Home › Opinion › Opinion
All affected residents deserve unification vote
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionIn response to Peg Hicks Moore's May 13 commentary, "Camarillo unification lawsuit a good thing," please help me to understand the logic regarding the lawsuit filed by Camarillo Unified proponents as being a good thing that "was not brought about for a frivolous reason, as was the last suit filed by 11 disgruntled Oxnard Union High School District supporters in a vain attempt to halt the unification process by calling those of us who support unification racists."
As one of the 11 appellants in that appeal, I can assure Hicks-Moore that I am not disgruntled nor have I called proponents racists. I added my name to the appeal because I felt, over the course of many years, that my voice and that of other citizens who had questions about unification had gone unheard through the usual channels.
For instance, the unification proponents claimed the State Board of Education would take too long to address their original petition to unify, so they lobbied for and then helped write a new, more favorable law — Assembly Bill 780 — which specifically applied only to Ventura and one other California county. As per AB780, the County Committee on School Organization hired Flores, Caldwell & Winters Associates to prepare a new unification study.
The executive summary of that study stated that three of the nine required state criteria were not met — discrimination or segregation, disruption of educational programs and negative financial status. The summary also showed that two other criteria were marginal — equitable division of property and significant housing costs. But none of this mattered; proponents recognized no problems, and indicated they just wanted the issue to go to a vote. They didn't get the voting area they wanted, hence the lawsuit.
AB780 (Education Code 35711) only allowed citizens to appeal in two areas: Criterion four (the promotion of segregation and/or discrimination) and the Area of Election.
Additionally, the appeal had to be filed within 30 days of the Ventura County Committee on District Organization's final ruling. We complied with the law, as it was written, and filed our appeal based on facts and figures. The appeal was found to have enough merit to come before the State Board of Education.
Disenfranchisement for Oxnard
We also joined an appeal on the general election area because, while unification proponents shout about constitutional equal protection, we (and the State Board of Education that heard our appeal) felt that disenfranchising Oxnard residents was not fair: their schools, students, staff and finances would be directly impacted by unification. It was our opinion that all affected residents have the constitutional right to vote on this important issue. Disenfranchisement, Hicks-Moore, works both ways.
Unification proponents have never answered many key questions regarding their unification proposal. For example: How will unification improve our students' education? Where and how will students be adequately housed? How will an equitable salary scale between elementary and high school teachers be reached? How will the new district absorb the $20 million unfunded liability? The list of questions goes on and on. To glibly state (as the proponents have) that everything will be taken care of later is to place in jeopardy at least a generation of high school students and their education. Even the County Committee on School Organization commented on Pleasant Valley School District's lack of planning.
Finally, unification proponents have repeatedly stated, as Hicks-Moore did, "we have difficulty in electing a local citizen to the OUHSD board because we can't collect enough votes." This is simply untrue! Records show that the OUHSD board has had continuous representation from Camarillo residents from 1973 right up through today.
In fact, four of the five school board members serving in 1975 were Camarillo or Somis residents. Today, Socorro Lopez Hanson, who is a Camarillo resident, has served on the OUHSD board since 2002 and ran unopposed for her re-election in 2006.
Unification proponents consistently misrepresent facts and gloss over real concerns in their effort to unify. The best interests of our children are paramount. This demands that:
— We ensure that what is proposed is better than what we presently have.
— That what is proposed is feasible and sustainable.
— Facts, not emotional spinning, are presented to all voters.
Not a good time for PVSD
Unification should not occur when the interested district leading this effort — PVSD — is in shambles under the poorly misguided direction of the current board of trustees.
Consider its track record: school-closure fiasco, elimination of successful alternative programs, failure to approve a valid charter school application, loss of 450 students leaving the district for other schools, labor unrest, low morale, exceedingly high turnover in administrators, financial instability, warnings from the District Attorney's Office for continual Brown Act violations, corrective action from the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools for misappropriation of funds. Again, the list goes on and on.
Embarking on unification and assuming responsibility for high school education is tricky under the best of circumstances; under the current PVSD climate, it would seem mightily ill-advised. Given PVSD's condition, how can unification proponents guarantee that students would not lose out in the short term as well as the long term? The gamble is too great!
— Sandy Bieler Rao lives in Camarillo.
Posted by KatieTeague on May 20, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a very well written letter.
Posted by CAPEDad on May 20, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, Sandy Bieler Rao has written a great letter. She rightly points out that the CU group has not shown any planning whatsoever. Facilities plan? Forget it. Fiscal analysis? Guess again. Rao is also correct that the State DOE report totally ignored these criteria regarding the strength of the new CU. Anybody who wants to see that lack of facilities planning needs to read the facilities plan on the PVSD website (under unification). You’ll be amazed. You’ll be further amazed that this board expects you to trust them to “work everything out” after unification passes.
BTW, the “Climate Survey” that the CU crowd is so proud of was conducted in ’05. I don’t think it holds much water now!
It’s very important that every Camarillan understand that the teaching staff at ACHS will be decimated and Los Altos will be the spill-over HS for mid-towners and Heights kids.
So, if you’re a Mission Oaks resident thinking you’ve got nothing to lose by voting for CU, you’d better think long and hard about trusting THIS board with your kid’s future.
Posted by hibufarshi on May 20, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
THANK YOU CAPE DAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on May 20, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms. Bieler-Rao has written a very concise, lucid and fact-driven letter.
Unification is also one of the issues in the 3rd District Supervisoral race between Kathy Long and Socorro Lopez Hanson:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
Posted by jmm on May 20, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great Article and well written. But maybe this would not be an issue if OHUSD tried putting some money into the high schools in Camarillo rather than all of the money going to new schools in Oxnard. My son attends high school at Rio and the condition of that high school as well as ACHS is deplorable. Now, lets take a look at beautiful Pacific and Oxnard High Schools and you wonder why the people of Camarillo are considering the altnerative.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on May 20, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jmm: Is it the exterior or the interior of the schools that you consider deplorable?
Rio Mesa and Camarillo High School look like high schools that were built in the 50s.
Oxnard and Pacifica High School look like high schools that were built in the 90s.
Is it more expensive to a) modernize the older higher schools or b) tear 'em down and build all new ones?
They are what they are.
Millions have been spent to modernize Camarillo High School and Rio Mesa High School.
Camarillo does need a new high school. I'm waiting for construction to start at the site by the library.
http://www.ouhsd.k12.ca.us/business_s...
But it's not *just* the buildings; school cirriculum, equitable teachers' salaries, and the overall state of the school district is important too, right?
Also, even if you do modernize, you can't please everybody all of the time.
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/le...
Posted by hazeltine on May 20, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This was, indeed, a very concise and lucid letter. My only (small) complaint is that we shouldn't lump everyone who is in favor of a unified district as "unified proponents" who rabidly refuse to consider facts. Perhaps, that is more a trait of the organized unified proponents, but there are many people in Camarillo that "think" they are for unification, maybe mistakenly so, because there is so little concrete information that is readily available. This letter, while addressing the dueling lawsuits and issues such as representation extremely well, I, personally, would like to see an actual response to the financial fallout of a unified Camarillo District. John Alamillo has alluded to some figures, but it would be nice to see it broken down, otherwise fence sitters such as I will have to wade through the he said-she said arguements.
BTW, if unification does make the ballot and it fails, where does that put Camarillo in regards to this very nice looking high school actually being built by the OUHSD? I guess the bottom line is that what will it take for OUHSD to move forward with building the school or are we just getting a big sign and nice drawings because OUHSD will always pull out the "possibility of unification" card as a way of not having to do anything?
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on May 20, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hazeltine: Is this the type of information you're looking for? If so, I'll look for more information along these lines.
Anyway, this is a report on "the study of Feasibility of Formation of the Camarillo Unified School District", for the Ventura County Committee on School District Organization, prepared by Caldwell Flores Winters, Inc. The report's dated February 2004.
http://www.vcoe.org/LinkClick.aspx?li...
JohnAlamillo: would you mind doing a recap of the financial impact information again?
CAPEDad's been trying to get an answer on the financial whys and wherefores of "Los Altos High" for months now, which is a critical point of unification as well.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on May 20, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PVSD just approved an $11,000 study with one of the components as listed in 'F.' of the agreement,
F. District to provide independent fiscal analysis for review
Here's the link
http://pvsd.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-...
Three things bother me-
1. How does this guy provide a independent fiscal review if he is provided info from PVSD? Kind of a contradiction.
2. Why is the district paying for this? It seems that a former city manager, an estate attorney, a CPA who is also a PVSD board member, a second board member and a former political consultant should be able to come up with as independent a report as the district.
3. Why not have PVSD budget committee work on this? This group of individuals with all manner of opinion on this issue know the ins and outs of this district probably as well as anyone.
For ten years people have been asking where the plan is. For ten years the answer has been "we can worry about that later." Now that they are close they hire a consultant to tell the community what it wants to hear. When anyone questions his results the cry from the proponents will be, and I've heard it before, He is a professional. How dare you be so arrogant to question his findings.
The county's consultant was a professional but his findings didn't say what the 'U's wanted to hear. The state board is the highest education body in the state but that doesn't count.
Posted by CAPEDad on May 20, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks LP Mom. You're definitely atypical - one who likes details.
Call me a broken record. Call me crazy. I guess I'm different then most - I'd like to know WHAT I'M VOTING ON. I sure as hell won't vote on a 'hope and a prayer' that this board's decision making skills will make CU work. Look at the past 18 months as exibit A.
Let's start with the basics of who will teach the kids, how they'll be housed, and with what funds. We can get into the details of the 3 Rs later.
Most of you won't believe it, but I'm going to give Berg kudos for ONE thing she said at the last meeting. She recommended having a work shop to discuss how the CU would function. How novel.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on May 20, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnAlamillo: Those are good points. For #2, are you asking why doesn't Camarillo Unified pay for the fiscal review?
Posted by JohnAlamillo on May 20, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LP Mom-
Not so much why they don't pay but why haven't a group with so many attributes bothered to attempt a stab at a plan either operational, city manager, or fiscal, CPA.
Face it, those who are skeptical will review the submission no matter who presents it. The district is hiring a marketing firm, not a consultant.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on May 20, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CAPEDad: I like details in the same way I like car maintenance - they're necessary evils :)
One of the big problems I have with unification is that it's *really* difficult to predict cause and effect.
I think that the best scenario is that as much factual information gets disseminated as possible to the widest possible audience, so that everyone can be educated on unification, and make up their own minds, which is I think what Hazeltine is asking for in terms of financial impact.
JohnAlamillo: Okay, got it. On a side note, it bugs me that Camarillo Unified hasn't updated their website since 2006. If they're supposed to be the vanguard of unification, they should at least stay current with it.
http://www.camarillounified.org
Posted by hokiesme86 on May 20, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John Alamillo,
What a jewel you’ve given us. Your suggestion that the finance committee take on the task of analyzing unification from a somewhat detached point of view is, I think, brilliant. Why have the district spend $11,000 from the general fund for a captive contractor when it has a committee of one CPA, a yacht salesman, two attorneys, an architect, public school teacher, PV Parks and Recreation manager and two engineers/project managers meeting every two weeks, looking for something to do that improves Camarillo public schools? Furthermore, most of us finance committee members have a vested interest in the future of Camarillo public schools because we have kids that are currently in Camarillo K-8 public schools. We’ll all definitely be affected by unification, however it breaks.
I, for one, would more trust the finance committee to conduct unbiased analysis and render opinion and plan based upon facts and cold hard figures than either the current PVSD board or a captive consultant that they hire to prepare a plan. Recall that when the scope of work and cost estimate was approved by the board last Thursday at 10:30 PM as the next to last agenda item, there was lots of discussion about the need to perform an analysis in advance of the election. Sounds more like we're hiring a political consultant and spin-doctor than we are an impartial professional assessment. Now, more than ever, Camarillo needs to know the unbiased costs and benefits of unification. We’ve seen this board in action before, with a cut twice, then measure once mentality.
At a time that the board is going to impact some of the most vulnerable students in PVSD due to state budget cuts, eliminating summer school curriculum for those who need additional support, and cutting all but legally required bus transportation (risking regular attendance for kids whose parents may be working several jobs to stay afloat in tough times), I cannot support taking $11,000 from the general fund to study the effects of what at this point looks like an unlikely unification contingency.
Give the task to qualified, and vested volunteers and spend the $11,000 in the classrooms, or on the teachers who desperately need better compensation in the form of benefits.
Posted by hazeltine on May 21, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
thanks for the link, I'll give it a good read and see what I can learn. I would like to know, thought, what OUHSD "wants" before it will move forward with the new high school in Camarillo. Is having unification fail if it's voted on in November enough?
Posted by JohnAlamillo on May 21, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hazeltine-
I had a conversation with a OUHSD administrator who said “if this thing doesn’t pass I on the hook to build a new school in Camarillo.” After which we discussed what the school would look like and where we thought enrollment was going. Had this issue not gone ahead, which was against the findings of the PVSD Sub-Committee III we would be putting kids in seats this September.
(http://1.pvsd.k12.ca.us/Parents/Unifi...)
With Camarillo Unified new plan ‘X’ the whole high school population could be interesting. What they have been polling is how receptive parents are to a ‘Science and Arts Charter High School.” Funny didn’t Los Primeros, which was a successful structured school for 30 years, just get torn apart only to have parents reorganize as a, well you know, Science and Arts Magnet School. Clearly a case could be made the proponents are not to sure of themselves.
From my personal perspective I think OUHSD will need to be confident the knuckeheads have gotten off their collective ponies and found another percived revolution to fight.
Posted by CAPEDad on May 21, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Real funny John. I've been asking what this school would be for months. Science and Arts - the 'milk and honey' of magnet buzz words.
You can put lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig. I'll be sure to let the midtowners know that their new high school is on Temple.
Thanks CU for screwing us out of a new HS.
(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.