Gibson attacks VTA, lies about legality

Jim Gibson is seeing the specter of next year's election looming. He knows he is in big trouble.

The most recent school board election resulted in a clean sweeping away of all of his ANTI public education allies by thousands of votes. Now he sees next year's election looming. Suddenly he faces being retired from the school board like Guffanti was. He knows that his actions on the board have cost taxpayers tens of million of dollars.

His only hope for re-election is to get his name in the headlines and create a phony scandal. If he runs on his record, he loses. If he runs an ANTI public education campaign, he loses. If he tells people his political agenda, he loses. No wonder he is trying this new desperate attack. he is now calling the VTA's president's salary 'illegal'. How strange a board member for over a decade like Jimmy does not know what is legal and not legal. He should know that the policy that permits VUSD to pay the VTA's president salary differential has been passed all legal reviews in all school districts in California for at least two decades. Not to worry about all that precedent, Jimmy doesn't care about facts, only about getting elected again. If lies and smears is all you have, then if you are Jimmy you use them and use them early and often.

Gibson thought the ANTIs had the strongest slate of ANTI public education candidates ever in November 2008--a incumbent medical doctor, a college professor, and an Hispanic mom. But they did not. All of the ANTI candidate lost and lost BIG! By thousands of votes! Jim has lived in terror ever since. You see Jimmy's life for the last twenty years has been all about getting elected to public office using the VUSD board position as a stepping stone to better and bigger things. So far it has not worked well. He lost the election for Temecula State Assembly person. He lost the election in 2008 for Oceanside City Council. He also lost his chance to be appointed to Oceanside City Council when there was a vacancy a few years back. He worked the other four council members hard but they ignored him. If he now loses his stepping stone on VUSD board, how will poor Jimmy get an even better elected position?

So now you understand Gibson desperate acts attacking a legal policy that actually helps the district.

Here is the article telling about last night's VUSD Board Meeting and little Jimmy's bid for attention:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_c9e6be3a-c966-5c67-9dbd-d6744ed46385.html?mode=story

VISTA: School board trustee wants review of union chief's pay
Gibson asks for lawyers to examine salary issue


A school trustee in Vista is questioning whether the Vista Unified School District is illegally using public funds by paying the salary of a full-time teachers-union president, while the union reimburses the district for a less-experienced, lesser-paid teacher to assume her classroom duties.

(I am betting the VTA reimburses the district for a full time equivalent position. Who the district hires is up to the district. The VTA president has no right to her old teaching job or classroom when her term is up. Lot's of other teacher slots are held open in case a teacher returns form illnesses, surgery, or a district office job. It is routine to hire temporary teacher replacement. Temporary does not mean unqualified or inexperienced. It just mean that they are taking the place of someone else.)

Jim Gibson, a frequent critic of the union, is proposing that the district ask lawyers to examine the legality of the arrangement that is part of the district's contract with the Vista Teachers Association.

(Why and outside EXPENSIVE lawyer when the district already has a contract for legal representation from the San Diego County Counsel? Does Gibson think taxpayer money is his to waste?)

The contract calls for the district to pay the salary of the union president ---- which since 2005 has been veteran teacher Jan O'Reilly ---- while the union pays for a replacement teacher. But because the replacement is usually a temporary teacher with a lower salary, there's a discrepancy between the district's expenses and the union's reimbursement.

For example, during the last six years, the district has paid $413,202 ---- nearly $70,000 a year ---- for the union president's salary, while the teachers association has paid $266,923 ---- nearly $45,000 a year ---- to hire replacements, district officials have said.

(What is the problem here? One teacher is out of the classroom, another FULLY CREDENTIALED teacher replaces her and the VTA pays it. Long time teachers get more pay then more recent hires. VTA presidents happen to mostly be long time teachers. So what is jimmy babbling about? Ridiculous complaint.)

Read the rest of the article Jimmy got his buddies in charge of the North County Times to "suggest" that poor Stacey Brandt write at the URL above.