City Revives Old Issues

The city posted the Sept. 21 council agenda, which can be found here

Item 26 on the agenda is a discussion about reinstating funds that were cut from the city library. A talking point during the signature drive to recall Councilman Lance MacLean was the council majority’s decision to cut library materials by 75 percent. The cut was in stark contrast to the council majority of Lance MacLean, Frank Ury and Trish Kelley (MUK) bestowing lifetime medical benefits on council members for three terms of part-time service.

Residents did not take the news well when recall proponents told them the council majority voted in July to reduce library funding. However, many residents had supported the recall on the basis of the healthcare benefits alone. Most of nearly 14,000 voters who signed the recall petition had already done so before the budget cuts were made.

The dog park is another topic that might be repositioned in the city staff’s effort to take the heat off MacLean. Documents numbering approximately 1,000 pages now accompany a new mention of the subject. Those wanting a dog park are watching a drawn-out version of “musical chairs,” with the city alternately proposing a site and then finding it unsuitable. In 2002, former city employee Richard Howard presented a detailed look at all the city parks – and various spaces in between – by photographing each area. No meaningful progress has been made since 2002. With the “normal” costs of a dog park provided by other cities (averaging less than $100,000), Mission Viejo could have built numerous dog parks instead of paying for at least seven years of studies. The city staff now estimates the cost of a Mission Viejo dog park at $1 million.

The city staff’s focus currently is back to Oso Park, after the council stated that a dog park should not be in any city park or near residences. Oso Park fails on both criteria, but perhaps some dog park supporters will still be fooled into thinking the city staff wants to consider their request. If pointless discussions can be continued until after an election to recall Councilman Lance MacLean, perhaps dog park supporters won’t bother to vote.

Those wanting a dog park are mobilized, and they gathered approximately 1,100 signatures in support of their cause. The current council majority obviously does not support building a dog park. In a low-turnout, special election to recall one of the MUK majority members, 1,100 motivated voters can make a difference.

Reviewing the Festival

It took five days, but blog staffers finally found a Mission Viejo resident who attended the Sept. 12 Readers’ Festival at the community center. Competing events on Sept. 12 that drew Mission Viejo residents to other cities included a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party in San Juan Capistrano and the Tall Ships Festival in Dana Point. Bloggers apparently weren’t the only ones who had trouble finding Readers’ Festival attendees who live in Mission Viejo, as none were quoted in OC Register or Saddleback Valley News articles.

Isn’t it interesting how quickly the city staff went into spin mode? Prior to the event, city employees stated that 5,000 attendees were expected. That number was never mentioned again nor was any estimate provided of actual attendance. The only person reporting to this blog arrived in the afternoon and said the event “wasn’t crowded.”

Here’s the report from the Mission Viejo resident:

“My granddaughter was my reason for going, and we were looking for activities for young children. We ended up at a theater production. We also went to a music activity, and it was at first abstract and then rap music. I guess the emphasis of the music was multicultural, but I don’t know what it had to do with reading.

“During the theater production, a person came on stage as Chicken Little and began by saying, ‘The sky is falling! The sky is falling!’ Another person on stage said, ‘If the sky is falling, it must be due to global warming. Let’s go tell Al Gore.’ I would have thought I had heard incorrectly, but they said it twice. Young children were taking in the performance, and they were absorbing the message of global warming and Al Gore.”

Blog staffers questioned whether the theater production about global warming was a spoof about junk science. The resident responded that it seemed to be a serious portrayal.

City Manager Dennis Wilberg’s Sept. 18 “The Week That Was” filled less than a page, with no mention of Sept. 14-18. It was instead five comments from people who attended the Readers’ Festival on Sept. 12. One attendee complimented the city staff “on all the things you do,” including the “wonderful” Lake Mission Viejo, which is privately owned. Wilberg’s report talks up feedback about the festival, based on a survey conducted during the event. Evidently, three festival workers were assigned the task of recording positive response from attendees. They surveyed 53 participants.

As part of the survey, attendees were asked how they found out about the festival. Some said they read about it in the City Outlook magazine. Readers told this blog a week ago that the Outlook magazine arrived in their mailboxes on Sept. 12, the day of the festival.

With Wilberg’s “the event that was” report focusing on participants who said they had a really good time, the obvious question went unanswered: what did the festival cost Mission Viejo taxpayers?

Lawsuits Only Benefit Attorneys

Last week’s edition of this blog questioned what taxpayers would gain from the city’s lawsuit against Saddleback Valley USD. Read the Sept. 12 article here.

The title of the city’s legal action against SVUSD is about busing. The issue, however, is the reuse of O’Neill Elementary School. On March 10, SVUSD trustees decided O’Neill Elementary would permanently close at the end of the school year. The building has since reopened as an adult education center, and classes began two weeks ago. The city’s lawsuit says SVUSD failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act when it didn’t address the potential impacts of reuse as an adult education center.

Brad Morton on Sept. 15 published an article on MissionViejoDispatch.com, revealing that the city filed suit prior to getting the council’s approval. Morton questions whether or not a Brown Act violation occurred. Read the article and reader comments at http://missionviejodispatch.com/?p=11324#comments.

While Mission Viejo residents might not agree on how to express their disappointment over the school’s closing, one aspect should be clear: O’Neill is not going to reopen as an elementary school. Using city tax dollars to wage a battle against SVUSD only enriches law firms, and any impression that the city is punishing school district trustees is hollow. The lawsuit, while it might require SVUSD to go back and perform an Environmental Impact Report, will be costly and not make city taxpayers, SVUSD constituents or O’Neill parents happy. Likewise, the city’s lawsuit over busing will benefit lawyers, but it won’t bring back the bus routes.

In SVUSD, the next opportunity for meaningful change is November 2010. Those speaking out about O’Neill have more than a year to organize campaigns and run for two open seats, now held by Dore Gilbert and Nancy Kirkpatrick.

In November 2008, only one challenger, Joel Quinsenberry, ran against incumbents Suzie Swartz, Don Sedgwick and Ginny Fay Aitkins, who kept their seats.

Parents Advocate League Update
by Julie Collier

Dear PALs,

This school year marks the third year of Parents Advocate League. I would like to thank all the parents, teachers and community leaders who are part of PALs. We are over 400 strong! I have met many amazing people who care deeply for children’s education. It is truly a passion of mine to make sure awareness of public education issues is at the forefront, as every decision made can have a direct influence on our children. We might not agree on every issue; however, it is imperative we stay informed. Thank you for all the positive and constructive feedback. I am anticipating another eventful year and hoping for the day when all children are the focus of public education.

This update has a great deal of information. Please read to the end of this email at your leisure. Feel free to forward to others so they are informed as well. The main points of this update include: CUSD board meeting update, Information on changes to voting for CUSD Trustees, CUSD Foundation News and upcoming Golf Tournament and Informative articles

Board Meeting Update

 Tues., Sept. 15, was the regular board meeting. There were 36 items on the agenda. Please read about some of the discussed items from the meeting. This update has other information you need to be informed about: changes in the way you vote for CUSD Trustees and the CUSD Foundation fundraiser.

Sept. 15, 2009 Board Meeting Summary

 Items 1-10 and 12-26 were approved 7-0

 Item 11: Purchase Orders

Trustee Palazzo raised concern for the new I.B. program at Hankey Middle School. She wanted to know how it was being funded. She was especially concerned that the program requires teacher training that would require substitutes. (The CUSD sub list is now based on teachers who have been pink-slipped and not hired back. These subs can get paid up to $350 per day instead of the usual $90 per day a typical sub would get. The district is required to hire the pink-slipped teachers to sub before they hire non-pink-slipped subs). Supt. Mahler explained that the IB training is on a Saturday; therefore, no subs were required. Further, it is at the cost of $3,000 and is being funded by PTA and a variety of categorical funding that does not dip into the General Fund. The item was approved 7-0.

Item 30: Election Waiver Request

At the recommendation of Supt. Mahler, the issue to pursue an election waiver request was brought forth to the board. In order to apply to the state, the board has to meet certain criteria, including the public hearing that was held on Tuesday night. Some parents, CUEA, CUMA, CSEA and PTSA were looking to the Trustees to approve a waiver to the Ed Code 33050-33051 that would allow the board to decide (without an election) to change the way we vote for Trustees in CUSD. A large parent group wants to change the current way we vote for Trustees from “at large” (vote for each trustee) to “By-Trustee Area” (voting only for the trustee who represents your area). If approved, the waiver would avoid those costs associated with a regular or special election. A special election in June would cost more than a regular election in November. The costs incurred are estimated from $8,500 for a regular election to $400,000-$500,000 for a special election. The final cost depends on the actual number of people who vote. Getting a waiver would avoid the costs.

The main concern by some trustees, such as Ken Maddox, was that it would not give the voters a say in how they want the future elections for CUSD Trustees to run. Parents, however, argued that they have thousands of signatures that state most parents want to vote By-Trustee Area.

Another issue (according to Trustee Maddox) is that the current way the Trustee areas are arranged gives unequal trustee representation. He contends the areas are not balanced based on the number of residents. This is a violation of the California Voters' Rights Act. The board attorney suggested redoing the boundaries prior to a By-Trustee Area election. The parents who support the waiver believe it is a separate issue that does not need to be resolved right now. Most of the board supports the idea of a By-Trustee Area. They want this to be up for a vote for the November 2010 regular election. The board voted 5-2 (Brick and Palazzo dissenting) to decline the waiver.

The next step is a public hearing in front of the OC Committee of School Districts Organization on Sept. 30. They will decide if CUSD will vote to change the method for an At Large Election to a By-Trustee Area. If they approve that, then they will call for a special election in June 2010 or a regular election in Nov. 2010. Interestingly, two former CUSD board members sit on this panel (Sheila Henness and Sheila Benecke).

Item 32: Preliminary Financial Statements

Ron Lebs explained the budget and the $25M cuts that will have to come out of the 2010-2011 budget. He said that due to the freezes and sweeps of last year, CUSD is in a better place compared with other districts.  Also helpful, enrollment is up, there are some savings from keeping jobs vacant, health insurance savings, and the state gave a textbook adoption waiver to school districts. Payroll is 85 percent of the budget, and expenditure for 2010-2011 is estimated to be $379M. He was not sure if mid-year cuts would need to be implemented at this point.

The discussion quickly turned to the reserves. The state did allow districts to dip into their reserves, but CUSD has only 2 percent reserves, $7.6M. Even if CUSD uses reserves, they have to pay it back within the fiscal year. Trustee Bryson suggested increasing the co-pay cost from $15 per dr. visit to $20. Lebs explained that is a negotiated item and they are having those conversations now.

The district and the union are currently negotiating options. It is presumed that parts of the negotiations being considered are teachers’ salaries, insurance and furlough days.

All the detailed information and a PowerPoint presentation can be found on the district’s Website. The next step is to have a series of discussions and presentations at future board meetings.

Oct. 13 – the district will identify and review budget possibilities
Nov. 10 – the district will present to the board the first draft of recommendations
Dec. 15 – the district will present the first term report and approved draft for 2010-2011 reductions

The meeting ended on a positive note discussing the improved test scores overall at CUSD. The overall API is 857, and 95 percent of CUSD schools had increases in their test scores. Fifteen CUSD schools scored at 900 or higher, including three middle schools. All high schools are above 800. The following schools had noteworthy increases: Las Palmas grew 71 points; Vista Del Mar Middle School grew 62 points; SJHHS grew 62 points. Congratulations to the hardworking students, parents and teachers at CUSD!

Changes to Voting for Trustees

The following information is provided by Erin Kutnick regarding a potential change in the way we vote for CUSD Trustees. She is one of the parent leaders who support voting for CUSD Trustees by trustee area. If you have an opposing opinion, please do your own write-up with your name attached, and I will choose one write-up for the next PALs update. Thank you to Erin Kutnick for taking time to break down the information on how we currently vote for CUSD Trustees and the changes that may be coming.  

Information provided by Erin Kutnick:

Basically, there are currently three ways to vote for school board trustees in California.

1. At large in the entire district. This means that you have a select number of trustees (say 5 or 7) and they can live anywhere in the district and everyone votes for them. This is how Saddleback votes. I think this is the best way for a small district, as you would not want to "limit" your talent pool by forcing people to live in certain areas.  I think Saddleback is too large, and they should have trustee areas, which will probably be coming.  Pretty much all of our local city councils vote that way as well because we have pretty small cities and, again, by splitting it up, you may really limit your ability to get the right candidates. 
2. At large by trustee area.  This is how we currently vote in CUSD and many other school districts in Orange County.  You have 1 trustee that represents each trustee area but everyone gets to vote for him/her.  This works well for medium-sized districts so that you do get adequate representation throughout the district.  This is what all of the lawsuits in the central valley are over because they have districts that vote entirely at large and there is basically no representation for large ethnic populations because they do not have trustee areas.  We will be seeing more districts changing to at least this voting method versus Method 1 over the next year or so.
3. Vote for the trustee in your trustee area.   This is what we are proposing.  Our district has grown so large and school board elections do not draw the interest that other elections do so most people don't have the time or inclination to learn about the 7 candidates throughout the district and make a good choice.  The sad news for us is that parents are only about 25% of the voters and even though we are affected the most, we can't really influence the outcome of an election.  If we change to the voting by area, we will bring it down to a smaller election and even if the voter doesn't take the time to get out there, the candidates can actually walk precincts, afford to send mailers and really get their message out there so that hopefully when a person only has to find out about 1 race instead of 3 or 4, they will do a better job at choosing.  Most large school districts and all large cities vote by area this way.

There are almost all pros for this voting method, more local control, better representation, more candidates, less money spent, etc.  The only con, which was regularly stated by the previous board that everyone hated so much, was that they feared trustees would only care about their own area.  Even though you are only voted in or out by your own area, there is nothing to stop other areas from helping to support candidates that they know will be great for our schools.  I think by making the campaign smaller, all candidates will be forced to answer tough questions, get out and meet people and do a good job.  In order to avoid the "fiefdom" that some are concerned with, we need to make sure that boundary areas overlap school feeder patterns and city boundaries.  The minute you see the school board try to gerrymander the boundaries, to isolate certain groups, is when you will see the "all about me" attitude.  If we keep boundaries overlapping like they are now, then trustees will be forced to think globally and most decisions are districtwide, except for boundaries and everyone gets territorial during that anyway so there is no way around that.  Just picture if you are the trustee for Area 7 and all the kids in your area go to high school in either Areas 2 or 3 then you really won't only be worried about one area.  If the areas are only by feeder patterns, it will be a non-stop battle.  Our areas need some adjustment, but, overall, the theory of 7 areas split throughout the district is right.

I hope this answers some of your questions.  The Department of Ed or CSBA may have more info or if you have more specific questions that I've not answered just let me know.

(signed) Erin Kutnick

CUSD Foundation Update (provided by Linda Wright)

First, our 16th Annual Golf Classic is scheduled for September 21 at El Niguel Country Club in Laguna Niguel. We have several local restaurants serving taste-size portions on the course as well as beverages. We have the same fun contests as last year and great silent and live auction items including Montage, Pelican Resort, Renaissance Club Sport, and more! Space is limited so reservations should be made right away. If you or anyone you know is interested in helping with the event, please contact me (contact Linda Wright at 234-9571)

Second, we are in the planning process for a “Keys to the Future” car raffle. We are hoping that this will be a huge success and raise lots of money that we can use to help the district! If you are interested in helping with this event please contact me. We plan to hold the raffle on November 17

Third, the CUSD Foundation will be the beneficiary of a “House of Illusion” to be held on Oct. 30-31, and possibly an extra date of Oct. 29, depending on demand. This will be geared toward elementary age students and should be lots of fun! Volunteers are needed, adults and children. Let me know if you’re interested.

Fourth, the foundation will be gifting the remaining CSR funds from 2008 to the district to help offset the costs of 25:1 in first grade.

We have other plans in the works as well. Our focus remains to help support quality education for CUSD students. Please help us make this a reality. -- Linda Wright,
CUSD Foundation, www.cusdfoundation.org

Articles You May Have Missed

Are big pay cuts for school administrators a smart move?  (includes a list of admin salaries, which are public knowledge)
 Capistrano trustees want voters to decide election rules
 Chart: 2009 O.C. Academic Performance Index scores
New math approach leads to higher API scores for some O.C. schools  

Julie Collier
Executive Director
http://www.parentsadvocateleague.org

The Buzz

City Manager Dennis Wilberg in his August 2009 in-house newsletter acknowledges that work on Crown Valley is incomplete. Compare his statement with Councilman Frank Ury’s August 2008 campaign claim the project was finished. Wilberg allows that some “corrective work” is still needed, and the installation of “art” and the maintenance of landscaping will continue for several months. Contractors say part of the problem with landscaping is city employee Keith Rattay’s conflicting decisions, resulting in planting, un-planting and replanting. Residents have reacted with surprise that no one has been fired over the botched Crown Valley project, now into its fourth year.

***

The city staff is calling for photographs from residents to replace its failed exhibit of grotesque pictures on Crown Valley pillars. Buzz readers suggest photos of the trashed easels found on city property after the city staff’s 20th anniversary party, portraits of council majority members receiving campaign dollars in payment for their votes on behalf of special interest and an artist’s rendering of cash being shredded at city hall.

***

A taxpayer-funded survey ordered by the council majority was to poll residents for reaction to the possibility of having only one citywide school district. The results of the survey were due Sept. 1. With no report on the council’s Sept. 21 agenda, perhaps city staffers are still trying to deal with results they don’t like. With schools and cities being completely separate entities, perhaps residents said that schools should sort out their own issues. On the Sept. 21 closed-session council agenda are two lawsuits, one against the Saddleback school district and one against the Capo school district, which should underline for residents the cost of the city involving itself in school business.

***

According to the Capistrano Dispatch, the Capo school district announced on Sept. 15 that they’d settled with those who sued the district after their names were placed on “Enemies Lists” by school district personnel. No settlement amounts were announced, but the Dispatch expects figures to be released soon. Read the article at
http://capistranoinsider.typepad.com/beyond_the_blackboard/ Those named on the Enemies Lists will next deal with the Registrar of Voters office and its chief, Neal Kelley, who illegally allowed school district officials to view petition signatures after the 2005 effort to recall all seven CUSD trustees.

***

The city of Mission Viejo changed one of its online banners, declaring its so-called blog to be “The ONLY Official and Accurate News Blog of the City of Mission Viejo.” The city doesn’t have a blog, and to call its spin machine a blog is an example of its inaccuracies. The real city blogs are this one (founded four years ago by longtime resident Carl Schulthess) and Brad Morton’s MissionViejoDispatch.com.

***

To read an interesting letter on the other real city blog, check out Allan Pilger’s latest post on Mission Viejo Dispatch, http://missionviejodispatch.com/

***

Those wanting to attend Mission Viejo’s town hall meeting on Sun., Sept. 27, 4:00 p.m. at Casta del Sol, are reminded to RSVP to Beverly Cruse, (949) 770-3368, if they are not already on the guest list. Congressman Gary Miller will moderate the meeting, to be held at Casta’s Rec Center 1. The cross-streets are Marguerite Parkway and Casta Drive.