On Tuesday Sept 7th the Mission Viejo city council will consider a recommendation to approve a Resolution opposing the adoption of Measure H. If approved by voters it “Would Require that the Capistrano Unified School District Elect its Trustees by Segregated Trustee Area Elections.”
Reading from the Agenda report:
“Measure H is an initiative which will be on the November 2 ballot. It will change the manner in which Capistrano Unified School District Trustees are elected. Currently, all 7 members are elected at large, providing the opportunity for every voter in CUSD to vote for all 7 Trustees. Measure H (if approved by the voters) would change this process and would allow the voter to vote only for the Trustee in his/her Trustee Area.”
Reading further. “Mission Viejo includes 3 different Trustee Areas, Area 2, 6 and 7.”
“If a Trustee is only held accountable by the geographic area which elects that Trustee, he/she will be less interested in working for children who live in every part of CUSD. This will hurt Mission Viejo.
The Agenda report cites an example where “a parent may have children in two or three different Mission Viejo Trustee Areas, yet only be able to elect one Trustee.”
Gilbert comment. I wonder if those supporting Measure H ever considered that real possibility before drafting this ballot Measure? Almost half of our children are in the CUSD with the balance in the SVUSD.
No brainer. Vote NO on H
Larry,
Your question is obviously rhetorical. You already know the answer. Those advocating Measure H are opportunists, a group of disaffected losers who have teamed-up with the teacher’s union.
For example, Erin Kutnick is a failed candidate for school board. Before she lost the election, she held exactly the opposite position. She wrote that district-wide elections were beneficial (see: http://www.kutnick.blogspot.com/ ).
Erin teamed-up with Duane Stiff (a recalled Trustee) and Trudy Podobas (a PTA acolyte of indicted former Superintendent Fleming) to push Measure H. They found a receptive ear among members of the County Committee, including Shelia Benecke (a recalled Trustee) and Sheila Henness (a recalled Trustee). And then, of course, the unions were only to happy to help.
These people know exactly how bad Measure H would be for Mission Viejo. They could care less about Mission Viejo!
Denise. As I generate a voter guide every election I will be promoting a NO on H vote that I also send to three other friends who themselves send out a similar election blast.
Feel free to forward this post and comments.
The residents of Mission Viejo should beware. It was Kutnick who coordinated this shameful inter-area, parent-on-parent conflict with recalled, former Fleming trustee Marlene Draper. It was designed to screw the children, parents and taxpayers of Mission Viejo out of long-denied facilities so that Kutnick’s kid could go to a new gold-plated high school in SJC and Draper could secure her legacy as a SJC hometown hero at the expense of all of us:
http://www.cusdrecall.com/page26/files/e0b7323ac6ea4716ee8ca09ec55a9f96-115.html
We need to weed these types out of CUSD rather than inviting them back in through the back door of a deceptive, union-friendly Measure H.
Wow, after all these years, I finally agree with Lawrence G!?! This is almost as ridiculous as Measure D was!!!!!!!! I also find it rather interesting that your article sits right below the Vote YES on Measure H “Max Banner ad”.
I finally. You like the post placement. Timing is everything.
In my (considerable) experience, the culture and setting of school boards is such that trustees must and do deal almost always with issues concerning the entire district area, not with one school or region within it. The notion that a trustee would devote his or her energies only (or especially) to their own area may seem plausible, but I can’t recall ever actually seeing that, except in isolated instances.
Given that citizens tend not to pay much attention to down-ballot races, school board incumbents have a huge advantage in these races (“when in doubt, vote for the incumbent”). The manner in which board members are elected as things now stand requires that candidates amass vast amounts of money to communicate to a huge constituency rather than to the relatively small constituency of their particular area. And so an incumbent can be effectively challenged only if a challenger amasses an especially large war chest.
The upshot: it is virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent, no matter how incompetent, corrupt, or foolish he or she may be. If one seeks elections in which a real choice of candidates is presented, H begins to look very attractive.
It is this point that the opponents of H must respond to.
Yeah Roy, that’s exactly why the current Board told everyone they’d support this reform back when they were insurgent outsiders running, and then as soon as they were safely ensconced in their seats, made a 180 and started fighting it, even wasting 100 grand of precious district money to do so. What naked self-interest! And all they can do is pathetically try to blame it all on “unions.”
Brother Vern.
No where in the Resolution can I find any reference to unions.
Oh. That’s good. I haven’t seen the Resolution. I just know the official ballot argument against H. And all the arguments against it you hear on this blog.
Hey Vern,
The judge threw out the Yes on H argument that the board wasted 100 grand as a false and misleading statement as well as their statement that the board was hostile to public education.
I don’t think you know of what you speak.
The reform challengers sought to have false and misleading statements by union-backed candidate Alpay and his Children First leaders struck from the ballot statements, and statements were struck on substantive grounds. Why? Because the evidence proved they were not true — in other words Alpay, Kutnick, Amato, et al were lying about the $100,000 and the hostility to public education. And the statements that weren’t struck, the ones denying union support, were preserved only on technical legal grounds because of the narrow way in which they were drafted. The court’s decision had nothing to do with the fact that the union has strongly backed this group from the beginning. The court did not rule that they are not union-backed, but of course Alpay, Kutnick and Co. will now crowing that it did. The court just didn’t address the issue. It only addressed the proposed pro H language, which had been cleverly draft to dodge their union-support from the public. So the pro H group’s alleged “victory” is truly over the top and their non sequiturs, surreal.
The current trustees had different positions on local area election when they ran as candidates. That’s why there was no reform platform on the issue. They agreed that it was an issue that required further study. There was no “180” except in the self-serving urban legends being circulated by union-backed, “H” proponents. It was the pro “H” group’s lead proponent, Erin Kutnick, who actually flipped on the issue now that it has become politically expedient for them to do so. Her 2006 column from the Capistrano Dispatch makes this absolutely clear. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you’re looking for “naked self-interest.” You should be looking at blatant, documented flip-flopper Erin Kutnick and her minions, instead.
Actually, Kutnick’s Capo Dispatch column was dated March 25, 2004. Here’s what this Measure H proponent had to say then:
“This system is known as being “elected at large” and there is a very good reason for this. Often times in an elected body, some personalities are much stronger than others. What if hypothetically, one area had a very domineering board member representing them who was only interested in making decisions that were best for their area? If we could not vote that person in or out because they were in another area, there would be no accountability. Likewise, if we did not have a balance of board members located throughout the district, we could potentially have another battle like the one 40 years ago, where decisions were made based on one community’s desire rather than the needs of the district as a whole. Each board member must be accountable to all of the voters within the district. Public schools of course, have to remain focused on the big picture. Having all seven school board members accountable to the entire voting population keeps them focused on working together rather than trying to further a personal agenda. It also provides balance. Each trustee can provide valuable first hand information and knowledge because they know the schools in their area.”
Now that it’s politically opportune, this unprincipled, hypocritical, political exploiter is willing to strip 220,000 voters of 6 of their 7 votes to advance her new, union-backed agenda. Voters BEWARE. NO on “H.”
Pro H.
Thank you for providing the Capo Dispatch text. As I often interview potential candidates for elected office one of the first things I tell them is that if they have any skeletons in their closet they will come out, eventually.
Shame on me for not asking a recent candidate if he had a CA drivers license.
None of us are perfect, including myself.
Check out Luke 12:2-3
I hardly know who “Kutnick” is but you guys talk about her like we talk about Tony Beall, so you must see her as the evil power behind the scenes controlling all the Recall / Measure H people. The other thing I know is she was here on another of Larry’s posts just a week or two ago and expressed herself very well and clearly about why she changed her mind about by-area elections. I’ll go find that link if I have to… but I’m on the bus and my computer battery’s almost dead! One of you can find it.
As a Capo Dispatch columnist, Kutnick was a Fleming regime apologist for years who never saw an old guard scheme or violation she couldn’t excuse. She was a Marlene Draper protoge who assisted the Fleming trustees in orchestrating parent-on-parent political brawls as cover to accomplish her, Fleming’s, Draper’s and the other Fleming trustees’ political ends, which were often accomplished through abuse of various laws and infamous dog-and-pony shows laden with half-truths and other lies to accomplish their selfish ends at the expense of areas like Mission Viejo while silencing their opposition behind clever agenda scheduling tactics and the public comment 3-minute rule.
Kutnick is only one of several such ring leaders who made it a point to keep this district in utter chaos from the very day the reform trustees won a majority on the board, never giving them a chance to perform one substantive act before clamoring publicly, with her union friends, for recall — the same union friends who, at various meetings yelled, “Bring back Fleming” and whose numbers made the current recall even possible. She has purposely mischaracterized every thing the reform board has done and has been waging a Draper-style vendetta against the new trustees ever since she lost her bid for trustee in 2008, a campaign in which she and her slate-mates, including Fleming trustee Duane Stiff, received $100,000 of union support in the form of independent expenditures that in many instances weren’t that “independent.”
Kutnick and her union-member friends were squarely behind Measure H, orchestrated with the help of former, recalled Fleming trustee Sheila Benecke, another bitter loser on the County Committee who Kutnick hoped to coordinate a ramrod job through an administrative process that would have denied the voters the right to vote on their own disenfranchisement — the subject of the current Measure H. The corrupt Fleming-era tactics and grudges are alive and well among this group, and Kutnick is smack dab in the middle of it. Only now, they are in bed with the union in a deceitful way that aims to increase union power at the expense of the children, parents and taxpayers in this district. The recent, ridiculous teachers strike was an example of this — flimsy grounds, dishonest claims of victory when they lost every substantive issue. It was a shameless power play, openly promoting Measure H and the recall with Children First as their defacto front, disingenuously claiming to be grassroots. Well $100,000 in union money last time didn’t lie, and the union support in the form of money and boots on the ground won’t lie this time, either.
The reform challengers sought to have false and misleading statements by union-backed candidate Alpay and his Children First leaders struck from the ballot statements, and statements were struck on substantive grounds. Why? Because the evidence proved they were not true — in other words Alpay, Kutnick, Amato, et al were lying about the $100,000 in alleged waste and the alleged hostility to public education. And the statements that weren’t struck, the ones denying union support, were preserved only on technical legal grounds because of the narrow way in which they were drafted. The court’s decision had nothing to do with the fact that the union has strongly backed this group from the beginning. The court did not rule that they are not union-backed, but of course Alpay, Kutnick and Co. will now crowing that it did. The court just didn’t address the issue. It only addressed the proposed pro H language, which had been cleverly drafted to dodge the issue and hide their union-support from the public. So the pro H group’s alleged “victory” is truly over the top and their non sequiturs, surreal.
Roy Bauer.
Respectfully, having conducted research on this topic I would argue that all incumbents have an advantage in reelections.
As Trustees serving on school boards play an active role in molding our children’s future, we are concerned about access to those making critical education decisions.
Unless you are contributing to their campaigns, you will not have the ear or access to Trustees who are not depending on your vote for reelection.
Think about it! If Mission Viejo voters had a similar arrangement to Measure H, than only those living near Lance MacLean in his Ward, could have participated in his removal. While participation in recalls may differ from traditional elections, that fact by itself, has merit.
?? Who’s talking about breaking MISSION VIEJO up into wards? There’s a real non-sequitur. Should we also imagine that Lance was only elected by one ward?
Vern. I thought it amusing that should we join the likes of Newport Beach and vote by Ward’s I would not have been able to vote for Lance in 2002.
What the YES on H side is proposing is breaking up the CUSD.
That is a fact.
PS: I have lined up a knowledgable NO on H speaker for the Sept 15 the radio program.
While I would like to be on the same panel I have a prior commitment to moderate a MV council challenger forum that Wed evening.
1. CUSD is a lot bigger than Mission Viejo, as you may have noticed. Herein lies the problem.
2. I’ll make sure to get a good YES on H speaker, it should be a fun debate!
This seems like an attempt to establish fiefdoms. If trustees actually really do consider the whole district, why is measure H needed?
I live in Laguna Niguel, my children go to elementary school in one area and high school in another. If I understand the initiative, I will only be able to vote for one trustee.
So how can I make sure my voice will count for all my children?
Bauer has convinced me with his argument. That makes a lot of sense. And given the number of recalls and the allegations against this particular school board it would seem to be a prudent move. I’m sort of surprised that Gilbert isn’t on the anti-incumbant side, since that seems to be his stance in the council race. And if Gilbert was really trying to improve the quality of education there are better issues than the way Trustees are elected. Like the insanely low GPA allowed to be considered for graduation.
LBM. The genius clown of Mission Viejo who came out from beneath a rock this past year and has no clue as to my local political involvements.
In Feb of 1990 I stood in front of our Mission Viejo corporate office in Miners Village at the intersection of La Paz and Marguerite Parkway holding a huge sign that read NO on RECALL. That was in support of Councilman Bob Curtis who was targeted for removal by the Mission Viejo Company. In fact supporting Bob Curtis is when I first met former mayor Sharon Cody. We defeated that recall 8,809 to 3,898 confirming that, along with the recall of governor Davis and Lance MacLean, gives me a perfect 3 for 3 on recall elections.
Mission Viejo is justifiably concerned about Measure H since it is the poster child of CUSD trustee areas that were taken advantage by the hostile agendas of Old Guard Fleming trustees from other trustees areas (like Sheila Benecke and Maureen Draper) who favored other areas at the expense of Mission Viejo children and taxpayers for years. The voters of Mission Viejo should never be stripped of their right to hold such out-of-area trustees accountable for their hostile and, often, unethical shenanigans – the the years of miserable cover-ups and dog and pony shows they used to refute and beat down the righteous claims of Mission Viejo residents who had been disadvantaged by design for years. Measure H would serve as yet another way to marginalize such constituents under the ruse of “local” control. If Old Guard Fleming corruption taught us anything, it was that almost ALL the important and controversial issues in CUSD are “local” in that they affect all of us in material ways. Taking away our ability to hold them accountable is NOT the answer. VOTE NO ON “H”
Nah, nah, that doesn’t fly. Not the Fleming-baiting.
1. The current board – Winsten, Maddox, Bryson, etc. – backed this reform until they were safely in office. Opposing it is just an incumbency-protection racket.
2. A lot of the people who are backing Measure H (and also the recall) fought Fleming as hard as anyone else.
Vern,
I don’t think you have the evidence that the board backed the breakup into 30,000 voter areas, because I don’t believe it exists.
I have found evidence that there was talk about exploring whether it would help the district, but that and around $2 will get you coffee at Starbucks these days and is in no way backing the breakup.
Vern,
Are you willing to submit that the specific people who authored Measure H (and the recall) were Fleming supporters?
If not, you’re a liar.
That comment’s pretty hard to follow, but I sure don’t want to be a liar.
I THINK you’re saying that the folks who authored the measure were all Fleming supporters? Is that true? I know all the people I talk to from the recall / Measure H movement are proud of having opposed Fleming from the beginning, so it’s just deceptive to try to equate H with Fleming. I’m calling that Fleming-baiting. Now that your union-baiting has broken down. I guess you did have a spare string for your guitar after all, but it sure aint’ making any truthful music.
A cleverly worded response — but non-responsive. I asked about the specific people who authored Measure H. You know who they are.
Why be evasive?
No, dude, I really don’t know who wrote it. From how you were talking I assumed you knew. I can try to find out. I know a lot of people who support it, and they opposed Fleming.
I suppose though if I come back and say so-and-so wrote it and they’re not Flembots (if we can coin that term) you won’t believe they were the real writers. There’s a whole lot of suspiciousness and paranoia going around.
The most important thing is, how would Measure H as written make it easier for the district to return to the abuses, excesses, and authoritarianism of the Fleming years? That’s as unanswerable as how would it make the union more powerful. Totally aside from “who wrote it.” Still, I’ll try to find out for you because I said I would.
Believe it or not I’m not an all-knowing insider here, I don’t even live in the district. I just started studying this a few months ago because it looks fascinating. I sympathize with the Recall AND Measure H although I don’t see why someone couldn’t support one and not the other. I have sources I get a lot of information from, but I learn stuff reading you opponents’ comments too. I mean, here and there.
Another problem with Measure H is taxation without representation. Contrary to the claims of Measure H proponents, the superior court ruled this week that school trustees do have the power to impose taxes. Mello Roos was one example. Parcel taxes was another. Being denied the right to vote for 6 of our 7 trustees opens the door to this possibility of such taxation without representation and, given the inter-area tax diversions and other games played by the trustees in this district in the past for things like the district’s infamous “Taj Mahal” administration building, taxpayers would be foolish to give up their right to hold all of their trustees accountable. With unions screaming for more and increased taxes as one knee-jerk solution, taxpayers and voters should be extra careful not to allow a flawed proposal like Measure H to pass.
Amen. The Mello-Roos tax shell games and tax fund diversions that made MV a perennial donor area, the admin building waste based on multiple trustee lies at the expense of our MV school facilities and wallets, and other district-wide issues that drove reform in this district for years taught us that “local control” has little relevance when it really counts and serves to protect those from afar who do not have our best interests at heart. Local control sounds good, but it’s illusory. The only way not to lose control, is not to give up your right to vote for 6 of the 7 trustees who seriously affect the quality of education for you and your children each time they vote. The trustees aren’t limited to voting for only the areas they represent and, given the history of important district-wide issues in CUSD, we shouldn’t be denied the right to hold all of those who affect us, accountable.
Actually, it was former union-backed trustee candidate and Measure “H” proponent Erin Kutnick who flipped. The reform candidates just agreed that it was an issue to consider (like term limits), but no official reform platform was adopted on the issue because it reformers didn’t agree and it needed further consideration. In Kutnick’s case it was different. She originally supported at-large elections when she wrote as a columnist for the Capo Dispatch. It suited her pro-Fleming trustee agenda at that time. Now that things have change, she has flipped to trustee-area elections, since it is perceived as the easiest way for her union-backed candidates to win in the future. She represents a way of thinking that is so arrogant and hostile to voters, that she and her colleagues originally proposed denying the voters the right to even vote on the issue of whether their voting rights should be taken away!
But ultimately, it really doesn’t matter what Kutnick thinks or what the trustees might have considered. Measure “H” is fundamentally flawed and unfair. It strips us of 6 of our 7 votes based on the ruse called “local control” with no consideration of the greater control we’ll be giving up. It’s pretty obvious when you see just how supportive the union is of Measure H. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
I have kids that attend schools in more than one trustee area. Measure “H” does not work because it would partially disenfranchise us. Rather than give us local control, it would make us the local “controlled” by denying us the right to reward or hold accountable the trustees who affect us with their votes.
Here you go Vern- from Gilbert’s previous No on Measure H blog- I don’t know why he didn’t post for you:
Erin Kutnick
Posted August 25, 2010 at 9:46 AM
With all due respect to the opinions on both sides of this issues, unless you have actually run a campaign in this large district you really don’t understand how/why we got where we are.
I certainly didn’t until 2008 when I faced the daunting task of trying to reach over 200,000 voters with little to no money. And I was successful in getting my message out to my community in San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, and San Clemente but couldn’t do it district-wide.
Why do you think we had no challengers in 2000 and 2004? Was everyone perfectly happy? I doubt it but no one wanted to run in this large district. No one had $100K to finance a campaign and it’s not easy to raise that kind of money. If we had more candidates and challengers for our school board over the past decade i don’t think that our district would be in the mess that it is today.
There would have been more options and more change over time. The idea behind the voting by area is to bring more candidates to the table and to allow people to be more involved. Can you imagine having to research and learn about every Senator or Assembly Member in California to vote? It would be impossible which is why we elect our local representatives. In a large school district the same thing applies. Unfortunately the average voter doesn’t have/take the time to get to know those candidates. There is already so much going on in each election by the time the page with school board trustees is turned, voters are on overload. And to figure out info about several candidates can be pretty tough.
But what if you only had to research who to vote in your one area? Candidates would have to be accessible and visible to get the voters attention. A little more manageable and when that person is elected, they would be far more accountable to their constituents.
There are certainly pros and cons to both methods of voting and no one way works for all but our district has grown far too large and does have too many special interest groups. The at-large method worked for many years but no longer serves the best needs of the district. By breaking down the voting, you will actually eliminate the need for large outside donors as well as encourage local, grass-roots candidates to run. You will make your vote count instead of being over-ruled by another city.
No one claims that this is perfect — nothing ever is, but the current system is failing us all and that’s why change is needed.
Please vote YES on H and support local control.
Yes, and when it suits her purpose, the unprincipled, opportunistic Kutnick will flip-flop again. Even now, every reason she gives is to justify her (or her candidates’) inability to compete, even though others proved it could be done repeatedly with a lot less money than supported her and her union-backed slate-mates. What she always leaves out, are the voting interests of the 220,000 constituents she proposes to disenfranchise. But in Kutnick’s world, that’s just collateral damage she’s willing to risk to get her selfish way.
This Pollyanna view of local elections is ridiculous. The issues are district-wide, and so the detrimental effects of decisions made by out-of-are trustees in this district are legend. The problem with the pro H group is that they are still in denial about the utter, inter-area corruption that plagued this district under Fleming for years. It’s as if they’ve learned nothing. Don’t be fooled. Don’t give up control over all of the issues and trustees who determine the quality of education for you and your children. VOTE NO on “H”
Kutnick should suggest this kind of “reasoning” for other elections as well…say elections for supervisors, assembly seats (they have similar numbers of constituents), heck, even city council seats. She’d probably be “shocked” at how her naive thinking would fall flat. It’s time to grow up sweetie and smell the coffee. Capo’s not in Kansas anymore and it’s time to play with the adults. Others did it district-wide, just like in most large districts in the State, and it worked even without the overwhelming union support you received, the union support you now conveniently fail to mention or downplay — the same support that will be waiting in the wings to ambush any local sucker naive enough to think this nasty union won’t easily, “locally” outspend and destroy destroy him if he doesn’t tow the union line. This is nothing but a ruse to make it easier, and more cost-efficient for the union to become the gatekeeper for candidates on an area-by-area basis by keeping voters outside the area from weighing in.
Confused.
Vern and I can each write our own posts about any topic including the education challenges at the CUSD. The one advantage I have is that unlike Vern and perhaps some of those outsiders adding comments is that I have an investment in the outcome as we live in CUSD.
That is not to say that Vern cannot make a case for the opposition. He is a very good opponent.
This specific post is about a pending Mission Viejo council Resolution on Meas H that is set for the Tuesday city council meeting.
Obviously this is a hot topic that has drawn a great deal of interest from both camps.
Our job is to set the table for the debate. To quote Geroge W “Mission accomplished.”
Oh, “Confused” was just kind enough to fetch a Kutnick comment from your other post that I had referenced right before my battery ran out – thanks for that, Confused!
Then Confused wondered why you didn’t do it; maybe commenters think we bloggers sit at our computers all day. I’m sure you were busy, maybe playing dodgeball with your grandkids, but Confused was not telling you what kind of post to write.
correct- new to this OJ Juice- I thought it was a paid site, and it was a “job” for writers of the articles. Thanks for sticking up for me. But I am wondering if he knows about the boundary changes ahead for Mission Viejo since he seems so politically involved and I am hoping he writes on that or you for that matter!
Larry- Maybe you would know- Maddox was upset having to pay for a demographics report because the census and ed code would require new boundaries being drawn up anyway and this was a key reason to waiting until after November for voting by trustee..I am pretty sure during that board meeting he and a few other trustees stated they were for voting by trustee area but they wanted the boundaries redrawn so as no one area would be disenfranchised- I am sure the tapes can be retreived. My question is a Fran Sdao wrote about this on MV Dispatch comments under the headline “Will Measure H Hurt MV?” Why can’t they just make all of MV one trustee area? That way we won’t have to worry again about not having representation, because our elected official lives in Laguna, SJC or Coto De Caza? Not to mention it would make running for the position much easier
Here is comment from the MV dispatch:http://missionviejodispatch.com/politics/will-measure-h-hurt-mission-viejo/
Fran Sdao August 26, 2010 at 9:36 am
Passing Measure H will help students in every community in CUSD.
The District could have saved approximately $175,000 if we were voting By-Trustee area in November. Parents are being asked to bring reams of paper to school at registration. $175,000 would buy a lot of paper! Cost savings will apply to all future elections and that means almost a million dollars over the next five election cycles.
No other school district in Orange County covers as large an area as CUSD. Only Santa Ana has more students than CUSD, but in a much smaller geographic area. CUSD has 56 campuses plus three charter schools. There are seven cities as well as unincorporated communities in the district. The district covers almost 200 square miles stretching 22 miles from Concordia Elementary in San Clemente to Tijeras Creek Elementary in Rancho Santa Margarita. It would take more than a year for one Trustee to visit each campus by visiting one school each week. CUSD has grown too large to adequately serve all constituents with at-large voting.
Voters generally do not invest the time to learn about candidates running for seats outside their communities. Voting By-Trustee area will empower voters in any community to make better selections based on a candidate’s record in their own community.
Candidates will not be burdened with the overwhelming costs of reaching more than 220,000 registered voters to get elected to a school board seat. Campaign costs have become prohibitive for the average person who is motivated to serve students and the community. The 2006 CUSD school board campaign received funds from an outside organization that the current trustees denied knowledge of until the name appeared on campaign financial disclosures after the election.
CUSD is required by California Education Code to examine and adjust trustee area boundaries following each federal census. The population of each trustee area must be balanced among the seven trustee areas. Residents of Mission Viejo must make their voices heard when new trustee areas come before the board. The city is currently represented by three trustees yet it has taken years of activism by Mission Viejo parents to get significant improvements to Newhart Middle School and Capistrano Valley High School. A trustee area representing a consolidated area that includes all of Mission Viejo would better represent the CUSD parents of our city. Parents and community members would know the right person to contact with their concerns.
Measure H allows for local representation on the school board. There will still be seven trustees voting on all issues. Each trustee will be better able to represent their constituents because they will know them, their neighborhoods and their schools.
Large school districts in the state are changing to the By-Trustee Voting method to meet provisions of the California Voting Rights Act. Costly lawsuits over violations of this act will be avoided with this change.
The effort to place By-Trustee voting on the ballot was initiated more than a year ago and was approved when the Orange County Committee on School District Organization voted to place this measure on the election ballot in September, 2009.
This measure was initiated and supported by a non-partisan group of parents and community members at no cost to taxpayers. The CUSD board authorized exorbitant expenditures of taxpayer money to pay attorneys to fight this change – a change that many of them were in favor of when they were elected. This was more money taken off our campuses to pay for attorneys in a year when every dollar desperately counts.
I repeat, this effort was led by parents and community members. No union of any type was involved with placing this measure on the ballot. To continue to state otherwise is irresponsible and deceitful.
Another Polyanna who ignores reality and history. Why not eliminate these expensive elections altogether. That should save us a bundle. We can just let Fran and Erin decide things for us. “Knowing” your local trustee. It would be no different from “knowing” your city council members who represent similar, small sized areas. The truth is, most people don’t. The fact is, if you aren’t their constituent, most elected leaders don’t listen or care. In this case, seven trustees vote on numerous matters that affect every constituent throughout the district and there is plenty of history to show how this has worked to the disadvantage of areas like Mission Viejo. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Kutnick’s inconsistent spin or Sdao’s union-backed spin. The bottom line is that they intend to disenfranchise you by denying you the right to vote for 6 of the 7 trustees who affect your children’s education, because they think that they or their union-backed candidates can be elected easier.
You’re right I am confused- you state that this system of At large has worked to the disadvantage of areas like Mission Viejo- so why wouldn’t you want change? Having 7 trustees that in the past didn’t even live in Mission Viejo or know or care about Mission Viejo certainly didn’t help. Having Ellen, a MV resident fight for our schools along with a possee of concerned parents made the difference. Explain to me why having 1-3 Mission Viejo trustees wouldn’t help MV get all their older facilities in working order? MV hasn’t had anyone run except Ellen for a very long time- my guess is it was too costly, and too much work. And the MV trustees would listen to MV residents because we elected them and we can recall them. I hope we find the toughest trustees out there, some of those go-getters that got Newhart handled….just think of the possibilities! Distirict wide curriculum they will still do but it will come down to facilities, and events of local schools when the change will show….
And come on- you don’t think scratch my back I’ll scratch yours goes on now in politics- I am not naive, but if MV has 3 trustees they only have to convince 1 other trustee for new bathrooms at CVHS, or roof at Barcelona, music program at Newhart in the MPR, etc…and each trustee area will be thinking the same and coming up with their rebuttal on why their project should get first priority…all in front of an audience filled with constituents….let the better trustees win! Leave it to the other side to say why MV doesn’t deserve bathrooms, roofs, older portables removed, walls and doors placed inside elementary classes…etc…
Confused,
The one comment I have about your wanting to change the boundary is that it won’t solve the problem that the people seem to have which is that their kids schools are in different areas and in different cities. So, your solution would only work if they carved the district up and gave each area the balance of elementary, middle and high schools so that the tax payer in an area would only be supporting their own schools and trustee. Is that what you want?
I also just followed your link to the mission viejo dispatch and read all the posts above and below the one you copied.
I can do the same thing you did. But this time I am pulling the one just below yours with a name that seems to upset everyone around here. how do you answer his claims?
Greg Powers September 2, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The sad truth about this whole [Measure H] thing is that it is a ploy by a few disenfranchised folks who were unable to control the board under the current process.
The original effort by the ‘parents and community members’ is just not factually correct. The real players behind Measure H are:
Original initiators per public records submitted in court were:
Duane Stiff (recalled CUSD trustee and failed union candidate), Erin Kutnick (failed candidate and Fleming/Draper lackey) and Trudy Podobas (per public records was the person who attended meetings in the first CUSD recall attempt and reported back, in memo form, to Fleming and the prior board of trustees in a meeting with Ed Kovac, the former CUSD security director).
Further, the County Committee that made the decision to force the by-area election include Shelia Benecke (recalled CUSD trustee) and Sheila Heness (recalled CUSD trustee). And not only do they sit on the committee, these two ladies made the motion and the second to force the measure.
Additionally, Shirly Carey, the president of the County Committee, wrote a letter opposing the recall of Benecke and Heness.
Fran Sdao is a PTA Activist, and is the one who presented the union backed candidates to the public. (By law the PTA is not allowed to endorse candidates… so I am unsure of the games that are actually being played, but to suffice, it has been known that the PTA and the NEA used to share office space for years…. and the PTA has always supported and endorsed the NEA initiates at the national level. Thus it is clear to me that the local PTA is bed buddy with the teachers unions).
The Rest of the story:
The reality is that when you look at the above comments from the other posters, the vast majority of them are from people who are not ‘insiders’, and most can see the damage that voting YES on Measure H will cause a town like Mission Viejo.
One other little tidbit… In Dana Point (where I live), our union backed choice is an 18-year-old freshly minted high school graduate. The Union takes approx $10K out of the teachers dues each month for their political action committee (Called HOPE) and with this money, if they chose to target my area, they could easily spend $5-$8 per vote to start picking off areas for control.
Remember, the union is the only special interest in the district with a financial return incentive for their ‘investments’ in their candidates.
All I ask is that we recognize that this is not an altruistic ‘money saving’ effort and in fact, the County Committee and the Union wanted this to go to a special election (at a premium of $450,000) or for the entire choice to be ‘waived’ and prevent any of us from getting a chance to vote on this giant change.
Please look beyond the altruistic sounding rhetoric of ‘parents and community member led’ and look at who benefits the most financially by this effort and you will clearly see that it is those that are bitter that they lost their power structure in Capo and their supporters (which is primarily the CUEA).
So, as deceitful as Ms. Sdao may think I am in placing the responsibility squarely at the foot of the union, I firmly believe that this is led by folks whose focus is not the Children, Parents OR Voters.
Please vote NO on Measure H
I don’t care whether Kutnick, Sdao or any of the other Measure H proponents are members of the PTA, the union, former Fleming supporters or otherwise affiliated. They can deny and parse all they want. It is clear that they are either intentional or unwitting facilitators of the union’s agenda. There have been plenty of documented public events to prove what that is and it’s not good for children, parents and taxpayers. As an expression, “Children First” is the same joke it was in the Fleming years. The bottom line for me is that the substantial disenfranchisement or 220,000 voters is far more important than accommodating the personal political agendas of losers like Kutnick and her pro “H” friends. Whether they’re knowing union shills or whether they’re ignorant that they’re being played by the union, no good can come from taking away 6 of the 7 votes we currently have to keep all 7 of the trustees who affect us honest and accountable. Ultimately, if Measure “H” happens, the union will benefit and children, parents and taxpayers will lose.
What A Crock,
Since this blog is about the city of Mission Viejo voting on a resolution, I am confused about your comment of parents having kids in different cities? If you are referring to folks that open enroll out of Mission Viejo that is their choice and they should know the circumstances but should still be concerned of the schools that are in their area to keep their home values up. Here in Mission Viejo seems to be different than your Dana Point area. All of the elementary schools feed into Mission Viejo secondary schools.
In DP where you live- vote for who you want if you don’t like the union(or not) supported candidate…that is an easy one. Local control makes it easier, yes any special interest (GOP, Democrat, Unions, Cults) groups can try to gain control of an area…at least local control means your area will know when the take over is happening…and hopefully a few respected citizens will run for the position because it no longer takes a huge war chest to win countering the take over from the undesirable special interest group.
As far as original petitioners-what difference does it make? I voted for some of the recall trustees because they were for changing the voting at large and changing trustee boundaries. I wish they had brought on the measure…but they didn’t…I really don’t care about names- just the issues and as a Republican, I really can’t see how local control isn’t a good thing- as long as it is local control.
Sdao being PTA-well her written comment didn’t state “As president of CVHS, I recommend a yes on Measure H….” so she is in compliance, just because you are a member of something doesn’t disqualify your right as a citizen to speak up. None issue to me- just means she is an involved parent at schools.
The waiver didn’t happen-case closed-now it’s time to decide if Measure H helps us folks in MV is what the city needs to decide.
When I look at the comments above Sdao’s I noticed boundary changes weren’t mentioned. In fact, it wasn’t until I read her comment did I remember the board meeting and subsequent press releases around the time of the waiver discussions and the demographic report and I wonder why can’t Mission Viejo have just one trustee after reviewing the census report to be in accordance with the ed code ?
Lastly, even if Measure H doesn’t pass will/can the boundaries be changed so Mission Viejo only has one trustee? I truly believe most of our problems stem from having trustees that were not from Mission Viejo…Draper SJC, Hennesey LN, Casabianca Coto?, Palazzo SJC…once Addonzio MV came on board, the older campuses seemed to get facelifts…to me that is local representation. And yeah..I realize a lot of issues are district wide- that is why 7 trustees vote on them in front of an audience- they will still be held accountable for what is good for “CUSD as a whole”. But when they talk about facility priorities or upcoming events it would be nice to have an “expert” of the local area actually know the needs and desires of their constituents before the dollars are spent.
Historically, trustees have done just fine knowing about issues throughout the district. In fact, the trustees have proven very adept at doing just that (for both good and evil purposes) for many years, and they will continue to do so in the future. There is nothing confusing about it. “Local” control sounds good as a concept until you find that in the case of CUSD, most of the important issues are “local” in that they affect all of us whether they are district-wide or not. But the “local control” being sought under Measure H is a ruse. It’s actual more like local marginalization. The measure will benefit union-backed candidates who will have an even easier job crushing local candidates by focusing their efforts and superior resources in local areas and it will deny voters any say at the ballot box (where it really matters to elected officials), over the decisions of 6 of their 7 trustees who very clearly decide issues that are “local” to all us in the district. Just because trustees sit on a dais and hear us doesn’t mean they’ll be responsive. We’ve experienced pompous trustees for years and it will be especially so if they know they’re insulated from us at election time. It’s just common sense.
I agree Fairy Tales- put a cap on campaign spending and then maybe all the special interests will bow out and regular folk can do the pubic some good- but that is nothing but a pipe dream… do you know about the boundary changes for Mission Viejo since the census has been done…is one trustee for all of Mission Viejo possible? From the sounds of DP they probably need their boundaries changed also before Measure H passes , but it also sounds like Ed Code requires it anyway to make it equal….Sure would like to see those new boundaries before Tuesday…anyone know where to find them online?
Mr. Gilbert- I didn’t realize Vern wasn’t in CUSD- Mission Viejo you guys chat like neighbors online.
It really doesn’t matter as long as 6 of 7 trustees can decide issues with impacts local to our area, as they have for decades, and Measure H denies me the right to vote for or against them. If they vote to deny facilities equity or raise my taxes without allowing me to vote for or against them, it’s unfair or taxation without representation, and it’s simply wrong.
These last arguments for Measure H further illustrate one of its dangers. By focusing on the alleged benefits of “local” representation without due consideration for negative local impact of decisions made by a majority of trustees outside the local area, we are being set up for less, not more control. It’s like putting our heads in the sand and feeling good about it while others, in greater numbers, determine our future without giving us a meaningful say in the matter. The whole concept is ridiculous and it’s not limited to Mission Viejo. It affects everyone in the district. Mission Viejo just happens to have a history of greater abuse than some areas from the hostile decisions of outside trustees and this should be a reminder to all Mission Viejo residents of why Measure H is such a bad idea.
Why is it only union backed candidates will be protected by Measure H? That makes no sense, GOP, , Democrats, Green Party, etc., can all make a campaign play if they really wanted to spend the money. Maybe they want to place a candidate on the ground floor to get them started in politics, get name recognition, get their ideals in place….
I seem to remember it was the Fleming trustees that were Republican backed before the CUSD Recall dethroned them, that are blamed for all the messes. If it was local control then, it would have been much easier to recall them-only needing the local area’s vote to recall instead of the whole district. So if an area decides they were hoodwinked, they can remedy their own mistake at a much lower expense to the distict. Some of these trustees ran unopposed! Why, the cost of running At Large campaign- unless you are in a slate with some “special interest group and money” there is probably no way you will win- 2008 each slate spent $100K per the OCR… that is stupid for school board seats.
Confused,
The argument above presents that the only group with a fiscal interest in controlling this district is the union and their candidates. This alone should be enough to validate that the ability to manipulate a smaller population with more money is like Standard Oil coming in before the monopoly rules existed. The union can pick and choose and overwhelm any opposition.
And, can you imagine the constant cycling of recalls if the union didn’t win the election. You would be down to virtually no signatures needed and you can pay $4 all day long for a signature at Trader Joe’s when all you need is a thousand.
This union in this district has WAY overplayed its hand.
Superior, recurring union election financing due to mandatory union dues and an increasingly partisan, active union agenda that has become irrational, disruptive and intimidating as this largest special interest asserts its power to protect its turf. It’s elemental and its thug-like tactics are being played out throughout the state and the nation. This is just our local version of the problem. The only way to dilute union control is on a district-wide basis as reformers have proven in recent elections. Once the union understands the opportunity of concentrating its superior resources (both money and manpower) to dominate local elections, they will knock local areas off one-by-one. You can bank on the fact that union efforts in local areas will come from all areas of the district if it suits their agenda. Political parties don’t have the same vested interest the union does, nor do they focus on local elections in the perennial way the union will, once it’s local domination strategy is refined. That’s way the union wants this so badly as illustrated by the numerous signs during the recent teacher strike. There is no mystery to this. It’s a union power play, plain and simple.
Hmmm,
The last two posts state only the union has the power, moxie and desire to front a candidate. Here is where I disagree. It is known, printed in media: OCR, state records, etc that both sides in 2008 spent $100K. One side got most of their money from the local teachers union. I will grant you that. Yes, they have a special interest because they live, work and breathe CUSD but they also gave a large sum to Addonzio and Christiansen before. Point is the OTHER SIDE ( CUSD RECALL/REFORM) also spent 100K by gathering money from GOP, ED Alliance, and other special interest groups as far as Sacramento and some trustees had private parties from LA and San Diego supporting them…..why do they care about CUSD enough to pony up that kind of dough? That is why I am wondering if Measure H will stop BOTH sides from the financial campaign donations and give back a way for a grassroots candidate. And if a special interest (incl. unions) can’t run a slate mailer that focuses on all the absentee voters (particularly the senior housing areas) to gain access to other cities, my hope is they will go pick on an easier target elsewhere and this district and begin to heal. Frankly, I hope this will do away with slates and make each candidate stand up on their own- so we can see the real candidate and not the PR firm’s propaganda on a flyer.
I do see the problem of cheaper recalls now- but I don’t see many willing to go the extra mile to do it and I believe CUSD is getting recall weary, so the only thing I can say is at least with local control you should have more than two slates to pick from, so pick wisely. Right now, sometimes on the ballot you only get to pick between the lesser of two evils-I would like 4 and make each one work for a vote.
Confused,
I readily concede that all parties can ‘benefit’ from the reduced reach requirements, but the logic advanced about the $10K that the union picks up each month is a real issue.
During the 2008 CUSD election for 4 trustees,
the CUEA spent $100,083.
The CTA spent upwards of $30,000 (I cannot find the cite right now)
The Education Alliance spent $28,000
Ahmanson gave $35,000
and that was it for the big donors.
The CUEA gets $10K per month from 2,200 teachers and the CTA collects from 325,000 teachers.
The CTA and NEA have injected themselves into our community as evidenced by the strike and they will not let this area go.
The EA only has a few donors and obviously Ahmanson is alone.
When looking at the stacking and the fact that the union spent almost 3x in the last election, it really starts supporting the issue about a union monopoly on the message.
Remember, the union is the one who financially gains by controlling the board, so they see a tangible return on their investment if they are successful.
It is about consolidating resources and gagging the electorate.
And I firmly believe it is wrong.
I agree whole heartedly with Mr. Gilbert’s recommendation and think that H is a terrible idea. I find the comments to be amusing in that they act as if this is a new or novel idea. “At large” versus “by district” elected offices has been a raging debate for more than half a century. Ironically given the above commentary, it is ofter forced by Court order when some segment of the population (hispanic, asian, etc.) complains that while they are a signficant portion of the community as a whole, they are never able to elect representation because they do not constitute a majority of the whole. Typically a law suit is brought and a court finds that the “at large” election is a violation of the federal Civil Rights Act or federal election laws. None of those arguments apply here and this attempt at “districting” seems to be nothing more than political shenanigans.
Crock-
With the large diversity, and looking at the STAR reports of the demographics it looks ripe for a lawyer to come in and state just that…that a segment of the population is not getting representation- ( I don’t think calling yourself Lopez counts) and CUSD goes again….another lawsuit!
And CUSD Recall gave about $35K and at least they had a real interest in the district so that makes $100K…I don’t want to go digging in archives- close enough. My beef is why would Ed Alliance and Ahmanson pay that kind of money when they don’t have kids in this district. To be honest, I like what they stand for…what scares me more is what if that money came from say a very liberal group…not our own teachers. but actually maybe LA teachers union…or some religous cult….scary….it seems real easy to sway the absentee voters that don’t have kids with some slate on slick brochures in the mail that say conservative and Republican…how many of those did you throw out because you saw Democrats on the same flyer and then looked at the flyer to see printed at ABC promotion, not even affliated with the Republican party in the very tiny print? I also never saw that CTA paid an additional $30K to elect KKS where did you get that information? I highly doubt that every penny they collect would go towards campaigns. Especially since the last two times it didn’t do them much good. I honestly think the special interest groups would all move on to bigger and better things- and the CUSD Teacher’s union- well folks would know it was their candidate and either vote them in or out one at a time not a slate. But you would be able to generate more candidates to pick from.
But…again….this only works if you are really local control…local does not mean having Draper from SJC be the trustee for MV….it needs to have the boundaries changed to not disenfranchise areas. I don’t know the other trustee areas but can’t they make the trustees fit the high school feeder areas and maybe have one trustee that is near the new development areas and have it set up for RMV and maybe keep the seat empty until that high school is built and run with 6 trustees with the superintendent breaking ties? Not sure on bylaws here.
The fact that I don’t know the other trustee areas is another reason why I shouldn’t be voting for their trustee.
Okay guys, let’s move it over here
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/09/new-capo-measure-h-thread-with-some-new-thoughts-and-a-poll/
Little Big Man:
Again you have proven you have not done your homework!!
You consistently provide the role of the “Clown” in anything to do with Mission Viejo.
I would suggest you start with the details of the James Flemming era and move forward. Then maybe–just maybe; you will have something to contribute.
Until then find that rock Gilbert said you came out from under.