Google Tony Strickland and Kevin Bacon to see some results.

Does the recall committee have a website?

Every time I google them I get back to this blog in some way or another.

Brian-
I wasn't at the meeting but watched it live. when this comment was made my wife and I looked at each other in dis-belief. After thinking about other comments Ron has made we believed it.

That night there was discussion about the open school charter. Many parents made statements supporting the school and encouraging the district to stop delaying and approve C.A.P.E (Camarillo Acadamy of Progressive Education). As the parents were leaving the chambers either Miller or Berg must have smelt something and asked, thats when Ron leaned over and made the comment.

I have not spoken to him, no suprise, but I hear his story is he was talking about staff. Someone else said he was talking about lightbulbs. Either way this is classic Speakman speak.

I don't see a story. Are you saying is "classic" for him to smell things? Who or what as he referring to? It isn't like he used foul langugage or attacked a speaker. Seems like a joke.

When you have a Vice President who shot somebody in the face with a shotgun this seems rather minor.

I was at the meeting and have it recorded on my DVR. He was clearly referring to the CAPE parents & attorney leaving the room after their presentations. When told the following day that it was caught on tape, he did not apologize for saying it, but that others heard it. Jennifer Miller, the trustee to his right, also defended/excused him. To CAPE parents, he said that "if you knew who I was referring to, you'd actually be pleased." What does that mean? That there was someone else in the room that the board president should refer to in such a way?

I know exactly what John means by classic Speakman speak. There are hundreds of such arrogant comments caught on tape and people are digging them up to add to the youtube files now that the general population has finally been alerted to the underlying mismanagement of the school district that Speakman tries to gloss over with such "humor." He's just not funny any more.

The only time I've seen him completely serious is when a new Kuehl bill crosses the governor's desk, and he insists on warning the community about the homosexual agenda creeping into our schools.

I've contacted PVRecall about their website. The domain (pvrecall.com) has been reserved and the site is under construction. You can contact them directly and get on the mailing list for updates...pvrecall@gmail.com.

Watching the video it is clear he was refering to the parents. Public comments are the time for citizens to express their opinions to the board. Some board members actually consider the public input when making their decision. That doesn't mean the will always change their mind and some times the comments may enforce their position.

I served with Ron for four years and could make a best of tape. Lets start with the night he challenged me to the parking lot. This board is supposed to be the leadership for our schools in our community. Schoolyard bullying and off color remarks should not be the order of the day. It amused me that between speakers the crowd was clapping and Ron asked them to use 'Chamber Decourum'.

I would agree this is not a national or international event. What it shows is people in all communities are watching and if their not they should.

Whats that smell?... It's the methane for the BS from Where's the beef and Nit Picker. Nothing personal but hows that make you feel?

To reinforce another of John's points: Several times during the meeting, Speakman lectured the audience on proper board meeting behavior and using decorum. Do as I say, not as I do...

Please alert us when more videos are posted.

John Alamillo,
I could see how someone could see that as being disrespectful to a citizen. It is my opinion he is not doing it to attack people. I believe he does it out of a defense mechanism to keep his sanity. You have to admit the board members are between a rock and a hard place.
Are you sure bringing this to a head is the right plan? You have to be careful when kids are involved.

KP-
I have brought nothing to a head. Since not being re-elected I have avoided board meetings, not written to the paper and stayed clear of recall stuff. I have posted here believing that this community is informed enough to call BS- BS. In this case Brian asked what happened and I responded.

Don't get me wrong I think Ron and I have more in common than not. The major differance is when my concern was for the district we have/had and his decisions and stratagies were based on unification. When Ron is not in board member/single agenda mode he is a affable person and a good family man. When he takes his seat the transformation occurs. This is not the first instance of disrespect from him and by no means does he have a monopoly on disrespecting the citizens that come before the board.

Appears the fool doesn't realize that methane is an odorless gas.

Knit Picker...are you for real? He was definately being disrespectful as he has been on several occasions. Bless John A. for his kind words, despite the ridicule that he had to put up with over the years from Speakman. Also, the board put themselves in the position they are in. Where was the concern by the board when they continually opened the school district check book to their personal agenda, which incidently was the platform that they used to be re-elected, unification, to the tune of $600K. Yes, it it past time for this to come out into the open and, unfortunately, all the children in PVSD have been shortchanged as a result.

Coffee, how does the Camarillo Unified PAC fit into everything? Didn't they spend a lot of money to make sure Speakman, Miller and Lerner were elected?

I still can't figure out why less students is more trouble. The only thing I can think of is somebody or a group of people are using the school district as a stepping stone for something that has nothing to do with educating children.

I heard Lerner before. It was something else of a negative nature I can't remember.... Does she have anything to do with pizza?

Anyways, it sounds like both sides are way off the path. All taxpayers see in this one is a back and forth name calling. It's a shame too I bet most of you are smart.

May I ask a stupid question? It seems many PACS are one particular religion. Was that PAC question by (Tea or me) an example of what of a concern in that regard? I haven't been reading my Jewish conspiracy newsletter lately.

How is it that Jennifer Miller claimed that she had no expenses for her campaign this year and yet I saw flyers all over the place? And why in previous years did she have the same Treasury address as Speakman?

Maybe she had a very successful tuperware party... Who cares.

Maybe that's what happend to the $8 billion in cash in Iraq that just up and vanished into thin air.

It went to Jennifer Miller's school board flyers.

Tea or Me....Camarillo Unified were very active in the election of their "support" system within PVSD....aka....Speakman, Miller, and Lerner. If you want to see to what degree, visit their website as it still has not been updated since 10/11/06....hmmmmmmmmmmm....makes you wonder why anyone would consider to unify now when they are unable to even update their website. If they are unable to do that, how can they expect to have support.
DOJ....take heed of the "make a full faith effort to talk about the issues please"....your attempt at humor fails you....leave the issues to those of us with brains.

Your not helping education. Your acting like your kids probably do.

Your attempts to explain your heads not up your ass isn't working.

Try again.

Coffee, Ignore DOJ. I appreciate your insight and comments and have a sneaking feeling that decafinated may be one of those boardmembers as to my knowledge they don't drink coffee, thus thier discord (not to mention attitude). In response to one of the issues raised prior which has not been answered....less children means less money for the schools.

Hi welcome to coffeetalk I am your host Coffee67. I am here to talk about a website that is like butter... butter.... It's about a bunch of people helping kids... It's so beautiful... Hold on.... I have become Feclept... Talks amongst yourselves... I will give you a topic... How did Jennifer Miller pay for her flyers... Talk amongst yourselves....

(leave the issues to those of us with brains) maybe you should take some of your own advice.

Thanks Coffee, I check out the Camarillo unified website. I noticed Kathy Long, Board of Supervisor was a big supporter - do you know how she stands on the mess now?

Also, it is my understanding that the orginal bill was written by a leglislator that doesn't even live in the county and that the bill only affects a couple of counties. I think the guy's name is Cogdill - what is his relationship to Camarillo. Why is he involved?

Dave Cogdill recognizes that there is a current crisis in California's education system. Today, California is spending over 50 billion dollars a year on an education system that is providing the following results:

Students in California rank 49th in the nation in math proficiency
80 percent of California fourth-graders are not proficient in reading
Students in California rank 35th out of the 50 states on statewide SAT scores
Classrooms in California rank 50th in the nation in size

These statistics are unacceptable. Dave Cogdill believes the California parent, taxpayer and most of all, children deserve better. Especially for the amount of money being spent on the system.
Dave Cogdill believes that because California's school system has no competition for tax dollars there is no incentive to change. Dave supports school choice programs whereby parents may choose from among public and private schools to educate their children. Dave supports the rights of parents to home-school their children without interference from government and elimination of regulations that stand in the way of charter schools.

Dave Cogdill supports returning our priorities to basic competence and the ability to reason in fundamental educational skills (phonics-based reading, writing, arithmetic). He believes there should be solid, fundamental curricula that are left to be developed by local school boards. He supports the maximum amount of parental involvement with an emphasis on keeping as much control of the education system local. Such local control leaves the responsibility of the school as close to the parents as possible. Dave supports academic achievement as the measure of a student's success, and rejects so-called "social promotion."

Dave Cogdill believes that California has an abundance of hard-working teachers. He believes they should be paid fairly and well. A teacher has an important job and plays a fundamental role in educating future generations. However, he believes their efforts are frequently impeded and unfairly controlled by union bosses who have a disproportionate influence over our children's education. Further, he believes that we need to return to a merit-based pay structure for teachers, thereby rewarding the overwhelming number of teachers who excel. Dave also believes the tenure system must be done away with immediately.

Since none of these people are here I will they defend anyone until they get back.

.

Mr. Cogdill also contributes to the Strickland and McClintock campaigns - close to $10K last year.

I agree with Mr. Cogdill's position on education as outlined by Decaf - I hope he is doing something for the state and not just for a couple of counties.

Leashes are expensive.

I did find one skeleton in Dave Cogdill's closet that I find very very very disturbing...
He's Republican.

Dave Cogdill believes the principal duty of government is to protect the public safety of its citizens and to maintain law and order so that individuals can be free. While crime has been on the decline in recent years, it still remains a significant problem throughout our state and nation.
Dave Cogdill believes that while there have been great strides made recently that have reformed the system and started putting emphasis on the crime victim, that we must work harder to make certain the victim is always made a priority in the justice system. Dave supports continued enforcement and strengthening of these reforms as vital steps to assure public safety.

Dave Cogdill supports prisoner work programs so that prisons can become self-supporting. Dave supports laws that require criminals to pay restitution to their victims. Dave also supports prison construction with a focus on security, inmate labor and education.
(I can see it now... The fighting Abramoffs vs. The Foley Fondlers)

Dave Cogdill opposes the ongoing efforts of Democrat legislators to weaken effective laws such as "Three Strikes and You're Out" and "10-20-Life" as the primary reason for the dramatic reduction in crime in California. (what happens in Washington stays in Washington).

Dave Cogdill recognizes the judiciary's critical role in the safety of all Californians. He supports the appointment of qualified judges dedicated to the separation of powers. Dave adamantly opposes the practice commonly referred to as "judicial activism" and supports judges who strictly adhere to their constitutional role. (Obviously Dave has never been to Ventura County Probate Court)

Dave Cogdill has been a leader in the fight against pornography, whether in literature, music, electronic media, or the Internet, because of its effects leading to increased prostitution, child molestation and other crimes. He vigorously endorses stiffer penalties on those who exploit children. Dave supports the forfeiture of material gains from the production and distribution of illegal pornography.
(Film at 11:00p.m. - Jeff Gannon)

Alrighty then. Nice job Coffeetalk, I can hardly contain my laughter. Here's an idea, how about we go back to topic. Wow...what a concept!! My question: anyone know what the current status of PVrecall is? Process is moving slow, Moffett is Gone and Davis is "standing" in as Sup, will we have a new board soon, and more importantly, will we have a permenante Superintendent by September (is there one even remotly willing to come on board). Anyone with "knowledge" please reply, those who are using this blog for their ranting, please butt out.

Dave's not home.

Just think of me as a big third grader.

DOJ....did you forget your Haldol today

CoffeeTalk,
Why are we impeaching these people again?

You are Republican aren't you?

Don't make me go Speakman on you. I see how it happens. Little kids all day and big kids all night. It can drive you crazy.

LOL...you finally got a genuine laugh from me. I like the "going speakman" comment. FYI...no, card carrying demo here. Now, back on topic...

I heard someone say it would be easy to get signatures for a re-call.

Sell me.

Very easy. The general feeling is that the board dupped the voters. They waited until after the election to approach school closures rather than disclose the info prior (and they knew it was comming). The unification trio: Speakman, Lerner, and Miller ran on that platform. Meanwhile, the two runnning, incumbant John Alamillo and Kim Stephenson, stuck to their guns and maintained that unification may be right in the future, but not right now and lost due to misrepresentation of the facts to the voters. Alamillo served on the board and was continually ridiculed by the others (with the exception of Kitchens) at every turn when he was the only one (again, Kitchens exception) that had the balls to tell it like it is with the interest of the children, not unifycamarillo, at heart. We lost a very important trustee. A lot, and I mean a lot of people who voted for the others are now regreting it and wanting to make a change. Now, don't make me go all "Speakman on you", come away from the dark side.

Let's take some calls!!
Hi,
This is CoffeeTalk your on the air....

I like your style. Very brash and unafraid. Very good. 8

Don't you hate when the government does things behind your back?

Yes, I do, and unfortunately that is how the goverment it. However, on a local level, especially a school board, I expect more. I expect honesty. FYI...my kids will not be affected by the closures, but I feel for the children that are. As a parent, I expect that the school board think "kids first"...our school board does not and has not for a very long time. Now that Alamillo is out...there honestly is nobody thinking of the children on that school board.

You don't have to bite my head off...

You know it's funner to pick em off one at a time.

Maybe we could have them on the blog to set the record straight. Who knows? I have seen stranger things.

Peoples lives are stretched to the breaking point. One would think someone who cares about children would give their parents notice of what the hell is going on!!

Where the school is located matters. That's completely reasonable. I think the board members and many government folks are learning a hard lesson about repeck.

I feel like Don King. Where's my jogging outfit and gold chains. I already have the hair.

You can't blog dodge and keep your title.

Only in Brian Dennert Blog!

Coffee67,
Thanks for your kind words. I just want to make it clear I have nothing to do with the recaal or nonsese going on in town. I have been laying low trying not to be the bitter ex-trustee. For the most part I am happy not to have been re-elected. It is a double edge sword as part of me would love to help guide our district through troubled times.

My concern now, as when a trustee, is for the children, parents, and staff of PVSD. To quote Mrs. Kitchens "we (the board) mucked this up". My only hope is the sitting board can find a solution without completly distroying the district my family has been a part of for over 50 years.

J Alamillo,
No problem, and thanks for the time that you did serve us. Have not heard your name linked to anything to do with the recall (other than hopes that when/if it happens, you'll be back but most realize that's probably not going to happen). I'm sure it's everyone's hope that the sitting board can "fix" this, but I think that we all know that as it stands, that is probably not going to happen....the damage is done and all that. I believe what needs to happen is the recall with hopes that those who have been part of the district for generations can repair the damage. We need people with an active interest, ie....those who actually have children within PVSD...to step up, take charge, and do damage control. Good luck to you and yours

I still don't understand the recall committee. If they are serious how come they haven't contacted me?

Google results for key word searches are leading to this blog but yet I haven't much to say.

http://www.google.com/search?q=camarillo+recall&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=5oG&q=pleasant+valley++recall+schools&btnG=Search

Brian...frustrating I know. I emailed the contact and they said that they would be contacting me shortly. Honestly, the feeling of frustration from parents as well as teachers has been pretty bad out here in lovely Camarillo. I did see that pvrecall has reserved rights for the web site, but other than that I honestly do not know exactly where it stands right now. In addition, because of all this drama, other very important issues at individual school sites have been ignored or shoved to the side while the board tries to do damage control. Hopefully, someone with more info will get in contact with you. I am a bit surprised that the Star has not had more coverage on the issues as of late.

One reason I would assume The Star has not covered it more is because there isn't enough new news. Maybe once the website goes up and I have someone e-mailing me information that will change. But it looks like the recall effort might be taking a wait and see approach.

Just another example of government officials trying to make their lives easier by turning ours into hell.

Onorinda Jones, who retired in June, 1957, was the first superintendent of PVSD. Charles Honn was appointed as her successor. In March of 1977, the school district experienced a successful Board recall election. It was the first recall attempt in the history of PVSD and one of the few successful recall elections ever held in Ventura County. The recall was the result of the Board of Trustees' efforts to force the retirement of Superintendent Charles Honn. Mrs. Betty Rutherford was the sole supporter of the superintendent and was reelected to a third term. Mr. Honn was granted a one-year contract through July of 1978. His successor, selected by the Board, was Dr. Floyd W. Davis. Dr. Davis remained with the District until June of 1987, when Mrs. Shirley Carpenter was appointed the new superintendent. She completed her doctorate within one year of her appointment. When Dr. Carpenter took a position at Masters College in 1999, she was replaced by Dr. Andre R. LaCouture. Dr. LaCouture resigned as superintendent in December 2000 and became a special consultant to the superintendent for the remainder of his contract (expiring 6/30/2001). Dr. Howard M. Hamilton was initially appointed as interim superintendent and then appointed as superintendent in January 2001. He retired on January 31, 2004 and the Board appointed Dr. Thomas R. Dase as superintendent on January 15, 2004 with a starting date of January 20, 2004.

ie:dojvxiivii

Strickland Legislation in regards to PVUSD.

Pleasant Valley School District: unification. AB 2728 Strickland
This bill would provide that only the electors of the City of Camarillo can vote on a proposition relating to the unification of schools in the City of Camarillo.

Limitations on contributions. AB 2888 Strickland
This bill makes technical, nonsubstantive changes to the law that limits contributions from small contributor committees to certain candidates for office.

Recall elections. AB 2898 Strickland
Existing law provides that recall proceedings may be commenced by the service, filing, and publication or posting of a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition. This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change.

BILL NUMBER: AB 2728 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 12, 2004

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Strickland

FEBRUARY 20, 2004

An act to add Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 47628)
to Part 26.8 of the Education Code, relating to charter schools.
An act relating to Pleasant Valley School District.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 2728, as amended, Strickland. Charter schools:
authorization Pleasant Valley School District:
unification .
Existing law prescribes the procedure to reorganize school
districts, including the filing of a petition with the county
superintendent of schools by specified persons, that includes 25% of
the registered voters residing in the territory proposed to be
reorganized or a majority of the members of the governing boards of
each district that would be affected by the proposed reorganization.

Existing law authorizes a county committee for certain petitions
to transfer territory to approve the petition, and if approved, to
notify the county superintendent of schools who is required to call
an election in the territory for the districts as determined by the
county committee.
This bill would, notwithstanding existing law pertaining to the
reorganization of school districts, provide that only the electors of
the City of Camarillo are eligible to vote on a proposition relating
to the unification of schools in the City of Camarillo in 2005. The
bill would make a declaration of special circumstances in that
regard.
The existing Charter Schools Act of 1992 permits teachers,
parents, pupils, and community members to petition the governing
board of a school district to approve a charter school to operate
independently from the existing school district structure as a method
of accomplishing, among other things, improved pupil learning.
This bill would, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
authorize the chancellor of a campus of the University of California,
the president of a campus of the California State University, or the
governing board of a community college district to approve a
petition submitted to establish a charter school within the county in
which that campus or community college district is located.
The bill would require petitioners to designate an eligible local
entity, as specified, to oversee the charter school, and would
require petitioners to specify the oversight duties of that entity.
The bill would require the authority approving the petition to make
specified determinations regarding the designated oversight entity
prior to approving the petition.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee:
yes no . State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 47628)

SECTION 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, only
electors who reside within the City of Camarillo are eligible to vote
on a proposition submitted to the voters in 2005 relating to the
unification of the Pleasant Valley School District.
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is
necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the
meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution
because of the unique circumstances applicable to the electors of the
City of Camarillo. The facts constituting the special circumstances
are these:
The Pleasant Valley School District in the City of Camarillo
consists of elementary schools. The high schools in the City of
Camarillo are governed by the Oxnard Unified High School District.
The electors of the City of Camarillo should be allowed to vote to
unify the elementary and high schools into one school district in the
City of Camarillo. is added to Part 26.8 of the
Education Code, to read:

CHAPTER 5.5. ALTERNATIVE PETITIONING PROCESS

47628. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a chancellor
of a campus of the University of California, a president of a campus
of the California State University, or the governing board of a
community college district may approve a petition submitted to
establish a charter school within the county in which that campus or
community college district is located.
47628.2. (a) A petition submitted pursuant to this chapter shall
designate an eligible local entity located within the county in which
the charter school is located to supervise and oversee the charter
school, and shall specify those oversight duties. Eligible entities
include, but are not limited to, a chief executive officer of the
University of California or California State University, a community
college district, or a public agency.
(b) Prior to approving a petition submitted pursuant to this
chapter, the approving authority shall determine that the local
entity designated pursuant to this section is willing to fulfill the
oversight duties described in the petition pursuant to subdivision
(a), and has the appropriate resources and expertise to fulfill those
duties.
47628.4. (a) A petition submitted pursuant to this chapter shall
comply with the procedures and requirements contained in Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 47605) and Chapter 3 (commencing with
Section 47610), except to the extent a particular procedure or
requirement of those chapters is inconsistent with this chapter. For
the purposes of this chapter, all references to "governing board" in
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 47605) and Chapter 3 (commencing
with Section 47610) shall mean the approving authority identified in
Section 47628, and all references to "school district" in those
chapters shall mean the county in which that approving authority is
located.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the denial of a
petition submitted to any approving authority may not be appealed.
47628.6. This chapter does not apply to a community college
district, campus of the California State University or the University
of California, unless the governing board of the district or the
Regents of the University of California adopt a resolution making it
applicable to their respective institution, or the president of a
campus of the California State University officially adopts the
applicability of this chapter.

I guess the Ventura County Star doesn't see Strickland's obsession with PVUSD as news worthy. I can't find anything on it anywhere. Typical liberal media.... hehe

I don't see any wild tigers DOJ.

But on a more serious note, why do you think the Strickland's are so obsessed with PVUSD? They have packed the board of both the PVSD and the County Board of Education. They ran interference on the creation of the Vista Real Charter School. Any theories?

PV Recall History - can you site the URL for your information? Also, are there any co-sponsors on the bills? Have they passed through both the assembly and the senate. Also, is the turnover for Superindentents high or just average?

Brian Dennert - I posted a link to your blog over on the Ken Moffett, PVSD Supertintendent retires early story. There are a lot of good thoughtful comments and it would be nice to have the posters weigh in over here.

Katie,
I did not see any co-conspirators.
I believe it says it was written in 2004.
I would say it is about average turn over not really sure.
I am afraid Tony might have to be called into the Principals office to make sure this was not some Republican Nazi Youth program.
Somebody needs to tell the boy the wars over.

Here is a educational video for your viewing enjoyment.

Other than lame attempts to be funny, jumping on the bandwagon ridiculing the PVSD board -- the easiest target since Nixon was in office -- and slapping each other on the virtual back, I have yet to read a single valid idea on fixing the financial issues at PVSD. Mr. Alamillo, who was on the board, ties everything up into some unification conspiracy theory. Yet, I haven't heard him suggest a single idea, only generalities, which unfortunately was what was wrong with his campaign. The other candidates said they believed it was time to look at Camarillo governing its own high school. They won because most people in the city agree it's time that a city of 65,000 govern its own high school. The only way we are really going to know if unification is good or a bad idea is to put it before the voters so the pro and con issues can be debated. I voted for the so-called "pro-unification" candidates because I want to see it debated on its merits not just pro-unification, anti-unification, which tells us nothing. Although I think Camarillo should govern its own high school, I am open to the debate and have plenty of questions about how and if it would succeed. Maybe if Mr. Alamillo and Stephenson had done a better job of telling the voters WHY unification is not a good idea then they would be on the board. I followed that election and I do not recall ever seeing a sound, well-thought out rebuttle to unification. All I ever read from that side was the sound-bite of "don't vote for a single-agenda board.'' So, given that Mr. Alamillo was on the board and should have intimate knowledge of the issue of paying the teachers, what would you do, Mr. Alamillo? What is your answer other than saving some one-time legal costs by bailing on getting the unification issue on the ballot? If you were still siting on that dais, would you have voted to close schools or not close schools and have to deal with a teacher's strike for years of the board paying lipservice to the teachers?

Put up-
You have a valid point. There has been alot of backslapping and ridicule. Unfortunatly most of it is deserved. The board majority has ignored the K-8 for over 8 years. The single agenda members, in my humble opinion, want the K-8 to fail to promote their percieved need for unification. I will at the end of my response post just one reason the K-12 won't work in Camarillo at this time, or potentially any time.

First of all this board knew the proper timeline for school closures. Berg, Miller and I attended a seminar at the CSBA conference in 2005 presented by a district from the Sacramento area specifically on school closures. This district closed six schools and although they will admit not everyone was happy the majority of the community was involved and informed when the time came. The recomended minimum was 18 monthes. Interesting that in Conejo the superintendent is using a 18 month timeline and has informed the staff, parents and community of what to expect during that time.

PVSD knew in 2005 we needed to start looking at school closure. At a may 2005 meeting I suggested looking at "Alternative Student Housing". Even though we knew it would be necessary because of the new school being built the rest of the majority would not touch an issue that would upset their plan. It took Dr. Moffett very little time to see what was going on.

What would I do if I were on the dios? First I would have started with a budget committee. In doing this it would either confirm there is no money or possibly find some that would limit the impact on the number of school needing to be closed.

Second I would put together a real facilities committe comprised of stakeholders. This committe would be given the latitude to look at not only facilities but current enrollment along with input from the cities growth plan while recognizing that neighborhoods are fluid. This group would be able to set its own goals that may include moving schools as blocks and keeping long standing programs whole. The commitee would be facilitated by someone outside the district while having the ability to secure all budgets and documents required to make an informed decision.

Third. Upon completion of the committee there would be a road show to the schools, service clubs and community. Members of the committee would participate ensuring that all stakeholders feel comfortable that the decision was based solely on the information and certain sites were not included for the planning of some other configuration. My question is, why is Mrs. Berg recruiting a developer for the Los Primeros site? That doesn't seem to fit with Masters in Goverance.

This would be my plan. Although it can't be done in ninty days it could be done. The community as a whole is baffled at the decision this board made. The scenerios are and always have been confusing at best and offer no real potential savings. The use of facilities is aborhant and will require many more portables that proper site selection would have avoided.

At this point it is fruitless to move forward with such a bad plan. The open school charter will remove students from the district. The demolition and re-building of Navy housing will remove 125 kids for potentially 2 years. Any percieved savings will be lost. Next year the district will be in the same situation of having to close school and juggle boundries. My guess is you will have one or more additional charters in 2007-2008. Now is the time to buckle down and find real solutions and not the band-aid approach presented.

This is the finantial picture I get when I look at the unification numbers. We keep hearing the new district will get $6M extra dollars but those in the proponant camp never 'the rest of the story. As for my defeat, I'm good with it. I served because I wanted to not because I had to for my ego or my agenda. I enjoyed my time at the dios but have many other interests, my family and my company to spend time on. This year I am president of the Camarillo Cougar Youth Football And Cheer and even though I know it will not be all puppy dogs and rainbows I love doing things that revolve around kids. The one thing I never want to be is a politition.

I will give you what info I have. I would love to hear something besides we get $6M.
We know now that that information is incorrect in the studies. The amount will be less than $6M for leveling up. We know that a 1% salary increase for the entire district is $350,000. This is info presented from district staff. If the staff get a 15% raise that would be $5.25M. There are other numbers that are missing from those studies. ACHS special ed under estimated by $1.2M. ACHS cafeteria operates at a $200,000 negative each year. There is no transportation cost included. PVSD special ed was under estimated. Couple this with leaving 4 grades at RMHS at $1.2 per level. After taking out 85% for salary and benefits the fist year you lose $720,000, year 2 $540,000, year 3 $360,000 and year 4 $180,000. Based on these numbers the first year of unification you will have expenses of $7,170,200. Even if we use the $6M number we are still $1,170,200 short. At year 5 you are still $450,000 negative. Maybe we can close schools to make up the difference. While the teachers may get a raise it will come at the expense of the children and the district.

Is the question to unify the High School and grade schools?
Is the question to unify just the grade schools?

I say keep the high school and grade school systems different. I believe there is more risk in High Schools.

Obviously families starting out can't afford to live here now. Sorry something needs to be worked out. The fact it is being handled poorly doesn't help.

Is this all about teachers unions and getting the most money?

It could be teachers unions and votes... That's always a favorite reason for people like Strickland to get involved.

Do you ever think it would be better to stick with the textbooks from the 1950's? They seemed to work better.
Why can't education as a whole look back at worked and figure it out?

John, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I remember meeting with both you and Kim prior to the elections and both of you brought up a number of issues that weren't being addressed by the current board. I was impressed with the willingness of both of you to acknowledge and tackle the issues and not just go for the "easy" sound bite vote. Unification is very appealing but it is clear that Camarillo isn't quite ready for it.

I love the location of a new high school next to the new library. Does it really matter who runs the high school at this point? Maybe there could be better communication between Oxnard High School District and the PVSD for now and the unification issue addressed later - with a new school board.

Here's a question for you - if the K-8 program is so impacted that schools have to be closed - are there enough students to justify a new high school? Also, how many potential K-8 students are going to private school or being homeschooled instead of being sent to public schools? I know my two kids always went to private and I suspect a lot of parents are thinking about pulling their kids out given the potential for school closures. Is this a concern?

Bravo Alamillo for you educated, knowledgable, and respectful reply to Put Up's questions despite the childlike way he/she came across. Too bad the current board, which I understand has two accountants on it, was unable to do their math.

Dear PutUp:

You said,'Maybe if Mr. Alamillo and Stephenson had done a better job of telling the voters WHY unification is not a good idea then they would be on the board. I followed that election and I do not recall ever seeing a sound, well-thought out rebuttle to unification. All I ever read from that side was the sound-bite of "don't vote for a single-agenda board.'"

First, I find it fascinating that so many people like yourself bought into the Alamillo & Stephenson are against unification campaign. The 3 "Unify Now!" candidates (who by the way have now asked the state board not to unify now...but instead to postpone the scheduled July state hearing because they know they're in trouble and are hoping the tides will turn) must have done a much more effective job of painting us that way than we were able to counter it.

John and I respect each other and sure would govern differently than the current board majority, but we did not run as a slate and have different points of views on many issues. That was readily apparent to people who heard us discuss issues together (a few people hosted gatherings where we were both invited). Imagine a board where diverse views based on facts, not emotions or political agendas, were openly respected, considered, and used to come up with the best solution for all. I was hoping to bring some balance to the board so that we could have this, instead of a single agenda board majority rule. John and I could have helped swing the board in that direction.

I'll copy here the exact text from ONE OF TWO FULL PAGE ADS I HAD PUBLISHED IN THE ACORN IN OCT/NOV BEFORE THE ELECTION. I think it still outlines my view on unification well. Also, did you watch the candidate forum? I outlined some thoughts on unification there as well. I have a video copy if you'd like to borrow it. It's actually even more interesting now than it was then, given the turn of events. Did you contact me? My phone number and email address were readily available, and plenty of other people used them. I'm interested in your response.

Dear Pleasant Valley School District Voters,

I stepped into the Pleasant Valley School Board race after a year of fielding requests from people on both sides of the unification issue to do so. All urged me with the same message, “We need you. You’re an independent thinker who will do the research to make your own decisions, not do what others tell you to do. I trust your judgment.�

I started watching our school board meetings more closely, addressing the board when I felt I had something valuable to contribute. The more I observed and participated, the more I realized this board had lost its focus on educating our K-8 kids. I became frustrated with how poorly they were representing me as a parent, a Camarillo citizen since 1976, a PVSD/OUHSD alumnus, a community volunteer, and an educator who has dedicated my life and every day to educating our youth. I stepped up to the plate on August 11 and have run a steady race ever since.

I would handle my role as board member as I have handled my role as candidate: based in fiscal responsibility - I have earned the support of hundreds of people willing to contribute and haven’t gone over that budget (financial statements are available at the County Elections Division; endorsements at www.VoteKim.org); hard, steady work - a little bit every day, so that I’m not scrambling to make up for lost time; availability, open communication, and bridge-building; and a focus on the complexity and multitude of educational issues based on facts, not emotions.

Unlike some of my opponents, I do not think district reorganization is the biggest issue in our current PV School Board race, and I’ve tried not to get sucked into the unification vacuum during this campaign for that reason. Much of what you’ve heard about my position on unification has come from inferences made by others, not me. Now that we’re near the end, I’d like to share my thoughts on unification publicly once and for all.

Unification should not be the most important issue in our race.
The PVSD board is elected to govern our K-8 program. The County Committee on School District Organization (or State Board of Education) will decide whether or not to put unification to a vote, not the PVSD board. If we as a community are allowed by the County to vote, a new K-12 CUSD board will be elected at the same time to govern the new district should voters approve the proposal. I believe Camarillo Unified, the Political Action Committee of citizens formed to move unification forward, should be handling and funding advocacy for this cause, not the PVSD board. Why? So that the PVSD board can focus on the K-8 schools it was elected to govern. This is where our current board has failed. A majority of PVSD board members are also involved with Camarillo Unified. Commingling the two interests has cost our K-8 program money, personnel, and programs. Those three board members have allowed unification to dominate our PVSD Board agenda and actions. The consequences are evident: We have another short-term superintendent, hundreds of temporarily housed students throughout the district, test scores below schools with similar demographics, neglected programs, low teachers’ salaries, a dysfunctional board, adverse relations among the district, board, and personnel, and a divided community. Is who governs ACHS and Frontier really more important than any of these things? I don’t think so. And perhaps more relevant to this election: Does the PVSD board have any real control over putting unification to a vote? No.

If you still think this race should be about unification, consider the following:

The three candidates running on a “Unify now!� platform have been involved in the unification effort for a long time. Take a look at what they’ve accomplished:
a) Eight years and over $300K spent by PVSD for unification.
b) According to the County study on unification, at least three, possibly five, of the nine legal criteria for district reorganization still have not been met. The three “unmet� criteria involve promotion of ethnic segregation, disruption to educational programs, and substantial negative impact on the fiscal status of the districts. The report states that we would only be able to increase salaries and benefits “in a limited manner but with the risk of financial instability.� Two additional “potentially unmet� criteria involve an inequitable division of properties and facilities (which would nearly double PVSD’s negative fund balance to almost $17M), and a significant increase in school housing costs (we would be short space for 579 students). These are not minor matters. In fact, a Northern California school district was recently denied reorganization by the State based on just two of these criteria.
c) Our County has been required to spend its time as well as over $100K on studies and legal fees under the process set forth in AB 780, a pilot program initiated by unification proponents. AB 780 was supposed to streamline the unification approval process by controlling it locally. Has it saved us time? No. Whether or not the County approves this issue for voting, constituents from both sides have said they will appeal a decision not in their favor. At that point it falls right back into the State’s hands. AB 780 has cost us local time and money and gotten us nowhere. There is no end in sight at this point.

Proponents of unification should be advocating as individuals or as members of Camarillo Unified. In practical terms, being pro-unification is an empty, meaningless credential for a K-8 board member.

After reading the County study, I have questions about unification. That doesn’t make me against putting it to a vote or against the issue itself. I’m more interested in solving problems than fighting ideological battles.

As a member of the PVSD board, I would have little control over the unification outcome; however, as a parent, educator, and taxpayer, I do have personal concerns that I would consider if facing the issue on a ballot:

I wonder where my daughters, now ages one and nine, will go to high school if unification passes. According to several people present during the Conejo Valley reorganization, there will be at least a 7-year, messy transition period. I have little hope that the reorganization process will be settled into a functional program in time for either of my daughters.

With declining enrollment in PV and three projected vacant facilities if unification passes (Valle Lindo, Los Altos, and Frontier, add El Rancho if UPS starts building near CSUCI), I doubt we will get the new high school many people are hoping for if we unify. In fact, according to the former PVSD superintendent shortly before his departure, Los Altos was the location of choice for a satellite program of ACHS to house excess Camarillo high school students. Note that selling ACHS to build a new school on a new site isn’t possible: The quitclaim deed for the land upon which ACHS is built states that it must be used for educational purposes or be returned to the family trust. Note also that OUHSD has committed to building one high school in Camarillo and another in Oxnard. OUHSD currently has increasing enrollment (in fact, ACHS is up 80 students this year), 77 acres near the new Camarillo library, bond money, architectural renderings, and is having a difficult time finding 55 safe acres for a school in Oxnard due to the LNG pipeline, power lines, and airport. If you want to play the “you can’t trust Oxnard, they’ll never build here� card, fine, but I’m more interested in action than assumptions. That’s why I’ve proposed a milestone-based agreement to give OUHSD the opportunity to create a win-win situation. If that interests you, consider electing board members who haven’t played emotional, vilifying politics and who can work productively with OUHSD.
I hope you will consider all of the strengths each candidate brings to the board when making your decision on Election Day.
If you have thoughts to share about this issue or any other, please feel free to send them my way. I very much appreciate discussion and active citizenship, whether we agree on specific issues or not. No matter what happens on Tuesday, I’m grateful for all I’ve learned and all of the people I’ve met along the way.

Sincerely,

Kim Marra Stephenson

Kim, I'm one who did contact you and was proud to put your campaign signs up next to John's (despite having to replace them three times when they were stolen). The idea of having a diverse board with mutual respect was one of the reason's I voted for "3 and 5", as well as the integrity of your campaigns. Not one time did I recieve negative mailers from either of you, while 1,2 and 4 sent numerous "dirty" campaign flyers. Thank you for adding your insight into this matter.

Dear PutUp, Part 2:

At the candidate forum, I clearly set open democratic governance and respect for process as the number one priority for PVSD. I had seen corruption and could smell that there was even much more based on my experiences in several other school districts, but it was about 2 months too early for people to hear that message and connect to it. That same message now would be heard and understood loud and clear on a very personal level.

I also said several times that we need to open up the books and do a line-by-line budget analysis in order to find money for programs, salaries, and benefits and to make sure that our budget matches our district priorities. Jennifer Miller, who followed me in the discussions, kept rebutting me by saying that they do an audit every year. They do, but that is simply a check by an outside agency to make sure that i's are dotted and t's are crossed, that no laws are being broken. That is very different than what I was proposing.

Let me tell you how open the books were during the campaign...In August, shortly before or after I decided to run, I met with the former superintendent to introduce myself as a (potential/current) board candidate and find out a bit about the district vision and the challenges and support systems he found for that vision in PVSD. I asked ONE budget question after much "vision discussion" and was told very abruptly, "You can ask questions until you're blue in the face, but you're just getting in the way of progress." After that meeting, I decided to ask the financial director budget questions directly. I sent her an email and was told in an email response that she couldn't correspond with board candidates without consulting with the superintendent first. He was on vacation (shopping for a new job), so she would respond to my question when he returned. He returned and hosted a board candidate orientation. He looked right at me and said that the district office would not produce "special reports" (i.e., answer budget questions) for candidates, but that if the reports already existed they'd share them. I can share with you the level of detail in the budget reports that that they shared with me, or you can see them for yourself on the PVSD website. No line-by-line expenditures - just clumps into categories. Unification no where to be found (lumped into legal expenses I believe).

Only now, AFTER the election and AFTER the entire community has been stirred up and askinig for it are they forming a finance committee to start analyzing the budget. Willingly or a forced hand? I'm not sure.

DOJ-
The idea is to change from a K-8 to a K-12 district. Your statement of keeoing the elementary and high schools seperate is valid. In many districts the infighting between the two teaching groups detracts fron the process of education. When times get tough the elementary is the first to experiance program cuts. With HS the last stop before advanced education your ultimate priority needs to be sending those kids out prepared. A district administrator once told me he/she liked that our focus was on elementary and middle schools without the high school pressure holding the young ones back.

Katie-
Thank for the kind words.
As stated with PVSD declining there was an increase at ACHS and RMHS. I have felt that as housing prices climb we will be a community of families buying their 3rd or 4th home. These home will have children that are typically older. While I don't have any science to back it up I will continue to follow if my feeling.

Right now there are 2358 students at ACHS. There are approx. 800 at RMHS and less than 100 in the IB program at NPHS. There are other Camarillo kids at Moorpark, private and other OUHSD schools.Between ACHS and RMHS there are 3158. The new Camarillo school, when the Camarillo Educational Desighn Committee met, would be built to accomodate 1800. The plan was to have ACHS be 1800 additionally. The new school would be phased in from 2009 to 2013. The hope was by then there would be the butts for the seats.

Just another tidbid regarding
the differance between OUHSD buiding a school or Camarillo:

Using the same %'s as Pacifica the OUHSD's matching funds and Oxnards contribution would total $85M leaving a effective balance of $15M to Camarillo for the proposed $100M high school. By PVSD staffs own calculations Camarillo qualifies for $15M in matching funds leaving the community with $85M in long term debt. My preference would be letting OUHSD build the school and saving the debt for modernizing our ageing sites.

I have never seen the alleged negative mailers but feel free to e-mail them in as a jpeg if you want me to post them.

1) In light of recent events, add a couple more vacant sites to the last section of my ad (above).

2) If you have stripped programs to the bone and can't afford to pay your employees a competitive wage, your books may balance, but you do not have a healthy budget. Anyone else tired of hearing Berg and Miller say that they do?

3) Why is Berg so concerned about having to vote on the CAPE charter based on legal criteria, when she completely and openly disregarded and dismissed the 3-5 of 9 unmet legal criteria for unification?

4) Moffett, past superintendent of both K-12 and K-8 districts, stated at a 7-11 committee meeting that for the first couple of years of unification, there may be extra cash coming in, but that after that the high school programs would suck the elementary programs dry. Ours are already bone dry.

5) There are strong K-8 districts and there are strong K-12 districts (I've worked in 4). There are relatively well-paying K-8 districts and relatively well-paying K-12 districts. The key is strong leadership for each of the key players in the district - board, administration, classified and certificated staff, parents/students. Each group represents and advocates for its constituents. Together they come up with solutions that meet all needs. The checks and balances system critical to democracy has been corrupted in PV's case. This district is dysfunctional as a K-8, and it will be dysfunctional as a K-12, until the leadership of each group is beefed up and stops allowing a corrupt, single agenda board majority to manipulate and control them.

Put up-
When I left the board I asked that they continue to look at PVSD's step and column. Compared to pther districts it has a funny shape. Also at my last meeting I volunteerd for the 7-11 committee. Mrs. Berg thought it would be a good idea to have me on it,at that meeting. She then proceeded to fill it with her minions.

Pick your initials out of these choices and don't be afraid to respond:
RL, RS- my guess is RS.

How is it Unification expenses aren't a separate line item? I'm sure it totals $100,000's - surely the PVSD district is keeping track of associated expenses and advising parents and teachers of how much has been spent.

My guess is RS. Katie....it is now at $600,000 for legal fees. The board majority has continually had an open check book policy for Unification at the peril of the student's it currently serves (or gives the illusion of serving). Many school sites have sufferred as the district has been unable to provide much needed supplies. Example, a new social studies program began which had DVD's that needed to be used. The district ignored this and it was left up to parent groups, individual parents, and teachers to provide DVD's. This is just one example where all the misspent money could have helped those that they suppossadly serve.

Coffee67 - that's crazy! $600K for legal fees? I'm sure the money being spent on trips to Sacramento, district time, etc. What about the raises for teachers? Supplies for students?

Yep, it really is mindboggling isn't it. Their reckless spending has gone on long enough. Let me fill you in on a couple of things that I have been made aware of. Within the past four years, the parent groups of two schools, one being Las Posas which is a title1 school, the other being Cam Heights, raised all the money to provide the students with state of the art computer labs. To my knowledge, Las Posas parents put an additional 19k to hire a teacher to help get the teachers up-to-speed so that they would have the capabilities to teach computers to their students. In this day and age, computer knowledge is a must and will be even more important as the years go by. Cam Heights parents, and I am not one, had every right to fight for the school that they have had a huge part in providing for. To top that off, the school district made sure that when building those labs, the computers had to be purchased through them....stating that it was for security and uniform purposes. This despite the abilities of parents to secure much lower prices for the same products. I feel for the teachers, they do deserve raises. As far as supplies for the teachers? For small supplies they have either had to use their own money or resort to "asking" parents to donate: kleenex, glue stick, markers, pencils, and the list goes on.

Brian, sorry but I used up all those dirty campaign flyers to line my cat box. If anyone else saved them, I hope they make it your way.

I'll try not to be so child-like, although I'm not sure what coffee67 is referring to, but that's probably an aspect of being child-like. Maybe he/she just had one shot of espresso too many. First, I want to thank John and Kim for their responses. This is exactly the type of information I wanted to see. I would say that if the election were being run today, the issue would not be unification but financial mismanagement. I do believe that it would be better for Camarillo to have the high schools as part of its district on a philisophical basis. As for a financial one, that may be debatable and I would like to see more on that. I also don't think the $300k spent on investigating unification was badly spent nor the time. Unification is something I believe a strong majority of citizens want, again, on a philosophical level. I don't think the general citizen was looking at unification as a financial savior for the district, I know I've never considered that an important issue. I think the bottom line is that a majority of citizens want to be able to govern their own high schools instead of being part of a very large district run in a separate city nearly three times our size. I don't think anyone can say that we get the attention we should or $1 for $1 returned to the community. The fact is, we do pay for a lot of services and needs of Oxnard that we would not otherwise have to. I certainly don't oppose arguments against unification for any reason, but I don't agree that citizens of the community should be suing and costing the district money to keep the unification question off the ballot. Yes, the current board is largely pro-unification, but I think that reflects what the citizenry want. But if it's shown, and you have made many valid financial points, that this is not feasible, then I would certainly not vote for it. I read the entire unification document and based on the information that has come forth during school closures, it is at best a flawed document, especialy in regards to student populations. I also won't get sucked into the , if they can't run a K-8, how can they run a K-12 argument regarding the board. The board members are transitory, the schools would be here to stay for a long, long time. If these are not the right people to have on the board, then we need to put people on the board that are right. As for teacher and staff salaries, people can argue how PVSD got here, but the fact is, we are here. So, given that and only looking forward, I'd still like to hear from this blog is possible solutions. The one thing that has not been focused on is that these school closures will give the teachers and staff a 1.5% raise, given the $350,000 annually it takes for a 1% raise. It will not be long before our teachers start sliding down the rankings again. That still leaves PVSD with underpaid teachers and little hope of increased revenues. Do I think some monies could be found by gleaning the books? Probably. Some. But not nearly enough. Instead, I think the citizens of Camarillo have a hard choice ahead. Port Hueneme has a similar number of students in its elementary district as PVSD. How do they pay their teachers $7,000 more a year? Partly because they are eligible for government grants but also because they run half as many schools for the same number of students. As a Camarillo parent, do I want to see us keep our small neighborhood schools? You bet. Am I willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay a reasonable parcel tax as they do in the Las Virgenes and Beverly Hills districts, among others? You bet. Regardless of unification, we can rail all we want on the board, but it appears that $5,289 ada per student in a time of declinging enrollment is not nearly enough to fund the idea of small neighborhood schools. We need to come up with solid ideas on how to fund the type of educational system we want. That was basically my challenge to this blog, we've beat the past like the preverbial dead horse. Let's spend some energy on coming up with ideas, a parcel tax being just one, on how to get PVSD to be the district we say we want. Also, I threw on the PutUpOrShutUp moniker to try to get everyone's attention, which worked pretty well. And I would also say, I immediately recycle all campaign mailers without looking at them. I also think the print media did a terrible job of covering the school board issues during the election. Unfortunately, it's a by-product of when our local daily newspapers were pruchased and shut down by Scripps Howard more than a decade ago. The Acorn is fine for the police blotter, letters to the editor and such, but it does not have the ability to do analytical or investigative journalism. Thanks again for the info and I look forward to reading some thoughts on the future in this blog. Besides, there's not much left of that horse anyway (sorry if that's a bit child-like, I couldn't help myself).

I agree. This story. The Ventura County Conservator/Probate department crimes have not been reported timely. How many people have suffered because our only lifeline when the government break laws was asleep at the wheel?

Many of the crimes you see Repuplicans committing could be prevented if the District Attorneys office or the Star had their hearts in the right place instead of their wallet.

Put up-
The major flaw in your thinking was that the election was about unification. Those in favor of unifing made that the issue. It is clear from Kim's statement, and the four years of me saying we needed to focus on the K-8, that there were candidates that recognized the importance of fiscal and educational growth in the PVSD.

If PVSD would have let the original petition move through the state we would have spent a total of $29,000 to date on lawyers. It was the inception and deception of AB 780 that racked up $300,000 in fees with the board approving another $100,000 this year. Some blogger said these were one time expenses. I beg to differ they amount to an anual average expenditure of $100,000 per year for the last five years. One third of closing a school.

Teachers salaries are low when looked at on a chart. The differance from where they are now to the middle of the middle third is around $800 per year. A teacher friend of mine came over and I asked if she had her picket sign. Her response was "I make a pretty darn good living". I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to increase their income just that the reality of PVSD ever being the highest paying district in the land is absurd. Hueneme and both Oxnards receive the additional dollars you mentioned as well as a $600 bump for federal emplyee dependents. This dependent money will also factor in to the closeing of navy housing.

Our real downfall is benefits. For years the union leadership has been more interested in step and column than benefits. Now the gap between districts is larger in that area than salary.

To be fair, I am not on the board any longer. When I was if it came from my mouth it was dismissed just because it came from me. I brought up school closures over two years ago. I wanted to look at step and column and I wanted to for go raises to buy down benefits. This problem can not be eliminated but with toughtful, intelligent data driven science it can be mitigated.

What kind of money do board members recieve payment for their services? Also, who foots the bill on trips to Sacramento. I am assuming the district pays, but do they try to "cut corners", say like a motel 6 and McDonalds or a 5 star hotel and filet mingion? Do they get reimbursed for gas? Milage? Is the reimbursement fair or abused? Does anybody know?

For some reason this is the scariest room for me. I think it is because of the "protection of young" instict of parents.
These are issues where the brain must take over the job of the muscles to accomplish a life's need. Very fun to watch...

Shhhhh........ Suburbanites in their native habitat...

DOJ - you are too funny sometimes!

I've been following this discussion for several days with great interest. Many of the posts have confirmed my concerns with the school board and district management staff. I hate to move off topic for just a moment, but as an urban planner for 27 years and a past resident of the Old Town neighborhood, I also have concerns with what impacts the closing of the Los Primeros campus will have upon the character of Old Town.

Mr. Alamillo, in your post of 5:26 PM on 5/14 you asked "why is Mrs. Berg recruiting a developer for the Los Primeros site?" Could you please provide more details of Mrs. Berg's recruiting efforts? Mrs. Berg has stated at meetings that she is an advocate for "smart growth" but I doubt by her actions she has a clear understanding of the principles of this concept. I will be contacting the City Council regarding concerns of potential impacts to the Old Town neighborhood and this information would be helpful.

Thank you.

Dear Dennert Bloggers:

Does closing 3 campuses for a 1.5% raise make sense? I am wondering if there is a group in Camarillo who is looking into a parcel tax. Unification or not, 1.5% raise or not, it seems that the underlying issue is the adequacy of school funding.

While it is true that in the past Camarillo was putting more money into schools in Oxnard, but now, that is not the case. As Kim has pointed out, school districts can work or not work regardless of configuration. Some take more work and make better sense, but, if the stakeholders are willing, it can work.

In this case, the questions seem pretty basic: What makes sense? What is Camarillo residents willing to invest in their local schools? Why does OUHSD want to maintain its
current structure? Is there any way to mitigate the concerns OUHSD has about unification?

These basic questions get lost because so many on BOTH sides of the unification issue have worked against each other and have developed camps that it is hard to get to the core of the issues.

In the election that saw Mr. Valenzano elected, the pro-unification had their candidate and the anit-unification had theirs, and there was another who was not from either camp. This back and forth has been going on for years.

Neither "side," indeed, in my view, noone, I include myself, really should be so self-satisfied to think that their side has been more righteous than the other. It seems that that attitude is what is getting in the way of moving forward. It's the blame game, isn't it? Is that really going to help move toward a reasonable solution?

What is the solution to funding Camarillo schools adequately?

On the transparency issue, the Governor's budget includes money to help schools prsent budgets that is more transparent. Transparency is a systematic problem, not exclusive to PVSD.

If Dennert Bloggers want a better explanation on that, I would be happy to explain to the extent that I fully understand it.

If any one wants a copy of the California School Board Association's analysis of the Governor's Budget from our prospective, I will forward it to Brian via e-mail.

J Shepherd-
The information I got about her actions was all that could be given. There are some i Camarillo that still understand the Brown Act.

ML-
You are wrong in your two camp theory. There is only one camp and that is the proponants. The other candidates have been for running a K-8. Electing single issue single agenda candidates is like having a fire department that only put out car fires. While your house is burning they are protecting the vehicles. The proponants have never given the whole story or any preliminary plans as to how a hs would be implemented structurally or by program. Their plan, as far as I can tell, is to repeat half truths and all out lies enough times that those too lazy to do research will swallow the bait.

Your inferance that Camarillo spends more for Oxnard school is also incorrect. It is a simple task to get the spending at ACHS and percentage of RMHS. When you break this out with developer fees you get a clear picture that it's fiscally beneficial for us to be part of OUHSD.

If you have been following unification from the begining you would recall that OUHSD was nuetral as long as the whole district voted and the petition was heard at the SBE. Only after AB 780 and it's attempts to circumvate those two requests did OUHSD change to oppose. I will repeatwhat I told the board in March of 2005 "AB 780 will not speed up the process and may, in fact slow it down". It cost $400,000 for my words to ring true.

J Shepherd-
The information I got about her actions was all that could be given. There are some i Camarillo that still understand the Brown Act.

ML-
You are wrong in your two camp theory. There is only one camp and that is the proponants. The other candidates have been for running a K-8. Electing single issue single agenda candidates is like having a fire department that only put out car fires. While your house is burning they are protecting the vehicles. The proponants have never given the whole story or any preliminary plans as to how a hs would be implemented structurally or by program. Their plan, as far as I can tell, is to repeat half truths and all out lies enough times that those too lazy to do research will swallow the bait.

Your inferance that Camarillo spends more for Oxnard school is also incorrect. It is a simple task to get the spending at ACHS and percentage of RMHS. When you break this out with developer fees you get a clear picture that it's fiscally beneficial for us to be part of OUHSD.

If you have been following unification from the begining you would recall that OUHSD was nuetral as long as the whole district voted and the petition was heard at the SBE. Only after AB 780 and it's attempts to circumvate those two requests did OUHSD change to oppose. I will repeatwhat I told the board in March of 2005 "AB 780 will not speed up the process and may, in fact slow it down". It cost $400,000 for my words to ring true.

John:

First, please re-read what I wrote regarding the funding between Camarillo and Oxnard.
I think the preception of Camarillo contributing more to Oxnard is outdated. Development in Oxnard in the last 5 - 10 years and the funding of special educaiton has placed Oxnard in the position of contributing more to Cam High and the possibility of the second high school, than Camarillo is contributing to OUHSD.

I see the discord a bit differently. I agree the numbers are debatable. But I think the numbers are always in flux. That is one of the major problems with school financing in California. I am not convinced that all the proponents are out there intentionally distorting the numbers. There are reasonable people on both sides of the issue.

What numbers would you have to see to be willing to allow the vote on unification to go forward?

What do you think would have to happen for the proponents of unification to work to have OUHSD a school district they can embrace and be committed to?

On the "two" camps: OK, I am wrong. There is only "one" camp. What can those who are not in "their" camp, besides blame as loudly as possible that they are the source of all the problems of PVSD, do to help the situation?

OK, they didn't plan appropriately for the closure of the three schools. I am wondering
what other scenarios besides the closing of these 3 schools could have been explored?

As you have stated, it was known by you for a long time. What were the possibilities
that went through your head? With those you discussed these issues? I am wondering if you created a community committee and explored the issues and had recommendations and alternatives to present during the most recent process?
If so, were they considered? If not, can they be presented again to the board with
broader community support?

If the unification issue comes to our Board, I think it will be important for us to work hard to heal this rift so that whatever the outcome -- with or without a vote of the electorate -- both the Oxnard and Camarilo communities will support their public schools wholeheartedly.

ML...it would benefit your argument if you were to research a bit more prior to bombarding Mr. Alamillo with all of your questiions. While he is very knowledgeable, experienced, and had a front row seat, I'm sure he is a very busy man. Mr. Alamillo tried, repeatedly, to open mature dialog on all the issues you presented, only to be ignored and ridiculed by the majority of the board. If you want to know the other "scenarios" visit the PVSD website, got to 7-11 committee and read the minutes....it's all there in plain English. I would also advise that you present your questions to the PVSD school board and see how they respond (if they choose to respond)to your inquires...you can email them via the pvsd web site.

Put Up,

I think you answered your own question here in jeopardy fashion, answer before question: “If these are not the right people to have on the board, then we need to put people on the board that are right. As for teacher and staff salaries, people can argue how PVSD got here, but the fact is, we are here. So, given that and only looking forward, I'd still like to hear from this blog is possible solutions.�

Recall.

At Thursday night’s board meeting, I watched the board slip right back into old habits after the CAPE parents left, patting themselves on the back and spewing how rosy things are in Pleasant Valley. The words “pride� and “democracy at its best� were actually used to describe the school closure process! They haven’t learned how to govern in 8 years. I don’t anticipate much learning moving forward.

Recall.

You mentioned putting your money where your mouth is as a possible solution, perhaps as a parcel tax. I don’t see the community backing anything like that as long as this board is in place. We need a competent, credible board, who can hire a competent, credible superintendent, who can manage a competent, credible district administration.

Recall.

This is not sour grapes on my part. I believe in process and in my mind, this is the most efficient first step in the process toward healing this district, restoring democracy and excellence in Pleasant Valley.

Once we have such a board in place, the district will be a more inviting place for a superintendent search. Simultaneously, we should begin hefty financial analyses, then hefty personnel, facility, and program analyses. We also enlist someone who specializes in funding opportunities – someone who can think outside the box, who is also familiar with state/federal/granting opportunities – to educate us on opportunities for which we are eligible. Then we can made educated long-term decisions be they school closures, parcel taxes, bonds, grants, or other less-obvious solutions.

“Putting your money where your mouth is� may mean that qualified members of the community volunteer to do some of these analyses, instead of just opening up their pocketbooks and handing the responsibility of spending the cash over to an incompetent, not-credible district leadership.

Recall.

I have contacted PVRecall. They have asked me to be supportive but to stay clear of their campaign for fear that “sour grapes� may be a liability. I agree and I will, but I sure hope they succeed!

Will I run for the board again? I don’t know. It would depend on how supportive the community and my family is. I’m not willing to put my family at risk, and if there are others out there with priorities and skills that match the needs of the community better, then they’re the ones for the job. This isn’t about me. It’s about democracy and public education.

You going to reveal yourself?

You might be putting your family at risk by not running.

Kim: I for one hope that you will run again as well as Mr. Alamillo. Both of you are sure to have a large support within the community, but, as always, family must be your first priority. Both you and John ran fantastic campaigns in November and took the defeat with grace. Either way, I wish the best for both of you.

DOJ: Be more specific in your comments please. While at times you can be very funny....other comments tend to come across as threatening, at least in my opinion.

For some reason I think Mrs. Stephenson thinks I'm defending the board. I certainly am not. I do think there needs to be new people on the board because all but Mrs. Lerner have been members for at least two terms and therefore, should get the lion share of blame (since that seems to be what most of this is about)for the situation the PVSD is in. Mr. Alamillo says the flaw in my thinking is that the election was about unification. To many, many people it was and I wanted board members who would at least work toward having unification voted on by the people of Camarillo. Although I may respect Mr. Alamillo and Mrs. Stephenson opinion that unification may not make financial sense, I wasn't prepared to accept what they said as 100 percent viable. Of course, you'll say that I did that with the "pro-unification" candidates. But this is not true because, as I stated earlier, I have not made up my mind on unification. The only pro-unification stance for me is that I'm pro-that unification should be on the ballot as a majority of Camarillians want so that Camarillians can then decide based on the facts at that particular time whether unification makes financial sense. I believe even opponents thinks it makes philisophical sense. Regarding the one-issue board mantra, I never bought into that and I won't because this board, as flawed as it is and as badly as several of its members need to be replaced, is not focussing only on unification. That's just pure simplification. This issue with teachers' salaries being woeful didn't just crop up. The situation is this bad because nothing was done for many years. And some of those years were when Mr. Alamillo was on the board. I didn't have a child in the district at that time, so I don't know for sure if Mr. Alamillo was sounding the alarm or not regarding the problems we have regarding salaries and the hard fact that we can't support a small, neighborhood school program based on the meager state funding school districts receive. Camarillo can't have its cake and eat it to, unless it wants to pay for some of the ingredients. I think we're kidding ourselves if a review of the books will yield anything more than a few dollars (relatively speaking). The math isn't that difficult. If you take the number of kids in the district, multiply it by the ADA, subtract 85% for teacher/staff salaries it just doesn't leave enough. I think Mr. Alamillo's statement that $100,000 expense (thanks mostly to OUHSD and some Camarillo citizens suing) is recurring is only a half truth. When or if unification is decided or the legal challenges end, this cost will end. The money spent, which I said before is being spent by the will of the voters whether you agree with them or not, would not make any significant dent in teacher salaries, which equate to $350,000 each and EVERY year FOREVER for a 1% raise. Also, I don't recall anyone saying that PVSD salaries should be at the top of the scale. But certainly, given Camarillo's status as a semi-affluent community, they should be in the middle. We at least agree on the benefits issue. Unification and its 100K cost a year until it's is resolved is really a separate issue. The main issue is how can Camarillo retain its small neighborhood schools and get the teachers' salaries to a high enough level to ensure that PVSD can hire the best and brightest in the future and this is no reflection on our current teachers and staff, who are largely great educators. This is about the future as it's become more and more difficult for PVSD to hire more experienced teachers and best coming out of school. I'm sorry, I just see two separate issues here. One is unification, which has been on hold and will continue to be on hold until the court issues are resolved. The other is the current K-8 situation, which is vastly more important and something I'm sure we can ALL agree.

Before I'm labled a PVSD "board lover," I wanted to note that I agree with Mrs. Stephenson that the community would not go for a parcel tax given the current board. I guess another thing we can all agree on is that the majority of this board has lost any credibility it had with the public and I'm sure there would be an overwhelming vote of no-confidence.

Before I'm labled a PVSD "board lover," I wanted to note that I agree with Mrs. Stephenson that the community would not go for a parcel tax given the current board. I guess another thing we can all agree on is that the majority of this board has lost any credibility it had with the public and I'm sure there would be an overwhelming vote of no-confidence.

PutUp-
While I will agree salaries have been an issue for many years. After sitting on the board I can say for certain the single issue mantra of the board majority hindered any chance for making even small steps toward rectifying the problem. When issues cropped up they were always weighed to their impact to unification. Some of this was blatant in closed session. All that can be said is certain personnel issues were based on the timing of the county committee. My opinion is that had we made some changes or moved away from one single agenda we may have been able to make strides toward becoming a more fiscally sound well administrated district. When you thought you were voting for people to further unification you clearly did not realize that the boards responsibility was the guiding of the district at hand.

The $100K did not need to be spent. These only represent the legal fees since the inception/deception of AB 780. Our original petition was sitting in Sacramento waiting to be heard when AB 780 passed. PVSD spent a total of $29,000 for the original. Oxnard was a neutral and only changed to negative after AB 780 was at the county. One of Oxnards only requests was the petition be heard at the state level. Local control only means local politics. The proponents are not shy about contacting people and putting their spin on half truths and lies.

At all levels of government there are proposals that never see the face side of a ballot. Many seasoned politicians will retract legislation due to unforeseen problems with the bill. Unification is such an item. At this point it is a liability going forward , I think even the proponents know this. Theirs is not so much about education as it is about ego. When you have something that is not prudent the worst thing you can do is give people the chance to do something that will harm them. We don't let babies play with knives and the Corvair is no longer on the market (we could also use the '72 Pinto, on fair rearender and it goes up in flames). I urge you to research Scotts Valley Unified. Their community is similar to ours and they unified in the last 10 years. You will find that Dr. Andy La Couture had just unified Scotts Valley and his next position was with PVSD. Seach the Star site as they had an article about 60 days ago.

John, It is my understanding that the Unification issue was to be heard sometime in July in Sacramento and that the PVSD requested that it be pulled from the agenda. Is this true and do you know why it might have been pulled? It seems odd that the unification issue would be delayed by PVSD when it has been such a big deal for the last several years.

Hi Katie,
I'm not sure why the issue was pulled from the agenda. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the state of the district is the reason. Even seasoned unification proponents concur that currently, unification is a "dead" issue and will remain so until there is more stability and credibility in the district. But again, thats just my two cents - don't know anything for sure.

pinsakceo - any clue on how the County Board of Education meeting went last night? Surely, they support the establishment of the CAPE charter school. Afterall, the board overruled all district objections when they established Vista Real - which is a marginal school at best. Several of the board members have gone on record that they support the development of charter schools - I can't imagine it would anything less than a slam dunk for CAPE.

ML has been posting on this thread. Hopefully, she will let us know how it went last night.

It would be great to know how things went last night. Public comment didn't happen until 10:45 pm and I had to scoot home immediatelya fter. If ML does do any posting, I'd be interested in her comments. I don't know if this was something they could discuss last night as it wasn't on the agenda...

Coffee67,
I am not here to threaten anyone. The fact I am here trying to work through problems is evidence of that. I appreciate being allowed to witness your efforts in tackling this difficult issue.
You are a role model for me.

My comments in regards to John and Kim were meant to be ones of encouragement. I apologize for any confusion. It is my opinion that over time people like John and Kim will be the deciding factor if the schools in the area are successful. They have to make up for all the other parents that are too busy or are only part-time parents. Whether it is a wealthy community or a poor one; for many children school is their only chance for stablility and comfort. I believe John and Kim are a driving force in this area.
Sorry for the confusion.

Please read the article on page B3 in the Star today titled, "Appeals for school transfers denied".....is this our future? Pretty scary.

Also read the letter on page B11 titled "Children not being served"...is this the way LPSS wants to be represented by the District. Maybe the school will move, improve the campus and then be shut down. really SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!1

Please read the article on page B3 in the Star today titled, "Appeals for school transfers denied".....is this our future? Pretty scary.

Also read the letter on page B11 titled "Children not being served"...is this the way LPSS wants to be represented by the District. Maybe the school will move, improve the campus and then be shut down. really SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!1

I am the education President.

Did anyone else gag when Sandy Berg said at the last board meeting, "This has been a messy process...we should be proud...democracy at its best...and when it's that messy, everyone knows that there weren't any back door deals being made..."?

How about that meeting set up by Atsinger (Head of Salem Communications, Christian media mogul, & large Camarillo Unified donor) between Berg & Masyr (Salem Communications CFO & Camarillo Heights Elementary School parent), after Masyr's scathing Op-Ed about his attempts to see PVSD's books? Unification was being threatened, and guess which school was given a closure reprieve at the next board meeting. Guess who ended up on the new PVSD Finance Committee.

I want to know more about Salem and its connections to Camarillo schools or the school boards in the area.

To answer Hi's question, Salem Communication/Ed Atsinger and his followers are intimately involved in getting most of the PVSD school board elected as well as the County Board of Education (Valenzano, Kunicki, Bates and Mathews). Also the Camarillo Unified PAC - which is a shell operation.

Thanks for the clarification. Happy to see you are of the same opinions. No problems. Cheers

Tell me more follow the money