ENGAGING DISCUSSION AT FRIDAY'S BEACHSIDE CHAT WHERE I SERVED AS GUEST SPEAKER

I appreciate the San Clemente Times for hosting the September 23rd Beachside Chat at Cafe Calypso and inviting me to be their guest speaker. It was a good turnout with a lively discussion about my candidacy for school board and issues related to CUSD, including the billion dollar bond (Measure M) the school board placed on the November ballot. I shared this morning, that I had hoped for my opponent to join me so the discussion can be balanced with the candidates' opposing viewpoints, but she did not respond to multiple requests by the Editor.

I thank everyone for coming out to participate. In the spirit of Democracy, it was healthy to have people attend today who support me and what I stand for, and those who oppose me, especially as it pertained to CUSD's billion dollar bond/tax proposal and my ideas to get CUSD's financial house in order. I stated that government should not borrow from the future to pay for today's needs. Our children and grandchildren will be on the hook for paying this back.
I shared my experience with the over-taxation of Mello-Roos taxpayers and that this is an important example of how CUSD misused and mismanaged taxpayer dollars illegally and unfairly. Someone said but I bought in Mello-Roos so I should deal with it. I said I signed up to pay Mello-Roos, my fair share and not $60 million more which is what our citizens group remedied from being overtaxed by CUSD. Why would this $1.8 billion bond be any different?

I shared how I believe CUSD needs to live within its means, stop wasting taxpayer dollars on a myriad of consultants, look to its surplus land which is unused, evaluate under-enrolled schools and see what can be done to consolidate administrations to be more fiscally prudent and free up money to repair facilities so we are not financing maintenance repairs for 35 years, and better prioritize the $430 million it receives each year in taxpayer dollars so that the students also win (ie. restore programs and reduce class sizes). Only then, if the facilities needs cannot be met should the school board consider a bond, and it should then only be a bond by area, with specified projects addressed so that residents can actually keep watch over how the funds will be spent. I also said CUSD, in its efforts to attain $229 million in state matching funds should the $9 billion statewide school facilities bond pass (Prop. 51) could have started its process with a smaller bond proposal to build trust with the communities (which is lacking) and work to demonstrate fiscal accountability by selecting high schools with the greatest needs, ie. SCHS and DHHS and seek a $229 million bond and still be eligible to apply for the state match, should voters pass this.

Further I said the process should not be rushed over the summertime in just 4 months. It should involve far more time and involve the community and get it right with specificity of projects and concrete cost estimates which do not exist with the current bond proposal, that is opposed by every trusted Mayor in South OC, and opposed by our Senator, Assemblymember, OC Supervisor, and State Board of Equalization member representative.

I said this bond is too big to manage, too big for taxpayers to track, and taxpayers will be disappointed just like they were with Measure A which promised a lot of the same things, that were never done. I added, there are no guarantees the projects will be completed as disclaimers are noted on CUSD literature advocating for the projects in this bond. I also shared the list of construction, architects, and others already donating to the "Yes on M" campaign because of all the millions they have to gain should this billion dollar tax pass. I concluded by reading comments from the LA Times article about how the Governor is opposing the "developers" $9 billion school facilities bond stating he has nothing good to say about it including the construction industry's role as the proposition's main financier. And that the governor says it will promote sprawl and continue an inequitable system based on which school districts get to the application line the fastest, not which ones need it the most.

CUSD SHOULD NOT BE ABOVE THE LAW WHILE ADVOCATING FOR ITS BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT OF FAILED LEADERSHIP, AKA "MEASURE M" AND TAXPAYERS SHOULD BE TREATED EQUITABLTY....BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE NOT.

I attended the Ladera Ranch Civic Council meeting last night. Along with business items relative to Ladera Ranch on the agenda, their community's representative on the CUSD school board, CUSD Board Vice President Jim Reardon was invited by the members to speak on CUSD's bond measure on the November ballot. He was asked to discuss and answer questions about Measure M.
I appreciated Ladera Ranch Civic Council's Todd Stearns comment "It seems the school district added all these project needs to justify the high amount of the bond". He also asked Trustee Reardon "why couldn't CUSD carve out other Mello-Roos districts like they carved out Rancho Mission Viejo." Trustee Reardon said "it was political as the Rancho Mission Viejo would have actively worked to block it."

So those of us Mello-Roos taxpayers (should this billion dollar bond pass) get stuck with triple taxation after years of unknowingly paying millions more than our fair share that we remedied only after a collaborated taxpayer revolt. I appreciate Trustee Reardon voting NO on the billion dollar bailout of leadership of CUSD -- the only sitting board member to vote no, and the only board member not funded by the union (CUEA).

Also, a citizen last night made a comment that I have heard from many others recently, that he was disappointed over how CUSD can place fancy display boards and flyers with propaganda advocating for Measure M placed in the offices at school sites district-wide. Just today, I heard another complaint and received a copy of a flyer advocating for $17 million in improvements at Vista Del Mar schools. The concern of my friend, an attorney, was that it was blatant how CUSD was advocating for its bond measure, yet there was no literature representing the other side which opposes Measure M. If the district feels so compelled as to openly advocate for its billion dollar bond measure, then at the very least, the public should have an equal opportunity to express an opposing view. To do otherwise is a violation of the law and no one should be above the law.

VOTERS MUST QUESTION THE MOTIVES OF INCUMBENT CUSD TRUSTEES

WHO ARE FUNDED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS

 

Last week, the California PTAs adopted a Resolution supporting and advocating for CUSD's Measure M, the $1.8 billion bond measure (once interest and fees are included). 

This week CUSD Trustee Amy Hanacek, who is running for reelection against Wendy Shrove, advertised broadly how happy she was that the PTA at San Clemente High School is behind the bond measure. Remember this is the PTA board, not a vote by all of its  members, or teachers for that matter. Trustee Hanacek is pushing the bond heavily. Trustee Hanacek is funded by the teachers' union. Remember a couple months ago at a school board meeting, the union president pressed the school board to adopt the district-wide bond in lieu of smaller bonds by area because the union president told the school board it would be too difficult to form 7 different political action committees and ensure all the bonds are passed.

Ask yourself this election season, just who are the union-endorsed trustees? Of course, those who voted to put this billion dollar bond on the ballot. Trustee Hanacek received $10,000 initially when the union endorsed her in April and another $5,000 not long after voting to place the bond measure on the November ballot.  In fact, look back at the meetings leading to the bond approval, Trustee Alpay initially called the bond a giant slush fund; Trustee Hanacek called the bond a conceived economic stimulus (think of how many consultants CUSD will hire if the bond passes.  If you want an idea, just look at how many consultants have been hired by CUSD just to prepare this bond); and Trustee McNicholas is right, the bond seeks way too much money.  Notwithstanding the reservations they had, all the trustees except for Jim Reardon voted for the big bond as directed by the teachers union. In addition to the $15,000 given to Hanacek so far; the union has given Pritchard (also running for reelection) $15,000.

Voters need to pay attention and follow the special interest money and question what the district plans to do with all other revenue sources the school district automatically receives every year totally $430 million for its annual budget.  This money keeps rolling in whether voters decide to tax themselves and their grandchildren more for the next 35 years or not.  How about demanding CUSD instill better fiscal prudence of the monies they do get and making better decisions to prioritize the allocation of said taxpayer funds in its annual budget? Did you know San Clemente taxpayers alone send over $50 million in property tax dollars to CUSD every year? What has CUSD done with this money to even begin fixing San Clemente's older schools? For over 15 years, nothing.  The union fought for this mega bond, but ask yourself what has the union done all these years to cry out for the kids to fix their facilities and make for a more quality education experience? Remember, the teachers union is not giving its anointed candidates big bucks to do what’s right; it’s giving the candidates big bucks to do what it (the CUEA union) wants.

I see CUSD's bond measure as analogous to a billion dollar bailout of failed leadership. Why? Because I've attended school board meetings regularly for years and I've seen the excessive and illegal over-taxation of the people who pay Mello-Roos, which my fellow taxpayers and I fought for an entire year to remedy. I've seen the gross waste of ALL taxpayer's dollars. I've seen greed and conflicts of interests. I've seen an unbelievable number of consultant contracts -- some questionable for services involving school districts far, far away, and even duplicative contracts for the same thing on the same meeting agenda. These and the tens of thousands involved each time the contracts appear on every single school board agenda is very concerning. This money could be spent in the classrooms to reduce class sizes, restore programs and fix facilities, but that is not what is being done. I've seen the board talk about millions as if they were talking about pocket change. They show complete disregard for taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I've sat in shock and utter disbelief when board members shame parents just for speaking out or proposing educational choice, including charter schools. I've seen parents be shooshed in the audience for clapping and cheering for speakers. I've also seen them be threatened to be removed from the meeting room, while those who support the board have been given special treatment and can clap and cheer all they want without being reprimanded.  I've watched the school board announce they plan to sue two Mayors in south OC for opposing their bond measure and for spearheading a letter signed by all other trusted south OC Mayors in protection of their taxpayers. I've seen CUSD play games with friends seeking public records requests, telling some that their requests will be so voluminous it will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars if they want the records.

This majority union-controlled school board (6 of the 7 members) has behaved at times as if it is above the law. It will stop at nothing to get more, more, more of our tax dollars. It has hired consultants and lawyers regularly to fight the very people they are supposed to serve, just like they are doing now targeting these two mayors for calling out their billion dollar scheme for what it is: a slush fund with no specificity or guarantee that the projects will ever be built.   

Without trust, transparency and accountability, overpaying for a bond that is haphazardly compiled that is nothing more than a slush fund is not helping children. CUSD needs to sharpen their pencil and come back to the voters with a better plan.
 
I plan to VOTE NO on Measure M.  I hope you will do the same. And, please vote for me for CUSD School Board. I promise to restore trust, transparency and leadership to CUSD. I also promise to bring much needed collaboration and integrity to the school board.

Best,

Laura Ferguson
Candidate for CUSD School Board Trustee Area 3

I am proud and thankful to have a growing number of esteemed endorsements for my candidacy for CUSD School Board, Trustee Area 3, San Clemente - Laura Ferguson 

Mayor Bob Baker, City of San Clemente

Councilmember Lori Donchak, City of San Clemente

Councilmember Tim Brown, City of San Clemente

Mayor Pro Tem Kathy Ward, City of San Clemente and Greg Ward, Retired High School Teacher

Ret. Mayor (2012) Jim Evert, City of San Clemente

Assemblyman Bill Brough, Assembly District 73

Senator Pat Bates, Senate District 36

Board Trustee Linda Lindholm, Orange County Board of Education

Gloria Romero, Ret. Senator and Chair of the Senate Education Committee

The Republican Party of Orange County

The Lincoln Club of Orange County

The Orange County Charter Schools PAC

Vice President Jim Reardon, Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees

Mayor Frank Ury, City of Mission Viejo

Mayor Tony Beall, City of Rancho Santa Margarita

Mayor Mike Munzing, City of Aliso Viejo

Councilmember Brad McGirr, City of Rancho Santa Margarita

President Andrea Ewell, Talega Maintenance Corporation HOA Board

Ellen Addonizio, Former Trustee, Capistrano Unified School District

Taxpayers and parents, please read this article (link below). I was one of the three non-educators acknowledged in Dawn's article who attended the CUSD special meeting on Tuesday.

If after reading you doubt what really happens at these meetings, take the time to listen to the CUSD audio recordings where every word is on the record. Once you do, there's no disputing the urgent need for new leadership at CUSD that will put the students first in making sure they have a great public school experience while ensuring taxpayers are treated equitably and respectfully. Parents and taxpayers should never be shamed by elected public officials just for speaking up.

 Our chance to hit the reset button on this school board is November 8th.  The student-centered, taxpayer friendly candidates are at a disadvantage when running against union-backed/funded candidates.  When you vote in this coming election think about what candidates have earned your vote versus those who will try to buy your vote.

 

Thank you,

Laura Ferguson

 
http://patch.com/california/sanjuancapistrano/listen-words-trustee-who-doesnt-understand-she-was-elected-represent