Two years ago, hundreds of thousands of dollars flooded into the Capistrano Unified school board race to elect some candidates and remove others. Will there be a repeat in 2012?
Possibly not.
One of the effects of passing – which has candidates run in smaller trustee areas instead of at-large throughout the sprawling district – was to decrease the amount needed to launch a campaign, according to proponents at the time.
Also, according to a letter sent this month to members of the teachers’ union, the Capistrano Unified Education Association will divide its attention between defeating Prop. 32, which would ban unions and corporations from donating directly to candidates, and a slate of candidates in the four trustee areas.
The letter also hints that losing in both these areas could lead to another teachers strike.
“In the 35 years I have taught in CUSD, I never would have thought that we would be forced to a strike and I never, ever, want that to happen again. But we have to work to ensure that it doesn’t,” wrote Vicki Soderberg, union president. [Emphasis in original.]
The union didn't respond to messages from Patch asking for more information on Soderberg's strike talk.
As for the school board race, the letter didn't identify any union-backed candidates. But it did take aim at candidates who may be backed by StudentsFirst, a national group seeking to reform education, and Hold CUSD Accountable.
(The candidates' first financial statements aren’t due to the county until Oct. 5.)
Among the candidates targeted for defeat by the union: Steve Lang for Trustee Area No. 3 (San Clemente), Jim Reardon for Trustee Area No. 2 (parts of San Juan Capistrano, Ladera Ranch and Coto de Caza), Karin Schnell for Trustee Area No. 1 (parts of San Juan Capistrano, Capo Beach and Dana Point) and Bill Perkins for Trustee Area No. 5 (Aliso Viejo).
However, CUEA’s website places a stronger emphasis on defeating Prop. 32 than any particular candidates.
Last election, the union and its ally, Capistrano Unified Children First, helped recall two trustees, Mike Winsten and Ken Lopez-Maddox, and elect another, Lynn Hatton.
“It was our collective political power that kicked out the anti-public education advocates two years ago,” Soderberg wrote in her August letter, “and it will be our collective political power which maintains pro-public education advocates this year.”
So is your son going to patch to read their smut articles? Now that you are set to triple dip into the public employee pension system do you honestly think anyone holds you as a credible source of news or opinion.
Just remember, the Sharon Y. (Y with a period) is the Sharon with a brain and an ability to engage in a rational discord. The other Sharon is, well, bonkers.
As for the Patch writing "smutty" articles, do you even know what the word smut means? I highly doubt it. It appears you were told to use that term with great zeal by the teachers union and Union First. Here's a word for you, "tool" as in you're a tool of the teachers union and Union First.
2. From what I read (in the link regarding the lawsuit settlement), it looks like the district paid out $100,000 to settle - the rest was paid by insurance policies. Maybe the previous school board / superintendent shouldn't have been doing dirty dealings to begin with. On the other hand I believe that those involved in any way in the lawsuit should not be allowed to run for any positions having to do with CUSD. 3. I WILL vote YES on Prop 32. "Sharon Y 6:47 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012 Thanks Patch and Penny for being revealing and removing the cover up on this article. After a hard, long day at work it is stimulating to get excited about what Patch finds worthy of their readers. This is a great diversion for those of us that don't get enough at home."
This does not mean that public school teachers do not desire what is best, academically, for their students. It just means that it is not the union's primary purpose to facilitate what is best, academically, for students. When considering School Board candidates who receive strong support from public school teachers' unions, I think it is always wise to recall the primary purpose of teachers' unions.
Corporations are people, so they should be allowed to buy seats. Unions are people too (so far), so they should be allowed to buy seats as well. Buying seats usually means more revenue for ads in hyper local news outlets, TV, newspapers, etc. More economic activity. No more recession. More money for schools. Plus more entertainment for me in the peanut gallery. Everybody wins. If we can allow corporations and unions to buy Presidents, senators and congressmen, why not school board members? But the real reason to vote No on Prop 32 is that it'll likely be found unconstitutional if challenged, and so would be a waste of time and money. Very recently the SCOTUS found a 100 year state law in Montana to be that (http://bit.ly/OnWgln, http://lat.ms/OnWrx4) Personally, I'd prefer that they instead aim towards measures that disclose (more) all donors who contribute. Let anyone or any organization give as much as they want to, but require the recipient to disclose who it came from. I want Capo USD to set the national record for most monies spent on an election.
What do you expect from a former Fleming suporter who lost her temper at a school board meeting and used foul langauge in front of parents and children?
Their overriding goal: operating public schools as a lucrative jobs program where practically nothing can get a teacher fired, up to and including taunting a tortured teenager for his failed suicide attempt. California education $$ are going to the teachers, both competent and incompetent, due to the unions and tenure. Every dollar going towards excessive p[ay and benefits is a dollar not being used to educate our children to be competitive in today's technological society. Get rid of the unions and tenure, instate a teacher performance system, and you’ll begin to fix education. Then and only then will I consider a tax increase.
I am not saying this is one of the top ten stories in Patch, however, we do enjoy freedom of the press.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444443504577601664135014368.html
2) It doesn’t stop any corporation from using unlimited profits to contribute to state or local campaigns. And the Supreme Court already confirmed that Corporations have the same rights as individuals and therefore, can contribute unlimited funds to any campaign. Corporations already outspend unions 15-1. 3) Labor rights aren’t etched in stone. They were won through politics and collective bargaining. So if you’re the 99% that have to work for a living say, “good bye” to, vacation leave, health insurance, 8 hour work day, minimum wage, work place health and safety laws, overtime pay, unemployment, child labor laws, meal breaks, nurse patient ratios just to name a few.
Unions were created to counter the exploitation of workers by ruthless, uncaring employers, and they have brought about many valuable reforms in the workplace. However, like any entity, when it becomes too big, too powerful and too consumed with keeping its power and influence, bad things happen. In CA, CTA has used its size, influence and money to basically control education in CA. On need only read the recent articles on CTA to see that this is true. When you have legislators, who are addressing education issues & bills, ask what is CTA's position, you have an inkling of its size, power and influence. You may think that is a good thing, I don't. CTA is not looking out for the educational welfare of my kids and the rest of the kids in CA. It's a union, and its sole job and mission is to get the best deals, in all respects, for its members. We've seen firsthand in CUSD how that works, and it's not pretty.