Below is a posting from last May that was taken down by the North County Times followed by the innocent explanation in Elizabeth Jaka's own words. Elizabeth wrote the explanation and sent it to the North County Times in May after the lie was posted. I received it shortly after but did not post it at that time.
The LIE is highlighted in RED. The true, factual and innocent explanation by Elizabeth Jaka is in BLUE. I with held name and phone number of the witness for privacy reasons. I was not requested to do so. The name and number were given to the North County Times.
Now Elizabeth Jaka in her own words:
I'm writing to let you know that the following blog needs to be removed from Mr. Gibson's editorial on Heroes:
VUSD Taxpayer May 21, 2009 7:52AM PST
Gibson's article should have been on the lack of ethics and character on the school board as exhibited by the three board members Herrera, Chunka and Jaka. They got caught violating state law and ethics 2 months ago when they held an illegal meeting at 1:30 in the morning at Board President Herrera's house 4 hours after the board meeting ended. Two Vista Teacher's Union reps also attended the "accidental" meeting and told them they had misvoted hours earlier at the school board meeting. Mrs. Herrera immediately called for another school board meeting where the three changed their vote. THis secret meeting is ILLEGAL in the state of California and is also unethical. It demonstrates the very opposite of what character is. But please remember that these three Vista Trustees have received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the Teacher's union. Rumor is that the illegal meetings still take place. Please explain to me why those three are still on the board. When it comes to setting examples, the trustess should be the first ones to lead us. As a taxpayer, I feel these three trustees, Herrera, Chunka and Jaka represent the labor unions and not me, the taxpayer.
HERE'S WHY:
1) No one was "caught" violating state law or ethics. The claim was looked into and found to be without merit.
2) I was not at Mrs. Herrera's house at 1:30 that morning, I was in Oceanside, near the airport, giving a friend a ride home from the meeting (this can be confirmed by (name and phone number with held for privacy reasons by blog editor). This is public information, given at the March 5/March 12 board meetings (although (name with held by blog editor)'s personal information was not given).
3) The board meeting in question ended at 12:45 a.m., not 9:30 as the blogger claims. This is documented in the board minutes here: http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/board/Board%20Meetings/2009/02-26-2009.pdf. I didn't get off the site until after 1:00 because so many people wanted to express their dissatisfaction with what had taken place. I doubt that anyone else got out much before 1:00 either.
4) After I dropped (name withheld for privacy by blog editor) at her home, I went by Mrs. Herrera's house to check on her because she was not answering her phone, and I knew her husband was out of town. I knew she was extremely stressed (we all were) and I wanted to make sure she was okay. I was surprised to find her driveway was full of cars, and there were a number of people present. Until I walked in however, I did not realize that Mrs. Chunka was also present and that I would be the third board member. At that point, I started to leave, but Mrs. Herrera left the room, remedying any violation. This obviously cannot be proven, but it is also public information that was given at the March 5 AND March 12 board meetings.
5) No one told me I "misvoted" after I arrived. The bulk of the conversation that I recall was about Read Across America, and the fact that I knew I would be facing some unhappy people when I came to their rooms to read the next day and the following Monday. I stated as much at the board meeting on March 12. Frankly, I was not interested in discussing my vote, nor would I have wanted to talk about undoing what we'd just spent six grueling hours doing (plus another two hours in Closed Session).
How would "VUSD Taxpayer" know what was discussed? He/she was clearly not there since all the statements of "fact" in the blog are incorrect.
6) Mrs. Herrera did NOT immediately call another meeting. The March 5 and March 12 meetings had been set for some time. On March 11, Mrs. Herrera did call for a special meeting to follow the regular meeting on March 12, so that we could vote on the issue one more time. This was a confirmation of the previous vote.
7) I changed my vote on March 5/12 only because the finance department came forward with an alternative to cutting Class Size Reduction. I had been to the finance office on February 27 to ask them to keep looking for other options. Mrs. Chunka did not change her vote. This is also public information, and can be found in the minutes for the March 5 meeting: http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/board/Board%20Meetings/2009/03-05-2009.pdf On March 12, we voted to cut a buy-back day instead.
8) Although the unions did spend quite a bit of money on our campaigns, we did not receive 10s of thousands of dollars in contributions from them. They spent the money as they saw fit. That may seem like quibbling, but it's important to me. It's just as important to note that David Arnold, who tried to stop construction of our high schools, spent more than $63K on Guffanti's campaign in 2004. Although that is documented, I never see mention of it.
9) There are no secret, illegal meetings taking place. We showed poor judgment in being in the same place at the same time, and we have all publicly apologized for that, twice. Stating "Rumor is that the illegal meetings still take place" is libelous.
Blog Editor Note: I do not think any one showed poor judgment. There is NOTHING for Elizabeth or any one else to feel guilty about. Inadvertent path crossing by friends does not need to be apologized for. Had there been a plan for the three friends to meet, there still would have been nothing illegal or nefarious about such a meeting. In America friends are allowed to visit each other. Even had they planned to meet to discuss school business, the meeting is still not illegal under the Brown Act or any other state or federal law as long as the same discussion is held publicly at the next meeting. This is the conclusion of the North County Times reporter and his sources in the following article:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/03/06/news/coastal/vista/zafeb0db720418fa8882575710068a8e6.txt
If we did not live in a district with paranoid and nutty ANTI education zealots, no one would have cared.
No comments:
Post a Comment