Dr. Guadalupe Corona, director of Alliant’s Latino Achievement Initiative, fields questions from National City planning commissioners
  • Dr. Guadalupe Corona, director of Alliant’s Latino Achievement Initiative, fields questions from National City planning commissioners
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

One of Sweetwater Union High School District superintendent Ed Brand’s pet projects suffered a setback at the hands of National City planning commissioners on the night of August 5.

Brand’s idea to establish Alliant International University on the grounds of the National City Adult School met resistance by the commissioners, who voted unanimously to return to the agenda item on September 16.

In order to proceed with the plan, the district needed the planning commission to grant a conditional use permit to allow Alliant University to share property dedicated to National City Adult School. The setback was unanticipated, as Brand has already signed a memorandum of understanding with Alliant and begun to enroll students for the fall semester.

A number of speakers opposed changing the conditional use permit. One speaker, Michelle Krug, pointed out that the Adult Education Center was constructed with redevelopment money and that taxypayers had paid for an adult education building, not a private university.

Brian Clapper, a member of the National City Chamber of Commerce, reminded the commissioners that not long ago the Sweetwater district had fostered the opportunity for Sweetwater students to enroll in Grand Canyon University — a for-profit religious school.

Many speakers addressed the issue of student debt. Commissioner Allie Pruitt led the rebuff. The original intent of establishing the adult education center, she said, was to provide a safety net for students in National City who are having a hard time getting their high-school diplomas. She asked the Alliant representative, “Why would a growing university perch in a small community like National City?… Why rob our children of their future?”

Dr. Guadalupe Corona, director of Alliant’s Latino Achievement Initiative, fielded the questions from commissioners. She assured them that Alliant was not a for-profit university and that students would not accumulate debt because Pell Grants, Cal Grants, scholarships, and incentives for Sweetwater graduates would be available.

After the vote was taken, when Corona was in the foyer, she responded to additional questions. Corona repeated what she said to commissioners: that there was a lot of “free money available to students.” She said that about 10 students had already been recruited, perhaps 30 more were in the pipeline, and that a lot of recruiting was done through websites and by phone. When asked who was doing the calling, Corona said she was doing some and people from Promise Neighborhood were doing some.

Promise Neighborhood is a multimillion dollar federal grant administrated by South Bay Community Services, a nonprofit agency that provides the area with many social services.

In an August 6 interview, Kathryn Lembo, CEO of South Bay Community Services, said Promise Neighborhood was not recruiting for Alliant. She said the grant, which was modeled on the Harlem Children’s Zone, is intended to foster education from “cradle to career.” She said academic advocates from the program contacted families in the catchment areas, which includes some Sweetwater schools, to advise them of post-secondary opportunities and to help them with financial barriers.

She said, “We were not doing outreach [for Alliant]; we just got all the new information on Alliant in July…it was an opportunity for an early college program free to the students. We wanted to let people know that Hilltop High School and Olympian High School were going to provide general education courses that were free and the fall classes start August 26. Lembo also said, “We only called houses where children who were 12th- or l1th-graders lived.”

Meanwhile, it seems the Sweetwater district intends to offer Alliant classes on high school campuses this fall: a flier about the cost of the classes states that “Alliant has reduced the cost of tuition for our district…BUT the district has obtained sponsors so the cost of tuition is FREE.”

Reached for a comment, Sweetwater district trustee Bertha Lopez said on August 6 that Brand never advised the board that classes would be held on high-school campuses for 11th- and 12th-graders. “It doesn’t surprise me," she said. "Dr. Brand’s implementation of these projects always lack planning, but he knows he can count on three votes on the board.”

(revised 8/7 8 a.m.)

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it


oskidoll Aug. 6, 2013 @ 5:52 p.m.

The plot truly thickens! Ed must be desperate to make this work. I truly wonder what's in it for him and pals, not to mention these good-hearted and generous 'sponsors'.

So, now there are 'sponsors' to pay the so-called discounted tuition. Wonder what they are receiving in return? When will the identity of the 'sponsors' be revealed?

It is still a shell game, if you ask me, albeit considerably more elaborate than those we have seen from Fast Eddy in the past.

One wonders why Alliant just can't set up shop in some vacant property in Eastlake or even on Third Avenue where rents are lower? Although they are non-profit, they are certainly not without the need to break even and pay their execs top dollar? Don't forget that the 'business' of student loans is one that involves banks! Wonder if Ed's banking pals are involved?

Again, we need to be reminded that Southwestern College is nearly free for California residents.. Students who qualify for fee waivers pay nothing! They also are eligible for financiaL aid without any strings, and scholarships through the Foundation. Wonder why the Alliant sponsors aren't doing that? Perhaps there is some 'quid pro quo' with Ed and the District that doesn't exist at SWC? Perhaps the 'sponsors' are you and me...the taxpayers who pay the frieght for financial aid?

"Film at 11" as they say in the news biz.


bankalchemist Aug. 15, 2013 @ 12:19 p.m.

the payoff has to be good as Ed learned his schemes from Tom Hassey and Michael Ellis of Metabolife fame.


eastlaker Aug. 6, 2013 @ 6:27 p.m.

Let me try and figure this out. Fast Eddy must have promised Alliant a certain number of students, or said there would be 'no problem' getting a certain number of students--say 75 - 100 for the first semester.

Then if word of mouth would be good, and the financial freebies flowing, maybe the rate of enrollment would increase so that in a couple of years, Alliant would be 'handling' 2500 students at a time...all with government funding/student loans, (loans which are now higher than they used to be).

But several questions have arisen about this venture--the cost, of course. Ability to transfer credits. Actual value of course material, i.e., is Alliant really teaching, or is it a diploma mill? Another large issue is, why replace a cost effective option with a much more expensive option? That is something perhaps only Fast Eddy can answer, as he must somehow be the beneficiary of all this down the road...he never seems to do anything just because it is the right thing to do.

One more large question has been brought up--and that is that the National City Adult School was built on land owned by the Transit Authority, and leased to the Adult School. Therefore, is Fast Eddy's plan in violation of that lease? Did Fast Eddy bother to check? Or did he think that this entire school district was in the palm of his hand, and could be manipulated mercilessly for his benefit?

Are there answers to these questions?


oskidoll Aug. 6, 2013 @ 6:59 p.m.

I recall that the financing for the National City Adult School may have been accomplished via Certificates of Participation (COP) which are somewhat like bonds. I believe the then new Adult School on the site of the property that was leased from the Transit Authority was constructed in the early 1990s. Anyone remember the financing details?

If the finacing was via COPs, we taxpayers are still footing that bill. Perhaps Alliant could pay it off in exchange for their carte blance occupancy?


Julian_Asange Aug. 6, 2013 @ 10:55 p.m.

Ask Jerry Rindone. I'm told he brokered the deal with the stipulation that the property would only be used for Adult Ed.


joepublic Aug. 6, 2013 @ 7:57 p.m.

From the article: [Lembo also said, “We only called houses where children who were 12th- or 11th-graders lived.”] How did Ms Lembo's organization get these phone numbers? Should schools be handing out this information? Can these numbers be sold or freely given to other interested groups, all of course in the name of helping kids? Young folks are vulnerable and must be protected.

This is from 2002. I wonder what the rules are today, and if they followed them. A. Under FERPA, an LEA must provide notice to parents of the types of student information that it releases publicly. This type of student information, commonly referred to as "directory information," includes such items as names, addresses, and telephone numbers and is information generally not considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. The notice must include an explanation of a parent's right to request that the information not be disclosed without prior written consent. Additionally, § 9528 requires that parents be notified that the school routinely discloses names, addresses, and telephone numbers to military recruiters upon request, subject to a parent's request not to disclose such information without written consent. A single notice provided through a mailing, student handbook, or other method that is reasonably calculated to inform parents of the above information is sufficient to satisfy the parental notification requirements of both FERPA and § 9528. The notification must advise the parent of how to opt out of the public, nonconsensual disclosure of directory information and the method and timeline within which to do so.


Visduh Aug. 6, 2013 @ 8:15 p.m.

Any time I read of some educator (actually "educrat") using the honorific of Doctor, I get suspicious. So, one might wonder where this "Dr." Guadalupe Corona earned her doctorate, if she in fact has one, and what sort of doctorate it is. Alliant and its predecessor, USIU, gave out many, many doctorates of dubious merit. Just look at Brand. The comments to this piece raise a host of major issues, and also bring the wild and loose behavior of educrats such as Brand. Kudos to the National City folks who were not stampeded into a rubber stamp approval of this highly suspicious academic move.


anniej Aug. 6, 2013 @ 8:41 p.m.

Something is terribly wrong when the Superintendent of one of the largest Middle/High school districts in the nation stands before a City Council and defends not following proper procedure with 'my bad'.

Why the discrepancy between the statements of the Alliant representative and the CEO of South Bay Community Services? Remind me again of which laws govern the monies being used by South Bay Community Services. From a taxpayers point of view it appears as though someone's hand(s) were caught in the cookie jar.

Perhaps a WARNING should accompany any and all of Ed Brands deals - PROCEED AT YOUR OWN PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL RISK!!!!!!?

Board president Jim Cartmill, who exactly is monitoring Ed Brand? Which legal firm did he use to review this endeavor? Or perhaps that is the problem Ed Brand does whatever Ed Brand wants to do - law, legality? Seem to matter little to him. Arlie Ricasa, as a Counselor at Southwestern surely you see why parents are so outraged.

The National City planning commission should be applauded - no rubber stamp from them. No these are officials who DO THEIR JOB - they focus their efforts on what is best and what are the legal intricacies that will affect the city they represent.

Now, which National City entity is going to the Adullt Ed Center tomorrow and demanding that Alliant remove themselves from the premises IMMEDIATELY.

ED BRAND IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW - regardless of what he may think!!!!!!!


anniej Aug. 6, 2013 @ 8:58 p.m.

And,,,,,, make them (ALLIANT) TAKE DOWN THEIR SIGN!!!!!!!!


oskidoll Aug. 6, 2013 @ 9:01 p.m.

joe public...good catch about the apparent FERPA violation. Student record data is supposed to be private! FERPA is the Federal law. Student record data is not to be divulged without permission. Someone's bad...for sure.

And anniej is onto something with regard to South Bay Community Services, which gets lots of OUR TAXPAYER dollar in subsidies, including from the City of Chula Vista! Their executives also get the very big dollar compensation. Why are they trolling SUHSD seniors and juniors about Alliant with protected FERPA information? How much are they being paid to recruit for Alliant? The plot thickens even more.



erupting Aug. 7, 2013 @ 7:23 a.m.

Well, I bet fast Eddy is super busy this morning. I bet he has The mayor Ron Morrison on speed dial. Hopefully the mayor and City Council will thoroughly vet the Alliant Program and not participate in the rip off of their community. Maybe they will google Alliant University and get a better picture off the students complaints and actions taken against Alliant. What can be done about the FERPA Violations? Probably nothing since the district is able to lie about PRA information. Does anyone believe that the board will use this info to get rid of Eddy this month at his evaluation? They will probably extend his contract with their track record.


jdhughed Aug. 7, 2013 @ 9 a.m.

I was an original NCAdult Faculty member. The technical courses we offered for modest fees (Cisco Systems Academy, CompTIA certification prep, Computer aided design) were hundreds of times less expensive than the For-Profit schools. To see the destruction of a very functional educational opportunity at the hands of Ed Brand and his cronies is sad. At one time there were as many Adult and ROP students as HS/Middle School students! Now these pathways will be closed.


anniej Aug. 7, 2013 @ 9:21 a.m.

jdhughed - we are witnessing the destruction of a school district that was ONCE considered the very best.

Parents are not happy that their students info has allegedly been compromised. Citizens are not happy that their Superintendent is allegedly skirting legal protocol prior to installing one of his pet projects. TAXPAYERS ARE EXTREMELY ANGRY AT THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE HANDS OF PERSONS WHO APPEAR TO HAVE CIRCUMVENTED FEDERAL LAWS THAT PROTECT STUDENTS PRIVACY.


Ensenadamaria Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:29 a.m.

Who are the three votes mentioned by Bertha Lopez?


eastlaker Aug. 7, 2013 @ 3:39 p.m.

That would be: Arlie Ricasa, Jim Cartmill and John McCann. However, at this time Mr. McCann is recovering from an automobile accident he was in approximately a month ago.

There have been no public statements made regarding Mr. McCann's ability to return to his position as a trustee with the school district, merely that a full recovery is expected.

This could put Fast Eddy's lock (in terms of projects he wants voted in) in jeopardy, but the Sweetwater board has ruled that ties mean that the vote is passed, not that the vote has failed--unlike every other organization in the history of the free world.

With Sweetwater, there are no rules, which is just the way Fast Eddy likes it. Fast and loose, chase the goose, get the goods, rule the hoods, grab the haul, then jump the wall. He has done it before, has Fast Eddy...


oskidoll Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:28 p.m.

Just a thought: If Ed is so adept at getting 'sponsors' for students to go to Alliant, surely he can round up 'sponsors' to underwrite Adult Ed.

For example: How about getting folks like Cisco to 'sponsor' the type of Academy jhughed wrote of in a post above? Surely Ed is creative enough to put the arm on such generous folks who by sponsoring just one Adult School Class would benefit 30 times the number of students more than one Alliant student sponsorship would yield.

How about it Ed? Or, are your 'sponsors' figments of your imagination? Or will your sponsors only come to the table to receive whatever district resources they have been promised in return.

Please do tell!


erupting Aug. 7, 2013 @ 2:02 p.m.

oskidoll, you have read the tea leaves correctly. I remember the concurrent enrollment students that took advantage of the Adult School trades programs like welding,home construction,landscaping, metal shop and many other similar trade programs. Sad we are only college bound.


Susan Luzzaro Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:51 p.m.

jdhughed, It's my understanding that money for adult ed is going to be dedicated from now on and that adult ed will receive full funding. If that's the case, maybe adult ed will be built back up.

The NC adult ed principal made an interesting comment at the planning commission meeting. He said that adult ed enrollment actually goes up as the economy improves.


anniej Aug. 7, 2013 @ 1:18 p.m.

"the only dog on this lot" - hmmm, perhaps a resurgence of this old friend of Brands.

So let us consider Brands track record when it comes to private sector funding. In early 2012 he stated "I can stop the grief right here" while referencing the Funds for Education Committee. It was the second time that Ed Brand's efforts regarding private fund raising ended in controversy.

The first, I believe that was the all so infamous Pepsi deal. You all remember that one right? a quick recap - the 2001 Profit Loss Statement for the Master Associated Student Body Accounts indicated that Pepsi deposited an initial amount of $1.4 million the Pepsi deposits were $611,000. HOWEVER, the disbursements - Bonus Payments $87,000, Commissions were $1.2 million, Board Allocation $5,000 (was that per board member?), and here it comes folks SUPERINTENDENT ALLOCATION of ALMOST $92,000. Yes, please reread the paragraph!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The San Diego County Grand Jury cited 'issues at Sweetwater were worthy of deeper investigation'.

Please read the entire article referred to above, written by who else? - Susan Luzzaro - published by who else? - The READER ------------'Sweetwater's Funds for Education' dated January 11, 2012


People, people, people - when is this madness going to end?


eastlaker Aug. 7, 2013 @ 3:22 p.m.

Yep, Fast Eddy is always his own best friend!


eastlaker Aug. 7, 2013 @ 1:20 p.m.

Thank goodness for intelligent and prepared professionals doing their duty in National City.

Too bad we can't really say the same for Sweetwater Union High School District's leadership and majority board activity.


oskidoll Aug. 7, 2013 @ 3:38 p.m.

susan et al., Please don't get your hopes up. My understanding is that the Adult Ed funding model is still in Sacramento mode. Although whatever funding that DOES come may be restricted and Ed can't get his grubby hands on it to supplant other District programs, I don't think it will ever approach the prior levels of funding that made the Sweetwater program so robust. I have heard that tentative plans include a county-wide consortium arrangement that would include former adult ed programs, community colleges and our 'friends' at the County Office of Education. The one stipulation I have heard is that in order to be eligible for funding in 2014-215 and to participate in any County programs, Suhsd must maintain the level of adult ed funding expended in12-13 in the 13-14 school year. Ed had already decimated adult ed funding in 12-13. The Adult ed teachers and staff I have known are a committed and dedicated lot, teaching when students are available, often during night sessions! They teach the necessary basic ed skills along with technical and entry-level job training to so many who have no other way to improve their skills and earning power. These are the most vulnerable of our community, and they are the targets of Ed's budget reductions precisely because he views them as expendable and without any power to protest. What a shame!

The National City Adult Ed Center, and also the one at San Ysidro were nice, not extravagant, new buildings that signaled belief in these students and their worth.
I would suggest that if Alliant is to have use of ANY district property (a bad idea on its face) that they RENT the lesser facilities at the old Chula Vista Adult School and in Montgomery, and not be given the best buildings!


eastlaker Aug. 7, 2013 @ 3:43 p.m.

Excellent thoughts.

Wouldn't it be something if such reasoned thinking would be taking place within Sweetwater UHSD and the County Board of Education!

Imagine...we could have functional policies and programs, and a system people could depend upon!

It will happen, but it will take more time and effort. Meanwhile, thanks for offering hope!


oskidoll Aug. 8, 2013 @ 11 a.m.

Perhaps an urgent appeal might be made directly to the San Diego Metropolitan Transportation Board regarding the proposed 'gifting' of the use of the National City Adult School facilities to Alliant, instead of continuing to use the site for its original, intended, and agreed-upon (perhaps also conditionally specified by MTS) purpose.

The MTS board might choose to take the land back! National City's Council representative on the MTBoard is Mona Rios. Chula Vista representative is Mary Salas, who might also have some input because SUHSD adult school programs also operate within the City of Chula Vista.


angrybirds Aug. 8, 2013 @ 12:33 p.m.

Well if Brands time in National City is over which community will he prey on next San Ysidro? Because we know that Chula Vista will never go for this crap and hopefully San Ysidro wont either. This dude has some big calzones. He thinks he is above the law with everything he does. Where the heck is the board of this district and why is the only one speaking up, Lopez as usual. Hey Pearly isnt National City your community? Didnt you ride in the convertible waving to the crowd at homecoming? Then why the hell are you staying quiet and letting this person take advantage of the kids in your community that you care so much for. Just goes to show you everyone is right about you, you just care about yourself.


oskidoll Aug. 8, 2013 @ 12:42 p.m.

It also occurs to me that the San Ysidro Adult School was probably built with Certificates of Particpation...like bonds...that we taxpayers are likely still paying off! Don't know where the land came from, however.


anniej Aug. 8, 2013 @ 1:14 p.m.

One thing for sure, FINALLY, we have seen GOOD government at work - the NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

Other than the facts that are staring us in the face is the perceived collusion between Brand and South Bay Community Services. The South Bay Comm Serv representative actually admitted to having access to confidential student information. Has this fact been ignored? That would be a NO - try contacting them and asking to speak to them - all you get is voice mail. Is this issue going away? Again that would be a NO

Stay tuned!!!!!!!!


oskidoll Aug. 8, 2013 @ 2:01 p.m.

Great comments Anniej! One must wonder why South Bay Community Services was involved AT ALL! Could it be that they work with the most disadvantaged (hence, probably not the best informed about higher ed options) in our communities?

Wonder what Ed paid, er....promised....in return for their 'solicitation' of SUHSD students for Alliant, using PRIVATE FERPA-protected student record data. Check out the South Bay Community Services Board of Directors and start contacting them to ask WHY?
And WHY is staff being reclusive about this matter? Who allowed this to happen?

If this plot thickens any more, it will become inert.


eastlaker Aug. 8, 2013 @ 2:47 p.m.

Shall I venture a guess or two?

Funding is always a priority with community groups, so I will go out on a limb and say that Fast Eddy probably mentioned that there could be advantages in teaming up.

He very well might have said that he is connected with various groups that give out scholarships, which would help all the students that South Bay Community Services is working with.

Fast Eddy (in my opinion) used South Bay Community Services to give the impression that he works with the community--when nothing could be further from the truth!

Obfuscation, confusion, misinformation, disinformation--a sad example of what we are given to work with in Sweetwater Union High School District. What's worse is that the driving force behind all this hijacking of public education is Fast Eddy's greed--yet unchecked.


oskidoll Aug. 8, 2013 @ 3:10 p.m.

Good info Eastlaker! If you take a look at the SBCS website, and click on 'partners' you will see a most impressive array of those whom one surmises are contributors...logos for everything from the County of San Diego (there you go...our taxpayer $$ again), Viejas, Allied Waste, etc.etc.etc., even Annie and David Malcolm! Go figure.

If you look on the staff listings, the 'directors' (not to be confused with Board of Directors) include none other than Shirley Horton as Director of Community Relations and Development. Presumably she is being paid for this 'gig'.

While the group seems to have a noble purpose and a track record of good works, I am not aware that 'scholarships' are in their mission statement or what their primary objectives include. I see that their Form 900 is out of date...last one posted was for 2010. Annual report for 2012-2013 is not yet posted.

This organization gets substantial funding from taxpayer groups (that would be US as the actual contributors via the County of san Diego, City of Chula Vista, and so forth) and pays their executives hefty salaries.
Bottom line, they are NOT exempt from the law, and FERPA protections of student record data is the law.


anniej Aug. 8, 2013 @ 3:23 p.m.

Oskidoll one has to merely check board docs and review the LARGE amounts of monies being paid to South Bay Comm Services. I believe they are due be doing a presentation at one of our upcoming board meetings in response to a request by Ms. Lopez.

Am I saying that the services they offer are questionable - not at all. What I am having difficulty with is the entire process that Ed Brand has followed implementing Alliant. From day one the Alliant deal has been a hide n seek process which is not reflective of transparent government. The very fact that South Bay Service personnel, who are suppose to follow Federal law appear to have skirted the law regarding student confidentiality. WHY????

Regarding classes being held on campuses for 11th and 12th graders - how is this possible? These classroom buildings were built with OUR TAX DOLLARS - so how is it possible that a college is allowed to set up shop ON CAMPUS, WITHOUT public knowledge, and without board approval and for FREE. IF these classes were being offered for free that would be one thing but let me be clear, someone is paying for them - either parents or us via grants and loans with our tax dollars.

WHERE IS OUR REPRESENTATION? Where are our board members? Lopez has weighed in, but what of the President, Jim Cartmill - Vice President, Arlie Ricasa - Pearl Quinones? It is my understanding that Mr. McCann was at Aliant and took part in signing of the paperwork.

Here we have a superintendent who does not pay property taxes in our school district making decisions that affect our tax dollars and yet the majority of the board is MIA.

Folks we need help, we need the FEDS to come in and take a good, long, hard look at this issue. It is, after all, many many thousands of federal tax dollars that will ultimately fund these classes.


eastlaker Aug. 8, 2013 @ 6:35 p.m.

To use a phrase popular a few years back, "you got that right"!


Susan Luzzaro Aug. 8, 2013 @ 6:36 p.m.

oskidoll, well okay. glass half full theory. If adult ed funding is restricted or designated that means more funding... but I hear what you say about Sacramento mode.

At the meeting Monday night, I heard people speak about not only GED classes, but parenting classes--these would probably be an excellent contribution to any community.


oskidoll Aug. 10, 2013 @ 6:28 p.m.

Susan: In the fully roust iteration, the Adult School programs covered the gamut of options --- career and technical entry-level training; GED preparation; basic skills for those in need of learning the true basics; parenting skills (often taught in conjunction with actual child care facilities run on=site) ESL; preparation for SAT testing; introduction to new technology and software, etc. All valuable and essential to keep a community on its toes an able to help the most vulnerable move up the ladder. Most of that has been decimated by Ed as he moved Adult Ed funding to underwrite existing SUHSD K-12 programs.

The glass is less the half full, EVEN if he maintains the level of funding for Adult Ed that was expended in 2012-2013. Of course, any increase in funding is a good thing, but we should expect FULL restoration as the budget and economy improves.


anniej Aug. 8, 2013 @ 6:41 p.m.

LaLucha, I believe what happened was this - there was an abstention, it was a 2 2 vote with one abstention so it passed. In case of a tie with only 4 of them there, I believe it remains a tie - others more knowledgeable weigh in.


oskidoll Aug. 9, 2013 @ 5:14 p.m.

It's time we stopped allowing abstentions become a de facto 'yes' vote'.

Technically, a member of a governing body is only supposed to abstain when there is a conflict, and they must state the conflict as a reason for the abstention. The also should LEAVE THE DAIS during the discussion so their facial expression does not influence others' votes. Abstaining 'just because' is really not an option unless a true conflict exists and is stated! There are responsibilities with elected office: one is to have a clear understanding of Parliamentary Procedure , and understand that the Brown Act requires that they have uncomfortable conversations in public ---- not dodge the issue by abstaining without stating a valid conflict.

Perhaps forums for Trustee candidates in upcoming elections might have a Q & A about Parliamentary Procedure, and even perhaps a 'mock' meeting to demonstrate their knowledge.


montana64 Aug. 8, 2013 @ 7:31 p.m.

Lalucha & anniej: once upon a time--I think june or May/ a board member was absent on that meeting day.- ''twas Bertha L who did not show - woe to the righteous wow & whoa!-item to reimburse mr m of prop o/2 voted yes & 2 voted no...and so mr m did not recover his dough. I think mccan & queen quinones ...did not vote yes! Arlie & Jim did vote to repay. But 2-2 became no & mr m, citizen volunteer, bought his own ticket that day./ it ain't right!!


anniej Aug. 8, 2013 @ 8:24 p.m.

montana64- so that means there is hope we just might be able to get rid of Brand?

Question - when, not if Brand leaves is there anything written that prohibits him from being hired as a 'lets put the label consultant on it' for a company, organization or 'university' that 'danced' with SUHSD?


oskidoll Aug. 9, 2013 @ 1:43 p.m.

Annie j...that is an enlightening speculation! Of course, Brand is setting the stage for a future dance partner! Oh my...


Ensenadamaria Aug. 8, 2013 @ 8:30 p.m.

Anniej- Consultant? You mean snake oil salesman don't you?


eastlaker Aug. 8, 2013 @ 8:35 p.m.

Purveyor of all the tricks of the trade, shady deals a specialty!


Julian_Asange Aug. 8, 2013 @ 11:28 p.m.

Meow!!! Those are not rosy colored glasses your cute kitty is wearing - are they? Greetings from uncle Rascal Jr.


anniej Aug. 9, 2013 @ 9:45 a.m.

We are now into August of 2013 - the trials scheduled for February of 2014. The next board elections are in 2014 - seats up for grabs Jim Cartmill, Arlie Ricasa and John McCann.

One way or another the movement to return integrity to SUHSD will be won or lost in the next 15 months. Why am I raising this as a talking point - the Eastlakers, the bbq's, the oskidoll's and LaLucha's - the erupting s, the angrybirds, and joepublics - the Visduh's, the Julain Asange's, and Reader2's and many many more of you who read need to prepare to vet quality candidates that WE WILL ELECT to serve the students and taxpayers.

We will not let the Burt spoilers attempt to sabotage our elections by splitting the vote. By entering the race and failing to show up at the community forums to identify their intentions for positive growth.

Groups continue to form - some large some small - have you formed or joined one? Educating our village (south Bay) that is the mission.

15 short months folks, just 15 months!!!!!!!!

Bye bye Ed Brand!!!!!!!!!


shirleyberan Aug. 9, 2013 @ 3:24 p.m.

Haven't read any article or comments but this sure makes my Friday! HAHAHAHA


shirleyberan Aug. 10, 2013 @ 5:51 p.m.

If the board votes to keep him they will look stupid-er. Maybe somebody can develop a conscience before the "performance" review. Will he get another 400,000$ at the end of his term again as pension or whatever? Maybe will get facts sorted and sounded to the higher authorities. Alliant can open somewhere there is not conflict of interest/ off school grounds, where they pay rent like anybody would if they weren't shady dealing. Alliant spokesperson Corona said that Promise Neighborhood was helping her make calls, which we know is BS because what they do is try to inform low-income families on how to find grants and financial aid as a social service, according to South Bay Community Services. And Free Tuition Fliers, guess they are desperate Ed, sounds like a big, big lie. Misreprentation no doubt about it, SuperEd Bait and Switch. So not a social service network - is social disservice and dysfunctional mess. ThankU Again Suzzana!


bankalchemist Aug. 15, 2013 @ 12:32 p.m.

Fast Eddie aka THE BIG BRAND has $40 million at stake here with what was spent via a Bond when he first recommended the sites to be used now. Having "free" education is a good offset. (check these angles out) Now remember Fast Eddie is board certified ASAOS (as slick as owl shit) and the Lebanese Flim Flam Man has his back. I did hear today that Fast Eddie was speaking with Bob Filner to join in as a community supporter which could not hurt either one PR wise. Filner can run interference for THE BIG BRAND as part of the keep them confused media game.


Sign in to comment

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader