Wireless Plan Needs Improvement
Letter to the editor

An item on the Sept. 17 council agenda is a wakeup call for residents who live near city parks. This is the Wireless Master Plan, and it needs major reworking. A wireless consultant has already been contracted by the city, and he gets a bonus for every cell tower he places in parks or on other city property. The same consultant determines the need for a tower, which eliminates any system of checks and balances.

I’ve attended the hearings when wireless service providers have tried to put towers in neighborhood parks. The wireless consultant has clearly been an advocate for the business wanting a cell tower. Our residents living near the parks who have spoken at meetings are better informed about technology and certainly more credible than the consultant’s hired guns.

I see no clause in the current plan that seeks the best outcome for everyone – homeowners, park users, cell phone users, wireless service providers and the city.

If the Wireless Master Plan is approved, residents will have to continue mobilizing each time a service provider teams up with the consultant to place a new tower. I hope no council member votes for this plan, and the council should end the contract whereby a consultant gets a bonus for placing towers in parks.

Connie Lee
Mission Viejo

Wireless Plan Flawed
by Dale Tyler

On Sept. 17, the Mission Viejo City Council will consider a proposal from ATS. This proposal purports to be the draft Wireless Master Plan for the city. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, who paid for this self-serving report, what we see in the 197-page document is little more than a sales pitch by ATS, consisting of mostly boilerplate and pretty pictures.

When ATS first came before the council at the behest of Councilman Frank Ury, its representatives were asked to find a way to market the city parks, open spaces and other city facilities to the various wireless carriers who serve the cell phone needs of city residents. Secondary to this objective was the idea that the City Council needed a cover story for the proliferation of cell towers in the city. Some recently constructed cell towers are attractive, like the clock at Marguerite and Trabuco, although it would be nice if the clock actually showed the correct time, while others are the typical ugly monopole types with nondescript buildings housing the equipment. However, it is clear that there are many of these installations in the city, and ATS wants us to add many more.

ATS makes many misstatements of fact in its report, such as the sentence on page 9, where the report says, “As part of issuing these frequency licenses, the FCC mandates that the Carriers should provide seamless coverage throughout the licensed market area.” Now, we all know this is clearly not true. Carriers have maps that show coverage on their web sites, and their contracts disclose that “coverage is not guaranteed in all places within the coverage area” (from a Verizon Wireless contract). So ATS is trying to mislead the council into claiming that they (the council) are obligated to provide sites for seamless coverage. This is not true, and ATS should know that it is not true. Further, nothing in this plan will absolutely guarantee that cell providers will actually spend the money needed to provide completely seamless coverage in the city. In fact, I have been told by two different carriers that they do not to intend to provide such coverage in any area that is not perfectly flat. The carriers themselves admit that it is too costly to get to 100-percent coverage.

ATS also attempts to engage in scare tactics to frighten gullible members of the council into approving its plan. An example of this lies on page 10, where ATS claims, “Local governments regulate but cannot restrict the placement of wireless communications facilities from sites such as schools, residential zones, and public right-of-ways.” Note the use of “schools, residential zones … . ” ATS wants us to believe that if we do not allow cell towers in parks, then carriers will place them in schools. Lance MacLean, a council shill for ATS, said much the same thing at the Sept. 4, 2007, council meeting. The trouble with this is that the city can regulate the placement of cell towers as long as it does not unfairly restrict placement. ATS also tries to raise the bogyman of lawsuits on page 10 by claiming, “Recently, the courts have struck down restrictive ordinances or ordinances that are ‘so onerous’ that they are in effect restricting the development of wireless networks ... .” It is true there have been cases where nearly complete bans on cell tower placement were struck down, but reasonable regulations have been upheld many times. Again, ATS is trying to mislead the council and the residents.

ATS does get the goals partially right on page 13 of the report.

1. Mandatory collocation and tower sharing on a nondiscriminatory basis by all cell service providers should be required.
2. Requiring the use of the best available tower hiding “stealth” technology.

However, it adds two undesirable goals, both designed to make ATS money by insisting the council adopt its plan and by stating that the city should sell access to parks and other city facilities for cell towers.

The last two goals are the crux of the problem with the ATS report and really the motivation for this entire process. ATS is a private company that is in business to make a profit. It should be commended for a masterful sales process assisted by Ury and MacLean and its creativity in getting the Mission Viejo taxpayers to pay for its sales pitch to the council. The only question is, will its shills be able to convince their fellow council members to go along with this farce?

We all need to understand what the city's role should be in accommodating cellular service providers to deliver service to residents and visitors. First, the city has no responsibility to guarantee cellular coverage everywhere in the city. Second, no one has a right to cellular coverage at every location in the city. Finally, if the city feels as if it needs to indirectly increase taxes on residents by requiring cellular carriers to pay fees, it should do so by collecting a franchise tax on cell phone bills, not by becoming a landlord for cell towers.

It is my belief that the city needs to develop a process for cell tower applications that would balance the needs for residents to be aware of what is being planned and provide a predictable process for the cellular service carriers to get their cell towers approved.

One approach would be:

1. Allow for ample notice by mail to anyone living within 1,000 yards of a proposed site and any residence that would have a full or partially restricted view of the proposed location and schedule at least two public hearings on any proposed site at Planning Commission meetings.
2. Require construction such that all of the major carriers that serve the city could be housed at the proposed site without further expansion.
3. Require the use of the best available tower hiding “stealth” technology to minimize the impact on views. Supporting equipment would have to be located underground or hidden from view in existing structures.
4. Restrict construction in city parks and public facilities of cell sites and work to relocate existing cell sites in parks.
5. Restrict location of cell sites in areas zoned residential under the city's general ability to restrict commercial uses within residential zones. This would not mean that cell sites could not be immediately adjacent to residential zones in commercial or industrial zones. In nearly every case, a cell site need not be located precisely in only one location, and a nearby commercial location would serve nearly as well.
6. If all of the foregoing conditions are met and residents’ concerns about appearance and noise are addressed, then the city should issue a permit with no further delay. This provides the cellular carriers the certainty they desire. We should also seek to have a timeline for approval that does not exceed 120 days, including all public meetings.

What the city should not do is be intimidated or fooled by ATS's sales pitch and adopt its suggestions to place cell towers in parks or other city facilities. Parks are for recreation, and that should remain their sole purpose. The city should also sever ties to ATS and stop paying it money. ATS representatives fooled us into paying for their sales pitch, and we should not be fooled again. It would be interesting to see what campaign contributions ATS has already made and who it will pay in the future.

The red herring about the city making money off these sites is an attempt to provide cover for politicians and bureaucrats who already have too much of our money to waste. The fees that we would receive from these sites would go to various wasteful schemes that our City Council and city staff are so well known for. Every capital project in the city costs from 150 percent to 300 percent more than projected because of the supposed need for gold-plated fixtures and the like. Giving the city more money is like giving a drunk a bottle of booze.

A copy of the proposed plan can be obtained from the city's web site at http://www.cityofmissionviejo.org/depts/cd/mvwmp9.pdf

Please send an email to the City Council at cityadmin@cityofmissionviejo.org and communitydev@cityofmissionviejo.org telling council members not to approve the ATS Wireless Master Plan.

Windmills in MV?
Letter to the editor

A couple of “windy” Mission Viejo residents seem quite upset by the Edison poles. Perhaps they should just try to get even. Why don’t they cancel their home service and put a windmill on their roof?

Bill Cruse
Mission Viejo

Reader Response - YMCA

Perhaps you should have spoken with the two representatives from the YMCA before maligning their simple thank you gesture to the council for doing what the council was contractually obligated to complete for 11 years and failed to do so. Your implication that anyone associated with the YMCA has previously threatened to remove council members who did not support renovations is totally baseless. You will not find any record of YMCA leaders, either staff or volunteers, who have made such a statement.

While it is true that the YMCA has pushed for the Council for several years to make needed and contractually-obligated repairs on a building which was in disrepair when they took it over in 1995, the YMCA has worked with city staff and each sitting council for the last 12 years to be an enhancement to the community through programs and services for our residents. While members of the community may make comments to the Council in the public comments session of any council meeting, the YMCA leadership has never threatened any council member with retribution for their stance on completing needed renovations.

To paint a wonderful community asset and established charity with such a gratuitous swipe is irresponsible. Saying thank you to the Council was a simple courtesy acknowledging the infusion of, yes, taxpayer dollars, in a city-owned building in which the YMCA is a tenant.

Rick Donahue

Disputed statement from the blog’s council summary:
Two representatives of the YMCA thanked the council and city staff members for the YMCA pool renovations. Absent from the comments was any mention it was taxpayer money – not from the personal funds of council members. Perhaps YMCA administrators were attempting to balance their comments over the years, implying council members would be removed from office if they didn’t support the renovations.

Editor's Response:
First, I want to thank you for writing with your concerns.

In looking over what we wrote, I think that the point that was being made is that thanking the city council is not the same as acknowledging all of the taxpayer funds that have been spent on the YMCA facility. While I am sure that the YMCA representatives gave the council a warm and happy feeling, there are many who still question the expenditure of funds. One thing that I have been concerned about is the apparent refusal of the YMCA to provide detailed information on where the users of the City-owned facility live. If 99 percent of the people live in Mission Viejo, then at least one could say that those taxpayers are getting a return on investment. On the other hand, if only 25 percent of the facility users live in Mission Viejo, then the cost/benefit equation does not look as good.

I like the "Y" and participated in many programs when I was younger. To the best of my knowledge, no money was given from the community government where I lived to the "Y". All money came from private donors, program fees, and volunteers.

It somehow seems like the YMCA should be providing reports to taxpayers showing how our money is being spent so that the citizens can determine how they feel about supporting the YMCA in Mission Viejo. Right now, I have no real idea what it is costing Mission Viejo, but I see a never-ending stream of items on the Mission Viejo check register paying for various bills. Why?

Finally, the collective recollection of Blog staffers is that there were threats made by people supporting the YMCA at City Council meetings. Emotions do run high during these disputes, and people rightly tell the council that the individual council members will be held accountable at the next election. However, it is a fact that such threats were made by people supporting the YMCA, and that is what we reported. If the YMCA administrators did not make the threats themselves, they also did not distance themselves from those threats at the time they were made.

CUSD Update, Sept. 14
Editorial staff

A roundup of news this week includes an update on the lawsuit against the Registrar of Voters, allegations of Brown Act violations, a comment on the inequity of spending on city schools and liability coverage for Capistrano Unified School District trustees.

The oral argument for the appeal in the lawsuit filed by CUSD parents against the Orange County Registrar of Voters will begin at 1 p.m. at the Court of Appeal, 925 N. Spurgeon Street, Santa Ana, on Oct. 23. A group of parents, (Capo for Better Representation), filed suit concerning the ROV's invalidation of recall petition signatures. More than one-third of the 177,000 signatures were thrown out, including a high number appearing to be valid. The judges will be Sills, Rylaarsdam and Moore.

Some CUSD residents who followed the process of hiring Interim Superintendent Woodrow Carter are alleging Brown Act violations may have occurred. While certain matters such as personnel evaluation can legally be discussed in closed session, CUSD administrators have abused this exception in the past to cover a wide range of topics that should have been aired in public. The trustees in closed session deliberated on aspects leading up to hiring Carter – deciding on desirable qualifications, length of time the interim status should last, salary, starting date and contract terms.

Mission Viejo residents continue to ask why their city has two school districts. Apparently, Saddleback Valley USD administrators have said off-record they would welcome all of Mission Viejo into their district. Some parents would like the city to have its own district. Mission Viejo is a donor city for CUSD, with millions of dollars taken out of town and spent on facilities elsewhere, including the $52-million administration center in San Juan Capistrano. There’s no money for such “luxuries” as a gymnasium at Newhart Middle School or a theater at Capo High, but the cost of San Juan Hills High School is now at $154 million and could reach $175 million.

Following CUSD Trustee Duane Stiff’s request in August for clarification of liability coverage for the trustees, he got his answer at the Sept. 10 board meeting. The board of trustees approved updating the wording to reflect the current California School Board Association’s standard language. Stiff expressed his concern in August regarding the indictment of former superintendent James Fleming, whose legal defense for felony indictments isn’t covered. As a result of the Sept. 10 vote, trustees will be covered for liability while they are operating within the scope of their employment. Coverage does not include criminal, sexual or alcohol-related misconduct.

A Sept. 13 news story in OC Weekly, “Surreal Estate,” provided a balanced report on the opening of San Juan Hills High School. Unlike most OC Register stories about the school, it addresses negative impacts of the schools surroundings. Go to
 http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/surreal-estate/27737/.

Sept. 10 CUSD Board Meeting Summary
Compiled by a Capo constituent

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Inaccurate minutes were reported for the 8/13/07 closed session. (see item #1)
• CUEA again says nothing in public about the increase in class size. (See notes below)
• Parents are the only ones speaking publicly about the condition of facilities and class size. (See public comments, notes and speeches)
• After 10 months as school board president, Sheila Benecke still can’t operate a microphone. (See public comments. Interesting.)
• CUSD administrators suddenly realize they should have a plan for schools after 43 years in the business. (See #26)
• Costs increase at SJHHS – what a surprise. They are within 1.5 percent of the original contract, but a good question would be, “What have they paid outside of the contract?”(See # 27)
• SJHHS only has enough classrooms for 1,700 students, but they do have a nice etched red concrete road, lovely bell lights and a theatre like no other. I see portables in their future. (See #27)
• Arroyo Vista gets a second multipurpose room for $2,791,074. (See #28)
  Reserves increased to 2.3 percent. (See #29)
• Board members vote to provide legal fees for board members and employees accused of wrongdoing in certain cases. (See #30)

CLASSIC COMMENTS OF THE NIGHT

CUSD administrator Sherine Smith stated, “We had a smooth opening this year. Everyone deserves a pat on the back.” I suppose it went smoothly if you think class sizes of 40-plus students, more students and fewer adults per school, not enough custodial help to clean schools properly and volunteer parents taking over what used to be paid positions is smooth.

Benecke stated, “Oh, yes, that’s right, Ellen,” when Addonizio asked that the prior month’s closed-session minutes, reported as No Action Taken, be changed to reflect the fact that a vote of 7-0 was actually taken. There’s nothing like getting your hand caught in the cookie jar.

CUSD administrator Hall apologized to the parents of SJHHS for not having the track and field in when school opened. I wonder how the parents of almost EVERY OTHER school feel about this.

Trustee Marlene Draper stated SJHHS was not a gold-plated school; the gold is in the kids. Something in that statement didn’t ring true. Oh wait, maybe it depends on what kids you are talking about. Are the kids sitting in the shower, bathrooms and locker room floors for lunch gold? What about the kids sitting in classrooms with windows that are not tempered glass? Or, what about the kids at Capo High, which doesn’t have a theatre after 30 years? Are they gold?

BOARD BRIEFS

 New Superintendent Woodrow Carter addressed the board. He stated he has had an interest in CUSD since December 2006. He is now a resident of Dana Point. CUSD is comprised of great communities that each have a feeling of great pride. In CUSD we are surrounded by great and talented teachers, administrators, PTAs and parents. Most of his past experience is in districts with declining enrollment. He will be a superintendent who is open, visible and accessible. He is mindful that we have had five superintendents in 15 months. We need teamwork and consensus building.

Suzette Lovely received flowers, praise and a standing ovation for doing her well-paid job.

Opening school report:

• 140 work orders for A/C
• 66 special education buses
• 62 regular buses
• 1,000 students enrolled in the new food service prepay program
• Many schools received upgrades including fire alarms and a working elevator at CVHS; fire alarms, renovated locker rooms and removal of two portables at SCHS; exterior painting at Arroyo Vista and interim housing in place at Newhart.
• District enrollment is up 380 students from the number projected in the budget: 200 elementary, 125 middle school and 50 high school. (OK, they really said this – I know it doesn’t add up.)
• 140 new certificated hires
• Sections (one period of a subject) were added to some of the schools – this is the Band-aid CUSD is placing on the broken arm called staffing based on the prior year ADA.
•  As mentioned above, Sherine Smith stated, “We had a smooth opening this year. Everyone deserves a pat on the back.” I suppose it went smoothly if you think class-sizes in excess of 40-plus is smooth. That is one of the problems in CUSD – the administrators are too busy patting each other on the back to see that Rome is burning.

 Public Comments:

A parent spoke about her daughter leaving the district because she received the approval to have IPE too late. Apparently there is not standard policy in CUSD as to what exactly qualifies for IPE in the case of gymnastics. Some schools allow it for a level 7 gymnast and some don’t. It was also stated the requirement for a middle-school student is the same as that of a high-school student. The parent requested a standardization of the requirement at level 7 for gymnastics.

The president of the National Gymnastic Team wants the CUSD guidelines for IPE, in gymnastics, to reflect a standard of level 7.

A student who benefited from a program that helped him learn to be independent stated his objection to CUSD cutting the program.

The CVHS PTSA president spoke, reading part of a resolution passed by the CVHS PTSA Executive Board objecting to increase in class size due to staffing based on the school’s prior year ADA. (See speech below)

A parent read a parable regarding the inequities in facilities within CUSD. (See speech below)

 INTERESTING: Now here’s where it got a little interesting. Pres. Sheila Benecke seemed to turn down some of the speakers’ microphone so they could not be heard. The speakers were Tom Russell and Terri Morelli (two outspoken critics of CUSD). Then she suddenly figured out how to fix it for the next speaker, Erin Kutnick, a supporter of the district. Benecke has been running the microphone in this boardroom since December 2006, and she seems to have problems every meeting. The interesting part is that you can always hear her and Draper. She only seems to have problems with those she might not want to hear. One would think after 10 months of being in office she could learn, but you know what they say about teaching old dogs new tricks.
Kutnick spoke and said attending SJHHS opening was the most exciting first day she had experienced and that the school was to alleviate overcrowding at the other schools. She then went on to make inappropriate personal comments about Trustee Addonizio. Too bad the school hasn’t solved the overcrowding at the other high schools, and too bad Benecke didn’t leave the microphone down for this speaker.

 Consent Calendar:

 #1 8/13/07 closed-session minutes pulled by Addonizio, who requested that the closed-session minutes from the 8/13/07 be changed from No final action taken in the employment of Interim Superintendent to Vote taken 7-0. (Now how exactly is that kind of mistake made? Does anyone wonder how many of these errors exist? — Benecke’s comment, “Oh yes, you are right.”) 7-0

 #5 Purchase Orders pulled by member of the audience – Questioned the cost of the shade structures. She stated she had done a lot of investigation and the company being used has quoted much a lower price than what CUSD is paying. 7-0

 #8 Transfer of Funds pulled by Addonizio – Questioned and answered. 7-0

 #15 Shade Structures pulled by Carter; Hall responded. – Member of the public had brought the issue to the district, so they did some research. There was a lot of discussion about the company’s reorganization. All structures must be approved by DSA. CUSD structures meet Title 25 requirements. His research concluded CUSD received the best bid. (Note: it is believed to be the only bid, so one could argue it is either the best bid or the worst bid.) 7-0

#22 Pulled by member of the audience – She stated that the item calls for her layoff. She is the single mother of a special-needs child. She has a bachelor’s degree and made a really good case for why the district should keep the position. 4-3 (NO:Addonizio, Bryson, Christensen).

 Discussion/Action

 #25 Arts and Music Education — Schools will get $83.04 per student, one-time money, and $15.94 per student ongoing money for music, dance, drama and visual arts. (Per the written agenda item includes PE.) Site Councils will have oversight. Steering committee was formed and input was obtained from focus groups, students and schools that held needs-assessment meetings. It was determined that CUSD will participate in the countywide Arts Alliance. Included in the decision were 14 arts teachers, two elementary school teachers, two parents, two students, three principals, and Carolyn Williams and Barbara Scholl. 

Bryson questions percentage of grant going to administration (answer 2.95 percent indirect costs). Also confirmed that Scholl’s salary and that of her personal secretary are paid from the General Fund.

Scholl/ Williams were questioned and they answered:
Scholl has 68 music teachers under her, but of those she is only responsible for the evaluation of 28. The secondary principals are responsible for the other 40. Schools do not have to ask for the money; ROP was not asked to be part of the planning, but Stiff requested they be consulted, as they are very involved at CVHS and SCHS. Grant will benefit students at all schools. 7-0

 #26 Review of Master Facility Plan Demographics — Hall reported (with comments by Carter). He stated that in districts where he had previously worked, this type of plan was done every year. He was surprised to learn it had never been done in CUSD. The growth of district population is slowing, but it is still projected to increase 11.2 percent by 2011. The population by 2011 of children aged 5-14 will decline, and the population of children aged 14-17 will increase. School population is projected at .5 to .7 per unit built. By 2016, CUSD is expecting a growth in students between a conservative estimate of 4,196 students and a moderate estimate of 9113 students. The state is in declining enrollment, yet CUSD is still experiencing growth. Many districts are faced with closing schools because of the declining enrollment problem. It was recommended that the board develop a Board Policy addressing individual school capacity, permanent vs. portable, core school capacity and interim student housing. Next up in the review? Prioritizing the needs.

#27 Change Order for SJHHS — They are within 1.5 percent of the original contract. A good question is what have they paid outside of the contract. Trustee Christensen requested the credits be voted on separately from the increases.

• #1 Unforeseen condition relating to excess soil outside of the building footprint, $5,908
• #2 Unforeseen items related to the theatre and adjacent buildings, $112,889.50
• #3 Miscellaneous revisions to improve the aesthetic character, $78,649
• #4 SDG&E required retaining wall around their pull box and SJC Water required connection to the relocated reclaimed water supply, $41,220
• #5 Power for roll-up door and ducting/lighting revisions, $36,217
• #6 Deletion of standard track and field 9 future pool lights, concrete for future modular classrooms ($704,446). NOTE in the 4/2/07 board meeting, the board approved an additional $2,173,338 for a synthetic field and all-weather track at SJHHS (so this is actually a deduction of $704,446 from the contract and an increase of $2.2 million outside of the contract).
• #7 Sewer line for the future pool, $60,339
• #8 Deduct landscaping for a planter in the parking lot with no irrigation, ($744)

 Hall noted that the credit for the field of $322,000 did not meet the mark of $400,000 that they had told the trustees they would get when they approved the additional $2.2 million contract. Trustee Bryson asked what the total landscape portion of the contract was and Hall stated he would have to get back to her.

Current budget for the school $142 million

Unknowns- stadium, concession, restrooms, track, two-story modular. Estimated best-case guess on additional cost for these items is $12 million in today’s dollars. In addition, CUSD is still in negotiations with SJC city regarding the pool. The cost of the pilot car was unexpected, as are additional road improvements. Other unknowns will further increase the cost of the school. They are trying to get the state to pay a portion of the required road improvement. Currently, the school only has enough classrooms for 1,700 students. A two-story modular will bring the capacity to 2,400. Both fall far short of the current enrollment at every other high school in the district. Hall apologized to the parents that the situation regarding the track and field are not optimal. Bryson expressed concern regarding security at the theatre, which is still under construction. Darnold thanked everyone for supporting “Our school.” Draper is excited to see the facility and stated it is beautiful. Draper wanted it noted that the developer put in the tree-lined street. Draper requested a timeline for the stadium, pool and new modular classrooms. Christensen feels that the district should not pay cost overruns that are cosmetic in nature, nor should the district pay for errors that are the fault of the vendors. Dixon stated that CUSD pays for errors on the part of vendors and then tries to negotiate at the end of the contract. (This has been discussed by Christensen in other meetings as bad business practice.) Benecke wanted to be sure that there is enough money to pay for all the extras. Hall answered that there is a $750,000 set-aside for contingencies. Upon further questioning by Addonizio(?), Hall admitted that if all the money is not spent at SJHHS, it would go to the Capital Facilities Fund for other schools’ needs. Christensen stated he had a problem with gold-plating one school when there are so many other schools with basic needs. Draper answered we don’t build old. (Note: this is not quite true, as one only needs to look at the science classrooms at SJHHS built at the exact same time as the science classrooms at CVHS – one is gold-plated, the other is not). Marlene stated she did not feel the costs were out of line, given the facility.

Credits approved 7-0. Increases approved 4-3 (NO:Addonizio, Bryson, Christensen)

 #28 Change Order for Arroyo Vista. Increase $6,074 total cost of project $2,791,074 for second multipurpose room. Contractor will not sign the change order so legal counsel advised how to handle. 7-0

 #29 Preliminary 06/07 Financial Statement. No need to amend the budget. Sorry, but PowerPoint was fast and there is no way to properly follow along. Convenient that when it comes to discussing the money, they never provide much information in the board packet. The reserve is now 2.3 percent or .3 percent above the minimum allowed.

#30 Revision of Board Policy-Legal Protection. Bottom line, the taxpayers are on the hook for the trustees and or any employees’ legal fees. 7-0

BOARD COMMENTS

 None

NOTES

 The CUSD Board of Trustees approved a budget on 6/24/07, 4-2. (Trustee Darnold was absent and Trustees Addonizio and Christensen voted no). Four parents spoke against passing the budget for many reasons, including the fact that the new staff allocation at ADA (average daily attendance) instead of Actual Enrollment would increase class size. At the 9/13/07 board meeting, during public comments, a parent again spoke against the increase in class size and read a portion of a resolution, passed unanimously by the CVHS PTSA Executive Board, opposing staffing based on ADA. The president of CUEA, Vicki Soderberg, has not spoken publicly at any meeting of the CUSD Board of Trustees opposing this action that has increased class size, the third increase since 1999. During the board meetings, no CUSD staff member expressed any concern regarding this new staffing program, and most of the PTA leadership has remained quiet regarding this disastrous action. Who is watching out for the students?

SPEECHES 

Good evening and welcome, Mr. Carter. I am happy to have you in our district and look forward to working with you. My name is Sharon Campbell, and I am here tonight as the PTSA president for Capistrano Valley High School. On August 27, 2007, the CVHS PTSA Executive Board unanimously passed a resolution opposing the new formula for staffing teachers at the middle and high schools based on average daily attendance. A copy of that resolution has been provided to each of you. The board-approved resolution will be presented to our membership at the next association meeting. We resolve that all future staffing allocation be base upon actual enrollment and not prior year ADA. These changes in the current budget have the potential to create inequitable educational opportunities for the CUSD students, as schools with lower ADA will have large class sizes.

Speaking as a parent I am also very opposed to staffing teachers based on last years ADA. I wrote to many in CUSD regarding my concerns prior to the adoption of the budget and I was told it would work out fine, well it hasn’t.

The current formulary for staffing classrooms has resulted in unacceptably large classes, many in excess of 40 students. The attendance rate of last year’s students has no bearing on this year’s population. Approximately ¬ of a high schools population leave and new students enter. You have no way of knowing what these new students attendance will be. 

I understand that to put a Band-Aid on the problem you have added class sections however that is going to result in a last minute shuffling of students from one class to another, thus disrupting schooling

Your actions are just like the airline who over books flights. Only when I show up for a plane to New York that is overbooked I get a placed on another flight and often compensation for my trouble. I don’t have sit on the floor and forego my meal and seatbelt.

I understand you have budget problems and I understand you have to make cuts, but I have sat in this very room and heard over and over that you have done everything to keep the cuts away from the classroom. There seems to be a huge disconnect as to just what is the classroom. Increasing the number of students in a classroom is as close to making cuts to the classroom.

I know this looked good for your budget because it came to my attention when I noticed the teachers received a raise yet there was an over $ 2 million reduction in teacher salaries. Just because it looks good on paper doesn’t mean it’s good for the students. I’m certain that your budget would look really good if all the people sitting at that table over there had their positions eliminated but that might make it a little hard to run the district. It is time each of you looked past the paper to what damage you are causing with your votes.

Remember you are all here to serve the students and this cut was not service to the students.

Thank you, Trustees Addonizio and Christensen, for voting against the budget that included this damaging cut. I ask you all to put the money back into our children’s classrooms by reversing your terrible decision.

Good evening Board members and Mr. Carter,

My name is Sharon O’Brien and I have students at Newhart and Capistrano Valley High School. I would like to spend my 3 minutes reciting a parable.
 Once there was a very large family who lived in an extravagant house with many children and it was back to school time. The parents had always reminded their children that they were on a very tight budget and it got harder every year to make everyone happy. So the parents started by taking the youngest child out shopping. They took this child to the nicest stores and bought him the very best of everything – the finest clothes that money can buy, great new shoes, a backpack, everything that a student would need and then they brought him home. All of the other children gathered round and asked where their new things were. They all needed shoes – it was unsafe to go to school barefoot. They needed new clothes that actually fit – not the old, worn out ones.  But the parents just said – “We are so sorry. I told you that we only had a set budget (which really confused the children because they lived in this very nice house that was actually so big that they leased part of it. The older children were very upset because they had been told to be patient for years and their school needs were serious).

The parents continued, “Why do you complain? –Look at Junior – he is the showcase of the family!” Well the other children had nothing against Junior and all of his nice things. They just stood there in their barefeet and wondered why their parents had not budgeted more intelligently and acted more equitably. They asked when they would get their new back to school things and their parents replied, “we are really sorry but you will have to be patient and wait for the family needs assessment”. 

Well we won’t go into the part of the story where Family Services takes the father away….

Now, as this parable teaches us – no healthy, well functioning family would buy an extravagant house and favor one child at the expense of all the others and no school district should either.

Fair and timely allocation of resources in a school district is crucial to the well being of all the children in that district. Some of the oldest schools in CUSD have been made to wait the longest – Capo 25 yrs. for a pool, 30 yrs. and counting for a theatre, Newhart - 27 yrs. and counting for a multi purpose room and sufficient bathrooms to accommodate the huge population of the school. The time for assessments is over – the time for action is overdue.

 I don’t have anything against Junior – I just want all the children to have what they need when they go back to school.

The Buzz column, Sept. 14

Newly hired Capistrano Unified School District Interim Superintendent Woodrow Carter held a press conference on Sept. 7, promising transparency and openness. He also stated he’s interested in the job as permanent superintendent. At the Sept. 14 school board meeting, he mentioned he’s the fifth person to lead the district in 14 months. A public reception for Carter will be held Mon., Sept. 17, 3:30-5:30 p.m., at the administration building, 33122 Valle Road, San Juan Capistrano.

***

According to information released by the Capistrano Dispatch, Carter’s contract as interim boss is for 18 months, followed by month-to-month extensions if needed. He’ll receive $20,416.67 per month, plus an $850 monthly car allowance, an annual stipend of $11,000 in lieu of health benefits and a $5,000 moving allowance. He will reside in Dana Point.

***

Santa Margarita Water District says a reservoir is needed in South County in case of an emergency disruption of the water supply. Buzz readers reported six months ago receiving phone calls from a pollster asking how the district should contain rates, and building a reservoir was one of the choices in a push-poll. Perhaps the announcement about the reservoir and the poll are unrelated. The proposed reservoir would cost $38 million and become operational in spring of 2010. The location would be in open space between Coto de Caza and Rancho Santa Margarita.

***

The city of San Juan Capistrano is continuing to protest widening of Ortega Highway, saying the project shouldn’t move forward without more study. The city is asking for a full environmental impact report despite Caltrans’ wishes to proceed without further delay. Public comments regarding the project closed on Sept. 8. Caltrans will respond to all comments, and it expects to file a final report by the end of this year. Nearly all those predicting the outcome believe Caltrans will proceed with the widening project despite objections from HOAs and property owners along Ortega.

***

Reader response about the city’s lack of emergency preparedness: “If your family doesn’t have supplies on hand and a specific plan of what every family member will do, then you’d better hope there’s never an emergency. If the city had a plan, residents would already know what it is. Has anyone received information about how residential developments, homeowners associations or gated communities are supposed to take care of their neighborhoods? Does each street have a designated leader or contact to provide help and information? If the city is waiting until an emergency to tell us about the plan, residents need to be prepared on their own.”

***

September is National Preparedness Month. A Website sponsored by Homeland Security can be found at http://www.ready.gov/america/npm07/index.html. They offer free brochures, but one can create a checklist from common sense. Keep three gallons of water and canned food for three days for each person. Get a flashlight with extra batteries, First Aid supplies and a fire extinguisher. Other essentials include a radio, can opener, pet supplies, clothing for three days, a blanket, poncho, gloves, tools and a waterproof container with matches. Establish a meeting place for family members and an out-of-town contact to call if family members can’t reach each other. That’s not everything, but it’s a good start.