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.

Can you please tell me how clearing up a rumor about a proposed road has anything to do with voting for school board members?

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

Ken, I’ve re-read your post and still don’t get the connection between a rumor about a proposed road and voting for a CUSD candidate. Are you saying that you feel the way in which the board members reacted to Mr Gerrity’s statement about the proposed road was inappropriate and therefore they are not doing an adequate job for our school system? I’m just trying to understand the point you are trying to make, that is all. Ray

You can watch the video, as I did, to learn Ken Johnson’s positions but his condescension and ill will in his post here certainly say a lot, don’t they? Even Pamela Fisher treats others with respect, and knows how to communicate. And Johnson expects to be able to work with the School Board and Dr. Bayless with an attitude like that?

Antagonizing those with whom you KNOW you’d have to work alongside — and being hypocritical by complaining of poor treatment by others while simultaneously treating others poorly — sure is an interesting campaign strategy. -Joel Farbstein

Ray,

We are beginning to communicate. I followed up your Sunday post by actually going out and checking out Mr. Frank Geritty comments.

Tuesday afternoon [17 October] was a beautiful day and I did some hiking of the property in question. The only person who comes out of this as a hero is CUSD’s Mr. Roy Salume who, when the first problem occurred, spent about four hours meeting with the neighbours and checking out the property questions. His point about the value of having Half Moon Bay residents on the School Board should be headed. It is unfortunate that he chose not to run for re-election — smart man!

In Half Moon Bay, we have had open meetings and workshops where all points of view were aired and considered on considerably less issues. ‘Control freaks’ are their own worse enemies.

Anyway, the claims of ‘butchering’ the trees by CUSD are actually an understatement. The trees life span is probably considerably shortened by the lack of qualified CUSD personnel. It is also true that the neighbours are maintaining, at their expense, that which is CUSD responsibility. And that they were severely harmed by CUSD’s failings to work and communicate with adjacent property owners to CUSD property. CUSD would have done well to actually adhere to state law rather than trying to be ‘cute’. I would have been considerably more ‘animated’ than Mr. Geritty in his comments and a desire to ascertain the truth behind ‘rumors’ of being screwed over again by CUSD.

The real shame of all this is that a real win-win could have been achieved quite easily by having open communications and open meetings. The contributor who generously gave for the ball fields could have achieved his objectives. The neighbours would have continued as supporters of the district. And the kids had a great situation.

Ken Johnson

Joel,

Since you have chosen to support Ms. Jolanda Schreurs and ignore Ms. Schreurs part in: HMB Review’s November 10, 2004 article: “Ad writers say ends justify means of CUSD campaign” http://hmbreview.com/articles/2004/11/10/news/local_news/story05.txt

and presumably feel she can work with other people; I find it curious that you feel forthright campaigning objectionable.

As to Superintendent Bayless, I feel that a School Superintendent should not be a partisan participant in a School Board election. I do understand his reaction, presumably he also saw the video before the meeting, and he would be aware of the question of whether his recent new contract is valid and enforceable if it were not done consistent with all State of California law.

As a School Board member, I would seek the comment of school staff and especially the teaching staff as to the Superintendent’s effectiveness in the required evaluation of his performance by the board.

The makeup of the school board, by the design of the election, is intended to have five independent members. It is designated as “non-partisan”. I find it unfortunate that there are those who choose to bifurcate the electorate, rather than differentiate themselves.

Do you find the concept objectionable of five independent voices seeking consensus? Democracy may take a little longer, but the public is the winner! There is a combination that results in independent voices.

I guess you object that Ms. Schreurs is not part of that combination.

Ken Johnson

Every two years we are reminded that Mark Twain was right.