There is obviously no end of distrust, paranoia, bad blood and bad faith in the debate over the recall of the current Capo school board – probably on both sides. But theoretically that should not be the case when discussing the voting reform known as Measure H – switching to by-area elections.
There’s no good reason that, contrary to the common pattern, one couldn’t favor keeping the current board while making the by area reform; or conversely be eager to replace the board but keep at-large elections. Maybe some of you out there do feel that way, I’ve put a poll at the bottom of this post to find out. In any case Measure H is something we should be able to discuss rationally without getting emotional, calling names, and casting accusations.
Is the fact that opponents of the current board favor the reform, while backers of the board oppose it, an indication of our natural tribalism, our human tendency to pick a side and then follow along with all that side’s positions? (As I think sometimes happens with our choice of political parties.)
Or is it much more simply the fact that keeping the status quo, i.e. keeping it prohibitively expensive and difficult for a challenger to mount a campaign, protects whoever happens to be the incumbent?
But why should Measure H even necessarily endanger the incumbents?
Say, it shakes out this way: Measure H passes this November, but not all incumbents get replaced or recalled. Say, for example, Ken Lopez-Maddox-Lopez hangs on by his fingernails. And say he goes on, over the next two years, to do a wonderful job for his constituents in Area 3 (Aliso Viejo / Laguna Niguel.) And say … oh wait, that’s not a good example, since Ken doesn’t really live in the area he represents.
Okay then, let’s say Larry Christensen, representing Area 7 (RSM/MV) manages to fend off Lynn Hatton’s challenge, and Measure H passes at the same time, and Larry goes on to do a bang-up job the next four years making his constituents proud of him. Lynn or someone else will be able to afford another campaign against him in 2014, but Larry will still have all the advantages of incumbency – the name recognition, the sterling record behind him, the bully pulpit at each meeting, an intimate knowledge of the issues – and he would be almost certain to win.
Why would he need to stack the decks further by making his challenger raise $100 grand and campaign all across the vast district just to have half a chance at his seat?
“What a Crock’s” Nightmare Scenario of a Union Takeover.
Board supporters and H opponents, indulging their dearest tic, claim that the reform, making it much easier and less expensive to mount a campaign, will inevitably make it that much easier for the dreaded Union to get their favored candidates into office and then hold the strings of seven Union Puppets. (Whether they really believe this or just realize that the Union is an effective bogeyman in the South County is between themselves and God.)
The commenter calling himself “What A Crock” (who really needs to find a better name) has worked hard at this, detailing exactly how it would happen by the numbers, where the Union money would come from, how it would be spent, how much would be needed to accomplish their nefarious goal. Open and shut case, right?
The one thing What A Crock is completely forgetting is that the Union is not the only interest (special interest, outside interest) that has an interest in school board races. Let’s say for example – just totally by way of argument – that a group of ideological organizations, let’s say… okay, the Pacific Research Institute, Howard Ahmanson, the Education Alliance, and the Family Action PAC decided to plow A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS into a school district like Capo in order to make the changes that they favor ideologically. Well, with Measure H they would only have to pour in about one-seventh that much, right? Saving their tight-assed donors even more than the Union would save.
The real point is, a reform like Measure H can enable candidates to run WITHOUT the assistance of ANY of these outside special interests – the Unions, the rightwing anti-labor ideologues, or whoever else there is. What honest American can be against THAT?
The Seven-to-One Factor, looked at in a new light.
Okay, we know that Measure H allows greater democracy at least insofar as it makes it seven times easier for a citizen to run. Seven times less expensive and seven times less territory to have to campaign in and be familiar with.
Measure H opponents like Robert Reidel stubbornly insist that citizens will have only 1/7 as much voting power, 1/7 as much democracy, 1/7 as much representation, when they only get to vote for one local person they know as opposed to seven names they scratch their heads over. Well. Arguable. But there is a flip side to this that I can’t believe took so long to finally occur to me, on a pleasant walk home last night:
Under Measure H your vote for your area’s trustee will be SEVEN TIMES MORE POWERFUL than it is now, because it will be one vote out of 30,000 or so instead of one vote out of 220,000. Capiche? I hope so, because there’s more.
People – dumb Americans – not you, but other people – forget that democracy is NOT JUST YOUR VOTE. Under Measure H your lawn sign will be seven times more powerful, as will your bumper sticker, your talk to each neighbor, your letter to your local paper raving about your favorite candidate, your 3-minute speech at City Hall, your fifty-dollar donation.
It does sound like a really good deal, especially when you add in all the benefits that usually get mentioned already: You’re much more likely to get to know a trustee who is only representing 30,000 of you. He or she is much more likely to know your concerns. He or she will be easier to defeat if he or she lets you down. YOU will have a much easier time running if you want to! And add in all the precious district money saved, and I think we’re starting to beat a dead horse or rather gild a wonderful lily.
The fretting bi-areal mother.
There was a mother on one of those threads who kept asking,”What about me? I’ve got one kid in a middle school in the area I live, and another kid in high school in a neighboring area. How come I don’t get to vote for the trustee in the area where my kid goes to high school?”
Well, ma’am, like we’ve all said, no solutions are perfect but some are better than others. But if you’re concerned with who represents the area your kid goes to high school in, and you have a strong preference, you can do a lot better than vote for that person. You can make friends with twenty or thirty of your kid’s friends’ parents and tell them how great this candidate is. You can donate money to this candidate. You can walk precincts for this candidate. YOU CAN MEET THIS CANDIDATE, LET HIM KNOW ALL THE STUFF YOU’RE DOING FOR HIM, AND TELL HIM YOUR CONCERNS. Again, democracy is much more than voting. But of course you all already knew that, I’m just reminding you!
*
All right, there were a few other little red herrings which will hopefully evaporate on their own. Waving the bloody corpse of Fleming. Comparing it to dividing Mission Viejo into seven districts (the size is the thing, Larry.) Claiming we’re cutting up the district (No Larry, that would be a whole other question with its pros and cons.) Well, that’s all I’ve got for now…
[poll id=”290″]
Update / Correction
I would like to thank Robert Reidel, first of all for using his real name unlike most of these commenters, and also for pointing out an error I made leaving out a zero in the 220,000 figure of voters in the district. I got the 22,000 figure off some comment on another thread, maybe that was a typo, I thought it seemed kind of low and was maybe the number of folks who actually voted last time. In any case my point on the seven-to-one ratio remains valid.
Also in the original version of this story I mistakenly characterized Reidel as an opponent of the current Board who also opposes Measure H – a most rare bird, as the poll above shows! I’ll look today for the old comment that gave me that impression. Probably it’s more accurate that he’d say his position on the current Board has no bearing on his opinion on Measure H, which is something I’d agree with him on. (And obviously isn’t true about the other anti-H commenters here with all their “union, union, Kutnick, union” nonsense.) Would that be more fair, Mr. Reidel?
HEY!
I just received an email that said that the NO on Measure H team just prevailed against the EVERY ballot challenge by the Yes side.
100% failure on the Yes side.
100% success on the No side.
This was always thought of as a false claim against the No team by the Union and it was proven to be just that.
It is gonna be a nice weekend.
Lets just break up the district into seven districts. This way each district can be its own special interest group. We all know how well government runs when you have politicians who are looking out for their own reelection. What does vision and ideology matter, when its really all about advancing ones own political career. Lets have 50 Presidents come to think of it! By the way, I’m curious to see how “quiet” the union will be with the teachers regarding the coming elections. I hear meetings are already planned at the school sites!!
Well, congratulations. Bad decision, but the important thing’s in November!
But it is going to be an even better November when Measure H passes.
The ONLY reason switch from “at large” to “by district” voting is if some part of the electorate is being disenfranchised. I have seen nothing in the Yes on H materials that support that claim. Often, adoption of “by district” voting polarizes a board and sweeps out the ability to achieve meaningful consensus. While the intiative process may have a place in California politics, this is not the time or place to adopt something like H that I think will ultimately prove to be even more divisive than present circumstances.
I want my vote to count. I want a trustee elected by my community to serve my community. Until we have area voting, I (and all other CUSD voters) will be disenfranchised.
Nothing could be more divisive than having some communities end up with no accountable representative at all. And all communities run that risk until we change to area voting.
Geoff, do you realize that in one of our elections, the San Juan area trustee was chosen by another city? San Juan strongly supported one candidate, but the Mission Viejo/RSM folks had a much larger populace that allowed them to stomp out the favored local. No thanks, I’d rather choose my trustee than have Beall and friends do it for me.
Measure H also ignores the “local” impacts of most of the important CUSD issues that have affected constituents in all areas of the district. All 7 trustees affect me and my family big time and there is no way I would give up my right to hold all of them accountable at the ballot box. Measure H proponents are proposing to strip voters of their rights because they perceive it will make it easier for them to get elected. That’s ridiculous, unless as a candidate, you’re a union darling. The union won’t restrict its campaign resources and activities to local areas. Measure H will just make it easier for them to concentrate their resources to dominate on an area-by-area basis. No thank you. No on “H”
I think there needs to be a fifth and sixth choice on the poll. yes or no on the Measure H and elect a mix of trustees, keep some incumbents, elect some newbies.
Well, I didn’t want to make the poll TOO long and complicated. How about letting 3 or 4 out of 5 count as all for the purposes here.
So if you wanna keep three of the current trustees, pick “keep,” and if you wanna replace 3 of ’em pick “replace,” OK?
Vern, you impress me. Today’s post is just what we needed, given the interest in yesterday’s “H” post and the high degree of apparent tribalism (to use your term) that seemed to infect the debate/discourse among readers.
Yes, if H passes, a voter’s vote becomes much more powerful. And, further, all efforts to influence voters become more efficacious (unless one sets up one’s card table in Anaheim or Huntington Beach or at the bottom of one’s swimming pool). Further, as you say, other interest groups than the union will be able to compete to get their message out to the voter.
Skeptical? In my own district (SOCCCD), it was once true that the union, with its measly 20 or 30 K, was the eight-hundred pound gorilla in board elections. But, by the late 90s, that ceased being the case. Education Alliance and like-minded entities managed effectively to counter the union, even when it had the backing and involvement of CTA, that gorilla among gorillas.
OK, so just what is the problem with embracing Measure H? Union power will dominate only if the right-wing interest groups disband—and that ain’t happening any time soon. (On the contrary.) The interested voter will have a louder voice, whether conservative or liberal, addled or bright (er, bright or addled). Voters will be able to make a choice between viable candidates, including challengers, who can make their views clear to all.
H’s passage might have good or bad short-term implications. But, in my view, in the long run, it would make our citizens less clueless and our democracy healthier.
The next time the trustees vote to divert my Mello-Roos taxes to other areas and the lie about it to cover it up, I should have the right to hold ALL of them responsible at the ballot box. This is the reality at CUSD you keep ignoring.
We’ve already had decades of the fiefdom mentality that comes with selfish bulldogs like Marlene Draper on the board. The unfair vendetta politics they waged against other trustee areas was despicable and they did it without the cover or protection of having to be responsible to the hometown suck ups they favored. The only way to get these types out, is to give all of the people they vex the right to vote for or against them at the allot box. Measure H would deny this right and it is wrong.
Vern,
Nice try, but your arguments miss the main point:
When an outside group such as the Education Alliance spends money advocating a position, they are spending their own funds and exercising a Constitutionally-protected right of free political speech. Your repeated implication that Pacific Research Institute (PRI) is spending money to influence the CUSD election is simply false. BUT IF THEY DID, they would be acting in the same capacity as the Educational Alliance — privately.
In contrast, when CUEA, CSEA, CTA, NEA, Teamsters, SEIU, and other unions spend money to influence elections, they are spending money that has been confiscated from the paychecks of their membership under force of law (a bad law). This is public money that is converted into a true Special Interest, that being the perpetuation of union influence and privilege. All this money goes from the taxpayer through the state and back into a selfish and self-perpetuating union that least of all cares about students and taxpayers. “Me first” should be the motto of their campaign.
If the Education Alliance spent their last dime fighting to keep Christian ideals alive in public education, how would they materially benefit?
To compare one thing with the other is simply stupid. But have it your way.
Let’s see, I’m gonna skip all the crazy stuff in this comment – for example, the implication that groups pushing for lower wages and benefits, more privatization and private profit, moving of resources from public to charter schools, lower taxes, discontinuation of bilingual education, etc. is somehow MORE CHRISTIAN than groups that fight for higher living standards for teachers and other workers, or that people funding the former interests don’t expect to somehow PROFIT from that not only spiritually but MATERIALLY – again, SKIPPING all that because it’s a distraction…
You totally miss my main point. I, unlike you, am not saying one’s good and one’s evil. I’m saying by-area reform does not help one or hurt one more than the other.
For example? An implication?
You’ve obviously gone to some effort to overlook the point. The point is that the unions are a true “special interest”. The others parties have nothing to gain by their positions — nothing more than a typical voter who would wish that the public schools operate an a certain way, and are willing to vote and contribute their private funds accordingly.
Vern, I get the impression you don’t like Christians. Or at least, that is the IMPLICATION of what you wrote. Is that fair?
You seem to believe that a responsible position to limit the cost of public education is somehow bad. You IMPLY that the tools to limit cost are somehow defective. That is the union line of course, but imagine what would happen if you were right. The cost of education would expand without bounds and everything else in California would suffer.
Come to think of it, you don’t have to imagine this situation. This is the situation we are in! Everyone public service provided by a public union member has become absolutely essential and the rest of us who pay their salaries can be damned.
Number one, you still refuse to grasp or address my original, simple, innocent point: By-area elections, bringing down the costs of campaigning, do not somehow favor union-backed candidates over candidates that have the backing of the groups you approve of, or candidates that have to fund themselves or anyone else. I’m not interested in arguing with you about who should and shouldn’t be defined as a “special interest.”
Maybe I’m still not saying it clearly enough. Try this: By-area elections do not privilege union candidates. That’s all I’m saying.
Number two, I am a Christian. Although I suspect you may define that word differently from me.
I think you’re mistaken. By-area elections do favor those with the money and the unions have the money.
Consider this. Right now, there are 220,000 voters within the boundaries of CUSD. Divided into seven Trustee areas, that is about 31,400 voters per Trustee area – assuming the areas are apportioned property (they are not).
In a by-area election, candidates have to carry their message to 31,400 voters. This is 50 percent more voters than live in San Juan Capistrano, for example, but much more affordable for everyone to run a campaign. Seems fair, right?
Wrong!
The main source of campaign money across all the Trustee areas will be the union. Their interests transcend the interests of individual Trustee areas, schools, or communities. If they carve-up CUSD up in this way, the unions will be the only remaining “Special Interest” with District-wide reach. And there is no question that they have the resources to engineer a sweep of an election (area by area) while the press and public remain focused on “local issues” of no consequence.
While the union thinks of the union as a whole, the voters and taxpayers get to argue about local and largely irrelevant issues. Top-down vs. bottom-up. Get it?
Vern, you are truly a dope if you believe that the union would spend all this time an energy putting Measure H on the ballot for no benefit.
Got to go. It’s time to light the BBQ. Celebrating Labor, and all that!
Vern,
I have to say, the way you communicate does not tend to represent a saving faith. You might be right there, but your public persona is belying your claim.
Also, as much as you would like to deny it, the funding of elections by the union is legend. Everyone who has ever been in the game, knows the power the unions play and I don’t believe that you are that naive.
Funding is a real issue for those that are not supported by the unions.
Clarification: Feifdoms will only get worse
I was in the court room today and, contrary to some of the posters here, the judge DID NOT say that the assertion that unions were involved was true. He said just the opposite. He stated that there is wide latitude given to candidates when they write their 200 word statements or when citizen groups write a position pro or con on a measure. He didn’t change anything because of that reason and that reason only!!
Measure H will pass because it is the correct thing to do.
We had a spy camera in the room yesterday and here is how it went down:
Union: Yes, your honor. I see that the paint chip says that it is black paint, and that there are 999 other paint chips siting here that look exactly like this one and they all say that they are black, and Yes, I agree that the 999 OTHER ONES are all black. BUT, THIS ONE is different.
Judge: Why do you agree that 999 other ones are black and agree that they are labeled as black and yet, this one that looks exactly like the others and is labeled the same BUT is NOT black?
Union: Because that is how I want it to be and I am the Union and I will expend considerable influence to ensure that remains as I want it to be.
Judge: OK union, thanks for clarifying. I RULE FOR THE OTHER SIDE AS THESE FOLKS LIVE IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.
Gavel slams down and the case is closed.
Before I could answer the poll honestly I would need to know how the new boundaries are being drawn up with new demographic numbers from the census- I want to make sure voting yes does not disenfranchise me of matters that do apply to my local area. Local control isn’t local if a representative from another area is elected to represent my area. And it is too new to tell about the opponents- so far, all I have is candidate statements, are there any public debates or Q&A’s in the media being published to get a real feel for the non-incumbants?
Anyone know what those new boundaries would be?
I don’t know, I’m confused.
The seven trustee area boundaries are changed every ten years after the census and sometimes more often than that.
Measure H is about establishing local control and saving money while at the same time helping to dilute the influence of unions or outside special interests in CUSD elections. It doesn’t make any difference what the new boudaries might be since they will, and have been, essentially the same over the years.
Vern, normally when this issue is brought up it is done so as a delay or confusing tactic. Maddox-Lopez-Maddox kept bringing up this subject as an argument to delay the implementation until 2012.
What a lot of people fail to remember is the the current CUSD Board of Trustees passed a resolution asking that this change be approved and placed on this November’s ballot. Once Beall and buddies realized that the passage of this parent-led initiative might ruin their ability to buy trustees they switched positions.
Nov 2, take out the trash
Vote NO on Measure H
This is not about the Unions, the Education Alliance, or any other organization. This is about the voters, taxpayers and the residents in the community having the RIGHT to vote for the composition of the school Board that will affect them, their children and their family. That means they must vote for every single one of the Trustees.
If Measure H passes I am confident that 4 Trustees, representing their areas, will backroom deal and support each others interests. The other 3 Trustees, representing their areas, it will be too bad for them and their constituents! This will encompass such issues as school attendance boundaries, Trustee boundaries, approval of facility projects, and allocation of the dwindling financial resources.
Sure, this happened in the past under At Large Trustee elections, however we were able to vote those Trustees out of office. The proponents of this change would have the rules changed such that there would be nothing disenfranchised voters could do about it. Measure H is not a blow for democracy, it is a blow against democracy.
Vote NO on Measure H
H solves nothing.
In fact H takes away 6/7th of everyones voting rights.
Some people are so gullible to believe this will put them in charge.
How can taking away 6 of 7 votes help anyone?
You didn’t read my post did you Cook.
I read your post. You make good points, but the one vote out of seven, is not a good point.
When you vote in HTB, do you vote for only one council member? or vote for only one school board member? Those are also city/school wide voting schemes.
And when you vote on your parties central committee, do you vote for one and skip your other 5 or 6 votes?
Mr. Reidel, you say that backroom deals have taken place in the past and that you are confident they will continue if we change to by-area voting. You say that we were able to vote out trustees who were unsuccessful in the past and may want to in the future.l
Underlying your assumptions is the idea that challengers will run against incumbents. With at-large elections, no one I know or respect could afford to run for school board. By-area voting would cut the cost of campaigning by 85%.
Measure H is the only scenario in which voters will be offered a choice of candidates in the years to come.
Reality Check,
As long as more than one persons’ name is on the ballot running for a given elected office, the voters have a choice. Your assumption that that voters would not have a choice unless Measure H passes misses the mark. I see more than one name on the ballot for each CUSD Trustee in each area for the foreseeable future.
There was never an assurance or guarantee that running for elected office would be easy or inexpensive.
Maybe the proponents of Measure H should have reflected better on all the options available for improving CUSD, rather than picking one that has more down-side than up-side.
Maybe the proponents of Meassure H should have considered better how the voters would feel about their trying to get this mandated on us, by attempting to pressure the Trustees into signing a waiver which would impoase that will on us.
Maybe the proponents of Measure H should have incorporated safeguards into their Measure, to limit the degree and potential for areas and constituents of CUSD to be disenfranchised by this change.
We can agree that CUSD is in a bad way. I’m just not one to blindly accept that any change will be a good change. The misleading rhetoric espoused my Measure H proponents affirms to me that this is a high risk change that would be bad for CUSD.
Maybe the proponents of Measure H should have reflected better on all the options available for improving CUSD, rather than picking one that has more down-side than up-side.
I think it’s just you, Robert. You specialize in finding every possible downside but they’re obscure, minor and debatable compared to the upsides.
Vern,
We’ll know whether it’s just me on November 3rd. The upsides you’re apparently supporting are the ones that are obscure, minor and debatable.
Look, if you believe in the US constitution that each sate should have it’s representatives elected ONLY by the people within the state, how could you disagree with measure H?
Because there two situations aren’t equivalent. The national system was formed in that way to reflect state differences where the issues between states are often distinct. The opposite is true in CUSD where most of the important and controversial issues have affected most or all of us. I have a lot less concern over a representative in New Hampshire than I do a CUSD trustee in San Juan Capistrano like Marlene Draper whose selfish vendetta politics plagued constituents in other areas for decades. Every CUSD voter should be able to protect themselves from this, and Measure H would strip them of that right. This is the problem with the Pro H crowd. They ignore the historical problems with CUSD fiefdoms and Measure H will only make them worse.
The proponents for Measure H are the ones trying to change how we elect Trustees, not those against it. The burden is on them to make their case for the change, and they just haven’t done that.
The proponents of Measure H are trying to change how the overwhelming majority (over 95%) of LOCAL officials are elected for School Boards and City Councils throughout the county, state and nation. Their arguments in favor of this change are poor. Having been to CUSD School Board meetings, it is clear to me that many proponents for Measure H have ulterior motives for making this change, than to benefit ALL CUSD constituents.
I know a rip-off when I see one, and Measure H is a rip-off.
Vote NO on Measure H.
Vern,
By the way, how did you come to this statement: ” even Robert Reidel who claims to also oppose the Board”? Are you just making stuff up as you go? I’d appreciate you supporting statements such as this, when you’re going to make posts to what I “claim”. Back it up or retract it please!
just shot you an e-mail, sorry if I misremembered something you wrote somewhere else…. we;ll straighten it out.
You’re wrong, Vern. The union guys know it and that’s why they Rare suddenly so eager to get H passed. Your arguments ignore all of the lessons we have learned in Capo, the unique, unfair chaenges of fighting dishonest public employee unions and the basic unfairness of issues like taxation without representation.
Vern,
You just now got this? “Under Measure H your vote for your area’s trustee will be SEVEN TIMES MORE POWERFUL than it is now, because it will be one vote out of 3000 or so instead of one vote out of 22,000. Capische?”
Though, aren’t you wrong here? Then, what’s a zero here or there?
With approximately 220,000 registered voters in CUSD, voting for only 1 Trustee will be more like one vote out of 30,000 or so instead of one vote out of 220,000. Was this on purpose to make it seem more intimate, or were you shooting on the low side because at times only 10% of the registered voters actually make the effort to vote, or was you math just bad?
Certainly, when you start talking votes in the 3000 range, it certainly starts appearing much more powerful, as opposed to the 30,000 range. I’ll even grant that as true! But wait, 30,000 already exceeds the 22,000 number you cited (and inferred wasn’t good enough), so to get it down into your 3,000 range, under your philosophy don’t we need to break each of the areas up into 10 more areas to get the espoused more powerful local control and local representation?
The fundamental difference in philosophy here, for OUR school district, is the question on whether we want to elect Trustees focused, immersed, committed and beholding to only the CUSD constituents in THEIR area, or do we want to elect Trustees focused, immersed, committed and beholding to ALL the CUSD constituents in the entire school district. I prefer the latter.
The down-side of having your more powerful Trustee committed to YOUR area out-voted by 4 to 6 Trustees you had no vote in trumps the gain of having a Trustee focused solely on looking out for your interests. This approach I do not believe will be good for CUSD.
Vote NO on Measure H.
Robert. Well stated. That is why my voter guide will include a strong NO on Measure H
Hey Vern,
You, being the tool of the union here, have thrown out the giant red herring that Lopez-Maddox doesn’t live in his elector area.
Care to expound on that little tidbit?
Also, you forgot one MAJOR item I addressed in my financial evaluation.
The ONLY groups that get a financial return on their political ‘Investments’ are the unions. There is limited reason for anyone else to open their pockets in such a large way and as evidenced in the last election cycle, the unions threw down almost 3x what the ‘tight ass donors’ appeared to have invested.
Now, why would that be?
You, being the tool of the union here, have thrown out the giant red herring that Lopez-Maddox doesn’t live in his elector area.
Care to expound on that little tidbit?
Caught my teaser! Worry not, I shan’t disappoint. Keep coming back to the Orange Juice Blog, your one-stop-shopping place for Capo Recall controversy.
Can’t sleep, thinking about you characters.
I have to say, the way you communicate does not tend to represent a saving faith. You might be right there, but your public persona is belying your claim.
Once again, as I begin to search my soul for un-Christian nastiness of expression, I suddenly realize I’m being lectured on manners again by a guy calling himself “What a Crock.” (And we all know the rude 3-letter prepositional phrase “crock” is an abbreviation for.) I suggest if you want to bring the discourse to a more genteel level and demonstrate your saving faith, you may want to switch to a handle like maybe “Skeptical” or “One Who Knows Better.”
Meanwhile, facts-be-damned, Crock and JR continue to twang unmelodiously and irrelevantly on their one-stringed guitar. “The union spent so much time and energy getting Measure H on the ballot.” Twang, twang. “Vern is a union tool.” Twang.
Hey JR, Happy Labor Day! You know what, your insistence on the awesome unchallengeable financial power of the Union cuts the other way in this context. With at-large voting making a campaign so prohibitive at at least 100 grand, it’s an utter miracle that ANYBODY can get elected without kissing the Union ring and availing themselves of their unparalleled deep pockets. Let’s cut the cost of campaigning sevenfold and strike a blow at the unfair advantage this behemoth enjoys, so the common anti-union man or woman finally has half a chance! Stand up to the Union, vote yes on Measure H!
I assume you agree, you’re not a Union tool are you?
Robert Reidel, note my “Correction” appended to the story above. Although I can’t help but notice that you commented on my story for a couple of days before actually reading it. In the future I’d appreciate being corrected a little quicker on any mistakes I make, whether by friend or foe. It’s not like I have an editor or research team here.
And my seven-to-one point remains valid.
Have we said all we have to say on Measure H now? Let’s not all continue to repeat ourselves tiresomely. Happy Labor Day all!
Vern-
Could you look into the boundary change issue since you seem to have accesses I don’t. I know they will be changed due to the recent census. I am for Local control. BUT…as it sits all of Mission Viejo goes to CVHS which is in Trustee area 6- none of the voters in area 6 go to CVHS they go to DHHS Area 4 or AVHS Area 5 can you see if the boundaries are being changed to match to high schools areas better? I know that Maddox spoke of changing the boundaries to eliminate disenfranchising- has it been done yet? That would eliminate a lot of the worry of having one kid in elementary being represented with the local trustee, but the high school is not. I think that seems to be the big hang up- and yet it may have already been settled with boundary changes and we are fighting over non issues. It would be nice to know before getting my absentee ballot.
Vern,
You make stuff up, and then have the nerve to lecture me on how quickly (or not) I correct you on your mistakes? Here’s my advice: you want to make claims as to what others have said or posted, how about you actually check your facts and know what you’re talking about before you start throwing other peoples names around. Otherwise, leave their names off, and you can opinion away. It’s not like I’m being paid to be an editor for you.
You were wrong. Accept your responsibility for that mistake, without (trying) to deflect that onto me for not correcting you fast enough. You’re the one that chose to use my name to further YOUR agenda. Check your facts before you write an article or post as to what others have said or posted. That’s all on you.
Your 7 to 1 point is invalid, but don’t let the math, numbers or the fact that the overall voters voice would be diminished get in the way of an opinion that suits you.
With that said, thanks for making the correction above Vern.
I will say this with regards to the current CUSD Trustees and Measure H.
I support these Trustees for voting NOT to approve a waiver that would have stripped 6 of our 7 votes for Trustee from us like the proponents of Measure H wanted, leaving us with no say in the matter. These Trustees recognized that the voters had the right to decide this, rather than them imposing it on us. I give that decision of the Trustees a two thumbs up.
Suppose Measure H is defeated, and the challenging slate of CUSD candidates is elected. Do all those challengers support the change of us voting for only 1 Trustee, instead of all 7? I think they do. Would they have approved the waiver? What would stop them from deciding to approve another waiver, which only takes about 1,000 signatures by the way, and making that change regardless of what we voted for in this election?
The fact is, I think they could do just that. For me, that is a significant reason to vote for the incumbents in this election. They have proved that on significant matters such as this, they let the voters decide.
Vote NO on Measure H
Happy Labor Day, Vern. You strike me as admirably patient with some readers who, um, really need to take a basic logic course. (Of course, the same can be said of some of your supporters now and again.)
Despite your love of absurd (and often hilarious) teasers, I find your writing to be very fair and reasonable. You seem to have deep and reliable instincts that incline you in that direction.
You are, sir, a natural gentleman!
–John (of “John and Ken”)
Mr. Reidel, I feel redundant making this point in response to you, but you seem to make the same mistake on every thread, so here yet again is the reason Measure H will allow more choice for voters in the use of their single (and far more powerful vote).
If a citizen were to challenge an incumbent trustee with at-large voting still in place, the cost is astronomical. Only the wealthy, the politically connected, or those with motivation bordering on insane could mount such a campaign for a position that should be assumed by someone with nothing to gain.
Passing Measure H would allow a challenger with no outside financing but community-based name recognition to put their name in front of voters. It reduces the influence of money, outside support, and people with no history in our communities.
Perhaps you, Mr. Reidel, with your recent notoriety, could run as trustee to represent your local community. (With area voting, you would not be compelled to win over the rest of us, who’ve been subjected to your monologues, witnessed the favoritism shown to you, and patiently provided you with the truth.)