Leaders of a group formed to initiate a recall of the entire Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees criticized Superintendent James Fleming and the board's decision to post a sign on the bell tower of their new $35-million administration building that the group says misleads the public into thinking the building is for the Orange County Teachers Federal Credit Union (OCTFCU) and not CUSD.

Having no CUSD sign on the building "is a transparent attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that this will be the largest and most expensive school district office in all of Orange County," said Kevin Murphy of Capo for Better Representation, the grass-roots pro-recall group. The recall group points to the sign as the district's acknowledgment that they have done the wrong thing in spending money on themselves rather than on the schools, says the recall group. "Fleming and the board know that people -- especially parents -- are ticked off about the money being wasted on this building. We have kids crammed into poorly maintained 25-year-old portables that should have been replaced years ago,” Murphy said.

The controversial sign, which was placed on the building by the school district, comes at a time when parents are angry about what they view as a waste of tens of millions of dollars on a district office -- money that could have been used to fix up schools they say are badly in need of repair. "For the district to borrow and spend $35 million on an office building instead of on schools is a real slap in the face,” said CUSD parent Stephanie Zoch, while signing one of the recall petitions recently. "If they are so proud of that building and they really think spending that much money on a building for themselves instead of fixing up old, crumbling schools is such a good idea, why don't they have their sign on it?"  Zoch asked. Murphy said many parents have posed the same question to him, and more than 20,000 residents have demonstrated their anger over this and other spending issues by signing the recall petitions.

According to VP of Marketing Bruce Hart, OCTFCU hasn't signed a lease, only a letter of intent to lease approximately 3,000 square feet of space in the   128,000 square foot building. The San Juan Capistrano City Planning Department stated the district did not obtain a permit to hang the sign and, per city code, the sign is well outside the limit of time a temporary  sign can hang on a building. Temporary signs may be posted for only 30 days.

I attended two football games on the weekend of Oct. 21-22. One, Oct. 21, at Capistrano Valley High School, and one on Oct. 22 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. At the second game, I had the privilege of sitting in the booth of the athletic director, Mike Hamrick. I asked Mike what it cost UNLV to put in their new artificial turf field and when they did it.  He said the field was going on its third season and it cost close to $600,000. I mentioned this only because Capistrano Valley High School this year -- this summer -- installed a new artificial turf field, just like UNLV's. The school has also laid the foundation for an all-weather track around the field. In addition, inside the Capo stadium, the grounds had been very nicely landscaped with roses, birds of paradise, ground cover and eight to 10 palm trees -- very expensive for their size. The landscaping looks much better than most of Mission Viejo city’s slopes, but that’s another issue. This was all new, and I would imagine the bill was more than $600,000. I am told that San Clemente High School was done in the same way at their "football factory.”

Well, here is the rest of the story.

I have received a document, which I am including, that spells out where the Capistrano Unified School District has allocated the $65 million in bond funding from Measure A that was passed several years ago. This was a $65 MILLION bond to provide capital for matching grants from the state for new schools and to upgrade the current schools. Guess how much CUSD has allocated for Newhart School -- $720.00.  (See the accompanying document.) Yes, that’s right, a piddling $720.00 from the Measure A vote. Folks, I spend that much a year on fly fishing gear. One would think a middle school, which is more than 25 years old, is in need of some real maintenance and deserves more than $720.

As I have said before, a gym at Newhart has not been and is not a priority for CUSD. Why should the City of Mission Viejo take reserves to build something that CUSD doesn’t consider a priority? I would highly suggest that the folks banging on the door for Newhart go straight to the CUSD board and bang on them instead. You better do it fast -- before they are all recalled.  Also, look hard where the money is being spent -- not much in Mission Viejo, but I guess that’s what happens when no CUSD board members live in Mission Viejo.

Joe Holtzman
Mission Viejo

For the supporting document, Click here.

Capistrano Unified School District Trustee John Casabianca made claims in the Capistrano Valley News in his letter to the editor in the Oct. 27 edition.

One of his statements should certainly be questioned by all the hard working, fundraising parents: "Over the last 5 years, the state's financial crisis has forced CUSD to make cuts totaling over $34 million. This Board's philosophy has been to keep budget cuts away from the classroom as much as possible and avoid eliminating school programs important to our children's education. Because of this philosophy, CUSD provides some of the finest art, music and athletic programs in Orange County while still maintaining a sound financial position.”

This statement is a slap in the face to all those parents who have worked their tails off fundraising to pay for these programs. CUSD has claimed that, due to "budget cuts," they are unable to fund them. 

Perhaps Trustee Casabianca truly doesn't realize that the parents, not the district, pay for most of these programs. But, how can he not know this as a trustee? If he does realize it, then he is claiming credit for the work of others. These programs (as well as librarians and full-time school nurses) are largely available to our children because of the parents, not the trustees.

In addition, his statement that the new $35 million administration building "takes no money away from our general fund which supports our students and teachers" is untrue. The money being used for the administration building could have been used for modernization or new construction, which would then have freed up money from the general fund to use for the students and teachers that Trustee Casabianca professes to care so much about. And he knows this unless he isn't doing his job as a trustee.

Kim Lefner
Capistrano Unified School District resident and parent

Newhart Gym: Another Boondogggle
by Dale Tyler

On Oct. 17, 2005, the Mission Viejo City Council decided on a 3-2 vote not to spend city reserves to build a gymnasium at Newhart Middle School. This action came after the State of California refused to grant the city $1 million to pay for part of the facility. In my view, this was the best possible outcome. A number of people spoke on both sides of the issue, with parents of Newhart children and Capistrano Unified staff and administrators predictably on the side of spending the city's money.

Earlier in the year, the City Council, at the urging of Lance MacLean and Trish Kelley, decided to throw out the list of capital projects planned for years and move a new project to the very top of that list. This project, which was not talked about seriously in any prior budget planning sessions, suddenly became the most critical need of the city. Why MacLean and Kelley suddenly decided this was so important may never be known, but the other council members agreed to go along only if the state would provide almost all of the money to build the gym. Operating costs were mostly ignored at these sessions. However, the reasons used to justify this project were incorrect, as I will show here.

First, why should the city build gymnasiums or any other structures on school property? The school district should plan for and build its own buildings. Some would argue that the gym would serve the entire city and, thus, we should pay a part of the cost. I say this is poor reasoning. The old adage that possession is nine-tenths of the law applies here. I can imagine in the future that the city would have little leverage if Capo decided that they needed the gym for a school function at the same time some citizens were scheduled to use it. What could we do – call the Sheriff to eject the Capo people using a building on their property? If you think this is far-fetched, consider the statements of the Newhart parents who complain that the local high schools will arbitrarily cancel gym time if the school teams “need” the gym. One could ask the question, would Capo pay for part of a gymnasium located on city land? My guess is they would not.

Second, there is the issue of need. Of course, it would be great if every school had a gym. However, the schools are very overcrowded, and academic areas suffer because of this. Does this mean the city should build classrooms for Mission Viejo students? Of course not; we all recognize this as a school district responsibility. So, why should a gym on school property be any different? Although much was made of the lack of basketball facilities in the city, there are actually a number of outside courts, and more could be constructed for a tiny fraction of the proposed gym cost. Of course, there will be times when the weather doesn’t permit outdoor games, but we have some of the best weather in the country, with less than 35 days per year with even a trace of rain at all and less than that where the rain would bother any serious player. Of course, parents want to protect their children, but a little adversity builds character. Many of us from colder climates recall playing in 30-degree temperatures with patches of snow on the court. We should also remember that there are other needs in the city besides the gym, including the long-promised Community Center expansion.

Third, there is the issue of affordability. This is a complicated subject because of how cities account for the money they have. MacLean will tell you that Mission Viejo has $30 million or more in “reserves.” What this actually means is subject to interpretation, but one thing is clear, we could write a check for $1 million if we absolutely had to. However, just because we can do it doesn’t mean that it is prudent. I have written before on the state of Mission Viejo's finances. Briefly, if one takes the total reserves of $30-plus million, subtract the costs of replacing worn-out city facilities, already promised capital projects and set aside a reasonable sum for emergencies like the slope failure on Ferrocarril, one is left with an amount that would not cover more than three months of operating the city. Financial planners tell us that we should have at least six months’ expenses in cash available to us as individuals. While the minimum set aside for this purpose is 15 percent for cities, I think our city needs to be more careful and keep a high level of reserves to help us through the next recession or major disaster without going into debt or having to cut police and fire services because we cannot afford them.

Another part of the affordability is the actual cost. While MacLean, Kelley and Capo claim that a gym can be built for $3 million or less, there is little reason to believe them. Every substantial city project built in the last 5 years has cost more than 175 percent of the initially projected cost, with many costing two times or more than the projections. This is also true of Capo, with their new Taj Mahal administration building already way over the original estimates. Imagine what would happen if both the city and the school district planned a project together. If the actual cost were only $5 million, I would be very surprised. Recall that this cost does not even include bleachers. So, instead of Mission Viejo paying $1.5 million, our tab would be more like $3.5 million, because everyone knows that Capo has no money; otherwise, why would our students be housed in rotting portable classrooms? Add to the capital costs, the nearly   $400,000 per year of projected operating costs, which is far below the costs of similar facilities in suurounding cities, and thus likely to be $500,00 or more. Although these costs are supposed to be split evenly between the city and Capo, the school district's deteriorating financial situation makes it likely that we would pick up most or all of these expenses. After all, what could we do if they didn’t pay their half? We could hardly lock them out of a gym on their land. It is more likely they would lock us out unless we paid the whole cost.

Finally, there is the question of lost opportunity. While it looks like a great loss to give up $1.5 milliion that could be used for a gymnasium, consider two things: a) Would Capo pay the $1.5 million from their reserves (what reserves?) if we got the grant and they did not? b) Will Capo pay all of the excess costs over $3 million and sign an agreement allowing the city to preempt the payment of Mission Viejo Redevelopment Agency funds to the school district if Capo does not meet its obligations for construction costs and ongoing operating costs.? My guess is that the answer will be “no” to both questions. The people who want the gym will make up official/legal-sounding reasons as to why this cannot be done, but the bottom line is that this “lost opportunity” is really just a shell game where the taxpayers of Mission Viejo are on the hook for both halves of the cost. Capistrano Unified received more than $800,000 from the Redevelopment Agency in 2004-2005. (see this document for details)

Why could the district not take that money for two years and build the gym on its own? In 1999, voters approved spending $65 million on school upgrades and repairs. As of Dec. 31, 2004, less than $1,000 out of $65 million was spent at Newhart. Talk about lost opportunity. I guess the district is too busy putting in new football fields and building fancy administration complexes to spend money at Newhart. That’s lost opportunity!

To sum up, we, the citizens of Mission Viejo should not pay for facilities on property not owned by the city. We should keep the promises already made for capital projects like the Community Center expansion before committing to new projects. We should find other ways to play basketball and other sports outside in the almost-perfect climate we live in. We should live within our means and not be fooled that state grants will cover the actual costs of the gym. Most importantly, we should not be fooled by the promise of $1.5 million, as Capo would not dig into their reserves if the situation were reversed.

This is a bad idea now and it was a bad idea when it was first seriously considered last year. We need to put this behind us and move on to more productive projects that are already promised.

For the Supporting Document, History of MVCDA PassThrough Payments to CUSD,Click here;

To my fellow Mission Viejo residents:

After the joint-use gym was rejected, I have been thinking a lot about the vote, the need and the context of the situation that we find ourselves in. I think that a nugget of information I found over the weekend is an eye-opener. We need a Mission Viejo resident on the Capistrano Unified School District board!

Back in 1999, CUSD passed Measure A, a $65-million bond to provide capital for matching grants from the state for new schools and to upgrade the current schools.

Accompanying this letter is a "Recap of Measure A Projects" as of December 31, 2004. Out of the $65 million, guess how much was allocated to Newhart?  Open it and find the UNBELIEVABLE number.

For the supporting document, Click HERE

DSA in column 2 refers to the Division of the State Architect of the California Department of General Services.

Feel free to let me know what you think.

John Paul Ledesma
Mission Viejo City Councilman

Steadfast/Aliso Ridge EIR Update
by Dale Tyler

Based on community input, the City of Mission Viejo decided that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to address the expressed concerns of the citizens. The scoping meeting was held Feb. 16, 2005, to provide public consultation on the topics that should be addressed by the EIR.

When the EIR was published in September, a number of interested parties, including residents who attended the scoping meeting, did not receive notice as provided by law. I contacted Community Development Director Chuck Wilson regarding this oversight, and he agreed to reset the deadline for comments to Mon., Nov. 21, 2005.

All comments must be received in writing by that date by the city to be considered. A copy of the EIR is available at
http://cityofmissionviejo.org/news/index.html

There are four parts, totaling nearly 1,000 pages. While this document can be overwhelming, it is very important that each person who is concerned about the devastating impacts this project will have on our city must take the time to comment. Your comments should be specific and address at least one concern. For example, one might be concerned about the impacts of traffic, residential development's excessive usage of city resources or other issues.

Over the next week or so, I will post excerpts of the EIR that focus on the most egregious impacts onhttp://www.missionviejoca.org/Issues/issues.html. Please take the time to write your comments and send them to Chuck Wilson, Director of Community Development, 200 Civic Center, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. If you have questions, you can email me at the address shown above or contact Chuck Wilson at (949) 470-3053.

If the city of Mission Viejo has character, residents bring character to the city, not vice versa. To claim city government can or should promote character values has become laughable. Some council members – past and current – appear to be unqualified to preach about character.

Columnist Courtney Fox called attention to the city’s situation with a spoof in her Saddleback Valley News column a couple years ago: Mission Viejo is a community of characters. To that end, MissionViejoNewsBlog salutes its character of the week, Roger Faubel.

Faubel on Oct. 26 declined a city contract regarding public outreach for the Crown Valley Parkway widening project. In a letter of withdrawal to Trish Kelley (a copy appears in this week's blog), he claims it's the gadflies' fault. An excerpt from Faubel’s letter:

“Sadly, a small group of gadflies are engaged in ad hominem attacks which I will not dignify by way of a response.”

It would seem that Faubel does indeed dignify claims of the “gadflies” by withdrawing from the process and declining to accept the city’s $100,000 contract he received from the council. While Faubel didn’t withdraw from the process on Oct. 17 when several residents made public comments about his record, he declined the contract after one of the speakers also wrote to council members about ongoing issues, including accusations of Elections Code violations. Parents of CUSD children are among witnesses to the accusations, which surfaced in the recall of CUSD trustees.

Those who made public comments at the Oct. 17 council meeting reviewed Faubel's performance and public record, including the following remarks.

After Faubel’s appointment to the council by his buddies, Sherri Butterfield, Susan Withrow and Bill Craycraft, he failed to keep his seat in November 2000 after spending $80,000 on a campaign for a $500-a-month job. At the Oct. 17 meeting, a resident commented about Faubel’s qualifications to get the city’s message out regarding the Crown Valley Parkway project, saying, “He couldn’t get his own message out.”

In Faubel's failed council campaign in 2000, he allegedly placed his campaign signs at Orange County Fire Authority Station 31 on Olympiad, and then accused the firefighters of illegally putting campaign signs on OCFA property. As stated by a resident at the Oct. 17 meeting, Faubel later wrote a memo dated Nov. 16, 2000, admitting he placed his own campaign sign at Station 31 “to see if firefighters or anyone else would come along and steal the sign.”

For the 2002 Primary Election, Faubel received a no-bid contract for $51,000 from the city (Butterfield, Withrow and Craycraft voted for, Ledesma and Reavis against) to Get Out The Vote. The contract was in violation of City Code 0300-7, which requires competitive bids for any contract greater than $15,000. Faubel was supposed to cover the city with phone calls and multiple pieces of literature -- door-hangers and mailers. Many residents said at the time they never received any such literature or calls, and the payment to Faubel was subsequently reduced.

In October 2002, Faubel aided in the campaigns of Butterfield and Withrow, creating hit pieces against their challengers, but he claimed at the Oct. 17 meeting he hadn’t been involved in city politics “for the past five years.” When his misstatement was caught by Councilman John Paul Ledesma, Faubel acknowledged his error, saying, “Since 2002 I have not been politically active.”

However, the letter a resident sent to the council revealed that Faubel is the political consultant for Capistrano Unified School District trustees, who are currently fighting a recall. Additionally, Faubel serves on the Santa Margarita Water District Board of Directors, an elected office.

As reported in MissionViejoNewsBlog, Faubel was a subject in an August 22, 2005, letter from attorney Jim Lacy to CUSD Trustee Marlene Draper. Faubel was cited by Lacy for assisting in training sessions for trustees to fight and disrupt the recall effort led by CUSD parents. According to Lacy, the training sessions held on Aug. 1-2 provided strategy and techniques in violation of Elections Code Section 18630 to protect signature gathering. The Section is cross-referenced to Penal Code Section 240, defining such acts as criminal.

But it’s the gadflies’ fault, according to Faubel. He apparently thinks any reaction to his alleged criminal acts, false statements into the public record and failure to fulfill contractual obligations are ad hominem attacks.

Politically, Faubel continues to be a portent “money man” with connections to numerous corporations and agencies. With three council seats up for reelection in 2006, four of five council members gave Faubel a pass by awarding him a $100,000 contract. Ledesma was the dissenting vote. With greater amounts at stake in the CUSD recall and a campaign that will almost certainly pursue the allegations of criminal acts, Faubel threw back a small fish by declining the contract.

To learn more about Faubel’s wheeling and dealing in other cities, see R. Scott Moxley’s OC Weekly story, http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/51/web-moxley.php

For the complete Faubel letter to the city, click here

The Orange Grove piece in the Register ("Tunnel just 1 of 2 bad traffic plans,” Oct. 28) comes from the pro-tem mayor of a built-out, landlocked city with "no dog in this fight." Laguna Niguel should have been a help when Mission Viejo tried to solve the Avery/I-5 interchange problem years ago. It has only the single Crown Valley access to I-5, and another on-ramp would have been good for them. When the 73 toll road was being built, there was a chance to fix the old Avery mess. The toll road authority proposed a bridge across I-5 connecting Avery Parkway with Paseo De La Colinas. That would have provided an improved interchange for both cities. Laguna Niguel refused because they feared it would impact the car dealership on Camino Capistrano. Sales tax revenue trumped traffic improvement. The 73 overpass now prevents any attempt to fix that problem in that way.

Mission Viejo has to face the traffic problems of development alone. The tunnel project would allow a mass transit route to Ontario airport, helping with that issue. Santa Ana Canyon is too narrow to allow further widening or the subject of a tunnel would not have been brought up. Laguna Niguel has not been helpful in the past, and their advice is irrelevant on future traffic issues. The 91 traffic impacts Orange County because those people are commuting to jobs here. All options should be considered. Laguna Niguel forfeited their role as advisor years ago.

Michael Kennedy, M.D.
Mission Viejo
Former member, Planning and Transportation Commission, City of Mission Viejo