Don't bet on it! Ever since Ed Brand was awarded his 2 year $250,000 per year contract, things are humming at SUHSD. It's business as usual. What do i mean by that? Well here are a few nuggets for you. Ed Brand has threatened to remove all volunteers from the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee who don't sign the Form 700. He has written the Board of Directors a letter stating this and asking for their support. Certain members on this committee who have been on the committee for 2-3 years indicate they were never asked to sign this form previously. The prior chair said he was never directed to advise the committee to sign the form previously. Now all of a sudden the Oversight Committee takes a vote of no confidence in the Superintendent and he is now threatening to remove them. Hmmm ... Now on to Mello Roos and Open Boundaries/Transfers. Ed Brand has still not followed through on his agreement to meet with the Chula Vista Community to review these two very important issues. How important are they? Well, the district has spent over $60 million from their Mello Roos fund in the last 3 years. On what you ask? Well, thats what the parents and community want to ask Ed Brand. The district has budgeted $22 million from this fund this school year, with $16 million of that classified as 'other'. What is other? Again, this is what parents and the community want to know. These and other questions about how the Mello Roos fund has been used by the district weigh on the parents and community's minds. Hmmm ... As far as the Open Boundaries/Transfer policy change, many in the community feel Ed Brand made this decision outside of his authority per the Districts own Board policies. It appears only the Trustees can make this policy change. Further, Ed Brand nor the district considered having community input on this change. Of course, the only things this has caused at numerous schools are overcrowded classes (in some 40-50 students), transportation issues, traffic problems, changes in schedules as late as 6 weeks into the school year, lunch service issues, and a few other problems at these schools. Again, the community wants to hear how and why this decision was made by Ed Brand, and what the district intends in future years. By the way, Ed Brand posted videos and Q&A on the district website where he said the district uses an 85% capacity formula to prevent overcrowded schools. Ironically enough, according to the schools own enrollment figures, numerous schools are at 92-97% capacity. And the parents and teachers wonder why the schools are overcrowded? Hmmm ... And I wonder why Ed Brand does not want to meet with the community? Hmmm ...

Comments

eastlaker Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:18 p.m.

On some level I remain astonished that the board actually offered Ed Brand that contract, knowing how opposed the community was and is to Brand and his poor decision-making processes.

There has been a great deal of speculation regarding why they rolled over for Brand--that Brand somehow has the "goods" on those who voted in favor of the contract (Ricasa, Cartmill and McCann, in case anyone has forgotten, or perhaps just returned from an arctic expedition and didn't catch the news). Or Brand, with his now very deep pockets, has promised contributions to various campaign funds, to help ensure that the corruption just keeps on flowing.

The idea that Brand also has the freedom to spend/allocate funding up to $250,000 without the need to discuss with anyone or even declare what it is being spent on actually seems insane to me, but that is another clause in the infamous contract...and it is unclear if that $250,000 is supposed to be the total of what he has the freedom to spend, or if he can have multiple (unlimited) expenditures of up to $250,000--this is beyond irresponsible.

So what has Brand spent all the Mello-Roos funds on? Gosh, how can we find out? Forensic audit, anyone? Grand jury investigation?

Why is Ed Brand so opposed to the public finding out how their money has been spent? Most likely because he knows good and well that the public would be very unhappy once they were to know--yet we are even more unhappy knowing the knowledge is being kept from us.

It is obvious that Brand, Cartmill, McCann and Ricasa are in agreement to such an extent that it could be considered collusion. Quinones might be sitting out this round, as it might be a bit confusing for her.

How long? How long until we can be cleansed of this corruption?

Bertha Lopez, the lone voice of reason and truth, is still working to give Sweetwater's constituents information they can rely on.

And Ed Brand is trying to bring in his pal Grossman--

Isn't it very clear that strong-arm tactics are used by those who do not have right reason on their side?

How is it that we still must contend with Ed Brand?

He doesn't want to give up his position of power, influence and money, despite the fact that he has long forgotten what it is he was supposed to be doing in that position.

What a disgrace those who continue to assist him in spreading the contagion of corruption are. What a crying shame the students of Sweetwater are left with Ed Brand as an example to follow.

1

anniej Oct. 11, 2012 @ 11:32 p.m.

Mr. Grossman did not attend the public forum of candidates this evening. Perhaps he believes that good old 'ed' will get him the votes he needs, perhaps he is thinking john mccann and jim cartmill will pave the way. In any event it was a disappointment not to see him there -

1

eastlaker Oct. 12, 2012 @ 11:30 a.m.

It could also be seen as an indication of the level of commitment and involvement Grossman would bring with him, were he to be elected a trustee.

Which is to say, generally uninvolved, disinterested in the good of the students and willing to do whatever Brand wants him to--

Looks like Grossman has already learned a great deal from Brand: never stick around when the public is asking questions, always obscure your actions and pretend to be surprised when you are distrusted.

In Brand's case, let's expand that to distrusted and viewed with contempt.

1

anniej Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:45 p.m.

to all taxpayers of the south bay: i have learned today that 3 new schools have been added to the PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT LIST, they are:

SAILS - the one school that was close to leading the district but a little over a year ago

OLYMPIAN HIGH SCHOOL - the newest school is the district?

MONTGOMERY HIGH - the very school who was taken off the list the year brand was brought back on board by john mccann.

HOW IN THE HELL DOES THIS HAPPEN?????????? it happens because brand is spending all of his time on extracurricular activities such as charter schools and the future 'brand university'. it happens because john mccann, jim cartmill, and arlie ricasa have given brand full reign to do what he wants, to whoever he wants whenever he wants - see his new contract. it happens because our interim, while he was interim, fell far short when it came to focusing on the education of students -

WHAT HAS BRAND DONE TO FURTHER THE EDUCATION OF OUR CHILDREN -

well according to these three new schools - NOT A DARN THING~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1

eastlaker Oct. 12, 2012 @ 11:39 a.m.

I don't know anything about SAILS--is that a charter school?

Olympian has had very high scores until recently--Bonita has the history of being top-ranked. Eastlake outranked them for a bit, but Bonita came charging back, and hasn't given up their lead. I recall that Olympian was in there, sometimes outranking Eastlake, and not that far from what Bonita's scores were.

What happened? Is it that the mandated improvement in ranking is unsustainable, or is it that resources have been diverted, so that students are not getting the educations they are supposed to receive?

I wonder if Sweetwater's administration will address these and other questions?

Excuse me while I answer my own question with dirisive laughter, as we know Ed Brand NEVER ANSWERS QUESTIONS!

Please, someone, tell me that the Ed Brand Reign of Terror, Intimidation and Fraud will be reined in by the proper authorities!

0

anniej Oct. 12, 2012 @ 8:15 p.m.

no, SAILS is an alternative ed school that had a stellar reputation. brand all but broke their back with his mandates and now this. about a year or so ago many of the parents and then teacherss attended a board meeting and warned of future devastation - and it appears THEY WERE RIGHT - they knew more than the board and brand - but what else is new? - what else do you expect when you have a super and the majority of the board simply going thru the motions?

i had a discussion with someone from the no county this week, they had a direct question? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE TAXPAYERS OF THE SOUTH BAY? WE RAN BRAND OUT OF HERE, WE REFUSED TO ALLOW HIS DICTATOR LIKE TACTICS - why are you allowing the board to give him more and more power? well folks i leave the answer to that question up to all of you.

1

bvagency Oct. 13, 2012 @ 12:29 p.m.

Very sad news indeed. My daughter attended Sails for a bit and it did wonders for her.
Keep in mind these recent announcements are based on last years results. Eastlake High has again taken the district lead, but for how long? With 40 to 50 kids in some classes due to open boundaries, next year will be very telling for Eastlake. The same will be true for the entire district. Think about this: open boundaries takes the best students away from schools in PI, further sending them into a death spiral. Overcrowded classes overburden those few schools not in PI, causing their overall scores to drop. If this trend continues, over the long run we could have allschools in the district in PI. But Brand will not care as he will be long gone! His short term solutions to a long term problem are not the answers!

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close