anniej Nov. 6, 2013 @ 7:33 p.m.


At a BOC meeting today Tom Calhoun referenced Fire WatcheS - when asked how many Fire Watches SUHSD currently had his reply "7"!!!!!!!!!!!!

Folks, until Channel 10 aired their first story we, the community did not know we had a serious problem. Tom Calhoun accused Channel 10 of 'yellow journalism' and told the BOC last month that the schools fire alarms were in working order and no students were in harms way (I have paraphrased here). The District went so far as to put up a narrative on its site putting the communities worries aside.

A couple weeks later the second Channel 10 story aired - National City's Fire Marshall had mandated a fire watch. But I thought all of the fire alarms were in working order?

Now, we hear there are 7 Fire Watches.

Allow me to cut to the chase - IF everything is in working order then WHY do we have 7 Fire Watches???????

These are your children, your grandchildren we are talking about. It is obvious the District can not be trusted to tell us the truth.

While some will say, 'lets move forward, we believe Tom Calhoun' - I am not one of the 'some'. When I am told that the alarms are working and then learn that 7 schools have FIRE WATCHES - well, let me ask you what would you call that? The Fire Marshall obviously does not agree with SUHSD's assessment that the fire alarms are working, so why should we?

Allow me to interject that I do not want the standard District double talk about compliance vs. working. I know the difference.


anniej Nov. 30, 2013 @ 3:13 p.m.


With all due respect - when a District, such as ours, SWEETWATER, spends more time negotiating real estate land/building deals than they do our educators/employees contract - HOUSTON, WE HAVE A REAL PROBLEM!!!!!!

Please join me next November in voting OUT the three board members who will be up for reelection. Help me replace them with three persons of integrity - one of which is NOT Burt Grossman (my opinion).

Once that task is completed - first major change Ed Brand is outta here!


anniej Dec. 4, 2013 @ 7:56 a.m.

bbq - You know I have great respect for you and your opinions - I mean after all great minds tend to think alike, haha

Regarding Dr. Alt, are you aware that he has been terminated? According to District insiders he was let go Monday morning after coming back from paternity leave. Why? Well according to District sources, because he was honest and we all have our opinions about how honest people are treated by Ed Brand. You notice I did not include the Board in my commentary. Again 'sources' (geesh I feel like a freakin' reporter) are saying the Board played no part in his firing.

At last months Board meeting Jim Cartmill authorized Maty Adato to meet with Dr. Alt - oh, if you could have only seen Brand's face when that went down - he was NOT a happy camper.

It is being said that while Alt was gone Dianne Russo surfaced, she was seen using the employees entrance - hmmmm, wonder what would happen if I attempted to use that door.

For the record I was not in favor of Dr. Alt coming on board. I was of the opinion that Brand hired Alt because he thought Alt would play Brand ball. I WAS WRONG! Since his hiring I have watched while several community members have spoken accolades about Alt's desire to be transparent. I have listened while he answered questions from the Board and the public - simple answers that all can understand. Taxpayers concerned about Mello too seem to show confidence in the truthfulness of his answers.

So,,,, the 64 thousand dollar question is why now? What devious plan does Ed Brand have that Dr. Alt might have challenged based on good economic sense? What don't we know? What is the truth that Brand is trying to keep from us about the financials of SUHSD? Channel 10 reported on the firing last night, they also mentioned an IRS audit - hmmmm - I am thinking there is financial trouble in the horizon.

If what sources say are true and if the Board was not aware of the firing the Board would be well served by reversing this termination - perhaps, they might instead FIRE BRAND.

Might I remind all that Brand wants that building in the East side, is it possible, that our books are being cooked, as I type - all in an effort to once engage in a land deal. Do the words L STREET ring a bell? Folks I smell fish and we are not having a red tide.

I am told that 'The READER' stories are on the SUHSD's best reading list -

WTFEd, you are correct, District personnel are very upset about the firing -

Dr. Alt, if you are reading this I would recommend that you contact Vince Giaime - hopefully you were smart enough to CYA by documenting 'the goods'


angrybirds Dec. 4, 2013 @ 11:04 a.m.

P.S. Bobby Bleich you are a fake and Brands lacky and everyone laughs at you all the time. you know nothing and do nothing


oskidoll Dec. 4, 2013 @ 12:46 p.m.

Oldchulares - it should be so easy for the Board to do.

Again, what does Fast Eddy hold over them, have on them, how is he blackmailing them into silence? There are really no other possible conclusions as to why the continue to stand for such outrageous behavior.

One guess is that he is finding a way to secretly funnel money to pay their legal fees for the upcoming trials, and therein lies the stranglehold he has over them.


anniej Dec. 4, 2013 @ 5:32 p.m.

Based on the Information in this story I am wondering:

IS JOHN MCCANN A VIABLE CANDIDATE FOR CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL? If he is not willing to demand the laws of this great Nation be upheld as a School Board Member can he be trusted to represent the GREAT City of Chula Vista? My opinion - NO!

Looks like those who, just yesterday were so sure McCann would demand Brands firing, are now seeing the light. So much for honor, huh?

Federal laws reportedly broken, and John McCann, where is he? NO WHERE to be seen or heard.



Sweetwater Athletics Hall of Fame scrutinized

How much spent? Who chose Ed Brand’s name for award?

Most people were expelled from the October 23 Sweetwater Union High School District board meeting. So, public comment allowed prior to specific agenda items was not so public. To several trustees and apparently superintendent Ed ...

Wabbitsd Nov. 5, 2013 @ 1:31 p.m.

I'm changing my vote on the identity of the famous "TimTim" to Mr. Mc Laughlin.


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.


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!!!!!!!


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.


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.


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.


Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!