CUSD Update
Editorial staff

Trustees Marlene Draper and Sheila Benecke struck out during their hearing on April 28 regarding their ballot statements. Following a legal challenge by the CUSD Recall Committee, the two trustees agreed to have their candidate statements stricken from the June 24 recall election ballot. The committee accused the two recall targets of making false or misleading statements. The judge gave Draper and Benecke a choice to have their statements stricken or to proceed to trial and defend their statements. The time period for withdrawal of statements had passed.

Draper and Benecke said in their response to the media that they didn’t want to go to the expense of a trial. The option of abiding by the law in the first place seemed to escape them.

Draper and Benecke’s ballot statements weren’t published in news reports, but a parent found them and posted copies on a discussion board. It’s easy to see why the statements were challenged. For example, Draper continues to claim the new administration building saves the district money. That’s false, and the district is still leasing the space it was supposed to give up after the new building was completed. Draper’s statement ends with: “Fight the school yard bullies who want to control our schools for their own special interests.” Parents who attend school board meetings would likely assert that Draper is one of the bullies.

Instead of sticking with her own attributes, Benecke’s candidate statement included schools that received awards. Additionally, she attacked the recall activists, which is not permitted in ballot statements.

The May 12 school board meeting should be interesting – they all are. Community activist Dr. Ron Lackey has placed two items on the board’s agenda: 1) Limit terms of CUSD board members to two terms. 2) Change the election of CUSD board members from election by the entire CUSD electorate to election by constituent area that the trustee represents. Dr. Lackey continues to protest the district’s practice of placing citizen-submitted items at the end of the agenda.

Parents continue to ask about a discovery a month ago of a high-pressure fuel pipeline running approximately 1,000 feet from the new high school in San Juan Capistrano. No answers have been provided, but CUSD hired a law firm – probably to defend the district’s controversial actions rather than investigate the defective safety analysis that allowed the high school to be built near the pipeline. The law firm chosen by the district seems to have ties to the old administration’s leaders, including David Doomey. Doomey, who retired last year, was at the center of many controversies, including the disappearance of significant documents regarding site decisions for the new high school.

With such ongoing actions as the above, do any CUSD constituents still believe the recall election isn’t necessary “just a few months” before the November election?