CUSD, LaConte: Guilty as Charged

The other candidates in the school board election, Hilary LaConte and Sam Mowbray, do not play political games. They say what they mean, and mean what they say, based on actual facts. We may disagree with some of their positions, but we know they are responsible community leaders who don't resort to tricky campaign strategies driven by political expediency.

- Dave Nemer, letter to Claremont Courier, 9/19/11

J'ACCUSE!

CUSD Board Member
Steven Llanusa

Last Saturday's Claremont Courier had an article by Landus Rigsby, who covers the public schools beat.   The headline, "Board sidetracked by Brown Act violation allegation," implied that CUSD Board Member Steven Llanusa's complaints about open governance violations by the board have distracted the other board members and CUSD Interim Superintendent Gloria Johnston from the more important work of running the school district.

Rigsby's article focused on a complaint Llanusa had made to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office about an alleged Brown Act violation by the CUSD Board and Johnston at their May 19, 2011, meeting.  The Brown Act is a California sunshine law that's supposed to guarantee transparency in government.

In the article, Johnston indicated that the entire complaint was a waste of the district's time and money.  She also claimed that the DA's response "indicated that there was no reason to pursue further action..."  Rigsby quoted Johnston:

"I feel it's very important for me to clear my reputation in terms of being in charge of or violating the Brown Act in closed session," Ms Johnston said.  "I have in front of me both letters that you have submitted to the district attorney's office, Mr. Llanusa, and neither of them indicate that a substantial violation took place."

Additionally, the article quoted Board President Beth Bingham:

[Bingham] agreed with Ms. Johnston's suggestion that the district attorney's response eliminated the need to pursue further action.

Board Vice President Jeff Stark went even further, stopping just short of calling Llanusa a liar:

CUSD Board VP
Jeff Stark

...Jeff Stark described Mr. Llanusa's recollection of the May 19, 2011 meeting as "incorrect."

"You keep saying there was a Brown Act violation, but clearly the letter from the district attorney does not agree with that," Mr. Stark said.  "So again, Steven, maybe it's an misinterpretation of what the district attorney is saying.  Maybe it's a misinterpretation of what happened in closed session.  But my mmory of that session is dramatically different."

So if Rigsby's article is to be believed, Llanusa's Brown Act complaints are baseless, and his accusations about the CUSD board's disregard for open government laws are not much more than a meaningless distraction caused by a whiney incompetent, which is how the four other board members like to portray Llanusa.

The Rigsby article also helps buttress claims by CUSD board supporters like Dave Nemer that the board, other than Llanusa, have achieved a sort of organizational perfection unmarred by things like Brown Act violations.   This is no small matter since one of the issues that's arisen in the current CUSD board election is the board's lack of transparency, at least as it's perceived in some parts of the community.

Long and short, if Rigsby reporting is at all accurate, Llanusa's full of more crap than a Christmas goose as far as his allegations go.


DA TO CUSD: STRAIGHTEN UP AND FLY RIGHT

Now, we've disagreed with Llanusa on many things and certainly haven't supported him in the past.  But in this case, we've found evidence that not only does Llanusa appear to be right about CUSD's contempt for open government law, but that the district attorney's office has in fact warned the CUSD board about their behavior.

A year ago, at the board's October 7, 2010, meeting, the board went into closed session to discuss what was listed on their agenda as a "Superintendent's Evaluation--Update" as well as a labor negotiation conference.  A complaint was filed with the Public Integrity Division of the district attorney's office alleging that the closed session was a ruse under which the board went beyond the claimed labor negotiation discussion and the evaluation of then-Superintendent Terry Nichols.  The complaint alleged that in closed session the board also discussed budgetary matters and district goals - things that by law are supposed to be considered in open, not closed, session.

CUSD Board Agenda for 10/7/10

(Click to Enlarge)

CUSD Board Member
Hilary LaConte

We should also note that the alleged Brown Act violation occurred under the watch of then-Board President Hilary LaConte, who is currently running for reelection to the board.  LaConte, like Jeff Stark, has publicly scoffed at the idea that the CUSD board is lacking in transparency and is completely open and above board.

We would normally be inclined to leave matters at that.  After all, what occurs in closed session stays in closed session.  Even if a violation occurred, who could ever prove it?

Well, now comes a public response from the LADA's Public Integrity Division to the complaint, presumably from Steve Llanusa (the complaintant is unnamed), regarding that 10/7/10 closed session meeting.  The DA's response, dated 9/29/11 and received by the school district on 10/7/11, belies the claims of openness by the board and its supporters and supports Llanusa's accusations completely.

Here is the DA's response (click on the small "S" at the lower left-hand corner of the image to see a larger view):
LADA ltr 9-29-11


Some key points from the letter:

If, as alleged, the discussions included budgetary considerations and prospective goals of the District, then such discussions in closed session violated the law....

[Evidence Supporting the Allegations - .ed]
We obtained written documents that reportedly reflect matters that were considered in closed session. Copies of the documents are attached. They include what appears to be a presentation slide entitled "CUC Strategic Planning", dated October 6, 2010, and a typed memo with a caption of "Needed Support from the Board". These matters exceed the permissible boundaries of a closed session performance evaluation and do not have anything to do with labor negotiations.  The memo makes suggestions about communications between the Superintendent, the Board, and other groups. It addresses board goals, and public support for possible bond funding....

Unagendized, closed session discussion of such matters violates the Brown Act....

Even if the matters were only presented and not discussed, such consideration is still illegal.....

Similarly, closed session discussions regarding budget issues, proposed expenditures of stimulus money, the possibility of bond revenues, identification of programs or positions to cut, under the guise of Labor Negotiations or Performance Evaluations are simply impermissible.

[CUSD: Don't Use Closed Session to Duck the Public]

We recognize that the issues faced by legislative bodies like your board are difficult, especially in times of financial uncertainty. Such matters often generate controversy and disagreement that is minimized when the discussions are conducted outside the public's view. However, the Brown Act does not permit closed session consideration of matters simply because they are controversial or difficult; rather, permissible closed session topics are narrowly defined and limited to very specific matters for which the public's interest is best served by closed session consideration, such as the range of acceptable terms for a real estate transaction or labor negotiation that is in the works, or the candid communication between the legislative body and its attorney, or the forthright and frank evaluation of an employee who serves at the pleasure of the legislative body itself.

[Warning to Board:  Watch Yourselves in the Future]

In the absence of any objective evidence such as a recording of the closed session discussions, the scope of discussions that occurred in closed session cannot be conclusively proven. However, the impermissible expansion of closed session discussions to include matters that are not expressly authorized for closed session consideration is troubling. We therefore express to you our deep concern about such conduct, to the extent that it has occurred. We urge you to review the circumstances that are described herein, and demonstrate your commitment to compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Brown Act, by limiting any closed session consideration to those matters properly agendized, and expressly permitted by law. By so doing, you encourage public confidence in the integrity of your agency, and the decision making process, which is vital.

The DA's letter certainly gives Board Member Llanusa new credibility when it comes to Brown Act complaints against the CUSD board. It also detracts enormously from the credibility of the four non-Llanusan CUSD board members and their supporters with respect to their claims of perfection when it comes to transparency, openness, and integrity. The DA's response of 9/29/11 belies the board members' quotes in Saturday's Courier and is especially troubling considering that the school district received the DA's letter weeks before Landus Rigsby's article.

One would expect the school board, having been caught and reprimanded so recently, would display at least a little contrition. Instead, they go on the attack and act as if they, not Llanusa, were the victims. If the school board were as honorable as they claim, they would admit their errors and work publicly to correct them. But they seem incapable of admitting any wrong, even when confronted with the evidence of their misdeeds. Hilary LaConte, the presiding board member at the time of the 10/7/10 incident takes no responsibility and simply seeks to glide through her reelection campaign as if nothing happened.

And perhaps she's right. If no one says anything and the truth is buried, then nothing really did happened, even if it did. As we've said before, Jeff Stark had it right all along: That's the way things have always been done in Claremont.

Son of Measure Y

To no one's surprise, the Claremont Unified School District Board this evening approved the bond resolution for a $95,000,000 bond to be voted on in November.

The vote was 4 in favor with Steven Llanusa opposing.

Those in attendance felt as if they had stumbled into a private party uninvited.

The "Most Witless Comment by a Board Member" Award goes to Trustee Jeff Stark, who opined that, really, questions about bond projects on priorities were out of order because the Board had to vote on the bond resolution first.

The "Most Opaque Answer in a Supporting Role" Award goes to Business Services Assistant Superintendent Lisa Shoemaker, who twice answered a question on how the bond would relieve the General Fund. In neither iteration did she give any specifics, leaving the questioners wondering "how much, exactly". She did, however, give her second answer at a slightly elevated volume, pitch, and level of impatience.

Below is a schematic of the educator's mind:

H/T to our correspondent.

Fear Itself (or $95 Million Fraud Alert)

We're going to go out on a limb here and predict that the Claremont Unified School District Board of Education votes this Thursday to approve a resolution to place a school bond measure on the ballot of the November election. They will do this on Thursday because that is the last regularly scheduled board meeting before the August 6 deadline for a bond to be placed on the November ballot.

As of this writing (3:10pm) the district has posted no agenda on its website for Thursday's meeting. They have not made any official announcement of their intentions because, as is the practice of the Claremont 400, they want as little public discussion about this matter. Discussion might lead to proposals of alternatives, not the least of which is a parcel tax.

The key here is that a bond cannot be used to pay teacher salaries, which is the most pressing budgetary need the district faces. A bond could only be used for things like improving CUSD facilities. A parcel tax, on the other hand, could:

1. Be worded in such a way as to specify that it would only be used for teacher salaries.
   
   
2. Contain a sunset clause that would allow the tax to lapse in, say, three years, enough to get the district through it's projected deficit.
   
   
3. Not have to be financed.
   
   Let's not forget that what happened when the district last went to voters for money with Measure Y in 2000. With the help of approximately $80,000 from CUSD contractors, $48.9 million Measure Y bond passed. The contractors were the primary beneficiaries of the voters largess, and, with the help of cost overruns, CUSD burned through the Measure Y money without completing the projects it used to sell voters on the bond in the first place.
   

This entire bond discussion was decided in the school board's collective minds long ago. The board and the people behind them (take your bow, Claremonsters) made that decision for the voters. The rest of the act, these dog-and-pony shows conducted by CUSD boardmembers Hilary LaConte, Beth Bingham, Jeff Stark, and Mary Caenepeel, have had one goal: to gin up fear in the hearts of parents, teacher organizations, and the rest of the voting public so that they will support the board's predetermination.

It has, in short, been a manipulation, an intellectual fraud, a con, complete with polling data designed to facilitate the bond's passage. The only boardmember not complicit in this game has been Steve Llanusa, whom we haven't always agreed with in the past, but who was at least independent enough to voice his dissent in a Claremont Courier opinion piece several months back.

It's really the school board's blatant manipulation that galls us more than anything. The fear they've cultivated creates a false logic: our schools will fail if we don't get more money; the only way of getting that money is bond; therefore, we must pass a bond to save our schools. It's that second premise that is a lie. The board knows there is another, better choice.

We've seen this fearfulness stirred up before. When the city was trying to purchase Johnson's Pasture in 2006, the same Claremonsters who were responsible for pushing Measure Y and who are behind the current bond effort told the public that we needed to urgently buy the land because developers were lining up to buy the property.

In fact, there was no real threat of such a purchase. Had the City waited until now, it could have obtained the pasture for half the price it paid in 2006, but the Claremont 400 decided what was needed was a "parks and pasture" assessment district at many times the eventual price of the land. The real intent was to create a slush fund which the City could borrow against to pay for anything it wanted.

The 400 lied to Claremont property owners the assessment when they said was the only way Johnson's Pasture could be saved. Even though the proposed assessment district needed only 50% approval to pass, property owners refused to support it because they saw it for what it really was.

The pasture was still saved - by the Measure S bond measure. That bond needed 67% voter approval and ended with 72% of the vote - a number the Claremont 400 had claimed was not possible. The Measure S bond succeeded because it was a quarter of the cost of the assessment district and because the only thing it could be used for was the purchase of Johnson's Pasture.

We see that same dynamic present here. The district uses fear to intentionally muddy the waters. They claim that in this instance a school bond, which needs only 55% approval, would be easier to pass than a parcel tax, which would need 67%. As happened with Johnson's Pasture, the school board (and the local papers, by the way) fails to note that a parcel tax would attract more votes because it would involve no financing, could be directed to the most urgent need, and could be directed to last only a few years, rather than the 30 a bond would require.

The school board's induced fear will be accompanied by kind of mob mentality. If you're not for this bond, you hate our schools and our children, they will say. This second manipulation is as intentional as the first, and the district, with the help of its consultants, will use a contractor-financed campaign to to prevent the better argument from gaining a fair hearing at all.

We saw this same strategy in 2000 with Measure Y, again in 2006 with the Parks and Pasture Assessment District, and we'll see it in the coming months with a costly school bond that will again enrich the district's contractors and election consultants without the same job-saving impact a carefully directed parcel tax would.

Below: CUSD Consultant Collecting from Claremont Taxpayer

UPDATED, 4:45PM

As we said they would, the CUSD board is proposing a $95 million bond. And as we correctly predicted, there are no specified projects that money would be used for. The board's resolution (agenda item XI.B.1) only says the money will be used for school renovations, repairs, and upgrades. They didn't dare give a list of school sites and the projects for each facility because then they could be held accountable for where the money really ended up.

Also, approximately $30 million will go right away towards paying off the money still owed on the Measure Y bond. Think of it as a cash-back refi. Ever since the 2008 financial meltdown, those vehicles have been out of vogue everywhere else in the financial world. However, in the CUSD world, they're still very much the rage.

As with the last school bond, the district promises a citizen oversight committee to make sure the money is properly spent. Rest assured, contractors and consultants, that committee will stocked with reliable Claremont 400 supporters to ensure there will be no questions asked. Every con needs its schill, after all.

CUSD has many needs. But this is a $95 million giveaway with no guarantees that the actual needs of students and teachers will be met. As we said, it is a con job, pure and simple.

Local Accountability

TIGHT MONEY

With the city of Claremont and the Claremont Unified School District both facing even more budget cutting, both agencies are reaching out to the community for help in solving their money problems. Although the City and the CUSD are pursuing similar strategies, their goals are very different.


DESPERATELY SEEKING OPINIONS

The City seems to have moved on a little from its Glenn Southard days and is actually trying to solicit real opinions that it will try to incorporate into its decisions. Claremont held the first of two community budget workshops last week, and the second is scheduled for tomorrow night, February 16, from 7-9pm in the Padua Room of the Alexander Hughes Community Center at 1700 Danbury Rd.

The City has also posted its Powerpoint budget presentation along with an online survey that will be used to determine budgetary priorities. The survey needs to be completed before Monday, February 22, if you want your responses to be included in the budget discussion.

Tony Krickl reported on last week's budget workshop in Saturday's Claremont Courier (sorry, no link available):

Residents were asked to provide their opinions on the most deserving programs and projects for the city's revenues. Some of the top priorities identified at the meeting include fiscal responsibility, public safety, high building standards and sustainability.

But city officials warn big expense projects on the scale of Padua Park are likely off the table in the near future. "We don't have a lot of extra money lying around to do big capital projects," City Manager Jeff Parker said.

The article also indicated that city officials were surprised by the severity of the recession, and had to deal with a General Fund (the portion of the budget that is funded by things like sales and property taxes) that in the past year was reduced from $22 million to $20 million. In addition, as you probably know, the city has had to cut back on services and reduce the number of employees by almost 15 percent.

City Manager Parker also said in the Courier article that the City could lose between $50,000 and $100,000 in sale tax revenue if Claremont Toyota's sales suffer from any backlash to Toyota's problems with accelerator and brake controls on many of its models.

The biggest surprise to us is that city officials didn't foresee any of these financial problems and went ahead with a number of costly projects. For example, the City spent about $2.6 million building the aforementioned scaled-down version of Padua Park, and borrowed $527,000 from its General Fund reserve in the process. That one project therefore accounted for virtually all of the city's budgetary problems. You would have thought the responsible thing would have been to wait until the economy and the city's finances improved before proceeding with such a large capital outlay. The City was really no different than a family that decides to go ahead with remodeling their kitchen right before their income is reduced by half because of a job loss. Yes, they couldn't foresee the problem, but still, they have to reduce spending when it happens.

Claremont is certainly in much better shape than some cities, but it's still accountable for having created its own problems at the cost of the very municipal jobs and services it holds so dear.


CUSD BOMBS OUT

As we predicted last week, rather than a self-examination of how it managed to misspend $48.9 million in Measure Y bond money, Claremont Unified is gearing up for a revenue enhancement campaign by laying a guilt trip on taxpayers. CUSD board president Hilary LaConte was quoted in Saturday's Courier on this point (again, no link):

"I think one of the questions that will come out of this is that what does the community really value in education our children?" Ms. LaConte said. "Many other districts are turning to their communities for help and we are doing the same. We really want to get a sense of where the community lies before we go forward."

In other words, if Claremonters don't want a bond (CUSD's funding vehicle of choice), they don't value their children's education.

To help CUSD determine the level of public support for either a bond or a parcel tax, the district hired TBWB Public Finance Strategies, LLC, to poll residents. The problem with that consultant, in our view, is that this is not like hiring the Gallup Poll. Polling is not their single area of expertise. Rather, TBWB advertises itself as being expert at getting financing measures passed. They are more of a campaign consultant than a pure polling company, and CUSD hired them in 2000 to help get Measure Y passed.

This all leads us to believe that the real purpose behind CUSD's bringing in TBWB is not to seek public opinion but to determine the best ways of marketing a future bond or tax to voters. The polling results will be used by the district to shape its future financing election campaign. The CUSD board (with the exception of boardmember Steve Llanusa) has almost certainly already decided what it wants and couldn't care less about what we the public believes is important.

Unlike the City's public opinion survey and community budget meetings, CUSD (which remains the Claremont 400's playground), already knows what it will do. The rest, community meetings, polls, Claremont Courier puff pieces, is simply window dressing.

Fiscal accountability has come up very little or not at all in the discussions. Worse, if we end up with a bond measure, none of that money will go towards hiring a single new teacher or underwriting existing salaries and benefits. A bond will only be used for new construction, remodeling, and upgrades of existing facilities - something that we did only 10 years ago with Measure Y. And, incidentally, we are still paying off Measure Y today (check your property tax bill for last year).

Really, when you think about it, CUSD's board is a kind of neutron bomb of public agencies, keeping all the buildings standing but eliminating people. They're really concerned with having the newest goo gaw rather than investing in hiring and keeping good teachers. We understand that California's school districts have been hit very hard - harder than most cities - by the state's never-ending budget deficits, but CUSD and almost all of its boardmembers, current and past, have thrown away millions over the years and will do so again if given the chance. They must be held accountable first, then we can talk about finances.

CUSD to Poll Support for New Parcel Tax or Bond

The Daily Bulletin's Wes Woods II says that the Claremont Unified School District has voted 4-1 to hire a consultant to conduct a public survey to test the waters for a new parcel tax or bond. According to the Bulletin, the lone "No" vote was Steve Llanusa, who thought it wasn't the right time for such ballot measures.

CUSD has been quietly doing the PR work to push public sentiment to support a new tax of some sort. Recently, the district had a town hall-style meeting that they used to prepare the ground for the campaign they envision, and you can expect to see school district representatives pushing the idea of a tax or bond in the Op-Ed pages of the local papers.

What sort of tactics will the school board use? Well one thing they will do is talk about how our facilities are falling into disrepair. Another talking point will be that it's been 10 years since CUSD's last bond measure. Here's what the board had to tell the Bulletin:

Board president Hilary LaConte said an assessment in 2008 showed district facilities are in need of repair. She said it was important to determine if the community is willing to approve more spending for these repairs and replacements.

"I will be interested to see the community's perception," LaConte said.

We wrote about the city of Claremont's shaping of public perception yesterday. Now it's CUSD's turn.

The key to that "community perception" is TBWB Public Finance Strategies, LLC., the consulting firm the CUSD board is hiring for up to $25,000 to conduct its polling. The last time we heard from TBWB was during CUSD's 2000 Measure Y campaign. That year, you will recall, Measure Y supporters (i.e., CUSD board surrogates) raised $80,000 primarily from school building contractors for the Yes on Measure Y campaign.

Know this: in TBWB the school board is not hiring some mere polling firm. TBWB specializes in helping clients pass bond and tax measures. They are also not new to Claremont. TBWB's online CV lists Claremont's Measure Y among its successful projects.

Here's how TBWB advertises itself on its website:

If your school district, city or agency is considering a bond measure, parcel tax, sales tax increase or other funding measure, TBWB has the experience to help you. We know how to guide public agencies through the process of making tough decisions, and we know how to lead campaigns to victory in tax elections.

TBWB has the experience that wins.

Unfortunately, the narrative TBWB spins ends with the successful passing of the ballot measures it has worked on. They don't tell you what happened to all that money after the elections were over and the clients' checks were cashed.

As we've said before, Measure Y was really a partial failure. In rewarding those contractors for their generosity during the campaign, the Claremont school district misspent the money in such a way that they used up the $49 million they raised long before they complete all the projects they promised the measure would pay for. It's been 10 years, and we're still waiting for that desperately new elementary school at the La Puerta site. And, why do we need to modernize our antiquated facilities now in 2010? Wasn't Measure Y supposed to take care of that?

Here at the Insider, we'd just as soon not vote for another school district financing measure until CUSD comes clean and admits first that they didn't properly handle the finances of their last bond measure. We'd also like to see the measure's supporters (CUSD surrogates again, primarily the Claremont 400) pledge to not take any consultants' or building contractors' money to fund their new campaign.

Really, when you think about it, the situation is extremely ironic. CUSD's supporters would tend to be against the recent Supreme Court decision that opened the doors for future corporate campaign donations. Yet, in the last bond measure and in the upcoming one, all money is good money, particularly money coming from the potential district contractors who would profit from whatever measure comes of TBWB's dog-and-pony shows.

Our biggest problem supporting the CUSD board in the ballot measure TBWB will help them concoct is the board's historical lack of institutional integrity. Look for them to use every trick in the electoral playbook to get their measure passed, including guilting the public into supporting the measure. During last November's school board election, incumbent Mary Caenepeel stood up at one candidate forum and basically implied that if you don't support a school tax or bond, you hate our kids.

We'd suggest Caenepeel and the rest of the school board find some other tactics. The public's not quite as naive as in 2000, and all they have to do to educate themselves on how these public perception campaigns work is to turn on an episode of the the NBC series "Parks and Recreation":



(Really apropos of a certain city of Claremont community project coming online this spring.)

Saturday Economic Report

Uploaded to Flickr by Abraaten
The bad news on the economy just keeps rolling in. The national unemployment rate hit 8.1%, the highest in 26 years, and in California the numbers were even worse, topping 10%. There was plenty of bad news floating around locally:

CUSD LAYOFF NOTICES APPROVED

More bad news from the Claremont Unified School District. The CUSD Board of Education voted Thursday to issue 34 layoff notices to CUSD teachers and nurses. The notices aren't final, but they are the necessary first step if the district has to go through with the layoffs in June.

Wes Woods II reports on the layoff notices in the Daily Bulletin, saying that CUSD is facing a $3-4 million budget deficit through the end of the 2009-10 school year. Woods article said that boardmember Steven Llanusa was the only one to vote against issuing the notices.

Woods also explained some of the actions the CUSD board has already taken:

[CUSD Assistant Superintendent Devon] Freitas said there was already 12 staff position cuts from the district in February.

Among those positions eliminated then were the director of an adult school, director of a child development programs and director of secondary educations, Freitas said.

Lisa Shoemaker, assistant superintendent of business services, said the cuts and reductions were being used to address a $3 million to $4 million deficit for the district in the 2009-10 school year.

JOURNALISTS TAKE THEIR HITS, TOO

Print journalism continues its bleeding. You may have noticed the Los Angeles Times California section disappeared, getting folded into the main, front page section. The Times advertised this as good thing, saying that you can now get all your local and national news in one place, but the fact is it was a cost cutting measure.

LA Observed blogger Kevin Roderick gave the reasons for the Times' decision to ax the local section:

The backdrop, of course, is the economy and the Times' continued free-fall in ad revenue. By getting rid of California, the Times can print the more profitable Calendar section at night and eliminate the expense of a second, earlier daily press run. (Times presses can only handle four sections per run, as this post from last Friday discussed. Note, too, that pressmen are the Times' only unionized workers.)

The move will apparently be spun as an enhancement in local coverage, but Times officials are bracing for howls of protest from print readers who already have been canceling subscriptions over the paper becoming thinner and less well edited. Some LAT officials fear this might be a tipping point. "We can't keep alienating our core readers," a senior person told me. Papers that have tried doing away with just their Business sections have been stunned by the backlash; the Orange County Register reversed its decision to mollify readers.

The added efficiency the Times gained by eliminating the California section allowed the paper's management to show some love for their press workers by eliminating 63 pressroom jobs, reports Ed Padgett.

The Times seems to be giving new meaning to the phrase "Stop the presses!"

And Gary Scott's blog informs us that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wants to top the LA Times and completely eliminate its print edition, along with 75 percent of its staff.

Meanwhile, over at the Daily Bulletin and at other Dean Singleton-owned LA News Group papers, employees who have survived layoffs have been forced into mandatory furloughs. David Allen had a seven-day unpaid break but was back in the media mix this week with new columns and a few posts about what he did on his forced vacation.


CLAREMONT STILL WAITING ON THAT $850,000

In case you were wondering if the state's $42 billion budget fix was going to free up that $850,000 grant for Claremont's Padua Ave. Park, Magic 8-ball's answer would be, "Ask again later."

You may recall that the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) grant to Claremont was approved but never delivered because California placed a moratorium on issuing new bonds.

October 14, 2008, Claremont City Council
proudly receives $850,000 rubber check from RMC

Although the state has balanced its books (for the moment), Claremont will have to wait a while longer before California can go back to issuing voter-approved bonds for projects like Padua Ave. Park. The RMC's website had a notice:

BUDGET IS SIGNED
BUT THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE CHANGE FOR RMC PROJECTS
Updated March 2

While adoption of a state budget is a critical step in addressing the freeze on sate bond funds, the Department of Finance has advised state agencies that: the cash flow results of the solutions adopted in this budget agreement need to be analyzed. After this process, the State Treasurer’s Office will begin to proceed with bond sales. But it will be some time before we know the amount of cash available to address past and future obligations for these projects, as well as past obligations for the nearly 5,400 projects and grants that have been stopped. It will be some time before the projects and grants that have already shut down will be able to restart. It will also take time to determine when any new projects will be able to start.

As a result of the bond freeze, on December 18, 2008, the RMC notified all grantees to stop work on all bond funded projects and laid off several consultant staff. The remaining staff continue to work with our grantees — in particular to update files and prepare billing for all work performed prior to December 18, 2008. In addition, the Governor has declared that all state employees will be furloughed two days per month; it is expected that our offices will be closed on the 1st and 3rd Fridays of the month beginning February 6, 2009.

At this time we do not know when payments for expenses incurred prior to December 18 will be released, when the freeze will be lifted on existing projects, and when we will be able to authorize new grants. For information on the status of a specific project, please contact us directly.

Needless to say these are challenging times and there are no certainties regarding when the freeze will be lifted. Although updates to this website will be done irregularly, we will update this page with new information as it becomes available.

Among the laid off staff was Claremont's own Tim Worley, a former city Traffic and Transportation commissioner, who was the RMC's water policy director.

CUSD Board President to Step Down

Wes Woods II reported in the Daily Bulletin last week that Claremont Unified School District Board President Jeanne Hamilton will not run for a third term in November.

According to Wood's article, Hamilton said, "Eight years is enough." Woods also described Hamilton's background and the board's accomplishments during Hamilton's two terms:

Besides her vice president role at Citrus, Hamilton has also served in administrative and faculty positions at Chaffey and Fullerton colleges.

She received a bachelor's degree from Baylor University, a master of science in social work from the University of Louisville and a doctorate from Claremont Graduate University.

Hamilton has served as chairwoman of the Facilities Advisory Committee and also co-chaired the 2000 Measure Y School Bond campaign for the Claremont Unified School District which was passed.

"Many of those projects got completed," Hamilton said of the bond. "The district is in much better shape physically than eight years ago."

But a regret for Hamilton is she wished all of the projects associated with the bond would have been completed but an increase in costs stopped some of the work.

Hamilton added she was proud of a renewed focus on nutrition and exercise for district children and "the thing I'm most proud of is the academic achievements."

California test scores for all district students have improved, she said, and other achievements have included enriched curriculums, the Advancement Via Individual Determination support program and an International Baccalaureate program that is getting approval, Hamilton said.

"But no one person accomplishes it. The board accomplishes it as a whole," Hamilton said.

Hamilton became a board member in November 2001. She was president from in 2003-04 and 2007-08.

The Measure Y money is a sore point among many in the community. The bond, which was passed primarily with campaign donations from school district contractors, was bound to get misspent, and it was. There were just too many favors to be called in by those generous donors. Constructions costs went up, yes, but you have to wonder if there weren't some price increases built into contracts to recoup campaign outlays.

* * *

No word yet on whether or not CUSD Board member and clerk Steven Llanusa will run for a second term. You might recall that last year Llanusa ran afoul of CUSD Superintendent David Cash and the rest of CUSD Board. The dispute resulted in Cash and the Board instituting a new censure policy aimed directly at Llanusa.

The matter continued on to the end of the year, and at a December 18th meeting, the CUSD Board voted to extend a protocol governing email contact between Llanusa and Cash. Llanusa responded with a letter to the Claremont Courier on January 10th that said, in part:

Last February the meeting script prepared by Dr. Cash stated one of the reasons for the protocol was "to retain the Superintendent." During other difficulties Dave [Cash] has said repeatedly that he doesn’t have to work in Claremont. Such statements invite neither collaboration nor negotiation.

I have met with the Superintendent many times in the past. It was Dave who unilaterally stopped mediation after only three meetings. Among other problems with previous one-on-one meetings were disagreements about what was or wasn’t said. Communication by emails provided objective data about the questions and responses.

To avoid confusion I asked Dave if I could bring a note taker or tape recorder to our meetings. He refused to meet with either condition. I am content to ask my questions during Board meetings and by getting information this way transparent governance is achieved. The School Board has a governance policy regarding the Superintendent’s duty to provide the same information to all Board Members, not that we get that information the same way.

We get the sense that Llanusa's support among the Claremont 400 may be dwindling, and those insiders (small "i") are running away from Llanusa as fast as they can. Such is the price of dissent in Clareville. This doesn't bode well for Llanusa's re-election prospects, but November's a long way off, and he may yet have time to mend some fences.

CUSD Actions - A Reader's Take

We received an email in response to yesterday's post about Claremont Unified School District board member Steve Llanusa, whom one suspects will someday in the not-too-distant future be the target of a censure motion by his fellow school board members.

Here's our reader's comment:

DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 5:52 PM
SUBJECT: SCHOOL BOARD CENSURE POLICY
TO:Claremont Buzz

DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT AT THE END OF THE CENSURE POLICY (aka GAG LAW) THAT THE OFFENDING MEMBER CAN AVOID CENSURE BY APOLOGIZING FOR HIS/HER ACTIONS, STATEMENTS,ETC. BUT THAT THE BOARD CAN STILL RETAIN THE RIGHT TO CENSURE HIM/HER? TALK ABOUT A DOUBLE BIND!! PRETTY SOON THEY WILL TELL LLANUSA THAT HE IS FORBIDDEN TO SPEAK TO ANY EMPLOYEE, THEN ANY PARENT THEN ANY STUDENT. HAVEN’T WE SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE?

Well, yes, this has been played out before in Claremont's City Hall. If the people who run things here, especially the local school board, don't respect their own rules, why should they respect things like opposing viewpoints or free speech?

As always in our small town, past is prologue. (If you click on the link, notice how current Claremont League of Women Voters president Barbara Musselman inserted herself into that prior city brouhaha.)

Steven Llanusa Speaks from Exile

Very recently, CUSD Board member, Steven Llanusa, spoke out in the Daily Bulletin on his muzzling by the Claremont Unified School District Board. Although the letter appears on the Bulletin website today, it is likely that the editors will replace it with more current material. Hence, we copy it here:

Stifling speech

Your recent article about the Claremont school board's new censure policy touched on some topics that should be explained more fully. (Re: "Claremont board votes to create censure policy," Oct. 1.) What was not mentioned in the article is that the board president and Superintendent Dave Cash have complete control over what can be discussed because they create each agenda for our meetings.

We had "Written Communication" on our agenda for several years. It let board members share written information from constituents. Last July, a letter sent to the board from a high school employee alleged some families and district officials were getting special treatment regarding attendance policies. After that letter was quoted at the July board meeting, "Written Communication" was removed from the agenda.

During public comment at the August board meeting, the superintendent's wife announced she had taken her student out of school without following the policy in the Parent Student Handbook to excuse the absence. While scores of students this semester are denied off-campus privileges for similar unexcused absences last semester, the superintendent's family was given special treatment and no such consequence. Under the "Future Agenda Items" at our next meeting, I requested an investigation into this matter.

After that meeting, Superintendent Cash threatened me with legal action if I didn't drop the subject. However, I continue to believe my role as a board member is to ensure policies are implemented fairly for all students. "Future Agenda Items" has also been removed from our board agendas.

The new bylaw limiting what board members may say during our reports was presented by Superintendent Cash. In the past, I could have shared our constituents' concerns during this time, but not now.

Three avenues of communication have thus been eliminated and a censure policy instituted. Regarding these restrictions, I have never seen so much effort put into stifling opportunities where people could express questions or criticism of the superintendent or the school district.

STEVEN LLANUSA Board member, Claremont Unified School District

* * * * *

We recommend Llanusa get in line at public comment unless the censure policy prohibits that, too. (The censure policy is reproduced below, thanks to the Bulletin. Click on images to enlarge.)

Steven Llanusa

We've always thought the election of Steven Llanusa to the Claremont Unified School District Board to be a little queer. Here was a guy, out of nowhere, who all of a sudden had the support of lots and lots of people in Claremont, seemingly centered around the remnants of Sam Pedroza's failed 2005 city council campaign.

We know that early in his campaign he had absolutely no clue about some of the sources of revenue for the district nor the financial issues facing it. His kickoff was filled with generalities, vague statements, and Apple Pie.

And yet.

As election day approached, the most popular yardsign grouping was Jeanne Hamilton, Mary Caenepeel, and...Steve Llanusa. As we recall, more money went to Llanusa (from the usual suspects) than went to either the incumbent, Hamilton, or long-time-toiler-in-the-public-school-vineyard Caenepeel. In the end, there were hundreds of votes--make that 2000 votes--of daylight between the group of Hamilton, Caenepeel, and Llanusa, and the out-of-the-money finisher Kevin Arnold.
The Claremont 400 had scored again. But who did they put on the school board in Steven Llanusa?

Apparently someone whose judgment is at least open to question.

For example, in 2006 Llanusa and one of his children seem to have scoured his Claraboya neighborhood removing American flags and tossing them into a dumpster in Fontana. Nice headline in the Courier on September 9, 2006: "DA forgoes criminal filing for Steven Llanusa" That's the kind of headline you want to see about your school board member. Well, we guess its better than, "School Board member Steven Llanusa charged in vandalism incident."

And now we read in the Daily Bulletin that Llanusa has apparently annoyed some of his handlers by the frequency and tone of his emails to Superintendent David Cash. Cash decided to be the sole conduit of information between the Board and the District Staff, and then stopped answering Llanusa's emails. The School Board had an illegal closed-session discussion of the matter on February 12. From the Bulletin article,

Board communication with the superintendent was discussed in closed session Feb. 12, Llanusa said.

Hamilton expressed concern Monday that Llanusa publicly discussed an issue that was addressed in closed session.

She said there had been no discussion of censuring Llanusa for the action, but she also said "I suppose it's possible."

We don't know that there are any heroes in this story. We do know that there are echoes of the epic McHenry-Southard battles circa 2004-5. So far, though, we are unaware of any district employee alleging hostile work environment, harassment, theft, hurt feelings, or other Bad Acts. History repeats itself, the saying goes, first as tragedy, then as farce.

Maybe this is an example of running with the other lemmings. You might go over the cliff.

And can anyone think of one positive contribution that Llanusa has made?

CUSD Candidate Forum

The Claremont Area League of Women Voters (LWV) and the Claremont Educational Foundation, two Claremont 400 organizations, are holding their Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) Board of Education candidate forum tonight beginning at 7:00pm at El Roble Intermediate School.

League candidate forums generally tend to be sanitized events revealing very little real information about the candidates. The moderators like to cull out the hard questions, so you won't hear anything tonight about the expenditure of the 2001 Measure Y construction funds - $48.5 million that has been fully spent without finishing all of the projects it was supposed to have funded (one project, La Puerta Elementary School, wasn't even started).

The League, in trying to protect its Claremont 400 friends with softball questions, does a real disservice to the public and to the election process.

The Claremont 400 candidates this time around? Well, Hilary LaConte, for sure. LaConte was a co-chair for Claremont City Councilperson Linda Elderkin's March 2007 campaign. LaConte taught elementary school from 1989 to 1995 and done substitute teaching since then. Not that actual knowledge, education, or brains matters. LaConte is, of course, overwhelmingly qualified for the CUSD board based on her membership in the Claremont 400.

Remember, these are the same folks that gave you Steve "Flag Gate" Llanusa.

But don't let us sway you. See for yourself tonight, and remember to compare tonight's impressions to the actual performances of the two winners after they've been on the school board a couple years. Then - and only then - can you begin to get a real understanding of Claremont politics.

CUSD Candidate Forum - 7:00 to 8:30pm
El Roble Intermediate School
665 N. Mountain Ave.
Claremont, CA 91711

Coming Soon: CUSD RV Park

Will Bigham reports today in the Daily Bulletin that the Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) voted 4-0 Monday night to convert the district building on Baseline Blvd. into an RV and boat park and to move the district headquarters to a building on San Jose Ave.

This after the CUSD school board spent Measure Y bond money to upgrade the existing facility. The district feels it can get more money out of the RV park - money that can be used to generate much needed revenue to replace its squandered Measure Y dollars ($48 million or so). That way, they can build more RV parks.

Board members Steve Llanusa, Jeanne Hamilton, Jack Mills and Mary Caenepeel voted for the RV park. Board President Joan Presecan was absent.

Here is an artist's rendering of the new facility:

CUSD RV and Boat Park: Your Tax Dollars at Work

Flag Gate

A thought for the Fourth: In Claremont not all the fireworks are in the sky. Today's Daily Bulletin carries a Will Bigham article about last year's "Flag Gate."

For those who don't remember, before the 4th of July last year Claremont realtor Nancy Telford and her husband Ted, who live in the exclusive Claraboya hillside neighborhood, planted small American flags on the lawns of the area's houses. The flags had Mrs. Telford's business card attached.

Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) Board of Education member Steve Llanusa, whose partner Glenn Miya also figured into this year's city council election, was at the time the president of the Claraboya homeowners' association. (The Claremont 400 is everywhere!) Llanusa claimed that the flags were advertisements and violated the association's rules.

Llanusa contacted the Telfords, who refused to remove the flags. So Llanusa took matters into his own hands and with his son drove around the neighborhood removing all the flags, which he then discarded into a dumpster.

The Telfords responded by getting leaflets to their neighbors describing what had happened. They called for Llanusa's recall from the association board. Eight residents called the Claremont police department to report the theft of their flags. The Claremont PD referred the matter to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, who declined to file charges against Llanusa.

The whole matter escalated into a back-and-forth shouting match carried out in letters to the Claremont Courier. For more background on the contretemps, see the Courier's 7/8/06 article (also by Will Bigham).

Whatever else it showed, the incident illustrated that Llanusa, like the rest of his Claremont 400 friends, believes that he is the law. No need to find out what his neighbors are thinking or to wait until an association board meeting. Just do what you want to and split your neighborhood apart. Oh, and no need to take responsibility for your actions.

According to today's Bigham article, Llanusa remains on his homeowners' association board as secretary.

The Disappearing Demographic

What happened to our kids?

To hear Claremont Councilmembers Ellen Taylor, Sam Pedroza, Linda Elderkin and Peter Yao tell it, we have a youth population boom, one that we have to spend heavily on.

But an odd and overlooked thing occurred during the recent city council campaign. The Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) acknowledged that something on the order of 13.9% of the enrollment in CUSD schools comes from outside of the city. The school district props up its numbers by using inter-district transfers. In the 2005-2006 school year, 953 out of 6,868 CUSD students came from outside of Claremont.

(A special thanks to our readers for forwarding this information.)

And CSUD actually counts some Pomona residents in their Claremont numbers. There really isn't a Claremont kid population boom. That is one reason why the new elementary school that was supposed to go next to La Puerta Park has never been built. Remember that 2000 Measure Y bond money ($48.9 million worth)? All gone and no La Puerta school.

According to then-superintendent Douglas Keeler's 2000 open letter to the community, La Puerta Elementary was one of the eight priorities identified by a task force headed by Claremont 400 and Preserve Claremonter (a $500 donor) Jeanne Hamilton. Jeanne is on the current school board, which is entirely a Claremont 400 entity. Keeler's letter estimated $4.5 million of the bond money would be used for building La Puerta school.

We here at CI supported Measure Y. So we ask: What happened to that $48.9 million? One thing that occurred was that of the over $80,000 raised by proponents of Measure Y in 2000, the majority came from contractors who do work for school districts. Something almost guaranteed to lead to misappropriations. CUSD ended up spending all of that Measure Y money without completing all of the projects it promised to. A small oversight, but it just goes to show the 400 can mismanage the schools as much as they can the city government.

If you have any questions regarding your Measure Y money, write to the CSUD Board of Education or to current superintendent David Cash. Their contact information is here.

So, why does CUSD need its enrollment propped up anyway?

Because the number of kids relative to the population is declining. The U.S. Census Bureau shows that Claremont's population only increased by 2.9% between 1990 and 2000. At the same time, California's population increased 13.9%.

But Claremont's kid population increased right? Well, sort of. The U.S. Census figures show that in 1990, there were 7,025 kids under 18 years old. By 2000, that number had increased by six to 7,031. The number of kids under five years old actually declined by 81.

In 10 years, Claremont's total kid population increased a whopping .00085%. Huge.

In contrast, the same Census tables show between 1990 and 2000 Claremont's over 65 population increased from 4,026 to 4,966, an increase of 23.3%. And household size has declined from 2.68 people per household in 1990 to 2.56 in 2000. Households have gotten older and smaller.

What's going on? It's all tied to affordable housing. Look at your home values. They've skyrocketed in the past 17 years. As a result, families with young kids can't afford to buy a house in Claremont. Most of the new housing built in the past 10 years or so hasn't been of the starter home variety. It's been pricey, larger homes purchased by older people with older or grown kids. And older houses, even in South Claremont, have become unaffordable to many young families.

So, we should think twice when the Claremont 400 and Ellen Taylor, Linda Elderkin, Sam Pedroza, Jeanne Hamilton or Steve Llanusa tell us that we need to spend more on our kids. We need to look realistically at the population trends and allocate our resources accordingly. Instead, we've acted emotionally, foolishly, and projected trends from other parts of California onto an aging, graying Claremont.

Foolish indeed, maybe even stupid.

Election Day

Election day has arrived. The polls will tell all. If turnout is high (above 34 percent), that likely favors the non-Claremont 400 candidates. Low turnout favors the Claremont 400. It's a sad comment on the 400 that they need to discourage participation to win, but there you have it. Turnout in recent city elections has trended upward. It was around 29 percent in 2001 and has been above 33 percent in 2003 and 2005. We shall see what today brings.

As crazy as Claremont can be, at least it's not Glendora, as the Los Angeles Times and Foothill Cities blog have pointed out. The latest incident, as Kid Keenan points out to us, is the great Glendora Sign Scandal.

Now that the election is winding down, time for us to begin our Social Calendar:

Mark your calendars for a Claremont 400 special event--the 50's Fondue Fete, a fundraiser for the Claremont Community Foundation. The Fete is on Friday, March 16th, at 6pm at 2627 San Andres Way in Claremont. The Fete is part of the Foundation's Party Parade 2007.

It's hosted by Steve Llanusa and Glenn Miya. Llanusa is a Claremont 400 representative to the Claremont School Board. Miya is a pediatrician and is the host of Sam Pedroza's YouTube campaign video.

Both Llanusa and Miya are on Linda Elderkin and Sam Pedroza's supporter lists. So the Fete is a great opportunity to observe the 400 in their native habitat. Kind of like a nature documentary. Tickets are $75 per person with only 10 seats available. Reserve online at the Community Foundation's website. See you there!

Sam II

Sam Pedroza's just posted a 5 minute interview on YouTube, as the Foothill Cities blog noted today. The piece is framed as an interview and begins with Pedroza being interviewed by a "host" named Glenn Miya.

A little quick checking showed that Miya is not a television host. He is an pediatrician with a practice in Claremont. More importantly, he is a Pedroza supporter and is the partner of Claremont Unified School Board Member Steven Llanusa, another Claremont 400 candidate. KCET's Life & Times did a piece featuring Miya and Llanusa back in 2003, and the station posts a transcript for that show.

It does show that Pedroza truly is a 400 candidate, and the 'Monsters are pulling out all the stops to showcase Pedroza, who actually comes off in the piece as if he can speak coherently. If we had to venture a guess, we'd say that we detect the invisible hand of copywriter Judy Wright, and also that it took many takes to get the Pedroza interviews wrapped.

The piece ends with an endorsement by another former council candidate, Russ Brown. Brown, you may remember, is a former Claremont police captain. The most interesting thing about that bit is that Brown no longer lives in Claremont. We're told he moved to the Hemet area some time ago. We wonder what Linda Elderkin, who seems to care so passionately about those things, would say to Brown's endorsement of Pedroza?

As we noted earlier, we're working on getting a posting up on YouTube showing the true Pedroza, minus his Claremont 400 handlers.