Brian,

Ventura Unified School District Board = Snoozeville.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Heather,

Hey, I'd trade a nice, quiet, efficient school board for the drama of the Pleasant Valley School District any day. :)

In November of 2006 all of PVSD's problems were to be resolved when I was not re-elected, at least that was the mantra of my opponents. How wrong they were. Each passing decision by our sitting majority has created new situations that have compounded the fiscal health and educational opportunities of a once well respected and innovative district.

This election we need to get Sandra Berg out. She has proven time and again her she is a single issue trustee with no concern for education at the classroom level. It's time for the teachers and citizens to see past the surface and find candidates with substance.

My early list:

Kim Stephenson- Clearly the most logical candidate in the last election. Holds a PhD in education, teaches in CVUSD and is involved with many civic groups in leadership positions.

Mark Pakowitz- I not usually a fan of attorneys but Pakowitz has shown he is not typical.

Angie Churchill- Showed great courage during the school closures.

So many CAPE parents you can't list them all- PVSD did itself a dis-service when it alienated this group of motivated involved parents. To this day many sit on the Education Foundation board, finance committee and other PVSD community groups.

Brian says "The top three school boards that attract the most political attention include Conejo, The County Board, and Camarillo."

What is the common denominator?

Pleasant Valley Schoold District Board Special Meeting update:

As of 11:00 am this morning, the PVSD website has been changed to reflect the special board meeting.
http://1.pvsd.k12.ca.us/

The district website also now includes the agenda information:
http://pvsd.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/pvsd-eAgenda.woa/wa/showMeeting

That is a great show of transparency on their parts.

However, I saw large neon yellow signs at Los Posas School early this morning publicizing the meeting - before the website update.

Is PVSD attempting damage control, and if so, is it too little, too late?

Also, there is no mention on the agenda about granting a school facility to CAPE. When is that scheduled to happen?

Katie: I don't know what the common denominator is. I'm afraid that I don't keep close tabs on Conejo.

John: Kim also had a good letter in the Acorn a few weeks ago that clearly summarized the potential school board debacle in November. She knows her stuff.

http://www.thecamarilloacorn.com/news/2008/0509/Letters/

Sorry, Mike Dunn is on the Conejo Vally School District Board. The campaign literature for CVSD and PVSD was much the same and if you follow the $$ it traces back to the Stricklands - which is where much of the County Board of Education $$ can be traced.

Mike Dunn is Tony Strickland's personal hand puppet, as is Valenzano, Kunicki and Bates. These guys care nothing about Public Education, they want to destroy Public Education and enrich their own pocketbooks! They should all be recalled!

It's not hard to find stressed out parents and rally them into a frenzy. What is difficult is portraying school boards as a place where an intelligent and creative person would want to work. All this squabling scares away key talent and takes away the school boards ability to concentrate on their core business.

Interesting, but inaccurate, spin by Anna.

PVSD has comprehensive information on their 08-09 budget process on their website, including the Power Point that Superintendent Villegas presented at the last meeting which contains all of the recommendations that will be decided upon at Thursday's meeting. PVSD has held several town hall meetings on the budget and formed a Budget Committee made up of district staff, school site reps and public members, who made recommendations to the Superintendent.

At their last meeting, PVSD discussed the proposed cuts at length. They then sent information about the special meeting, inviting the public to attend, to the Acorn, and the paper informed the public and folks who don't regularly frequent the PVSD website by publishing the above referenced article. Whether some saw it or not, the PVSD has been disseminating information for several months. Notice of the meeting has been on the front page on the district's website and the agenda was available online today. All agendas, with links to supporting documents, can be found on the PVSD website.

The process has been transparent and has involved the community.

OUHSD, on the other hand, has not posted any agendas since March or minutes since January. When they used to post them online, the never included links to supporting documents--I used to drive to the district office to pick up a budget book. I called several weeks ago to find out how to get an agenda and was told that they were short staffed and did not have the financial resources to keep their website up to date with current agendas and minutes. The woman I spoke with suggested I drive to the district headquarters to view the agenda that is posted in their window.

I shudder to think what would happen if PVSD used the OUHSD standards of "transparency."

Interesting, but inaccurate, spin by Anna.

PVSD has comprehensive information on their 08-09 budget process on their website, including the Power Point that Superintendent Villegas presented at the last meeting which contains all of the recommendations that will be decided upon at Thursday's meeting. PVSD has held several town hall meetings on the budget and formed a Budget Committee made up of district staff, school site reps and public members, who made recommendations to the Superintendent.

At their last meeting, PVSD discussed the proposed cuts at length. They then sent information about the special meeting, inviting the public to attend, to the Acorn, and the paper informed the public and folks who don't regularly frequent the PVSD website by publishing the above referenced article. Whether some saw it or not, the PVSD has been disseminating information for several months. Notice of the meeting has been on the front page on the district's website and the agenda was available online today. All agendas, with links to supporting documents, can be found on the PVSD website.

The process has been transparent and has involved the community.

OUHSD, on the other hand, has not posted any agendas since March or minutes since January. When they used to post them online, the never included links to supporting documents--I used to drive to the district office to pick up a budget book. I called several weeks ago to find out how to get an agenda and was told that they were short staffed and did not have the financial resources to keep their website up to date with current agendas and minutes. The woman I spoke with suggested I drive to the district headquarters to view the agenda that is posted in their window.

I shudder to think what would happen if PVSD used the OUHSD standards of "transparency."

Sorry for the double post!

I do like PVSD's new online agenda. I forget how much the cost was or how much it costs to input the information. It must be only pennies as the PVSD teachers seem content. NOT.

Past practice is PVSD admin strings the public along to enhnce their desires. There is not real transparency only tinted windows of truth. I lived it and don't want that reality again.

And while I do agree OUHSD should have more posted it is not a testement to openess. Geez, PVSD posts everything and not many in Camarillo trust them, anymore.

Transparency Please! Post the agenda but bury the information that would upset the community in an attachment on the 5th page. Vote on these issues when very few people are still wake to watch. Dont worry there are those concerned citizens that will watch every move they make and make sure the public knows how they are destroying this once well respected district. We have 1.7 million cuts to our budget but yet we are continuing to spend money on unification. Lets take away music and cut down our transportation budget so that Berg, Speakman, Lerner and Miller can boost their ego. Lets continue to lie to the teachers in Camarillo and have them at the bottom of the pay scale so these Board members can pursue the dream that will probably never be realized. Can some answer the question what happen to the 1.5 mil ADA from CAPE. Let them continue this behavior and watch November come and bite them in the face.
November Election
Sandra Berg voted out
Unification doesn't even get 35% in Camarillo

Transparency Please! Post the agenda but bury the information that would upset the community in an attachment on the 5th page. Vote on these issues when very few people are still wake to watch. Dont worry there are those concerned citizens that will watch every move they make and make sure the public knows how they are destroying this once well respected district. We have 1.7 million cuts to our budget but yet we are continuing to spend money on unification. Lets take away music and cut down our transportation budget so that Berg, Speakman, Lerner and Miller can boost their ego. Lets continue to lie to the teachers in Camarillo and have them at the bottom of the pay scale so these Board members can pursue the dream that will probably never be realized. Can some answer the question what happen to the 1.5 mil ADA from CAPE. Let them continue this behavior and watch November come and bite them in the face.
November Election
Sandra Berg voted out
Unification doesn't even get 35% in Camarillo

Transparency Please! Post the agenda but bury the information that would upset the community in an attachment on the 5th page. Vote on these issues when very few people are still wake to watch. Dont worry there are those concerned citizens that will watch every move they make and make sure the public knows how they are destroying this once well respected district. We have 1.7 million cuts to our budget but yet we are continuing to spend money on unification. Lets take away music and cut down our transportation budget so that Berg, Speakman, Lerner and Miller can boost their ego. Lets continue to lie to the teachers in Camarillo and have them at the bottom of the pay scale so these Board members can pursue the dream that will probably never be realized. Can some answer the question what happen to the 1.5 mil ADA from CAPE. Let them continue this behavior and watch November come and bite them in the face.
November Election
Sandra Berg voted out
Unification doesn't even get 35% in Camarillo

Gosh SD, while the agenda and attachments weren't delivered directly to your front door, all of the information is completely viewable on line. There were two town hall meetings where the public provided input and proposed cuts were discussed at length at the last meeting. So if you're one of those "concerned citizens watching every move they make," you might want to actually watch. It's pretty easy to rant, bitch, call people liars--much more difficult to actually contribute something positive.

Having a unified school district is something that many people in Camarillo--not just the trustees-- have wanted for a number of years. 12,500 people signed the petitions and a very broad base of community leaders and elected officials support it. Trustees are supposed to be responsive to their constituents, and the voters in PVSD have repeatedly chosen candidates who support a unified school district.

OUHSD has spent buckets of money trying to stop and delay unification. Several Public Records Act requests for the amounts have gone unanswered--so much for transparency. Unification attorney Tom Griffin has been on their payroll for almost a decade. They've used a number of lobbying firms and paid them very well, and when the County Committee was ready to approve the EIR and the unification, OUHSD threatened to sue unless a complete and full EIR was conducted. Once the full EIR recommending approval was completed, they hired a lawfirm to find fault with the report. Had OUHSD stopped spending money fighting this four years ago, Camarillo would have resolution on this issue.

As far as your projected vote for unification goes, recent information indicates you have underestimated the support for unification by 41%. I'll let you do the math.

Debra glad your back. Maybe you can answer a question.

You keep throwing out this 76% number. How do you arrive at it? You never answered the question on the last blog entry you used it in.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/may/19/ventura-county-supervisor-3rd-district-about/

Guessing that this number is derived from the poll done in March the legitimacy will be questioned until the poll questions are revealed. From the individuals I spoke with who received the call, including a Somis school board member, the felling was that of a push poll baiting questions to get the results wanted.

Even still, PVSD did a poll some years ago and the proponents kept using 92% approval. This number was 62% in favor and 30% somewhat in favor. averaging the new number we can estimate that the new numbers are

25.08% somewhat in favor
50.16% in favor

Quite a drop from a poll designed to elicit a positive response.

Debra,
I attend every school board meeting, listen to everything they say and participate in all of the discussions. In fact I was one of two that attended the focus workshop back in September. My children don't currently attend PVSD schools. Unlike Sandra Berg, I still care about what happens to the students and teachers of Camarillo. I can call them liars because I know for a fact that they have lied to our community. I can bitch about them becuase I am a taxpayer in this community. I am doing something positive, I am fighting for what is best for our community.

As for Tom Griffin being on OUHSD payroll. I think you need to check those facts again. Look at what they actually paid for and I think you will be very surprised at what you find.
Lobbyist - if your are referring to The "Big Guns: that Ron speakman referred to in his speech at the SBE. I think they were worth every penny. OUHSD stands to lose a great deal if this ever goes through.

As far as your approval numbers. Lets poll our community again in a couple of weeks. After Sandy's antics the last couple of weeks, I bet those numbers keep dropping

John: Nice try, but no reputable polling firm or good political consultant gets involved in "push polling." As the wikipedia link below explains, "push polling" isn't designed to collect data, but rather to deliver a negative political message crafted to influence an election. Check out the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

Good polls will measure support, opposition and favorable/unfavorable ratings about a candidate or issue. A well designed poll will present pro and con arguments about an issue. If anything, I've always felt it was most important to over emphasize the negative arguments.

John: Nice try, but no reputable polling firm or good political consultant gets involved in "push polling." As the wikipedia link below explains, "push polling" isn't designed to collect data, but rather to deliver a negative political message crafted to influence an election. Check out the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

Good polls will measure support, opposition and favorable/unfavorable ratings about a candidate or issue. A well designed poll will present pro and con arguments about an issue. If anything, I've always felt it was most important to over emphasize the negative arguments.

Debra-
From those that answered the phone the questions did not seem to emphasize the negative. In fact the pollsters seem to have found no negative in the questions.

Again, I think the poll was designed to get the answers you wanted and even as designed the support was not there. Hence a federal lawsuit.

Do you have any candidates for November?

"There's a problem with political polling in that you have so much pressure to do what your client wants you to do and say what your client wants you to say. I've never felt that pressure. I am independent of the political parties."
Frank Luntz

You're certainly free to think whatever you like--but the scenario you present doesn't make much sense. Think about it for a minute: if you want to know how your community feels and aren' conducting a poll that will be published, why conduct a biased poll? It won't tell you anything statistically relevant, which would be a complete waste of time and money.

Maybe sometime in the future--like after the election-- we can get a copy of the poll and go over it together. Warning: you will be embarrassed by how wrong you were :) And wouldn't it be funny if some of the negative arguments were actually taken from things you yourself had said????

With all the time and energy a few folks spend bashing the district and slamming unification, there's been the assumption that support for unification and PVSD trustees had eroded. It hasn't--not by a long shot.

Debra,
I have spoken to many people that were so fortunate to be the chosen few of this CU poll. Some may have given you the answers you wanted. After talking to these people (one being my neighbor) and educating them on why this is such a bad idea now. There mind has changed. I think now that the community continues to see PVSD spend all this money when we are cutting 1.7 from the budget and only maybe giving the teachers 2%, you will see more go against unification.
Many see this as the only way to get a new high school. Once they are educated that PVSD has no plan and they see how this will impact our students in many negative ways, they will vote against unification.

SD: your statements reveals that you know very little about polling. And I doubt very seriously that you spoke to "many" people who participated in the poll. Please--I can usually tell when people are stretching the truth. But hey, if it's your mission to hunt them all down before election day and let them know how you feel, go for it!

The only answers a pollster "wants" are truthful responses from poll participants. An accurate poll will produce responses gleaned from a random sample of voters who mirror the demographics (gender, party affiliation, region) of the area. Nobody is "chosen" to participate to skew results--a machine actually selects the sample to be contacted. In fact, a consultant who wants to eliminate any bias, pro or con, in the result can submit a list of know supporters and opponents to eliminate from the sample. To that end, a list of about 300 voters--mostly supporters because that's who I'm most familiar with--were pulled from the sample. As I've stated, my interest is always to disadvantage my issue/candidate as much as possible. That way it is easier to have strong confidence in the results.

I've done politics for a long time, and a common mistake candidates/unions/constituency groups make is assuming that the community shares their outrage and beliefs. School closures are always difficult, but if you do a daily statewide media scan like I do (try "Rough and Tumble" and the Sac Bee's "Capitol Alert) you will see that they are happening up and down the state. And while parents of school age children may think it's a horrible thing, there are a number of groups (fiscal conservatives, Libertarians, conservative seniors on fixed incomes) who actually think it's a good idea. I don't agree, but I know there are folks in communities up and down the state who hold that opinion.

I understand the passion you have against unification--I once had it myself--but poll results show that the community doesn't share your view.

So I feel your pain. If all the circumstances of the past year, complete with the vitriol, name calling and ranting had failed create the perfect storm that would turn the community against unification and the PVSD board, it would frost my cookies too.

Then again I ask, WHy file a federal suit?

If unification is in the bag let it go to a vote?

Are you sure you polled the right community?

Why not release the poll questions now?

What happened to 92%?

The questions of your reality go on and on...

Debra,

I think it is you and CU that have frosted cookies. (lawsuit) We will see who is correct in November. Goodluck!

John: The only reason this poll is being discussed is because you and several others made inaccurate statements about its content and credibility. I've made efforts to separate fact from fiction, but something tells me that's not what you want to hear.

It would be a mistake to assume that the decision to file a federal lawsuit was made AFTER the poll results. Hopefully we can get an expedited decision on the lawsuit and vote in November.

Hmmm..the right community? I'm confused. I thought you and SDMOM had intimate relationships with "many" of the poll respondents. Personally, I haven't talked to anyone who participated in the poll.

I'm not going to spend alot more time on a tutorial, but if you do a little research, you'll learn that there are several types of poll designs--published and strategic, non-published. Published polls--like Gallup and the ones Dale Scott did for both OUHSD and PVSD-- don't include pro and con arguments and have limited campaign value. Non-published, strategic polls present major arguments for and against an issue/candidate. Hey, if these results are so bothersome, perhaps you and your buddies should do your own poll!

I have no idea where the 92% figure comes from. Gosh, when you eagerly jumped up at the State Board meeting to present poll results, you yourself quoted a 74% approval figure, and its the one you've been quoting all along, right?
Interesting that you've chosen a different set of numbers--that I've never heard before--when you realize that support for unification is still strong. Have to admit, I do respect your knack for moving and adjusting targets and complaints in the attempt to support your thesis.

Keep trying John!

Re: Poll

If it was a poll developed by Public Opinion Stratagies or related company, or if it was paid for by Cam Unified PAC or PVSD it was a bogus push-poll. No amount of lipstick on the pig will change this fact.

Debra - you ought to do a disclaimer on your involvement. Your mother works for Kathy Long and I believe you have done a lot of political work for the Camarillo Unified PAC.

The 92% came from the combination of two numbers from the PVSD poll. THese have not changed and infact you, Debra, counseled me that that is a common practice in polling. Which begs the question, what numbs do you combine to get 76%?

Unlike much of your content my figures don't change and my numbers don't lie, they don't have to. What I find is alot of intangable double speak presented with no verifiable source when we get info on the big'U'. At the SBE, again, I quoted you on the 52% of Oxnard voters. I don't know where you got 74.

If you truly want to seperate fact from fiction then back up your statement with verifiable data. Until then its the opinion of a person who has a personal agenda againt the OUHSD. The old saying goes, "Opinions are like a**holes, everyboby has one." Back your opinions up or they are just that, opinions.

the SBE in it's response to the suit seem to know our porponents very well. Check the wording in the following:

of California State Board 7 Case No. CV08-02650 SJO (CTx)
of Education, et al., to Complaint
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs each lack standing and/or capacity to either bring or maintain this action, or to obtain the relief sought.

Here is the Prayer for Relief. I wonder what legal costs could be to CU if they lose?

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, defendants pray for judgment as follows:
1. That the lawsuit be dismissed in its entirety;
2. For reasonable attorneys’ fees to the fullest extent allowed by law;
Case 2:08-cv-02650-SJO-CT Document 16 Filed 05/29/2008 Page 7 of 8 Answer of California State Board 8 Case No. CV08-02650 SJO (CTx) of Education, et al., to Complaint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. For costs of suit; and
4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
Dated: May 29, 2008 MARSHA A. BEDWELL
General Counsel

Katie: When you transform your personal opinion into a sweeping factual statement--which you will be unable to substantiate because what you stated isn't true--you diminish whatever crediblity you have. I have no problem with you or anyone else having an opinion, but this isn't the first time you've come onto the blogs and made false accusations about me, issues I'm associated with or my mother. And you're the last person who should be lecturing anyone about what they should disclose on these blogs--which I have done repeatedly on numerous threads. Kind of interesting that you don't feel it's relevant to call out the initiator of this thread to disclose who she is and what her connections to this issue are. Guess you only hold folks accountable if you have an axe to grind with them...and from what I hear in leadership circles throughout Ventura County, that's a pretty big club. So at least I'm in good company:)

Even though this issue isn't about me, I do understand how some have sought to personalize it. So, and I apologize in advance to those who could care less about the information I'm about to post, I'll play your little game and formally attempt (working from memory here) to disclose ALL of my political clients, those who paid me and those to whom I donated professional services . Might go over the Star's limit and take two posts.

Paying Clients:
Senator Barbra Boxer
Rob Reiner (Rally to Save Ahmanson Ranch *Note to Katie: I realize this may rock your world, but Supervisor Long and I were on opposite sides of this issue)
Roz McGrath (ran against Tony Strickland)
Jeff Gorell (ran against Audra Strickland)
Ferial Masry(ran against Audra Strickland.There's your Strickland-Creadick connection--they don't like me a whole lot. Probably not the one you were hoping for)
Trudi Loh (ran against Frank Schillo)
Chuck Weis
Kathy Long
Janet Lindgren (when she ran for County Board of Ed--for those of you around long enough to remeber-- against far-right incumbent Wendy Larner. Janet opposes unification.)
Rob Collins (when he ran for County Board of Ed. Side note: Rob is now on the Simi board and was just elected to the CSBA delegate assembly by all school board members in the county. School Board members chose Rob over Socorro Lopez Hanson, who was up for a second year. Not exactly a vote of confidence from her peers.)
Kathleen Drury (ran for judge in the last contested election. She was fabulous, but no longer with us.)
Manuel Lopez (when he ran for Supervisor. He is against unification)
Bob Wilson (TO City Council)
Democratic Women's Leadership Forum (contracted to coordinate fundraising events for Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Al Gore during Presidential re-election campaign)
National Partnership for Women and Families (they wrote the Family Medical Leave Act)
Coalition to End Domestic Violence (fundraising and board development)

Jeez Debra - all I asked for was a disclaimer on you and an acknowledgement that your mom works for Kathy Long and that you did work for Cam Unified (unification) PAC - which you didn't provide.

Nor did you say who paid for that stupid poll you and John are quoting from.

Part 2!

Paying Clients Continued:
District Attorney Greg Totten (should've been further up the list!)
Measure R (Conejo School Bond)

Candidates/Issues I have DONATED services (major donations that included comprehensive and strategic campaign work are denoted with an asterik* ) to:

*Socorro Lopez Hanson (when she ran for the open seat on OUHSD board)
Irene Pinkard (when she ran for Oxnard City Council)
Anita Perez-Ferguson (ran against Gallegly)
Pat Phelps (Conejo School Board)
Dolores Didio (Conejo School Board)
Dorthy Beaubien (Conejo School Board)
Maryann Krause (Santa Paula Council)
John Proctor (Santa Paula Council)
*Dave Tenneson (PVSD)
*Sandy Berg (PVSD)
*Ron Speakman (PVSD)
*Jennifer Miller (PVSD)
*Patty Lerner (PVSD)
*Camarillo Unified
Measure T (OUHSD bond for Pacifica)
PVSD Bond (the second attempt)
No on Prop 174 (early 90s;Co-chaired the VC coalition against the school voucher initiative)

Hope that makes you happy Katie.

And just a word about my mother, Joyce Taylor, who works for Supervisor Kathy Long, who in the interest of full disclosure has been working since she was 12.

You would be lucky, Katie, to be as loved,respected and outright adored by the community of Camarillo as she is.

When she first moved to Camarillo, folks knew her as "Debra Creadick's mother." It's clear to me, and I couldn't be prouder, that the tables have turned: now when I show up at community events, people ask "Where's your mother?"

She grew up during the Depression, and at the age of 74, still has a tireless work ethic, putting in 50 hour weeks--not because it's demanded of her or even just because its her job: it's because she loves to work and feels good about making a difference in people's lives.

She's an old school combination of grace, integrity and class who's led a pretty incredible life: from living on a farm in Illinois, to living on a boat and making a living as a commercial fisherwoman (squid and swordfish), to managing courtrooms in Orange County to working for Supervisor Long.

But probably the best thing about her is that she would forgive your arrogance, address your insinuations with diplomacy and exercise patience with your myopic view of our community.

You're out of your league, Katie.

I think you just imploded Debra.

So your mother, Joyce Taylor, does work for Kathy Long and you have done work for the Unification Pac.

Now about that poll? Who paid for it?

Nope. Just done with you. I've already spent enough time and energy answering your questions and no longer feel inclined to be helpful.

The information you want will be available, as required by law, on semi annual FPPC filings.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

Little do they know how many "unclean hands" there are. So much to come out as election day draws closer...

Debra,

You never answered my earlier question:

How much of the vote will CU get in Camarillo alone? Come on and play our game. You've got the numbers and the experience, put it on the line.

Also, will the vote get delayed past November, as CU wishes?

fiesty! John - I'd be careful about endorsing Pakowitz - he drinketh from the CU trough.

fiesty! John - I'd be careful about endorsing Pakowitz - he drinketh from the CU trough.

CAPEDad: I'm only answering because you called me fiesty...or guess I shold say I hope that was directed towards me :)

Karnac (kind of close to Creadick, right?) says: over 80%

I do NOT think the vote will be delayed. I think it is VERY likely that a settlement will be reached and the issue will be on the ballot in November.

I know many think that being on the November ballot is a disadvantage for the unification movement. For a number of reasons that I'm happy to share after the election, I don't completely agree with that opinion.

Debra,

Over 80%? You must be dizzy from all that SPINNING! Either side could win depending upon how it's stated on the ballot, and how they present their case to the public. But if the facts are on the table, and not swept under the rug, CU is doomed. Unfortunately, we know they'll do whatever it takes to misstate their ability to take on a unified district.

Debra,

Over 80%? You must be dizzy from all that SPINNING! Either side could win depending upon how it's stated on the ballot, and how they present their case to the public. But if the facts are on the table, and not swept under the rug, CU is doomed. Unfortunately, we know they'll do whatever it takes to misstate their ability to take on a unified district.

Debra,

I think you're both feisty. And I like it!

I DO appreciate your experience (and I also don't think you're a total schill - just wrong on uni).

I do think there's some spinning going on though about November....CAPEDad's been hearing through the grapevine that the endgame is delay past November to get a small election AND put more time between last year's fiasco and the vote.

Your thoughts?

fujo: The County Committee conducted hearings over an 18 month period, twice voting that all criteria had been met and unification could go to a vote.

The California Department of Education conducted the same analysis and they too found that all criteria were met by both PVSD and OUHSD.

By many measures, the argument can and will be made that PVSD is a better district. OUHSD has been unable to establish much of a fan base here in Camarillo. Approval ratings in the poll for each board and the education they provide reflect a high degree of satisfaction with PVSD and a strong degree of dissatisfaction with OUHSD. The feeling about OUHSD and their treatment of Camarillo seems to be deeply ingrained in our community. Building a high school at any point probably would have stalled the movement to unify, but OUHSD shot themselves in the foot by waiting too long. Now they blame the delay on unification, which is so far from the truth that it's laughable. There's lots of documentation to back up what OUHSD's TRUE desire was when they ended up hastily putting Measure H on the ballot--but we'll wait till the campaign begins in the Fall to educate voters about those details. The great thing about democracy is that we get to have a spirited debate and make our choices.

And Karnack has another prediction: big changes in the OUHSD district offices. Not exactly the happiest place on earth these days.

I think that's the most logical conclusion for people to come to. But trust me (if you dare!), there is much movement to get this settled and on the November ballot.

Most people move on quickly, and last year's "fiasco" is far less meaningful to voters in general than it is to others who felt personally affected by it. The CAPE community
feels strongly, but others? Not so much. One example: this blog started as a call to action from Anna Bevens, urging everyone to attend last nights PVSD Board meeting and protest the cuts and give em' hell! Outside of the teachers and the folks from transportation--who would've been there anyway-- there were 10-12 people who showed up and 6 of them looked like they were from CAPE.
So for most--and the poll reflected this--the "fiasco" is over.

While we write like there is an audiance the thruth is the blogs ar ethe same people over and over. I would not baseany street cred on bashing Anna for trying to rally a group. Logically this site is nit going to rally a big group.

Beyond CAPE the hang over from last year still lingers. For the first time in 30+ years there are openings at Los Primeros. Santa Rosa parents have not forgot being included on the list of closures and Cam Hieght parents sleep with one eye open. Other parents are transfering, some of my family, to Mesa. Friends are going to La Reina and the other privates in town have a serious increase in call volume. If you poll shows different, good luck to ya'.

Debra - I do agree with you to a point. A lot of people have no idea what is going on in the schools and they WILL vote for uni out of civic pride. They're the empty-nesters, east-enders with or without kids, and Leisure Villagers. Also the misguided Heights people who feel they don't have any thing to lose.

The thing that the anti people will push is that CU isn't based on any plan. No details whatsoever. I do agree with Karnak - it will win in Camarillo, but not nearly enough to everride the OU drumming from the rest of the district...Sorry.

BTW, I do agree that Camarillo is not being treated fairly in the voting area. Just my opinion and one from someone against uni.

We need to stop focusing on the problems.
Big four consulting firms should donate their help to figuring out the budget. Obviously the public sector folks can't do it.

This site could easily assist in rallying a big group. It is a free means of communication to the masses. The old antiquated days of herding people together on a weeknight are over. Is this site perfect? No it's just the best. Just like a podium it is only as good as the person standing behind it.

Didio and Beaubien must go.....they consistently put their narrowmindedness ahead of the needs of the school district, kids, parents, and community

Hi, I'm a new operator, solely registered on your forum. I count for your message, I chose the orthodox classification - this.
attractive nominate - blogs.venturacountystar.com.