ROTC instructor's illicit sexcapade reverberates

Being more than just a little bit acquainted with ROTC, both junior and senior, there are puzzling aspects to this case. A few years ago I had multiple occasions to observe the junior naval ROTC program at Orange Glen High in Escondido. The teaching staff there consisted of a retired naval officer, and a retired navy chief petty officer. Later on, the chief was replaced by a retired marine corps master sergeant. They were, technically, employees of the school district, but the Navy did have its influence on the program. And you can be sure that the Navy was paying for the whole thing, reimbursing the district for its costs, and probably providing some additional financial incentive to the district. In Air Force junior ROTC units the arrangement is just about the same. There's no mention of Gallegos' connection to the Navy or Marines. His age might indicate that he was, indeed, a retired military man. I'd think that the Navy would vet any instructor in such a role just to insure that it wasn't embarrassed down the road. This sort of thing is a major blot on the program, yet there's no mention of the navy being sued. For sure, the school did not do its homework on Gallegos, but there was obviously a breakdown in oversight and supervision of the newly-hired instructor. One final comment is that I never read or heard a report of his sentencing last year. The Reader no longer closely covers the So County school districts. As to the U-T, it may have reported the matter, but only in its southern regional section.
— March 11, 2017 8:56 a.m.

Could Major League Soccer kick the city where it counts?

To make all this work, the current stadium has to go. But why is that? The city complains about the annual cost for upkeep. (Actually it is probably higher than admitted, in that past upkeep wasn't kept up--pardon the pun--and there's a maintenance backlog there.) The Chargers were essentially paying no rent, so their departure has no financial impact. I've said that there's still a need for a venue for the Aztecs football games, and for the bowl games. But then, the powers that be decided to kill the Poinsettia Bowl, and claim they are going to play the Holiday Bowl at Petco. How they can make a baseball park into a football stadium is a mystery to me. And now it appears that SDSU might be OK with a much smaller stadium than the current one. There seems to be a remarkable amount of agreement that the old stadium has to go. If someone isn't saying it is a wreck--which is a gross exaggeration, someone else says it is just too big and no longer needed. Then there's the "growth is good" crowd that wants SDSU to get a big chunk of the land for general campus purposes, and use it as a close-by satellite campus. And those proponents claim that SDSU, with its inadequate amount of land, NEEDS to grow. (Personally, I think it is too large already, and that if the CSU system needs more seats for students in this county, a logical step would be to add another campus, probably in So County.) Pardon me if I'm a skeptic about the receptivity of the local potential fan base for soccer, despite the large Latino population in the county. If all of those redevelopment plans were going to be financed privately, or in conjunction with some CSU money, that would be one thing. But you point out here that there is another taxpayer ripoff brewing, and that this scheme will need a big taxpayer contribution initially, and probably in perpetuity. The city cannot afford any more of these wonderful ideas. When the massive infrastructural maintenance backlog is worked off, maybe something like that could be considered. Just keep in mind that the backlog is growing right now, not shrinking, and that under best-case assumptions it would require decades of heavy spending to erase it.
— March 8, 2017 8:22 a.m.

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!