Home › Opinion › Opinion
Camarillo unification lawsuit a good thing
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionRe: Dave Stephenson's May 8 letter, "District has no leadership":
Stephenson, husband of Pleasant Valley School District board candidate loser Kim Mara Stephenson, says Sandy Berg is a plaintiff in the lawsuit that hopes to allow only families directly affected by unification to vote on the issue, and not all of the voters in the entire Oxnard Union High School District. This is wrong. Berg is not a party in this lawsuit, although she is for unification, as are most Camarillo voters.
He insinuates by quoting something she said about her desire for money not going into attorneys' pockets' but to the classrooms is disingenuous. This lawsuit is not costing the school district a penny. The group Camarillo Unified has many supporters who have provided the financial wherewithal to retain legal advice on this issue.
As unification now stands, all opposing issues have been dealt with, and all conditions are satisfied, and unification is to go before voters. The only problem with this is a stickler of a problem called "disenfranchisement." There are so many voters in the overall population of Oxnard Union High School District, and Camarillo is a small subset of that group. If all 100 percent of us in Camarillo voted in favor of unification, it could still fail if only a portion of the registered voters in Oxnard and Port Hueneme voted against it.
It is one of the reasons we have difficulty in electing a local citizen to the OUHSD board because we can't collect enough votes. Dave Stephenson knows this, or at least his wife does, and they want to confuse The Star's readers into thinking this lawsuit is a bad thing, and that Berg is a bad board member, and the PVSD's board is run by incompetents.
The lawsuit is a good thing.
Berg has worked tirelessly for more than a decade for children's education in Camarillo. Her selfless dedication is a force to be reckoned with, which puts fear into the hearts of people like the Stephensons. They don't want to accept that Berg won the popular vote, is continually re-elected, and Kim Stephenson got the lowest number of votes next to her friend and cohort John Alamillo.
I am tired of Dave Stephenson and his cohorts' disparaging remarks against the trustees. Trustees do not receive a salary and have other day jobs, then spend most of their nights working diligently to help the educational process. I know this because I am a supporter of unification, have gone to Sacramento twice to meet with the state Board of Education, met with state Superintendent of Education Jack O'Connell and attend school board meetings.
I am a plaintiff in this federal civil rights suit, which believes the unification agreement is a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause, a violation of the California Constitution Article 1 Section 31, and violation of the federal voting rights act. This was not brought about for a frivolous reason, as was the last suit filed by 11 disgruntled OUHSD supporters in a vain attempt to halt the unification process by calling those of us who support unification racists.
All those who are parties in the lawsuit are asking is fairness for those of us who live in the new Camarillo unified district boundaries. We are the most affected by the change, and it should be up to us to vote about it. It is a straightforward matter that should be resolved shortly. It is definitely not a stalling tactic like we have seen before.
Most OUHSD parents whose children do not go to Camarillo High will be relieved their school district has stopped hemorrhaging money to pay for lawyers to trip up Camarillo's efforts to unify their school system. They also understand Camarillo has not been on the receiving end of normal high-school amenities, from upgrades to the physical grounds and buildings, to the types of educational programs offered. We all know the state prefers unified districts. We will have the funds necessary to upgrade facilities and retain and hire the best teachers.
Camarillo Unified will need to elect a new school board, so rather than having Dave Stephenson write letters to the editor and Kim Stephenson spending time tearing down others who are working hard to keep the district afloat during hard financial times, why don't both concentrate on trying a new tactic to win a seat on the new board by providing a positive message about what they can do to help the new district?
— Peg Hicks-Moore is a Pleasant Valley School District parent, Oxnard Union High School District parent and plaintiff in the case Camarillo Unified v. State Board of Education.
Posted by kimstep on May 13, 2008 at 4:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this really getting published in the paper? Where do I start with the corrections? I'll go in order as presented in the text above:
1) My middle/maiden name is Marra.
2) My husband does not speak for me, and I don't speak for him. He sent in his letter and told me about it afterward. After reading it in the paper, I told him that if had he shown it to me first, I would have corrected the statement that Berg joined the concerned citizens. However, he and I both know that while she may not be one of the named individual citizens, she is clearly part of the Camarillo Unified PAC, which is also party to the lawsuit (you left that part out). Money flows freely between her and the PAC, she has lobbied and fundraised on their behalf, and her picture has been on their website and mailers for years.
3) "...as are most Camarillo voters?" Because you said so? Show me the data.
4) We have a local citizen and Camarillo resident on the OUHSD board, Socorro Lopez Hanson. Historically, we've had disproportionately more Camarillans on the OUHSD board than not. The "difficulty argument" is false.
5) It wasn't Dave who said that litigation was a bad thing...it was Berg! He doesn't need to "confuse" readers into thinking that Berg is a bad board member or the board is incompetent. He cited evidence to that effect, and there's been enough coverage in the paper to support it that he probably didn't need to cite anything.
Posted by kimstep on May 13, 2008 at 4:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
6) "Berg has worked tirelessly for more than a decade for children's education in Camarillo"...mm-hmm, and look at the result. What exactly has she accomplished for the K-8 students she was elected to serve, besides lobbying for unification? How well has that gone, and what effect has that had on the district she was elected to govern? Now that the effects of her leadership are surfacing, the next election will be interesting.
7) Why do you consider the previous lawsuit any more frivolous than this one? Where in their lawsuit do they call unification supporters racist? There's a big difference between calling someone a racist and analyzing data about the racial make-up of schools. Interesting that you don't see the difference.
8) Camarillo High has indeed been on the receiving end of monies to upgrade their facilities and programs - some years proportionately more than other schools in the district. I have some of this data in a file, but can't get to it right now. Maybe someone else has it handy?
9) When have I torn down others? Seems to me I have advocated for things like transparency in governance and offered ideas on how think outside the box to address the budget directly and publicly to the Pleasant Valley School District (PVSD) Board. I try to make observations, address issues, and hold people accountable. If those issues make individuals or boards appear incompetent or feel torn down, maybe I've touched a nerve. If you've seen me do otherwise, please provide the evidence.
I still find it amusing that you continue to make assumptions about my husband's and my thoughts on unification or any of the lawsuits. If you reread his letter, you will see that he did not comment on the lawsuit itself, but was simply pointing out Berg's flip-flop as a reflection of her leadership and the effect that leadership has had on PVSD. He never said he disagreed with the lawsuit.
As always, someone tries to talk about PVSD, and you turn it into unification. That's precisely the problem.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on May 13, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW! If Kim is a "loser" and by association so are her cohorts then Hacks-More is a loser by association to Roger Lund, CAmarillo Unified's Chair, who was basically a no show in his election.
Peg-
Nice try. The community is not stupid enough to believe your dribble. Your trustee has cared for nothing but 'U' for 10 years and effectivly destroyed a district my family has been involved with for 60.
Remember, for four years I served with Ms. Berg. I've witnessed her decision making and prejudice toward many issues. I've watched he make bad decisions in the name of unification and because other board members are 'U' centric bad plans and personnel proceeded.
Amazing you can say Berg is not part of CU. That’s straight up hog wash. She has been a spokes hole since the inception. You should research before you write. I will.
Posted by Debra on May 13, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe Ms. Hanson became a resident of Camarillo AFTER she ran for the school board and her property was annexed into the city a few years ago. Property tax records indicate that her property is assessed for the Mesa School Bond, not the Pleasant Valley School Bond, so it seems her property is not in the elementary district. Nancy Koch lived in the unicorporated area of the county as well.
As I've done campaigns over the years, I've learned that many people make the strategic mistake of believing that their personal views are embraced by the electorate as a whole. It's not always true. While many on the blogs are critical of PVSD and unification and have predicted the demise of both, wouldn't it be ironic if the support for unification AND the PVSD trustees was just as high as ever?
Just a thought :)
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on May 13, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sandra Berg disagrees with you, you know.
Further lawsuits are a bad thing. She said so:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
As to one of your quotes: "It is one of the reasons we have difficulty in electing a local citizen to the OUHSD board because we can't collect enough votes."
Really?
Maybe you have difficulty because people think that the OUHSD trustees are doing *gasp*...a good job.
They ran UNOPPOSED in the last election.
Have you noticed that every pro-unification candidate has had challengers?
Kathy Long, a fierce pro-unification candidate, is being challenged.
She's even going out of her own district to drum up support for her re-election campaign, using unification as the war cry.
Kathy sent a letter out in March 2008 stating that "I have been a strong supporter of bringing unification to a vote of the people, but because of my advocacy on this important issue, one of the trustees from the Oxnard Union High School District has decided to enter the race.":
http://www.santarosavalley.com/index....
I could spend pages correcting the inaccuracies in your letter, Ms. Hicks-Moore, but really, your letter speaks for itself.
You're scared.
People are recognizing that unification at this time is a BAD idea, *especially* with the current PVSD board leading the charge.
So you'll sling whatever you can, praying that some of it might stick.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on May 13, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_JsbN3ODQHs
Ron Speakman, who by Hacks-More's definition is not associated with the lawsuit, has different information on how the vote would go if the entire group of affected citizens were allowed to vote.
Listen to his statement 'a survey in done by the high school district shows it would pass in Oxnard.' In fact that survey shows 52% of the voters in Oxnard would vote for unification. Hacks-More continues to show her ignorance of a issue that will have a long term negative impact to the educational delivery service in Camarillo.
Posted by norcalmom on May 13, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can not believe the derisive drivel that the Star allowed you to print. You contradict yourself.
"There are so many voters in the overall population of Oxnard Union High School District, and Camarillo is a small subset of that group. If all 100 percent of us in Camarillo voted in favor of unification, it could still fail if only a portion of the registered voters in Oxnard and Port Hueneme voted against it."
And then you say
"Most OUHSD parents whose children do not go to Camarillo High will be relieved their school district has stopped hemorrhaging money to pay for lawyers to trip up Camarillo's efforts to unify their school system. "
Which one is it, Peg?
Posted by JohnAlamillo on May 13, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra-
What about the period, not long ago, when there were Three (3) OUHSD trustees from Camarillo.
Koch
Underwood
Lindgren
And while you stated Ms. Koch lived in the unicorporated area it is clear she was a friend of yours. Do you think she was a stooge for Oxnard? Camarillo has unicorporated areas throughout its sphere of influance.
Did you know:
Much of the Camarillo Hieghts is unicorporated area.
Lantana above Las Posas and almost to Glenbrook is unicorporated.
Santa Rosa Valley beyond the water district is unicorporated.
"I've learned that many people make the strategic mistake of believing that their personal views are embraced by the electorate as a whole. It's not always true." Words you should not preach but live by.
Posted by SDmom on May 13, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you kidding me Peg? This is more of the same of CU games of throwing misinformation out there for the parents of PVSD. Guess what guys, I think you under estimate the parents of this district. They are tired of all your games. They know Sandy Berg is behind the lawsuit even if her name isn't listed. They know PVSD has spent tons of money on Unification. They know it is hidden in that ridiculous thing they call a budget (cost avoidance). Please! The only reason these people filed this lawsuit is because they didn't get the result they wanted in their little phone survey. No where close to 50% support in Camarillo. Why is that? I think we all know.
The PVSD doesn't even know what is going on in the K-8 district how are they going to handle K-12. Sandy didn't even know PSVD offered full and 1/2 day kindergarten. Pretty sad isn't it. Who is going to run for a CU district when they don't even know if it is going to happen. This whole thing is ridiculous and CU proponents are wasting the parents of PVSD time and money. Bring the focus back to the kids you already serve.
Posted by turchotk on May 13, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You guys can point fingers all you want. The Alamillo situation speaks for itself. As well as the Berg. 60 years of what there Alamillo? 60 years of you piggy backing off your OUHSD smoky back room deals and so called direct relationships. So how'd that work out for you last election? The Benedict Arnold of PVSD was the word going around and probably true. Everything that was discussed behind closed doors was leaked to OUHSD by way of, one if not many of the B. Arnold-Alamillos. And what's with the all the marital discourse. Didn't the Stephensons learn from another "team" Alamillo mistakes, in that that the wives and husbands of trustees or trustee candidates should just keep their mouths shut? Pretty enjoyable to read though. It'll back fire on the Stephenson's too. Just watch. Glad I don't have a dog in this fight. Its sad because the last time I visited the Camarillo High Campus it was embarrassing compated to the new schools in Oxnard now. Does anyone really think that OUHSD is gonna build a new school in Camarillo? Not in our life times. The property designated for the school by the Camarillo library is just a play on the Unification matter at hand.
Posted by julsthemom on May 13, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Give me a break.
Turchotk...have ya ever considered Dr. Phil as a venue to spout your nonsense? When you start attacking the spouses, you've crossed a line better left uncrossed. If you are making these outlandish and liable statements...better to not hide behind a screen name...some of us, or most of us might infer that you sit on a failing school board otherwise.
Hicks-moore...if your gonna write an article, might want to check your facts a little better...while you call Stephenson a loser as well as Alamillo...you say that Berg got the popular vote...she did not even run!!!
Posted by turchotk on May 13, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Julsthemom: Now there's the pot calling the kettle black. Hiding behind a screen name...please. Liable? Regarding the loud mouth garbage that seems to spew from Mr. Stephenson and Mrs. Alamillo on any given occasion that suits their spouses! Give me a break. Careful in that you might infer that you're some lawyer type, hiding behind some bogus screen name. LOL. No sitting trustee here. If I was, do you really think I'd be wasting my time writing back and forth with the likes of you and the wanna be trustee flunkys Alamillo or Stepenson? Not a chance. Now its time to go watch Dr. Phil on my new big screen! Enjoy your useless banter!
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on May 13, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Julsthemom: Haven't you realized by now?
The hardcore unification advocates aren't interested in posting facts.
They prefer to say "I believe", or "it hurts my heart", or "I want", "I want", "I want".
Fact-checking, posting links to back up their statements, or heaven forbid, posting a blog entry that presents analytical facts without feelings seems to be beyond their capacity.
I've been asking for months now for unification advocates to educate us, to provide links and not just "I remember when" statements.
It hasn't happened.
We just get letters like Peg Hicks-Moore's, which are emotion-based and inflammatory, or comments from Debra that come with a personal opinion unsubstantiated by fact.
Fact: Testimonies from the State Board of Education appeal hearing in March, now appear online.
Check out the testimonies for yourselves, pro and con, and *then* ask questions.
Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search...
Posted by julsthemom on May 13, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LP Estates....you bet I realize by now. Turchotk obviously his hiding behind lack of knowledge and has nothing better to do then attack families of fantastic formar trustees and former hopefuls. Sad. And yes, if your were a current trustee, Turchotk, this is exactly the type of behavior that has been shown and proves my point as to who you really are.
Posted by julsthemom on May 13, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Turchotk...an aside, I note that you "don't have a dog in this fight"...reminds me of another friend out there...mm something.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on May 13, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Glad I don't have a dog in this fight.” Quote by turchotk
I'm not understanding your attacks on an issue that
1. You obviously know nothing about and
2. will have no effect on you.
Is there no issue in your community you can miss-quote, miss-inform and miss-interpret?
Posted by tanknows on May 13, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not to stick up for turchotk, but just how would you then explain your ouster from the PVSD board Mr. Alamillo? I recall reading that it was because you were against unification. Probably much more complicated than that. Please explain. Maybe turchotk doesn't have a dog in the fight. And maybe you and julsthemom are so full of yourselves that anything brought up against you or unification is considered out of line. Maybe he or she is glad, just like me to be long gone of the mess that you personally, PVSD and OUSHD have made of this issue. The last I had to step foot on that miserable Camarillo High campus was back when the principal, Mrs. Kennedy, gave her last graduation speech and couldn't get the year of the graduating class right! Remember when the kids had to actually yell on two different occasions what year it was? You probably weren't there. I think you were actually still on the PVSD board back then. But anyway I'm glad the thing is still in court. Win or lose PVSD can do better and you both know it. Thats why you don't want just the Camarillo folks to vote on it. Because that would mean both you and Ms. Stephenson would thankfully never be a trustee in Camarillo. Hallelujah!
Posted by JohnAlamillo on May 13, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tan-
My ouster is my own fault. I was out maneuvered by a very slick and capable campaign effort by the unification trio. I, and the other candidates were out spent 3:1 not to mention the other help from Camarillo Unified and the Ventura Republican Central Committee.
I am not a proponent of 'U'. Please do yourself and our community a favor and research the issue yourself. Do not fall victim to the information presented by the likes of Hacks-More et al. As demonstrated in the opinion above she has trouble with truth when it comes to this issue. I am not asking that you believe me but as has been said here before there truth may lie somewhere in the middle.
It's amazing you can blame this mess on me. During my time on the board I was the minority vote and all decisions were made by the sitting majority. The trio did a great job of keeping any strategy, preparation or planning away from Ms. Kitchens and me. Any mess you see is attributable to Berg, Miller, Speakman and the citizens group.
You are right; I wasn't at Camarillo High when kids were yelling. But then neither were you. See the last three principals were Tackett, Jackson and now Lipman. It clear you support unification, you can't get simple facts correct.
Posted by davestephenson on May 13, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Internet anonymity can be really liberating for some I guess. Hey turchotky – blah blah blah dog in the fight blah blah.
My letter had nothing to do with unification; it had nothing to do with my wife. It was about leadership, or in PVSD’s case, lack thereof.
My letter was about the actual track record of our local school board. Does anybody really want to debate that? I mean, anyone who won’t immediately throw in the unification distraction or attack me or my wife based on what they think they know about us?
I’ll say it again - I think this board has failed our K-8 students and teachers, and I’ve heard nothing from anyone, including today’s Op Ed rant, to change my mind. Speaking of which: to suggest I should actually hold someone in high esteem simply because they’ve served on a voluntary board for a number of years is absolutely ludicrous Guess what - in the real world we pay on results and the results in PVSD these last few years speak volumes.
So, anyone have a real plan for improving our K-8 schools that doesn’t rely on the magic beans of unification dollars, school closures, or sticking it to the teachers over and over? Apparently no one currently sitting on PVSD’s board does.
Posted by tanknows on May 13, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My mistake. I stand corrected. "She" was Ms.Jackson. Sadly though I was there to see it all. The blunders of her tenure are etched in the minds of all who witnessed her OUHSD mediocrity. Guess I have liberals on the mind lately. Settling for mediocre performance and second rate education is NOT a hallmark of those in favor of unification. Far from it. But then again, speaking of liberals, who would've thought that you, Bill and Hill would have so much in common. The vast right wing conspiracy, blaming the Ventura Republican Committee. Out spent you 3:1 now thats funny. The truth is somewhere in the middle you say. Maybe, but its getting narrowed down now and even if some liberal California court sees it another way. Would that surprise anyone? Certainly not the "Republicans" thats for sure. I guess some things are still worth fighting for. Especially when it means fighting against the likes of you.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on May 13, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tan-
You don't support a mediocre performance but you still support the current PVSD board? We are lucky enough to have a majority of professional educators who take pride in their jobs in spite the lack of innovative, inspirational leadership.
Our districts leaders have not presented anything new. They have, however, managed to dismantle a successful structured program and run off one of the highest performing programs in the area.
Dude, your sense of loyalty is commendable. Your logic sucks.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill
Your five minutes are up...
Posted by norcalmom on May 13, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
turchotk
who the **** do you think you are? Gossiping and spreading rumours about people's personal lives?
If someone writes a public letter or runs for public office, attack that or offer your opinion. But to spread falsehoods about people's marriage just proves what an ignorant, evil scum of the earth you must be.
Don't you have any pertinent points to make? About the issue at hand?
You could only hope to have as supportive of spouses as Stephenson and Alamillo have. It takes a strong marriage to allow a spouse to lay them selves open for public ridicule because they feel they are doing the right thing.
Go crawl back under your rock.
Posted by norcalmom on May 13, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another thing, Peg...
"most" non-Cam High OUHSD parents I know (including me) would rather keep things status quo for right now. Even those who, at the time of Mr. Alamillo's loss, were pro-unification, are NOT now. The current PVSD board has mucked things up so badly that, now, OUHSD is the lesser of two evils.
And you're right - Berg has worked tirelessly for over a decade. Perhaps she honestly thought/thinks that she is working to enhance the educational system in Camarillo. I have no problem with that. Except that 10 years ago, Camarillo's educational system was better than it is now. I blame it solely on the single focus of PVSD on Unification. Stephenson and Alamillo, too, have worked tirelessly for a decade for children's education.
The only thing that Berg strikes fear in me is that she could be re-elected.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.