Assailing what he called the school board’s lack of transparency, Grossmont Union High School District candidate Bill Weaver told a forum Monday night that he was running because he doesn’t trust the current board members.
“We have an expectation of what the bond’s going to be used for and then the smoke and mirrors come out,” said Weaver, a parent of Alpine students and an Alpine Education Foundation board member. “Our money’s not being spent the way you said it’s going to be spent.”
All six candidates running for two seats tackled the screened questions of roughly 30 attendees at the Grossmont Healthcare District conference center in La Mesa. The forum, moderated by the League of Women Voters, was sponsored by East County Magazine
Although a report of a Grand Jury investigation into the board majority’s use of bond monies wasn’t noted directly, many of the candidates’ responses addressed accusations that voter-approved bond money has been steered away from a promised new high school in Alpine.
Incumbent Priscilla Schreiber, a candidate who has championed building a 12th high school in Alpine, said she is often “marginalized” for speaking out on the issue during board meetings.
“Character is doing what you said you would do,” she said.
Voters passed Proposition H, a $274 million bond measure in 2004, and Proposition U, a $417 million bond measure in 2008, to repair and modernize district schools and construct a new high school in the Alpine/Blossom Valley area.
Candidate Jim Stieringer, a former La Mesa city treasurer and Grossmont Healthcare District director, said voters in the district clearly said they wanted a new high school.
“If I get elected, I’ll check and find out if there’s enough money left in that bond to do exactly that,” he said.
As a trustee, said incumbent Gary Woods, his job is to “fight for what’s best” for every student in the district. Woods added that he has refused to begin construction on a new school because the district hasn’t yet reached its target of 23,245 students.
In fact, the district has nearly 2,000 fewer students in now than in 2008, he said.
“When I first got on the board, I was real excited about all the potential of what we could do, and how we could develop a school that would be cutting edge in technology,” Woods said. “After I got on the board, I realized we are in a steep decline.”
Woods, who said he is honored to serve on the board, praised the district for its other achievements, including higher test scores and increased student participation.
“In the last four years, we have faced some of the hardest economic times in my lifetime, and Grossmont at the same time has made great strides,” he said. “But this board is continually attacked for breaking its promise.”
Another hot topic of the evening was whether the candidates support staff furlough days and expect furlough days during the school year.
“We can look at the budget and find better ways to save money,” said candidate Zach Miller, a San Diego State junior who graduated from El Cajon Valley High School in 2011. “We just have to take the time and effort into looking at what we don’t need.”
Schreiber agreed and said it was “deplorable” furlough days were even up for discussion.
Weaver said board members should support funding opportunities to prevent furloughs and other cuts, which is why he said he is in favor of Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal for a temporary increase in income and sales taxes.
Of the six candidates, only Weaver and Miller said they were in favor of the proposition, which promises to prevent another $6 billion in cuts to schools and prevent college tuition hikes, according to www.yesonprop30.com.
“I can’t believe that a school board trustee could be against the propositions that are going to help prevent that from happening,” Weaver said.
Although candidate Barbara Stevens agreed that furloughs are a “horrible thing,” she said “taxpayers deserve their money, too.”
“It’s no more fair for a taxpayer to lose a couple days or a week or a month of pay than a teacher or a student losing their teaching days,” said Stevens, a writer/editor. “There’s a balance. It’s not unconnected, and we all have to consider that.”
Woods called the proposition a “Sacramento trick.”
Stieringer agreed, calling Brown “cynical.”
“Our school district will do whatever we have to do,” Stieringer said. “If we have to stop paying, we will stop paying. If we have to reduce our school days, we’ll do that.”
We are going to have to knuckle down and find local solutions that don't just feed the Sacramento "highwaymen." They KNOW exactly how to rob the stagecoach that is supposed to deliver the money to what we, the citizens want. In the meantime, check your own property tax bill for the amounts you, as well as the rest of the property owners here have agreed to pay ON TOP of what we expect from Sacramento. There is no end to their greed and personal desire to spend, spend, spend. We have a mountain of a problem before us. Let's all come up with ways to solve the problem rather than add to it.
The business climate in CA is abysmal. The schools cannot even make a budget that will stick because they have no idea if Sacramento will keep their promises already. They are spending addicts. We need to stop supporting their habit and instead focus on the students, This is a shell game. Whatever money is gained by the taxes proposed will be subtracted from what is given the schools from the normal funding sources. Anyone who is on a school board and who supports these two Propositions, in my view are pandering to the special educational interests who are find with the status quo of sucking money away from what is needed in the classrooms.
Hi Kevin, Thanks for your continued support always, P:)
Asst. Supt. Scott Patterson has an official opinion by the GUHSD legal council that refute as fact what Gary Woods said Monday night. The legal opinion was offered up to them by their San Francisco council, openly admitted and discussed during an open regular meeting. It was a video taped admission, and in public record it fully explains that their Legal Council says the 23,245 enrollment trigger is not legally binding, So woods really is (again) twisting facts to say they cannot legally begin to build the HS12 because the trigger 23,245 exists. Woods knows otherwise. Besides, the trigger has been met, and they hired the lease-lease back contractor, in Eric Hall and Associates, to build it! All moot, this board is bent to not move forward on the only bond project that is actually predicted to bring in new students and millions in new funds. Incumbent majority bd. members Jim Kelly, Rob Shield and candidate Gary Woods are sadly hurting all our kids by their deceitful twisting of facts.
Zach Miller and Bill Weaver are right in supporting Prop 30. Even an old-timer like myself will not have students, our future, suffer while we taxpayers pay $50,000/year to house each state prisoner.
Let's continue to develop strong, local efforts to do what it takes to improve our own local schools. If we count on the folks at the State level to be our knights in shiny armour, we will be sadly disappointed yet again. Again and again, voters prove they care about education as a priority, and again and again, the thieves at the State level use that concern to fund their own special interests. We have a Bullet Train no one wants while our students squeeze into crowded classrooms and teachers are out of jobs. It's past time to stop that. Should the Alpine School be built? I don't know. Are the funds are really there? Can we trust the enrollment figures? Do plans include operating costs, maintenance, and other associated commitments?
It's easy to make promises with other people's money. But we are talking about students in the ENTIRE district, we have to keep that in our mind, as well. Ms. Schreiber mentioned during the Forum she felt the Board was not presented with a full and accurate budget prior to the construction of the current upgrades and rebuilding. We need to be vigilant Watchdogs of the funds that are being spent on these projects.
More silly Granite Hills HS is over crowded, unsafe because of overcrowding (Prop H was dubbed,"The Overcrowding & Safety Measure") and the whole "Boundary Study" was recommended by the BAC {June 14, 2007} report to prevent the crazy shuffling around of students that the Board just got in hot water over. It was meant to reduce GHHS overcrowding, and unsafe student commutes, Steele Canyon Charter HS included. Almost 700 Alpine/Blossom Valley students go to GHHS, 340 go to Steele Canyon. Both are overcrowded and unsafely impacted, student body and education suffers at both by sheer mass of students per campus. The Prop H CBOC was owned by Jim Kelly, the Prop U CBOC, better, but intimidated by the GUHSD bureaucracy and the administration BS as spin and excuses are shoveled out. Yes we need watchdogs... that would be you, me, the public, Zach, others. The CBOC is part of the ineffective bureaucracy, that is why I shudder when I hear, "Strict Oversite" or supervision, that cannot exist under the current system.
Ask GUHSD Professional Demographer Vince O'Hara about Steele Canyon HS growth. New students came out of the wood works to attend! Outside the district they came, address borrowing, moving, commuting from SDUSD, etc : )
I also agree a new high school in Alpine would be very attractive to parents and students, and fill up very quickly. We must not continually increase the pressures on teachers and the kids because current state revenues are down. Yes, economic times are tough. Like a parent with little food in the house, I would not starve my child so that I could remain comfortable. Those, and there are many, who see taxes only as theft should understand many believe Prop 30 is not theft, but an investment in the children that we must make. Will every dime go where it's supposed to? That depends. If the people who control the GUHSD board and those funds are the same people who controlled them when funds were earlier dedicated for an Alpine High School, that's a very good question.
Why this is still being debated at this point, is very telling. Let's get in, take an accounting and start getting things accomplished.
I qoute the Patch, "Stieringer, also responding to a Patch query, noted that he had expressed strong support for the construction of a high school in Alpine. And he said he respected differences among the current board members, “all of whom have my highest respect. I applaud their positive action in having procured the site for the proposed school.” But he said he found it distressing that district Superintendent Ralf Swenson has “arbitrarily withdrawn the building plans submitted to the State Architect [Office]. If that allegation turns out to be true, I am certain that all five board members will demand to know why that was done.” If elected, he said, “I would make engendering collegiality my first priority. As part of that effort I would make every effort to convince my new colleagues that we should promptly move toward construction of the voter-approved school. Weaver told Patch that even though “my opinions are cause to be suspect” because he is a school board candidate, “I respond because history makes the case strong that this GUHSD board majority is disingenuous to their mission of governing to the needs of the high school district, as best served.” He said he was tired of false hope and asserted that the current board has “lied, twisted truth and created delays that should have succeeded long ago to accomplish their goal—kill the HS12 project.” THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN, AGAIN!
http://www.designerwatchesideas.com/dresses/the-ideas-of-mens-suit.html