CUSD Update – Too Soon to Celebrate
Editorial staff

Recall proponents targeting CUSD Trustees Sheila Benecke and Marlene Draper successfully delivered signatures to the Registrar of Voters to meet the Jan. 29 deadline. Workers gathered 66,088 signatures to recall the Fleming-era trustees, and 40,493 (20,493 per trustee) valid ones are needed to trigger a recall election.

It would appear to be a slam dunk. Before any reform-minded constituent breaks out the champagne, consider that approximately 177,000 signatures were gathered in 2005 to recall all seven old-guard trustees. Back then, ROV Neal Kelley managed to disqualify an unprecedented number of signatures – 35 percent – to prevent a recall election.

Information has been published in the OC Register and elsewhere that the 2005 recall effort failed because workers filled in some addresses of those signing the petition. That’s incorrect. The category of filled-in addresses alone (7,000) wouldn’t have derailed the recall. Recall proponents who went to the ROV office to examine why signatures were disqualified found a whole other story. Entire pages of signatures were disqualified for “reasons” that made no sense. As an example, the ROV said everyone who signed a particular page had used the same color ink, so the entire page was disqualified. When circulators (parents, volunteers or paid solicitors) are providing the pen as well as the petition papers, that’s what happens. The same color ink in no way invalidates an entire page of signatures.

The ROV disqualified a high percentage of signatures as “not registered to vote.” Proponents checked the ROV database and found a very high error rate – up to 40 percent – in this category alone. When all ROV errors are added up, the recall should have been on the ballot. For reasons yet to be uncovered, ROV Kelley had the support and protection of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and other high-level officials in keeping the 2005 recall effort off the ballot. Back then, Fleming and his Stepford trustees had the blessing of the county’s power club. Some things have changed.

If anyone thinks a special election (costing the district up to $784,000) is expensive, they should think about the cost of have four Fleming-era spendthrifts on the board and a new superintendent who is apparently not inclined to rein them in. The district is facing a $28-million deficit, and the old guard is still looking for ways to throw money away instead of repairing many deteriorating school buildings.

Residents should be angry, fed up and ready to throw the bums out. Fortunately, most voters will do exactly that at the first opportunity.