jibaro

Visduh July 13, 2012 @ 8:10 a.m.

It now may be impossible for SWC to hire an honest, capable president. I mean, who in heck would want to be associated with an operation with the sort of record it has made for itself over the past two decades? If you take the job, you will be forever after associated with and stained with s***. The board can try, try, try to get a CEO with the proper qualities, but ends up settling for someone who will sell his/her reputation for a pile of lucre. The most important step she should have taken, and did not take, was to let everyone know that fat salaries for her cohorts and immediate subordinates would stay frozen until further notice.

4

Susan Luzzaro July 15, 2012 @ 5:14 p.m.

I believe it is worth noting that I have requested a copy of the original soil test/s that were performed. My request was forwarded to one of the district's attorneys.

3

bonitaresident July 31, 2012 @ 4:55 p.m.

What many are saying is true Mr. Mc Cann is beating the bushes looking for someone stupid enough to run against board member Bertha Lopez. Mr. Cartmill as well has his candidate Mr. Grossman. Now we read that Dr. Brand is backing Mr. Grossman. I have been in the business of politics a very long time and have never seen a group such as this. They refuse to accept the obvious fact that they are no longer respected or trusted.

3

anniej July 31, 2012 @ 8:06 p.m.

how is it that our district continues to snub integrity? too late to contact FPPC, but would imagine many of us will be on the phone tomorrow. wondering if anyone bothered to advise Mr. Grossman of any of this - but perhaps we speak too soon, surely Mr. Grossman is not wanting to get into an expensive court battle - perhaps Ms. Grossman will be taking a leave from her position which would alleviate the conflict.

still trying to wrap my mind around the allegations that brand, mccann, and cartmill are out there allegedly trying to talk people into running - i mean who does that? why would we want a cartmill, mccann, or brand clone??????????? leaves me wondering if they are afraid of new blood and the changes that new blood would bring. thinking out loud here, but wasn't just a few months back where the board was told, and agreed, that the makeup of the board needed to reflect the community???????????????? oh, but that is right i forgot, when the expensive consultant then turned to mccann and cartmill and advised them AND you would probably need to go they then decided to scrap that idea. and how much did that cost us????????????

lets fast forward 5 months into the future: board meetings where the public is allowed to speak, board meetings where there is conversation and a sharing of perspectives, board meetings where the financial integrity is not continuously questioned, board meetings where board member lopez is not fighting for the students or taxpayers alone. board meetings where a search for a new superintendent has begun, board meetings where mccann's little red camera or emotional outbursts are no longer 'just the way it is', board meetings where the president of the board does not need to be led by the hand and instructed exactly what to do and when to do it. consistent brown act violations a thing of the past. alleged retaliation against those who dare to speak out no longer part of the agenda YES, that is what we need, new blood -

4

Jmbrickley July 31, 2012 @ 10:56 p.m.

Just the fact that John, Jim, and Ed are involved in finding people to run for Pearl's seat and the seat of Lopez shows just how unethical they are. I would suggest they keep an eye on their own seats and job and keep their noses out of stuff that shouldn't concern them. Finding candidates is for the public to do, not the old cronies who jusy want to continue with their mismanagement of the public trust.

4

jibaro July 30, 2012 @ 11:58 a.m.

One wonders how this would have "played out" if a trustee lived in the area. Bonita/East Chula Vista is a "long way" from Hollister Ave.

2

GOYAgoya Aug. 7, 2012 @ 5:48 a.m.

Surprise, surprise. Bertha Lopez voted against laying off staff. She is a high ranking union member in her district. She seems to be getting a pass on everything.

Why? She is a terrible leader, and an even worse person. She retaliates against those that she doesn't like, and everyone is afraid of her.

Why do nearly all that have worked with her dislike her? Her cronies need to open their eyes

2

bvagency Aug. 9, 2012 @ 12:07 p.m.

Anniej, very well put. I don't disagree with you one bit. I am very familiar with your passion on this issue. With that being said, most folks won't get involved until they are directly impacted. The rest is just politics, which most people despise. So, open boundaries and an increase by 2% in our mello roos tax are now directly affecting most current students in the eastern part of the district. Now these families are being directly impacted. Now there is a reason to get involved, and during this process all of the other stuff will be seen. Let's just hope it's enough to outrage them as it has some of us.

3

Susan Luzzaro Sept. 11, 2012 @ 6:23 p.m.

suhsdteacher, one of the amazing things about following this district, this board, is that for the most part it all seems to happen behind a veil. How is it that right now, people are having to speculate the who, the what, the when about a district superintendent, or interim superintendent? How is it that last night the public was told to channel their inquiries through someone else other than the interim superintendent? Does the public deserve more of an explanation of who is in charge of the district?

6

jibaro Sept. 11, 2012 @ 11:42 a.m.

Diane Russo knows where money has gone, and by whose direction. Russo under oath....PRICELESS !

6

anniej Jan. 19, 2013 @ 2:52 p.m.

Woodchuck: you are right, and I will take responsibility for being immature. These are important issues and I need to stay focused on what is important - the students, the employees and our hard earned tax dollars.

Thank You for reminding me of my goal, to help bring about change and return our district to the reputation it once had.

4

bvagency Jan. 21, 2013 @ 12:32 p.m.

Timtim, I'm neither a union member, teacher, administrator, Bertha, John, Jim, Arlie or Pearl supporter. Just a parent of children in the district and a member of this community who has lived here my entire life and gone to the district schools. There are many issues at this district, too many to discuss here. But, you have to admit that this districts leadership and trustees have been an embarrasment to this community and students. 4 of 5 trustees indicted for criminal actions, prior Supt indicted for the same, current Supt making questionable decisions for non 7-12 items, the list goes on and on. Although the union is not without its faults, the negative publicity and embarrasing actions and decisions are on the part of our board and district leadership. Lets start with correcting that. Once that is in place, we can turn our attention to the Union and any negative impacts they may be having on our schools, children and community.

4

dbdriver Jan. 17, 2013 @ 2:27 p.m.

One can only hope that with a new board that we get one that realizes that the Superintendent is THEIR employee, not the other way around.

1

WTFEd Jan. 22, 2013 @ 10:14 p.m.

Where the hell is our beloved Union Tribune and yes the Voice of San Diego recently on this corrupt administration....this Sweetwater Administration is symbolic of why we need the Social Media and "alternative" media like the Reader to get the word out. If it was not for Susan Luzarro what would we do to keep this in the limelight? Wake up UT..pry yourself away from worring about how Obama will bring down Western Civilization and pay attention to your local community and educating students.

8

Sjtorres Jan. 26, 2013 @ 10:37 p.m.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

5

Visduh Jan. 26, 2013 @ 3:04 p.m.

Just when you think that maybe, just maybe, Brand is trying to do an honest job and be open in his dealings, he clears up any doubt. That is, doubt that he's just hoping to run the district his way, on his timetable, without any scrutiny from the public. Sure, have the meetings in the afternoon and they will be almost sedate, sort of like meetings of a corporate board. No pickets with signs outside, few angry residents wanting to speak, and few there to witness the double-dealing. Oh, and the meetings can end sometime before midnight. But democracy is messy at times, and in some places. One of those times in now, and one of those places is in So San Diego County.

Vote the bums out, all the bums out!

5

Visduh Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:54 a.m.

I noted that today's Manchester Mill, aka UT SanDiego, reports that the corruption cases are going to be heard in Chula Vista, not downtown SD. The way it was reported was, in addition to the usual superficiality, that one or more defense attorneys sees that as negative for his clients. I'd figured the exact opposite, in that the juries would be impaneled from local voters, the same brain-dead types who voted them into office in the first place. We shall see. If the defense can claim that they need a change of venue, that would further delay resolution. And the DA seemed surprised, too. One must wonder what's going on.

2

Susan Luzzaro March 8, 2013 @ 10:05 p.m.

Not every school district is as unfortunate and as fortunate as Sweetwater. I don't need to explain why the district is unfortunate--but the district is actually extraordinarily fortunate to have so many astute people investigating and following its actions, as well as so many people who do the basic and important work of the district.

The L Street transaction is by no means simple--but stripped down to its simplest components -- it is revealing.

5

oskidoll June 9, 2013 @ 5:32 p.m.

Vol 15 quite intersting reading! Seems Ms. Elvira Vargas, supervisor at the Registrar of Voters Office, has been 'groomed' by Ms. Quinnones, and perhaps others. She seems almost overly eager to please her friends among the incumbents, without any critical thinking about the fact that it might appear to be inequal treatment of ALL candidates. Did she have all the candidates on 'speed dial' or vice-versa? Again, she seems to be quite naieve about the discrepancy in level and degree of service given to a few of her special friends! It also appears that when she was promoted and a new guy came into her former job, that that person was not quite so eager, which may have prompted complaints from the Sup and the seated board members. Elvira should, as Annie J suggests, just DO HER JOB without playing favorites. She is in a sensitive job, and should be far more circumspect. SIGH!

4

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close