Video: School board candidates debate


Posted by on Tue, September 30, 2008

 border=
Darin Boville
Montara Fog has posted a video of the school board candidates' debate at last week's Midcoast Community Council meeting. Click to view.

School Bussing, AB1991 - and Parcel Tax, Declining Enrolment - Flight, Test Scores - Academic Achievement, Technology or lack of it, Local Economy—no problems, according to incumbents Charlie Gardner - Stay the Course!

Change the Course?

School Bussing:
Opponents - NO bussing, keep it as it is.

Me - It would represent less than 1% of the budget. Just how many students were lost to CUSD when bussing was cancelled? How many ‘children in seats’, that is how CUSD is paid,  are absent from CUSD on heavy rainy days?
Farallone View Elementary has elementary students bussed in from Half Moon Bay. The bus returns to Half Moon Bay EMPTY. Why not have a meeting of parents, school teachers and staff to see what might be done in scheduling to make it possible to have Cunha and High School students on it for the reverse now empty trip.  There is money available for teachers, by restoring the Federal Funds cut off by the School Board to Farallone View Elementary, to be used for remedial instruction for the kids bussed in to FV in a schedule shift.

AB1991 -  Parcel Tax:
Charlie Gardner is proud of his embroiling CUSD into Half Moon Bay’s land use disagreements. If you forgot, AB1991 was the Anti Environment Bill that was dead when the school board voted 4-1 in support of it. That vote probably killed any opportunity for a parcel tax for years. Charlie did earn the support of Bonnie McClung - Mayor, City of Half Moon Bay and Ken Jones - former CUSD School Board President proudly displayed proudly on his smartvoter.org page.

Me - It should never have been on the CUSD board agenda!

Test Scores - Academic Achievement: 
The incumbents say everything is great in CUSD. They are not curious about Coastside parents who are sending their children to Pacifica School District.

CUSD:
2006-07
2007-08
Notice the matrix filled with “no”?
How about the District and THREE schools designated as ‘failing’ on the incumbent’s watch!

Just on the other side of the new tunnel: 
Pacifica School District
2006-07
2007-08
Notice the matrix filled with “yes”?


Technology or lack of it:
The incumbents think the new Cunha building with no-tech white boards and a projector and, oh yeah, empty wiring conduits is the high tech solution.

MMI, MultiMedia Instruction, - incumbents think of ‘film strips’.  and CBI, Computer Based Instruction, Interactive Screen Instruction, Interactive White Boards, Interactive Wall, etc. linked to Instructional DataBase is beyond their comprehension.

The lack of curiosity in what is happening in our schools, let alone what is the potential, achieved by other schools is boggling in the incumbents! 

Personally, It was a great humility exercise - apparently, I can’t say anything before the time keeper would raise the ‘30 seconds left’ card.

Ken Johnson
KENforCUSD.com

Charles Gardner ran for school board 4 years ago with one goal in mind: get the 220 house Wavecrest/middle school development approved. He failed in that, thankfully.

Then Gardner tried to help the Old Guard City Council pass AB 1991 that would have gutted every state and local environmental law on the books. He failed in that, thankfully.

But, to be fair, Gardner has been successful in accomplishing one thing: guaranteeing that no CUSD parcel tax can pass in the forseeable future. Good job Charlie!

Kevin,

I’m sure you saved all the weblinks. The fact is I ran 4 years ago to “Expedite the Construction of the New Middle School”, while it is true I believed (and still do) that the quality of school at Wavecrest coupled with the income derived from developer fees would have been the best choice for our District, if you check your records, I think you will find it was me who made the motion to proceed with the construction at Cunha (in fact you were there). I think we accomplished that promise, the first (main) phase is finishing this year ahead of schedule and under budget.

I see you’re still peddling your own BS version of how things were. I have a clue for you, we’re not buying it.

Well yes, the school board (including Charles Gardner) finally did vote in 2005 to build the new middle school at Cunha.

But that was after they had already wasted ten years and tens of millions of dollars in escalated construction costs trying to play the development speculation game at Wavecrest.

They were told way back in 1996 that Cunha was the best option:

1996 Opinion Piece Reprint

Once again, with AB 1991 this past spring, the school board tried to play the development speculation game with the Beachwood project.

I’m not sure why people who live on the Coastside keep re-electing the same people to the school board while the schools are performing so poorly, But then again, George Bush was re-elected in 2004, so go figure.

Kevin,

Continuing the “we aren’t buying it” thread, here are some facts for you.

The ENR Construction Cost Index (the most widely accepted indicator of current cost) for 1998 (the earliest a project could be “on the street” after the bond )was 5920. In June 2007 when the first phase was bid, it was 7939. This represents a 34% increase, or in simpler terms for a $22M construction project and add of $7.5 million in that period.

Considering we (the District and coastside) were due to receive a brand new school, over $10M in shared infrastructure, developer fees, and special district assesments, it was worth the effort. But why dwell on the past?

Since you and your obstructionist minority continued to delay this important project, it became neccessary to go to the alternatives so as not to waste money. The $7.4 million dollars is your fault, and could have been used for our childrens education.

I’m glad you finally admitted in your earlier piece that it wasn’t the environmental concerns you so often mask your real intentions behind. In this case it was clearly the 220 homes you mentioned.

...and oh by the way, the board was not speculating on land development on AB1991 as you again so malign. We were showing support for our community leaders who inherited a bad deal and were trying to make the best of it. As I stated in the debate video, everything that happens on the coastside affects the schools. We’re not in the land business, we’re in the people business.

Charlie, what specifically are you referring to here:


> *Since you and your obstructionist
> minority continued to delay this
> important project, it became
> neccessary to go to the alternatives
> so as not to waste money. The $7.4
> million dollars is your fault, and
> could have been used for our childrens
> education.*


I don’t recall anything done by what you call the “obstructionist minority” that delayed Wavecrest.

As far as I can tell, the district’s development partners simply failed to get the project past the appropriate state & federal authorities, and the district wasted $7.4 million waiting a decade for Wavecrest to get its act together.

Here are the timelines:

<https://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/cusds_unbuilt_middle_school_the_first_decade>

<https://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/wavecrest_the_first_decade>

Barry,

I’m reffering to the intensive lobbying for extentions of buffer zones which delayed the approval process. Sudden “finds” in the upland areas, and all the attempts to use environmental “concern” as a tool to stop the school because it was tied to a development project.

I don’t question anyone’s motivation here, just their judgement.

Spin it how you will, we’ve moved on and now will have a decent new middle school for your kids to attend.

The stuff you cite was either incidental or ineffective. That’s why you have to use the word “attempt” to describe them.

Also, what are you suggesting by putting the word “find” in quotes?

Just to be absolutely clear, the project failed because the US Fish & Wildlife Service found red-legged frog habitat on the property.  Not frogs, habitat. it was not found by some “obstructionist”,  but by scientists, one of whom was in the employ of George W. Bush:

<https://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/us_fish_wildlife_says_wavecrest_contains_red_legged_frog_habitat>

I’ve moved on, and I’m glad the current school board reversed itself and decided to go ahead build a middle school after all. But it’s wrong to blame “obstructionists” for the fact that it took ten years.

Charles Gardner writes:

“The $7.4 million dollars is your fault, and could have been used for our childrens education…”

Typical politician behavior to blame others for their own poor decisions.

Whose fault is it that the schools are not meeting federal standards. Of course it can’t be the school board’s fault. Oh no.

And the school board was perfectly justified to meddle in Half Moon Bay land use politics with AB 1991. After all, the board was just “showing support for our community leaders” a.k.a. the pro-development Old Guard City Council who tried to get around every environmental law on the books.

Comment 11
Tue, October 7, 2008 11:09am
jlundell
All my comments

The most striking aspect of the Wavecrest delay as I look back on it is the peculiar reluctance of the developer to move the project along (you may recall that their original environmental survey found, rather implausibly, no wetlands at all on the property). Or maybe not so peculiar; maybe they were simply in no hurry, given the changing state of the real estate market over those years. In retrospect, their slow pace worked out well for them.

The problem, of course, was that CUSD was in no position to be as patient as the developer, but they were stuck as long as the project was stalled, conflicting interests that the Wavecrest contracts never addressed. Not very good foresight by whoever negotiated on CUSD’s behalf.

FACT CHECK: Charles “Charlie” Gardner voted against the Cunha site selection on 13-Oct-2005 [without explanation] along with Jolanda Schreurs! John Moseley and Dwight Wilson voted for it. This was in spite of a report on 6-Oct-2005 from a hand picked committee, “Report of the Site Professional Advice Committee”, headed by CUSD Superintendent Bayless giving costs for the four alternatives:

Cunha $32,345,616

Wavecrest Joint Development $56,164,216

Wavecrest Alone $61,611,842

Podesta $61,799,067

Cunha was the only alternative that could be done within existing funds! The other alternatives were more than double the funds available and there was clearly NO SUPPORT for another Bond Measure! Cunha also was the only alternative that could be done this decade.

Following the Board vote of 3 to 2 against considering the Cunha site, conversations continued for an hour in the parking lot planning to Recall Charles “Charlie” Gardner and Jolanda Schreurs. I wrote “considering” because the HMB High School Representative - Sarah Sampson, student representative to the Board, observed during the meeting that this was not even a commitment to build but to evaluate - she was smarter than Charlie. [Barry had a great article in Coastsider about it that I couldn’t find - I looked for “High School Rep was smarter than Gardner and Scherus”].
School board delays vote on middle school—Most in attendance want project to move forward

A follow-up meeting was scheduled but the
“anticipated board meeting was postponed ...<u>until the day after the election, Nov. 9.”</u> that was the key - to influence the HMB City Council election and demonstrate contempt for the public interests and the School District needs!

In a bit of irony, the headline on the day after the election was
“It’s Patridge, Grady, Ferreira”. Mike Ferreira was their perceived nemesis of the Wavecrest Project. That evening, Charles “Charlie” Gardner and Jolanda Schreurs relented to reality and the
“School District board voted unanimously Nov. 9 to build the new middle school on land that currently is home to the Cunha Intermediate School.” I wrote “a bit of irony” in that Mr. Ferreira’s victory would ultimately be upset by a vote recount lost by less than 10 votes and the Wavecrest Project was ultimately doomed and sold to POST anyway.  Turns out Charles “Charlie” Gardner is wrong on every issue no matter which way you look at it!

So, Mr. Gardner, VOTED AGAINST IT, BEFORE HE VOTED FOR IT! ALL DONE FOR THE WRONG REASONS.

Charles “Charlie” Gardner wrote above on Oct 05 at 5:38pm “The fact is I ran 4 years ago to “Expedite the Construction of the New Middle School” -
actually; Charles Gardner, on his “smartvoter” page four years ago for Priorities wrote:
“Expedite Final Steps to building a new world class Middle School.” Go take a look at Cunha. That is Charlie Gardner’s concept of
“a new world class Middle School”?

Mr. Gardner may be wrong on seemingly every issue, but he and his supporters can be nefarious:
“Ad writers say ends justify means of CUSD campaign.”

Mr. Gardner wrote above, on Oct 06 at 7:31am, regarding the 4-1 vote to support AB1991 by the Board: “We were showing support for our community leaders “! Once again, Charlie was voting against the interests of the School District for his own personal political gain.

It Is Time To CHANGE The School Board!
The Board needs to focus on education issues and not divisive local land use politics.

Ken Johnson

KENforCUSD.com

Ken,

Thanks for setting the record straight (again) in what amounts to Gardner’s intentional distortion of the facts.

Gardner wrote:

“...if you check your records, I think you will find it was me who made the motion to proceed with the construction at Cunha.”

I guess he didn’t expect anybody to check the records to find out that he actually voted against the Cunha site 2 weeks earlier. A clear attempt to gamble on the outcome of the 2005 City Council election.

Basically, school board trustee Gardner was playing politics instead of making the right decision for the school district. Same thing happened with the AB 1991 fiasco.

Thanks for the reminder.  I was at the meeting where no decision was made. Here’s the link, with photos:

School board decides not to decide

Charles Gardner started by saying that “Cunha is a no-brainer”. But he then continued that there’s a word in the construction business for a project with insufficient funding: “Not a project”. Gardner would stick to this theme for the discussion that followed: He couldn’t commit money to a project if they didn’t have enough money to actually do it.

Conclusion:

The greatest insight of the meeting came from Half Moon Bay High School student body representative on the board Sarah Sampson, who asked whether the resolution actually committed the district to building the school Cunha. It didn’t. But no one addressed this crucial question.[...]

This was followed by numerous pleas from the increasingly incredulous members of the public who implored the board not to waste this opportunity to mend fences with the community. Marina Stariha, former CUSD board member who supported Wavecrest as recently as last week in a letter and article in the Review, urged the board to vote for the resolution, saying, “We need to get the community to pull together for the children”.  Sarah Sampson, once again the voice of reason on the board, told the board that they risked the good will that could be gained by a vote to move forward with Cunha.

Before the board tabled the resolution, John Moseley tried gamely to get them to at least vote on it, but it was not to be. The board will take up the resolution at its next regular meeting, on Thursday, Nov 3.

Gardner gets the last word. Toward the end of the meeting, he patiently explained to Sarah, and the public, “Sometimes you have to make a hard decision.” But Thursday night was apparently not that time.

The only hard decision was to insure we had adequate funding and the community ad-hoc committee had completed its evaluation and made recomendation. We asked Bayless to give us additional detail from the financial standpoint to insure we wouldn’t need to redesign.

The Kevins need to quit drinking their kool aid,and come back to the present.

Comment 16
Wed, October 8, 2008 4:30pm
jlundell
All my comments

Charlie and friends certainly dragged their feet back in 2005, but the real blame goes back to 1996, when the construction money was first available and the choice of the Cunha site was already a no-brainer.

(Speaking of no-brainers, I see over at the Review that CUSD had some $1.15 million in unsecured Lehman Bros paper. Ouch. Was that construction money, Charlie?)

Thanks Barry,

Sarah Sampson reminds us CUSD has great students - taught by great teachers!

Unfortunately, Charlie Gardner again reminds us above, in Comment 5 on Oct 06 at 7:31am, that his interest is still more in local land use politics and NOT CUSD education when he wrote: “We were showing support for our community <u>leaders</u>”.

Charlie Gardner showed that ‘The Past IS Prologue’ whether three years ago on the Cunha site selection or a couple of months ago when he dragged the School Board down into local land use politics in Half Moon Bay again on AB1991.

Maybe he should move to Half Moon Bay and run for City Council instead of CUSD School Board. Anyone remember his presentation on “his street to nowhere - Foothill Street” to the Half Moon Bay City Council for his own make believe PCF-CCF Organization? 

He certainly isn’t interested in the responsibilities of a School Board Member living in Montara.

Has Charlie Gardner ever explained his actions to deny Federal money to Farallone View Elementary?

As I wrote earlier, I would like to undo his damage and restore the Federal money to Farallone View Elementary!


Ken Johnson

KenForCUSD.com

Charlie (above) refers to the 34% price increase caused by his delaying construction at Cunha. As usual, he and his supporters who just cost HMB $20 Million, try to blame other “Obstructionists” for the 9-year Cunha delay.
Why is it beneficial to have Charlie and his cohorts running local agencies if they have no concept of California law? Elected officials are the ones who actually have the power to choose a project. Charlie and his predecessors picked a path that they were specifically advised was illegal under California law. Elected officials are solely responsible for all costs incurred by the failure of their projects. Charlie and his supporters are either
1. Ignorant of California law or
2. Refuse to acknowledge the authority of California law.

Which is it Charlie?

Ric,

The law allows for due process and expeditious processing of an application. It is when the obstructionist minority lobbys to delay approval that the “law” is thwarted when an equitable solution can be found for (most) all parties (i.e. adequate buffer zones that would satisfy Corps of Engineers, Dept. Fish and Wildlife, and permitting agencies.)

It is when those people that say they are for contolled “reasonable” growth that oppose anything that involves the building of one house, addition, or infrastructure improvement because it may be “growth inducing” that the real travesty to our community is affected.

As an elected representative, it is incumbent to recognize this, weigh the options for the community, and in this case the school district, and that is why we are building the new school now at Cunha.

By the way, all in accordance with the Law.

Have a nice day.

The law certainly “allows” groups like yours to submit applications that will break California laws.
Certainly. The law “allowed” you to submit projects at Mirada Surf, The Moss Beach Hospital, Wavecrest, etc. Our democracy is based on that.
The law “allowed” your HMB backers to stick the community for $20 Million in an attempt to bypass other California laws. There is nothing “illegal” about your refusal to build the middle school at the only rational site.
The big question is “With all the money you have “legally” cost us, will HMB and the school district ever recover?”
Since you are against people objecting to projects, I have to assume that you will stand up and say that you approve of every project that has ever been proposed on the Coast.
True?

Charlie, twice now you’ve brought up delays due to lobbying for buffer zones. Here:

I’m reffering to the intensive lobbying for extentions of buffer zones which delayed the approval process.

and here:

It is when the obstructionist minority lobbys to delay approval that the “law” is thwarted when an equitable solution can be found for (most) all parties (i.e. adequate buffer zones that would satisfy Corps of Engineers, Dept. Fish and Wildlife, and permitting agencies.)

I confess I’m unfamiliar with this. When did this happen, what was the appeal, and what was the nature of the delay?

Charlie,
Your quote
“It is when the obstructionist minority lobbys to delay approval that the “law” is thwarted when an equitable solution can be found for (most) all parties”

All of the vocal speakers in your group, Jim Larimer, Coastside Citizens first, your Half Moon Bay Review, use this exact argument. You couch this under clever phrases, like, “Smart Growth” or “Equitable Growth”.
“we should all be able to simply compromise and get along, with everyone giving something up.”
Do I have that right?
As warm and fuzzy as this sounds, what you and your groups (who just nailed HMB for $20 Million) are saying is that those who simply back California law and Local Coastal Programs (LCP’s) are the ones who always have to compromise. In EVERY case of one your development proposals, the compromise is ALWAYS toward MORE development than the law allows. “Smart Community Planning” to you means gutting all existing laws so you can build more than is allowed.
You have no responsibility for submitting lawful projects. Your hope is that no one will notice what you are doing.
Why do you get to pick which laws to obey? What if we all simply choose which laws to obey and which ones to ignore? By your and Jim Larimer’s reasoning, if I see a robbery in progress and call it in to the police, it’s MY fault, not the one who is doing the robbing.

Ric,

I suggest you seek professional help. You are beyond any I may be able to give.

Good Luck.

Well Charlie, I wasn’t actually asking for your help. I was asking you to explain your group’s cliche’s you put forth for every argument.
I didn’t vote to stick the city with a $20 Million debt.
You and your groups did.
It’s hard to avoid seeing the similarities between the national and local financial crises caused by the big monied interests. HMB folks get stuck with a double whammy.

Hopefully the voters will see that the school board’s meddling in land-use politics, led by Charles Gardner, has harmed the finances of not only the school district, but also the entire Coastside that depends on the City of HMB for many services. 

It’s way past time for some new blood on the school board. Ken Johnson is a reform candidate who will push for needed changes. 

My HMB Review Letter to Editor, June 11, 2008

Kevin,

The school board’s vote of solidarity with the city council did not change the district’s finances, nor the city’s one bit. This is just another example of the “untruths” that you continue to spew hoping that someone will believe you.

Thanks for putting your support behind Ken “Kenny” Johnson lest the voters confuse him with the 12 year veteren and past board president Ken Jones.

As for reform? At the September board meeting when asked if he had anything constructive to offer that may benefit our schools, his response?  “...it looks like I am out of time!”

If I were motivated purely by political reasons, I would have loved to have extended his time, but I chose to be considerate.

Aside from some veiled threat that a parcel tax will not pass, perhaps you can elaborate for the voters how the districts finances have been harmed by the school board supporting the City Councils efforts to resolve the situation fostered upon them by you and your cronies previous tenures that created the mess in the first place.

Charles Gardner writes:

“...The school board’s vote of solidarity with the city council…”

This proves my point perfectly. Gardner was elected to serve as a trustee of the CUSD school district—not as a member of the Half Moon Bay City Council.

Why can’t the school board just stick to the job is was elected to do? Obviously, boared member John Moseley understood this concept and so he had the integrity to vote against Gardner & Co. on the AB 1991 fiasco back in June of this year.

Gardner then says that meddling in HMB land use politics via AB 1991 “did not change the district’s finances.”

Well maybe not this year. But when people see that elected school board members like Gardner are are spending their time trying get new subdivisions built, rather than trying to improve the schools, they are very reluctant to support a much-needed parcel tax.

CUSD has had five straight parcel tax defeats since 2001. Local schools are currently not meeting federal standards.

As I said above, I’m not sure why people who live on the Coastside keep re-electing the same people to the school board while the schools are performing so poorly, But then again, George Bush was re-elected in 2004, so go figure.

By the way, I’m not the only one who has noticed that school board trustee Gardner is spending lots of time lobbying for development projects.

Here’s what HMB Review Editor Clay Lambert had to say about Gardner in his December 12, 2007 editorial:

HMB Review Editorial (Dec. 12, 2007): “Gardner should leave lobbying over development to others”

“...[W]e simply think [Gardner] is wrong. The potential to drag CUSD into costly litigation and the obvious conflicts of interest are obvious. Elected officials like Gardner must remember their primary concern is the best interest of the people who put them in office, and sometimes that conflicts with their own grand plans for the Coastside. Clay Lambert”

Kevin,

Personnally I could care less if Chop Keenan or anyone else builds a house here. I have advocated for an alternative by-pass to relieve traffic congestion and stand by that position.

I also support the Big Wave project for what it can do to help special needs people while providing a centralized economic engine center. (I worked on both the parcel tax and speaking out for that on the same day, go figure some folks can actually multi-task). I don’t know why you would oppose such a noble project.

My point is you can be a school board member and an active member of the community.

I repeat my question you didn’t answer,

“*Aside from some veiled threat that a parcel tax will not pass, perhaps you can elaborate for the voters how the districts finances have been harmed by the school board supporting the City Councils efforts to resolve the situation fostered upon them by you and your cronies previous tenures that created the mess in the first place.
*”.

Charlie, I’m still looking for answer to my question about what you called “the intensive lobbying for extentions of buffer zones which delayed the approval process” of Wavecrest.

My question:  When did this happen, what was the appeal, and what was the nature of the delay?

In a separate matter, Clay’s column linked by Kevin above is definitely worth reading.  He points to a conflict of interest between Charlie’s fiduciary duty as a member of the school board and lobbying as a director of another organization for the development of properties surrounding, and potentially including, school property.

<http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2007/12/12/news/editorial/story1.txt>

Barry,

Let’s try and stay on topic here. I’m going to leave the past in the past as far as the mess Kevin and friends caused at Beechwood.

Clay’s editorial was spot on regarding my fiduciary duty to the school district. We disagree on excercising what I consider my 1st amendment rights to speak out for what I believe in. Clay would be the first to admit that I am probably the most qualified of any of the current board members when it comes to school property and facilities.

I repeat, I am an infrastructure advocate. That means I support adequate schools (and my duty as a school board member as a priority), adequate water, sewer, roads, and life safety.
I like our open space, but I am not delusional to deny that it doesn’t come without a cost.

Anything else you want to spin out of that is just so much more smoke and mirrors.

Another thing I forgot.
Your School board was not simply satisfied with backing the bill which now cost HMB folks $20 million. How much is that per household, Charlie?

You also sent your new superintendent to lobby for the CCWD takeover of the Montara Water District. You really know how to put politics above education. I’m sure you endeared a lot of Northcoasters with that move.

On parcel taxes and bond measures…
Before your groups made your true development goals public, the community actually passed money to support the schools. You, of course, have now frittered a lot of that away by killing our middle school for 9 years. Once you made your motives clear, no parcel taxes. Thanks Charlie.

I understand that you support all infrastructure increases, legal or not. Too bad you don’t support the California laws that regulate infrastructure. I thought when you were sworn in, you stated you supported the laws of the State of California. I guess you get to pick and choose which ones.
And finally, Clay’s HMB Review article is about your conflict of interest, not your first amendment rights.

I’m happy to keep things on topic here, and I’m a strong proponent of leaving the past behind on this matter. I don’t believe that Wavecrest is an issue in this election.

Having said that, it’s a bad idea to let either side in this dispute to rewrite history, lest we learn the wrong lessons. You’re the one who *twice* asserted that “obstructionists” were responsible for delays that caused Wavecrest’s failure. You’ve been asked twice to back up your assertion with facts. I would appreciate an answer to my question.

Mr. Gardner should read the Walker decision before he makes statements such as “I’m going to leave the past in the past as far as the mess Kevin and friends caused at Beechwood.”

The “mess” Mr. Gardner tries to lay off onto “Kevin and friends” was created - according to Walker - in the late 1980s and early 1990s when Mr. Gardner’s “friends” were in control of city government. It was those “friends” who Walker faults for creating wetlands on Beachwood by messing up the TAAD drainage project.

I don’t happen to agree with Walker’s findings, and I believe the decision richly deserved to be appealed, but Mr. Gardner is way off base in trying to dump blame on “Kevin and friends.”

Wow! They’re really coming out of the woodwork on this attack thread here (let’s face it, that is what this is).

I can understand Ric Lohman’s rantings about not supporting California law, I’ve suggested he seek professional help but with the current serial “letter” by the MCC with no public input regarding the LafCo recommendations which were admittedly passed around several MCC members, maybe he should seek legal council. I’m sure the county council and D.A. will be interested in talking with him on that. At least when the school board makes a decision and takes a position, we do it in public.

And Barry, I expect better from you. First you say you are willing to leave the past behind, but then immediately go into , “having said that…” you go right back to the past discussions. Which is it?

Gee, I thought you guys didn’t like the Half Moon Bay Review. Or maybe its when they say something you like you can cherry pick that as “OK”. Or maybe you are recoginizing the difference in quoting an opinion piece from a real newspaper as opposed to an editorial blog. Which is it?

And now, Mr. Ferreria weighs in. Mike, I believe you had ample time and opportunity to settle this mess under your watch as the “Old Guard” on the council, and as mayor, long before it got this far. So who’s really “off base”?

At least the high school homecoming tonight was a reminder of the good things about our community. Locals gathered to watch and cheer on our local team. Hey, we even have a good team and had fun routing our opponent. You should see “Cougie” do her dance! Thanks to all who support our schools.

Nothing Mr. Gardner says above regarding Beachwood reduces the ignorance of his attempt to blame the mess on “Kevin and friends”. And Mr. Gardner’s support of the bizarre and costly settlement orchestrated by his “friends” on the City Council is illustrative of how he would perform if the CUSD had to deal with major litigation.

Let’s review the basic facts:

(1) We have an incumbent school board trustee (Charles Gardner) who has demonstrated repeatedly that he cares more about lobbying for big development projects than doing the job he was elected to do, which is to improve the local schools.

(2) The local schools are in terrible shape both academically and financially.

(3) Having Gardner on the school board does nothing to help solve the problems noted in (2). In fact, his presence makes things much worse because his polarizing, right-wing, Texas-Republican. extreme property-rights political viewpoint ensures that no parcel tax can ever be passed while he is a member of the school board.

(4) The only hope to improve our local schools is to get some new blood on the school board. That is why people should vote for Ken Johnson.

Comment 39
Sat, October 18, 2008 10:12am
Ric Lohman
All my comments

It’s interesting to watch Charlie gradually explode during this discussion.
Basic Summary:
Charlie supports developer who is suing the city.
Charlie supports process to ignore California law.
Charlie fails to pass parcel tax.
Charlie has Superintendent support CCWD Water takeover.
Charlie accuses those who question him as needing psychological help.
Charlie’s anonymous backer accuses elected official of never being elected.
Charlie tries to pass buck to other council for his team’s actions.
Charlie claims credit for building middle school when his groups blocked it for 9 years.
Pretty stellar credentials.

Charlie, you’re changing the subject:

And Barry, I expect better from you. First you say you are willing to leave the past behind, but then immediately go into , “having said that…” you go right back to the past discussions. Which is it?

I didn’t raise Wavecrest. You took it upon yourself to claim twice that “obstructionists” delayed Wavecrest.  I asked you to substantiate your claim by telling us exactly who did it, what they did, when they did it, and what the practical effect was.  That’s when you declared “Let’s try and stay on topic here”.

As I said, I don’t consider your votes for or against Wavecrest to be an issue in this election. I consider your unwillingness to back up your repeated claims about what really happened to be an issue.

Please answer the question.

Barry,

This has just become a waste of time. I refer you back to a couple of postings ago about leaving the past behind us.

I’m suprised in this gang tackle you don’t somehow have me responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, although Kevin almost had me tied in with Karl Rove or somebody (btw it’s Tennessee, not Texas).

Why don’t you pick up on something like the Brown Act violation by MCC? Now that’s real stuff.

I know in these attack blogs you have to have the last say, so go ahead and get it over with, I’m done here. If you want to discuss our schools, I’m available. Just start a new thread as this one is starting to get old.

See you at Safeway….....

Charlie, you can have the last word on this simply by backing up your repeated assertion about “the intensive lobbying for extentions of buffer zones which delayed the approval process” of Wavecrest.

Why do you think you can repeatedly make assertions you can’t back up with facts?

FACT CHECK :

An Employment Contract for [then CUSD] Superintendent John Bayless “agreed to this 1st day of July, 2005” was signed on 11 Aug 2005 by the Board and on 19 Aug 2005 by Bayless.

The item, in no form, appeared on any agenda for any open or closed session. 

It was never reported out from any closed session.

It was never discussed in any open session.

When the Board was offered an opportunity, it declined to make its actions lawful.

Item 2:

Now former Superintendent John Bayless continues on being paid by CUSD as a “consultant”.

I want to terminate this redundant and unnecessary expense for CUSD!

Item 3:

Charles “Charlie” Gardner wants to discuss his perception of “Brown Act violation by MCC”.

Why doesn’t he want to discuss CUSD?


Ken Johnson

KenForCUSD.com