See, I couldn’t locate a photograph of petitioner Marilyn Amato singlehandedly stopping the California Republican Assembly, the Family Action PAC, Tony Beall, Mike Winsten, Craig Alexander, the Education Alliance et al., all on behalf of a massive movement for expanded democracy. So I went with the famous image to the left.
To jog your memory – Measure H is only peripherally related to this November’s Capistrano USD Recall; there’s no reason it should really be related at all. It is a measure to change the way this huge district elects its seven trustees, so that each of the seven “areas” only votes for its own trustee and each candidate only has to run in one area.
This reform, the very popular “by-area voting” reform, would
- Save the district $200,000 each election cycle (every two years)
- Make it much easier for a citizen of modest means to run, without needing the help of special interests
- Ensure that those who win are familiar with local concerns and issues, and accountable to their constituents.
In fact the current trustees (who are now in such hot water with the public) pledged to support this reform back when they were first running for office. But once they got into office, they realized the reform would make it easier for regular folks to run against them, so they pulled a 180 and began to oppose it. Just to consolidate their power and keep their seats safe. Really, there’s no other credible explanation for their flip-flop.
They even went so far as to waste tens of thousands of district money on lawyers to fight against the reform, but let’s not get into that here. You’re wondering, what is THEIR story? How do THEY justify suddenly being against by-area voting?
Well, like a guitarist with only one string, they justify it the same way they justify anything they want to do or don’t want to do. UNIONS. Somehow, voting by area would give unions more power. Twang, twang. Somehow, though it can’t be proven, voting by area is a secret union plot. Twang, twang, twang.
It’s really absurd. When they blame unions for being behind the effort to recall their worthless butts, it’s not true, but at least it is plausible. But there’s no reason at all that the unions would be behind Measure H. Think about it. A reform that makes it cost less to run for office dilutes the power of all special interests – including the unions!
So when anti-democracy allies of the Board sat down to write their “No on Measure H” ballot statement, they twanged on that one guitar string for all it was worth, but they did not make music. Ms. Amato found FIVE absurd whoppers in the statement which must be removed or changed:
Approximately 85% of the annual budget is paid to the district’s employees – largely represented by unions fighting to preserve the status quo.
At best irrelevant as nobody can show the unions to have had anything to do with putting Measure H on the ballot. And gentlemen, consider the absurdity of characterizing a sweeping reform of voting methodology as “preserving the status quo.”
These public employee unions and their allies spent months getting this on the ballot.
Parents and taxpayers spent months getting it on the ballot. Unions had nothing to do with it. Strike that sentence.
These unions with their bloated pensions didn’t spend all that energy to help taxpayers – they’ve never cared about saving taxpayer money or put taxpayers above their paychecks. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/CaliforniaTeachersAssociation)
A totally false, malicious, AND irrelevant (as unions have nothing to do with Measure H) statement is backed up by a nonexistent website. Very smooth.
This special interest initiative is designed to make it easier to elect pro-union candidates who’d raise your taxes by imposing parcel taxes and more school bonds.
There’s no explanation how by-area voting favors pro-union candidates over anyone else, and Board members cannot raise taxes or bonds, you morons. Scratch it.
Unions spend more on politics than anyone – don’t increase their power. (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/Report31110.pdf)
Not only irrelevant, but A COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE! Unions do NOT spend more on politics than anyone. And to cap it off, the very report they cite shows that they’re lying. Fail, fail, epic fail! And these dunces want to run our kids’ education?
I’m adding the word union to the list of “conservative” sneers:
community organizer
social justice
vulnerable
underserved
union
Might as well add the words “truth” and “represent”. Our school board leans so far to the “Beall” it’s alienated the right and the left, and there is no one remaining to support it. (Unfortunately, the “Beall” is not the middle, it’s at ground level as the cattle herd travels on.)
Who could have written such a ridiculous ballot statement against a measure that represents everything Republican: local control, accountability, reducing government costs, and appealing to Orange County voters? Tony Beall is a disgrace to his own party.
Vote NO on Measure H.
Capistrano Unified School District is ONE school district encompassing many cites and unincorporated areas. As bad of shape that the school district is in, it can get worse. Voting yes on H is an example of something we can do that can and would make the state of CUSD worse.
My reasons for advocating NO on Measure H are simple:
1) Measure H will not provide better local control. The entire body of 7 Trustees makes the decisions for all of CUSD, with a simple majority of 4 Trustees making the vote that impacts YOU! This means that easily and often 4 of the 6 Trustees that YOU had no vote for and had no say in will make the decisions/votes that impact YOU and YOUR family. This is NO representation. The 1 Trustee YOU had a vote in can be out-voted to the detriment of YOU and YOUR family each and every time on matters ranging from school district policies, to curriculum, to allocation of financial resources. This is NOT better local control, like the advocates for this measure say.
2) Saving $200,000 is a lot of money. However, in context it represents only about 0.03% of CUSDs annual budget that they’d have to set aside for the election to keep it as is. For CUSD, this amounts to about $1.00 per registered voter per election and about $0.17 for EACH of the Trustees that you would not be able to cast a vote for. Really now. I’ve served in our armed forces, as many others have and do. Personally, it upsets me to think that my fellow Americans would be willing to sell-out so cheaply on something as fundamental to our freedom as the right to vote for an elected official for 17 CENTS! Elections cost. That is a cost of doing business, that many of our fellow Americans have paid and are paying that price in blood for. This is not a freedom or right that we should relinquish so cheaply! In the interest of saving money, we may as well start increasing the terms of our elected officials or making them lifetime appointments, to get rid of those costly elections. I don’t think so!
3) The group of individuals that have pressed for this change, wanted the current Trustees to strip these 6 of 7 votes from us, without even letting us voters, parents and taxpayers decide. What’s that say for the agenda of these folks, when they wanted and tried to effect this change without even letting it come to US to decide! They have attacked the current Trustees for voting down effecting this change on their own, and forcing it to go to the voters. We have the right to decide on this, and I sincerely hope that the majority of my fellow citizens see beyond the rhetoric, and grasp just how bad this can be. When the 1 Trustee YOU voted for is out-voted every single time and on key issues that matter to YOU, YOU are NOT going to feel that you are very well represented or have much in the way of local control.
Also, consider the Trustees this election that you choose to vote for, and where they stand on this matter. I say that because if Measure H is voted down like I pray it will, other Trustees may replace current Trustees, that believe they know better than us and take another vote on this to effect the change on how we elect Trustees (regardless of what we previously voted!).
4) CUSD has Trustees areas. The Trustee areas were designed to spread where the Trustees come from throughout the district, however, since they all impact us, we currently vote for each and every Trustee. By changing it to where you ONLY vote for 1 Trustee, YOUR Trustee, it only follows for that Trustee to put the interests of those that elected him/her first and foremost. This approach may well not work out for all the areas of CUSD. We follow this model of representation at the County, State and Federal levels (and many areas do not fare well by this with winners and losers), but this is a unique model for Local communities. At the County, State, and Federal levels, votes/decisions are often made that disenfranchise other voters/taxpayers, as backroom deals are made and decisions are made on where to spend scarce resources. I do not believe we want this approach for our school district, where the ones that pay the price are students and children. Within CUSD, there is already a gross inequity in facilities across the district that was due to the prior Board. This occurred because too many of us were not watching. Now, everybody is watching, so there is a group that wants to change how we elect Trustees to better facilitate the ability to raid some areas of funds to disproportionately allocate those funds to other areas (the disparity in school facilities across the district and disproportionate funding of facilities across the district proves this).
Shall we then also agree it is appropriate to break cities up into city councilman/councilwoman areas, such that we only vote for ONE. Again, this body makes decisions that impacts the entire community it represents. This is one steep and slippery slope that some would have us step on, with no assurances or checks and balances in place to prevent disenfranchising some of our fellow citizens within our community. This is a bad idea.
When you call an elected officials office, some of the first questions asked are: where do you live, are you in their area, are you one of their constituents, etc.. I believe that it follows that elected officials do not care so much about what others think that can’t and won’t be voting for them!
5) Recalling Trustees will be far easier. Whether that is for the good or bad will likely depend on the Trustee, and the reasons. However, Recall elections cost us the taxpayers each and every time. I am not of the opinion that we should make it easier to Recall an elected official. As we have seen, we can find ourselves in a tit for tat situation where a motivated group of swing voters can effect a Recall, and we can do that over and over again at the taxpayer expense.
6) The advocates for changing how we elect Trustees have said we need to change how we elect Trustees, because CUSD has become too big. Fine. The answer for that is to break up CUSD then, and truly give each individual area the true local control and local representation of their schools. This way, each area maintains control of their funds, and can set appropriate policies for their community. Howver, if CUSD is broken up, other areas wouldn’t be able to raid them of their fair share of funds. This and other reasons certainly presents possibilities on why the advocates behind this agenda have not put this option forward. Their only answer for providing better local control and better representation is to strip 6 of our 7 votes from us, with nothing to ensure we will be better for it, except to tell us to trust their school Board candidate/politician! I do not find this acceptable.
Vote NO on Measure H.
Vern
One of the negatives of allowing posts as long as a person wants to compose them is the twenty page book posted by Mr. Reidel. His arguments are actually the best reasons in favor of changing to a by trustee voting method. Mr. Reidel has spoken at several CUSD Board meetings and his presentations are bizare, never on topic and very “party line” in favor of the current trustees. What he fails to recognize is that most of us voted for many of these current trustees BECAUSE they promised to change the way we elect trustees to a by-trustee voting method. SJC Mayor Lon Uso and former recall leader Kevin Murphy stood in front of a CUSD meeting when Mr. Reidel was present and they both testified that Winsten, Maddox and friends had promised this to them and the voters. These inept trustees then changed their positions. Why? Because the best way to keep themselves elected to office was to have at large voting so that their limitless funding sources could continue to buy their elections for them. What became even more disgusting was that their campaign donors then received over $655,000 in legal settlements with money being taken right out of the classroom.
Very little of the CUSD buget is actually “discretionary” so Mr. Reidel is extremely misleading when he says that $200,000 isn’t really a lot of money. It is and so is the $100,000 that the trustees spent hiring their personal friends as attorneys to fight this change. Look up Mr. Greer, who also defended Anna Bryson’s boss Chriss Street, and see what kind of scum these trustees consider their friends and worthy of diverting classroom money to.
We need to reduce the power of unions and outside interests in CUSD. The only way to do that is level the playing field. Large school districts all of CA are changing to this method. Long Beach, LA and several others. In order to be in compliance with CA Voting Rights laws large school districts will HAVE to make this change.
CUSD need real reform not just talk about it. IF the trustees won’t keep their promise we keep their promise for them. Anyone that supports these seven theives are suspect and so are their motves.
I have to agree with SaveCUSD. Mr. Reidel’s reasoning would be almost laughable, if it didn’t take so long to sort through. In reality, many CUSD constituents have zero representation on the board, because we are outvoted by other areas. San Clemente, for instance, would like to elect someone local who has our schools’ best interests at heart, but Mike Winsten draws his support from outside our community. The change to area elections would save hundreds of thousands of today’s dollars and even more over the course of our district’s future. It would even the playing field for all candidates for all areas. It would make a campaign to challenge an incumbent more affordable. In that way, it broadens voters’ choices, makes the local trustee accountable, and erases much of the influence that outside political interests can have on our local schools.
How much would my vote for seven trustees really matter if no one can afford to challenge them?
Vern and Reality Check. I hardly wrote a 20 page book, and I stand by those reasons I provided above. I trust that the majority of voters will as well. I have spoke with and know both Lon Uso and Kevin Murphy, though not well. I like both those individuals, but maybe we disagree on this point, I don’t know. I never heard the current Trustees promise to change how we elect Trustees. Even if they had, I would have disagreed with them on this point.
In my view, every CUSD Trustee impacts the district with their votes, so a Trustee does not belong to one area or another nor represent only one area or schools and not others. Every Trustee is voted into office by all the voters of the district, and is supposed to represent all the voters of the district. I’ve misrepresented nothing.
If you can’t follow and understand the clear reasons I put forth above on why this is a bad idea to change how we elect Trustees, that is your problem not mine. Your casting aspersions on me from the shadows by not identifying yourself speaks to your character, and not well.
Mr. Reidel, neither Vern nor I called your post a 20-page book, but your confusion does not end there. The cities in CUSD have unique characters, histories and needs that are not being served by trustees elected at-large. To subject this district to yet another lawsuit, so that your minority viewpoint can be “educated” in the courts, rather than by the school board, or by voters in November, is self-serving. Accountability, local control, and reduce costs will benefit everyone AND comply with California voting rights laws, thereby protecting our district from future legal costs.
Reality Check,
I’ll admit when I’m wrong. You are correct. It was Save CUSD addressing Vern, that made the remark. That does not change the fact of the remark being made. My apologies to Vern, as it was Save CUSD that made the remark and was the intended recipient of my response with you, not Vern. The balance of the confusion is yours. With regards to lawsuits, I see the possibility of those lining up either way the district goes. If you have your way, just wait until a coalition of 4 Trustees forms, and decides to disenfranchise the constituents in the other 3 Trustee areas and there is nothing they can do about it at all since they have no say in the election of those 4 Trustees. Obviously, those 4 Trustees would be providing well for their areas (not the district as a whole), and likely making the constituents in their areas quite content. I make no promises on this, but this will likely be my last response to you as an anonymous poster, hiding in the shadows.
Mr. Robert,
A quick look at the CUSD Recall website under Winsten and you can find :Candidate Mike Winsten offers sensible solutions to improve transparency and restore public trust in their school district
Oct 26, 2008 Filed in: Public Statements | Reform Campaign 4Q08
Term Limits Study the adoption of some form of trustee term limits and whether to convert the election of Trustees from at-large Board seats to elections by geographic areas to facilitate greater public participation and diversity in the composition of the CUSD Board over time.
This is a little more generic than his and the other’s statements listed in campaign media like The Capistrano Dispatch, MV Watchdog letters, the PALS interviews, and I believe the Register had the same along with Red County. I didn’t spend much time on it, but I am sure you can find all of the candidates except Gary Miller and Duane Stiff were campaigning for it back then. Mr. Miller and Dr. Stiff didn’t say much about anything. It would be too expensive and cumbersome to try to divide CUSD-talk about city financial and union problems! I think the cities and unions involved would not want to take on the responsibilities and debts when it really came down to it, and voters would not be willing to pay more taxes to merely have more administrators heading smaller districts, and the cities that would shoulder more special ed and low income costs than others would want different boundaries to change their costs…it would get ugly and stay ugly….and talk about API scores and boundaries…..
Really, 4 against 3…isn’t that how the voting should be occasionally instead of the 7-0? They are voting in front of the public…just like senators and assemblyman…are you saying that is fixed also?
Your scenario could happen just as easily today but would be much more difficult to remedy, as those four well-served communities would elect all seven trustees, not just their four and no one individual could mount a challenge without outside financing. But few, if any, issues serve four of seven communities, so your fear is unfounded.
With regard to anonymity, you have never let that silence your voice in the past. Many nameless people sit biting their tongues when your blue card is chosen at board meetings, because the trustees fear criticism and accept/reject comments based on names. But here, my voice is a symbol; it represents more than an individual.
confused,
When a system is or believed to be broken, it is prudent to discuss all options. I have no problem with the discussion on changing how we elect Trustees. My issue is with the attempt to circumvent the voters as was tried, and ignoring all the ramifications of the change. The details involved with the proposed change have not been disclosed to the public. There are no provisions in place to provide for a check-and-balance to ensure some Trustee areas are not disenfranchised. I think we can agree that this has occurred in the past, but that was largely because too many constituents were not paying attention.
A key point worth noting is that we effected change of the CUSD Board through the voting process, and this was done by all the CUSD voters for all the Trustees. All CUSD voters had and have a voice in the composition of the Board, as it should be. Those that knew or felt they were being disenfranchised could do something about it, and vote out the Trustees that were not representing them! This is what has happened.
The change being proposed is different. Many areas of the district can be disenfranchised. Under this change, disenfranchised areas and constituents will be able to do absolutely nothing. I have no problem with 4/3 votes. The key diifference you are not recognizing is that under this proposed system change, the same minority of 3 Trustees/areas may always (not occasionally) be in the minority with regards to key votes on funding allocations/projects, and there would be absolutely noting they or their constituents could do about it, ever. That is by definition no representation.
Can you think of a single funding allocation that would serve four of seven district areas?
Can you point to a single “check” or “balance” against the current danger of disenfranchisement?
Can you remember a single open discussion of this topic by the current trustees before they decided to fight it?
The truth is that Aliso Viejo wants someone they’ve seen before in their community, at a district school maybe, who has some history with public schools, or even a child who attends one. They don’t want to just accept what voters in six other communities choose — that recently got them Ken “Lopez” “Maddox” “Lopez-Maddox” “Maddox-Lopez” and we all know how well that worked.
Reidel’s logic isn’t and what might be there is severely flawed.
I have kids in two State Legislative districts. According to Reidel that means that I should be able to elect both of them. Since one of my kids goes to college in Nevada, according to Reidel, I should have a vote for the entire NV congressional delegation and their state legislators! Ridiculous, and the trustee apologists who are controlled by the “new Fleming” – Tony Beall, fully realize that they don’t have a sound argument.
Every County Supervisor is elected “by area”. All of their votes affect me but I don’t vote for all of them.
Every state legislator is elected “by area”. All of their votes affect me but I don’t vote for all of them.
Every congressman in the US is elected “by area”. All of their votes affect me but I don’t vote for all of them.
See the pattern? 220,000 voters controlled by out of district money doesn’t equate to democracy or true representation.
Recent polls show that over 70% of CUSD supports this needed change. Keep typing Reidel…you are making that number closer to 80% every time you weigh in.
The irony here, is that I’m not the one advocating a change. They’re the ones that want to change how we’ve elected Trustees for decades, a system I had nothing to do with by the way! I say that the burden is on them to defend this change they want, and respond in a civil manner to address the concerns I have raised. They have failed to do so, choosing instead to attack those that speak out and raise concerns with their proposed change. Those that post here as proponents for changing how we elect Trustees remain anonymous and in the shadows.
As is typical, this previous poster misrepresented what I posted. I already explained and recognized that there were differences in how we elect officials at the Local level, as opposed to County, State and Federal. My point was and is that at the most basic and Local level, we can and should elect our officials by voting for each and every one. School districts and cities do not need to and should not move to a republic style election of representative method. We just aren’t big enough or complex enough to warrant going away from the direct democratic vote.
Money, whether it comes from within the district or outside the district can only effect the electability of the candidates so much. Money will always be a factor in elections, whether Measure H passes or not. I find it insulting that proponents of this change think we voters are so easily swayed in how we will vote by bright and shiny bobbles.
Do not vote away your right to elect each and every Trustee that represents YOU and YOUR interests on the CUSD school Board.
Vote NO on Measure H.
Mr. Reidel,
Still confused- I see now you are no longer fighting that the current trustees never campaigned for change in converting our at large system to a local control issue. I am glad my Google search helped you. I am a strong Republican with local control roots through and through. This measure is the only way I can see to limit any and all special interest groups. I agree with you that unions sometimes use their money to politic against their member’s wishes. Local control makes it harder for a particular group (unions and others) to gain control by running a slate and going after inactive absentee voters, so I am all for it. It also makes it easier to recall at much lower costs if truly needed, instead of needing the whole district to fix one area’s mistake. Only until then, will we be able to encourage others to run for this otherwise thankless job. If it were local control the person running would be a known entity; a person who has already proven they are a public servant, a community business volunteer, etc… They would start out with the trust of their area, knowledge of the needs of their area, and hopefully the best person for the job!
CUSD is too diverse, covering too many cities, too many income levels, too many facility problems, too many egos for any one trustee to know- yet, if a trustee took only their own area they could be experts when presenting facts to be voted upon. It would be up to each trustee to “sell” their needs to the entire board when coming to facility needs for the good of CUSD as a whole. That is how it is supposed to be done now, yet I have felt neglected for years from my trustee. They never seem to vote for my area- don’t know if they even have been to my kids’ schools in years. Local Control would demand this from a trustee.
The problem is that most people don’t voice their problems because they either didn’t vote for the “person,” they voted the campaign slogan, or are afraid to get involved. Again, I feel local control would get more folks involved because they would feel ownership in “their candidate” and pay attention to what is going on instead of expecting others to “govern” for them. It is much easier to send that email, or make that phone call to “your guy” vs. the board of trustees…or filling out a blue card that might be picked after staying for 3 hours in a meeting that you only wanted to talk about 1 thing that affected you and they cut your well planned speech in half.
Add the $200,000 election savings each and every election from here on out, and saving the possibility of another lawsuit against CUSD because the area did not have proper representation….it just makes sense. Sorry sir, I can’t think of any circumstance where Local Control does not surpass At Large. Even if one area votes in a complete dork, they would soon realize it and be able to recall him out quickly and cheaply and the other 6 trustees would out vote him. Not sure how the measure will be written, but I will vote for local control in CUSD.
Resistance to change is natural. Defense of a system that is not working is not.
CUSD has a need for change, an opportunity for change, and a responsibility to change for the better. We need to shift toward local control, accountability and an election system that welcomes public servants and not career politicians.
Measure H provides that change. In addition, it will save our school district hundreds of thousands of dollars. Voters, taxpayers, parents and students will benefit and future trustees will respond accordingly.
In other words, the savings are welcome and the reform is long overdue.
CUSD has problems. On that, I think everybody agrees. At this point, it’s just a question of figuring out how best to fix those problems. Measure H is change I neither trust or believe in. There are too many down-sides if this passes, and then we’re stuck.
This change the proponents want is not thought out well enough to suit me, or maybe they thought it out just fine to suit them. When we choose to fix this school district, we need to do it right. Measure H is neither right nor the answer. Measure H is jumping from the frying pan directly into the fire, because the pan was too hot. It makes no sense as it stands.
Vote NO on Measure H.
Everytime I see the word lawsuit, or election next to one of our school districts, it makes me wonder where those naddering nabobs are? This small group of unhappy persons repeatedly come to MV council meetings and repeat and repeat how much the taxpayers have ‘had to spend’ to file and defend lawsuits, and special elections especially recall elections.
MV is small peanuts compared to what the school district has had to defend and pay for. Yet these so called do gooders never complain about how much money is being taken out of the schools. They only want to remind people in MV for purposes of politics how much similar actions have cost. When the mayor constantly repeats that we have over 50% reserves, adding to over $24 million, maybe open government should be worth an election.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not agree with the numbers she readily throws around. Partly because she never discusses the $50million plus in bonded indebtedness and our unfunded employee benefits. Just be consistent guys. Do you really care about the cost of these lawsuits and elections, or are you just trying to look like you care when it serves your political agenda?