Comments by Ken Johnson

Video: CUSD board candidates forum at MCC

Ray,

Please re-read above: “how CUSD (mis)treats the public.”

I feel the manner of treatment of members of the public at a public meeting IS important!

Ken Johnson

Video: CUSD board candidates forum at MCC

Monday, on MCTV at 7PM, is probably the only chance to see Mr. Kirt Rimmer speak before casting your absentee ballot. Does anyone else think it strange that ALL THREE, on the incumbent slate, were too busy for the MCC debate?

You can also see how CUSD (mis)treats the public. Mr. Frank Geritty, from the Highland Park neighborhood, tried to clear up a ‘rumor’ about the road proposed by CUSD’s Charlie Gardner and Board President Jolanda Schreurs that would severely affect his neighborhood. 

I have gotten used to it, but maybe Superintendent Bayless could fill the vacant slot for a drama teacher at Cunha. Strange, his performance didn’t relate to my comments nor to the relationship detailed by the teaching staff’s feelings as exemplified by the recent protest by two thirds of the kindergarten teachers.  Maybe he is running as a write-in candidate for the school board.

You can also hear Board Member Dwight Wilson’s solution to the canceled school bussing: “soon”! Sort of rings a little hollow since he has been working on it for FIVE years since he voted to cancel school bussing and he has yet to produce any results.

Cunha returns to old schedule, cancels buses

There is a CUSD Board Meeting

THURSDAY, September 14, 2006

IV.  RECONVENE OPEN SESSION � 7:00 P.M.
VIII .  COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA

Location: District Offices [adjacent to Hatch Elementary
498 Kelly Avenue � Half Moon Bay

Do YOU wish to just gripe here � or attend and express your opinion �

.

Thought I heard our incumbents say they had something that was supposed to sound like a solution at the San Mateo Times � Interview Tuesday morning!

.

�what happened to walking to school� � and just how far was it �both ways uphill�?

Measure the distance from the District�s furthest point to Cunha � preferably walking during a winter storm with a backpack loaded with books!

Ken Johnson

Joe Cotchett to represent Valerie Plame against Cheney

For those who are ‘History Challenged’, the story recounted in “All The President’s Men” could not have occurred without the removal of VP Agnew first!

Ken Johnson

Five candidates running for CUSD board, deadline for filing extended

Kevin J. Lansing and Leonard Woren,

Seems like HMB Review editor Clay Lambert still can’t get his calls returned.

“Ad writers say ends justify means of CUSD campaign”—Wednesday, November 10, 2004
http://hmbreview.com/articles/2004/11/10/news/local_news/story05.txt

[I]“Cabrillo board President Jolanda Schreurs said the third man is Kirk Riemer. Riemer’s name appears on a list of Coastsiders who endorsed Lundell’s opponent, Charles Gardner. Riemer did not return a telephone call seeking comment.”

Schreurs, who runs a graphics business, confirmed that she designed the ad to look like Lundell’s and helped arrange for Gardner to give up his space. Larimer said he contributed wording for the advertisement.”[/I]

Or maybe Clay Lambert is only indignant after an election!

Ken Johnson

Devil’s Slide is open!

John Lynch,
Thanks for patiently hanging in there. I have given up “explaining alternate side of the street parking to turnips.”
Regards,
Ken Johnson

Opinion: Support the Citizens’ Alternative Parcel Tax measure

Probably not a surprise, the deadline passed on 11 August without moving the parcel tax to the November ballot. The next free shot is a year away. Well, at least I gave it a try.

CUSD Board Response on 03 Aug 2006

Everyone has the opportunity to give the same way to an undirected use, as Measure S was written. Yet, less than the equivalent of 8% of the yes voters on Measure S have given to “Back to Basics”.

What we lack is a good way of seeing that the most pressing problems of our School District are corrected: “Citizens’ Alternative Parcel Tax Measure” goal.

(No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1)
English-Language Arts –

2006 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) results will be available on Tuesday 15 August.

You can look to determine (guess) how many schools and will the District (again) be designated failing.

The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reports will be available on Thursday 31 August.

If any of the K-5 Elementary Schools are designated failing, it is the School Board’s majority failure – the student’s tested will have lived five years under the School Board’s majority implementation of the NCLB goals!

Cunha Middle School and Hatch Elementary have been designated by the State for PI under NCLB. CUSD was designated a failing District in 2005. I can find many flaws in NCLB – yet it is the only thing that has motivated CUSD to start to teach ALL of our children!

The School Board majority has consistently refused to adopt a successful strategy to teach the other 60%. Mr. John Moseley’s lone voice on the CUSD Board agreed on the need of a Plan B strategy when failure is imminent.

CUSD has reluctantly seen an 8.3% improvement in the five-year life of NCLB. Looking at it in another way, that is 291 children who have made the first rung on the ladder of learning – they would not have been given that first step before NCLB!

Had Measure S passed, it is likely that a majority on our School Board would have voted to use part of those funds to withdraw from Federal funding and NCLB accountability. We would have returned to the 60% left behind standard before NCLB and 291 children’s education - indeed their life’s future – would have been lost!

Ken Johnson

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Brian Ginna,

Thanks for the ‘praise’.

If you don’t like the Citizens’ Alternative Parcel Tax measure, where is your solution?

http://coastsider.com/comments/1680_0_1_0_C/

Regards,
Ken Johnson

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Ray Olson,

Trust – you hit the key word. An average board meeting has 3 members from the public, including the TV person. Those few who have attended, know that they are not well received if they differ in any way with the board majority. 

But all voters know that after paying for a decade, there is still no new school and that the cost has roughly doubled in that decade. Many know that the district is judged failing academically. Many know that there are other schools in the County that receive less money and have a more challenging student demographics and yet do considerably better than CUSD.

I suggest that the public’s key item in whether to go to the polls and vote yes was: ‘do I trust the school board’s decision making on how to spend my money.’

Ken Johnson

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Joel Farbstein,
I love a straight line so neatly served up, TRY:
Opinion: Support the Citizens’ Alternative Parcel Tax measure
Opinion by Ken Johnson on Jul 31, 06 at 4:37 pm in Schools
http://coastsider.com/comments/1680_0_1_0_C/

The following comment was posted by Joel Farbstein on Aug 01, 06 | 5:45 pm
“But about the original thread, I’d like to challenge a person from the 38% “No” vote side of Measure S—someone who claims to be FOR improving education on the Coast—to be the author of a parcel tax initiative. Write it as you see fit. If 62% of the Coast is FOR Measure S, and just 3% voted No because it didn’t include busing, write the initiative without the school board’s help. Include busing or not, your call. You know 62% will vote to tax themselves to improve education. And you’ll go down as a hero to kids, and parents. What do you have to lose? -Joel Farbstein”

Ken Johnson
P.S. Joel, now prepare to be accused of being a part of some “they” group.

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Mary Bordi,
I wasn’t concerned with Mary Ascher’s use of the word “blog”. Now, calling the “Review, our local newspaper” should be out of bounds – calling the Review a newspaper was an insult to journalist.

You were right:
“You probably didn’t get a chance to read Dan Blick’s Jul 29, 06 | 12:41 comment.”
I went back to 12:41 to find it and couldn’t find it. Then it occurred to me, you have two 12:41s in your day and I only one [depends on perspective, doesn’t it?]. Now, I found it:

“In her letter, Mary blames “*they*” ("that small, but vocal, group of self-appointed arbiters of community values who consistently find fault with anybody who dares to advocate for our Coastside children") with defeating Measure S.”

I guess it is easier when you start with a conclusion and go on from there without ever seriously examining the original premise.
Statement: X is beneficial; anyone who questions X is a %#%# - aka “they”?

It was once accepted dogma:
‘The sun revolves around the earth. Mankind is the center of all. Anyone who questions that is a heretic and must be punished.’

“Absolute truths” must never be questioned?

Sounds like “they” is a code word for a small group who courageously exhibit the ability to think! 

Ken Johnson

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Mary Ascher,
A few Facts you missed:
June 1996 Measure K won with 74.90%;
November 1999 Measure C lost with 55.99%!

Your letter, http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2006/06/28/news/letter_to_the_editor/story4.txt
“They won’t support the Cabrillo Unified School District because they don’t like certain school board members.” [You never identify: “they’]

School Board:
Measure K: Ken Jones, Ruth Palmer, Marina Stariha, Ken Wilson, and Burt Jones.
Measure C: Ken Jones, Ruth Palmer, Marina Stariha, Ken Wilson, and Dwight Wilson
Given, Dwight is not particularly likable - but a 20% difference?

Measure K: $35,000,000 twenty-five year Bond
Measure C: $125 4 years Parcel Tax
Maybe it was the extra $125 a year; but I don’t see any evidence for that.

OR do you think it might be the ACTIONS of the School Board Members?
-After THREE AND A HALF YEARS, all we had was a drawing of a new school [in fact, after TEN years, all we have is a drawing of a new school!]
- The School Board Members chose North Wavecrest, over much objection, in a bizarre series of land deals [North Wavecrest has had a variety of land development proposals that were ‘just around the corner’ since the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake – and still waiting].

Cunha needed to be rebuilt in 1976 when I first saw it in detail.
By November 1999 [Measure C], I concluded the School Board lacked judgment, accountability and financial wisdom.

November 5, 2002
Jolanda Schreurs, Dwight Wilson and Roy Salume ran on ‘Wavecrest Forever’.
[November 2, 2004: Charley Gardner the same]

A group of mothers, tired of waiting for a new school – SEVEN YEARS – brought in
November 4, 2003 ballot Measure D; “BUILD OUR SCHOOL NOW”!

CUSD response: Resolution NO. 22-03 OPPOSING BALLOT MEASURE D
Kenneth E. Jones, President
Ruth A. Palmer, Clerk
Roy Salume,
Jolanda Schreurs,
Dwight Wilson,

Had it not been for the above CUSD Trustees, we would have the middle school built and be MILLIONS Of DOLLARS ahead!

I’ve seen a number of references to “Obstructionists” in your Review – seems the School Board members above are in the membership.

Mary, voters don’t support when they can’t trust; but I still don’t know who “They” are.

Ken Johnson

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Bonus Questions: What President established the EPA and NOAA? What President and Senior Senator - NCLB? Labels don’t tell all!
[Answer: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) formed at behest of President Nixon. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) – Senator Edward Kennedy and President Bush.]

Who should replace David Gorn?

Brian Ginna,

You said: “The majority of voters would surely want someone who is clearly a “moderate.” [Jul 06, 06 | 9:21 am] Sounds reasonable, until you include George [I presume you mean Muteff ] in that definition from my limited knowledge of him.

Maybe you will elaborate in detail how George Muteff meets your definition:
“Moderates would compromise.”

You mention Naomi positively and Mike negatively.

I’ve known both Mike Ferreira and Naomi Patridge measured in decades. In both cases, on various issues, we have agreed, disagreed or simply agreed to disagree. In both cases I have known each of them to reach out to seek solutions to problems. We need more people on the City Council who understand the concept of agreeing to disagree and moving on to the next issue to work together.

If the City Council majority is unwilling to reach out at this point, everyone will lose.

Ken Johnson

Who should replace David Gorn?

Barry,
Excellent definition, I will try to remember to give you proper attribution when I use it.

Brian,
Ball is back in your court.

Ken Johnson

Who should replace David Gorn?

Mike Ferreira does seem to represent a logical choice. For those who don’t recall, winning and losing in the last election was determined by only a handful of questionable votes. His willingness to stand for the position would place the onus upon the current City Council majority to then demonstrate whether they wish to reach out or do they desire a divided community.

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Ray,

Sketch out your plan for widening SR 92. Take it to the effected adjacent businesses property owners. Let us know what they had to say.

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Mary Bordi,

CCF home page has: “my name is Don Bacon … I’m speaking as a director of Coastside Community First”. So I believed, Don Bacon was a director of Coastside Community First.
http://www.coastsidecommunityfirst.org/
Don Bacon’s Speech to the Half Moon Bay City Council on May 2, 2006
http://www.coastsidecommunityfirst.org/documents/db_speech_05_02_2006.html

You wrote [Jul 09, 06 | 9:28 am]:
“Please check out the CCF website for a list of CCF directors.”
http://www.coastsidecommunityfirst.org/contact.html “
Indeed, Don Bacon isn’t listed as a Director of Coastside Community First there.

Put Community First – your sister organization with the same web templates as CCF - understands disclaimers.

At your next Board of Directors meeting, you might want to discuss with Mr. Bacon the appropriate disclaimer.

Regards,
Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Ray Olson,
Fair question. The original approved and conditioned by CC and the City with the required changes to SR 92 and SR 1 effected a ‘no negative impact’ – no reason to oppose, no reason to support. It wasn’t going to improve traffic flow; it just wasn’t going to make it worse! No one would fund that. Why would they? The primary developer wasn’t going to take bullet either. Ergo, dead.

I supported all the improvements currently waiting for funding. Key word – IMPROVEMENTS!

Personally, I don’t like the ‘straightening’ of SR 92 – I love driving it in cruise control. I love flying at the edge of the envelope when alone – it is just not good policy. So I grudgingly supported the ‘straightening’.

Regarding your question on:
“THE CITIZEN’S ALTERNATIVE PARCEL TAX”

At the 29 June CUSD Board meeting, I addressed the board requesting an update on the progress to a solution to the no school bussing on the coastside. Mr. Dwight Wilson announced that at the next meeting he would be announcing their solution. The Next CUSD Board meeting is Thursday, 13 July. I hope to see you there!

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Jim Larimer,
CCWD hasn’t embraced the concept that new development would pay for its costs. That you are now claiming that development should go beyond and provide benefits for the community that it is impacting is encouraging. Of course I support that, I got David and the others at the then Neighbors Alliance to join us in our Homeowners Association to put forth Measure A with the economic goal of having development proposals compete for a scarce resource—development allocations. Free market competition. Unfortunately, many politicos never got their degrees in Economics or Law. Anyway, I was asking you questions in a previous post to see if you had a better idea for evaluating and funding impacts – apparently by your reply [Jul 09, 06 | 1:20 pm] you don’t!

There for, if there is no public benefit, the public should not pay for it. There is no public benefit to Foothill STREET. So the public should not pay for it. Likewise the water lines associated with the development represent no public benefit so the public should not pay for it. The portions that would only benefit the public in general should be paid by a combination of the two.

If you are referring to the proposal portion that includes tanks and gravity feed reduces power consumption, etc. – that portion may be public benefit to the degree of representing reduced operating costs, etc. Cutting dead ends or mitigating them is a design and implementation issue. I believe strongly in ‘cost benefit analysis’ and proper ‘cost allocation’ – I haven’t often seen that done locally; and particularly at CCWD.

I understand that you want Ailanto to pay to pay for a Foothill STREET boondoggle.

Once again, “WHAT ARE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF BEECHWOOD and the other undisclosed beneficiaries?”!

Regards,
Ken Johnson

Page 10 of 13 pages « First  <  8 9 10 11 12 >  Last »