it is sad to think that the alleged corruption at southwestern and sweetwater will cast its shadow over the chula vista elementary school district.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE, SUCH A DIFFERENCE that a board and interim superintendent can make. board member lopez is the only board member sitting on the sweetwater board who seems to understand what her role is - the rest, all about themselves.

i would be interested in knowing if the c. v. elementary district has campaign donation limitations - and would suggest that they do a mailer stating "board members will NOT accept ANY MONIES from ANYONE doing business from the bond monies. just a suggestion.

"Bond firms' campaign gifts linked to sales pacts"

This is the title of a recent San Francisco Chronicle article...while not directly applicable, it echos what we have learned in this area.

That said, Chula Vista Elementary has had a clean reputation and the schools west of 805 no doubt need some sprucing.

At the present time, FOUR out of the five CVESD Board members got there by being APPOINTED, not by being elected. And apparently they all knew each other before being elected. That practice of resigning early so your fellow Board members can appoint a buddy has got to stop before we will support any bond measure. Those four Board members who have been appointed must all promise NOT to run as an "incumbent" in the next election cycle.

In a recent study it was discovered that in 110 out of 111 cases, the bond underwriter who was the biggest campaign donor got the job of selling school bonds. California Watch recently wrote, "For donors [to bond campaigns], failure is rare. In only five cases out of 111 did an underwriter make a donation and fail to receive a contract to sell the bonds. In four of those, however, more than one underwriter made donations and the contract went to the firm that had contributed a larger amount to the campaign."

Susan Luzzaro fails to report whether Dale Scott & Co. has made campaign contributions to CVESD bond campaigns or to board incumbents.

San Bruno voters nixed a ballot measure after this very hopeful article was published on page 3 of The Daily Journal in San Mateo County:

"...[P]hone surveys were given to about 800 likely voters in the San Bruno Park Elementary School District recently about a possible parcel tax or bond measure. Both generated strong support,according to results by Dale Scott from San Francisco-based Dale Scott & Company that will be shared at tonight’s meeting. Moving forward could be the next step in a number of budget-related decisions as the district faces a deficit over $1 million in coming school years. About 70.3 percent of people polled supported a parcel tax... above the two-thirds passage threshold required for the measure that could support programs..."

(http://www.scribd.com/doc/48937867/11EDITION)

A San Bruno Patch reader commented:

"As I see it, one of the big lessons learned from the failed Measure O campaign is that Dale Scott & Company isn't the company you want to be taking political advice from as far as political campaigns in San Bruno are concerned."

(http://sanbruno.patch.com/articles/school-board-to-discuss-next-steps-after-measure-o)

Here is a report by Lozano Smith law firm regarding an investigation into allegations against Dale Scott & Co.:

http://media.redding.com/redd/content/static/gatewayattorney1.pdf

Ironically, Lozano Smith was sanctioned by a federal judge in 2005 in a scathing 80-page decision in which he ordered all the firm's attorneys to take ethics training.

http://parentadvocates.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=5375

Some of the attorneys left Lozano Smith to form Fagan, Friedman and Fulfrost, which represents CVESD.

If Scott can't predict the costs with a ball park figure and he's made contributions to board members get rid of him, or vote the bond down.

MauraLarkins, Thanks for all the useful links. I don't believe I was writing during the last round of CV elections. However, your point is well taken. I should pay attention to campaign contributions.

Any rational So Bay voter should ask if there's any reason to trust this board. Only one was elected, and that's really outrageous. Was there a plague epidemic that killed off all the others who ended up replaced by appointment?

If the voters there support this proposal now, it proves that So Bay voters don't know what's up, what's down, or what's happening. The same kind of apathetic or woefully ignorant voters that put that Sweetwater board in place and also the Southwestern College board in place. Until big changes are made, a big chunk of that bond money will go into the pockets of crooks. And then the residents of the district will be paying it off for twenty to thirty years.

I think CVESD is rather typical as far as corruption in schools goes. There are few school districts that allow transparency into their decision-making process. CVESD calls its method of decision-making "collegiality". This means that all arguments take place in secret, before meetings are held. No one really knows what principles, if any, guide the thinking of the board members.

It most certainly isn't just South Bay who voters who "don't know what's up, what's down, or what's happening," to use Visduh's words. (Is Visduh from Vista Unified, perhaps? Now there's another typical dysfunctional school district.)

Even school boards that allow open debate about some issues are quite likely conducting some unsavory business behind closed doors during closed sessions. For example, Capistrano Unified was asked by the Orange County District Attorney to tape its closed sessions, but the district's lawyer, Daniel Shinoff, advised the board to stop taping their closed sessions. The Capistrano board followed Shinoff's advice--not the D.A.'s. This will make it impossible to prove, even in a court of law, how the board is reaching its decisions--and impossible to know if someone is telling board members how to get away with wrongdoing.

it is indeed a shame when typical, corruption, and school board are found in the same sentence.