Tribute to an Era

During a gathering in honor of the late Margaret “Mickey” MacDonald on Oct. 27, her granddaughter, Katie Kunath, read an essay from one of Mickey’s files about her era:

We are survivors! Consider some of the changes we’ve witnessed since our birth. We were born before television, penicillin, polio shots, frozen foods, Xerox, plastic, silicon chips, silicon implants, contact lenses, Frisbees and the ubiquitous pill. Now don't forget radar, credit cards, ATM cards, split atoms, laser beams, ballpoint pens and PEZ dispensers. Remember the times before pantyhose, dishwashers, clothes dryers, electric blankets, room air-conditioners, drip-dry clothes and personal computers.

We married first and then lived together, what a concept! In our time, closets were for clothes, not for coming out of. Bunnies were small rabbits and rabbits were not Volkswagens. A meaningful relationship meant getting along with your cousins.

We thought fast food was what you ate during Lent, and outer space was back of the theatre. We happened before house-husbands, gay rights, computer dating, dual careers and commuter marriages. We arrived before daycare centers, group therapy and nursing homes. We enjoyed life even before we knew about Stereo FM radio, 8-track tape decks, cassette tape decks, CDs, Video Cassette Recorders, DVDs, electronic typewriters, artificial hearts, heart transplants, yogurt and guys wearing earrings.

For us, time-sharing meant togetherness, not computers or condominiums. A chip was a piece of wood. Hardware meant hardware and software wasn't even a word. An Apple was something we ate!

When we were younger, "made in Japan" meant junk, and the term "make out" referred to how you did on your exam. McDonald's, KFC and instant coffee were unheard of. We went to 5 & 10 cent stores where you could buy things for 5 & 10 cents. For a nickel you could ride a streetcar or make a phone call, buy a Pepsi or enough stamps to mail one letter and two postcards.

In our day, grass was mowed, coke was a cold drink, and pot was something you used to cook with. We arrived before sex changes, toll roads, digital cameras and MP3s. We made do with what we had, and we were the last generation to think you needed a husband to have a baby. We are survivors, giving thanks daily for our good fortune!

CUSD Cuts and Collective Bargaining
by Dawn Urbanek

As a parent of a student in CUSD, I have attended most of the CUSD Board Meetings and Budget Workshops during the past two years. I felt compelled to write this letter. Not every parent has time to attend meetings and workshops. Those of us who do need to start sharing our knowledge with other parents so that any letters that are written to influence the Board and/or Administrators are based on fact, and are “intelligent,” “thoughtful” letters that truly reflect what we as parents feel “is in the best interest of our children.”

I was really angry, and disgusted, to see teachers at my child’s school standing outside the campus Friday morning, wearing black and handing out flyers. The flyers were asking parents to contact Ellen Addonizio, president of the Capistrano School Board, and tell her to start working with teachers during contract negotiations in a "reasonable and responsible way." What happened Friday was a staged event by the CUEA. The CUEA stands for the Capistrano Unified Education Association, and it is the professional association (teachers’ union) for the non-supervisory certificated employees in the Capistrano Unified School District. The flyer that was being passed out by teachers can be viewed at the CUEA web site:  http://cuea.org/index2.shtml

In the top right-hand corner you will see a box that says "School Board Not the Best" Get a flyer to pass out here. I do not appreciate the CUEA bringing their politics onto my child’s campus. Putting children in the position of having to worry about whether or not their teacher will have a job next year is not beneficial to children, especially when many parents have already lost their own jobs. It is very insensitive to the many families that are suffering during these economically difficult times.

I also want to say how disappointed I have been with the press coverage of the CUSD Budget issues. I attended the Oct. 13 CUSD Board Meeting. In the OC Register, an article is titled “Capistrano district identifies $9.3 million in possible cuts. Officials have a long way to go to close an anticipated $25.1 million deficit.” It did not even begin to provide parents with the full flavor of what is at stake in the next round of cuts that the District will be forced to make to avoid insolvency. The full article can be found at
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-district-budget-2606475-million-cuts

This is going to be a very difficult year financially for everyone in California. CUSD needs to identify $25 million in cuts to their budget by December. The $25 million in cuts is based on the Budget that the State of California passed this summer. The anticipated revenues that were projected in the State budget are already wrong. The California economy is not “recovering” as anticipated. The $25 million in cuts that need to be identified by December will most likely be the first of a series of additional cuts that CUSD will need to make to its budget this year.

At the Oct. 13 CUSD Board Meeting, Ron Lebs, Deputy Superintendent, Business Support Services, stated very clearly that "… 85% of the District’s budget goes to salaries, pensions and benefits." Only 15% of the District’s budget goes to “other expenses”… expenses such as books and supplies, CSR (Class Size Reduction), Block Music, AAA GATE, etc. The fact is that CUSD can only make unilateral cuts to 15% of the entire CUSD budget. Any cuts to the other 85% of the budget must be negotiated through collective bargaining with the three employee unions in CUSD. The three unions are CUEA representing the teachers "Certificated Employees," CSEA representing support staff  "Classified Employees,” and the Teamsters representing bus drivers, etc.

I encourage every parent to go to the District web site and click on Departments<Business & Support Services and then under the second heading "CUSD Budgets as Approved" click on the following link.
2008/2009 Unaudited Actuals and 2009/2010 Revised Final Budget
Go to Exhibit B "Expenditures" (page 12) you will see the following:

Expenditures: 
Total Expenditures per year  2009-2010 $381,716,882
Salaries:
Certificated Employees       2009-2010 $193,507,709
Classified Employees        2009-2010 $ 57,262,822
Employee Benefits            2009-2010 $ 72,388,030
Total Salaries, pensions and
           benefits         $323,158,586 

$ 323,158,586 of the total $ 381,716.882 spent at CUSD goes to Salaries, Pensions and Benefits. 84.66% of CUSD’s budget goes to Salaries, Pensions and Benefits. 

The reality is that if the District is not successful in negotiating some cuts to salaries, pensions and benefits, then all of the cuts will come from the 15% of the budget that goes directly to our children. The sad truth is that even if every one of the cuts listed below were made, it would only total $9.3 million dollars.

The cuts that are being proposed are as follows:

• $1.66 million: Eliminate funding for all extracurricular activities, and all stipends for department chairs
• $1.3 million: Eliminate funding for all sports programs
• $1.2 million: Capture the savings from lower-than-anticipated costs for employee health insurance
• $1.2 million: Eliminate the 25-to-1 pupil-teacher ratio in the first grade
• $1 million: Eliminate elementary school block music
• $1 million: Remove this money from a district fund for facilities maintenance, leaving $2.6 million in the fund over the next four years
• $0.7 million: Close two small elementary schools
• $0.5 million: Delay purchasing new textbooks per the standard textbook adoption cycle
• $0.25 million: Eliminate all summer school in grades K-8
• $0.21 million: Reorganize the district's business services department
• $0.14 million: Eliminate the college-level International Baccalaureate program in high schools
• $0.1 million: Eliminate resident substitutes at high schools, and use a district list instead to find substitute teachers

From one parent to another, I ask you, what is in the best interest of our children?

1) Preserving currently scheduled increases to salaries, pensions, and benefits or 2) preserving class sizes, sports programs, Block Music and all the programs that materially affect the quality of education that our children receive?

Is preserving current projected increases to salaries, pensions and benefits more important than maintaining our public school buildings? We already have many overcrowded classrooms where the number of children exceeds the number of desks in the classroom, and the number of children in the class exceeds City fire and safety codes. I volunteer hundreds of hours of my personal time to my child's school. I donate hundreds of dollars in time and money for school fundraisers. When my child’s teacher needs supplies, I personally pay for and donate paper, pencils, pens, etc. (the list grows larger every year). Next time the CUEA asks your teacher to stand outside of school and pass out a flyer asking for you to write a letter encouraging the Board to work with teachers during contract negotiations in a "reasonable and responsible way," remember one important thing: Parents are the only Advocate children have.

The CUEA is a union. It is a Union's job to negotiate the best labor contract for its union members. Unions do not represent our children. In economically difficult times such as these, if we as parents write letters in support of the Union’s efforts to maintain scheduled increases to salaries, pensions and benefits, then we must also understand that means we support making the necessary cuts to the 15% of the budget that goes directly to our children.

Another issue that has not been covered by the press but should have some bearing on what is the "reasonable and responsible” is the following: The CUSD final Budget that passed on June 22, 2009, contained automatic step and column salary increases and projected health and welfare benefit premium increases. That means, to date, CUEA members are still getting salary increases!

I encourage every parent to go to the District Web site and click on Administration<Board Meetings, and then under September 15, 2009 click on “Budget Summary Recap” and you will see that

Salaries and Benefits are scheduled to increase for 2009/2010 by
Certificated Employees  2009-2010      $4,225,298
Classified Employees    2009-2010      $1,804,487
Employee Benefits       2009-2010      $4,154,316

Go to the District Web site and click on Administration<Board Meetings, and then under September 15, 2009 click on “Budget Reduction Update.” The District saved $9.7 million dollars by increasing class sizes this year. If the Unions had agreed not to take their projected salary increases this year, the District could have saved CSR for every student in K – 3. Cumulative increases in Salaries, pensions and benefits are projected to total over $44.7 million dollars over the next five years.

Go to the District Web site and click on Administration<Board Meetings, and then under June 8, 2009, click on “Budget Workshop Presentation” page 8, and you will see the following:

Salary & Benefits
09/10        $ 8.1 million dollars
10/11        $ 8.5 million dollars
11/12        $ 8.9 million dollars
12/13        $ 9.4 million dollars
13/14        $ 9.8 million dollars

There is currently no "new" contract between CUSD and the CUEA, which means that the old contract is still in force. While most people across the nation have taken at least a 10% reduction in pay, the CUEA has not agreed to a single cut in salaries, pensions and benefits, and they are in fact still receiving projected salary increases.

What is the "reasonable and responsible way" to cut $25 million from the CUSD budget? Should the children be the only ones to bear the burden of these cuts?

Citizen Opposes Cell Tower Request

To:  Chuck Wilson and the Mission Viejo Planning and Transportation Commission

As you are aware, AT&T wants to add a fifth cell tower in the Flo Jo Park area. (There are currently four in that area: one above Fire Station 31, two near the park shelter and one right across Alica at the SCE Chiquita Substation.)

I am opposed to the AT&T project for an added cell tower for Flo Jo Park on the basis of both aesthetics and health issues.

The MV Planning Commission previously heard this request and continued the hearing, seeking more information from AT&T.  Included in the hearing was a request for AT&T to contact adjacent  HOAs – Mission Viejo Environmental Association and Canyon Crest. I know that AT&T has not contacted or followed up with MVEA, and I doubt they did with Canyon Crest.

Please see the following on the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling that (like Mission Viejo) sided with a community, ruling that city officials could bar the construction of unsightly cellular towers.

See the following: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ugly-telecoms26-2009oct26,0,5439620.story

I have extracted some key points for your review:

Like Palos Verdes Estates, San Francisco, San Diego County, La Canada Flintridge and other communities have fought the purveyors of cellular service in court on aesthetic grounds and, for the most part, have won. The recent legal disputes, planners say, could encourage telecommunications companies to develop more creative alternatives amenable to residents' concerns – or spur more litigation.

The judges quoted 19th century Viennese architect Camillo Sitte's lyrical waxings on beauty and art in a 1889 book that became a classic in urban planning. Their Oct. 13 ruling also pointed to a state utility code giving city leaders the right to define what might "incommode" the enjoyment of public right of way.

Sprint lost its suit against La Canada Flintridge in federal district court and, on appeal to the 9th Circuit, had the case sent back for further proceedings, according to City Attorney Mark W. Steres. But the telecommunications company has neither reapplied for antenna permits nor pressed its court case, Steres said. He said he viewed the Palos Verdes Estates ruling as endorsement of his position that city officials have the authority to regulate what is built on public property and can apply aesthetic considerations.
In addition, the 9th Circuit Court has previously ruled that if sufficient coverage is provided, added coverage by another company is not necessarily assured by the present FCC rules.

I am formally requesting that this information be added to the file for all the Commissioners and distributed to them well ahead of the scheduled November Planning Commission meeting. I am also requesting your feedback that this has been accomplished.

F. K. ( Joe) Holtzman
Mission Viejo

Recall Update

Council majority members are trying valiantly to fight off Councilman Lance MacLean’s recall. After the recall election was discussed during the Oct. 5 meeting, Council Members Frank Ury and Trish Kelley attempted to help MacLean pose as a dog park enthusiast.

After years of ignoring dog park supporters, MacLean suddenly agendized a dog park to be located in Oso Viejo Park. During his comments, MacLean said that Bo Klein initiated the idea of a city dog park. From MacLean’s reference, observers might conclude Klein is his friend. When word traveled back to Klein, he reacted with surprise by saying he had no recollection of MacLean supporting a dog park since his 2002 election. According to Klein, MacLean told him several years ago during a heated discussion that there would never be a dog park in Mission Viejo.

In their great haste to help MacLean impress dog park supporters, city staff members skipped a few steps to create an instant dog park. They failed to notify homeowners near the site that a dog park was on the council agenda. They punted traffic studies, noise studies, environmental concerns and safety matters. They neglected to inform such interested parties as the homeowners association, school district and nearby middle school. They didn’t meet the legal stipulations with regard to posting a written agenda 72 hours prior to the council meeting.

A neighbor who lives on Pasatiempo, Karen Medeiros, wrote a letter to the council to demand the rescission or repeal the approval of the dog park in Oso Viejo Park. She states that the above acts of negligence form the basis for Brown Act and environmental litigation. The council has 30 days to respond.

What was the city attorney doing throughout this time that he forgot he is supposed to protect the city from litigation? He was busy crafting a press release about the phony push poll claiming that residents want to form a new school district in Mission Viejo without knowing any of the negative aspects including cost.

At the Oct. 19 council meeting, did MacLean throw down the race card in Mission Ridge, saying neighbors on La Paja Lane are discriminating? After a homeowner has annoyed everyone with a 10-year-long construction project, MacLean said the underlying issue is the homeowner’s Asian heritage. That’s not a first for MacLean, who also said homeowners along Los Alisos Blvd. were racists if they didn’t want another high-density housing project built in their overcrowded neighborhood.

MacLean told one of his supporters (who immediately informed a recall supporter) that he suspects Ury of plotting against him in the recall. It could be. As mayor, Ury is providing the rope by allowing MacLean to rant, insult entire neighborhoods and malign organizations without any attempt to shut off his microphone.

The Buzz

Council members have the privilege of appointing representatives to city commissions. Ex-councilwomen Sherri Butterfield and Susan Withrow not only appointed their choices, they used their votes to reject opponents’ choices. When Councilman John Paul Ledesma won a seat in 1998, the queens lined up votes to reject most of his prospective appointees. In 2005, Councilmembers Lance MacLean, Frank Ury and Trish Kelley (MUK) removed Commissioners Dorothy Wedel and Bo Klein from the Planning Commission. Wedel and Klein had supported then-councilwoman Gail Reavis in her reelection bid. Two weeks ago, the MUK majority rejected Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht’s planning commission choice, Mark Doubrilovic, who chairs the Investment Advisory Commission.

***

MacLean has predicted he’ll lose his council seat in the election to recall him. His few supporters acted up at storefronts during the signature drive but had no impact. In mid-October, MacLean’s email campaign backfired when his message quickly fell into the hands of recall proponents. Last week, a MacLean supporter tried to place anti-recall literature on a homeowners association bulletin board. It was immediately rejected as inappropriate, and an HOA official coincidentally handed it to a recall supporter. Has MacLean noticed he’s surrounded by those who want him removed from office?

***

Dale Tyler became the first potential candidate to replace MacLean by “pulling papers” on Oct. 20. Last week, Jeff Weekley, a Pacific Hills homeowner, became the second. Activists, volunteers and other community members say Weekley is unknown in city politics. A city watchdog commented, “He might be testing the water. It’s tough for a newcomer to win without name recognition or community support.”

***

Orange County politicians are battling to replace ex-representative Mike Duvall in the 72nd Assembly District. County Supervisor Chris Norby and Linda Ackerman are among candidates. Norby became popular with Mission Viejo residents in 2002 when he won a seat on the county BOS as an opponent of the proposed El Toro commercial airport. The special election will take place Nov. 17.

***

Additional information has emerged regarding the city survey about forming a Mission Viejo school district. Ury pushed the issue, and the council went along, possibly because they didn’t get what he’s up to. Ury’s political friend, Adam Probolsky, got the $15,000 city contract to conduct the survey. Instead of objectively measuring public opinion, Probolsky created a push poll to show that Mission Viejo residents want a new city school district. When Probolsky adjusted the numbers after reporting data, he again revealed his bias by stating to the city, “We found some numbers, all in our favor.” He had previously identified his position during informal conversations, demonstrating he had been chosen to create an appearance of support for a new district.

***

Ury has three more council meetings serving his turn as mayor, and MacLean has only six before the Feb. 2 recall election. Ury is running out of time to push his agenda while he has two guaranteed majority votes from MacLean and Kelley. Ury’s desire to become the city’s permanent full-time major is no secret. MacLean barked on command at a recent council meeting, suggesting that Mission Viejo could become a charter city. Such a move could lead to electing a mayor instead of the current practice of rotating the position. Ury could then pursue his dream, becoming Mission Viejo’s Emperor for Life.