jollygirl,
We know you "get it" every time you deposit your CalSTRS check.
And that is the real point, isn't it?

You aren't concerned with students in CUSD, the quality of instruction, the transparency of elected officials or anything else as long as the money continues to flow your way.

Capomom, I try not to reply to your attempt at personal attacks. As soon as you identify yourself I will be happy to do so. Your assumptions about the motives of anyone who belongs to one group or another only serve to undermine your credibility. Surely you aren't saying that the minute one retires they care only about themselves? That is similar to your attempts to define all teachers as greedy and self serving when everyone knows that is far from the truth. Why can't you make your point without demonizing the other side?

No jolly girl, I am not saying that this happens the moment one retires.
I am saying that die hard union supporters like you have always held this as a top priority.

Fortunately not all teachers think that way.

And you base this opinion on what?

I base my opinion on your posts
and your willingness to support the following;
- teacher lay offs and class size increases to support step and column increases for union members;
- to defend incompetent and /or immoral teachers;
- to support a campaign for trustees that was financed by big labor and predicated on lies;
- to defend the shadowy actions those trustees once elected when they apparently lie, cheat and steal from CUSD and its students.

Wow...serious charges. And about as credible as the rest of your charges against those who disagree with you. Let's keep this on point please. Since you actually have no knowledge about me personally and I certainly don't claim to know who you are let's keep this about the issues. Feel free to disagree with me but please refrain from making ridiculous and unfounded accusations. It only reflects on you personally.

Please don't use the comments section to attack one another but focus on the news and the newsmakers. Thanks!

Penny, it is your playpen ;)

But the premise of the status quo in CUSD is based on character assassination.

RSM Dad,
In the last election Trustee Bryson ran against the candidate that the union supported. She won against the union backed candidate. She ran with Trustee Addonizio. She was on the former board. She was on the former board who did not negotiate and imposed a contract on the teachers. "illegal activities on the secret votes" What? They have discussed openly what occurred at the December meeting.

Do you really believe that calling teachers, "hacks" is helpful to your cause? Do your children go to CUSD schools with these teachers you call hacks?

The newly elected board contained 4 former board members. Trustees Addonizio and Bryson were re-elected and Trustees Brick and Palazzo were still on the board. Only three new board members were newly elected. The former board who signed the contract that contained the trigger language still had majority.

Was the ADA increased beyond what was expected, capo mom? Did the contract that the former board imposed and then add trigger language to call for added funds to teachers if money came back to the districts?

Did Superintendent Farley state that they voted to restore to pay back to their major donors or are those your words? Because I believe that is slander if it is untrue. And who were the major campaign donors of Trustee Bryson that she was voting to payback? She ran against the union backed candidate and won.

"Did Superintendent Farley state that they voted to restore to pay back to their major donors "
idk.
You tell me.

"Now, however, Farley says the board did discuss and vote on the restoration of the school days and salary during the Dec. 7 closed session. The Dec. 7 meeting was the first of the newly composed board since the Nov. 4 election recall ousted two board members and failed to re-elect a third.

“The board discussed whether or not we wanted to ignore the settlement agreement, and the decision of the majority was we would not,” Farley said Friday. “I said, ‘Given the seriousness of this, I would like a vote.’ ”
Decision of the majority = vote

http://sanjuancapistrano.patch.com/articles/new-story-emerges-school-board-voted-to-restore-days-salary-in-closed-session-dec-7

Jack Brick's daughter is a teacher and he doesn't behave like someone in control of his faculties. That is why the union's board nominated him to be board president but won't let him run a meeting.
Anna Bryson really enjoys the sound of her own voice and blows with the wind.

Capo Mom,
If as you say "idk" and you state you don't know, why then did you state, "(according to Superintendent Farley) to restore pay as payback for their major campaign donors"? (capo mom)

Can you please state who the union's board is? Trustees Brick, Bryson, Addonizio and Palazzo were not supported by the union. These Trustees were all backed and supported by the same people. Trustee Bryson ran with Trustee Addonizio in the last election. She won against the candidate the union gave some funds to.

Capo parent,
You cannot safely run the schools without CUMA and the Teamsters. So if you restore days then it would be assumed that these employees would be there. Could you please explain to me what should have been done when the state came back with more ADA than expected. The current board did not sign the contract. The former board did. The current board needed to either honor or not honor a legal document the former board signed. The former board imposed a contract and when the teachers and many, many parents of CUSD went on strike the former board added trigger language to the imposed contract. The contract contained language in it that restored some of the paycuts if the district received more money than anticipated. Capo parent and Jim Reardon, Should the current board not have honored the contract the former board signed when the ADA increased? I would suggest that people who read the article and this comment section read up on the issue. Read up on the vote that was asked for and taken at the very first meeting of the current board and then discussed in public at a public meeting. What exactly do you believe is hidden? The board accused of breaking the brown act was a brand new board at their very first board meeting that contained 4 former board members and 3 new board members. It was the very first meeting of the new board. People want to paint the board as all union supported but 4 out of the 7 were not supported by the union.

Nice revisionist history.
The original action on this issue proposed solutions that were outside of the courtroom. CUEA's board rejected those solutions because they knew their hands were dirty and, coming off the campaign they had just run, understood the implications.

Schools can and have operated safely without CUMA members and teamsters. But the larger issue is transparency ... something that doesn't favor your cause.

The Brown Act is a slippery slope and difficult to navigate only you are making back room deals.
I hope Mr. Reardon and his lawyer don't spend their time working on revising it.
But I get why you'd wish for it.

Capo mom,
The accusation of the Brown Act violation occurred at the first meeting of a just sworn in board. The new board consisted of 4 former board members and 3 new board members. Trustees Addonizio and Bryson were incumbants and just won back their seats. Trustee Bryson ran against a candidate who was supported by the union. I wish the board meetings had continued to be taped but the former board voted to stop taping their closed sessions during the time they were negotiating with the teachers. Why? Can you please explain what you mean by "they knew their hands were dirty"? As for transparency the new board discussed in open session what they had discussed in closed session.

capo mom,
Can you please cite recent examples of when schools ran without CUMA and Teamsters?

Shelly & Jollygirl

Short answer, you're dead wrong. Schools don't need CUMA or the Teamsters to be operated safely. Where do you come up with this BS? Administrators have been rotating at most schools in order to achieve the mandated furlough days while still having administrators at school. Point to one instance where all CUMA members took furlough days at the same time. As for the bus drivers, how many are actually left in CUSD? Well over 95% of CUSD students get to school without busing. Like CUMA, bus drivers can take furlough days at different times in order to ensure coverage of the meager bus service still provided.

I am amazed, but not surprised at how you can both defend obvious violations of the law.

Since you don't get I'll try making it simple. Unlike CUEA & CSEA, CUMA and the Teamsters do not have automatic restoration langauge. Under the Brown Act, the board has to vote to restore furlough days and the pay for CUMA and the Teamsters, but it has never done so. That is one obvious Brown Act violation. As for the claim the law is poor written, it appears only those who violate it or condone its violation believe it is poorly written.

Capo parent,
Please cite recent examples of when schools operated without any CUMA and Teamsters employess.

Capo Mom,
Who is the union board? The current board is made up of Trustees Brick, Palazzo, Addonizio and Bryson who were not supported by the union. They were on the former board that did not negotiate with the teachers but instead imposed a contract on the teachers. Trustee Bryson ran against the union supported candidate and won. Trustee Alpay did not accept union funds. Trustees Hatton and Prichard did accept some donations from the union. So who exactly is the union board? The board is made up of 4 former board members not supported by the union and 3 new board members. Who is the "union board"? Simple question. What secret votes? They redid everthing that they did in the December meeting in a public meeting. Please tell us what the secret votes are?

I'm tired of those who continue to mischaracterize the current board as a "union" board" or "CUEA's board."

Per the "reform CUSD" website:
"November 3, 2010 REFORM TRUSTEES WIN ELECTION VICTORIES – AND STOPPED THE UNION TAKEOVER!!! Our CUSD Reform Trustees Anna Bryson and Ellen Addonizio each won decisive election victories yesterday -- thereby stopping the union takeover attempt."

The school board is made up of 7 distinct people, each with their own viewpoint, as a governing body should be. Most of the trustees did not accept campaign help from CUEA. A couple did. So what? I seriously doubt that trustees whose children attend CUSD schools do not make children their priority, as some have opined.

As far as the Brown Act, Mr. Reardon only seems to take notice of potential brown act violations when the board is not supported by Mr. Reardon. He was mute when a judge confirmed that the board he supported violated the brown act in 2008. A judge recently threw out his last Brown Act claim. Therefore, I now consider his claims selective and not credible. Unfortunately, the district has to spend a lot of time, energy and money defending the myriad of unfounded complaints and lawsuits brought forth by Mr. Reardon...unfortunately.

Actually, I'm not really that concerned with Brown Act violations in 2008 or now. I think CUSD leaders are doing their best to comply with the law and they have been for quite some time. In fact, l agree with Mike Winsten's statement from the article below: “The Brown Act is so vague and ambiguous. Everyone is doing their best to comply with it.”
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/03/capistrano-schools-held-in-violation-of-californias-open-meeting-laws/

My point was that if Mr. Reardon was truly concerned about the "Brown Act," I would think that, in 2008, he would have registered concern about the violation confirmed by a judge--he did not.

In this case, I think that the real issue is that Mr. Reardon disagrees with the restoration of pay to the employees of CUSD. The Brown Act is simply a vehicle to register his displeasure and try to discredit the district. Political fodder.

My concern is a history of needless and relentless litigation. Mr. Reardon seems to have filed numerous lawsuits against CUSD--most of which have amounted to nothing. Litigation should be a last resort. It is expensive in time, energy, and money. It does not benefit students and should be an absolute last resort. Sorry, that's just what it seems like to me.

I'm not going to argue with you, Capo Parent, I just thought a different opinion might be due.

Shelly

I have never criticized CUEA's right to file a Brown Act lawsuit, in particular, the action it filed in 2008. However, you criticize Reardon's filing of a Brown Act lawsuit as a waste of CUSD money. I assume you have the same opinion regarding the Brown Act lawsuit filed by CUEA in 2008, that it was a waste of CUSD money, right? Or do you have a double standard, ok for CUEA (teachers) but no ok for private citizens (Reardon) to file Brown Act lawsuits against CUSD.