The Sweetwater Union High School District will be making an effort to pull out of the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) San Diego Section before the school year ends. They are intent on creating their own section for their districts' sports programs. They have reached out to San Diego Unified, Grossmont Unified and Imperial Unified School Districts to see if they would like to join this new section; both SAn Diego and Grossmont have declined and Imperial is still considering the proposal.

The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) is the governing body for high school sports in the state of California. It mirrors similar governing bodies in other states; however, it differs from some of the others in that it covers most high schools in the state of California, both public and private. It also differs from other states in that it does not have a single, state-wide "State" championships in all sports; instead, for some sports, the CIF's 10 Sections each have their own championships.

Sweetwater is part of the CIF San Diego Section and it competes against schools from across the section in all sports. If it created its own section, it would limit its competition to just schools within its new section. The District's schools have had success competing in the CIF, with Eastlake Football and Girls Soccer winning CIF titles this year, and Otay Ranch Boys Volleyball being the reigning CIF Boys Volleyball champions.

Sweetwater schools pay between $2500 and $5000 per school per year to be a member of CIF. The District pays around $50,000 per year in total.

So what is the benefit to the District schools and student athletes? Their will be the obvious savings of the membership fees. Also, some feel that the District schools are not competitive against the rest of the CIF schools, so creating a new section will allow a majority of the District schools to be competitive.

But is this what is best for our schools and student athletes? Has the District done its due diligence in gathering community , parent, students, and schools input? Or has District leadership decided to move forward with this proposition without thinking it through?

When a Trustee was contacted about this proposal, this Trustee had no idea about it. A second Trustee was emailed questions about this proposal, but this Trustee did not respond. Unfortunately, this is the norm in this District - Superintendent Ed Brand makes decisions and the Trustees find out about it from the community.

The question remains, why has the District suddenly decided to create its own section, and whats in it for Ed Brand?

Comments

eastlaker April 5, 2013 @ 11:06 a.m.

Please tell me this is an April Fool's joke that somehow is just running a bit late!

How completely strange is this...meaningful athletic competition teaches and inspires student athletes to do their best, to keep improving!

It is a major motivating force for teams and individuals, depending on the sport, to make it to CIFs. To exchange this for some rinky-dink local pretend "competition"?

So then Sweetwater would have its own pseudo-championship system, and then Sweetwater students can say they are champions?! It doesn't work that way.

Is there anything that can be done to halt this latest ill-concieved outburst by Ed Brand, and the lackeys McCann, Cartmill, Quinones and Ricasa, who among them apparently still cannot come up with enough functioning brain cells to do anything at all.

So Brand wants the money for one of his friends, or perhaps it is time for his RV to be replaced? (In a previous term as superintendent, rehabbing Brand's RV was a shop project for one of the schools. Not kidding).

This spineless board of trustees...has there been a more hopeless aggregate ever collected...who are supposed to be leaders in education, yet fail time after time--and continue to fail with no apparent sense of shame or awareness of how completely inept they are?

In addition to the well-known football teams that have had successes, both girls and boys water polo teams have been really working to get to CIF playoffs for the past several years. Sweetwater has had many swimmers in CIFs, and even have some record-holders in some events. About those football teams--does anyone think that the scouts would show up for Sweetwater's backyard championship? Does anyone think that college scholarships will be given out if no one plays against the strong teams...you are basically consigning all future Sweetwater students to division III programs, if they get to go on in their sport at all.

Again, Ed Brand and this board of trustees seem determined to undermine what has been built up here in Sweetwater. It actually seems like they exist to take away what students have been lead to believe is the expected future available to them as part of their high school experience!

I will have to give up my politically correct card to say this, but I must. This is nothing but sheer idiocy. For which there is no excuse.

2

erupting April 5, 2013 @ 4:54 p.m.

Good or bad my question is why does the public have to inform the board? Why doesn't the public have any input again. The Brand dictatorship continues with board support because they give him full reigns.

2

anniej April 5, 2013 @ 6 p.m.

It is indeed troubling when CERTAIN persons are told "the decision has been made, we will have our plan in place by the beginning of the next school year".

Why would we want to limit our student athletes competition by limiting their competitive experience to our high schools and potentially Brawley? What good will it serve? There are those who will say that it will give our schools a chance - really? Perhaps someone might explain how this move will help Mar Vista, Castle Park, Hilltop, or Bonita; just to mention a few. Let us not forget Brand has done away with boundaries - and what we have seen is a substantial amount of athletes attending the Power houses of Eastlake, Otay and Olympian, schools that are not their home school - so what will change? We will have those schools that have welcomed in transfers and become giants in ability playing against the very schools that some of those athletes would have called home school.

Why is Mr. McLaughlin suddenly a supporter of this idea? When he was CIF President he stood steadfastly against it. Might it be sour grapes that he lost the position?

Why are we ONCE AGAIN learning of this via the grape vine? Why haven't the parents, coaches and student athletes been included in the process - BECAUSE WE, the taxpayers, are NEVER included. Why did JIm Cartmill, Arlie Ricasa, Pearl Quinones, Bertha Lopez and John Mccann not mandate that all parties be included?

Who is going to pay for the new 'branding/logo, the administrative staff, the attorneys, the private investigators, the office space?'. Since our CIF dues are paid up until October of 2013 no doubt the ASB accounts will fund the initial expenses, so in essence we will be double paying for our sports.

Why didn't San Diego City or Grossmont join in? Hmmmmmm, the fact Brand was a part of it, could that have been the reasoning?

What credence will such a splinter group bring the athlete looking to expand his desires to play in College or a Major Sports League - "No I wasn't in the CIF league, I was in the Brand league". RESPONSE "the what league.?

To those of you who will say "oh, but this will be run by a non profit". I say "have you heard about the other non profit Brand got us into - you know the one that OWNS, as in holds the deed on the L street property we paid for".

Bottom line "those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing". So why is this becoming public knowledge via a blog on The READER"?

To those of you who will read in a post by SUHSD no doubt narrated by Brand and McLaughlun that this is a preliminary thought I say THEN WHY DID ANNIEJ LEARN OF IT THE FIRST WEEK IN MARCH and you are learning of it the first week in April? SUHSD is coming out because they are playing 'squash the rumor' or perhaps it should be called 'looks like the gig is up'

Cartmill, Ricasa, Lopez. Quinones, and John Mccann - why are you continuing to allow information to be kept from the very persons who pay the bills????

2

eastlaker April 5, 2013 @ 6:54 p.m.

Can anyone say what the coaches have been told? Athletic directors?

Because I've been in contact with one coach who hasn't been told anything about this, and so was rather doubtful about this entire situation...I suggested he contact his athletic director and see what the "official" word is.

Word on the street is that this could be devastating for local kids. No real competition...no meaning in competition...equals no competition. No scouting, no recruitment, no athletic scholarships.

It sickens me to see this school district being undermined by the very people who are supposed to be leading it and improving on it. Not to mention, it is impossible to get the truth out of this bunch, as that is the last thing they want the public to be in possession of.

Nothing from tim-tim, I'll warrant. Wouldn't it be great to know what he knows?

In a normal district, someone would hold a press conference and start the conversation off right if this type of thing were to be considered--but not Sweetwater. It would be great if maybe the mayor or some other city representative would give a measured opinion, but again, not here...we must have the world's highest percentage of spineless public servants. How else can this be explained?

1

anniej April 5, 2013 @ 7:57 p.m.

Eastlaker- I have great respect for your opinion, you are known for bringing interesting facts and questions to the comment boards.

We, the taxpayers can NOT sit back and expect the mayor or other city representatives to do our bidding. We are the ones whose monies feed the SUHSD engine. These children are our children, for we are in truth a village. It is up to us, united to stop this, not our government!!

The CIF issue is an important issue since it will have a great impact on so many. Let us not forget that it is not only the dues that Brand will take control over IF we should allow this action. There are other monies, for example 'gate' money aka admission. Can this community afford to give Brand control over yet more funds? Have we forgotten what he did to the ASB's during his first tenure? Currently, right now, 5% of the ASB funds are paid to the district. That is on top of your taxes, on top of all of the extra curricular things you pay for, yes, our children, via our wallets are paying the district 5% more. Some of the ASB funds have balances in the 6 figures - do the math.

Coaches outside of our district are speechless, how/why would the district AD's, the district coaches allow this to happen. Let me remind them, this is SUHSD, home of the felony indictment on steroids. Brand signs their payroll checks, under Brands reign - it is his way or the highway. Our athletic personnel, not happy, yet in fear of being quoted.

The consensus is, this is yet another 'what is in it for me' Brand scheme. The very fact that Brand and McLaughlin (president of CIF for how many years?) are behind it is troubling. McLaughlin supporting it is some what akin to a prisoner finding Jesus.

Parents of athletes, stand up for your children, keep Brand out of your athletic funds!!!!!!!!

And again I say WHERE IS CARTMILL! RICASA! QUINONES! LOPEZ! And John Mccann?????????? I could have sworn they were voted in to protect our children's best interests. Oh but that is right they have turned over all power to Brand, we are not being represented, we are being dictated to by Brand!

1

eastlaker April 6, 2013 @ 1:05 a.m.

Ah yes, the return of the "Silent Majority"...Cartmill, Ricasa, Quinones, John McCann...conspicuous by their absence. Maybe they are still on spring break somewhere?

Bertha Lopez was quoted as saying she did not receive the information. I can believe that--it is consistent with Ed Brand to deliberately leave her out of the loop, as she has in the past tried to fight for the students and what is best for the district.

anniej, I am not saying that Mayor Cox can solve all our problems, I am saying that it would be great to have someone in authority speak out in a common sense manner regarding this and many other issues.

We lack a meaningful community dialogue in our community and in the subsections of this community. We are stratified and splintered...many families are still struggling with issues related to the economic downturn so that the time and energy to fight the infernal Brand and his schemes are not easy to come by.

Yet we need to respond to the emergency call on this one. Do we want the students of this district to be forever second class citizens? Because that is what is happening, right before our eyes--Brand wants to segregate this district, with all that entails. Yes, his own empire...all the minions dutifully bowing and scraping to his utterly destructive whims.

Again, why are the trustees of Sweetwater nowhere to be found? Are they so beholden to Brand? If so, why? Can anyone explain to me just how, in this day and age, this school district can be run by someone so psychologically abnormal as Ed Brand? Who can confront the megalomaniac? More of a rhetorical question, but--the mayor could ask a few questions. That would not be out of line.

1

bvagency April 6, 2013 @ 7:42 a.m.

Gang, here is the Districts official position on this. I believe it is an outright lie that the district is merely studying it! The CIF San Diego section says Sweetwater will try to get out before the school year ends. Once again, the District is caught with their pants down and are trying to back pedal with more lies on top of lies!

Statement re: New CIF Section

Over the course of the past several months, the Sweetwater Union High School District, has been exploring the idea of creating CIF Section 11.

The possible creation of the new section would be done for the ensuring competitiveness among local student athletes, for stronger local governance of the section and for increased financial stability.

Although the idea has been mentioned for several years, over the past several months, Sweetwater has worked with other potential partner districts, local elected officials and with the CIF San Diego Section on the viability of this proposal.

Because this is in the exploratory phase, no final decisions have been made. If this proposal would move towards actual implementation, Sweetwater and its partner districts would work with the community and our respective Board of Trustees to ensure that the process is done properly and has the support of all those that would be impacted.

As we move forward through this process, information will be made available to the community.

2

eastlaker April 6, 2013 @ 1:12 p.m.

"As we move forward through this process, information will be made available to the community."

There is something very wrong with this--because the community is deliberately being left out of this process! Once again, Ed Brand's crazy schemes go forward while the public is none-the-wiser. When we find out... it becomes a "study". However, other informed people say Sweetwater will be out of SD CIFs "before the end of the school year".

What does that mean for students anticipating their championships for spring sports? Does this mean they will not be allowed to participate?

1

anniej April 6, 2013 @ 8:13 a.m.

This is yet another example of our boards failure to represent our students and us.

I am forced to ask what are our board members actually doing in their positions - attend monthly meetings? I believe we expect much more than that - I expected leadership, direction, and exchanges of ideas. What we have instead are followers being led by Brand, dictatorship, and little, if any conversation at the board meetings (the only board members who speak up are Lopez consistently and Quinones occasionally).

It is time for JIm Cartmill as president to reign in Ed Brand, enough is enough! Cartmill and his colleagues reputation are being tainted with each new scandal - why he, of all board members, is continuing to allow Ed Brand to dictate to him is the 64 thousand dollar question. Just this week I had a conversation with a community activist who believes that Mr. Cartmill is a good guy - it is time for this good guy to step up to the plate and lead or leave with dignity.

The question all board members should be asking is why ALL OF THEM DID NOT KNOW? Ed brand has NO business selling our student athletes out.

Who are the elected officials Sweetwater has worked with? We want to know, we want to know why THEY did not advocate for the parents being involved in the process? More back room deals?

CIF work with them, look we were born of a day but it was not yesterday - why would CIF work WITH our district to endorse this venture when they obviously knew Brand was doing it behind our backs? Once again our district speaks with forked tongue.

Ed Brand does not know the meaning of exploratory phase, if he wants it he will do whatever it takes to get it.

The pipeline of the South Bay is flaming hot via Facebook, via twitter, via text - you want to help get the word out explain the situation to your child(ren), have them take part in the decision by alerting all of their friends to tell their parents. Have them forward this article to their friends for their parents to read.

ALL READING THIS CALL YOUR PRINCIPALS! AD's, and COACHES and tell them NO.

As a side note, we the taxpayers are more than tired of Ed Brand - we want him gone, and more and more in these communities of taxpayers want the majority of the board gone. We can only hope that Quinones and Lopez will speak out and make their comments known - they apparently were left in the dark - but what about the other 3 - did they know? Were they working against our student athletes in favor of Brand? - it sure looks that way.

2

eastlaker April 6, 2013 @ 11:37 a.m.

Brand, the empire builder...Brand, the one whose imagination exceeds his ethics by a vast degree...Brand, whose legendary greed stops at nothing. He will destroy this school district if he is not stopped.

He is aiming for a community that accepts the second-rate as their just due. He, of course, lives in north county, so has no problem feeling vastly superior to all of us who live within the confines of the Sweetwater District.

We do not have to put up with his contempt for our abilities, our intelligence, our strength of purpose. He obviously does not really know who we are--and he does not care who we are. So why should we listen to him, and why should we listen to those who are apparently in some sort of abject servitude to him--that would be McCann, Cartmill and Ricasa. My personal opinion is that he has promised those three that he has only spilled the goods on Quinones and Lopez, and that he will keep McCann, Cartmill and Ricasa safe. That is why they fall into line so obediently.

But, if Cartmill, McCann and Ricasa were really smart, they would have figured out by now that Ed Brand will only protect Ed Brand. Everyone else can be collateral damage, and it is fine with him. Part of the pathology of the psyche of Ed Brand.

1

WTFEd April 7, 2013 @ 10:38 a.m.

Okay it has been awhile. This is one of the most eggregious things this pompous fat ass Superintendent has ever done. He has let his ego and desire for power and money (yes after he somehow weasels some type of cushy retirement exit..can you spell disability) for some personal gain.

For those District employees who still give him homage and do not say privately "well off the record" well names will be taken and noted of those who blindly supported this jerk. People staff the public we will remember and call you out. A new Superintendent comes in and you will be out if I have anything to do with it.

How can you dare even consider exiting from an institution the CIF that is recognized by those who are seeking NCAA scholarship. There is no shame with this piece of crap that sits up there with the disdane for the public. This makes no sense. To make matters worse he does it in a stealth fashion. Think about the kids Ed not yourself.

Again I say you Executives, yes the ones I see most every day you better look yourself in the mirror before it is too late and distance yourself. Those in the community know who is all in and who is just trying to survive before he trips on his very small ying yang. Then the real names will be taken and noted. It is not too late to jump ship. I have heard recently those in the audience who speak up from the Bond Chair guy to Ms. Cheers, Maty Adato, Wanda Parise, Fran Brinkman, just to name a few. These are not country bumpkins. To take a member of the audience and call their employer well the District will just be lucky it does not find itself in another law suit. This whole District makes me sick. Just think I used to be your supporter.

Hell has nice places for the likes of Ed Brand.

1

anniej April 7, 2013 @ 11:17 a.m.

I have mentioned before, 'in the court of law, the excuse of my boss told me to do that' will not defend you. Hiding what you know legally should not be hidden, changing what you know legally should not be changed, stating what you legally know is not truth - accountability, all will face accountability and be held accountable.

I remember being told of a conversation "the gandara" was having with a few insiders. As the story was told to me, he sat there and mimicked a couple of the 'antagonists' - the group laughed hysterically. He ensured them 'they have nothing'

Now, once again, Brand and a few other leaders chucle with the same like thinking- 'these malcontents have nothing, they know nothing' ------

When you fail to learn from the mistakes of those who went before you - you are destined to experience what became their destiny.

Many of you, are in essence, caught in the middle between a rock and a hard place. The rock being what is important to you - your families, your beliefs, your mortgages, etc --- the hard place being Ed Brand. Step carefully as the pressure between the two will result in loss -

Look to those who went before you, those who served and did the biddings of Brand the first time around and 'the gandara'. When they were no longer useful they were cast aside.

Look to those who valued position over integrity in the first round of legal infiltration, they have lost respect, are bankrupting their lifestyle and some may EVEN LOOSE THEIR VERY FREEDOM.

Take heed, think about this, it is just that serious!!!!!!

1

eastlaker April 7, 2013 @ 7:06 p.m.

So right, anniej--"only following orders" is no excuse.

Those important terms "tipping point", "flash point", "point of no return"...let's think for a moment about what they really mean. That moment when the will of the people becomes manifest, a change occurs.

I do not think that anyone is with Ed Brand on this one. Leaving CIF for some hastily put together, disorganized small-time small-town home-grown mess of Brand's own devising...how could that possibly benefit anyone?

Short answer: it couldn't. Maybe except for Brand himself, if he is setting up a way to skim...which is entirely possible. Why should we give him any more money than he is already getting--why should we give him access to any more money than he already has?

1

punisher April 7, 2013 @ 8:42 p.m.

This won't or shouldn't happen. What's ironic is that the ROP programs could go away if those teachers aren't back. The ROP programs at specific schools attract students to go there and parents to send them there, which of course helps the standing of the district. Same goes for athletics. Students who play sports want endless opportunities to compete. Hopefully the right decision will be made based on the interest of the students, parents, and the community.

Interesting that Grossmont opted out of the idea, as well as San Diego City Schools. Not sure if this is relevant to the competition factor, but if you look at schools API in Sweetwater compared to schools those two districts, one will find that more schools in the Sweetwater district are overachieving greatly compared to Grossmont and San Diego City Schools.

.

1

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 8:06 a.m.

While I agree with much of what you say, your use of the passive voice indicates an ongoing concern: many people seem to be 'at one remove' from the problems here in Sweetwater.

"Hopefully the right decision will be made"...but our Board of Trustees do not have a history of making the right decisions, to our great dismay. And to the visible disassembly and systematic destruction of this school district, they are, unaccountably, rather less than concerned. They are a public disgrace.

We will need to switch to the active voice, and we will need to get through to our board members so they realize just how strongly we feel. Of course, they do not return calls, because they really are not interested in what their constituency has to say. So what is the next logical step?

1

anniej April 7, 2013 @ 10:22 p.m.

Punisher- Allegedly, there were three reasons, not that both shared all three:

CIF has recently addressed the inequality that was seen as unfair - new procedures are now in place.

Jerry Schniepp has worked hard and is highly respected - there for all of the right reasons, the student athletes.

Ed Brand - trust -------- the two do not equate. Just ask the investors of his failed bank -

If we look at what Brand has failed to do for the academic student and now the ROP student why would we ever trust him to look out for the best interests of the student athlete?

2

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 7:55 a.m.

Good point, anniej, the Bank...was there ever a better indicator that Brand is really only about the money? Several questions about that remain. Was that scheme ever anything beyond a money-making venture for Brand? Did the partners get completely "taken"? What kind of personality dreams up these kinds of outlandish schemes?

Not to mention, what kind of Board of Trustees actually goes out and rehires someone with this kind of background? A Board of Trustees that is perhaps criminally negligent?

That old phrase "by hook or by crook" has never been more apropos then when applied to the machinations of our own Fast Eddy.

Back when I was still in school, I thought of people on school boards as pleasant types of people, who were trying to serve the community in the best way they could--some of whom had their own flaws and drawbacks--but who would all eventually respond to the needs and concerns of the community. Based upon what I see before me in this Sweetwater UHSD, however, this Board of Trustees must be a kind of Board of Trusstees, as they appear either to be in a paralytic state or hogtied into submission.

So why are our Trustees so trussed?

As another old saw goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." What happens when there are no good intentions? Moral weakness is insidious...and has gone on undermining the good many people have been doing in Sweetwater...for far too long.

That is why I have accused members of this Board of Trustees, (hereafter to be referred to as "The Trussed") of being spineless. But maybe I have been too hard on them. Maybe they are as helpless as their actions would indicate...in which case it might be time to declare that our own majority board, singularly and collectively, needs to have legal guardianship provided, as they have proved to be incapacitated.

Hogtied by fear? Trussed by back room deals? Paralyzed by promises?

Selling the students down the river, and Ed Brand is making bank.

1

anniej April 8, 2013 @ 8:59 a.m.

Eastlaker: truth be told I voted for Cartmill and Ricasa CONSISTENTLY in the past. Ricasa I believed truly cared and Cartmill was seen as a good man. And NOW? I want to believe in the goodness of people - I understand bad choices, we have all made them. Ricasa, unveiled as an alleged profiteer why? Why use our students for personal/family gain, Ms. Arlie had it all - she has been blessed. And NOW, while members of the community look to see her leadership abilities in the forefront we see instead a perceived pawn of Ed Brands. WHY??????

Good men sometimes do bad things - well the sometimes are over - explain the NOW votes. Mutual friends who have long defended Jim Cartmill to me can not explain the NOW. Is he too a pawn of Brands. WHY??????

This community is at a near boil over. We have been waiting and waiting for Cartmill and Ricasa to represent us for the past three years, however their votes seem to indicate that no matter what the issue, no matter how debilitating the results to our students and our district, they back Brand - a man who resigned in order to get what he wanted, more money. WHY????

Fortunately there is a kaviat within the district that has held to the importance of integrity and transparency - the BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE - they have remained focused on the responsibility assigned to them - watching our for our bond dollars. They have stayed true to their commitments - WHY?????????

Do Cartmill and Ricasa ever wish for the respect and praise once given them back?

The window of opportunity for the legacy they will leave behind is closing. As more and more persons of interests attend and listen to board meetings the mild winds blowing over the South Bay from the ocean to the east side are carrying the questions being asked about Ricasa and Cartmill - WHY????????????

2

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 10:20 a.m.

So why is it that during school board meetings, the majority of the trustees, (or the "trussed" as I like to refer to them) sit there like zombies out of a teenage movie. Saying little to nothing, going through the motions. Coming to life when they feel the need to shush the gallery or get a drink from the water fountain.

Where is the thought? Where is the effort? Where is the planning, the organization, the strength of purpose to see a good job through to the end?

Not in evidence at all.

We see a sad gathering of mislead and misdirected empty suits sitting before us at every meeting. The greedy leading the ill-informed, making multi-million dollar decisions that do not benefit the students, the teachers or the taxpayers.

Hmm. How can people be so lacking in any sort of good judgment? And why would we want them in authority over us, if what they do is never in our benefit?

1

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 11:06 a.m.

Sweetwater: Where the Undead find leadership roles.

1

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 11:15 a.m.

Sweetwater: Where your children's future becomes more insecure by the day.

2

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 11:18 a.m.

Sweetwater: Case study in institutional breakdown.

1

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 11:22 a.m.

Sweetwater: Where meaningful dialog has been replaced by grasping for funds, and then misuse of same.

1

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 11:25 a.m.

Sweetwater: Where educational leadership in its true sense goes to die.

1

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 12:09 p.m.

Sweetwater: Where Chaos Theory and Chaos Management Meet

1

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 12:14 p.m.

Sweetwater: Where the stench of bad practices permeates.

2

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 12:16 p.m.

Sweetwater: Where public education goes down the drain.

2

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 12:19 p.m.

Sweetwater: The only school district where the biggest bully is the superintendent.

2

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 12:23 p.m.

Sweetwater: The school district that used to know how.

2

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 12:51 p.m.

But that was a very long time ago, and the institutional memory has been all but erased.

1

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 4:40 p.m.

Folks, here we have the top ten new slogans for SUHSD! Step right up and vote for your favorite, or add some of your own to the list!

0

timeforchange April 8, 2013 @ 8:02 p.m.

Maybe if the district gave the athletic programs the same type of support they do in other districts, things could be different. I'm talking about $$ (of course) where the yearly amount given to schools continues to become less and less and more pressure is put on coaches to fundraise. This puts some schools, in lower economic areas, at a serious disadvantage. It is obvious that Eastlake, Otay Ranch, Olympian and Bonita Vista have a greater opportunity to raise more funds than Southwest, San Ysidro, and Mar Vista. It is not a level playing field.

In addition, 6th period athletics does not exist in Sweetwater. As a result, practices begin after school (at SYHS they begin around 4:30 I believe) and kids miss a lot of school having to leave so early for away games so that the bus drivers can make their afternoon runs.

If Sweetwater pulled out of the CIF, the championship football game would not be played at Qualcomm but probably at one of the better stadiums in the district. The baseball teams would probably not have access to the yearly games at Petco that many of the district's schools have had the opportunity to play at. No Jenny Craig Pavilion or SDSU for basketball, etc. etc.

Scholarship opportunities would still be there for kids because if you are good enough, the colleges will know about you. It is the level of competition that will suffer. As I pointed out earlier, the haves will continue to dominate the have nots and the athletic programs at those schools will disappear (or those athletes will transfer to the haves further impacting their enrollment, and traffic problems). And if Ed Brand is worried about money, how much will it cost to transport all the athletic teams to the Imperial Valley if that is the only other district to jump on this fiasco?

Just my two cents, for what it's worth.

2

eastlaker April 9, 2013 @ 3:58 p.m.

Right--if we weren't wasting so much money on unnecessary payouts, we would have much more for the programs. Waste: dirt pile, 10 year old law suit on girls' softball field equality, paying off Gandara when he should have been fired for cause, outrageous salary and benies for Brand, contracts for Brand's buddies.

Well over a million right there. We do not have the facilities we should have--but we could have, if this board would only start getting its priorities straight.

And the level of competition would (using the conditional here...) indeed suffer. I did hear that MacLaughlin hasn't even thought through the venues for all the championships that would have to take place in Sweetwater--he actually does not know where these events would take place. Has not taken into account numbers/size...so how can championships be held when Sweetwater has never build appropriate venues--such as pools? Mar Vista has a pool. We share Southwestern's pool, but they are planning some construction, and that might be out of service. The city of Chula Vista operates Parkside and Loma Verde...but this school district has chosen not to build any pools for the past 50 years while they have doubled and tripled the number of schools. Figure that out.

This school district has not a single pool facility that would work for a local CIF event. And they want to hold their own championship. Maybe they can rent Coronado's--but that would really cost, wouldn't it? Especially since the cost wouldn't be shared with the rest of the schools.

In addition to which--Brand and MacLaughlin, plowing ahead with little to no real understanding of what they are doing, despite years of experience (ostensibly...but maybe they weren't really committing much to memory during those years of experience) are saying that this will not cost the district any money.

They are, as we know bald and bald-faced liars--because, of course this will cost the district. Only a fool would fall for that line, and we are not fools.

0

anniej April 8, 2013 @ 9:42 p.m.

timeforchage- while Brand will claim "this is for the kids" we all know different. If Brand is involved it is all about 'what is in it for me'.

Lets face it many of the sports programs are suffering. Parents who value a good education whose child happens to be a stellar athlete are taking advantage of the open boundaries. Wouldn't you? Many parents whose child is NOW second string because a west side athlete has taken advantage of the open boundaries and has taken their childs 1st string status are upset. Wouldn't you be?

Brand obviously is a sports guy, but he is failing to address the real issues, one of which is lack of money to hire good coaches. Now don't get me wrong, we have some excellent coaches, I mean excellent, but we also have some coaches whose consistent loosing records speak for themselves - case in point, when I phone a school and ask what criteria is used to measure a coaching program and am asked why - which I reply "well three loosing seasons would tend to make one realize this program, even with the talent we have, just isn't working, and it is time for a change". I am them told with a straight face, "well SUHSD's sports programs are not about winning". So let me get this straight I am speaking of a team with attributes, that would, under the any one of our excellent coaches be a contender, yet, because we don't happen to have one of those excellent coaches we are doomed and given the old it's not about winning malarchy.

High school sports is about winning, lets tell it like it is. The excellent coaches we have are able to incorporate GPA's, discipline, respect, team building and responsibility into their programs, it has been proven. The bad coaches, well we all know about them.

IF Brand wanted to help the student athletes of the Metro League he would provide ALL athletes with the best coaches possible. Contrary to the company line there are good coaches out there who want the jobs. Students should be encouraged to attend home schools, and we should bring back home school pride. Whatever happened to attending Hilltop Middle and dreaming of going to Hilltop High and becoming a Lancer? Get the mini communities involved in their neighborhood schools, pack those stadiums, baseball/softball/soccer fields, and gyms. What we have now is the majority looking to attend the newer, perceived better east side schools.

I remember when Olympiian was finished, many, many of the best teachers in the district were recruited to educate those students. It was perceived to be the best, and yet what do we have now. Olympiian is now on the Program Improvement list. How does that happen? It happens because our district is broken, broken due the leadership of "the gandara" and now Brand, broken because the majority of our board has FAILED to do their due diligence in protecting the students.

So lets summarize -

ITS ALL IN SUCH A MESS, and those being hurt, the innocents, the ones we all should be protecting.

1

Reader2 April 8, 2013 @ 10:21 p.m.

Just want to let everyone know that there will be a Board Meeting tomorrow, April 9, at 6PM.

1

eastlaker April 8, 2013 @ 10:32 p.m.

Yes, it is yet another money grab. Guess Brand just can't help himself. But we all know he wants the money to then "contribute" to some other scheme, because he just can't help himself. If this, meaning splitting from SD CIF, takes place, and he gets to have another slice of the pie, what comes next?

Is that when he tries to insert himself into the plans that the city of Chula Vista has for a university?

Can we please stop him now. Give him the clear message that we have had more than enough, and it is time for him to take that last trek north.

1

bvagency April 9, 2013 @ 6:47 a.m.

Note that Ed Brand and William McGlouhglin will be presenting to San Diego CIF their proposal to leave CIF at the CIF Board of Governers meeting this Wednesday at 9 am. See link below

http://www.cifsds.org/images/Executive%20Committiee/Executive_Committee_04-10-13.pdf

1

eastlaker April 9, 2013 @ 2:28 p.m.

Thanks for posting this--interesting that there are two things going on here. A "non-action" item is 7 A--correspondence, presented by Ed Brand and Bill MacLaughlin. I think that is the proposal for what they have started to represent as "new section 11".

Then, later, there is an item for action about having three subdivisions within Sweetwater--except for football (!)--I guess so that more teams can say they are league champions...maybe we should just say each school is in a league of their own, so everyone can be a champion!

1

Sign in to comment