Preview of a few lies that Jim Gibson will be using in his coming campaign

I will reprint the lies and misrepresentations of North County Times blogger ironically self-named "Plain Truth"* because he reflects the campaign propaganda being used by members of the Jim Gibson group. He wrote the following incorrect comment today:

THE LIES: "The union took over $500,000 of district funds. They were caught the board asked for about one-third of it back and accepted the union position that they would think about it. If that isn't fiscal irresponsibility what is?"

Others in the Gibson group have repeated variations of this lie many many times in the blogs even though they have been given correct information time and time again.

First to answer the question that Plain Truth asks, Fiscal irresponsibility is the wasting of almost five years to construct the third high school and nearly FIFTY MILLION dollars of taxpayer money in excess expenses caused by Jim Gibson and Dr. Stephen Guffanti due to their repeated refusal to support the immediate building of our third high school when Prop O passed in 2002. Cheap level land was found immediately after the bond passed in March of 2002 by the search committee; however, Gibson and Guffanti neither of whose children attended schools in VUSD, repeatedly refused to be the state required fourth trustee in favor of acquiring the property. Without four trustees in favor, the land could not be acquired.

Funny how the Gibson group does not care a bit about the waste of nearly fifty million dollars. Funny they do not care that for five additional years our high school students were subjected to being crowded into high schools with more than 3000 students which were originally built for a maximum of 1800 students.

In fact for years VUSD had the two largest high schools for total student numbers in California Interscholastic Federation sports competitions in San Diego County. Big campus population numbers might be could for football coaches to recruit from, but they are not great for giving our kids the best opportunities to learn. Gibson and Guffanti did not care. Our crowded schools did not affect their own children who did not attend our great VUSD schools.

As to Plain Truth's second point, no one 'took' any money. The union bargained with the elected representatives of the voters of Vista Unified School District for a release time president. As part of the negotiated agreement the VTA agreed to pay for a replacement teacher in the same manner allowed by labor law legal precedents going back several decades.

The VTA release time president payment to VUSD was done no differently than it has been done in hundreds of other California school districts over the last several decades. The agreement repeatedly passed legal muster a number of times over that same time.

Here is what was written about the former agreement in a VUSD school board document presented to the board on September 8, 2005:
"In March 2003, a legal opinion was provided to the Vista Unified School District regarding the legality of this full release."http://vistaschools.blogspot.com/2009/09/release-time-president-vusd-board.html

Now a brand new 'baby' law firm less than four years old has decide that in its 'considered' legal opinion that decades of labor law was wrong. I, personally, think it is unlikely that their opinion will carry. If it does,it will end collective bargaining for many small school districts.

Why? Because in small districts, associations rather than having a full time release president, their president and bargaining teams are released only during bargaining. They are replaced with substitute teachers on those days. Since the subs make less than the salaries of established teachers, according to this 'baby' law firm's opinion, it follows that the associations for these tiny districts must pay the full price of the president and bargaining teams salaries rather than the traditional required lower cost of a replacement teacher.

Never before in the history of California Collective Bargaining law has any other law firm said this common and customary policy was a violation of labor law.

Look for the opinion to be overturned and look for our school district to actually owe money to the Vista Teachers Association. Why you ask? Because the good folks of the VTA have been paying the full cost of the president's salary since shortly after the 'baby' law firm gave its 'legal' opinion. All of this money for the last six months may very well come back to the VTA when the final decision is in.

Read more here:http://vistaschools.blogspot.com/2010/07/vista-teachers-owe-540000-to-school.html

If against all reason, by some legal fluke, the final decision goes against precedent and against the VTA (and CTA), the statue of limitations reduces any amount owed by the VTA to a MAXIMUM of $128,242 and no more, not one penny more. Not the half million claimed by Gibson supporters like "Palin" Truth. Jim Gibson knows that. His supporter blogger, Plain Truth, knows it. They both also know the matter is years from being settled.

I just hope the process does not go on past the three year limitation for the VTA to recover the excess payment it has made to the district since early this year for the full salary of the president. The VTA was only legally required to pay the much lower amount for a replacement teacher. That was the legal precedent and that was what was bargained and written into our legally binding contract. Nothing more.

In cases like this dispute between the VTA/CTA and VUSD, the money is usually put into an escrow account until the matter is resolved. I would urge VTA leadership to check with CTA counsel and see if using an escrow account is a possibility. Without such an account and if the final decision takes longer than three year statute of limitations than VTA could be lose the money that it has paid in beyond that time.

There is an additional amount of money VUSD may end up owing the VTA depending on how the court case goes.

It is conceivable that the VTA could gain additional money in another way. There could be a substantial difference between what the district actually paid for the replacement teacher over the last fifteen years and the compensation set in the contract that the VTA has paid. The VTA may have paid far more than the district has actually spent on a replacement teacher. Depending on the judge, this excess could be awarded to the VTA.


*Isn't it odd that those who post comments that are the least truthful give themselves blog names so dymatrically opposite of what the comment they write? Other examples of this phenomenon are bloggers who call themselves, "Veritas," "Akamai," "justthefacts" etc.