Today on the North County Times blogs one of Jim Gibson's supporters re-wrote history. A blogger, who calls himself Vista Watchdog 1, posted wild ravings and fantasies following today's North County Times article indicating VUSD must file a lawsuit as the first step to recovering money from the outside housing developer who owned the land where the Dual Magnet high school is being built.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/30/news/coastal/vista/z7f4e67662eb58ec6882575a50077c5e1.txt
LIES AND MISINFORMATION OF NCTIMES BLOGGER VISTA WATCHDOG
The first sentence of today's first VWdog's post refers to a previous post by Randy asking about performance bonds that are required by law to be obtained before any construction is allowed at any site in the United States of America.
My oldest son is a lawyer with a San Francisco company that specializes in litigation surrounding these bonds. Even with the bonds in place, the bond companies delay paying for years during lengthy court proceeding in which responsibility for which bond company should pay is assigned. The contractor has a bond with one comapany. Subcontractors are bonded with another. Other entities with potential liabilities are brought into the suits. It becomes a huge time consuming and costly mess.
In today's post VWdog says that a performance bond was not obtained for the Melrose/Highway 76 dual magnet site. Any one who know anything about construction knows this is a made up lie on the face of it. No permits would be issued without a bond. That sentence is his first delusion of the day.
Again he is referring to Randy's post which was the first post after this article. Randy asked about performance bonds wondering indirectly why the insurance company which issued the bonds was not paying for the housing developer's failure to bring utilities to the site.
Here is what VWdog wrote:
To Randy: Should have! But, the Union trio (now four person majority) was in such a hurry to get this job done (at any cost, and any way they could) that they failed to require such.
VWdog ranges off into even more madness with the following:
Law "suits were filed by the city and county because the district failed to meet zoning and other building codes, stating they were exempt from these things since they were a school district'
Of course this is a lie on the face of it. No one is allowed to build schools in the state of California without the express approval of the state of California not only for all architectural plans and but of all site locations.
California schools are not only required to meet the Uniform Building Code but the much more rigorous Field Act requirements. The Field Act of 1933 was passed by the California State legislature to try to ensure that the disastrous collapse of two and three story brick school building in the great Long Beach quake would never happen again.
Below is the VWdog's total post. Reading it should provide insights into the nuttiness that the four rational caring and community supported board VUSD members face every day on our behalf. Thank you Herrera, Jaka, Chunka and Lilly for putting up with this kind of nonsense from our ANTI friends.
Vista Watchdog1 April 30, 2009 5:34AM PST
To Randy: Should have! But, the Union trio (now four person majority) was in such a hurry to get this job done (at any cost, and any way they could) that they failed to require such. There are MANY other problems resulting from the same mismanagement and ignorance of those who have been running this project, and district, into the ground. But, the only thing most of the (anti quality education) Union bloggers will focus on will be Strawberry Hill (a parcel of property that VUSD could never have developed for a school - but that isn't what the Union fools will tell you), and false claims concerning board minority members filing suits to block the construction (suits were filed by the city and county because the district failed to meet zoning and other building codes, stating they were exempt from these things since they were a school district - more anti education union arrogance and ignorance!). They were warned this school would not be ready by this fall. In fact their opposition candidates told the public it was a pipe dream. But, the public ignored reality and bought into the union pap. Well, they got exactly what they deserved: MORE FAILURES! VUSD is a real JOKE. Unfortunately the only ones to suffer are the children (and our country's future!).
LAWSUITS ASSOCIATED WITH GIBSON COST MILLIONS MORE
The lawsuits that VW dog is referring to cost VUSD millions more. One was orchestrated by a four member group that Stephen Guffanti, former board member, and Gibson political ally was filed. Another refers to a lawsuit filed by the former owners (outside housing developers from Tustin, CA) of the Melrose/Highway 76 site. During Gibson's 2006 run for school board, Gibson found a way to secretly funnel thousands of dollars of campaign contributions from those outside developers through Guffanti's campaign into his.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/06/news/inland/2_04_282_5_07.txt
Gibson also benefited from a 15 to 20 thousand dollar scandalously inaccurate mailer produced and distributed on his behalf by the Tustin developer and received at our homes just days before the 2006 school board election.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Gibson Grandstands Again
In today's North County Times is a report that Jim Gibson is up to his old tricks of doing anything to get his name in the newspaper. Apparently Gibson feels neglected unless he is mentioned in the newspaper each time there is a board meeting.
Today Gibson is asking to designate a day at VUSD as Carrie Prejean day. If it's political Gibson is drawn to it as a moth to a flame.
Carrie Prejean as you may have heard was named Miss California USA. During the questioning period one of the judges asked her what she thought about the currently hot button topic of marriage. She politely answered she thought it should only be between a man and a woman only which is less than sensitive to a lot of good friends of mine. However, the openly gay judge instead of letting it go made the situation much worse by being very rude to her. In later interviews with the media, he was even more rude.
The judge is a nobody who thinks he is helping the cause of gay marriage. He is not. Instead he stirred up a hornet's nest and made Carrie Prejean a cause celebre for the religious right. She has been on a large number of national news shows.
Gibson decided to try to grab a piece of her new found celebrity. He is always out for Gibson before anything else. Publicity for himself might turn out to an opportunity to run for higher office which is what he has demonstrated his is prime motivation for being a school board member. He has run for higher office over and over again. He has repeatedly used his position on our board as an stepping stone in two unsuccessful attempts to get a seat on the Oceanside City Council and once in an attempt to get into the State Assembly.
Jim the old publicity hound that he is saw Carrie Prejean as a great opportunity and tried to grab a ride on her new found celebrity.
Here are a couple of lines from the article:
"Gibson, a conservative Christian, has a history of bringing hot topics before the board, including Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California.
He said the proclamation idea wasn't political, although he thought other people could take it that way."
Yeah, right Jim. Everything you do is political. Too bad you did not work half as hard to get our new third high school built or we would have had it built as scheduled in 2005. Your obstructionism kept us from getting the level cheap Kawano strawberry hill site in 2002 which would have allowed the dual magnet high school to open in fall of 2005. However, you did manage to get your name in the newspaper hundreds of times with quotes after every school board meeting and by championing non-educational hot button topics--Prop 8 for instance.
Here is a link to the article and the VUSD blog battle comments following:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/28/news/coastal/vista/z8945c0fa046e84a0882575a500784227.txt
BLOG BATTLE HERO of the DAY
There were a great many PRO blogs today. Thanks to all who blogged in. Special thanks to the PRO bloggers for their great blogs. I loved them all. Runner up for best blog goes to Pluto for the following:
Pluto April 29, 2009 9:33AM PST
In response to Freitag: Here's an article from yesterday's papers.
Roger Neal, a spokesman for the Miss California pageant, says beauty queen Carrie Prejean lied when she said state pageant officials told her to apologize to the gay community and refrain from discussing religion on the talk show circuit.
"She chose to stand up in church and in front of the media and say something that was a lie," Neal said Monday. "No one ever said, 'You must apologize to the gay community,' and no one ever said, 'Don't talk about your faith or your religion.' Those two things never came out of anybody's mouth."
Neal said, as an adviser for Miss California in the competition, he told Prejean to emphasize she didn't mean to offend anyone.
Special Runner Up to VistaRes for the following:
VistaRes April 29, 2009 9:31AM PST
Hilarious, typical.. Gibson pandering to his 'constituents' again on non-essential issues. The one Gibson gem I really liked - 'Let's name a middle school after Chesty Puller!' (Chesty Puller by the way was a Marine officer in WWII - a brave, though some ex-Marines would say a violently psychotic officer who was accused of squandering the lives of his fellow Marines). Nevertheless - 'He was a Marine!' . Why, oh why, does Gibson keep going off on these tangents? Answer: the man just can't stay on topic.
However today's winner and the top award for BLOG BATTLE HERO of the DAY goes to: "hatched"
Hatched gets the award for the following blog that makes the point that I missed but should have been obvious to me. Gibson only wants to honor Prejean because of her answer. A different answer and Gibson would never have mentioned her. Where was Gibson with his request to honor her when she first became Miss California USA and before she answered the "question" in the national pageant?
If he really wanted to honor her achievement he would have requested this day for her long before the controversy. Of course then there is would have been no chance at jumping on a publicity train generated by the controversial question.
hatched April 29, 2009 9:57AM PST
Would Gibson want to honor her accomplishments if she had answered the other way? That's the only real question, and the answer is no. He wants to honor her for being successful and agreeing with him. That is wrong and he should be ashamed. She's beautiful, smart, honest, and honorable. I don't agree with her politics, but I have respect for her opinions and her right to voice them.
Today Gibson is asking to designate a day at VUSD as Carrie Prejean day. If it's political Gibson is drawn to it as a moth to a flame.
Carrie Prejean as you may have heard was named Miss California USA. During the questioning period one of the judges asked her what she thought about the currently hot button topic of marriage. She politely answered she thought it should only be between a man and a woman only which is less than sensitive to a lot of good friends of mine. However, the openly gay judge instead of letting it go made the situation much worse by being very rude to her. In later interviews with the media, he was even more rude.
The judge is a nobody who thinks he is helping the cause of gay marriage. He is not. Instead he stirred up a hornet's nest and made Carrie Prejean a cause celebre for the religious right. She has been on a large number of national news shows.
Gibson decided to try to grab a piece of her new found celebrity. He is always out for Gibson before anything else. Publicity for himself might turn out to an opportunity to run for higher office which is what he has demonstrated his is prime motivation for being a school board member. He has run for higher office over and over again. He has repeatedly used his position on our board as an stepping stone in two unsuccessful attempts to get a seat on the Oceanside City Council and once in an attempt to get into the State Assembly.
Jim the old publicity hound that he is saw Carrie Prejean as a great opportunity and tried to grab a ride on her new found celebrity.
Here are a couple of lines from the article:
"Gibson, a conservative Christian, has a history of bringing hot topics before the board, including Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California.
He said the proclamation idea wasn't political, although he thought other people could take it that way."
Yeah, right Jim. Everything you do is political. Too bad you did not work half as hard to get our new third high school built or we would have had it built as scheduled in 2005. Your obstructionism kept us from getting the level cheap Kawano strawberry hill site in 2002 which would have allowed the dual magnet high school to open in fall of 2005. However, you did manage to get your name in the newspaper hundreds of times with quotes after every school board meeting and by championing non-educational hot button topics--Prop 8 for instance.
Here is a link to the article and the VUSD blog battle comments following:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/28/news/coastal/vista/z8945c0fa046e84a0882575a500784227.txt
BLOG BATTLE HERO of the DAY
There were a great many PRO blogs today. Thanks to all who blogged in. Special thanks to the PRO bloggers for their great blogs. I loved them all. Runner up for best blog goes to Pluto for the following:
Pluto April 29, 2009 9:33AM PST
In response to Freitag: Here's an article from yesterday's papers.
Roger Neal, a spokesman for the Miss California pageant, says beauty queen Carrie Prejean lied when she said state pageant officials told her to apologize to the gay community and refrain from discussing religion on the talk show circuit.
"She chose to stand up in church and in front of the media and say something that was a lie," Neal said Monday. "No one ever said, 'You must apologize to the gay community,' and no one ever said, 'Don't talk about your faith or your religion.' Those two things never came out of anybody's mouth."
Neal said, as an adviser for Miss California in the competition, he told Prejean to emphasize she didn't mean to offend anyone.
Special Runner Up to VistaRes for the following:
VistaRes April 29, 2009 9:31AM PST
Hilarious, typical.. Gibson pandering to his 'constituents' again on non-essential issues. The one Gibson gem I really liked - 'Let's name a middle school after Chesty Puller!' (Chesty Puller by the way was a Marine officer in WWII - a brave, though some ex-Marines would say a violently psychotic officer who was accused of squandering the lives of his fellow Marines). Nevertheless - 'He was a Marine!' . Why, oh why, does Gibson keep going off on these tangents? Answer: the man just can't stay on topic.
However today's winner and the top award for BLOG BATTLE HERO of the DAY goes to: "hatched"
Hatched gets the award for the following blog that makes the point that I missed but should have been obvious to me. Gibson only wants to honor Prejean because of her answer. A different answer and Gibson would never have mentioned her. Where was Gibson with his request to honor her when she first became Miss California USA and before she answered the "question" in the national pageant?
If he really wanted to honor her achievement he would have requested this day for her long before the controversy. Of course then there is would have been no chance at jumping on a publicity train generated by the controversial question.
hatched April 29, 2009 9:57AM PST
Would Gibson want to honor her accomplishments if she had answered the other way? That's the only real question, and the answer is no. He wants to honor her for being successful and agreeing with him. That is wrong and he should be ashamed. She's beautiful, smart, honest, and honorable. I don't agree with her politics, but I have respect for her opinions and her right to voice them.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
A look at the NCTimes VUSD blog wars
I found a typical VUSD blog war saved in my computer files from a year ago as I was researching the previous blogs. I think the back and forth, the accusations and lies of the ANTIs followed by the calm facts of PRO public education folks might be illuminating to anyone who has not read the North County Times online and seen the blogs following any article that mentioned the Vista Unified School District.
Here is the article:
VISTA: VUSD negotiates lower price for magnet high school
Contractor agrees to shave $2.5 million from project
By STACY BRANDT - Staff Writer Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:05 PM PDT
Seems like our school board did a good thing right? If you think so then you are not an ANTI.
Let's see what an average battle in the VUSD Wars looks like. I posted the battle below. Note: the PRO public education posts are colored in blue. All other colors represent ANTIs. At the time of these posts there was no requirement by the NCTimes for blogger to have only one name, so the ANTI posts could have been all posted by one person. I believe most of them were, however, from context, I would guess there were actually three ANTIs involved.
There were two PRO bloggers. One was a parent who made only one post.
not in my backyard[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 4:16 PM:please don't build this school here -the roads are no up to the traffic- have you tried to drive EB 76 at rush hour? Why here? The population of east oceanside will not support this school - stop wasting the money!
Observer[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 4:50 PM:NIMBY's correct on all points. It should have been built on the Lincoln site with more than one story buildings. Those would now be finished, ready to be used AND ALL of the buildings would be completed ready to house students this fall -- even a cafeteria!
Transportation vs Location[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 7:27 PM:So, VUSD builds this school at the far end of the District (so far that they had to petition the County Office of Ed. to move District boundaries). They all the schools Magnet High Schools, but don't provide any District funded transportation, and there is no City or county transportation available either.
Enter oil prices soaring to $120+ a barrel and heading toward $200 a barrel, with corresponding Gasoline prices at $4/gal and heading toward $5/gal.
Add in the looming recession (CA is already in one).
Now answer me this: Where are all the students going to come from to populate these new schools? What parent is going to drive up to 10 miles across town (20 miles round trip) 5 days a week, in morning and afternoon traffic on city streets getting no better than 10 MPG (or about $10/day, $50/week, or $1,820/ school year), spending up to an hour or more of daily commuting time, just so their child can attend these schools? Especially when their child can simply walk to the local High School down the block. At best, when this trailer park school opens (most likely behind the new schedule), requiring additional work to be fully completed (see Rancho Minerva Middle School), the enrollment will be too low to effectively run both of the two schools as separate schools. Within a year there will be a move by the District to unify the two schools into a small comprehensive high school, and redraw boundaries within the District to "Force" students to attend this school. Even then, it will have numerous facilities problems (see Madison Middle school and the sewer gas problems) and the trailers will begin to leak due to corner cutting required to come in within the new budget. In the end the test scores of the students forced to attend this school will show no significant improvement, and the taxpayers will be out the nearly $100M spent to build another failing trailer park school.
Oh what a waste of good young minds!
Trailer Park High School[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 1:37 AM:This is what Mission Vista should be called and a White Elephant should be its mascot. Ok, maybe a Trojan Horse because that is what it is. I agree with Transportation vs. Location that within a year it will be turned into a comprehensive High School. Isn't it nice that Administration receives a stick built building, yet the student population has modular buildings with a couple of exceptions? If they were so concerned about the cost, keep the modular trend and build something that is needed. Say, like a cafeteria or a science building, perhaps? Isn’t it fair that if students have to learn in trailers that administrators should follow suit?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 5:47 AM:The Lincoln Middle School site was too small to be a high school forty years when I was in high school. It was run down then. It's water and sewer systems buried under the buildings was inadequate and still is.
This community has needed a new high school on a high school sized property for the last twenty years. Let's get it built.
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:30 AM:You say that the Lincoln site is still run down? Have you stopped by to see? It is a shame that these rumors continue. Since we are on rumors...never mind...
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:40 AM:To Transportation vs Location
A few of questions for you:
(1) Suppose bond Prop LL had been passed back in the mid-eigties when there was still vacant land in the middle of the district, where do you think the high school would have been built? Perhaps on one of those middle of our district tracts of lands that is now covered in housing developments?
(2) What did you do to help pass those earlier bonds when more centrally located land parcels were available?
(3) Whose fault is it that the only tract of high school sized land left when a bond issue finally passed was out at the far end of the district? (By the way there are hundreds of homes and apartments west and southwest of the new magnet high school. I think they may contain a few potential students who will want a high school near their homes.)
(4) Would you or your side ever be in favor of any new PUBLIC school ever being built?
(5) What do you have against new schools being built? What is really behind your opposition? It cannot be money because if you are a property owner, you personally will be out only a few hundred dollars over thirty years at most. So what is really behind the anger?
shelley[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:50 AM:Interesting that the Lincoln site has so many problems and could not be the site for a new HS, but yet it is still being used plumbing problems and all!!!
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 7:47 AM:Good luck...
OUSD Bond[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:38 AM:How about another bond to fund a complete build out of this campus like Oceanside Unified is doing to finish their school projects. I know that would never happen in VUSD. The question is why? OUSD board vs. VUSD board. Quite a difference...
Sam[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:24 AM:Foolednomore should be called morefooled. It is too bad the people were more fooled too, lied too, and cheated too. I hope people think twice about voteing for Bonds. How can the VUSD take monies from another school and use it anywhere they want? I think we have been taken to the cleaners again. I wish Oceanside could get out of the Vista School District. SUCKERS' AGAIN!
Shirley[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 4:11 PM:Yes! Finally the school will be built - just in time for my son to go there. And yes, a LOT of his friends also plan to attend. Honestly, I would love it if the school went comprehensive.
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:24 PM:(1) As I recall Rancho Buena Vista High School was built back in the 1980s. Wasn’t that High School built without the Passage f Prop LL? VUSD didn’t need a 3rd High School until the 1990s. Also, as I recall Vista’s original High School was in the middle of Vista. But, someone arranged a trade between VUSD and the City and City Hall was moved into the old High School. That site could have been utilized for a High School using Modernization Funds from the State if it had not been traded away to the City. Suppose VUSD had taken advantage of Prop 1A Hardship Funds when they initially qualified for them and had built some of the schools they needed back in 2000? Where were you then when Hubbard was openly opposed to taking advantage of California Taxpayer dollars to build much needed schools?
(2) Suppose VUSD had used the money they had in their building fund back in the late 1990s and applied for Modernization Funds (80% match) and used those funds to expand some of the existing schools UPWARD, thereby effectively utilizing both the taxpayers’ money and the taxpayers’ land, and ending overcrowding without the need for a local Bond before Prop O was even put on the Ballot? Where were you on this option, and what do you have against efficient utilization of taxpayer dollars and the responsible use of land, as opposed to the sprawl designs that continue to take more and more land away from farmers and natural habitat?
(3) That would be the fault of the Board Majority and the past Administration who were bent on building New Schools paid for by a local Bond as opposed to Utilizing funds from a State wide bond for which they were eligible.
a. Not enough to justify the Magnet status of these two schools. Besides, to officially qualify as a MAGNET School, the District needs to show they are actually drawing from a cross-section of the community the District Serves. Not simply a local elite population.
(4) Yes. Especially if it were done in an efficient and effective manner, well planned, and built on schedule and within budget.
(5) Nothing, when they are actually needed, and responsibly built.
a. Waste, Fraud, and Abuse of Public Trust!
b. Actually, the base dollars Prop O is costing me is around $18,000 over 30 years. When you calculate the lost revenues (return on investment ) from those dollars it is closer to around $54,000. Some may think that a small amount, but when on a fixed income that can be quite sizable. Especially when all I keep seeing is VUSD wasting those funds, failing to deliver on their promises concerning the total schools to be built (after having mislead the public on the number of schools needed), and worst of all: Failing the children and community by not delivering a quality education.
c. Waste Fraud and Abuse! Indoctrination as opposed to Education! A failed Public Education System that is more about benefits for the Administrators, maximizing revenues to the Unions, tying the hands of teachers, and utterly failing to prepare children for anything more than becoming serfs, beholden to the Government from cradle to grave!
Vista Watchdog[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:32 PM:The Lincoln site has to be occupied or else the State will require it be torn down and replaced. If it were to fully close, VUSD could not get it recertified for occupancy as it does NOT meet the California Earth Quake standards, and many other safety standards. The REAL question concerning Lincoln should be, with all the problems and safety issues why are students being forced to use this school when VUSD could have torn it down and rebuilt a New, Modern, Safe, Multi-Story School in its place?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:13 PM:to Shelley
Yes, the Lincoln site is being used and will continue to be used. However there are NOT two thousand HIGH school students at the Lincoln site now as there would be for a high school. The students there are middle school students. They do not drive and there are far fewer of those middle school students currently at the site than there would be if it were a HIGH school.
HIGH school students require more facilities than middle school. One very important one is a STUDENT parking lot. Look at the immense size of the RBVHS STUDENT parking lot. It has to be ten acres or more in size. There is no room for a STUDENT parking lot at the Lincoln site. The current facility may be painted better than the ugly military green of forty years ago, but the SEWER pipes and WATER pipes are the same. Changing the toilets and washbasins in the bathrooms does not make the too small and clogged up sewer pipes handle any more water. Try flushing TWO toilets at the same time in one of the bathroms there. See what happens. I remember the overflowing toilets and the flooded floors.
The student locker rooms are small, poorly organized and contain many blind corners and allies where no PE coach can supervise. Lots of bad stuff used to happen in those locker rooms. Have they been re-designed so that supervision is possible?
The gym contains only one set of bleachers for both the home and visiting fans to sit in. The mix of the two groups in the one set of seats lead to some bad incidence by the more rowdy male fans. A basketball gym at a high school needs SEPARATE bleachers for home and visting fans. Can you imagine what could happen today in an era of gangs and guns with home and visiting fans mixed together for championship game? Someone has to lose.
I notice that not one of the anti-education crowd wrote in to tell us when they would ever support the building of a new PUBLIC school. I guess their silence means that they would NEVER support our local children having a new school under any circumstances. Had that been the attitude in the 1930's when the bond for the Lincoln site on Escondido Ave passed, I guess all the children in VUSD would be going to school in tents.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:15 PM:To Sam
East Oceanside is inside the VUSD boundaries because school districts were started long before communities in North County were incorporated. The City of Vista was not an incorporated city when I was a child. The city had no set boundaries. It was a general area. However, VUSD did have boundaries because its founding goes back to early part of the twentieth century (even before I was born!).
When the City of Vista was incorporated in the 1960’s, the city founding fathers decided not to set the CITY of VISTA boundaries to overlap the VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT boundaries. They left out the western part of the VUSD lands. Why? Who knows? I do not remember.
For some reason the founding fathers allowed Oceanside to annex land that was traditionally thought of as Vista land. That land which was once west Vista is today called East Oceanside. Maybe someone with a better memory than mine can enlighten us as to why west Vista was given over to Oceanside. I do not remember the reasons except it was something about keeping Vista a rural community.
Foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:30 PM:
To Vista watchdog
The Lincoln Middle School site does not met earthquake standards? Really? Exactly how does a school building get an exemption to the FIELD ACT? You know the one passed one month after the Long Beach earthquake in 1933 that destroyed seventy schools. You remember the Act that REQUIRES all buildings used by students at a school site to meet earthquake standards.
You can read all about it at the site below. Here is a statement from that site that might enlighten you: “In 1976 public schools built before the Field Act were phased out of use or retrofitted to comply with the act.” http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/Field%20Act%20Findings%20.pdf
So how was has the Lincoln Middle School site been used since 1976 if it did not meet Field Act seismic standards? Do you think your facts might be mixed up again?
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:35 PM:VUSD recently completed an extensive study of those sewer pipes and found them to be in "amazingly good condition." Nice try on the sewer pipes at Lincoln. Now answer us this one: When will the sewer be installed at the Melrose/76 Site? Yes, students need functioning bathrooms: NOT porta-potties! And, speaking of sewers, isn't it you who keeps bringing up Strawberry Hill, another site that had no sewer hookups available? And as long as we are at it... You mention students needing a student parking lot. Vista High is using a good portion of the student parking lot for portable classrooms. If they were to have used Modernization funds to build the school up to a multi-story school the students would again have a student parking lot at VHS, and we would not need these new schools. Also, as a Magnet school in the middle of Vista, Lincoln would have been well situated to take advantage of Public Transportation at the transportation hub (Sprinter and NCTD Bus) about 1/2 mile away. Finally, if VUSD had not traded away the fine property on which the Original Vista High was located, there would have been plenty of parking available, and plenty of room for future expansion. By the way, what do you have against providing access to those students who would benefit most from having a centrally located magnet school that they could actually walk to?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:37 PM: To Vista Watch Dog
The current Vista City Hall is located on the first Lincoln Middle School campus. The City Hall site was never a high school campus. The old Vista High School across the street (Escondido Ave) from the first Lincoln Middle School was renamed Lincoln Middle School when the new Vista High was built on Bobier. Very confusing to have two different sites in the district called Lincoln at two different times and two different sites called Vista High at two different times. This is an easy mistake to make. You probably have not been around as long as I have.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:39 PM: The problem with the Lincoln site is not failure to meet Field Act requirements. The problem at Lincoln is trying to turn it into a HIGH school because of its inadequate SEWERS and its lack of STUDENT PARKING.
I wonder about a two story high school and the Field Act. Wouldn’t such a school be far more dangerous in an earthquake? Aren’t you already worried about earthquakes?
Where would the money come from to clear the site and build a two story high school? I know according to you it would appear magically from the mythical funds that the state of California just hands over to school districts who refuse to pass local bonds.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:45 PM:Today there are more and more homes in Vista housing more than one family. No new developer fees come in for those multiple families and multiple sets of children living in what used to be single family houses and apartments. Yet we have to house those children in our schools.
The Developer Fees the district acquires with the building of each new house in VUSD are running dry. New houses are not being built fast enough, besides most of the land for building new houses has run out. Substantial amounts of developer fees are a thing of the past. They never were enough to pay for building all the schools VUSD needed and in the future the monies are likely to be less and less.
State money is very difficult to get. Far more districts apply and qualify for far more funds then there are ever available when a state bond passes. When the state bond money runs out and Vista did not get enough of it then what? Our children in tents for classrooms? Again I ask Vista Watchdog, did you ever vote for a State bond? If not why not? If you want to use State bond money to build schools in VUSD don't you have to support the passage of state bonds?
History to foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:46 PM:Nice try on the Vista and VUSD Boundaries and Eastern Oceanside. But, you have it all wrong! Vista Unified did NOT include Eastern Oceanside in 1963, as it was actually part of Unincorporated San Diego County when Vist was incorporated. When the developer came in to build Rancho Del Oro, they approached the City of Vista, but the City was not intereseted. However, Oceanside was. They wanted the community to be in a city so as to obtain city services such as Fire, Police, and road maintenance. But, as Oceanside Unified was not a very highly rated School District, and VUSD was currently at the top in San Diego County, the developer approach VUSD and asked them to annex the community into VUSD. This was so that the developer could have better retail pricing on their homes as the homes would be located within the boundaries of the #1 District in SD County!
Vista Watchdog[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 11:27 PM:Lincoln was built to meet the Field Act of 1933, but does NOT meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as amended. The 1933 earthquake did destroy many schools, but the Sylmar quake (February 1, 1971) destroyed the VA Hospital in Simi Valley that was built to the Field Act standards. So, in the 1970's the Uniform Building Code as amended and required all new construction to be built to much greater standards, and older buildings to eventually be retrofitted (I do believe you will find that is one of the reasons Tri-City Hospital keeps trying to pass a Bond, so that they can complete the required retro-fits of the Uniform Building Code as amended). Lincoln is grandfathered in under the Uniform Building Code so long as it remains an "Active" school. Once it is officially closed it cannot be re-occupied as under the Occupancy Requirements of CA Ed. Code, Lincoln as it is currently constructed will not pass. That is why they had to find something to put in there: the Magnet Middle School, or be forced to sell the property. VUSD does not desire to lose this property as it is still too valuable for other uses, and may eventually be rebuilt. Unfortunately Prop O did not contain adequate funding for the replacement of Lincoln unless it was to be completely torn down. This was due to the fact that VUSD was originally selling the Bond on the presumption of needing a 5th Middle School, so Lincoln was not to be abandoned. But, since enrollment dropped, as predicted by some who were against the bond, continuing to operate Lincoln could no longer be justified. You really should try to get your facts straight before you do your blogging, as you will find the actual date for phasing out schools was June 30 1975, unless the District applied for and received and extension. Then the maximum use would end June 30, 1977. However, as noted above, the 1971 quake accelerated the rebuilding of schools such that all schools had been retrofitted by 1976 (the date you quoted). But, you will also find that shortly after the Sylmar Quake and subsequent amending of the Uniform Building Codes, CA Passed Prop 13, significantly limiting funds for new construction and retrofitting of schools to the new requirements. This brought in the Harold F. Greene act of 1976 which created such things as Modernization Funds, and Hardship Funds. These sources of funding could have been used by VUSD to retro-fit Lincoln or actually remove and replace the unsafe structures. But, certain individuals had too much sentimental attachment to the pseudo-historic Administration buildings and balked at the idea of tearing down the old school. So, where do we go from here? What else shall we discuss from our personal histories of Vista and VUSD? Maybe we should attach the actual date that VUSD became Vista “Unified” School District and see how that stands up to the facts (dates) you mention!
History[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 12:07 AM:There were no Bonds required when Lincoln was built. In fact, if you'd paid attention in school you'd know that we were in the middle of the Great Depression in the 1930s, and agricultural communities like Vista didn’t have a whole lot of money. Many schools built in those days in CA were actually Public Works projects funded by the Federal Government to help put people back to work. You will recall from your reading of the Grapes of Wrath that people were heading out of the Dust Bowl (Mid-west) to California to find work. California was not impacted by the Drying out in the Mid-west and in fact was under the influence of an El Nino that was supplying larger than normal amounts of water. This greatly aided CA farmers in becoming one of the largest producers of agricultural goods to the rest of the US. So, with all these people heading west to CA, new schools were needed to educate the many children arriving in the area. Local communities were heavily strapped for funds and could not afford to build these schools. But also, not everyone coming to CA was able to find work, nor were they all suited for agricultural work. President Roosevelt and Congress implemented many public works projects, including the Interstate Highway system, Hoover Dam, and building of Public Facilities such as schools. So, without needing a Local School bond Lincoln was built and the Vista High School District was founded. Oh yes, High School students were now able to leave their tents (they were living in tents) and actually attend school in a brick and mortar facility. By the way, prior to Prop 13 passage, local school bonds were not “passes” by local voters. Rather, the District Board of Trustees would vote to pass the bond and assess the home owners for the Bond. The abuse of this constant assessment, especially as Districts began to approach the June 30 1975 deadline, was one of the driving factors that caused Prop 13 to pass!
whatta waste[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 6:36 AM:enrollments down,bad place for school
in the mean time i'll still be paying
on the bond
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 4:43 PM:Vista Watchdog says, "Lincoln is grandfathered in under the Uniform Building Code so long as it remains an "Active" school." Please give a website that backs up that assertion. Otherwise we will have to assume that you have no basis for your statement.
I gave a government website that backs up my belief that Lincoln Middle School is in compliance with the Field Act. Can you give a verifiable source that disputes my belief and my government website?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 4:55 PM: History wrote: “you have it all wrong! Vista Unified did NOT include Eastern Oceanside in 1963, as it was actually part of Unincorporated San Diego County when Vist (sic) was incorporated.”
To History, the incorporation of the city of Vista has nothing to do with the establishment of the Vista Unified SCHOOL DISTRICT. The CITY of Vista and the Vista Unified SCHOOL DISTRICT are two completely governing agencies--different governing structures, different boundaries and different histories. They only share some of the same land and the word “Vista.”
I have emailed the Vista Historical Society and asked them to email an explanation as to how east Oceanside got into the Vista Unified School District. I will post any reply I receive.
I lived way out in the country as a child of the late fifties and sixties. Our home was miles from the city. A school bus came to pick up the various children in isolated houses and took us on a morning and evening meandering trip on tiny roads that took more than an hour each way. None of the other children’s homes were in the city either but we all ended up at a district school. There was never any Fallbrook or Oceanside bus out our way. The school district boundaries must have included our homes even though we lived in what was then unincorporated county land.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 5:00 PM:To history
Could you agree to let the Vista Historical Society to settle the question of where the money came from to build the buildings now called the Magnet Middle School formerly Lincoln Middle School and before that Vista High School.
Are you saying it was a WPA project? Are you also saying that the citizens in the Vista area did nothing to raise any funds to help build it?
--------------------------------------------
The following was taken from a conversation between NCTimes blogger, Fooled No More and Jack Larimer of the Vista Historical Society May 10, 2008 call duration from approx 12:25PM to 1:20PM.
I have since learned that Vista Historical Society will have a new web site soon. The old one has been abandoned. The email address at the old site does not work.
I called the Vista Historical Society today (Saturday) as my email was returned undeliverable. Jack Larimer answered the phone and then answered the questions in dispute in this blog . He was kind enough to give me almost an hour of his time. He is a very informed person on Vista history. He once worked at City Hall. He was brought up locally and his mother worked for the VUSD at Lincoln Middle School. Here is a summary of the notes I scribbled.
(1) Was the current city hall site ever a high school? The answer is NO.
First elementary school built in Vista was in 1917. Modified building still exists at 644 Vista Village. Second school built was at the current City Hall site. It was originally an elementary school. Then a bond was passed to build Santa Fe Elementary now VAPVA. When Santa Fe was build then the city hall site became a junior high named Lincoln in 1950’s. Then Vista High west of Escondido was built in 1938 but foundation laid 1937. Federal government needed to approve plans. Not a WPA project but there was Federal involvement. There was also a local bond passed. With the construction of the High School and Santa Fe elementary school VUSD hoped to have enough space for all the children in district for many, many years to come. However within five years Crestview was built.
(2) Was east Oceanside incorporated into VUSD as some kind of collusion between developer of Rancho Del Oro and the school district. The answer is NO.
What is now east Oceanside Rancho Del Oro area was long in the VUSD district going back to founding of the Unified district in 1938. There have been some major and minor VUSD boundary shifts since VUSD was founded but that area was in VUSD since it became a unified District in 1938. The biggest change was a major SIZE REDUCTION in VUSD when all the land north of San Luis Rey River was given to Bonsall elementary and Fallbrook High School Districts. Other minor changes Elevado part was added to VUSD because students from houses there had to physically go through Vista Unified to get to Bonsall. Also When College Boulevard was built the nearby wavering line between Oceanside Unified and Vista Unified was straightened to go down the center of College Boulevard. Also an error was made by the original engineer hired to write the description of VUSD boundaries in 1938. He took the easy way out and used a section boundary in the north west corner of the district instead of writing another page or two describing the property boundaries south of the San Luis Rey River. That is why part of the site for the dual magnet high schools north of 76 ended up in Fallbrook High School and Bonsall districts. Hence a land swap was needed to make the site available for the new Dual Magnet High Schools. A record of all school boundary changes can be found at the County Supervisor’s offices in San Diego and possibly at the County Board of Education as well.
(3) Was the dual magnet site (recently the site of Lincoln Middle School) financed by the federal government? Yes and no. There was federal involvement but Mr. Larimer believes there was a local school bond issue passed as well. There are microfiche records at the city library containing copies of the newspapers from 1938. Anyone who wishes to can look up stories from that time and say exactly. However there were bond issues being passed even back then. The problem with rapid growth in Vista started with a bond issue and the formation of the Vista Irrigation Company
Mr. Larimer suggests that more details can be found in a book called the History of Vista by Doyle or History of the Vista Unified School District written in 1992 sold at Rancho Buena Vista or the History of Northern San Diego County. Also I know that Donna Harper wrote a View of Vista that might be useful.
Jack Larimer also mentioned that Rick Hall did a study for VUSD about using the Lincoln site and the City Hall Site together as a high school with bridges crossing over Escondido Avenue between the two sites. the plan had to be approved by the state and the state said, "No" to the combined site.
Here is the article:
VISTA: VUSD negotiates lower price for magnet high school
Contractor agrees to shave $2.5 million from project
By STACY BRANDT - Staff Writer Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:05 PM PDT
Seems like our school board did a good thing right? If you think so then you are not an ANTI.
Let's see what an average battle in the VUSD Wars looks like. I posted the battle below. Note: the PRO public education posts are colored in blue. All other colors represent ANTIs. At the time of these posts there was no requirement by the NCTimes for blogger to have only one name, so the ANTI posts could have been all posted by one person. I believe most of them were, however, from context, I would guess there were actually three ANTIs involved.
There were two PRO bloggers. One was a parent who made only one post.
not in my backyard[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 4:16 PM:please don't build this school here -the roads are no up to the traffic- have you tried to drive EB 76 at rush hour? Why here? The population of east oceanside will not support this school - stop wasting the money!
Observer[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 4:50 PM:NIMBY's correct on all points. It should have been built on the Lincoln site with more than one story buildings. Those would now be finished, ready to be used AND ALL of the buildings would be completed ready to house students this fall -- even a cafeteria!
Transportation vs Location[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 7:27 PM:So, VUSD builds this school at the far end of the District (so far that they had to petition the County Office of Ed. to move District boundaries). They all the schools Magnet High Schools, but don't provide any District funded transportation, and there is no City or county transportation available either.
Enter oil prices soaring to $120+ a barrel and heading toward $200 a barrel, with corresponding Gasoline prices at $4/gal and heading toward $5/gal.
Add in the looming recession (CA is already in one).
Now answer me this: Where are all the students going to come from to populate these new schools? What parent is going to drive up to 10 miles across town (20 miles round trip) 5 days a week, in morning and afternoon traffic on city streets getting no better than 10 MPG (or about $10/day, $50/week, or $1,820/ school year), spending up to an hour or more of daily commuting time, just so their child can attend these schools? Especially when their child can simply walk to the local High School down the block. At best, when this trailer park school opens (most likely behind the new schedule), requiring additional work to be fully completed (see Rancho Minerva Middle School), the enrollment will be too low to effectively run both of the two schools as separate schools. Within a year there will be a move by the District to unify the two schools into a small comprehensive high school, and redraw boundaries within the District to "Force" students to attend this school. Even then, it will have numerous facilities problems (see Madison Middle school and the sewer gas problems) and the trailers will begin to leak due to corner cutting required to come in within the new budget. In the end the test scores of the students forced to attend this school will show no significant improvement, and the taxpayers will be out the nearly $100M spent to build another failing trailer park school.
Oh what a waste of good young minds!
Trailer Park High School[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 1:37 AM:This is what Mission Vista should be called and a White Elephant should be its mascot. Ok, maybe a Trojan Horse because that is what it is. I agree with Transportation vs. Location that within a year it will be turned into a comprehensive High School. Isn't it nice that Administration receives a stick built building, yet the student population has modular buildings with a couple of exceptions? If they were so concerned about the cost, keep the modular trend and build something that is needed. Say, like a cafeteria or a science building, perhaps? Isn’t it fair that if students have to learn in trailers that administrators should follow suit?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 5:47 AM:The Lincoln Middle School site was too small to be a high school forty years when I was in high school. It was run down then. It's water and sewer systems buried under the buildings was inadequate and still is.
This community has needed a new high school on a high school sized property for the last twenty years. Let's get it built.
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:30 AM:You say that the Lincoln site is still run down? Have you stopped by to see? It is a shame that these rumors continue. Since we are on rumors...never mind...
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:40 AM:To Transportation vs Location
A few of questions for you:
(1) Suppose bond Prop LL had been passed back in the mid-eigties when there was still vacant land in the middle of the district, where do you think the high school would have been built? Perhaps on one of those middle of our district tracts of lands that is now covered in housing developments?
(2) What did you do to help pass those earlier bonds when more centrally located land parcels were available?
(3) Whose fault is it that the only tract of high school sized land left when a bond issue finally passed was out at the far end of the district? (By the way there are hundreds of homes and apartments west and southwest of the new magnet high school. I think they may contain a few potential students who will want a high school near their homes.)
(4) Would you or your side ever be in favor of any new PUBLIC school ever being built?
(5) What do you have against new schools being built? What is really behind your opposition? It cannot be money because if you are a property owner, you personally will be out only a few hundred dollars over thirty years at most. So what is really behind the anger?
shelley[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:50 AM:Interesting that the Lincoln site has so many problems and could not be the site for a new HS, but yet it is still being used plumbing problems and all!!!
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 7:47 AM:Good luck...
OUSD Bond[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:38 AM:How about another bond to fund a complete build out of this campus like Oceanside Unified is doing to finish their school projects. I know that would never happen in VUSD. The question is why? OUSD board vs. VUSD board. Quite a difference...
Sam[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:24 AM:Foolednomore should be called morefooled. It is too bad the people were more fooled too, lied too, and cheated too. I hope people think twice about voteing for Bonds. How can the VUSD take monies from another school and use it anywhere they want? I think we have been taken to the cleaners again. I wish Oceanside could get out of the Vista School District. SUCKERS' AGAIN!
Shirley[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 4:11 PM:Yes! Finally the school will be built - just in time for my son to go there. And yes, a LOT of his friends also plan to attend. Honestly, I would love it if the school went comprehensive.
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:24 PM:(1) As I recall Rancho Buena Vista High School was built back in the 1980s. Wasn’t that High School built without the Passage f Prop LL? VUSD didn’t need a 3rd High School until the 1990s. Also, as I recall Vista’s original High School was in the middle of Vista. But, someone arranged a trade between VUSD and the City and City Hall was moved into the old High School. That site could have been utilized for a High School using Modernization Funds from the State if it had not been traded away to the City. Suppose VUSD had taken advantage of Prop 1A Hardship Funds when they initially qualified for them and had built some of the schools they needed back in 2000? Where were you then when Hubbard was openly opposed to taking advantage of California Taxpayer dollars to build much needed schools?
(2) Suppose VUSD had used the money they had in their building fund back in the late 1990s and applied for Modernization Funds (80% match) and used those funds to expand some of the existing schools UPWARD, thereby effectively utilizing both the taxpayers’ money and the taxpayers’ land, and ending overcrowding without the need for a local Bond before Prop O was even put on the Ballot? Where were you on this option, and what do you have against efficient utilization of taxpayer dollars and the responsible use of land, as opposed to the sprawl designs that continue to take more and more land away from farmers and natural habitat?
(3) That would be the fault of the Board Majority and the past Administration who were bent on building New Schools paid for by a local Bond as opposed to Utilizing funds from a State wide bond for which they were eligible.
a. Not enough to justify the Magnet status of these two schools. Besides, to officially qualify as a MAGNET School, the District needs to show they are actually drawing from a cross-section of the community the District Serves. Not simply a local elite population.
(4) Yes. Especially if it were done in an efficient and effective manner, well planned, and built on schedule and within budget.
(5) Nothing, when they are actually needed, and responsibly built.
a. Waste, Fraud, and Abuse of Public Trust!
b. Actually, the base dollars Prop O is costing me is around $18,000 over 30 years. When you calculate the lost revenues (return on investment ) from those dollars it is closer to around $54,000. Some may think that a small amount, but when on a fixed income that can be quite sizable. Especially when all I keep seeing is VUSD wasting those funds, failing to deliver on their promises concerning the total schools to be built (after having mislead the public on the number of schools needed), and worst of all: Failing the children and community by not delivering a quality education.
c. Waste Fraud and Abuse! Indoctrination as opposed to Education! A failed Public Education System that is more about benefits for the Administrators, maximizing revenues to the Unions, tying the hands of teachers, and utterly failing to prepare children for anything more than becoming serfs, beholden to the Government from cradle to grave!
Vista Watchdog[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:32 PM:The Lincoln site has to be occupied or else the State will require it be torn down and replaced. If it were to fully close, VUSD could not get it recertified for occupancy as it does NOT meet the California Earth Quake standards, and many other safety standards. The REAL question concerning Lincoln should be, with all the problems and safety issues why are students being forced to use this school when VUSD could have torn it down and rebuilt a New, Modern, Safe, Multi-Story School in its place?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:13 PM:to Shelley
Yes, the Lincoln site is being used and will continue to be used. However there are NOT two thousand HIGH school students at the Lincoln site now as there would be for a high school. The students there are middle school students. They do not drive and there are far fewer of those middle school students currently at the site than there would be if it were a HIGH school.
HIGH school students require more facilities than middle school. One very important one is a STUDENT parking lot. Look at the immense size of the RBVHS STUDENT parking lot. It has to be ten acres or more in size. There is no room for a STUDENT parking lot at the Lincoln site. The current facility may be painted better than the ugly military green of forty years ago, but the SEWER pipes and WATER pipes are the same. Changing the toilets and washbasins in the bathrooms does not make the too small and clogged up sewer pipes handle any more water. Try flushing TWO toilets at the same time in one of the bathroms there. See what happens. I remember the overflowing toilets and the flooded floors.
The student locker rooms are small, poorly organized and contain many blind corners and allies where no PE coach can supervise. Lots of bad stuff used to happen in those locker rooms. Have they been re-designed so that supervision is possible?
The gym contains only one set of bleachers for both the home and visiting fans to sit in. The mix of the two groups in the one set of seats lead to some bad incidence by the more rowdy male fans. A basketball gym at a high school needs SEPARATE bleachers for home and visting fans. Can you imagine what could happen today in an era of gangs and guns with home and visiting fans mixed together for championship game? Someone has to lose.
I notice that not one of the anti-education crowd wrote in to tell us when they would ever support the building of a new PUBLIC school. I guess their silence means that they would NEVER support our local children having a new school under any circumstances. Had that been the attitude in the 1930's when the bond for the Lincoln site on Escondido Ave passed, I guess all the children in VUSD would be going to school in tents.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:15 PM:To Sam
East Oceanside is inside the VUSD boundaries because school districts were started long before communities in North County were incorporated. The City of Vista was not an incorporated city when I was a child. The city had no set boundaries. It was a general area. However, VUSD did have boundaries because its founding goes back to early part of the twentieth century (even before I was born!).
When the City of Vista was incorporated in the 1960’s, the city founding fathers decided not to set the CITY of VISTA boundaries to overlap the VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT boundaries. They left out the western part of the VUSD lands. Why? Who knows? I do not remember.
For some reason the founding fathers allowed Oceanside to annex land that was traditionally thought of as Vista land. That land which was once west Vista is today called East Oceanside. Maybe someone with a better memory than mine can enlighten us as to why west Vista was given over to Oceanside. I do not remember the reasons except it was something about keeping Vista a rural community.
Foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:30 PM:
To Vista watchdog
The Lincoln Middle School site does not met earthquake standards? Really? Exactly how does a school building get an exemption to the FIELD ACT? You know the one passed one month after the Long Beach earthquake in 1933 that destroyed seventy schools. You remember the Act that REQUIRES all buildings used by students at a school site to meet earthquake standards.
You can read all about it at the site below. Here is a statement from that site that might enlighten you: “In 1976 public schools built before the Field Act were phased out of use or retrofitted to comply with the act.” http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/Field%20Act%20Findings%20.pdf
So how was has the Lincoln Middle School site been used since 1976 if it did not meet Field Act seismic standards? Do you think your facts might be mixed up again?
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:35 PM:VUSD recently completed an extensive study of those sewer pipes and found them to be in "amazingly good condition." Nice try on the sewer pipes at Lincoln. Now answer us this one: When will the sewer be installed at the Melrose/76 Site? Yes, students need functioning bathrooms: NOT porta-potties! And, speaking of sewers, isn't it you who keeps bringing up Strawberry Hill, another site that had no sewer hookups available? And as long as we are at it... You mention students needing a student parking lot. Vista High is using a good portion of the student parking lot for portable classrooms. If they were to have used Modernization funds to build the school up to a multi-story school the students would again have a student parking lot at VHS, and we would not need these new schools. Also, as a Magnet school in the middle of Vista, Lincoln would have been well situated to take advantage of Public Transportation at the transportation hub (Sprinter and NCTD Bus) about 1/2 mile away. Finally, if VUSD had not traded away the fine property on which the Original Vista High was located, there would have been plenty of parking available, and plenty of room for future expansion. By the way, what do you have against providing access to those students who would benefit most from having a centrally located magnet school that they could actually walk to?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:37 PM: To Vista Watch Dog
The current Vista City Hall is located on the first Lincoln Middle School campus. The City Hall site was never a high school campus. The old Vista High School across the street (Escondido Ave) from the first Lincoln Middle School was renamed Lincoln Middle School when the new Vista High was built on Bobier. Very confusing to have two different sites in the district called Lincoln at two different times and two different sites called Vista High at two different times. This is an easy mistake to make. You probably have not been around as long as I have.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:39 PM: The problem with the Lincoln site is not failure to meet Field Act requirements. The problem at Lincoln is trying to turn it into a HIGH school because of its inadequate SEWERS and its lack of STUDENT PARKING.
I wonder about a two story high school and the Field Act. Wouldn’t such a school be far more dangerous in an earthquake? Aren’t you already worried about earthquakes?
Where would the money come from to clear the site and build a two story high school? I know according to you it would appear magically from the mythical funds that the state of California just hands over to school districts who refuse to pass local bonds.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:45 PM:Today there are more and more homes in Vista housing more than one family. No new developer fees come in for those multiple families and multiple sets of children living in what used to be single family houses and apartments. Yet we have to house those children in our schools.
The Developer Fees the district acquires with the building of each new house in VUSD are running dry. New houses are not being built fast enough, besides most of the land for building new houses has run out. Substantial amounts of developer fees are a thing of the past. They never were enough to pay for building all the schools VUSD needed and in the future the monies are likely to be less and less.
State money is very difficult to get. Far more districts apply and qualify for far more funds then there are ever available when a state bond passes. When the state bond money runs out and Vista did not get enough of it then what? Our children in tents for classrooms? Again I ask Vista Watchdog, did you ever vote for a State bond? If not why not? If you want to use State bond money to build schools in VUSD don't you have to support the passage of state bonds?
History to foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:46 PM:Nice try on the Vista and VUSD Boundaries and Eastern Oceanside. But, you have it all wrong! Vista Unified did NOT include Eastern Oceanside in 1963, as it was actually part of Unincorporated San Diego County when Vist was incorporated. When the developer came in to build Rancho Del Oro, they approached the City of Vista, but the City was not intereseted. However, Oceanside was. They wanted the community to be in a city so as to obtain city services such as Fire, Police, and road maintenance. But, as Oceanside Unified was not a very highly rated School District, and VUSD was currently at the top in San Diego County, the developer approach VUSD and asked them to annex the community into VUSD. This was so that the developer could have better retail pricing on their homes as the homes would be located within the boundaries of the #1 District in SD County!
Vista Watchdog[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 11:27 PM:Lincoln was built to meet the Field Act of 1933, but does NOT meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as amended. The 1933 earthquake did destroy many schools, but the Sylmar quake (February 1, 1971) destroyed the VA Hospital in Simi Valley that was built to the Field Act standards. So, in the 1970's the Uniform Building Code as amended and required all new construction to be built to much greater standards, and older buildings to eventually be retrofitted (I do believe you will find that is one of the reasons Tri-City Hospital keeps trying to pass a Bond, so that they can complete the required retro-fits of the Uniform Building Code as amended). Lincoln is grandfathered in under the Uniform Building Code so long as it remains an "Active" school. Once it is officially closed it cannot be re-occupied as under the Occupancy Requirements of CA Ed. Code, Lincoln as it is currently constructed will not pass. That is why they had to find something to put in there: the Magnet Middle School, or be forced to sell the property. VUSD does not desire to lose this property as it is still too valuable for other uses, and may eventually be rebuilt. Unfortunately Prop O did not contain adequate funding for the replacement of Lincoln unless it was to be completely torn down. This was due to the fact that VUSD was originally selling the Bond on the presumption of needing a 5th Middle School, so Lincoln was not to be abandoned. But, since enrollment dropped, as predicted by some who were against the bond, continuing to operate Lincoln could no longer be justified. You really should try to get your facts straight before you do your blogging, as you will find the actual date for phasing out schools was June 30 1975, unless the District applied for and received and extension. Then the maximum use would end June 30, 1977. However, as noted above, the 1971 quake accelerated the rebuilding of schools such that all schools had been retrofitted by 1976 (the date you quoted). But, you will also find that shortly after the Sylmar Quake and subsequent amending of the Uniform Building Codes, CA Passed Prop 13, significantly limiting funds for new construction and retrofitting of schools to the new requirements. This brought in the Harold F. Greene act of 1976 which created such things as Modernization Funds, and Hardship Funds. These sources of funding could have been used by VUSD to retro-fit Lincoln or actually remove and replace the unsafe structures. But, certain individuals had too much sentimental attachment to the pseudo-historic Administration buildings and balked at the idea of tearing down the old school. So, where do we go from here? What else shall we discuss from our personal histories of Vista and VUSD? Maybe we should attach the actual date that VUSD became Vista “Unified” School District and see how that stands up to the facts (dates) you mention!
History[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 12:07 AM:There were no Bonds required when Lincoln was built. In fact, if you'd paid attention in school you'd know that we were in the middle of the Great Depression in the 1930s, and agricultural communities like Vista didn’t have a whole lot of money. Many schools built in those days in CA were actually Public Works projects funded by the Federal Government to help put people back to work. You will recall from your reading of the Grapes of Wrath that people were heading out of the Dust Bowl (Mid-west) to California to find work. California was not impacted by the Drying out in the Mid-west and in fact was under the influence of an El Nino that was supplying larger than normal amounts of water. This greatly aided CA farmers in becoming one of the largest producers of agricultural goods to the rest of the US. So, with all these people heading west to CA, new schools were needed to educate the many children arriving in the area. Local communities were heavily strapped for funds and could not afford to build these schools. But also, not everyone coming to CA was able to find work, nor were they all suited for agricultural work. President Roosevelt and Congress implemented many public works projects, including the Interstate Highway system, Hoover Dam, and building of Public Facilities such as schools. So, without needing a Local School bond Lincoln was built and the Vista High School District was founded. Oh yes, High School students were now able to leave their tents (they were living in tents) and actually attend school in a brick and mortar facility. By the way, prior to Prop 13 passage, local school bonds were not “passes” by local voters. Rather, the District Board of Trustees would vote to pass the bond and assess the home owners for the Bond. The abuse of this constant assessment, especially as Districts began to approach the June 30 1975 deadline, was one of the driving factors that caused Prop 13 to pass!
whatta waste[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 6:36 AM:enrollments down,bad place for school
in the mean time i'll still be paying
on the bond
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 4:43 PM:Vista Watchdog says, "Lincoln is grandfathered in under the Uniform Building Code so long as it remains an "Active" school." Please give a website that backs up that assertion. Otherwise we will have to assume that you have no basis for your statement.
I gave a government website that backs up my belief that Lincoln Middle School is in compliance with the Field Act. Can you give a verifiable source that disputes my belief and my government website?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 4:55 PM: History wrote: “you have it all wrong! Vista Unified did NOT include Eastern Oceanside in 1963, as it was actually part of Unincorporated San Diego County when Vist (sic) was incorporated.”
To History, the incorporation of the city of Vista has nothing to do with the establishment of the Vista Unified SCHOOL DISTRICT. The CITY of Vista and the Vista Unified SCHOOL DISTRICT are two completely governing agencies--different governing structures, different boundaries and different histories. They only share some of the same land and the word “Vista.”
I have emailed the Vista Historical Society and asked them to email an explanation as to how east Oceanside got into the Vista Unified School District. I will post any reply I receive.
I lived way out in the country as a child of the late fifties and sixties. Our home was miles from the city. A school bus came to pick up the various children in isolated houses and took us on a morning and evening meandering trip on tiny roads that took more than an hour each way. None of the other children’s homes were in the city either but we all ended up at a district school. There was never any Fallbrook or Oceanside bus out our way. The school district boundaries must have included our homes even though we lived in what was then unincorporated county land.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 5:00 PM:To history
Could you agree to let the Vista Historical Society to settle the question of where the money came from to build the buildings now called the Magnet Middle School formerly Lincoln Middle School and before that Vista High School.
Are you saying it was a WPA project? Are you also saying that the citizens in the Vista area did nothing to raise any funds to help build it?
--------------------------------------------
The following was taken from a conversation between NCTimes blogger, Fooled No More and Jack Larimer of the Vista Historical Society May 10, 2008 call duration from approx 12:25PM to 1:20PM.
I have since learned that Vista Historical Society will have a new web site soon. The old one has been abandoned. The email address at the old site does not work.
I called the Vista Historical Society today (Saturday) as my email was returned undeliverable. Jack Larimer answered the phone and then answered the questions in dispute in this blog . He was kind enough to give me almost an hour of his time. He is a very informed person on Vista history. He once worked at City Hall. He was brought up locally and his mother worked for the VUSD at Lincoln Middle School. Here is a summary of the notes I scribbled.
(1) Was the current city hall site ever a high school? The answer is NO.
First elementary school built in Vista was in 1917. Modified building still exists at 644 Vista Village. Second school built was at the current City Hall site. It was originally an elementary school. Then a bond was passed to build Santa Fe Elementary now VAPVA. When Santa Fe was build then the city hall site became a junior high named Lincoln in 1950’s. Then Vista High west of Escondido was built in 1938 but foundation laid 1937. Federal government needed to approve plans. Not a WPA project but there was Federal involvement. There was also a local bond passed. With the construction of the High School and Santa Fe elementary school VUSD hoped to have enough space for all the children in district for many, many years to come. However within five years Crestview was built.
(2) Was east Oceanside incorporated into VUSD as some kind of collusion between developer of Rancho Del Oro and the school district. The answer is NO.
What is now east Oceanside Rancho Del Oro area was long in the VUSD district going back to founding of the Unified district in 1938. There have been some major and minor VUSD boundary shifts since VUSD was founded but that area was in VUSD since it became a unified District in 1938. The biggest change was a major SIZE REDUCTION in VUSD when all the land north of San Luis Rey River was given to Bonsall elementary and Fallbrook High School Districts. Other minor changes Elevado part was added to VUSD because students from houses there had to physically go through Vista Unified to get to Bonsall. Also When College Boulevard was built the nearby wavering line between Oceanside Unified and Vista Unified was straightened to go down the center of College Boulevard. Also an error was made by the original engineer hired to write the description of VUSD boundaries in 1938. He took the easy way out and used a section boundary in the north west corner of the district instead of writing another page or two describing the property boundaries south of the San Luis Rey River. That is why part of the site for the dual magnet high schools north of 76 ended up in Fallbrook High School and Bonsall districts. Hence a land swap was needed to make the site available for the new Dual Magnet High Schools. A record of all school boundary changes can be found at the County Supervisor’s offices in San Diego and possibly at the County Board of Education as well.
(3) Was the dual magnet site (recently the site of Lincoln Middle School) financed by the federal government? Yes and no. There was federal involvement but Mr. Larimer believes there was a local school bond issue passed as well. There are microfiche records at the city library containing copies of the newspapers from 1938. Anyone who wishes to can look up stories from that time and say exactly. However there were bond issues being passed even back then. The problem with rapid growth in Vista started with a bond issue and the formation of the Vista Irrigation Company
Mr. Larimer suggests that more details can be found in a book called the History of Vista by Doyle or History of the Vista Unified School District written in 1992 sold at Rancho Buena Vista or the History of Northern San Diego County. Also I know that Donna Harper wrote a View of Vista that might be useful.
Jack Larimer also mentioned that Rick Hall did a study for VUSD about using the Lincoln site and the City Hall Site together as a high school with bridges crossing over Escondido Avenue between the two sites. the plan had to be approved by the state and the state said, "No" to the combined site.
Bully teacher? or North County Times double standard?
To see an example of just how one sided the editorial troika at the North County Times is look at this Community Forum published in the North County Times.
FORUM: What about bully teachers?
By CHERYL A. PROTZELLER -- VUSD resident Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:12 AM PDT
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/02/opinion/commentary/zb8675a6979ab371088257585000491e3.txt
It was written by one kindergarten parent about two teachers and the alleged actions they took on their own at no direction from the VTA leadership. These alleged actions happened at ONE teacher's meeting. The actions of two teachers out of thousands in the Vista Teachers at this one meeting were unfairly used by the North County Times editorial staff to try to paint an ugly picture of all teachers in the district and of the Vista Teachers Association. Can you say political smear?
Protzeller's complaint is the kind of thing most papers would laugh off and suggest the parent take to the two teachers involved, their principal or the district office. Yet the NCTimes published it with the inflammatory and inaccurate "bully teacher" title.
Who were the teachers supposedly bullying? The principal? Sounds like a quick way to get fired for insubordination. A firing offense under California State Law. Who would risk losing their jobs in this economy in order to get a brief announcement at a single meeting? Could Protzeller have misinterpreted what she saw?
California Ed Code on line found here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&codebody=&hits=20
EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 44930-44988
44933. A permanent employee may be dismissed or suspended on
grounds of unprofessional conduct consisting of acts or omissions
other than those specified in Section 44932, but any such charge
shall specify instances of behavior deemed to constitute
unprofessional conduct.
AND
(c) "Unsatisfactory performance" as used in this section means,
and refers only to, the unsatisfactory performance particularly
specified as a cause for dismissal in Section 44932 and does not
include any other cause for dismissal specified in Section 44932.
"Unprofessional conduct" as used in this section means, and refers
to, the unprofessional conduct particularly specified as a cause for
dismissal or suspension in Sections 44932 and 44933 and does not
include any other cause for dismissal specified in Section 44932.
What were the circumstances before and after the incident? Did the Protzeller understand fully what was going on during the meeting from her outsides prospective? What was the back story?
Here is an example from my own life of a parent not knowing the back story and jumping to wrong conclusions:
Once many years ago, my wife came to a back to school night when one of our children was a student in my class. She made some funny comments--which I and others who knew us found amusing. One of the parents did not know she was my wife and that she was teasing in a humorous way. This parent went to the principal complaining about it. I was called in the next day by the principal. My wife was mortified when she found out. What had been a funny little aside to me during her one chance to be a parent in her husband's classroom had become an incident.
Of course it was my fault. I do not blame the parent for the misunderstanding. I should have introduced my wife, so all could be in on the joke. It was an oversight on my part to not realize that some of the parents did not understand that she was married to me.
Who knows what the back story of this incident was? What events happened before the meeting that Protzeller is complaining about? What was the context of those two teacher's remarks? Were those two teachers or the principal consulted before this NCTimes Forum opinion piece was published? Was this NCTimes Forum published solely as an excuse to try to embarrass teachers in general and the VTA in particular? Why exactly was the word "bully" used in the headline? Is there a 'hidden agenda' behind the decision to elevate this small isolated, misunderstanding into prominence on the NCTimes opinion page?
Sometimes at meetings we say and do things that are humorous to all of the participants, but that an outside person might misinterpret. Could that have happened here?
More importantly why would the North County Times publish the piece with no investigation or verification?
When the PRO public education writer, Jim Wickstorm, attempted to publish a forum piece
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/10/14/opinion/commentary/zc35553852f93f223882574c9005e9dea.txt
about Guffanti and the Lindamood Bell program, Wickstrom was challenged line by line by the editors and was forced to verify EVERY fact. Finally after days of verification and back and forth phone calls, the editors grudgingly allowed him to publish his forum piece. This level of scrutiny certainly was not applied to this forum by Protzeller.
Gee North County Times editors can you say DOUBLE STANDARD?
FORUM: What about bully teachers?
By CHERYL A. PROTZELLER -- VUSD resident Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:12 AM PDT
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/02/opinion/commentary/zb8675a6979ab371088257585000491e3.txt
It was written by one kindergarten parent about two teachers and the alleged actions they took on their own at no direction from the VTA leadership. These alleged actions happened at ONE teacher's meeting. The actions of two teachers out of thousands in the Vista Teachers at this one meeting were unfairly used by the North County Times editorial staff to try to paint an ugly picture of all teachers in the district and of the Vista Teachers Association. Can you say political smear?
Protzeller's complaint is the kind of thing most papers would laugh off and suggest the parent take to the two teachers involved, their principal or the district office. Yet the NCTimes published it with the inflammatory and inaccurate "bully teacher" title.
Who were the teachers supposedly bullying? The principal? Sounds like a quick way to get fired for insubordination. A firing offense under California State Law. Who would risk losing their jobs in this economy in order to get a brief announcement at a single meeting? Could Protzeller have misinterpreted what she saw?
California Ed Code on line found here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&codebody=&hits=20
EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 44930-44988
44933. A permanent employee may be dismissed or suspended on
grounds of unprofessional conduct consisting of acts or omissions
other than those specified in Section 44932, but any such charge
shall specify instances of behavior deemed to constitute
unprofessional conduct.
AND
(c) "Unsatisfactory performance" as used in this section means,
and refers only to, the unsatisfactory performance particularly
specified as a cause for dismissal in Section 44932 and does not
include any other cause for dismissal specified in Section 44932.
"Unprofessional conduct" as used in this section means, and refers
to, the unprofessional conduct particularly specified as a cause for
dismissal or suspension in Sections 44932 and 44933 and does not
include any other cause for dismissal specified in Section 44932.
What were the circumstances before and after the incident? Did the Protzeller understand fully what was going on during the meeting from her outsides prospective? What was the back story?
Here is an example from my own life of a parent not knowing the back story and jumping to wrong conclusions:
Once many years ago, my wife came to a back to school night when one of our children was a student in my class. She made some funny comments--which I and others who knew us found amusing. One of the parents did not know she was my wife and that she was teasing in a humorous way. This parent went to the principal complaining about it. I was called in the next day by the principal. My wife was mortified when she found out. What had been a funny little aside to me during her one chance to be a parent in her husband's classroom had become an incident.
Of course it was my fault. I do not blame the parent for the misunderstanding. I should have introduced my wife, so all could be in on the joke. It was an oversight on my part to not realize that some of the parents did not understand that she was married to me.
Who knows what the back story of this incident was? What events happened before the meeting that Protzeller is complaining about? What was the context of those two teacher's remarks? Were those two teachers or the principal consulted before this NCTimes Forum opinion piece was published? Was this NCTimes Forum published solely as an excuse to try to embarrass teachers in general and the VTA in particular? Why exactly was the word "bully" used in the headline? Is there a 'hidden agenda' behind the decision to elevate this small isolated, misunderstanding into prominence on the NCTimes opinion page?
Sometimes at meetings we say and do things that are humorous to all of the participants, but that an outside person might misinterpret. Could that have happened here?
More importantly why would the North County Times publish the piece with no investigation or verification?
When the PRO public education writer, Jim Wickstorm, attempted to publish a forum piece
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/10/14/opinion/commentary/zc35553852f93f223882574c9005e9dea.txt
about Guffanti and the Lindamood Bell program, Wickstrom was challenged line by line by the editors and was forced to verify EVERY fact. Finally after days of verification and back and forth phone calls, the editors grudgingly allowed him to publish his forum piece. This level of scrutiny certainly was not applied to this forum by Protzeller.
Gee North County Times editors can you say DOUBLE STANDARD?
Brown Act Violation?
Our ANTI friends have been having a 'feeding frenzy' over a non-existent Brown Act violation by the three hardworking women on the board. There was no violation. The North County Times, hardly a friend of our VUSD teachers, reported that there was no violation.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/03/06/news/coastal/vista/zafeb0db720418fa8882575710068a8e6.txt
After a very tough board meetings Elizabeth Jaka and Angela Chunka separately decided to stop by at their friend's home, Carol Herrera to unwind after all the stress. Neither Jaka or Chunka knew the other would be there.
At the School Board meeting, the four caring and good members of our board had been forced to deal with massive budget cuts at VUSD. These cuts in our budget were made necessary due to cuts in funding from Sacramento.
It appeared that the only solution was to eliminate K-3 class size reduction which would have increased the number of students per classroom by at least 50% and eliminate one out of every three K-3 teacher positions.
Having once been a superintendent of a small district, I know that it was the superintendent's job to suggest to the School Board the best way to close the deficit. Joyce Bales and her team must have suggested cutting K-3 class size reduction as the best solution to solve the deficit.
The board meeting where this happened was long and contentious with many, many parents and teachers wishing to speak. All were allowed to.
With heavy hearts and great sadness; our caring, concerned, and rational school board members went along with the recommendation and voted to cut K-3 class size reduction. This decision was extremely draining, even traumatic for them. No one likes to increase class size and lay off teachers. As a result, they independently decided to go to their friend's home to try to re-gain their equilibrium.
When Jaka and Chunka arrived, they were let in the home by another friend and suddenly Herrera found herself in the same room with them. Almost immediately having dealt for years with ravings of the ANTI zealots, Herrera realized that the paranoid ANTIs would scream Brown Act violation if three board members happened to be at the same place at the same time. Hererra left the room immediately.
Of course there was NO VIOLATION. The only way there could be a violation is if they discussed school board business privately and not publicly at a school board meeting.
They said they did not discuss a school board business at all. Case closed.
In this country friends are allowed to visit friends.The Brown Act does not dictate who a board member can be friends with. It is only meant to make government transparent.
Had the three forgot themselves and brought up school board business. There is a remedy proscribed by the Brown Act. It is to discuss that business publicly at the next board meeting not that they needed a remedy as they did not discuss anything at Herrera's home and there was no Brown Act violation.
The particular "heinous" Brown Act violation, our ANTI friends accuse them of violating, is to discuss a way to not lay off teachers and not increase class size. Can you imagine our ANTI friends being upset that class size did not increase and teachers were not laid off? Seems to me that finding ways to keep budget cuts out of the classroom is exactly what a board member should be doing.
The discussion about finding a way not to eliminate class size reduction happened PUBLICLY at the very next school board meeting. Because in the intervening weeks the four rational caring board members had gotten Joyce Bales and her team to find another way to balance the budget. It is to the great credit of the four good and caring board members that they were able to come up with a better way to balance the district's budget than to increase K-3 class sizes and to lay off massive numbers of teachers.
These four members found a way out. One out of every three, K-3 teachers did not need to be laid off and VUSD K-3 class size did not need to increase by at least 50%.
Other cuts were made. Other savings were found. All together the amount saved and cut equaled the amount the district would have saved by laying off teachers.
That decisions was met with jubilation and gratitude by K-3 parents and their children's teachers. All good people of the district are happy with the decision and with the excellent work of our four good caring board members. Aren't our ANTI friends strange folks to be angry about a good and positive development?
Here is what an expert in Brown Act violations was quoted as saying by the NCTims in the article they wrote about it:
Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said the get-together wouldn't violate the state's open meeting law, known as the Ralph M. Brown Act, unless the three trustees discussed district matters.
And even if they did violate the act, he said, they may have remedied the situation by discussing the class-size issue publicly at Thursday's meeting.
"The only remedies that the Brown Act provides for are curing your violation by going back and ... doing it legally," he said. "If they did get together and then had a legal meeting .... there's not much that can happen."
NORTH COUNTY TIMES EDITORS OPEN BIAS AND INFLAMMATORY RETORIC
The North County Times editorial staff, who has a visceral hatred for all public unions--police, fire, teachers, city employees--forced the reporters to turn this inadvertent meeting into a news article.
Days after the article, the openly one sided editorial staff wrote an editorial about it using inflammatory language (cabal, smells, lousy,) and making demonstrably false statements--calling the get together "illegal." It was not. Nor was it "secret," lots of people came.
The editors also lied and said, "The public is well aware that the Vista teachers union has a great deal of sway with the board" What public? who? where? when? VTA has almost no sway with the board as the previous post shows. This lie is a charge the ANTIs have been making against the rational caring board members for years. The NCT editors just repeated an old piece of ANTI campaign propaganda.
Instead of writing a sober editorial with well thought out criticisms, the increasingly unhinged troika at the North County Times editorial staff wrote a diatribe that any local high school newspaper would have been embarrassed to publish due its wild rhetoric, paranoid accusations and demonstrable falsehoods.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/03/19/opinion/editorials/z6c8708bdae7bf04f8825757b007294d4.txt
EXAMPLE OF ACTUAL BROWN ACT VIOLATION
To see an real example of a Brown Act Violation read the following:
http://www.recorderonline.com/news/law_40982___article.html/council_week.html
It concerns an information item on the agenda at a recent California City Council meeting being turned in an action item without waiting for the next meeting. Worse once the City Council members improperly turned it into an action item, they voted to spend City funds on it. No one who read the agenda ahead of time and decided not to come based on the published agenda could have known that the Council would "illegally" change it into an action item. The public in general had no chance to speak against the motion. The procedure was not fully transparent, hence the Brown Act violation.
What Chunka, Herrera and Jaka did was not a Brown Act Violation. Even the biased, in the bag for Gibson editorial staff of the NCTimes could not find a way to charge it as a violation.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/03/06/news/coastal/vista/zafeb0db720418fa8882575710068a8e6.txt
After a very tough board meetings Elizabeth Jaka and Angela Chunka separately decided to stop by at their friend's home, Carol Herrera to unwind after all the stress. Neither Jaka or Chunka knew the other would be there.
At the School Board meeting, the four caring and good members of our board had been forced to deal with massive budget cuts at VUSD. These cuts in our budget were made necessary due to cuts in funding from Sacramento.
It appeared that the only solution was to eliminate K-3 class size reduction which would have increased the number of students per classroom by at least 50% and eliminate one out of every three K-3 teacher positions.
Having once been a superintendent of a small district, I know that it was the superintendent's job to suggest to the School Board the best way to close the deficit. Joyce Bales and her team must have suggested cutting K-3 class size reduction as the best solution to solve the deficit.
The board meeting where this happened was long and contentious with many, many parents and teachers wishing to speak. All were allowed to.
With heavy hearts and great sadness; our caring, concerned, and rational school board members went along with the recommendation and voted to cut K-3 class size reduction. This decision was extremely draining, even traumatic for them. No one likes to increase class size and lay off teachers. As a result, they independently decided to go to their friend's home to try to re-gain their equilibrium.
When Jaka and Chunka arrived, they were let in the home by another friend and suddenly Herrera found herself in the same room with them. Almost immediately having dealt for years with ravings of the ANTI zealots, Herrera realized that the paranoid ANTIs would scream Brown Act violation if three board members happened to be at the same place at the same time. Hererra left the room immediately.
Of course there was NO VIOLATION. The only way there could be a violation is if they discussed school board business privately and not publicly at a school board meeting.
They said they did not discuss a school board business at all. Case closed.
In this country friends are allowed to visit friends.The Brown Act does not dictate who a board member can be friends with. It is only meant to make government transparent.
Had the three forgot themselves and brought up school board business. There is a remedy proscribed by the Brown Act. It is to discuss that business publicly at the next board meeting not that they needed a remedy as they did not discuss anything at Herrera's home and there was no Brown Act violation.
The particular "heinous" Brown Act violation, our ANTI friends accuse them of violating, is to discuss a way to not lay off teachers and not increase class size. Can you imagine our ANTI friends being upset that class size did not increase and teachers were not laid off? Seems to me that finding ways to keep budget cuts out of the classroom is exactly what a board member should be doing.
The discussion about finding a way not to eliminate class size reduction happened PUBLICLY at the very next school board meeting. Because in the intervening weeks the four rational caring board members had gotten Joyce Bales and her team to find another way to balance the budget. It is to the great credit of the four good and caring board members that they were able to come up with a better way to balance the district's budget than to increase K-3 class sizes and to lay off massive numbers of teachers.
These four members found a way out. One out of every three, K-3 teachers did not need to be laid off and VUSD K-3 class size did not need to increase by at least 50%.
Other cuts were made. Other savings were found. All together the amount saved and cut equaled the amount the district would have saved by laying off teachers.
That decisions was met with jubilation and gratitude by K-3 parents and their children's teachers. All good people of the district are happy with the decision and with the excellent work of our four good caring board members. Aren't our ANTI friends strange folks to be angry about a good and positive development?
Here is what an expert in Brown Act violations was quoted as saying by the NCTims in the article they wrote about it:
Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said the get-together wouldn't violate the state's open meeting law, known as the Ralph M. Brown Act, unless the three trustees discussed district matters.
And even if they did violate the act, he said, they may have remedied the situation by discussing the class-size issue publicly at Thursday's meeting.
"The only remedies that the Brown Act provides for are curing your violation by going back and ... doing it legally," he said. "If they did get together and then had a legal meeting .... there's not much that can happen."
NORTH COUNTY TIMES EDITORS OPEN BIAS AND INFLAMMATORY RETORIC
The North County Times editorial staff, who has a visceral hatred for all public unions--police, fire, teachers, city employees--forced the reporters to turn this inadvertent meeting into a news article.
Days after the article, the openly one sided editorial staff wrote an editorial about it using inflammatory language (cabal, smells, lousy,) and making demonstrably false statements--calling the get together "illegal." It was not. Nor was it "secret," lots of people came.
The editors also lied and said, "The public is well aware that the Vista teachers union has a great deal of sway with the board" What public? who? where? when? VTA has almost no sway with the board as the previous post shows. This lie is a charge the ANTIs have been making against the rational caring board members for years. The NCT editors just repeated an old piece of ANTI campaign propaganda.
Instead of writing a sober editorial with well thought out criticisms, the increasingly unhinged troika at the North County Times editorial staff wrote a diatribe that any local high school newspaper would have been embarrassed to publish due its wild rhetoric, paranoid accusations and demonstrable falsehoods.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/03/19/opinion/editorials/z6c8708bdae7bf04f8825757b007294d4.txt
EXAMPLE OF ACTUAL BROWN ACT VIOLATION
To see an real example of a Brown Act Violation read the following:
http://www.recorderonline.com/news/law_40982___article.html/council_week.html
It concerns an information item on the agenda at a recent California City Council meeting being turned in an action item without waiting for the next meeting. Worse once the City Council members improperly turned it into an action item, they voted to spend City funds on it. No one who read the agenda ahead of time and decided not to come based on the published agenda could have known that the Council would "illegally" change it into an action item. The public in general had no chance to speak against the motion. The procedure was not fully transparent, hence the Brown Act violation.
What Chunka, Herrera and Jaka did was not a Brown Act Violation. Even the biased, in the bag for Gibson editorial staff of the NCTimes could not find a way to charge it as a violation.
Is the Vista School Board run by the VTA?
On the North County Times blogs following any article about VUSD, our ANTI friends accuse the four hardworking rational members of our school board of being "union puppets." They have said that the teachers now run the district. They accuse the good teachers who put in thousands of hours of hard political work on top of their classrooom load of being solely motivated by money. One of their bloggers Roxy says it was all about salary and perks. Let's examine that charge.
SALARIES
So do the VUSD teachers have the highest salaries in San Diego County? No, in fact VUSD teacher average salary is among the VERY LOWEST in the county. VUSD ranks 22nd out of 29 reporting school districts in San Diego. Only six school districts in all of San Diego County have teachers who make less on average than the teachers in VUSD. In addition only three districts in the county had declining salaries in 2008. VUSD was one of those and it declined by over 2%. The other two declined by less than 1%
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/995141.html?appSession=80478235118357
At one time in the 1980's VUSD teachers were third highest paid teachers in a unified district in San Diego County. The board at the time promised to always keep us at that level. Things certainly changed for teachers after our district was attacked by the ANTI forces, but they did not get better for teachers. One can only imagine how much worse it would have been if the ANTIs had succeeded with their stated goal of chartering every school in the district so that no two schools had teachers on the same salary schedule.
Imagine each set of school employees at each individual school in the district bargaining on their own. We would have been turned into thirty tiny little low paying districts. I am guessing with the local ANTIs hatred for VUSD teachers, we could have been the lowest paid in the entire state.
MEDICAL AND DENTAL COVERAGE
Our ANTI friends often complain falsely that we have a "Cadillac" medical and dental insurance plan.
Starting with dental, last year when I looked into this the total amount of dental work covered in dollars was exactly the same as it was ten years before. The prices for root canals, crowns etc has constantly increased with inflation during that time. As a result the teachers of VUSD pay more and more of a percentage of their dental work each year. Having once been on the district insurance committee and a board member of SCEET (our former medical trust/insurance company), I can assure you that dental coverage costs the district nearly nothing. It is by far the cheapest insurance benefit we have. By not increasing coverage for more than a decade, the district in effect makes money off the teachers and out of the teacher's salaries as compared to a decade ago.
Our medical insurance was shattered into several parts and coverages a few years ago. There were major problems with SCEET--an employee of SCEET in a VERY key position turned out to be unethical and dishonest. I think criminal charges should have been pursued but at the time it happened I was off the board out of the classroom and quite ill.
Prosecution did not happen but the problems lead to a decision by leadership to leave SCEET. Sadly leadership also decided to divide our membership into more than one coverage and more than one insurance carrier. This has lead to a situation where some paying far more than others for medical insurance. Teachers, who through no fault of their own are themselves or a family member afflicted with a catastrophic illness can pay ten of thousands of dollars in a year. Teachers who are currently healthy pay far less. The risks and uncertainties of life are no longer equally shared by all in our membership. In the past we were one family one group and we all shared those risks and gained benefits from promoting preventive screenings and early interventions--no more.
In the case of our family, a catastrophic genetic time bomb, left a previously healthy member of our family diagnosed with three autoimmune diseases in three years. With deductibles, co-pays, usual and customary fees set artificially low, monthly charges for the privilege of coverage and our family pays as much as $10,000a year out of pocket.
I know why should you pay for our bad luck? Because virtually all of us will have bad luck at some time in our lives, if we gather in a group and average the bad luck, it turns out far cheaper on average for the group to get insurance. It also saves someone in our VTA family from going very quickly from middle class to struggling financially. We are all one diagnosis from bankruptcy under the current system.
So we hardly have a "Cadillac" medical coverage and the "perks" that Roxy the blogger rants about on the North County Times Blogs.
CONTRACT
So we must have the best teacher contract in San Diego if we control the board, right?
No, we have NO CONTRACT CURRENTLY. It has been a year since we had a contract.
Negotiations go on but there is no resolution. The district offers nothing but take backs. We ask for a percentage of the COLA that the district gets from the state every year. NYET.
A COLA percentage request by the VTA is a token request. It is very equivalent to Oliver Twist asking, "please sir may I have some more."
In a fair world, the COLA money would be divided up into the same percentages as the current budget expenditures. If certificated (including all administrators) salary plus benefits is currently 55% of the budget, then 55% of the COLA should go into this budget category.
VTA is asking for far less, just a fraction of that amount. The answer from our "union puppets" is NO.
(By the way I am not sure of the current percent of the school district budget that goes to certificated salaries and benefits but I believe it is somewhere close to the 55% I mentioned above.)
TAKE BACKS
VUSD teachers lost more in salaries than any other district in the county last year. We lost over 2% of our salaries. Now the district has unilaterally decided to take back a buy back day next year which will reduce all salaries by approximately one half percent more. Those losses hardly sound like "the VTA is running the district."
NOTE: The facts and figures given to the school board during bargaining must go through and come from Dr. Joyce Bales. She and her Pueblo buddies decide what the School Board Members will know and what they will not. By controlling information, Joyce Bales controls the direction of bargaining and the possibilities available to the VUSD Board during bargaining.
She who controls the budget, controls everything.
Oversight of those who control this information is crucial. Lack of it can lead to disaster as the SCEET board found out a few years ago. I am glad that Jaka, Chunka and Herrera make the time in their busy days to try to understand the budget and go to budget meetings (unlike Gibson who never shows).
SALARIES
So do the VUSD teachers have the highest salaries in San Diego County? No, in fact VUSD teacher average salary is among the VERY LOWEST in the county. VUSD ranks 22nd out of 29 reporting school districts in San Diego. Only six school districts in all of San Diego County have teachers who make less on average than the teachers in VUSD. In addition only three districts in the county had declining salaries in 2008. VUSD was one of those and it declined by over 2%. The other two declined by less than 1%
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/995141.html?appSession=80478235118357
At one time in the 1980's VUSD teachers were third highest paid teachers in a unified district in San Diego County. The board at the time promised to always keep us at that level. Things certainly changed for teachers after our district was attacked by the ANTI forces, but they did not get better for teachers. One can only imagine how much worse it would have been if the ANTIs had succeeded with their stated goal of chartering every school in the district so that no two schools had teachers on the same salary schedule.
Imagine each set of school employees at each individual school in the district bargaining on their own. We would have been turned into thirty tiny little low paying districts. I am guessing with the local ANTIs hatred for VUSD teachers, we could have been the lowest paid in the entire state.
MEDICAL AND DENTAL COVERAGE
Our ANTI friends often complain falsely that we have a "Cadillac" medical and dental insurance plan.
Starting with dental, last year when I looked into this the total amount of dental work covered in dollars was exactly the same as it was ten years before. The prices for root canals, crowns etc has constantly increased with inflation during that time. As a result the teachers of VUSD pay more and more of a percentage of their dental work each year. Having once been on the district insurance committee and a board member of SCEET (our former medical trust/insurance company), I can assure you that dental coverage costs the district nearly nothing. It is by far the cheapest insurance benefit we have. By not increasing coverage for more than a decade, the district in effect makes money off the teachers and out of the teacher's salaries as compared to a decade ago.
Our medical insurance was shattered into several parts and coverages a few years ago. There were major problems with SCEET--an employee of SCEET in a VERY key position turned out to be unethical and dishonest. I think criminal charges should have been pursued but at the time it happened I was off the board out of the classroom and quite ill.
Prosecution did not happen but the problems lead to a decision by leadership to leave SCEET. Sadly leadership also decided to divide our membership into more than one coverage and more than one insurance carrier. This has lead to a situation where some paying far more than others for medical insurance. Teachers, who through no fault of their own are themselves or a family member afflicted with a catastrophic illness can pay ten of thousands of dollars in a year. Teachers who are currently healthy pay far less. The risks and uncertainties of life are no longer equally shared by all in our membership. In the past we were one family one group and we all shared those risks and gained benefits from promoting preventive screenings and early interventions--no more.
In the case of our family, a catastrophic genetic time bomb, left a previously healthy member of our family diagnosed with three autoimmune diseases in three years. With deductibles, co-pays, usual and customary fees set artificially low, monthly charges for the privilege of coverage and our family pays as much as $10,000a year out of pocket.
I know why should you pay for our bad luck? Because virtually all of us will have bad luck at some time in our lives, if we gather in a group and average the bad luck, it turns out far cheaper on average for the group to get insurance. It also saves someone in our VTA family from going very quickly from middle class to struggling financially. We are all one diagnosis from bankruptcy under the current system.
So we hardly have a "Cadillac" medical coverage and the "perks" that Roxy the blogger rants about on the North County Times Blogs.
CONTRACT
So we must have the best teacher contract in San Diego if we control the board, right?
No, we have NO CONTRACT CURRENTLY. It has been a year since we had a contract.
Negotiations go on but there is no resolution. The district offers nothing but take backs. We ask for a percentage of the COLA that the district gets from the state every year. NYET.
A COLA percentage request by the VTA is a token request. It is very equivalent to Oliver Twist asking, "please sir may I have some more."
In a fair world, the COLA money would be divided up into the same percentages as the current budget expenditures. If certificated (including all administrators) salary plus benefits is currently 55% of the budget, then 55% of the COLA should go into this budget category.
VTA is asking for far less, just a fraction of that amount. The answer from our "union puppets" is NO.
(By the way I am not sure of the current percent of the school district budget that goes to certificated salaries and benefits but I believe it is somewhere close to the 55% I mentioned above.)
TAKE BACKS
VUSD teachers lost more in salaries than any other district in the county last year. We lost over 2% of our salaries. Now the district has unilaterally decided to take back a buy back day next year which will reduce all salaries by approximately one half percent more. Those losses hardly sound like "the VTA is running the district."
NOTE: The facts and figures given to the school board during bargaining must go through and come from Dr. Joyce Bales. She and her Pueblo buddies decide what the School Board Members will know and what they will not. By controlling information, Joyce Bales controls the direction of bargaining and the possibilities available to the VUSD Board during bargaining.
She who controls the budget, controls everything.
Oversight of those who control this information is crucial. Lack of it can lead to disaster as the SCEET board found out a few years ago. I am glad that Jaka, Chunka and Herrera make the time in their busy days to try to understand the budget and go to budget meetings (unlike Gibson who never shows).
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Why doesn't Gibson care that he wastes taxpayer money?
Why doesn't Gibson care that he wastes taxpayer money?
(1)Neither his children or his supporters children ever attended VUSD schools. It cost him nothing personally or politically to oppose school construction.* (see note below)
(2) He profited politically with thousands of campaign dollars from developers and others opposing the building of the third high school at the two cheapest sites while costing the taxpayers of VUSD millions by denying the district the cheapest and best site still available in the district which was the level, one million dollar Kawano site. The Melrose site where the high school is being built cost the district 18 million dollars and four more wasted years without a third high school).
(3)His VUSD board position provided him a platform to run for higher political office. Twice he has tried to get on the Oceanside City Council (once to fill a vacancy)and once he has run for a California State Assembly seat.
No other sittting VUSD school board member except Gibson has run for any other political office in the three terms Gibson has been on our board. Only Gibson continues over and over to try to advance politically using his seat on our board as political capital. Not even Guffanti ran for other public offices and NO school board member recommended by the Vista Teachers Association has ever run for higher office while a seated VUSD board member (The first VTA board recommendation was in 1992).
He seems to think of his position on our VUSD board as a kind of political "street cred" to boost his chances for higher office.
Furthermore Gibson is the only school board member on the VUSD board that has never been supported by custodians, school secretaries, cafeteria workers, teachers, parents or administrators of VUSD.
The people who know our schools best have NEVER supported Gibson not even once.
Given his abysmal record of mismanagement and waste of taxpayer money while on our board, it should be obvious why we do not support Gibson and look forward to a time when he is not on our board any more.
*Editor's Note--pro Gibson bloggers claim that
(1) Gibson enrolled his children briefly in VUSD schools after moving here from Orange County in late 90s.
(2)All his children have graduated from high school and that they are now too old to attend VUSD schools, therefore discussion of their lack of attendance in our district and Gibson's lack of involvement as a parent in VUSD is a mute point.
(3) It is wrong for me to bring up his children at all as they are not involved politically.
I say
(1)where his children attended or did not attend school speaks volumes. It goes to Gibson's lack of motivation to get the dual magnet high school built.
(2) I did not name the children or write of them individually or any individual traits of theirs. I wrote of them in the abstract as a whole component of Jim Gibson's indifference to VUSD.
(3)JIM GIBSON himself first brought his children into the political arena in his 2002 VUSD school board re-election campaign with his campaign statement in the County of San Diego Voter Information Pamphlet for 2002, He wrote: "Jim Gibson, and his wife Cathy, have been married 23 years. They live in the North County with their four children."
(4)I think the clear implication of a candidate running for VUSD school board who says he has four children, all under 23 years old, is that some or all of them attend VUSD schools.
If they did not attend our VUSD schools or did so only briefly and never again, then that fact IS pertinent information that should be available for the voting public. Transparency gives us the best government. Secrets and hidden information do not.
(1)Neither his children or his supporters children ever attended VUSD schools. It cost him nothing personally or politically to oppose school construction.* (see note below)
(2) He profited politically with thousands of campaign dollars from developers and others opposing the building of the third high school at the two cheapest sites while costing the taxpayers of VUSD millions by denying the district the cheapest and best site still available in the district which was the level, one million dollar Kawano site. The Melrose site where the high school is being built cost the district 18 million dollars and four more wasted years without a third high school).
(3)His VUSD board position provided him a platform to run for higher political office. Twice he has tried to get on the Oceanside City Council (once to fill a vacancy)and once he has run for a California State Assembly seat.
No other sittting VUSD school board member except Gibson has run for any other political office in the three terms Gibson has been on our board. Only Gibson continues over and over to try to advance politically using his seat on our board as political capital. Not even Guffanti ran for other public offices and NO school board member recommended by the Vista Teachers Association has ever run for higher office while a seated VUSD board member (The first VTA board recommendation was in 1992).
He seems to think of his position on our VUSD board as a kind of political "street cred" to boost his chances for higher office.
Furthermore Gibson is the only school board member on the VUSD board that has never been supported by custodians, school secretaries, cafeteria workers, teachers, parents or administrators of VUSD.
The people who know our schools best have NEVER supported Gibson not even once.
Given his abysmal record of mismanagement and waste of taxpayer money while on our board, it should be obvious why we do not support Gibson and look forward to a time when he is not on our board any more.
*Editor's Note--pro Gibson bloggers claim that
(1) Gibson enrolled his children briefly in VUSD schools after moving here from Orange County in late 90s.
(2)All his children have graduated from high school and that they are now too old to attend VUSD schools, therefore discussion of their lack of attendance in our district and Gibson's lack of involvement as a parent in VUSD is a mute point.
(3) It is wrong for me to bring up his children at all as they are not involved politically.
I say
(1)where his children attended or did not attend school speaks volumes. It goes to Gibson's lack of motivation to get the dual magnet high school built.
(2) I did not name the children or write of them individually or any individual traits of theirs. I wrote of them in the abstract as a whole component of Jim Gibson's indifference to VUSD.
(3)JIM GIBSON himself first brought his children into the political arena in his 2002 VUSD school board re-election campaign with his campaign statement in the County of San Diego Voter Information Pamphlet for 2002, He wrote: "Jim Gibson, and his wife Cathy, have been married 23 years. They live in the North County with their four children."
(4)I think the clear implication of a candidate running for VUSD school board who says he has four children, all under 23 years old, is that some or all of them attend VUSD schools.
If they did not attend our VUSD schools or did so only briefly and never again, then that fact IS pertinent information that should be available for the voting public. Transparency gives us the best government. Secrets and hidden information do not.
North County Times censuring blogs about Gibson
The North County Times editorial staff is again censoring blog posts of those they do not agree with. See the blog following the article:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/25/news/coastal/oceanside/zc78bc6e1854f86d9882575a0007138ce.txt#tp_newCommentAnchor
Note that the entry of "Fooled No More" was blocked by the editors of NCTimes. It was the previous post on this blog, "Gibson HS delays cost VUSD 45 million dollars." There are a few typos but no insults, no profanity, all information linked to websites.
Gibson refuses to apologize for the 45 to 55 million dollar waste of taxpayer money. His supporters at first bragged about him stopping the building of the new third high school at the cheap level Kawano site. The same supporters now claim he was not responsible because after years of Gibson caused delays in building the third HS,the three rational members finally gave up on the Kawano site. They voted to look for a second site as Gibson's opposition made the Kawano impossible.
The second cheapest site according to the search team was the Melrose/Highway 76 site. Gibson initially finally consented to be a fourth vote to acquire a piece of property for a new high school at Melrose. Then he did all he could to delay and cost the increase of the high school.
His ally on the VUSD board, Stephen Guffanti, was a member of a small four person group including Jill Parvin that sued to stop construction at the Melrose site. (Guffanti "resigned" from the group a day or two before the lawsuit was filed)
Did Gibson use his influence with Guffanti to get him and his friends to drop the lawsuit? No.
Gibson had close political allies on the Oceanside City Council. Three of them a MAJORITY endorsed Jim Gibson in his run for Oceanside City Council--Jack Fellar, Rocky Chavez, Jerry Kern.
See http://www.electgibson.com/index.htm
The Oceanside City Council changed the zoning of the Melrose/Highway 76 site from agricultural to residential which increased the value of the site by MILLIONS of dollars from approximately 7 million to 16 million.
Had Gibson used his influence with his "buddies" on the Oceanside City Council, their three votes MAJORITY would have prevented the rezoning. Did he use his influence, NO.
The question is why does the North County Times not investigate the financial connections among Gibson, the three Oceanside City Council members, and the Tustin housing developer who owned the land at Melrose and Highway 76?
Why does the North County Times editorial board condemn the appearance of campaign money laundering of thousands of dollars secretly moved through Stephen Guffanti's campaign account into Gibson during Gibson's 2006 school board race? Doesn't the gift of $5000 dollars from company that was suing to stop the third high school to a VUSD board member who WAS NOT RUNNING in that election.(Guffanti's term of office was not up for two years). Then an identical amount of money being given to Gibson's campaign from Guffanti's campaign.
Does this not have the appearance of a major scandal?
Why isn't the editorial staff at the North County Times writing outraged editorials about this apparent successful attempt to dupe the voters in VUSD?
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/25/news/coastal/oceanside/zc78bc6e1854f86d9882575a0007138ce.txt#tp_newCommentAnchor
Note that the entry of "Fooled No More" was blocked by the editors of NCTimes. It was the previous post on this blog, "Gibson HS delays cost VUSD 45 million dollars." There are a few typos but no insults, no profanity, all information linked to websites.
Gibson refuses to apologize for the 45 to 55 million dollar waste of taxpayer money. His supporters at first bragged about him stopping the building of the new third high school at the cheap level Kawano site. The same supporters now claim he was not responsible because after years of Gibson caused delays in building the third HS,the three rational members finally gave up on the Kawano site. They voted to look for a second site as Gibson's opposition made the Kawano impossible.
The second cheapest site according to the search team was the Melrose/Highway 76 site. Gibson initially finally consented to be a fourth vote to acquire a piece of property for a new high school at Melrose. Then he did all he could to delay and cost the increase of the high school.
His ally on the VUSD board, Stephen Guffanti, was a member of a small four person group including Jill Parvin that sued to stop construction at the Melrose site. (Guffanti "resigned" from the group a day or two before the lawsuit was filed)
Did Gibson use his influence with Guffanti to get him and his friends to drop the lawsuit? No.
Gibson had close political allies on the Oceanside City Council. Three of them a MAJORITY endorsed Jim Gibson in his run for Oceanside City Council--Jack Fellar, Rocky Chavez, Jerry Kern.
See http://www.electgibson.com/index.htm
The Oceanside City Council changed the zoning of the Melrose/Highway 76 site from agricultural to residential which increased the value of the site by MILLIONS of dollars from approximately 7 million to 16 million.
Had Gibson used his influence with his "buddies" on the Oceanside City Council, their three votes MAJORITY would have prevented the rezoning. Did he use his influence, NO.
The question is why does the North County Times not investigate the financial connections among Gibson, the three Oceanside City Council members, and the Tustin housing developer who owned the land at Melrose and Highway 76?
Why does the North County Times editorial board condemn the appearance of campaign money laundering of thousands of dollars secretly moved through Stephen Guffanti's campaign account into Gibson during Gibson's 2006 school board race? Doesn't the gift of $5000 dollars from company that was suing to stop the third high school to a VUSD board member who WAS NOT RUNNING in that election.(Guffanti's term of office was not up for two years). Then an identical amount of money being given to Gibson's campaign from Guffanti's campaign.
Does this not have the appearance of a major scandal?
Why isn't the editorial staff at the North County Times writing outraged editorials about this apparent successful attempt to dupe the voters in VUSD?
Gibson HS Delays cost VUSD taxpayers 45 million dollars
THE HISTORY OF GIBSON'S OBSTRUCTIONISM THAT COST VUSD TAXPAYERS BETWEEN 45 AND 55 MILLION DOLLARS
Gibson has done nearly everything he can do to prevent, delay and increase the cost of VUSD's new third high school.
First in spring and summer of 2002, he refused to be the necessary fourth vote to allow the purchase of the MUCH CHEAPER, LEVEL, one million dollar Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill. (Eminent domain votes take four out of five school board members to vote in favor. The three rationals were in favor Gibson and Guffanti opposed)
GIBSON'S TEN THOUSAND CAR MEGA HIGH SCHOOL CAMPAIGN
Then he saw a political opportunity and took campaign cash from those who opposed the one million dollar Kawano site. He ran a political campaign in the fall of 2002 with huge signs warning against the "ten thousand car mega high school". He profited politically while he cost VUSD taxpayers millions.
GIBSON REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO BE THE NECESSARY FOURTH VOTE TO OBTAIN CHEAPEST AND BEST SITE FOR NEW DUAL MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL
He repeatedly refused to be the necessary fourth vote to acquire the Kawano property. The NCTimes quotes him at least six times occasions, months apart, refusing to support the CHEAP LEVEL Kawano site.
http://vistaschools.blogspot.com/2008/10/guffanti-group-repeats-hs-deception.html
Or read them yourself directly from the North County Times archives.
STORY ONE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txt
Two VUSD candidates attack magnet high school site
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Incumbent school board Trustee Jim Gibson and the candidate he endorses ---- Steve Bradford ---- said this week that they oppose putting the campus, which would accommodate two magnet high schools, on the property the district is studying on East Vista Way between Mason Road and Osborne Street in an area called Strawberry Hill.
---------------------------
STORY TWO
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/02/16/export3600.txt
New Vista high school project picking up steam
Saturday, February 15, 2003
In the latter case, the district board of trustees would be faced with a difficult decision. Two of the five members ---- Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti ---- have said they oppose putting the school on the Kawano property (Strawberry Hill).------------------------------------------
STORY THREE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/08/10/news/inland/vista/8_10_0323_00_12.txt
Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools
August 9, 2003
Three board members say they wanted to build the high schools on a 50-acre tract known as Strawberry Hills in Bonsall. But the other two members said they want the district to put more effort into looking at smaller sites around the city.The board couldn't agree on the Strawberry Hills site…Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano property (strawberry hill)------------------------
STORY FOUR
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/05/29/news/inland/vista/22_38_385_28_05.txt
VUSD sees Melrose campus as key project
Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:48 PM PDT
The long road Vail said the district seriously considered three other sites before settling on the Melrose property. Those sites included property south of Highway 76 off East Vista Way that didn't work out for environmental reasons; the "Kawano" or "Strawberry Hill" property that failed to generate enough support among school board trustees; and the Lincoln Middle School/Vista City Hall site that fell through because the state wouldn't provide necessary funding.
-----------------------------------------------------------
STORY FIVE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/23/export6438.txt
School district exploring new high school campus proposal
...there are very few properties left big enough to accommodate a high-school campus serving around 2,000 students. District trustees voted 5-0 on March 13 to abandon the most recent possibility, a produce farm (Kawano property aka Strawberry Hill) on East Vista Way in the unincorporated area just north of Vista. The proposal encountered opposition from neighbors and the property owner was unwilling to sell. Two of the board trustees objected to the site (Guffanti and Gibson), which would have left the five-member board short of the four votes needed to institute an eminent domain proceeding that would be needed to obtain the property.
------------------------------------
Story Six
School board drops rural site for new high school
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/14/export5702.txt
...Kawano himself said he was unwilling to sell his property. Also, a couple board members(Gibson and Guffanti) had said they opposed the district pursuing the Kawano property. For the district to go forward with an eminent domain proceeding to forcibly acquire the property would have required four votes on the five-member board.
FINALLY THE THREE REASONABLE BOARD MEMBERS GIVE UP ON CHEAP KAWANO SITE
In March of 2003, the rest of the board gave up trying to reason with the unreasonable Gibson and voted to look at a new site. After four more years of search to find the cheapest site large enough to build the new high school, they decided on the current site at Melrose and Highway 76.
OTHER SITES CONSIDERED, FOUR MORE YEARS OF DELAYS
The other sites that were considered were:
(1) The Lincoln Middle School combined with the Vista City Hall site was considered at the insistence of Jim Gibson but the site was too small (LMS 17 acres, city hall acreage even smaller)together the two site were far less than the fifty or sixty acres needed for a new HS.
The state of California must approve a site. The state rejected the LMS site.
There were other problems besides the smallness of the two sites.
(A) A bridge over the VERY busy Escondido Ave would have been needed to link the two sites. (B) Rancho Minerva Middle School was not yet built and there was no middle school for the Lincoln Middle School students to attend.
(C)The too small Lincoln site would have required two story (or more) school buildings built on unstable river valley sediments. Since the Long Beach earthquake in 1932 that collapsed so many schools, the schools in California have virtually all been built as one story spread out campuses as a precaution against building collapse. (Google "Field Act" to find out more)
(2) Another site looked at was the Stacco site. It had environmental and grading problems which would have required very expensive environmental remediation and a wild life corridor running through the center of the site (school).
(3) The site across from Guajome Regional Park where North Coast Church is currently building their new church and school. That site has two huge natural gas pipelines running underneath. The state refused to allow a public school to be built on this site with the gas pipelines underneath. Re-locating the pipelines would have been prohibitively expensive.
The only site left in the district large enough for a high school was the legally entangled and hilly Melrose/Highway 76 site.
GIBSON'S BUDDIES SUDDENLY RE-ZONE SITE, COSTING VUSD MILLIONS MORE
During negotiations for purchase of this site (which is located in the one third of our district inside the city of Oceanside), Gibson's political buddies on the Oceanside City council voted to change the zoning of this site from agricultural to residential which raised the value and cost of purchase of the site by about ten or eleven million dollars.
Less than two years later these same Gibson Oceanside City Council buddies publicly endorsed him for a run for their city council (last November).
http://www.electgibson.com/index.htm
I guess that is because he NEVER asked his buddies not to re-zone the property. Had Gibson asked them, their THREE votes would have stopped the re-zoning and saved the school district that he pretended to represent MILLIONS of dollars. An approximately seven (7) million dollar site became a eighteen (18) million dollar site. Thanks Jim for doing your job, NOT!
NOTE: Eighteen (18) million dollars for the purchase of the land is the figure given in the most recent North County Times article.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/30/news/coastal/vista/z7f4e67662eb58ec6882575a50077c5e1.txt
COLLUSION AND GIBSON CAMPAIGN FINANCE IRREGULARITIES
Then during Gibson's 2006 VUSD school board campaign, Gibson went back to his old tricks of taking developer money to benefit himself while costing the taxpayers of VUSD even more.
In September 2006, five thousand dollars of outside housing developer money was given to his political ally and the then board member, Stephen Guffanti who was NOT running for school board as Guffanti’s term of office had two more years to go. Guffanti turned around and gave that EXACT same amount to Gibson's 2006 school board campaign benefiting Gibson who was in a very hotly contested campaign at the time.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/06/news/inland/2_04_282_5_07.txt
Why do you suppose Guffanti gave the exact same amount to Gibson as he had received from the developer?
HOW WOULD THE 2006 SCHOOL BOARD CAMPAIGN COME OUT IF GIBSON HAD BEEN TRANSPARENT CAMPAIGN FINANCING?
Gibson apparently did not want to be caught taking OUTSIDER developer money again. This convenient campaign transaction was not known until months AFTER the election. I wonder if this would be called a VIOLATION of CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS?
I guess we will never know how Gibson’s 2006 campaign for VUSD school board would have come out if the taxpayers of VUSD had known the interesting coincidence that $5000 was given to Guffanti who was not running in the election and that Guffanti would then give the exact same amount to Gibson. Too bad Gibson did not see the need to inform the taxpayers.
Because Guffanti was not running in that election, there was no requirement for Guffanti to acknowledge the money and no way for the average taxpayer to know that Guffanti appeared to be moving outside developer money through his campaign into Gibson's.
However Guffanti wrote a Community Forum for the North County Times in October of 2006 in which he bragged about giving Gibson more than"half" of his campaign funds which then stood at just over 10,000 dollars. Guffanti said, "This election, I did something that few politicians ever do. I donated more than half of my campaign funds to another politician's campaign." He said he did it, "Because I want board members who will support our children learning to read English" as though any board member elected to any school board in the United States wouldn't have that goal. Which board members didn't want our VUSD children to read English? Another ridiculous Guffanti statement on its face but also disingenuous. Was it also part of a deliberate attempt to obscure where the $5000 came from originally? Who knows? I report. You decide.
Read Guffanti's forum piece here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/10/23/opinion/commentary/102206140413.txt
Had Gibson allowed the taxpayers of VUSD to purchase the CHEAP LEVEL Kawano site in 2002, the third high school would have been built and opened for the 2005 school year at a cost of between 50 and 60 million dollars. There would have been no lawsuits, no zoning changes by Oceanside as the Kawano site was not in Oceanside. There would have been no need to spend tens of millions more for site preparation and land leveling as the Kawano site was level and graded.
LET'S ADD UP WHAT GIBSON COST VUSD TAXPAYERS
Let's add up what Gibson cost the taxpayers of VUSD. Eighteen million dollars to purchase the land at the second site (instead of ONE million), many millions more for site preparation due to hilly terrain at the second site, ten-eleven million more when his buddies on the Oceanside City Council suddenly re-zoned the land, increased costs of labor and materials caused by the four years of delays,. What would have been a fifty to sixty million dollar high school at the Kawano site will now cost at least 105 million. And the costs are still rising.
The total cost of Gibson's delays has been somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 -55 million dollars!
Not to mention the cost to our VUSD students left in two over crowded high schools for at least four years longer than they needed to be.
GIBSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GREATEST WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY IN THE HISTORY OF VUSD.
Gibson is also responsible for keeping our kids in crowded schools YEARS longer than they needed to be.
WHY DOESN'T GIBSON CARE ABOUT OUR VUSD KIDS AND TAXPAYERS?
Why doesn't Gibson care that he wastes taxpayer money?
(1)Neither his children or his supporters children ever attended VUSD schools. It cost him nothing personally or politically to oppose school construction.
(2) He profited politically with thousands of campaign dollars while costing the taxpayers of VUSD millions.
(3)His VUSD board position provided him a platform to run for higher political office. Twice he has tried to get on the Oceanside City Council (once to fill a vacancy)and once he has run for a California State Assembly seat.
GIBSON USES HIS VUSD BOARD POSITION TO RUN FOR HIGHER OFFICE
He used our VUSD board as a kind of political "street cred" to boost his chances for higher office.
Gibson is the only school board member on the VUSD board that has never been supported by custodians, school secretaries, cafeteria workers, teachers, parents or administrators of VUSD.
Given his abysmal record of mismanagement and waste of taxpayer money while on our board, it should be obvious why we do not support Gibson and look forward to a time when he is not on our board any more.
Gibson has done nearly everything he can do to prevent, delay and increase the cost of VUSD's new third high school.
First in spring and summer of 2002, he refused to be the necessary fourth vote to allow the purchase of the MUCH CHEAPER, LEVEL, one million dollar Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill. (Eminent domain votes take four out of five school board members to vote in favor. The three rationals were in favor Gibson and Guffanti opposed)
GIBSON'S TEN THOUSAND CAR MEGA HIGH SCHOOL CAMPAIGN
Then he saw a political opportunity and took campaign cash from those who opposed the one million dollar Kawano site. He ran a political campaign in the fall of 2002 with huge signs warning against the "ten thousand car mega high school". He profited politically while he cost VUSD taxpayers millions.
GIBSON REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO BE THE NECESSARY FOURTH VOTE TO OBTAIN CHEAPEST AND BEST SITE FOR NEW DUAL MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL
He repeatedly refused to be the necessary fourth vote to acquire the Kawano property. The NCTimes quotes him at least six times occasions, months apart, refusing to support the CHEAP LEVEL Kawano site.
http://vistaschools.blogspot.com/2008/10/guffanti-group-repeats-hs-deception.html
Or read them yourself directly from the North County Times archives.
STORY ONE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txt
Two VUSD candidates attack magnet high school site
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Incumbent school board Trustee Jim Gibson and the candidate he endorses ---- Steve Bradford ---- said this week that they oppose putting the campus, which would accommodate two magnet high schools, on the property the district is studying on East Vista Way between Mason Road and Osborne Street in an area called Strawberry Hill.
---------------------------
STORY TWO
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/02/16/export3600.txt
New Vista high school project picking up steam
Saturday, February 15, 2003
In the latter case, the district board of trustees would be faced with a difficult decision. Two of the five members ---- Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti ---- have said they oppose putting the school on the Kawano property (Strawberry Hill).------------------------------------------
STORY THREE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/08/10/news/inland/vista/8_10_0323_00_12.txt
Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools
August 9, 2003
Three board members say they wanted to build the high schools on a 50-acre tract known as Strawberry Hills in Bonsall. But the other two members said they want the district to put more effort into looking at smaller sites around the city.The board couldn't agree on the Strawberry Hills site…Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano property (strawberry hill)------------------------
STORY FOUR
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/05/29/news/inland/vista/22_38_385_28_05.txt
VUSD sees Melrose campus as key project
Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:48 PM PDT
The long road Vail said the district seriously considered three other sites before settling on the Melrose property. Those sites included property south of Highway 76 off East Vista Way that didn't work out for environmental reasons; the "Kawano" or "Strawberry Hill" property that failed to generate enough support among school board trustees; and the Lincoln Middle School/Vista City Hall site that fell through because the state wouldn't provide necessary funding.
-----------------------------------------------------------
STORY FIVE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/23/export6438.txt
School district exploring new high school campus proposal
...there are very few properties left big enough to accommodate a high-school campus serving around 2,000 students. District trustees voted 5-0 on March 13 to abandon the most recent possibility, a produce farm (Kawano property aka Strawberry Hill) on East Vista Way in the unincorporated area just north of Vista. The proposal encountered opposition from neighbors and the property owner was unwilling to sell. Two of the board trustees objected to the site (Guffanti and Gibson), which would have left the five-member board short of the four votes needed to institute an eminent domain proceeding that would be needed to obtain the property.
------------------------------------
Story Six
School board drops rural site for new high school
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/14/export5702.txt
...Kawano himself said he was unwilling to sell his property. Also, a couple board members(Gibson and Guffanti) had said they opposed the district pursuing the Kawano property. For the district to go forward with an eminent domain proceeding to forcibly acquire the property would have required four votes on the five-member board.
FINALLY THE THREE REASONABLE BOARD MEMBERS GIVE UP ON CHEAP KAWANO SITE
In March of 2003, the rest of the board gave up trying to reason with the unreasonable Gibson and voted to look at a new site. After four more years of search to find the cheapest site large enough to build the new high school, they decided on the current site at Melrose and Highway 76.
OTHER SITES CONSIDERED, FOUR MORE YEARS OF DELAYS
The other sites that were considered were:
(1) The Lincoln Middle School combined with the Vista City Hall site was considered at the insistence of Jim Gibson but the site was too small (LMS 17 acres, city hall acreage even smaller)together the two site were far less than the fifty or sixty acres needed for a new HS.
The state of California must approve a site. The state rejected the LMS site.
There were other problems besides the smallness of the two sites.
(A) A bridge over the VERY busy Escondido Ave would have been needed to link the two sites. (B) Rancho Minerva Middle School was not yet built and there was no middle school for the Lincoln Middle School students to attend.
(C)The too small Lincoln site would have required two story (or more) school buildings built on unstable river valley sediments. Since the Long Beach earthquake in 1932 that collapsed so many schools, the schools in California have virtually all been built as one story spread out campuses as a precaution against building collapse. (Google "Field Act" to find out more)
(2) Another site looked at was the Stacco site. It had environmental and grading problems which would have required very expensive environmental remediation and a wild life corridor running through the center of the site (school).
(3) The site across from Guajome Regional Park where North Coast Church is currently building their new church and school. That site has two huge natural gas pipelines running underneath. The state refused to allow a public school to be built on this site with the gas pipelines underneath. Re-locating the pipelines would have been prohibitively expensive.
The only site left in the district large enough for a high school was the legally entangled and hilly Melrose/Highway 76 site.
GIBSON'S BUDDIES SUDDENLY RE-ZONE SITE, COSTING VUSD MILLIONS MORE
During negotiations for purchase of this site (which is located in the one third of our district inside the city of Oceanside), Gibson's political buddies on the Oceanside City council voted to change the zoning of this site from agricultural to residential which raised the value and cost of purchase of the site by about ten or eleven million dollars.
Less than two years later these same Gibson Oceanside City Council buddies publicly endorsed him for a run for their city council (last November).
http://www.electgibson.com/index.htm
I guess that is because he NEVER asked his buddies not to re-zone the property. Had Gibson asked them, their THREE votes would have stopped the re-zoning and saved the school district that he pretended to represent MILLIONS of dollars. An approximately seven (7) million dollar site became a eighteen (18) million dollar site. Thanks Jim for doing your job, NOT!
NOTE: Eighteen (18) million dollars for the purchase of the land is the figure given in the most recent North County Times article.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/30/news/coastal/vista/z7f4e67662eb58ec6882575a50077c5e1.txt
COLLUSION AND GIBSON CAMPAIGN FINANCE IRREGULARITIES
Then during Gibson's 2006 VUSD school board campaign, Gibson went back to his old tricks of taking developer money to benefit himself while costing the taxpayers of VUSD even more.
In September 2006, five thousand dollars of outside housing developer money was given to his political ally and the then board member, Stephen Guffanti who was NOT running for school board as Guffanti’s term of office had two more years to go. Guffanti turned around and gave that EXACT same amount to Gibson's 2006 school board campaign benefiting Gibson who was in a very hotly contested campaign at the time.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/06/news/inland/2_04_282_5_07.txt
Why do you suppose Guffanti gave the exact same amount to Gibson as he had received from the developer?
HOW WOULD THE 2006 SCHOOL BOARD CAMPAIGN COME OUT IF GIBSON HAD BEEN TRANSPARENT CAMPAIGN FINANCING?
Gibson apparently did not want to be caught taking OUTSIDER developer money again. This convenient campaign transaction was not known until months AFTER the election. I wonder if this would be called a VIOLATION of CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS?
I guess we will never know how Gibson’s 2006 campaign for VUSD school board would have come out if the taxpayers of VUSD had known the interesting coincidence that $5000 was given to Guffanti who was not running in the election and that Guffanti would then give the exact same amount to Gibson. Too bad Gibson did not see the need to inform the taxpayers.
Because Guffanti was not running in that election, there was no requirement for Guffanti to acknowledge the money and no way for the average taxpayer to know that Guffanti appeared to be moving outside developer money through his campaign into Gibson's.
However Guffanti wrote a Community Forum for the North County Times in October of 2006 in which he bragged about giving Gibson more than"half" of his campaign funds which then stood at just over 10,000 dollars. Guffanti said, "This election, I did something that few politicians ever do. I donated more than half of my campaign funds to another politician's campaign." He said he did it, "Because I want board members who will support our children learning to read English" as though any board member elected to any school board in the United States wouldn't have that goal. Which board members didn't want our VUSD children to read English? Another ridiculous Guffanti statement on its face but also disingenuous. Was it also part of a deliberate attempt to obscure where the $5000 came from originally? Who knows? I report. You decide.
Read Guffanti's forum piece here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/10/23/opinion/commentary/102206140413.txt
Had Gibson allowed the taxpayers of VUSD to purchase the CHEAP LEVEL Kawano site in 2002, the third high school would have been built and opened for the 2005 school year at a cost of between 50 and 60 million dollars. There would have been no lawsuits, no zoning changes by Oceanside as the Kawano site was not in Oceanside. There would have been no need to spend tens of millions more for site preparation and land leveling as the Kawano site was level and graded.
LET'S ADD UP WHAT GIBSON COST VUSD TAXPAYERS
Let's add up what Gibson cost the taxpayers of VUSD. Eighteen million dollars to purchase the land at the second site (instead of ONE million), many millions more for site preparation due to hilly terrain at the second site, ten-eleven million more when his buddies on the Oceanside City Council suddenly re-zoned the land, increased costs of labor and materials caused by the four years of delays,. What would have been a fifty to sixty million dollar high school at the Kawano site will now cost at least 105 million. And the costs are still rising.
The total cost of Gibson's delays has been somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 -55 million dollars!
Not to mention the cost to our VUSD students left in two over crowded high schools for at least four years longer than they needed to be.
GIBSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GREATEST WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY IN THE HISTORY OF VUSD.
Gibson is also responsible for keeping our kids in crowded schools YEARS longer than they needed to be.
WHY DOESN'T GIBSON CARE ABOUT OUR VUSD KIDS AND TAXPAYERS?
Why doesn't Gibson care that he wastes taxpayer money?
(1)Neither his children or his supporters children ever attended VUSD schools. It cost him nothing personally or politically to oppose school construction.
(2) He profited politically with thousands of campaign dollars while costing the taxpayers of VUSD millions.
(3)His VUSD board position provided him a platform to run for higher political office. Twice he has tried to get on the Oceanside City Council (once to fill a vacancy)and once he has run for a California State Assembly seat.
GIBSON USES HIS VUSD BOARD POSITION TO RUN FOR HIGHER OFFICE
He used our VUSD board as a kind of political "street cred" to boost his chances for higher office.
Gibson is the only school board member on the VUSD board that has never been supported by custodians, school secretaries, cafeteria workers, teachers, parents or administrators of VUSD.
Given his abysmal record of mismanagement and waste of taxpayer money while on our board, it should be obvious why we do not support Gibson and look forward to a time when he is not on our board any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)