Santa Ana Unified School District Board of Education Vice President Rob Richardson may be in some hot water. Santa Ana Insight blogger George Collins audio taped Richardson speaking at a Santa Ana High School, where he exhorted the students to vote for the SAUSD’s fraudulent Measure G tax increase bond. You can listen to the audio recording at this link.
I am told it is a felony to promote a political campaign on a high school campus. Richardson also has M.S. I wonder how it will work out for him if he ends up in the slammer?
it is also just sickening that Richardson is telling folks that Measure G will result in a flow of money from Sacramento. That is a bald-faced lie. What it will do is increase our taxes.
I hope Richardson runs for reelection in November so I can vote for someone else.
Art. Several questions come to mind after listening to the 16 second clip. Based on the context it would sound as though this speech was given at Segerstrom High since the reference was that measure G money would make all schools like Segerstrom if passed. Is that where the speech was? Secondly it would be hard to believe Richardson was talking to students that are not old enough to vote. So who was he addressing and when? Was it the general public, students or just a meeting of district staff? It all could make a difference regarding campaign law violations. Without more information this is questionable so far.
I believe that Richardson did speak at Segerstrom. And I believe Collins shot video footage as well. He is still processing it, but we will link to it once he has it on his website. That footage should answer the question as to who was at the meeting.
Is it permissable to promote a political issue on the site of publicly owned property? And were No on Measure G representatives afforded the same equal opportunity to address the audience in question? Or was Richardson taking advantage of a situation that benefitted him?
It’s not surprising that Richardson skates on the fine line of ethics. This Santa Ana Saint hasn’t changed much since his high school days.
Bully Bruin does not deserve to be re-elected to the school board.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE G June 3
Richardson is at least putting some skin in the game.
Personally, I will be grateful for whatever part he played in helping to get rid of that terrible Mrs. Jones from Saddleback. He was president when she was eliminated from that campus. Now if someone would only go after the remains of all the idiots Jones put into place, the new principal MIGHT have a chance at making that campus decent. In the meantime, morale and planning are DOA.
Art,
Tell me, what is that point of bringing up the fact that Rob Richardson has MS? It makes you look low and pathetic bringing up the mans illness. I usually like what you have to post here, but this one went too far. If you don’t like a man’s politics fine, go after his politics. But there is no reason that you should go after an illness he has been afflicted with.
Art,
If one were to file a complaint concerning Richarson’s actions, what agency would handle this matter?
Also, what code is it that adresses this matter?
I’m sure other politicians have run into similar problems with their support of school bonds , how has complaints and the action done by the enforcement agency dealt with simialr infractions. Basically, what precendents are there in this issue.
Jose;
You can start with these sections of the Education code. Enforcement would be up to the district attorney, or state attorney general. The unanswered questions are if this was a meeting to debate the measure G issue, or if it was just a sidebar endorsement by a board member that was not there to discuss this issue using school equipment. You decide when further information is provided.
——————————————
7054. (a) No school district or community college district funds,
services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of
urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate,
including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the
governing board of the district.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of any of the
public resources described in subdivision (a) to provide information
to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other
ballot measure if both of the following conditions are met:
(1) The informational activities are otherwise authorized by the
Constitution or laws of this state.
(2) The information provided constitutes a fair and impartial
presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an
informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.
(c) A violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor or felony
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year
or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both,
or imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three
years.
7054.1. Nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting
any administrative officer or board member of a school district or
community college district from appearing at any time before a
citizens’ group that requests the appearance of the officer or board
member for purposes of discussing the reasons why the governing board
of the district called an election to submit to the voters of the
district a proposition for the issuance of bonds and for purposes of
responding to inquiries from the citizens’ group.
Jose,
Ordinarily this would go to the OC DA, but T-Rack doesn’t do political cases, so you would have to go to the CA AG or the FPPC.
I can’t wait to see Collins’ video…
Art, you should give this one a rest. No school board member is going to get censured, let alone prosecuted for lobbying for more money for schools … where ever. Most of the older SA teachers (I’m one), have known Rob for a long time and like him; he’s a decent and intelligent guy. But we had expected a lot more from him in helping us turn around the moribund state of our schools. We’re dissappointed that in his second tenure on the school board he and Audry have become status quo leaders, isolated from teachers and classrooms, and oblivious to the gross ineptitude of so many of our school district administrators and their squandering of school funds. SAEA is backing the bond measure because we hope SAUSD will only squander half of it. You are against it, because you know they WILL squander half of it.
Art. All we need now is to know who he was speaking to and why. Chances of a prosecution are low but it sure adds to the flavor on the corruption of the district.
SAHS Teacher.
Of course all the facts are not in yet but what makes you think no school board member is going to get censured or worse? The last time I checked they were not above the law. On the other hand the truth is the chances are low. BUT we sure as hell can make it public knowledge that one of the board members considers himself above the law, especially since he was a former city councilman. Ya think?
I wonder if some of the Spanish papers would be interested in this little bit of information. Let us see how this pans out. Are you up for a promotion or just trying to save your job?
Lets play with this and see where it goes. The law is clear. I await further information from Collins video and then let us have at it. If it turns out to be nothing, ok no harm or foul. It sure looks like something to me so far. Give it a rest? I don’t think so. At least not yet.
oh man, am I glad you guys are on my side
SAHS Teach –
Were you one of Rob’s teachers when he was at SAHS?
Gotta love your rationale for squandering our tax dollars. Chances are you don’t reside in SAUSD district and it’s no skin off your nose or property taxes.
We’re sick and tired of throwing money after money to SAUSD and Rancho Santiago College only to be riddled with inept administrators.
CHANGE, Now. Vote NO on Measure G June 3.
I was just at my daughter’s open house and the administration was passing out a powerpoint presentation that looked like it came from the district only outlining the “positive” side of voting yes. After reading that short section of ed code I didn’t see anyone that was against it providing their own info. Although they cleraly stated they were not telling us how to vote, is this okay to do?
Stephanie,
Nope it sure isn’t. As you read in the law both sides of the issue are to be provided at any school function. Both conditions must be met. Not just one as the district seems to play with.
If this PP only outlines the positive side of the measure but fails to outline the costs to the citizens AND it was made/distributed on district property and made by district equipment, it would be a violation suspect to be determined by the Attorney General.
Stephanie;
As a foot note. Although you say the PP did not clearly tell you how to vote, they also did not provide you with both sides of the issue. This is a fine line of legality which the district uses often. The intent of the PP program was obviously to gain your support without actually saying it.
The fact you questioned the hand out of this PP tells me you already know that the district is not playing by the legal rules. What you need to think about is how much your rent or mortgage will go up if this measure passes and will it change the quality of your childs education from what it was yesterday? I applaud you for noting the questionable activity by the school and suggest you remember that is the kind of people they are.
Stephanie,
While lawyers could debate your question on both sides, based on what you stated the key is in the first part of the law posted above..
7054. (a) No school district or community college district funds, services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the governing board of the district.
This power point “urges” support of the measure, according to you. The district might argue that the Power point was made privately with private funds. Where they mess up is under sections (b)1 and (b)2, which are exceptions. Both sections have to be met to allow any kind of urging of a ballot measure or candidate. (b)2 clearly says the information has to be fair and impartial.
Based on your comment the information was not impartial or fair since it did not provide both sides of the issue. A legal authority would have to sort it out. Sadly no anti-measure G campaign exists with money to provide a lawyer or any other means to stop this sort of thing. At this point by the time a complaint could be filed and reviewed the election will be long over and the district knows this.
By the way this blog now has a direct link to the SAUSD corruption thread from the front page. Just click on the SAUSD logo with the circle line through it on the right border.