I continue to focus on that clique comment. Approximately 800 people (community members, staff and alums) signed a petition to the board requesting that they reconsider the Karen Janney/Dianna Carberry demotion. (783 or so to be exact) These signatures were gathered in less than a month and during a time of intense confusion and fear of reprecussion, during a pink-slipping month and contract negotiations for the unions, during a time of economic confusion and fear of loss of livelihood. A second petition mentioned in the press gathered about 2000 signatures (though the Tribune reported 1300). This petition was a no-confidence petition and four unions collected these signatures, again in under a month. The district web site noted that the district employs 4,000 + people (this data now removed from the site) but the Tribune reported 6,000 employees (is that 2K difference "consultants" ?). So, this "clique" comprises half to one third of the employees and hundreds of community members. And those are the people who put their names (and livelihoods, jobs) on a piece of paper. How many more clique members lurk in the neighborhoods of Chula Vista, National City, San Ysidro and Imperial Beach? On this day celebrating a country born of freedom from tyranny and no taxation-without-representation could the "clique" get it together and run this redcoat/carpetbagger out of town--this "clique" of thousands whose members will most likely practice their privilege to vote anonymously more vigorously than sign another petition that risks their career and puts them on the Gandara hit list. I hope you are reading this board members. FREE SUHSD
Thanks once again, Ana. For example: teachers still don't know when to report in July for the year-round all district schedule that Karen Janney coordinated so seamlessly. It's all just rumors and tentative schedules and under a month to go. When you earn about as much as the superintendent for LA Unified School District (245K vs. 250K --perks not counted) shouldn't these wrinkles be ironed out? Using Texas as an excuse for not knowing about unions is lamer than the dog-ate- my-homework line and blaming clicks (not sure he meant "cliques" --that was kind --I think he meant "chicks") three years into it is, again, indicative of a person who refuses to accept his own (major) role in this disaster. When one pays property tax here and sees that chunk added to the bill for Prop O one can only close one's eyes and hope that all those chunks which add up to millions are being used wisely--to improve learning facilities for the children of Sweetwater. If this superintendent doesn't understand unions (or chooses to disregard them) and was trained to be an educational leader but hasn't gotten around to that in three years--if these two major bullets on his job description are lacking-- why is he at the helm managing 600 million dollars worth of bricks & mortar gleaned from our local property taxes? Learning while on the job will cost this district dearly (and has). Free SUHSD.
Why did closed session take so long during that evaluation? Could it be that Dr. G is not a slam-dunk A+ kind of superintendent? Or were they ordering take-out with that famous Visa card and celebrating the good times over gourmet blue corn tamales from Fridas or the humbler starbucks 4$ special from around the corner. Why doesn't the voting public get to know the results of his eval? This is rubber stamping in reverse. You back me--I back you. I hire you --you buy me lunch. Why does everything important get tabled at those board meetings? How many evaluations is enough? FREE SUHSD
Thank you y gracias for getting the word out, KPBS. As this district limps into summer season with an on-again off-again summer school session, board members conspicuously absent from honored retirees' celebrations, confusion around the year-round implementation, another consultant hired to walk in Ms.Janney's difficult-to-fill shoes (a retired assistant superintendent --what lump sum are we paying him?) and a superintendent who will not divulge who he buys lunch for on the taxpayers' dime....(hmmm where was this sentence going?). Yes, with all that going on, blaming the union is really reaching. Blaming the world-wide recession is far-fetched. When there is money to spend in this district, it is shoveled over to consultants and out-of-town construction companies (see the Union Tribune article in Saturday's paper --the point may not be that trustee Ms. Ricasa's nephew's address was used by RC construction. The point should be that they are not local contractors and the prop O money is leaving South Bay as fast as RC can break ground on a 7 million dollar building. Digging up an address for these developers and digging up retirees and out-of-towners to finish up jobs dismissed administrators were capably doing is costing this district money. Our students require quality educators guided by trustworthy leaders. Our school buildings must be built by locals who, by and large, are capable and talented graduates of this district. Our community deserves a board that puts education above personal ambition and nest-feathering. Once again, thank you Ms. T for your article. I look forward to more as promised in the last line. FREE SUHSD!
PLease investigate the terminations of people who dedicated the "best years of their life" to this district; (vaguely alluded to in the reassigning administrtators sentence). Look into the board, too. What was with the allegation from the attorney for the company that did not get the prop O contract on May 11 board meeting? Something about Ricasa's brother owning property that the company who did get the contract is using. Whatever-- somebody with more time and interest should comb through those board minutes. Those guys toss money around like chicken feed and then cram our students into classrooms, terminate/ demote /disappear Karen Janney and tell future teachers to forget about working at Sweetwater where they will not receive health benefits upon retirement. The gang of five have health retirements por vida if they serve a couple of terms. No wonder it is of no concern to them. No wonder they would enjoy pitting old-timers against newbies in the health care arena. Students first. Quality education first. Free SUHSD
Listen
Public Trust Erodes In Sweetwater School District
I continue to focus on that clique comment. Approximately 800 people (community members, staff and alums) signed a petition to the board requesting that they reconsider the Karen Janney/Dianna Carberry demotion. (783 or so to be exact) These signatures were gathered in less than a month and during a time of intense confusion and fear of reprecussion, during a pink-slipping month and contract negotiations for the unions, during a time of economic confusion and fear of loss of livelihood. A second petition mentioned in the press gathered about 2000 signatures (though the Tribune reported 1300). This petition was a no-confidence petition and four unions collected these signatures, again in under a month. The district web site noted that the district employs 4,000 + people (this data now removed from the site) but the Tribune reported 6,000 employees (is that 2K difference "consultants" ?). So, this "clique" comprises half to one third of the employees and hundreds of community members. And those are the people who put their names (and livelihoods, jobs) on a piece of paper. How many more clique members lurk in the neighborhoods of Chula Vista, National City, San Ysidro and Imperial Beach? On this day celebrating a country born of freedom from tyranny and no taxation-without-representation could the "clique" get it together and run this redcoat/carpetbagger out of town--this "clique" of thousands whose members will most likely practice their privilege to vote anonymously more vigorously than sign another petition that risks their career and puts them on the Gandara hit list. I hope you are reading this board members. FREE SUHSD
July 4, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Public Trust Erodes In Sweetwater School District
Thanks once again, Ana. For example: teachers still don't know when to report in July for the year-round all district schedule that Karen Janney coordinated so seamlessly. It's all just rumors and tentative schedules and under a month to go. When you earn about as much as the superintendent for LA Unified School District (245K vs. 250K --perks not counted) shouldn't these wrinkles be ironed out?
Using Texas as an excuse for not knowing about unions is lamer than the dog-ate- my-homework line and blaming clicks (not sure he meant "cliques" --that was kind --I think he meant "chicks") three years into it is, again, indicative of a person who refuses to accept his own (major) role in this disaster.
When one pays property tax here and sees that chunk added to the bill for Prop O one can only close one's eyes and hope that all those chunks which add up to millions are being used wisely--to improve learning facilities for the children of Sweetwater. If this superintendent doesn't understand unions (or chooses to disregard them) and was trained to be an educational leader but hasn't gotten around to that in three years--if these two major bullets on his job description are lacking-- why is he at the helm managing 600 million dollars worth of bricks & mortar gleaned from our local property taxes? Learning while on the job will cost this district dearly (and has).
Free SUHSD.
June 30, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
South Bay School Leader's Performance Evaluated
Why did closed session take so long during that evaluation? Could it be that Dr. G is not a slam-dunk A+ kind of superintendent? Or were they ordering take-out with that famous Visa card and celebrating the good times over gourmet blue corn tamales from Fridas or the humbler starbucks 4$ special from around the corner.
Why doesn't the voting public get to know the results of his eval? This is rubber stamping in reverse. You back me--I back you. I hire you --you buy me lunch.
Why does everything important get tabled at those board meetings? How many evaluations is enough?
FREE SUHSD
June 18, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
South Bay Superintendent Shakes Up Leadership
Thank you y gracias for getting the word out, KPBS. As this district limps into summer season with an on-again off-again summer school session, board members conspicuously absent from honored retirees' celebrations, confusion around the year-round implementation, another consultant hired to walk in Ms.Janney's difficult-to-fill shoes (a retired assistant superintendent --what lump sum are we paying him?) and a superintendent who will not divulge who he buys lunch for on the taxpayers' dime....(hmmm where was this sentence going?). Yes, with all that going on, blaming the union is really reaching. Blaming the world-wide recession is far-fetched. When there is money to spend in this district, it is shoveled over to consultants and out-of-town construction companies (see the Union Tribune article in Saturday's paper --the point may not be that trustee Ms. Ricasa's nephew's address was used by RC construction. The point should be that they are not local contractors and the prop O money is leaving South Bay as fast as RC can break ground on a 7 million dollar building. Digging up an address for these developers and digging up retirees and out-of-towners to finish up jobs dismissed administrators were capably doing is costing this district money. Our students require quality educators guided by trustworthy leaders. Our school buildings must be built by locals who, by and large, are capable and talented graduates of this district. Our community deserves a board that puts education above personal ambition and nest-feathering. Once again, thank you Ms. T for your article. I look forward to more as promised in the last line. FREE SUHSD!
June 8, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sweetwater Schools Superintendent Under Fire
PLease investigate the terminations of people who dedicated the "best years of their life" to this district; (vaguely alluded to in the reassigning administrtators sentence). Look into the board, too. What was with the allegation from the attorney for the company that did not get the prop O contract on May 11 board meeting? Something about Ricasa's brother owning property that the company who did get the contract is using. Whatever-- somebody with more time and interest should comb through those board minutes. Those guys toss money around like chicken feed and then cram our students into classrooms, terminate/ demote /disappear Karen Janney and tell future teachers to forget about working at Sweetwater where they will not receive health benefits upon retirement.
The gang of five have health retirements por vida if they serve a couple of terms. No wonder it is of no concern to them. No wonder they would enjoy pitting old-timers against newbies in the health care arena. Students first. Quality education first. Free SUHSD
May 12, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )