And duh. John is a rock-ribbed Republican who is only running because he cares about the education of his kids, the waste of taxpayer money under the current board of clowns, and the loss of value to homeowners thanks to their misrule. The clowns are losing even that one string on that one-stringed guitar we talked about: “union, union, union.” Here, I’ll be interviewing John soon, and also bringing you good news on Measure H; for now here’s John’s press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 1, 2010
John Alpay for Capistrano Unified School Board
Court Issues Final Ruling in Lawsuit Against
CUSD Trustee Candidate John Alpay
Judge Determines that Candidate is not Union Supported
SAN CLEMENTE – Today Orange County Superior Court Judge Kim Dunning issued a final ruling in the lawsuit relating to the ballot statement submitted by Capistrano Unified School District Candidate John Alpay. In issuing her decision from the bench, Judge Dunning determined that the vast majority of allegations against Alpay were without merit and the petition to remove the relevant statements were denied.
Of key importance in issuing her ruling, Judge Dunning determined the allegations that Alpay was a union backed candidate could not be sustained and were without merit. In addition, the ruling also stated that no portion of Alpay’s statement constituted a personal attack on any other candidate.
“I am very pleased with today’s court decision. It is a complete victory as it affirms what I have said all along,” said John Alpay. “Under no circumstances shall I seek or accept union assistance or support. Today in court no evidence was presented that could suggest otherwise.”
The court did order a slight modification to the text of Alpay’s statement, but allowed the underlying substance to remain. Instead of suggesting that the school board can not raise taxes, Alpay was granted permission to amend his statement to more accurately reflect his conviction that taxes should not be increased and that unnecessary and extraneous expenditures must be eliminated.
# # #
San Clemente Parks & Recreation Commissioner John Alpay is active in the San Clemente community serving in a variety of capacities, including the San Clemente Parks & Recreation Commission, Talega Budget & Finance Committee and the Spanish Village Foundation Board of Directors. He is also a proud member of San Clemente Sunrise Rotary Club and the Hawaiian Surf Club of San Onofre. Together with his wife Rochelle, they have three children, the oldest of which is entering Kindergarten at a local Capistrano Unified school this September. See www.johnalpay.com
spin baby spin.
Re-e-eally. Too bad you weren’t there to make your case to the judge. I bet you would have been real convincing.
The facts are the facts, boy.
The facts are the facts; “Boy”?
Really? That level of disrespect is utterly uncalled for.
Right back atchya, anonymous commenter named “What a crock” whose entire comment is “spin baby spin.”
Class knows no bounds.
The desperation of the pro-trustees supporters is almost funny.
CUSD is being taken back by parents, Republicans, homeowners and the voters who are tired of the out of control spending, pay offs to political donors and the arrogance and incompetence of the Beall controlled puppets.
With this revolt in full swing the only argument the puppets and their master has is “unions”. The facts prove that Measure H and the Recall were not union initiated, organized or financed. Those facts can not be disputed. Now that everyone, but Beall’s half dozen friends, can see the truth from all sides do you think they will repent and admit their lunacy? no they won’t, because they want to control CUSD’s budget and make our fine schools private sources for more money to their pockets and bank accounts. BUT, just like the City of Bell, CUSD has had enough of the Tony Beall corruption machine and it ends on Nov. 2nd.
Vern,
You forgot to give context to the Judge’s ruling, but I’m sure it’s just an oversight. Judge Dunning was very careful to note that her ruling was limited solely to the language of the statements themselves. She noted that the statement that “No union was involved in the placement of this measure on the ballot …” was a very specific statement. The fact that she allowed that statement and others (while striking some, hardly the “slight modification” claimed by Alpay), does not mean that unions are not backing Alpay and the other opposition and recall candidates. Anyone who thinks the union is not all over this election is either delirious or simply too partisan to see the truth. Whether you agree with union involvement or not is another issue, but to seriously claim that they’re staying out of the race – please.
I assume you’ll forget the context in the same manner when the ruling comes down on the lawsuits against the incumbents, but I won’t hold my breath.
Actually Newbie I’ll have some more detailed coverage soon. The Union as might be expected would LIKE to be all over this, but the Children First team as a whole is keeping their distance and independence.
Measure H has nothing to do with the Union, who may or may not support it – but it’s so popular it doesn’t need the Union’s support.
Meanwhile Alpay and McNicholas have pointedly refused the Union’s endorsement or donations; while the other three candidates grudgingly accepted it while making it clear there are no strings attached and that they will be representing the interests of parents, students and taxpayers.
Folks.
From what I have heard and read the judge ruled that CUSD candidate John Alpay must alter his “false and misleading” candidate statement as challenged in the August 16th Writ of Mandate.
Pg 4 line 14.
Specifically, “By law, school districts cannot raise or lower taxes, or operate under deficit spending; I cannot pretend and tell you otherwise.” Bogus comments.
Pg 5, line 19 “False and misleading” text that must be revised
“I will immediately move to cut unnecessary expenditures by terminating the hundreds of attorneys on retainer by CUSD and change the manner in which legal settlements are approved.”
Having recently been in court with a similar challenge in Mission Viejo I would opine that the bar to overturn ballot text is rather high. The court told us that they do permit hyperbole. In this case these two false candidate statements are now thrown out.
Those are minor, compared with the (evidently) slanderous accusation that he’s backed by the unions, which the judge found utterly false.
Not true from what I’ve heard.
The Judge confirmed that he took money from the unions in his last election but since he hadn’t taken any yet this time, the statement was not yet false, so it could stay.
Vern doesn’t want you to know the truth, just his spin.
Alpay has not taken union money and has pledged not to. He wrote a statement that was truthful. He offered alternative language to make his statement flawless in the eyes of the court. AND the lawsuits against the incumbent trustees have yet to be heard and decided. Stay tuned for more of the truth: Parents are taking back our school district.
Reality Check,
Your ballot statement is supposed to be flawless without a court challenge. Usually, the court throws out the false statements and doesn’t let the candidate refill the space with new language (which is what occurred on the Yes on H statement) Alpay filled his space with new statements that were acceptable to the winners and were on different topics than that which was removed by the court.
The irony of your moniker is almost comical if you realize what you are saying as you folks seem to run fast and loose with too many facts.
What a crock. I was surprised being told that the judge permitted alternative language .
However, that should not diminish the accomplishment of the attorney proving their case on the deleted “false and misleading” verbiage.
Larry,
I’ve seen lots of these over the years and generally they hugely favor the candidate. But rarely do I see them grant such latitude in changing the statement. The only thing I could figure is that she must have felt sorry for him and thought he was just naive because there is no question that she absolutely struck his false and misleading language. I’ve also seen them change a word or two to alter potential mis-representations, but that didn’t apparently occur here in this case. It seems pretty clear, he was wrong, but he dodged a disjointed ballot statement bullet.
From what I was told, on the Measure H side, there was zero latitude. I read that there was no patience either and that the Yes on H group in the gallery got admonished by the Judge.
I would venture to guess that many ballot statements and arguments might be altered if each went through the rigors of a court challenge.
Thankfully, most do not but court challenges now define the crazy politics of CUSD. Overall, it seems that the majority of the challenged statements passed the legal challenge and the minor changes required by the judge are just that, minor.
Most importantly, contrary to everything that the current board supporters hang their entire campaign upon, the judge confirmed that there is no evidence that the candidate or measure are union driven or financially supported (which we all knew was true, anyway.)
I’m looking forward to voting “Yes” on Measure H and “Yes” for Mr. Alpay in November.
Parent,
Your statement is not true at all.
It seems like the union side is playing off the same talking points.
The judge said that the challenged statement in Alpay’s case had not come to pass yet,/u> and thus it wasn’t false YET. But, the judge acknowledged that Alpay had taken union money but it was not for this election,
And, that the challenged statement that the union had nothing to do with measure H hitting the ballot was so narrow due to the fact that ONLY the board could put the measure on the ballot. So, due to the narrow wording, it didn’t violate the law either. BUT,ALL parties agreed that the union was involved in the Measure H PROCESS.
Honesty is gonna kill you guys.
Since Mr. Alpay has never run for school board before, suggesting that he is a “union supported candidate” in this race for school board (where no one can prove any union support) is RIDICULOUS! Trying justify your false accusation by speculating that it MAY happen, is well, a little too “Nostradamus” for me.
Further, the judge allowed the phrase “no union was involved” to remain the Measure H argument. So, I take that to mean that “NO UNION WAS INVOLVED”. The only place I have ever read that the proponents of this ballot measure “agreed that the union was involved” was written by YOU–and you believe that its okay to declare something a fact based upon what YOU speculate MAY happen at some random future date.
The one spinning here is YOU. Can’t wait to hear the results of the next round of candidate statement challenges.
Not saying that the ruling was incorrect, but any lawyer who has been in front of Dunning will tell you that she is, to put it kindly, dumb as a sack of rocks. She’s also contentious and disingenuous, so I look at anything coming out of her courtroom with suspicion.
So, if you are not saying the ruling was incorrect, what then ARE you saying?
I presume that you are an Alpay supporter.
I don’t trust any family values type Republicans, so no. All I’m saying is that Dunning’s ruling on a matter of complexity is automatically suspect, similar to Thomas presenting a Constitutional law analysis.
The Union got spanked in court today.
EVERY one of their challenges to the trustees statements were 100% REJECTED on the MERITS.
Too bad for them.