The public review period for Steadfast’s Draft Environmental Impact Report has been delayed until Nov. 21, but what really happened? It was not the reason published in the Saddleback Valley News on Fri., Nov. 5. According to SVN reporter Maria Hsin, residents asked for a delay so they’d have time to read a really big report. That’s untrue – when has City Hall ever changed a deadline at the request of residents? Contrary to Hsin’s explanation, the city’s planning department was negligent in notifying residents in a timely manner. The city was required to notify everyone who attended the public scoping meeting, which they didn’t do prior to setting the original deadline. One of the activists noticed the error and informed the planning department in order that the city could get it right.

***

After years of inadequately reporting Mission Viejo news, Saddleback Valley News has lately has tried to create news, with Maria Hsin (and possibly others on the news staff) advocating affordable housing. The MV blog reported on Nov. 5 that the paper sponsored a forum on affordable housing at a coffee shop, which was attended by 20 people. Not counting city employees, council members and newspaper staff members, fewer than 10 people attended, with the majority of time given to residents’ panning the idea of more housing of any kind in Mission Viejo. No story in SVN followed, as the outcome apparently didn’t please those paying for the coffee.

***

Someone associated with the Hankey PTA may have been the author of an email campaign to rally a crowd for the Nov. 7 meeting with regard to the council’s prior decision not to fund a joint-use gym at Newhart. This week’s blog includes the email. Click for the complete email

The writer of the unsigned message asked people to attend the meeting and/or respond by calling or emailing the council. The truth is: 1) the council was not reconsidering a joint-use gym, 2) such a consideration wasn’t an option because none of the three council members voting against the joint-use gym wanted to reconsider it, and 3) Newhart was out of the picture as a site for Lance MacLean’s proposed city-funded gym. With two council members – MacLean and Trish Kelley – pushing the gym, why didn’t they inform their acquaintances that a gym at Newhart had already been turned down? What was Kelley’s and/or MacLean’s involvement in promoting misinformation that the council was reconsidering Newhart or a joint-use facility with CUSD?

***

Regarding the folderol of the voted-down, joint-use gym appearing on the agenda, what’s the assessment of City Manager Dennis Wilberg’s performance? Why did he not follow up by closing out the joint-use agreement between the city and CUSD during the Oct. 17 meeting? Following that misstep, why didn’t he or the city attorney speak up during public comments when schoolchildren and parents mistakenly thought Newhart was being reconsidered as a site for a gymnasium?

***

An email was allegedly circulated by Trish Kelley among her PTA acquaintances. While the blog doesn’t have a copy, a resident’s report includes Kelley’s political threats against John Paul Ledesma because he didn’t cave in to her demands to vote for a gym. Kelley apparently leaned on Ledesma, but he didn’t put the item back on the agenda for reconsideration after the Oct. 17 vote defeating the gym. According to the recipient of the email, Kelley claims she will solicit a candidate to run against Ledesma. Would the candidate be a Kelley clone? Ms. Kelley often seems confused about whether she was elected to serve the city or CUSD.

***

Signup sheets lined the front desk at city hall on Nov. 7, where children attending the council meeting signed their names. A child with political instincts might have asked classmates to sign a petition as a show of support for a gymnasium at Newhart, but that wasn’t the case. A story is circulating that a teacher offered extra credit to students to get signatures on petitions. Using children for political purposes is fundamentally wrong, but this example gets worse. False information was given to schools, PTA groups, teachers, administrators and students, and free pizza was offered as an incentive to show up. As mentioned above, the issue of a gym at Newhart was over. What’s next – having children hold signs on street corners? Oh, wait -- they already did that on Nov. 7.

***

The city could be upside-down in its continued attempt to collect from Commonwealth Insurance following the fire approximately four years ago at the Marguerite Recreation Center. Two councilmen – Frank Ury and Lance MacLean – allegedly want to take the insurance company “to the mat” to collect the city’s claim for damages. With legal fees mounting for the city, the cost of pursuing the insurance company (up to $400,000 to date) has exceeded the amount of the claim. Ury and MacLean can’t seem to figure out the insurance company won. Residents watching the city’s check register have noticed bills from the city’s legal advisor, Richards Watson & Gershon, which are staggering. Does anyone still think the council majority is fiscally conservative?

***

With the contract for the city attorney now expired and a new contract up for bids, Richards, Watson & Gershon continues to have its hat in the ring. Following the buffoonery of Peter Thorson and the missteps of his successor, William Curley, what’s their advice worth? Information has emerged about another contender for the job, John Cavanaugh of Rancho Santa Margarita. As part of Cavanaugh’s proposal, he would put Mary Binning (currently MacLean’s appointee to the planning commission) into the position of Mission Viejo’s assistant city attorney. If Cavenaugh is chosen as city attorney, Binning would resign as a planning commissioner prior to becoming assistant city attorney, according to the story. Binning as a planning commissioner would be out of a job anyway if MacLean is dumped by voters in November 2006. Binning has consistently favored additional high-density housing development in Mission Viejo. Meanwhile, Richards, Watson & Gershon could attempt to hang on indefinitely if permitted to “take care of unfinished business.” Some residents who watch council meetings have commented that interim City Attorney Curley (an employee of Richards, Watson & Gershon) apparently thinks he’s paid by the word, and they find his lengthy legal exegesis unbearable and inaccurate.

***

Residents should be aware of an item that was on the council’s Nov. 7 closed-session agenda. The subject is property, approximately 2.8-acres at 28802 Marguerite Parkway, owned by Norm Reeves Acura of Mission Viejo. Negotiators are listed as Dennis Wilberg, Charles Wilson, economic advisor James Williams, and Celeste Brady of the Community Development Agency. What does Norm Reeves Acura want from the city -- cash or eminent domain?

***

In 2002, council candidate Trish Kelley told her would-be supporters that she wouldn’t run for reelection and would serve only one term. A month ago, she told a resident she’s “deciding” whether or not to run again. For someone who has forgotten or abandoned her campaign platform, her other promises or statements will likely fall by the wayside. The campaign platform appearing alongside Kelley’s name in 2002 was not written by Kelley. An assortment of residents comprising her campaign committee wrote the material, created the platform, got endorsements and raised cash. It became increasingly clear after her election that she didn’t agree with “her” promises.

The recent hurricane catastrophes in the Gulf Coast regions should serve as a reminder to each of us that we are also vulnerable here in the southland to great natural catastrophes. We should all consider just how prepared our families are and how prepared our city is, should a major disaster strike here. In the spirit of opening up a community discussion regarding disaster preparedness, I’d like to offer the following comments on weathering a major disaster like an earthquake.

How would you and your family survive in the event of a large natural catastrophe, such as a major earthquake, that included the Mission Viejo area? (And, of course, what is true of a major earthquake is likely to also be true in many respects in the event of a major terrorist event.) The stark truth is, you might well find yourself completely on your own for days or even weeks or longer in the event of a major local catastrophe. You cannot safely rely on local, state or federal government services to take care of the immediate needs of you or your family. It will be up to you and the preparations you have made to see you through the first days and weeks of a major catastrophe.

What is it like to suffer through a major calamity like a devastating earthquake? What kinds of preparations should you have made in order to be able to take care of yourself and your family? Most Southern Californians think they know about earthquakes – after all, we have all experienced them many times, haven’t we? Yes and no. Until you have been in the center of a truly major earthquake, you probably have little or no realization of just how devastating, debilitating and overwhelming such an event can be or how much you might be forced to rely upon your own preparations in order for you and your family to survive effectively during those first days and weeks.

Let’s all hope and pray that we are never forced to go through such an event, but if we are, here are some of the major issues we might well face during the first week or even the first month after a major catastrophic earthquake.

Your home may well be rendered unlivable, and the city may well compel you to move out of your house. Single-story, wood-frame houses survive earthquakes quite well, but slab floors oftentimes do not, and hillside homes oftentimes do not. You will likely have no electrical power for days or weeks, no water service for weeks or a month, no natural gas service for weeks or a month. Many or all local businesses and stores may well be closed. Many smaller businesses may well go out of business, including some of those you shop at or work for. There may be people badly injured or killed in your neighborhood. There WILL be people so traumatized that they are unable to do even the simplest things, and they will need your help.

Many roads and freeways, especially bridges and overpasses, may well be impassable for at least a few days or a week (and probably in many cases for several weeks and, in some cases, for months.) Trees and power lines will be down; landslides may well have blocked many roads, and ruptures caused by the earthquake could destroy some roadways. All these things can be fixed, of course, but it may take the city, county or state days or weeks – and sometimes months and even years are required. In the meantime, your ability to get around other than by walking may be seriously curtailed.

You will not likely have ready access to fuel, food, medicine, medical services, money, water, shelter or communications with the outside world for days, or even weeks. And when you do, these services will likely be minimal and available only through a church or charity at a local emergency shelter. You or members of your family may well not have a job, at least temporarily, and most people almost certainly will not have a paycheck for at least a short while. You will probably not have access to your checking, savings or other banking services, including the ability to use a credit card, for weeks or longer.

We’ve all seen the futility, in the wake of the hurricanes, of waiting for the city, state or federal government to step in and patch things up in the short term. It will probably be no different here in the event of a major earthquake. I can tell you from firsthand experience that it was no different in the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake in 1994. Our family lost our home in that earthquake, and the only “services” we received in the first few weeks were an order from the city to vacate our home, and a helicopter visit from the president to tell us how shocked he was at the devastation. State and local government kicked in later in many ways, and FEMA eventually salted the area with much-needed emergency checks, but we were on our own those first few weeks – except for much-needed and substantial help from a variety of religious organizations, which within days began sending food, water, medicine, medical personnel and volunteer workers, and set up emergency shelters while local government debated and fiddled.

The aftermath of a catastrophe is so complex and enormous, and the wheels of all levels of government turn so slowly and are so limited in what they can really do (and how effectively they can really do it) that it is absolutely necessary for each individual family to prepare on their own to weather an emergency, to provide for their own safety and to provide for their own welfare in the first few days or a week after a catastrophe. 

For starters, each family needs to consider how they will handle their immediate, near-term needs for food, medicine and emergency supplies, water, shelter, money, lighting, transportation, and communications (and, a month or two down the road, money to cover at least the bulk of the long-term expenses of putting your family’s life back together again).

FOOD: Every family should have at least a week’s worth of food set aside and accessible. Establish a week's stockpile of food and emergency supplies (medicines, medical supplies, batteries, etc.) and important family materials (insurance papers, photos, phone numbers, etc.) in a convenient place in your house -- somewhere where you can grab it and evacuate quickly. Put a smaller emergency supply in a backpack in each car. Your plan should be to begin by using the food in your refrigerator and freezer, as you will likely lose all such food you don’t use in the first few days. Don’t overlook water and a means of heating it and cooking. It’s a good idea to have a camp stove or barbeque and ample fuel for at least a few weeks of daily use. Don’t forget, you’ll need a good supply of matches or butane lighters. Beyond those first few days of freezer food, you might want to consider stocking up on healthy food bars or dry cereal you can eat without cooking and without having to use a lot of water in preparing it. Remember to check each item in your food store for “use before” dates, and remember to cycle these stockpiled foods and supplies periodically.

MEDICINE AND EMERGENCY SUPPLIES: Each family should have at least a couple of weeks of all critical medicines, as you will probably NOT be able to run to the drug store to replenish medicines for at least a couple of weeks. For life-critical medicines, it might be well to have a month’s supply on hand, if that is possible.

WATER: You may be without potable water for weeks, so you must have at least enough water for a week for each member of the family. Our family buys water in 5-gallon plastic bottles, and we always maintain ten (50 gallons for 3 people) in reserve. Your hot water heater is another possible source of water, but bear in mind that in a severe earthquake, that water heater may get bashed around pretty badly and lose whatever water it contained.

MONEY: Think about how much you absolutely must have per week to buy necessities, and plan to have at least a couple of weeks of cash on hand.

SHELTER: You may not like camping, but in the event you are forced to evacuate your home, you should be prepared to live in a tent or in a vehicle of some kind for a period of time. Make sure each member of the family has sleeping bags, waterproof ground cloths or cots, a table and chairs, equipment for cooking and clothing for cold and/or wet conditions. By all means, do NOT assume that a local shelter will be able to take you in during those first three to five days. You should be prepared to fend for yourself for at least the first week.

LIGHTING: Every member of the family should have a good flashlight next to their bed, and in their car. It’s a good idea to have one at each of the major doors in and out of the house as well. The new mechanically powered flashlights that are powered by shaking or by turning a crank are probably your best bet for a personal emergency light, as they do not depend upon a battery. Propane camping lanterns are excellent for family use if you are forced to spend the night (or MANY nights) outside your home. Don't forget to lay in a stock of replacement propane canisters.

TRANSPORTATION: In the aftermath of a serious earthquake, many people may find that they cannot even get into their garage for several days because fallen items stored in the garage (especially those boxes of things we all store on shelves or on racks above our cars) will be completely blocking all doors! It’s not a bad idea to have at least one family car left outside the garage in case you must evacuate the family quickly. In the Northridge earthquake, about an hour after the quake, a broken gas main exploded into a 40- or 50-foot torch just a few blocks from our home, and four or five homes were quickly incinerated. We had to lend one of our cars to our next-door neighbors, who could not get into their garage to get either of their two cars, and all the families on our block were grabbing what they could to flee in case the winds took the flames our way. As we saw in the hurricanes, fire often strikes in a disaster from fallen power lines or from broken gas lines being ignited. You may have to move your family fast, so be prepared to do so.

COMMUNICATIONS: We should all be aware that most means of communications will be down for at least a few days after a major catastrophe, possibly for much longer, and that those phone and other local resources that are available will be swamped and essentially unavailable. After a major catastrophe, you will need to be able to connect with remote family members and relatives. Each family should have a plan for phoning a distant (out of state) friend or relative -- someone who can act as a clearinghouse for family messages. Experience shows that it’s much easier to phone a distant city after such an event than it is to phone next door. Set up a plan that every family member understands, and make sure every family member has a working cell phone.

INSURANCE – It’s a good idea to review your home and homeowners insurance policies, and make sure you understand what they cover and what they don’t cover. Most people are aware that neither of these types of policies covers them in the event of an earthquake. If you don’t have earthquake insurance, you should seriously consider buying such a policy. For most of us, our home is our most expensive investment, and it is an investment worth protecting. You would be wise NOT to rely – at least entirely -- on government programs to loan you money to rebuild. (And remember that your house will cost FAR MORE to rebuild than you can even imagine, as the prices on rebuilding materials will double overnight, and “contractors” will come out of the woodwork ready to promise you the moon, but most will be incapable of delivering on their promises. Be careful when signing repair contracts!)

Additionally, there are some things we all should do at a community level, ahead of a catastrophe, to better prepare ourselves and our community, should a catastrophe strike us. These include

FIRST AID: Every family should encourage every family member of high-school age and above to take some basic first aid training. Find out where and when such programs are offered locally and enroll! The life you save may be your own or that of your child. Do NOT rely on the availability of trained medical personnel in the immediate aftermath of a major earthquake, as they will be swamped, and may not even be able to reach you during the first critical day or two.

LOCAL PREPAREDNESS PLANNING: Find out what your city and county officials are doing with regard to emergency planning. Make sure you understand the “when, where, who and how” of local emergency planning, should catastrophe strike. Discuss with local officials just what the planning is for local response to a catastrophe. Where will shelters be located and what kind of volunteers will be required to staff them? What kinds of local food stores and medical stores will be available in an emergency? How will local elderly folks be cared for? What planning has been done for expedited state or county police, fire and medical services? What kind of local “neighborhood watch” programs aimed at catastrophe preparation and remediation are available, etc.? Ask how YOU can help as a volunteer! Get involved!

If a major catastrophe should strike our city, it will take a widespread effort to recover. Every individual will be responsible to help themselves and their family in the beginning. And everyone should be aware that volunteers will be needed with all types of ordinary skills to help the less fortunate during the ensuing weeks until ordinary governmental functions can begin to kick in and render assistance.

Donna and Mike Smith
Mission Viejo

Possibly because of an oversight on the part of the city staff and city attorney, the joint-use gymnasium reappeared on the Nov. 7 council agenda. The gym had already been voted down by a 3-2 vote (Reavis, Ury, Ledesma against; Kelley and MacLean for) on Oct. 17, which should have ended the discussion of a joint venture between the city and the Capistrano Unified School District. Only those on the prevailing side (Reavis, Ury and/or Ledesma) could have brought back the joint-use gym for reconsideration, and the deadline for such a reversal was Mon., Oct. 31. The deadline had passed uneventfully.

The joint-use agreement or contract between the city and the school district should also have ended on Oct. 17 when the council majority voted not to allocate $1.5 million in city funds for half of the cost after the city failed to get a $1-million state grant. The city staff and city attorney were apparently not prepared on Oct. 17 for the majority decision not to fund the gym, and they neglected to ask the council to end the agreement as an administrative housekeeping matter. As a result, the city had not officially ended its obligation to fund half the gym. Despite MacLean not being on the prevailing side, he included the matter as part of his Nov. 7 agenda item:
1) Terminate Supplemental Joint Facilities Use Agreement No. 3 between the City of Mission Viejo and the Capistrano Unified School District for a Joint-use Gymnasium at Newhart Middle School; 2) withdraw the City of Mission Viejo’s grant application submitted to the state for construction of the joint-use gymnasium; and 3) approve a budget of $5 million to design and construct a community gymnasium on city property adjacent to the Murray Community & Senior Center.

The administrative matter of parts 1 and 2 appeared to go over the heads of many of those speaking in favor of a joint-use gym. Numerous speakers favoring a gym continued to ask on Nov. 7 for a “reconsideration” of the joint-use agreement or argue that the gym should be at Newhart. Such topics were not on the agenda nor could they legally be discussed by council members. Despite the legal limitations, Councilwoman Trish Kelley opened her remarks by asking the three council members who on Oct. 17 voted against joint-use to “reconsider” the joint-use agreement on Nov. 7. Councilwoman Gail Reavis responded by asking the City Attorney Bill Curley if the council could legally reconsider the joint-use agreement. Curley responded that it could not.

A question goes unanswered regarding how so many people connected with Newhart, Reilly and Hankey schools were operating on false information that Newhart was still in the picture for reconsideration of a joint-use facility.

The remainder of the council discussion about the gymnasium was somewhat a rehash of the Oct. 17 meeting when Reavis, Ury and Ledesma voted against and MacLean and Kelley voted for paying half the costs with city funds. Mission Viejo resident Matt Corrigan spoke during public comments on Nov. 7, saying nothing had changed since the council’s Oct. 17 decision. Despite a larger and, apparently, misinformed group of parents and their children, Corrigan’s assessment was accurate. The council on Nov. 7 voted 3-2 (Reavis, Ury and Ledesma for, MacLean and Kelley against) to end the city’s agreement with CUSD to pursue a joint-use gym.

The third step of MacLean’s item, budgeting $5 million for a city gymnasium, was similarly disposed of. Reavis commented that the council had just voted against spending $1.5 million of city money for a gymnasium, and spending $5 million would fall into the same category. MacLean and Kelley continued speaking in favor of a gym, with MacLean saying he wouldn’t give up on the idea. The vote was 3-2 against the $5 million expenditure (Reavis, Ury, Ledesma against, and MacLean and Kelley for).

The gymnasium topic began during public comments at approximately 7 p.m., and the vote ending the discussion came at around 10:30. By that time, only a handful of gymnasium proponents remained. Just as the proponents had begun at 7 p.m. by revealing their misunderstanding about a joint-use agreement being on the agenda, they appeared equally confused by the vote, as they applauded the gymnasium’s defeat.

As other city business on the agenda, the council voted unanimously to construct additional protective measures to stabilize the failed slope at Ferrocarril and Encorvado Lane. The council authorized contracts of up to $1.4 million for related emergency work. The city staff reported the slope is continuing to move at a rate of 1/8-inch daily.

Editorial comment: CUSD trustees appear at council meeting

It probably wasn't a coincidence for CUSD Trustees Marlene Draper and Mike Darnold to show up at the Nov. 7 council meeting when recall organizers on the same night were counting signatures on petitions to remove them from office.

Backers of the recall effort recently turned in 177,210 signatures to the Registrar of Voters to recall the entire Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees. The required number of qualified signatures is 140,000 -- 20,000 per trustee.

Despite their presence on Nov. 7, CUSD trustees had no compelling reason to attend the council meeting. The trustees had already missed the opportunity to influence the council's proposed funding of the city’s portion of a joint-use gym at Newhart Middle School. The 3-2 decision against funding the joint venture was made Oct. 17 when Deputy Supt. David Doomey was in attendance touting the district’s financial wizardry at containing costs. He didn’t mention the district’s administration center, where costs have soared – rising from $25 million to $34 million in six months – and the building is still under construction.

Councilmen John Paul Ledesma and Frank Ury posed questions to Draper at the Nov. 7 meeting. Why had the district not already built a gym at Newhart, particularly with Measure A funds it received in 1999? In keeping with CUSD’s tradition of providing information that’s plausible but misleading, Draper stated that the district wanted to go after matching funds from the state, which required that a school had to be at least 25 years old. She concluded by stating Newhart wasn’t old enough to qualify for modernization.

Ledesma countered with State Education Code, reading from Section 17070.1. He said the funds for Measure A were not in any way restricted by the age of a school, and building a gymnasium would be an addition, not modernization. Draper then explained that it was the district’s choice to focus on building new schools and modernizing those older than 25 years.

Bottom line, age of the building was irrelevant in the district’s decision to spend only $720.00 of Measure A funds at Newhart. The trustees made a deliberate decision not to add any new facilities at Newhart, and the gym wasn’t a priority because parents, administrators and the community hadn’t mentioned a gym, according to Draper.

If Draper’s words could be translated into a concise message, she seemed to say: you didn’t get a gymnasium at Newhart with Measure A money because nobody asked for one.

According to public outcry at the Nov. 7 council meeting, Newhart needs a gymnasium. CUSD taxpayers want and expect their tax dollars to be spent in a responsible manner on education, teachers, classroom supplies and classroom facilities, which would include a gymnasium. After so much money has been wasted on overpriced land next to a dump for the $130 million high school in San Juan Capistrano and a $35-million office building for administrators, it should come as no surprise the district has no money for a gymnasium at Newhart.

Parents, children, teachers and PTA members should next go to a CUSD board of trustees meeting and demand a gymnasium at Newhart Middle School. Saddleback Valley USD is in the process of building gymnasiums with bond money instead of asking the city to dig into its reserves to fund school facilities.

As you know, I have related that the Capistrano Unified School District has installed artificial turf on their football fields at Capo Valley High School, San Clemente High School and Dan Hills High School. My estimate of costs was about $600,000 per school (based on UNLV football field costs), or a total of $1.8 million for the three schools.

 I WAS WRONG –YES, WRONG. THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FROM CUSD INDICATES THAT EACH FIELD COSTS A COOL $1.0 MILLION PER FIELD --OR A TOTAL OF $3.0 MILLION. 

All this while Newhart Middle School has been allocated $720.00 from Measure A-- nice -- very nice.

It is more obvious now that a gym at Newhart -- or even Newhart school itself -- is not a priority of the present CUSD Board of Trustees or the present administration.

The is no way that the City of Mission Viejo should dip into its reserves to build a gym at Newhart that is not even a designated priority in funding for Newhart Middle School by the CUSD.

Joe Holtzman
Mission Viejo

An open letter to
Dr. James A. Fleming, Superintendent
Capistrano Unified School District

Deputy Supt. David A. Doomey and Board of Trustees President Marlene Draper alternated in representing the Capistrano Unified School District at the past two Mission Viejo City Council meetings. The council chamber was "standing-room only," as parents and children pleaded with the council to enter into the joint-use agreement that would build a gymnasium at Newhart Middle School. Mayor Kelley announced that we had an overflow crowd of interested citizens in the Emergency Operations Room located at the edge of the city hall facility.

Sadly, it's our own fault that we have taxation without representation. Not one of the seven members of your school board is a resident of Mission Viejo. However, that's not the reason for this letter. The youngsters and parents at the meeting spoke with great passion on the need to provide a gymnasium on one of "your" district schools. Without debating your ability to use Measure A funds for a gymnasium at Newhart, I must point out that Saddleback Valley USD also had a School Improvement Bond Measure that was passed in March 2004.  I noticed that on June 28, 2005, your board approved spending up to $1 million per field to add synthetic field turf at three district schools. I guess that tells us something about priorities. The Saddleback School District Bond is funding two new gymnasiums that are in design process now. Therefore, if you lack money in your General Fund, you can surely issue a new bond (subject to voter approval which, as you know, was reduced to 55 percent).

It was rather disappointing in listening to Ms. Draper responding to Councilman Ury that the city approached the school district about this gym rather than the district taking a proactive initiative on its own. It tells me that, without a joint-use agreement with the city of Mission Viejo, a new gymnasium was NOT on the district’s radar screen. I will not join the debate about the cost of the new administration building or the new high school. However, let me state that these two council meetings should be eye-openers on the need for this gymnasium. You might think of the feedback as a focus group.

It's all about priorities, and your board and your staff are responsible for that decision-making.

One last point. I would like you to investigate and respond to the following. I am told that someone witnessed seeing Capo school district students asking to locate the five or more signup sheets for "extra credit" inside the city hall lobby. It's bad enough to see these children being misled by their parents or PTA leaders with false hopes that a joint-use gymnasium could be reconsidered after the official deadline had passed. Please explain this extra credit and who organized it.

To repeat the message, both Newhart parents and students have spoken loud and clear. The ball is now in your court for remedial action.

Larry Gilbert
Mission Viejo
lgpwr@aol.com