa (spending) crust.
After Measure H, a slice only 1/7 of the original circumference of that pie… but wow, seven times thicker – practically four inches high, and full of delicious fresh bright red cherries. Oh, excuse me, I’m gonna go get one now.
Vern’s right. And Measure H is the ONLY way ALL voters have a say in who runs their school district. It is the ONLY way to ensure that every voter can hold one trustee accountable with their vote. It is the ONLY assurance an area like San Clemente, Dana Point, or Aliso Viejo won’t have their vote hijacked by another area.
Reality is so right, if this measure passes, the union will only run 18 year olds in ALL the areas so that they can control the board with a bunch of children.
Since they can’t seem to deal with adults in a normal manner, I would say that this would work perfectly for them since they have already made that decision for the area that includes Dana Point and Laguna Niguel.
Some of us are really getting tired of the garbage arguments from the Union side.
I expect to be able to have a say in what happens in my school district and not just in my 1/7th of the neighborhood.
The teachers’ union isn’t “running” candidates. Although two incumbent candidates ARE from a union background. And I remember reading somewhere that two incumbents up for recall sought and won the endorsement of the Teamsters. Like most, I’ll work to put the union of my marriage, the union of my friends and family, the union of my coworkers and bosses behind the best, open, collaborative and selfless candidate. (Even if he should be a young local graduate, fully capable of voting and serving his country.)
Ahhh, yes.
Reality is wandering in the darkness again.
There is NO teamster endorsements at all in this race, and every time the union side brings it up, I ask for the proof – and it never comes.
Further, considering that the union team is almost solely teacher funded, and that every one of the signs for the recall, Measure H and ALL 5 union candidates have the same signs with the same stuff at the bottom, I would say it would be a very false and misleading statement for these people to imply anything else.
The gig is up.
Although, I did almost spit out my coffee when you implied that the 5 union candidates are selfless.
There goes Greg, calling Saam a “child” even though he’s an amazingly mature and articulate legal adult. You want to see real “children” in action, watch Ken Lopez-Maddox-Lopez and Anna Bryson at some of their meetings.
Who’s Greg?
Oh, that’s just shorthand for “what a crock.” It is just too unwieldy to constantly have to say “Hey, What A Crock. As What a Crock deceptively suggested. I wonder if What a Crock realizes what a crock his last comment was.” Please bear with us, Greg, this just makes the dialogue flow more smoothly!
So, shall I respond to Greg on this site now?
How about Lucy? That is 4 letters too…
You do have editorial license, so you can call me what ever you want.
OK enough coyness, we’ll know if you’re Greg Powers when you and I have lunch at Bistango’s in November. Respond to whatever name rings your bell. If someone called me “George Soros” and went on to say something I totally took exception to, I’d jump in and argue no matter what they were calling me.
Well, heck, while you are at it,
why don’t you call me Tony Beall too? or, Craig Alexander, or Mark Bucher, or Mike Winsten, or even Anna Bryson or any of the others who aren’t buying the union schemes.
By the way, I am none of the above and YES, I will reveal myself to you after the November 2nd election. I promise.
Smooth. You are “none of the above.” None of which include Greg Powers.
OK, I’ll get off that. Be Crock for now. Just scrap. I haven’t thrown you off your game have I?
Not at all.
Vern, the problem with Measure H is that I can see the benefits for those that want it to pass. My better side says that those goals are selfish and are not supporting the best for the voters and the parents in the district and that is why I am so opposed to the scheme. (I don’t like the ability to enhance the funding monopoly that the unions have – and if I was in control of the union, I would want this to pass too)
On another note, I find it interesting that the union side always seems to ask the question of whether those that are opposed to them have kids in the district (and the arguments are that it is relevant due to the personal impact) and yet, now the argument is that it is not relevant where a child goes to school in the acceptance of this scheme.
The problem is that the Yes on H side, seems to be like a sailboat without a rudder. Each argument blows them one way or another and regardless of fact or conclusion, they always come down that their direction is always right regardless of reality.
I will admit though that I am getting thrown off by the lack of reasoned responses.
By the way, were you at the OCGOP shinydigy last night? Somewhat sad to see what is going on with the endorsements.
“Benefits for those who want this to pass.”
I can see benefits for anybody in the district. It’ll come too late to help this year’s “Children First” candidates, but starting in 2012 it’ll drastically cut down the costs of anybody campaigning, whether it’s some Union-backed guy, some hardcore anti-Union guy you might be backing, some regular honest fellow or girl, or one of these “reform” cats seeking re-election.
Not to mention the benefits to the district and taxpayers, of $200K not having to be taken out of kids education each two years. How come you always ignore that point? Smart propagandizing, I should learn from you. Just ignore the inconvenient arguments.
Vern,
I don’t think it is $200,000 per election cycle, I think it is half that number.
Regardless, if we were to use your $200,000 per election cycle, that means that in a budget that is over $800,000,000 the school district is saving $200,000 to disenfranchise 180,000 voters. the return on that savings is just irrational. (or a savings in percentages that won’t even show up on most calculators)
Further, why don’t we just abolish the entire election process because then the school district would save something like $500,000 per cycle.
Also, if the union folks were so interested in saving $100,000 per year of district money, why then do they insist that the DISTRICT pay for Vicki Soderberg’s Salary? She is the 100% union president and I just found out that she is being paid by the district due to a bargaining point that was agreed upon years ago.
The problem is that this whole savings idea is a bunch of hooey.
It is quarters of pennies vs. the giant costs that the union is demanding.
This is a well used poltical technique. Start with a lie (Measure H increases local voter power), restate it repeatedly regardless of its truthfulness and indirectly deflect any valid argument exposing it as a lie. Plain and simply, Measure H was created by the teachers’ UNION, its campaing funded by the teachers’ UNION, and its continuing support maintained by the teachers UNION. Why? Quite simply to make sure that those hand picked by the UNION are elected to continue to support a compensation system that keeps the UNION the wealthiest and most powerful political entity in the State of California. Too bad that the Union’s efforts are bankrupting the state while they line their pockets with taxpayer dollars.
Maybe you’d understand it better, Geoff, if I used crock’s pie metaphor. There are seven different pies. Dana Point wants the one Alikhani-flavored pie. (They chose Bryson pie last time and realized they are allergic.) But other towns get to pick the pie for Dana Point. And people who have never tasted Alikhani pie could force Dana Point to eat Bryson pie yet again. Dana Point wants to pick their own pie next time. ‘Cause one slice of Alikhani pie is better than the entire Bryson pie on a silver platter. P.S. Dana Point is not in a union.
Oh, I get it Reality Check. It is a pretty simple concept and the insulting pie metaphor does not disguise the fact that you can try and argue anything you want about “what Measure H is really about” and that won’t change the truth that it is about the teachers UNION manipulating elections.
There are many voices that speak for our communities and represent the concerns of voters. I would like to see a school board that is more reflective of the varied communities that make up CUSD. Measure H would allow board members to stay more informed of the specific needs of individual communities. Those well-informed board members would bring their communities needs to the attention of the entire board. As a group a school board elected under Measure H would have a broader understanding of just who makes up the population that lives within the boundaries of CUSD. Board decisions could be based on what is in the best interest of the entire school district and not just the needs of the neighborhoods and communities where they live.
Currently, present board members have spent thousands and thousands of dollars to be elected. By area elections would give others without deep pockets a fighting chance to represent their communities and serve the school district. Citizens are more likely to know board members and have a chance to speak and exchange ideas with them. Board members would feel accountable to the people they represent and would be expected to live up to campaign promises. Measure H gives talented capable and willing people the ability to serve their communities without the BIG dollar backing that we see now. CUSD is in desperate need of intelligent and dedicated public servants; Measure H would expand the talent pool.
So, ANY city or other government agency that elects its members at large elects people that are not accountable? Really? Is there really difficulty calling any of the members of the board and getting a conversation with them. That has not been my experience. If by accountability, Still Life, you mean that every board member hangs on your every word and acts exactly as you request (and there are lots of those in South County), then you might be right – after all, this is a republic not a pure democracy where every citizen casts individual votes on every issue.
The irony of this whole thing is Measure H is all about giving the teachers UNION the ability to buy all of the board seats. After all, the teachers UNION has spent $180,000,000 more on lobbying than the highest spending private company (Edison) according to the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Okay buddy, where’s the damn logic. Let’s grant you that the dreaded UNION does have the deepest pockets.
Then the best way to get this whole thing out of their control is obviously to bring down the costs of campaigns so that candidates DON’T need a whole lot of financial assistance.
It is SO goddamned simple and opposite of the way you try to spin it. You are a SALMON swimming UP, UP, UPstream, trying to make such a counter-intuitive case. Stop it! Seriously, your sorta folks can just as well do fine in 2012, 2014, 2016 under a Measure H system. G’nite.
Wow, we are buddies now Vern – cool! I am not the one making a counter intuitive case. First, Measure H will allow special interest groups (and at least we have now all agreed that the teachers UNION has the deepest pockets) to target individual hostile seats to boot out those they consider hostile. Instead of having to spread their money around to support a slate of “friendly” candidates and dilute their spending power, they can pick the one or two races with “hostiles” and spend those races into oblivion. They will also discourage people from taking on the UNION or risk incurring the UNION’s wrath and the massive campaign spending that will go to the UNION’s designee. You are right that it is simple. I am not quite sure why you refer to me in the plural (“you folks”} – if you are saying that I am a part of some group, I think that is a bit offensive.
Come on Geoff, that’s just dumb. I mean, I try to spend a little time thinking the way you think, to see if it makes any sense…
But some Geoff-Willis type person who wanted to run with no union money would be SO much better off only having to raise like 40 grand rather than 200 grand.
And if he had some like-minded group – they could be called the Feducation Falliance or whatever – they would only have to – oh let me copy and paste – Instead of having to spread their money around to support a slate of “friendly” candidates and dilute their spending power, they can pick the one or two races with “hostiles” and spend those races into oblivion.
Is it true that you and your ilk go to bed uneasily thinking of the Union? That’s just not healthy. Come on, you’re just a regular guy and so am I. We should both celebrate anything that makes it easier for regular people to run for office without having to kiss special-interest ***.
Geoff, I think Vern is being nice. People have tried simplifying things for you. Your preoccupation with blaming boogeymen (“unions”) for your distress is trying, to say the least. The bottom line here is that Measure H will provide local control and accountability, at a time when voters have legitimate reasons to question how tax dollars are being spent (or wasted on legal settlements, etc.) Teachers are not typically the “deep pockets” you fear, but outside political groups can be and were instrumental in getting an ineffective board of trustees elected who have done nothing to enact reform. Patience is waning. Measure H will provide a level playing field for future candidates. That is in everyone’s best interest.
Vern,
Do you really think that anyone can compete with the Union’s $10,000 per month that they get in their PAC from the dues?
The reality is that the union will be able to double or triple up their ‘investment’ in their candidates and overwhelm any concept of funding that ANY other candidate can muster.
The problem is the old monopoly issue. The union has a built in piggy bank that prints money.
There is NO other constituency in the entire arena that has the funding ability that the unions have nor is there the quid pro quo or Return on Investment expectation that exists.
This is just a bad scheme and it is so stinking simple that I am shocked that you keep trying to spin it another way.
See, I can read that comment of yours over and over. The Union is so powerful. I can temporarily accept your premise that nobody can compete with the Union’s money. And even if that were true… it would just make Measure H that much more important! Can’t you see that?
Well, maybe you and Geoff CAN’T see that or refuse to. But hopefully most readers can. Logical, silent ones? I hope you can all see that drastically bringing down the costs of campaigning dilutes the power of deep-pocketed outside interests – the fearsome Union as well as the negligible little anti-Union forces [*sarcasm*] who fund the current board’s campaigns.
So, whichever side you’re on vis a vis the current board, vis a vis the Children First candidates, vis a vis the Union, vis a vis the Education Alliance… YOU SHOULD ALL VOTE YES ON MEASURE H.
Vern,
I know that we are now almost at a he said/she said argument point, but the reality is that the cost of elections won’t go down because the pool of money won’t go away on the union side.
What it does is concentrate their spending, not mitigate the overall cost.
I know it doesn’t serve your goals to admit that, but aside from the larger issue of disenfranchisement and lack of representation (for problems at the school sites, and raising taxes etc…) there remains this monopoly of funding issue.
One difference here is that I am confident in every way that this issue is bad for our community and do not think I am making irrational or insignificant arguments against it.
The two arguments you have made are that ‘it will save $200,000 per election’ and that ‘it will lower the cost of running for office’.
I believe I have dealt with both of those arguments logically and respectfully, have shown them to be false results and thus still conclude that the scheme doesn’t serve the voters in any meaningful way.
Okay Greg, then we won’t repeat ourselves any more on this thread. See you at the next smackdown! In a day or two…
Measure H will not convert board representation into a direct democracy but it could make it possible for highly qualified citizens to serve and repair CUSD. If our current school board is concerned about democracy or a republic for that matter they might want to start following through with the promises or as time has shown the lies they made to get elected. Elected officials should have and show respect to the people they represent or they are in it for the wrong reasons. Republic or democracy elected officials should be willing to listen to the communities they serve. Measure H will bring the voters closer to the people that promise and take an oath to serve them and CUSD.
Your argument would only hold water if the candidates can match the funding that the union brings to the tables. And there is no one that can compete against the union coffers.
The comments about reaching out and touching the elected is somewhat of a joke.
Every elected has a phone number and an email address and if you are one of their constituents, they never seem to not respond, reply or converse with those that can influence their election.
You guys talk about respect and it just is the most disgusting thing I hear. The total lack of it that the union team has exhibited to the existing trustees totally negates your wishes.
You want control. Nothing more, nothing less and you will do anything to get it, including disenfranchising 6/7th of the voters.
It is a bad scheme.
The state of California’s Voting Rights Act, enacted in 2002 bans at-large voting if it denies representation of minority groups or does not give them the ability to influence the outcome of an election. CUSD could avoid a similar lawsuit like the one brought against Madera USD by choosing a by-area election process. Following the Madera case, 28 of 32 Fresno county school boards switched from at-large to by-area.
This board should be concerned with representing all people within CUSD boundaries as well as protecting CUSD against future lawsuits. By failing to follow California’s Voting Rights Act the current board is putting CUSD in danger of an expensive lawsuit and legal battle. At a time when the students and schools need every dollar possible the board should try to avoid such a costly legal battle.
On the topic of emails and phone numbers: communication needs to go both ways. It only helps to contact board members if they are willing to respond. This current board has a dismal record when it comes to returning phone calls and emails unless it is to someone that totally agrees with them.
Measure H will result in at least 4 of 6 Trustees that you had no vote in deciding for you where financial resources within the district will be spent, where Mello Roos that you pay will be spent, where bond money that you pay will be spent, what facilities projects will be approved, what the Trustee area boundaries will be, what the attendance boundaries will be, what the compensation for district employees will be, what school policies will be enacted, whether to approve a waiver on how to change the election method for Trustees, and the list goes on and on.
To approve this Measure, a wolf in sheeps clothing, is to acquiesce your right to representation. That Measure H will provide better local control and representation is just not true. Even if you don’t have children attending CUSD schools, this impacts you through the resulting negatives affects on the various communities and property values.
As in the recent past, when corruption ran rampant in CUSD, we were able to effect change and do something about it. Those behind Measure H would now have the system changed, so that there will be absolutely nothing you can do about it, ever!
Vote NO on Measure H
You guys are so wrong with our problem that your child might go to a school in a different trustee area. Elected officials (including trustees) represent PEOPLE, not buildings. If their constituent has a problem at a school located in another area, he/she has the responsibility of going to that trustee and addressing the issue. In addition, ONE trustee certainly cannot make a change all by themselves anyway. All trustees must work to support their constituents and to gain approval for changes their constituents want or need no matter where the building or sports field in question might be located. The arguemnt about the schools outside the trustee area is a smoke screen – my guess is that those making the argument probably know that.