School District Has Already Spent $49,960 In Fees Over Three-Month Period.
As reported in the Octdober 30, 2009 online edition of the The Orange County Register (in a story penned by Scott Martindale), the Capistrano Unified School District has hired well-known election law attorney Phillip Greer to aid its efforts to delay the scheduled June 2010 vote on a parent-led ballot initiative about the way school trustees are elected. The school district wants to push the vote forward to November 2010 because it will save up to $487,500 in election-related expenses.
Over a three-month period ending September 30, 2009, the school district has spent $49,960 in attorney’s fees to research legal issues relating to the proposed trustee election changes. One San Juan Capistrano parent was quoted as saying that this was “an extraordinary amount of money to be spending” when the questions could have been answered by school district staff and the Orange County Department of Education.
The PTA did not endorse this. You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading gossip that this has more support than it does. I was at the CUSD Board meeting where the PTA representative disputed the 'rumor' that they supported changing how we elect Trustees. She said they were going to look at it, but have not as yet taken a position on this initiative.
If the PTA has endorsed this recently, provide the supporting legitimate reference that they have done so. Otherwise, the latest real information is that they have no position on this change, and you are spreading false information. Are you doing this deliberately, or by accident?
It does not bode well for your cause, to fabricate higher levels of support for this change, than it does. Only about 1/2 of 1% of CUSD voters signed the petition for this change. That is hardly an overwhelming statistic to support that this is something the majority of CUSD constituents want. It is especially outrageous that the proponents for this change:
1) Have been pressing the CUSD school Board to circumvent the voters and have them apply to the state for the change, such that the the voters would have no say in whether they want this change or not. It would be imposed on the majority based on the loud voice of a few driven by their own special interests and agendas. I will add, that these special interests are not ones that puts the interests of the kids first!
2) Have pressed for and received a special election 5 months before a general election, costing nearly $500,000 more than if they just waited those few months. It is especially outrageous that ousted members from the CUSD school Board were on the county committee that delivered on this for their comrades. Rather, their hope is that low voter turn-out, typical of a Special Election, has a higher chance of their initiative being successful and delivering on what they want. There is no driving or pressing need for this to be done in a Special Election. It can wait until November, especially considering that a key leader of this initiative previously wrote against 'local Trustee' elections, in favor of At-Large Trustee elections! It's real convenient to want to change the rules, only once they are no longer to your benefit!
Their argument that "The Board" will be costing CUSD the $500,000 by NOT approving this waiver initiated by 'a few", I find particularly onerous. The advocates of this change are the ones costing the district the near $500,000!
3) They do not cite at all the disadvantages of this change, of which there are many. Rather, they are masters in telling half-truths. For example, they espouse how this change will save the district approximately a couple hundred thousand dollars every 2 years. They just don't go into details of the how and why. These savings are achieved by reducing our ability to cast a vote for each of the 7 Trustees down to 1. Is it really a surprise that elections cost money? This equates to about $1 every 2 years per registered voter in CUSD. Is substantially reducing our democratic voting rights in elections really worth only $1? What's next, will we see initiatives to double the term lengths in office, or better yet, eliminate elections entirely under the umbrella of saving money?! Many of our fellow citizens going back to our Revolutionary War have paid for our right to vote dearly and in blood. How would they feel about us just rolling over, doing nothing through apathy, and giving that right away? I say NO WAY!
Changing how we elect Trustees is a bad idea, at least under how the system is currently architected. Of course, they don't want to change anything else about this, just strip away 6 of our 7 votes! There are 7 members on the CUSD school Board. Having a vote for only one leaves 6 opportunities for only 4 Trustees, that you had zero vote in, to vote for something you disagree with. That would be and is zero representation! CUSD has a number of factors in play that will pit local area against local area. Do we really want to deliberately set the stage to pit one area against another, to a degree far worse than what already exists? I don't think so, as that is a bad idea, and not in the best interest of the kids/students on a district-wide basis.
Changing to this election method will result in many 4/3 split elections, with many of those votes being made for nearly half the district by people they had no vote in. This is not better representation and control, this is worse, far worse!
There are no checks and balances in place to ensure that some areas, voters, and students are not grossly disenfranchised. I think there are short-term gains being sought here. If this passes, they will achieve and garner what they want, before the public realizes just how bad this was and can do anything to change it! This is fine by them, as they will have achieved those short term goals to gain their advantage!
CUSD clearly has issues, but this proposed change is not the cure. It is a knee-jerk reaction, at best, by a 'few' to usurp control of the school district. A coalition of a relative few is seizing upon the current dire economic and political times in CUSD, to achieve end results that do not put the interests of the district-wide kids of CUSD first.
I urge you, my fellow citizens, to not fall for this carefully orchestrated power-grab, and look deeper into the ramifications of this change should it be approved.
Posted by: A Very Concerned CUSD Parent | November 15, 2009 at 03:09 PM
The PTA did not endorse this. You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading gossip that this has more support than it does. I was at the CUSD Board meeting where the PTA representative disputed the 'rumor' that they supported changing how we elect Trustees. She said they were going to look at it, but have not as yet taken a position on this initiative.
If the PTA has endorsed this recently, provide the supporting legitimate reference that they have done so. Otherwise, the latest real information was that they had no position on this change, and you are spreading false information.
It does not bode well for your cause, to fabricate higher levels of support for this change, than it does. Only about 1/2 of 1% of CUSD voters signed the petition for this change. That is hardly an overwhelming statistic to support that this is something the majority of CUSD constituents want. It is especially outrageous that the proponents for this change:
1) Have been pressing the CUSD school Board to circumvent the voters and have them apply to the state for the change, such that the the voters would have no say in whether they want this change or not. It would be imposed on the majority based on the loud voice of a few driven by their own special interests and agendas.
2) Have pressed for and received a special election 5 months before a general election, costing nearly $500,000 more than if they just waited those few months. It is especially outrageous that ousted members from the CUSD school Board were on the county committee that delivered on this for their comrades.
3) They do not cite at all the disadvantages of this change, of which there are many. Rather, they are masters in telling half-truths. For example, they espouse how this change will save the district approximately a couple hundred thousand dollars every 2 years. They just don't go into detail about how. These savings are achieved by reducing our ability to cast a vote for each of the 7 Trustees down to 1. Is it really a surprise that elections cost money? This equates to about $1 every 2 years per registered voter in CUSD. Is substantially reducing our democratic voting rights in elections really worth only $1? What's next, will we see initiatives to eliminate elections entirely under the umbrella of saving money?! Many of our fellow citizens going back to our Revolutionary War have paid for our right to vote dearly and in blood. How would they feel about us just rolling over and giving that right away? I say NO WAY!
Changing how we elect Trustees is a bad idea. There are 7 members on the CUSD school Board. Having a vote for only one leaves 6 opportunities for only 4 Trustees, that you had zero vote in, to vote for something you disagree with. That would be and is zero representation!CUSD has a number of factors in play that will pit local area against local area.
Changing to this election method will result in many 4/3 split elections, with many of those votes being made for nearly half the district by people they had no vote in. This is not better representation and control, this is worse.
There are no checks and balances in place to ensure that some areas, voters, and students are not grossly disenfranchised.
CUSD clearly has issues, but this proposed change is not the cure. It is a knee-jerk reaction by 'a few' to usurp control of the school district, taking advantage of these dire economic and political times.
I urge you not to fall for this carefully orchestrated power-grab, and look deeper into the ramifications of this change should it be approved.
Posted by: A Very Concerned CUSD Parent | November 15, 2009 at 08:45 AM
This attorney is being paid to fight an absurd waste of a half a million dollars of district funds for an unnecessary June election that is being pushed by a small group of partisans who have friends on the county committee, including two former CUSD trustees who were removed from office in shame. Apparently, it's now it's time for payback - only the real public (not the tiny group of partisans who pushed this selfish proposal) are the ones who are going to pay. The conflicts and complete disregard to the taxpayers is shameful and anyone who knows how to game the system can work with the PTA and the County DOE. What we need is someone who will look beyond partisan politics and truly look at the bottom line for the kids. Since there is no legitimate reason for a June election (except political), it is likely the CUSD board and their attorney will save the district hundreds of thousands. For all of these supposed "kids first" advocates, that should be a good thing.
Posted by: CUSD parent | November 05, 2009 at 09:13 AM
This attorney is being paid $350/hour to fight what the public requested and the PTA endorsed and the County Department of Education decided is in the best interest of constituents. Teachers in this district are paid $35/hour for their work with students and being threatened with paycuts and furloughs and layoffs. Something seems very out-of-whack if the Capistrano Unified School District.
Posted by: Stop litigating and focus on my kids | November 03, 2009 at 08:43 PM