Taking the Agenda out of sequence tonight, Mission Viejo mayor Kelley took the proposed Resolution Agenda Item to oppose CUSD Measure H out of sequence and listened as members of the public and our Mission Viejo resident CUSD Area 6 Trustee Ellen Addonizio presented their comments for supporting this Resolution. Robert Reidel, who claims to have children residing in 3 different proposed areas discussed the added cost for maintaining the current voting arrangement which he said equates to $100,000 per year which is a small cost for representation when CUSD has an annual budget of around $340 million dollars.
Also in attendance was Area 2 CUSD Trustee Sue Palazzo.
After a brief discussion, at 6:52 p.m., the council voted unanimously in support of the Resolution.
Note: We agree. Vote NO on Measure H
This may well be the one and only sane decision this council has made. Sorry I missed seeing the historic moment.
Larry,
A correction. I do not ” have children residing in 3 different proposed areas”. I have children that would matriculate through three CUSD Trustee areas. If Measure H were to pass, under existing Trustee boundaries, I would only have a vote for the Trustee in which my childrens’ elementary school is located. I would have no vote for the Trustee that represents the area in which their intermediate school is located. I would have no vote for the Trustee that represents the area in which their high school islocated.
Measure H would not give me due representation.
Vote NO on Measure H
Robert. Thanks for the clarification. We agree however that should H pass you could end up having your children attending public schools in Trustee areas where you do not vote for the Trustee.
That is but one reason I oppose Measure H and will be recommending a NO vote.
Why should I trust Trish Kelley ??
Exactly – and if DAVE LECKNESS says Measure H is a bad idea… why then, it must be good! Right?
CAPO parent.
Do you truly expect me to answer your question?
That every single one of the Mission Viejo City Councilmembers, that certainly don’t see eye to eye on everything, voted for the resolution opposing Measure H is very telling. They ALL recognized, across the board, that Measure H is bad for CUSD and Mission Viejo.
That not a single Measure H Leader, Trustee candidate favoring Measure H, proponent or advocate for the measure had the salt to show up and make a case in support of their measure, at a televised meeting no less, spoke volumes.
Vote NO on Measure H
Robert,
Were there any letters or emails of support? On the CUCF website, they were talking about how they all emailed the City.
As history has shown, the crappy way the union treats anyone who opposes them, I would be surprised if you will see anyone out there en masse.
What a crock.
After the public addressed the council we were informed that there were 6 emails opposing the city taking a position on Measure H. The mayor went on to state having received a number supporting the action.
So there you go.
Robert, any adjustment to your statement about no support?
Thanks Larry
Measure H is the brain child of the old guard trustee Duane Stiff, CUSD unions and their alliies to takeover CUSD, which they ironically describe as “taking back” CUSD. Do we really want to go back to when Fleming and his puppets ruled CUSD and the CUSD unions sat meekly by as long as they got theirs? When Newhart was an absolute dump? When $53 million dollars was dumped into a monstrous new and un-needed adminstration building instead of being put into our schools and school programs?
The lead proponent is Erin Kutnick, who in approximately 2004 published an article in a local newspaper extolling the virtues of district wide elections and denouncing by area elections (which Measure H seeks to implement). What has changed since 2004? Fleming and all the old guard trustees were sweep out of office. Kutnick ran for and lost a trustee seat notwithstanding approximately $100,000 in support for her and the two other union backed candidates (who also lost) by the CUSD unions. The teachers’ union in CUSD is the largest special interest group in CUSD (its mother, CTA, is the largest special interest group, by far, in CUSD). The CUSD unions have determined that it will be easier to use all their money in selected by area elections to get a majority of the CUSD board than to try and do so under the existing district wide election process.
In addition to the points made by others in previous posts, if you want the CUSD unions to negotiate with themselves when it comes time for new contracts, than vote for Measure H.
“Measure H is the BRAIN CHILD…”
You guys act like switching to by-area elections is some exotic, sinister, unheard-of act of subversion. It’s actually a very common thing to do when a district gets too big. That’s why the Dept. of Education has a streamlined process for districts that choose that reform. (Although I’m glad it’s going to a popular election rather than that alternative.)
So, Vern,
What exactly is too big of a district? Is it based upon number of children? Geographic foot print? Number of voters?
Further, As I learn more about this issue, I am seeing how bad the whole thing is from a whole different perspective.
Let’s set aside the ‘special interests’ issue for a moment, and look at the simple facts that in way too many cases, the singe address where a child lives will be represented by at least two and sometimes three trustees depending on the school boundary lines by the time they clear high school.
Also, there is the one giant problem of 6 high schools and 7 trustees. So, there is an entire trustee area with no direct representation in any high school. I’ve not seen that one hit the radar yet by anyone.
So, aside from ignoring the potential union impact issues, how do you explain away the immense boundary issues?
I am convinced that NO on H is the only way to go regardless of whether the union is the big beneficiary of a Yes vote.
What other school district in South Orange County has by area voting? In fact, what school district in Orange County has by area voting?
What other school district in Orange County is as large as CUSD?
Vern,
Please answer the question since you are the one is pushing this measure because the ‘district is too big’.
What is too big and how do you measure it? Serious question.
Thanks
Well, since you’re asking nice, I’ll try to answer. I’ve never studied the relative sizes of school districts or thought about that question.
But I’d say if it costs $100,000 to $200,000 to run for trustee in a district, then that may be a district that should start voting by area.
I’d say if you have to cover 195 square miles to make your case to 220,000 voters, at 38 elementary schools, 10 middle schools, 6 high schools, you MIGHT be better off under a voting-by-area system.
(I feel like I’m doing “you might be a redneck.”)
If a lot of people in a district think they might be better off with by-area voting, then maybe they would be. And I have the impression that an awful lot of voters in the CUSD want that. In fact I have the impression a majority do. We’ll see if I’m wrong or not in a couple months.
And stop talking like this is the same thing as “breaking up” a district. That would be a whole other thing.
Vern,
Thank you for the try, but I don’t think you really addressed the question in a meaningful way. I asked how big was TOO big?
Your reply, appears to me, to be well we know that Capo is too big (because it has to be for you to support your Yes on H stance), so beyond you stating the size of Capo, in all seriousness, how big is too big?
By the way, we are not the biggest in OC.
The more I learn about the ‘by trustee’ area, the stronger my feelings are becoming about strong opposition to it as it is being sold and applied here in our district.
There is a distinction that I am also looking for from the anti-union side. And that is the distinction of whether Measure H is a union creation or an opportunistic chance to get even with the board and for the losses in the last couple of elections. (Is there much of a difference?, for that I am currently unsure, but the timing sure is looking suspect)
And, since you are a presenting a solid YES perspective, how do you deal with the idea that there are 7 trustees and 6 high schools? That means that an entire trustee area under the ‘union’ scheme has zero high school representation.
I would welcome your thoughts on that issue too.
You know what, Crock? I don’t live there. If you feel that you would be represented better under Measure H, vote yes on it; if you don’t, then vote no.
I’ve presented the Yes arguments because they make good sense to me, and I have the impression that the majority of voters down there will agree (but we’ll find out November 2.) The No arguments have got plenty of play on this blog too, so why don’t you all make up your own minds now? If I lived there, I would be for it.
Just did an interview with John Alpay. What a great guy. I think I’ll put that up first thing Monday morning. See you all at the big rally Friday, I’m just excited to be peripherally involved with another exciting mass movement that cuts across ideological and partisan lines! (Like the one to save the Fairgrounds)
Vern,
See this is what drives me nuts about you guys.
There are real issues with this and as a supporter of it, regardless of where you live, I believe you need to be accountable for your decision.
I believe I am asking rational and reasonable questions here about the 6 high schools vs. the 7 trustee areas and I notice you ignored that. Why would that be?
I think it is wrong to drop yourself into an issue and use your authority to advocate an issue and then not deal with the quite clear thorny issues your endorsement entails.
So, I ask again, how do you address that giant issue?
Well, Crock, I doubt anything I say will satisfy you. I’ve repeatedly said – as have most H supporters – that nothing is PERFECT in life or democracy, but some things are a lot better than others.
And what you see as a FATAL FLAW here (and pounce on like a cat on an unfortunate rodent, and drag up to the doorstep mauled) doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me. So ONE of these seven areas does not contain a high school. (If anyone knows what area that would be, please pipe in.) That would mean, the trustee elected from that area would take a special interest in the one or two high schools that are nearby – the high schools which would be attended by the kids of his/her constituents. That just makes sense. In a way, that high school would get extra attention! (Uh-oh, is that a problem now?)
Hung out with Alpay, you’d probably like him if you met him. His oldest daughter Autumn has just entered kindergarten in an area adjacent to his. He doesn’t think Measure H is a problem at all. Of course you may think he’s biased. But passing Measure H now is not gonna help anyone who’s trying to run this year. They are having to raise SCADS of money (while mostly giving the unions the cold shoulder – quite a feat!)
I did do some thinking about this issue last week – maybe you skimmed through that quickly. Or maybe you thought my points were lame. but this is what I wrote:
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!
Vern,
Thanks for the response.
I have to say though, that it doesn’t make any sense.
The voters in the 7th area will have zero control over where their child goes to high school and no ability to have a direct voice in what happens to their child’s high school – talk about the lack of voter control.
Aside from that giant rip in the fabric, the reality that a vast majority of the kids do not go through all three schools in the same trustee area, this will be a common problem all across the district and that to me is also a fatal flaw.
In fact, there are certain cities that may not have enough ability to ‘represent’ that they won’t even have a majority in any single area.
Regardless of the union impact, the true facts about who the initiators are, the problems of undue influence due to the union dues, etc… the larger issue is that it just doesn’t work.
I actually took a step back from the ideological issues to try and grasp the practical perspective and this is where the wheels firmly fell off the cart and no one has been able to give any level of comfort on that concern.
As far as Mr. Alpay goes, I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him.
All I hear is that he is looking for the first seat he can get his hands on. City Council didn’t work and thus, as was told to me, he said “I have to start somewhere”.
Doesn’t seem genuine to me. Will know lots more though in the next couple of weeks.
Vern, I would be willing to put a side wager out there with you on how much money the union will put into independent expenditures to support Alpay’s candidacy and the Yes on H campaign. OF COURSE, these expenditures are “independent”. cough, sputter, choke.
Well, I look at my response and I think it makes sense. We’ve taken this discussion as far as we can.
The “side wager” though, that sounds interesting. I may take you up on that. Write me chezvern@aol.com
Vern,
That is Trustee area 7. My Trustee area, that does not have a high school within its boundaries. Though, why should that be any more of a problem than the fact that the intermediate school my children would go to is not in that Trustee area either. Here’s a link to the Trustee boundaries, seeing how you are unfamiliar with both the school district and the area.
http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1232963604565
On that note, as much as the other side which you are supporting lobbies against ‘outsiders’ getting involved with our school district, here you are as an outsider chiming in on how we should change the structure of our school district.
Thanks for the info Robert. Funny point you make, me as an outsider, comparable to the unions and the PRI/Education Alliance gang. Doesn’t quite fly though.
I have no selfish interest in the outcome, and I’m obviously very much a latecomer. I just happened to run into a lot of people involved, and was inspired by their struggle, and have lent my blog platform and prose style such as it is. If you notice, I scrupulously give all you dissenters a platform to argue back too.
So … nah.
Vern,
You are not a CUSD constituent, so you are an ‘outsider’. Mind you, I’m not saying you don’t have a right to your opinion, just pointing out that you are an ‘outsider’ being a non-CUSD-constituent. Those that are CUSD constituents should then pay close attention to the reality, that you would not have to live with the consequences of the change. That’s all on us non-‘outsiders’ that have to then deal with the change.
I’ve made no comment about the right for anyone or any group to speak or not. I’m just pointing out that as being a major platform of those seeking change in CUSD, that they don’t like ‘outsiders’ getting involved in our school district. Yet here you are, an ‘outsider’, on their side so that is apparently okay. I make no distinction on the degree of influence of the ‘outsider’, but I see you do.
That’s awful decent of you not to censor me.
Vote NO on Measure H
That’s awful decent of you not to censor me.
Do I sense a tiny bit of snark there, sir? We at the Orange Juice are proud of letting all sides have their say. I wouldn’t be here otherwise. Other blogs around town don’t necessarily follow that policy. And no blog HAS to.
Also, I’m STILL not the kind of “outsider” that both sides complain about. I don’t send in any money, I haven’t initiated any measures or recruited any candidates. I’m just stating my opinion and giving everyone else a chance to voice theirs.
Okay, we’ve both made our points, let’s not go back and forth on this any more. Happy Patriot Day!
Mr. Riedel.
While I strongly support a NO on Measure H position, and live in the CUSD, I must comment on my fellow blogger Vern. Yes, he does not live in the district. However, he surely is not on any union payroll. Vern has accomplished what every blog dreams about. Getting the public engaged in the debate. Now if we could ever transfer that enthusiasm into the voter booth, or getting people to place a 44 cent stamp on an envelope to vote absentee, than we truly can report Mission Accomplished.
Let me also comment on the banner ad which appears on the blog. We offered the same opportunity to the NO on H side. Based on their silence I can only assume that they chose not accept the offer.
Larry Gilbert, whose Voter Guide sent to hundreds of voters in south county will include a NO vote on Measure H
Larry,
I did not say Vern was on the Union payroll. To eliminate ‘outsider’ interest from CUSD is a key platform issue of Measure H proponents. As I said, Vern is not a CUSD constituent, so he is an ‘outsider’. He will not have to live with the consequences of this change that he has chose to advocate for.
His comment of ” If you notice, I scrupulously give all you dissenters a platform to argue back too”, made it seem like I should be grateful that I am not censored, as he an ‘outsider’ advocates a change that will be bad for those of us that live here.
I’ve made my points, so I’ll sign-off now, rather than go back and forth.
Vern,
The only argument you’re making, is to break up CUSD.
The voters aren’t going to voluntarily give up their voting rights, and representation on the school board. The cat is out of the bag now. The proponents of Measure H tried to pull one over on the voters, thinking they wouldn’t look deep enough at the consequences. Momentum is building, and the voters aren’t going to fall for this Measure H, as they become more and more informed.
If you and the other proponents of Measure H are so sure CUSD is too big, how about helping come up with an alternative plan that doesn’t disenfranchise the voters? The voters/taxpayes have already paid for the schools. What exactly are all these costs that make it too expensive to break-up CUSD? I understand that there are special interests that benefit from not breaking up CUSD, which is why it is made so difficult, but it would be to the advantage of most constituents at this point wouldn’t it?
If CUSD is broke up, all these claims about areas not being represented by their Trustee go away, don’t they? If CUSD is broke up into smaller districts, that would result in the constituents truly having local control and representation, wouldn’t it? Areas within CUSD wouldn’t near so much be able to re-allocate funds from one area to benefit another, would they?
There are alternatives to Measure H, that would better achieve what proponents of Measure H promise with that change. Why don’t they press for something like breaking up CUSD that would actually accomplish what they say is needed, than push a change that would make things worse, hidden behind a rosy facade? We know why though, don’t we?
Vote NO on Measure H
The problem with breaking up the district for them is that it utterly dilutes the unions power.
They won’t have enough resources to consolidate the dues from 2200 teachers ($10,000 per month) to overwhelm the few remaining voters who still get a vote.
It is all about power and control for these folks.
amazing that even when Kelley and Leckness do something you agree with you manage to piss all over them. simply amazing.