Be the first to know: SUBSCRIBE HERE

Greater Orange News Service

↑ To add this ANIMATOR CLICK HERE

Greater Orange HEADLINES in the News
  • The Foothills Sentry
  • TOPIX/City of Orange News Service
  • TOPIX/Villa Park News Service
  • The Anaheim BLOG
  • TOPIX/Anaheim Hills News Service
  • TOPIX/Greater Orange Communities Wire Service
  • California CIty News.org HEADLINES Headlines
  • Follow Greater Orange on TWITTER
  • ORANGE NET NEWS TWITTER FEED
  • Live!! ORANGE TWITTER FEED
  • LIVE ORANGE FEED
  • Wednesday, August 29, 2007

     

    PAULY RECALL ENDS, Is the Rocco Recall Next?

    The recall attempt of Villa Park Council Member Deborah Pauly has apparently failed five days before the turn in date according to a post by Pauly attorney and Orange County political activist Mark Bucher's post on the OC Blog.


    In addition concerning the Rocco Recall, Orange resident and OC Blog webmaster Jubal also writes a post about the stealthy Rocco Recall campaign that seems under the radar. OC POST: Where is the Rocco Recall.

    The Rocco Recall effort seems to lack the coordination of the Orange Recall. Sources report the efforts to collect signatures at OUSD schools during Back-to-School registrations, appraoching the retired OUSD teacher's orgainization, and apealing to the Orange Unified Educators Association seem to have yielded less than desired results.

    With 22 days left, a mailing of petitions this week to addresses supplied by sitting Trustee of political supporters depends on individuals collecting signatures then mailing them back to orgainizers. The Reccall supporters also intend to be at the Orange Street Fair over the Labor Day Weekend.

    Tuesday, August 28, 2007

     

    35th Annual Orange International Street Fair


    Metro TALK

    The World comes to Orange:
    35 Years of International Flavor


    The 35th annual Orange International Street Fair takes place this Labor Day weekend as the Greater Orange’s premier yearly event, all volunteer and all non-profit, takes center stage in the center of Greater Orange, the Orange Plaza at the Orange Traffic Circle (the center Plaza will actually be fenced off to prevent damage). This year’s 35th annual event is called 35 Years of International Flavor and is dedicated to the memory of Nick Gonzalez’s five years of voluntary service as a Fair Street Captain.

    As always there is no entrance fee, wrist bands for alcohol purchases are just $2.00 and food, fun and entertainment will abound. The popular Children’s Street is back with hands-on kid friendly fun. The entertainment stages on each ethnic street will feature a variety of American and ethnic music and dance. Parking as always will be a challenge and local residence are encouraged to have guests take the Metrolink Train to the fair.

    FOR A MAP TO THE FAIR CLICK ON:
    Map Orange Plaza

    For Metrolink Information CLICK ON:
    Metrolink Weekend

    Orange International FAIR HOURS:
    Friday: AUGUST 31, 5:00 pm- 10:00 pm
    Saturday SEPT 1, 10:00 am- 10:00 pm
    Sunday SEPT 2, 10:00 am- 10:00 pm
    Monday the fair is closed

    Metro TALK is a community service of the
    : Greater Orange Communities Organization:
    :GoCo:
    GreaterOrangeCO@gmail.com
    Orange Communication System /OCS/

    Sunday, August 26, 2007

     

    Metro VIEWS

    “Superintendent rakes in the money, while retirees and employees are struggling maintain their health insurance”
    - Barbara Noble


    At OUSD the Superintendent rakes in the money, while retirees and employees are struggling to maintain their health insurance. The generous salary gesture of the Board of Education towards Mr. Godley came about a time when the School District is claiming inability to pay the increase to the health insurance premium for classified employees and retirees.

    Employees have been paying 5% or 10% by payroll dedication toward their health care insurance upon retirement, in addition to making substantial contributions to their current health insurance, also by payroll deductions.

    I feel that employees and retirees are dismayed with their treatment by the District. We are the Clerks, Custodians, Maintenance Workers and others, who assure the children have a safe, clean and organized school to attend. Many of these employees and retirees have dedicated their entire working lives to making sure there was a school system in which the community can trust to educate their children.

    The fiscal priorities of the Board of Education leave much to be desired.

    Barbara Noble
    Retired OUSD Employee
    bdnoble@aol.com

    Metro VIEWS
    is an open forum to express viewpoints on local Greater Orange issues.


    Views expressed in Metro VIEWS are not necessarily the views of the NETWORKS that ECAST or post them.

    Wednesday, August 22, 2007

     

    Metro TALK: Rocco, Running in the Recall, and Reorganization

    Metro TALK
    community service of the
    Greater Orange Communities Organization



    Rocco, Running in the Recall, and Reorganization:

    Everything you wanted to know about
    OUSD Reorganization …but didn’t know who to ask!


    With all the hoopla around Rocco, declarations of Recall candidates, and Reorganization of Trustee Areas in Orange Unified, no one seems to know who’s on first, second, or third in the ongoing governing saga in Orange Unified. The fate of who votes for whom and how they vote in Orange Unified’s future is in the hands of a little known government body and the always persnickety voters of the Greater Orange Communities.

    The Orange County Committee on School District Organization is the committee that legally approves changes to school district organization with voter approval for many changes, or a petition process to force a vote on a change, the whole process is another twist in the ongoing democratic struggle in the Greater Orange Communities greatest uniting and dividing force…the Orange Unified School District.

    As a public service, Metro TALK is publishing the entire Chapter 10 of the California Department of Education “how to guide” from the District Organization Handbook (Aug 2006). Education and political junkies enjoy! Concerned citizens, please endure!

    California Department of Education
    District Organization Handbook
    August 2006
    CHAPTER 10


    OTHER FUNCTIONS
    OF THE COUNTY COMMITTEE
    County committees on school district organization have additional responsibilities in processing proposals regarding the structure, membership, and areas of representation of members of school district governing boards. These requirements are unique to county committees and constitute a major portion of their workload. This chapter is particularly important for committee members.

    A. Introduction
    A county committee on school district organization serves as central initiator, coordinator, facilitator, and arbitrator for the reorganization of school districts. Most of its activities deal with the reorganization of school district boundaries. Nevertheless, the county committee has other responsibilities empowered by the Education Code relating to trustee areas, membership, and methods of electing governing boards. This chapter identifies and addresses those other functions.
    Section B of this chapter is organized as a quick-reference guide similar to that found in Chapter 5. It provides a succinct reference in the form of a one-page chart and accompanying flowchart, which depict the sequence of steps to be followed in each of these seven processes:
    Creating or abolishing trustee areas

    Increasing or decreasing the number of governing board members

    Rearranging trustee areas

    Petition process—after a county committee approves a rearrangement of trustee areas

    Alternative methods of electing governing board members

    Establishing or abolishing common governing boards

    Rearranging trustee areas based on federal decennial census

    Section C, “Legal Provisions: Supporting Actions,” provides more detailed information about the steps identified in Section B and addresses several topics related to trustees and trustee areas. It also includes matters pertaining to county board of education trustees and trustee areas.

    B. Process: Quick-Reference Chart 10.1
    CREATION OR ABOLISHMENT OF TRUSTEE AREAS
    (Refer to Flowchart G)
    Method 1
    County committee receives request/initiates action to create or abolish trustee areas. (EC 5019)

    County committee calls and conducts at least one public hearing in the district on the matter. (EC 5019)

    At the conclusion of the hearing, the county committee approves/disapproves the proposal. The approval of the proposal constitutes an order of election. (EC 5020)

    Proposal is placed on the ballot not later than the next succeeding election for members of the governing board. [EC 5020(a)]

    If a majority of those voting approve the establishment or abolishment of trustee areas, any affected board member serves out his or her term, and succeeding board members are elected according to the selected method. (EC 5021)

    Method 2
    Petition is filed containing at least 10 percent of the signatures of the district’s registered voters proposing to create or abolish trustee areas. [EC 5020(c)]

    Prior to placing the issue on the ballot, the county committee may call and conduct one or more public hearings on the matter. [EC 5020(c)]

    Proposal is placed on the ballot at the next succeeding regularly scheduled election, the next succeeding statewide primary or general election, or the next succeeding regularly scheduled election at which the electors of the district are otherwise entitled to vote, provided that there is sufficient time to place the issue on the ballot. [EC 5020(c)]

    If a majority of those voting approve the establishment/abolishment of trustee areas, any affected board member serves out his/her term and succeeding board members are elected according to the selected method. (EC 5021)

    Note 1: Whenever trustee areas are established in a district, provision must be made for one of the alternative methods of electing governing board members. (EC 5030)
    Note 2: Method 1 does not apply to a school district governed by a board of education provided for in the charter of a city or city and county.



    B. Process: Quick-Reference Chart 10.2
    INCREASE OR DECREASE IN
    NUMBER OF GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS
    (Refer to Flowchart G)
    Method 1
    County committee receives request/initiates action to increase or decrease the number of members of the governing board. (EC 5019)

    County committee calls and conducts at least one public hearing in the district on the matter. (EC 5019)

    At the conclusion of the hearing, the county committee approves or disapproves the proposal. The approval of the proposal constitutes an order of election. (EC 5020)

    Proposal is placed on the ballot not later than the next succeeding election for members of the governing board. (EC 5020)

    If a majority of those voting approve a proposal to increase the number of members of the governing board, the two additional members of the board must be appointed by the governing board of the district. (EC 5022)

    If a majority of those voting approve a proposal to decrease the number of members of the governing board, the members would continue to serve out their terms. Seats would be eliminated as terms expire, but terms must be staggered. (EC 5021)

    Method 2
    Petition is filed containing at least 10 percent of the signatures of the district’s registered voters proposing to increase or decrease the number of members of the governing board. [EC 5020(c)]

    Prior to placing the issue on the ballot, the county committee may call and conduct one or more public hearings on the matter. [EC 5020(c)]

    Proposal is placed on the ballot at the next succeeding regularly scheduled election, the next succeeding statewide primary or general election, or the next succeeding regularly scheduled election at which the electors of the district are otherwise entitled to vote, provided that there is sufficient time to place the issue on the ballot. [EC 5020(c)]

    If a majority of those voting approve a proposal to increase the number of members of the governing board, the two additional members of the board must be appointed by the governing board of the district. (EC 5022)

    If a majority of those voting approve a proposal to decrease the number of members of the governing board, the members would continue to serve out their terms. Seats would be eliminated as terms expire, but terms must be staggered. (EC 5021)


    Note 1: Method 1 does not apply to a school district governed by a board of education provided for in the charter of a city or city and county.
    Note 2: An increase in numbers of trustees from three to five in elementary districts with more than 300 students in average daily attendance (ADA) is addressed in Education Code 5018. There is no similar provision to allow a decrease in numbers of trustees from five to three in elementary districts with fewer than 300 ADA However, it may be possible that such a district could adopt a resolution, under the provisions of Education Code 35160, to decrease the numbers of trustees from five to three. Legal counsel should be consulted in such cases.

    B. Process: Quick-Reference Chart 10.3
    REARRANGEMENT OF TRUSTEE AREAS
    (Refer to Flowchart G)
    County committee receives request/initiates action to rearrange trustee areas. (EC 5019)

    County committee calls and conducts at least one public hearing in the district on the matter. (EC 5019)

    At the conclusion of the hearing, the county committee shall approve or disapprove the proposal. (EC 5019)

    The rearrangement of trustee areas must be put into effect for the next school district election occurring at least 120 days after its approval. (EC 5019)

    Note: The proposal to rearrange trustee areas must go to an election if a petition requesting such an election is signed by 5 percent of the voters in the district. (See Quick-Reference Chart 10.4.)

    B. Process: Quick-Reference Chart 10.4
    PETITION PROCESS—AFTER A COUNTY
    COMMITTEE APPROVES A REARRANGEMENT
    OF TRUSTEE AREAS
    1. If the county committee approves the rearrangement of trustee areas and a subsequent petition is received, signed by at least 5 percent of the registered voters of the district, requesting an election on the proposed rearrangement of trustee area boundaries, the county committee must put the proposition to vote. The deadline for receiving the petition is 60 days after the county committee approves the proposal. (EC 5019)
    2. The county committee must place the proposal on the ballot not later than the next succeeding regularly scheduled election, the next succeeding statewide primary or general election, or the next succeeding regularly scheduled election at which the electors of the district are entitled to vote, provided that there is sufficient time to place the issue on the ballot (120 days prior to the election date). [EC 5019(d), 5020(b)]
    3. If a majority of those voting approve the rearrangement of trustee areas, any affected board member serves out his or her term, and succeeding board members are elected according to the selected method and in accordance with the new boundaries. (EC 5021)

    B. Process: Quick Reference Chart 10.5
    ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ELECTING
    GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS
    (Refer to Flowchart G)
    Method 1
    1. County committee receives request or initiates action to select an alternative method of electing governing board members. (EC 5019)
    2. County committee calls and conducts at least one public hearing in the district on the matter. (EC 5019)
    3. At the conclusion of the hearing, the county committee approves or disapproves the proposal. (EC 5019)
    4. Proposal is placed on the ballot not later than the next succeeding election for members of the governing board.
    5. If a majority of those voting approve, the proposal takes effect at the next governing board election. (Any affected board member must serve out his or her term.) (EC 5030)
    Method 2
    1. Petition is filed containing at least 10 percent of the signatures of the district’s registered voters proposing to adopt one of the alternative methods of electing governing board members. [EC 5020(c)]
    2. Prior to placing the issue on the ballot, the county committee may call and conduct one or more public hearings on the matter. [EC 5020(c)]
    3. Proposal is placed on the ballot at the next succeeding regularly scheduled election at which the electors of the district are otherwise entitled to vote, provided that there is sufficient time to place the issue on the ballot. [EC 5020(c)]
    4. If a majority of those voting approve a proposal to increase the number of members of the governing board, the two additional members of the board must be appointed by the governing board of the district. (EC 5022)
    5. If a majority of those voting approve a proposal to decrease the number of members of the governing board, the members would continue to serve out their terms. Seats would be eliminated as terms expire, but terms must be staggered. (EC 5021)
    Note 1: The Education Code does not explicitly state whether the selection of alternative methods of electing governing board members, under Method 1, is required to go to an election or is effectuated for the next board election. It is the opinion of the California Department of Education that an election is required for the following reasons: (1) Method 2 requires an election, (2) Section 5020 contains ballot language for alternative methods of selecting governing board members, and (3) Section 5030 removes the election requirement, specifically in small counties, for county committee proposals for alternative methods of selecting governing board members (i.e., if an election requirement did not exist, there would be no need to remove it under these conditions). Flowchart F and this Quick Reference Chart reflect the opinion that alternative election methods must be presented to voters in both Method 1 and Method 2. However, it is recommended that legal counsel be consulted when county committees approve proposals for alternative methods of selecting governing board members.
    Note 2: Method 1 does not apply to a school district governed by a board of education provided for in the charter of a city or city and county.

    B. Process: Quick-Reference Chart 10.6
    ESTABLISHMENT OR ABOLISHMENT
    OF COMMON GOVERNING BOARDS
    (Refer to Flowchart G)
    1. County committee receives request/initiates action to establish or abolish a common governing board for a high school district and an elementary school district within the boundaries of the high school district. (EC 5019)
    2. County committee calls and conducts at least one public hearing in the district on the matter. (EC 5019)
    3. At the conclusion of the hearing, the county committee approves or disapproves the proposal. (EC 5019)
    4. Proposal is placed on the ballot at the next succeeding regularly scheduled election at which the electors of the district are otherwise entitled to vote, provided there is sufficient time to place the issue on the ballot. [EC 5020(d)]

    B. Process: Quick-Reference Chart 10.7
    REARRANGEMENT OF TRUSTEE AREAS BASED ON
    FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS
    (Refer to Flowchart H)
    1. School and community college districts in which trustee areas have been established and in which each trustee is elected by the residents of the area he/she represents must rearrange the trustee area boundaries before March 1 of the year following the year in which the results of each decennial census are released. (EC 5019.5)
    Note: If the school or community college district fails to adjust the boundaries before the deadline date, the county committee must do so before April 30 of the same year. (All costs incurred by the county committee in adjusting the boundaries must be reimbursed by the school district.) (EC 5019.5)
    2. A copy of the map outlining the rearranged trustee areas and a legal written description describing the boundaries of the trustee areas must be submitted to the county superintendent of schools and the registrar, recorder, or county clerk. (EC 5031)


    C. Legal Provisions: Supporting Actions
    1. Trustee Areas/Trustee Membership/Methods of Election/Common Governing Boards
    a. Powers of the County Committee. Except for a school district or community college district governed by a board of education provided for in the city/county charter, the county committee has the power to:
    i. Create/abolish trustee areas. (EC 5019)
    ii. Rearrange trustee areas. (EC 5019)
    iii. Increase/decrease the number of members of the governing board from five to seven or seven to five, respectively. (EC 5019)
    iv. Readjust boundaries of trustee areas based on the decennial federal census. (EC 5019.5)
    v. Adopt one of the alternative methods of electing governing board members. (EC 5019, 5030)
    vi. Establish or abolish a common governing board for a high school district and an elementary school district within the boundaries of the high school district.
    Any of the processes noted above, except for item (iv), may be initiated by:
    i. County committee
    ii. Resolution of the governing board of the district
    iii. Petition
    (a) Signed by 5 percent or 50, whichever is less, of the qualified registered voters residing in a district in which there are 2,500 or fewer qualified registered voters;
    or
    (b) Signed by 2 percent or 250, whichever is less, of the qualified registered voters residing in a district in which there are 2,501 or more qualified registered voters
    iv. Petition containing at least 10 percent of the signatures of the district’s registered voters, except for items (ii) and (vi) cited above (in addition to item [iv] as cited previously) (EC 5020)
    Note: The number of qualified registered voters is based on the most recent report submitted by the county clerk to the Secretary of State under Section 2187 of the Elections Code.
    b. Elections in Chartered Cities or Districts. In the State of California, several school districts are governed by the charter of a city. In these districts, the charter provisions for the method of election of governing boards, membership of governing boards, and trustee areas prevail. (EC 5019, 5220)
    Whenever the charter of a city fails to provide for the manner in which, the times at which, or the terms for which the members of the city board of education will be elected or appointed, or for their qualifications or removal, or for the number that shall constitute such board, the Education Code sections relating to these matters must apply. (EC 5222)
    c. Procedures and Time lines. Once the county committee has received a proposal, it is required to call and conduct at least one public hearing in the district (no legal time frame specified for conducting hearing). Subsequent to the hearing, the county committee must either approve or disapprove the proposal. (Note: The county committee is not required to conduct a public hearing on a petition signed by 10 percent of the qualified registered voters in the school district.) (EC 5019, 5020)
    The subsequent action of the committee to approve a proposal varies, depending on the type of proposal presented to the county committee. For example, approval of the rearrangement of trustee area boundaries requires no further action (unless a petition requesting an election is received), whereas approval of other proposals constitutes an order of election. Additionally, there are instances in which the proposal goes to election automatically without any prior approval by the county committee.
    Depending on the type of proposal, any measure that must go to election must be placed on the ballot for an election not later than the next succeeding election for the members of the governing board, the next succeeding statewide primary or general election, or the next regularly scheduled election at which the electors of the district are entitled to vote, provided that there is sufficient time to place the issue on the ballot. (The county superintendent of schools must order the election at least 120 days prior to the election date.) (EC 5019, 5020)
    i. Creation or Abolishment of Trustee Areas or Increase or Decrease in the Number of Governing Board Members (See Flowchart G)
    The resolution of the county committee to establish/abolish trustee areas or to increase/decrease the number of trustees on a governing board constitutes an order of election, which must take place not later than the next succeeding election for members of the governing board. (EC 5020) For a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the district’s registered voters requesting an election on a proposal to establish/abolish trustee areas or to increase/decrease the number of trustees on a governing board, the proposal must be presented to the electors of the district at the next succeeding regularly scheduled election, provided that there is sufficient time to place the measure on the ballot. (EC 5020)
    Whenever trustee areas are established in a district, provision must be made for one of the alternative methods of electing governing board members. (EC 5030)
    If the number of members of a governing board is increased from five to seven, the two additional members of the board must be appointed by the governing board of the district, with the term of one of the appointees to expire on the first Friday in December of the next succeeding odd-numbered year and the term of the other appointee to expire on the first Friday in December of the second succeeding odd-numbered year. (EC 5022)
    For each proposal there must be a separate proposition on the ballot. If more than one proposal appears on the ballot, all must carry in order for any to become effective. The exception to this is a proposal to adopt one of the methods of election of board members pursuant to Education Code Section 5030, which has been approved; it shall become effective unless a proposal inconsistent with that proposal has been approved by a greater number of voters. (EC 5020)
    ii. Rearrangement of Trustee Areas (See Flowchart G)
    County committee approval of the rearrangement of trustee areas becomes effective at future elections occurring at least 120 days after the approval, unless at least 5 percent of the registered voters of the district sign a petition requesting an election. The petition must be submitted to the elections official within 60 days after the adoption of the proposal by the county committee. (EC 5019)
    Whenever trustee areas are rearranged in a district, provision may be made for one of the alternative methods of electing trustees. (EC 5030)
    iii. Rearrangement of Trustee Areas Based on Federal Decennial Census (See Flowchart H)
    The governing board of each school or community college district in which trustee areas have been established and in which each trustee is elected by the residents of the area he/she represents (commonly referred to as a “ward” system) must adjust the boundaries of each trustee area so that each trustee area represents as close to the same proportion of registered voters as possible. (In multimember trustee areas, the proportion of population of each trustee area must be adjusted so that the number of trustees representing each trustee area is proportionate to the total number of trustees of the governing board.) The governing board must use the decennial federal census data and population figures validated by the Population Research Unit of the California Department of Finance as a basis. (EC 5019.5)
    The rearrangement of boundaries must be completed by March 1 of the year following the release of the decennial federal census. County committee approval is not required when the district completes the realignment of its boundaries prior to March 1.
    If a governing board fails to comply with the March 1 deadline, the county committee must comply before April 30 of the same year. The governing board of the school or community college district failing to comply must reimburse the county committee for all reasonable costs associated with realigning the boundaries.
    Note: The above provisions do not apply to multiple campus community college districts with campuses in more than one county or to school and community college districts governed by a city charter. (EC 5019.7)
    iv. Alternative Methods of Electing Governing Board Members (See Flowchart G)
    In any school or community college district that has trustee areas, Education Code Section 5030 provides that the county committee may at any time recommend one of the following alternative methods of electing governing board members:
    That each member of the governing board be elected by the registered voters of the entire district;

    That one or more members residing in each trustee area be elected by the registered voters of that particular trustee area (commonly referred to as a “ward” system); or

    That each governing board member be elected by the registered voters of the entire school or community college district but that the member resides in the trustee area which he or she represents.

    The recommendation shall provide that any affected incumbent member must serve out his or her term of office and that succeeding members must be nominated and elected in accordance with the method recommended by the county committee. (EC 5021)
    In a county with a population of less than 25,000, the county committee may, at any time, by resolution, with respect to trustee areas established for any school district other than a community college district, amend the provision for election, without additional approval by the electors, to require the use of one of the alternative methods of electing board members. (EC 5030)
    v. Establishment or Abolishment of Common Governing Boards (See Flowchart G)
    A county committee also has the authority to establish or abolish a common governing board for a high school district and an elementary school district within the boundaries of the high school district. The proposal, if approved by the county committee, shall be presented to the electors of the school district at the next succeeding regularly scheduled election at which the electors of the district are entitled to vote, provided that there is sufficient time to place the issue on the ballot. (EC 5019, 5020)
    vi. Other Changes: Trustees and Trustee Areas
    (a) Annexation. Whenever an elementary, high, or unified school district or a portion of any such district is annexed to another school district in which trustee areas have been established, the county committee must study and make recommendations on trustee areas of the annexing district as enlarged. The county committee must call and conduct a hearing in the district on the matter. The recommendation of the county committee constitutes an order of election and, if approved by the electors, must become effective on the same date that the reorganized district becomes effective. (EC 5023)
    Note: The county committee may provide for the election of trustees, pursuant to its recommendation to rearrange trustee areas of a district (above), to be held at the same time as the election to effect a change in trustee areas. (EC 5024).
    (b) Decreasing Number of Representatives in Trustee Areas. (Note: This provision applies only in conjunction with Education Code sections 5023 and 5024.) If an election is held pursuant to Education Code Section 5020 and there are trustee areas having more than their allotted number of representatives in the membership of the governing board for the next succeeding school year, the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction shall determine by lot which board members must relinquish their offices either immediately upon the election and qualification of the governing board members who were elected as provided in Education Code Section 5024 or on the first day of April next succeeding the election establishing trustee areas in the district, whichever is the later. (EC 5025)
    Members elected to fill vacancies created pursuant to Education Code Section 5025 shall serve out the unexpired term of the office that was terminated. The county committee must designate by lot for each newly formed trustee area the expiring term of office for which a member must be elected. (EC 5026)
    (c) Membership from Supervisorial Districts: County High School District Coterminous with County. Whenever the boundaries of a county high school district are coterminous with the boundaries of a county, the board must consist of one member from each supervisorial district in the county elected at large from the district. (EC 5027)
    (d) Membership from Community College Districts Having Five Wards. In community college districts that were divided into five wards on or before September 7, 1955, one member of the board must be elected from each ward by the registered voters of the ward. On or before January 1 of a fiscal year, the governing board of the district may rearrange the boundaries of the wards to provide for representation in accordance with population and geographic factors or may abolish the wards. (EC 5028)
    (e) Conformance with Precinct Boundaries. When a community college trustee ward boundary line falls upon an election precinct boundary line, and such election precinct boundary line is changed (pursuant to Section 12200 et seq. of the Elections Code), the governing board of the district must, at least 120 days prior to any trustee election, change such ward boundary line to conform to election precinct boundary lines, where possible. (EC 5029)
    (f) Transfer of Territory to District Having Trustee Areas. Whenever territory is transferred to another district that has trustee areas, the territory being transferred must become a part of the trustee area to which it is contiguous. If the territory is contiguous to more than one trustee area, the transfer agreement may contain provisions indicating the division of the territory among the contiguous trustee areas. (EC 35544)
    (g) Reorganization Proposal Containing Plans for Trustee Areas. If the reorganization plan contains a proposal for trustee areas, such proposal must be considered a part of the reorganization proposition to be voted upon, and the ballot shall include wording to that effect. (EC 35734, 35762)
    (h) Incumbent Governing Board Members to Serve Out Terms. If trustee areas are established, any affected board member must serve out his or her term of office. Succeeding board members must be nominated and elected according to the method of election and provisions specified in Education Code Section 5030. If two or more trustee areas are established at an election in which there will be no incumbent board member residing after the next election, the county committee must determine by lot the trustee area from which the nomination and election for the next vacancy on the governing board will be made.
    If trustee areas are rearranged and the boundary change affects the board membership, any affected incumbent board member must serve out his or her term, and succeeding board members shall be nominated and elected according to the method of election and provisions specified in Education Code Section 5030.
    If trustee areas are abolished, the incumbent board members must serve out their terms of office, and succeeding board members must be nominated and elected at large from the district.
    (i) Trustee Area Boundary Requirements. The county superintendent of schools must prepare and keep in his or her office a map showing the boundaries of all trustee areas of the districts under his or her jurisdiction and also a record of all actions taken by the county committee in connection with trustee area boundaries. (EC 5031)
    2. Trustee Areas; County Boards of Education. A county board of education must have either five or seven members to be determined by the county committee. Each member of the board must be an elector of the trustee area that he or she represents and must be elected by the electors of the trustee area. (EC 1000)
    In chartered counties, the county charter or the county board of supervisors must prescribe the manner of determining trustee areas for the county board of education. (EC 1000)
    Note: The county charter, if one exists, needs to be checked to determine whether it contains provisions prescribing the methods of establishing trustee areas, rearranging boundaries of trustee areas, or increasing or decreasing the number of members of the county board of education.
    In a county unified school district or in a unified or elementary school district that includes all the territory over which a county superintendent of schools has jurisdiction, the governing board of the district must serve as the county board of education. (EC 1000)
    Upon being so requested by the county board of education, the county committee, by a two-thirds vote of its members, may either change the boundaries of any or all of the trustee areas of the county or propose to increase or decrease the number of members of the county board of education or both. The areas must be as nearly equal in population as is practicable. Proposals must be made in writing and filed with the county board of supervisors not later than the first day of March. When the election of members of county boards of education is required to be held on the same date as that prescribed for the election of members of governing boards of school districts (as provided for in EC 1007), the county committee must fix the boundaries of trustee areas to coincide with the boundaries of school districts, where possible. If the trustee areas are coterminous with those of the supervisorial districts of the county, the election of members of the county board of education must be consolidated with the countywide election. (EC 1002)
    When a county committee proposes to reduce from seven to five or increase from five to seven the number of board members, the county committee must call and conduct a hearing on the matter. At the conclusion of the hearing, the county committee must, by resolution, approve or disapprove the proposal. (EC 1003)
    The resolution of the county committee approving a reduction or increase in the number of board members must constitute an order of election to be conducted not later than the next succeeding election for members of the board. (EC 1004)
    The boundaries of any trustee area must not be changed at any time to affect the term of office of any member of the county board of education who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired. (EC 1005)

    Tuesday, August 21, 2007

     

    eLECTION Watch 2007

    Florice Hoffman still running… somewhere in OUSD
    Arianna Barrios joins Recall race against Steve Rocco


    On June 21st, 2007 the LIBERAL OC blog site announced the candidacy of Florice Hoffman for the OUSD School Board and posted an invitation for a fundraiser for the local labor activist. This started a flurry of speculation on which seat Hoffman was seeking (see links below). Hoffman responded in an email that same day to an Orange Net News inquiry about what OUSD seat she was running for as follows:

    “I am waiting to see how the recall signature effort goes as I am planning on challenging Rocco.
    Words cannot express my frustration with his tenure.
    From teacher pay to class size reduction to facilities to NCLB, Rocco has missed major opportunities to improve education and our district. When I think about how he wastes time speaking about conspiracies instead of improving education all I can do is roll my eyes and shake my head in frustration. He is a distraction and a detriment to public education.”


    However, there was a problem with a Hoffman vs. Rocco race. OUSD has a Trustee Area Residency Rule which mandates a trustee must live in the Trustee Area they represent. Rocco represents Trustee Area 6, far from where Hoffman lives.

    On June 22nd, Hoffman responding to an inquiry from the OC Blog writes:

    1. I have to move if I run.
    2. My sons do not graduate from Canyon High School until June, 2008
    3. I am an employment attorney, run my own business and not a layer [sic].
    4. I am committed to public education and making sure that OUSD has great and safe schools.
    5. I do no find all this blogging constructive. I am too busy raising my children, working and making Orange County a better place to live.

    Thank you,
    Florice Hoffman


    Fast forward to this week, the Liberal OC blog published a post from Andrew Davey (a member of the Board of Directors of the Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club of Orange County) asking for support of Hoffman and he included the following email from Florice Hoffman:

    “I want to work to bring OUSD students smaller class sizes, computers and updated facilities. I believe OUSD students and families deserve year round leadership from school trustees dedicated to improving education.

    With over 40 schools, OUSD must work to ensure parents and teachers are supporting students and creating a safe learning environment upon which our students can build a life. I know tomorrow’s doctors, nurses, firemen, architects, and business owners , as well as today’s coaches, parents and neighbors need our schools to be the best they can be.

    I also know meaningful educational change requires sacrifice and leadership. I believe I have the leadership OUSD students and families deserve. As a parent, PTA volunteer, local business owner and attorney, my experience and education will guide my stewardship of the OUSD.

    Your contribution of$100, or $50 or $25 to my campaign for OUSD will help me bring community based leadership to our students, our schools and our community.”


    In the Greater Orange Communities, OUSD completely encompasses the cities of Villa Park and Orange as well as also serving the enormous Anaheim Hills area in the City of Anaheim. In addition OUSD serves portions of west Garden Grove and northern Santa Ana as well as the various communities of the Orange Hills and eastward. The diversity of the communities with different populations, wealth, education, and political involvement all combined to result in a Trustee Area Residency Rule when OUSD was formed from independent local districts. The rule mandates a trustee must live in the Trustee Area they are elected to represent, but they are elected by the whole district. The rule has served its purpose to insured equal representation from across the Greater Orange Communities to the OUSD Board. The rule has also served the original purpose of preventing activists from one part of the district in dominating the OUSD Board and ignoring other less influential areas. In addition, while various dominate majorities have in turn captured five of the seven OUSD trustee seats; the rule has prevented a unanimous slate of ideologues (from the right or the left) from capturing all seven seats and running the district in Closed Session meetings. The one or two minority members among these majorities have always served as a small check and many times like now, a constant irritant to the controlling OUSD majority, but also has served to ensure robust diverse airing of viewpoints.

    Ending the Trustee Residency Rule has always been appealing to the controlling majority members. Trustee Areas 2 and 6 have always been the hardest to recruit candidates to run. The former OUSD Trustee recalled ideologue Maureen Ashcroft was long rumored to maintain an apartment in Trustee Area 2 to qualify for the OUSD Board. In fact within a week of her recall, she had “moved” out. Ashcroft replacement, OUSD Trustee John Ortega had to also physically move into Trustee Area 2 (the timing was never brought under scrutiny) to be compliant with the Trustee Residency Rule.

    The Trustee Residency Rule apparently has now frustrated enough of both the liberal and conservative elements in OUSD political circles for an attempted change the rule from both sides of the political spectrum. Conservative Foothills Sentry columnist and local education activist Marjan Dunn has addressed changing the requirements in her The Orange Scene feature of the widely read monthly. The current five-member liberal dominated Godley Majority or the OUSD School Board is so frustrated with eccentric Trustee Steve Rocco that the OUSD Board may broach the issue of changing the Trustee Area Residency Rule when they take up possible Trustee Area boundary changes at the next OUSD School Board meeting August 23rd.

    For information on School District Reorganization CLICK ON:
    Metro TALK on Reorgainization

    Barrios vs. Rocco
    Speaking of Marjan Dunn, she also broke the news in her August 14th Foothills Sentry column that long time local activist Arianna Barrios has announced she will be a candidate for Rocco’s seat either in a Rocco Recall election, or when Rocco’s term expires in 2008. Barrios father Russell Barrios served two terms on the OUSD Board.

    Barrios has worked as a communications advisor for school districts across California after working with the California Department of Education in that department’s widely viewed failure at reorganizing the Compton Unified School District after an earlier pre-No Child Left Behind state takeover of the now still failing district.

    After briefly moving to Texas with her husband Brian Lockrie, the couple returned to California where Arianna became Director of Communications for the Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace. In 2002, Barrios led a network of grassroots players to take over the Central Orange County YWCA from the then Board of Directors after they decided to close the long time community organization Orange location. Barrios is also on the Board of Directors of the Community Foundation of Orange.


    FOR MORE INFORMATION


    LIBERAL OC announcement on
    HOFFMAN Liberal OC

    Orange Juice on Hoffman
    OJ on HOFFMAN

    LIBERAL OC: the Andrew Davey post
    DAVEY on HOFFMAN

    ORANGE NET NEWS on Florice Hoffman
    /O/N/N/ on HOFFMAN

    eLECTION Watch 2007 is produced by
    Orange Net News /O/N/N/

    Saturday, August 18, 2007

     

    A new salary to be approved for Orange Unified Superintendent:$240,236

    ORANGE Unified Schools INSIDE
    a news service of Orange Net News /O/N/N/
    Independent insight into OUSD

    A new salary to be approved for Orange Unified Superintendent:

    $240,236*

    * Plus 2% annual longevity raise; plus $2500.00 a year for his doctorate; plus the OUSD Board reserves the right to INCREASE the salary “from time to time”


    The Orange Unified School Board of Trustees are scheduled to approve a new pay hike at their August 23rd, 2007 meeting for Orange Unified Superintendent Dr. Thomas Godley. This new third amendment to Godley’s contract comes one week after the release of a disappointing California STAR testing reports for Orange Unified (CLICK ON: SPECIAL REPORT), and just 7 months after granting Godley a raise in the second contract amendment this January 2007.

    The August 23rd amendment surpasses all pervious OUSD Superintendent Contracts including the controversial eleventh hour “golden handshake” contract granted by the Recalled Orange Board to former Superintendent Barbara Van Otterloo. The Van Otterloo contract was rescinded by the newly elected OUSD Board immediately after they assumed office. The new Godley contract amendment grants a precedent shattering automatic 2% annual “longevity” raise (almost five thousand dollars next year) every year for the remainder of the contract. In addition, the contract grants Godley (a long time doctorial holder and former college professor) a yearly $2500.00 bonus for his doctorial status upping Godley’s total yearly salary to $242,736. It was unclear from the amendment (see Agenda page 37) the date when the 2% yearly raise takes effect. Several dates are mentioned in the amendment. Godley’s hire date October 21st is in the amendment, as is the original contract date of March 10th, and the retroactive effective date of July 1st for the pay hike amendment.

    When Godley became OUSD Superintendent, one of his early accomplishments was moving the top OUSD administrators from Board Approved public contracts (listed in the public agenda) to the regular OUSD Administrators Pay Matrix that included yearly longevity pay increases. Until now, the Superintendent was the only OUSD employee outside a yearly automatic pay raise and accountable to the OUSD Board and public scrutiny for any pay increase.

    Finally, the new Godley contract amendment states:

    “During the term of this Agreement, the Board of Education reserves the right to increase from time to time, and effective upon the date determined by the Board of Education, the salary payable to the Superintendent, dependent on the Superintendent’s performance and the financial condition of the District as determined by the Board of Education.”

    Godley has enjoyed widespread support from the five majority (nicknamed the Godley Majority) OUSD Board members: Kim Nichols, John Ortega, Kathy Moffat, Lissa Smith and Wes Poutsma. Trustee Rick Ledesma voted against Godley becoming OUSD Superintendent because the process was not open to a pool of candidates. Godley served as OUSD Assistant Superintendent and was recommended for the top post by former OUSD Superintendent Dr. Robert French. Ledesma, while staying on publicly courteous terms with Godley has also voted against pay raises for the Superintendent. Courteous is far from anything Trustee Steve Rocco and Godley had ever had between them. Godley rarely even acknowledges Rocco after initial exchanges between the two. In one locally famous instance that many see as the final straw, Rocco addressed the superintendent as Mr. Godley and repeating that salutation after being corrected it was “Dr. Godley”.

    Godley’s current contract is effective through June 20, 2009.

    TRUSTEE AREA CHANGE?
    Agenda Item 13 B on the August 23rd agenda is a discussion on possible changes in the OUSD Trustee Areas. The current Trustee Area system has 7 trustees elected by the whole district, but living in and representing one Trustee Area. The rational behind the proposal to rearrange the Trustee Areas is because of population shifts.

    Could this open a can of worms with the whole election process? The current system has made it difficult for total OUSD Board control with a unanimous school board. While recent OUSD Board philosophical/political splits have had solid majorities, they all have had pesky minorities: the Marty Jacobson Recalled Board with a 5-2 majority split; the Orange Recall winning Kathy Moffat/Lissa Smith Citizens Board (5-2); and the current Godley Majority Board (5-2). Also, the current system has made it difficult for Trustee Majorities to recruit in certain trustee areas.

    JULY 19th Meeting: Typically untypical
    OUSD Trustee Lissa Smith’s participation in the July 19th 2007 OUSD School Board Meeting by telephone from Purdue University in Indiana wasn’t the only typically untypical happening at the OUSD Board’s middle of the summer meeting. The traditionally short meeting was kept that way after OUSD Board President Kim Nichols called a recess after the still bandaged Trustee Steve Rocco (Santa Ana police have confirmed Rocco was attacked in Santa Ana last month) tried to talk about the current Recall attempt aimed at him.

    First Rocco discussed during the agenda’s Board Member Comments section his pending appeal of the lawsuit that was thrown out of court concerning the OUSD Censure of him. In that case he was ordered to pay the OUSD court costs amounting to $37,000. Rocco announced that his school board wage had been garnished by OUSD as well as a lien placed on his house. When then trying to move to the topic of the Recall, Nichols repeatedly told Rocco that the Recall was not OUSD business. When Rocco continued to insist it was, Nichols called a recess, which many mistook as adjournment. As Nichols banged her gavel for the recess, Rocco stated that OUSD Superintendent Godley was involved in the attack on Rocco. The Board later briefly reconvened from their recess to adjourn to a continued Closed Session.


    INSIDE the OUSD Agenda for August 23


    • Item 12 A and B: Approval of the agreement for renewal of the El Rancho Charter. Read the agreement on pages 22-33 of the Agenda.


    • Item 12 C: Superintendent’s Goals: with last meeting’s 4th Quarter Status Report on the 3 Year Strategic Plan all but abandoning a new OUSD Bond election anytime soon, Godley’s own Facilities goals are non-existent. See the 15 Godley goals (that’s over $16,000 a goal at Godley’s new salary) on Agenda page 37.

    • Item 13A: The can-be controversial Student Calendar proposals for the next 3 years (can be viewed on-line for all your vacation planning).

    INSIDE the OUSD Budget
    “We’re a $220 million dollar business; we’re going to spend the money somewhere.”
    -OUSD Trustee Wes Poutsma 9/22/05


    INSIDE’s EDUCATIONAL TAX DOLLARS WATCH 2007:
    $ 854,159.00 Total*
    2007 Consultant/ Speaker Fee Tally:
    3/8/07 Dr. Daggett Speaker Fee $ 9,000
    4/30/07 Debra Ford Speaker Fee $ 4,090
    4/30/07 Danny Brassell Speaker Fee $ 3,500
    Total $ 16,590

    2007 Attorney Fee Tally:
    1/18/07 Parker & Covert (1/07 to 6/07) $175,000
    2/08/07 Miller, Brown, and Dannis $ 7, 500
    2/22/07 Parker & Covert $ 45,000
    5/10/07 Miller, Brown and Dannis $ 50,000
    6/21/07 Miller, Brown and Dannis (pg 25) $ 75,000
    6/21/07 Parker & Covert (pg 25) $ 200,000
    6/21/07 Parker & Covert (pg 72) $ 150,000
    6/21/07 Atkinson, A.L.R and Romo (pg 72) $ 150,000
    Total $852, 500

    *2007 Administrative Conference/Travel: hidden since 6/8/06

    JUNE 8th, 2006 Trustees VOTE to Give OUSD Superintendent the power to APPROVE Travel Requests taking this item OUT of the PUBLIC AGENDA

    Total for Watched Tax Dollars approved in 2006: $ 849,717.00*
    2006 Consultant Fee Tally: Total $176,400
    2006 Attorney Fee Tally: Total Approved $655,000
    2006 Administrative Conference/Travel: Total $ 18,317 *

    * JUNE 8th, 2006 Trustees VOTE to Give OUSD Superintendent the power to
    APPROVE OUSD Travel Requests taking this item OUT of the PUBLIC AGENDA



    Total for Watched Tax Dollars approved in 2005: $978,300.00:
    Total 2005 Conference Administrator/Board Fees: $ 7,500.00
    2005 Attorney Fee Tally: $730,600.00
    Total Watched 2005 OUSD Consultant spending: $ 270,200.00
    Next OUSD Board Meeting Thursday June 7th, 2007.

    For more information
    CLICK ON: AUGUST 23 AGENDA




    OUSD CLOSED SESSION STARTS 6:30 PM on 6/21/07 Regular Session: 7:30 pm

    For more information call the OUSD Superintendent’s office at 714-628-4040
    For budgeting questions call Business Services at 714-628-4015


    ORANGE Unified Schools INSIDE Independent insight into OUSD
    is an independent news service of /O/N/N/
    Orange_NetNews@yahoo.com
    “Independent Local Insight”


    Ecast on the
    INTERNET COMMUNITY GROUP i/))) cg
    A 21st Century Communications System
    Produced by the
    Orange Communication System /OCS/

    Ecast on the
    Internet Community Group i/)))cg
    A 21st Century Communications System


    For more information on the current issues of defending media freedom in the electronic world visit:
    The ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION link at www.eff.org.

    Thursday, August 16, 2007

     

    STATE TESTING SCORES IN FOR ORANGE UNIFIED: What kind of American does OUSD produce?

    SPECIAL REPORT

    STATE TESTING SCORES IN FOR ORANGE UNIFIED:
    What kind of American does OUSD produce?



    “As our STAR results released today show, California schools have a long way to go to help all our students meet their full potential.” - from State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell 8/15/07 Press Release

    The California standardized S.T.A.R. testing results for the 2006-2007 school year have been released showing some state-wide gains with continuing disappointment in racial and social achievement testing gaps . While some bright spots and more frequent disappointments are found in the scores, despite millions and millions of educational tax dollars pumped by OUSD Bureaucrats into the failed consultant driven OUSD Focus on Results program, OUSD test results for the most part remained disappointing. True to Orange Unified Superintendent Dr. Thomas Godley’s assertion that while OUSD scores are going up, they are not going up fast enough to keep pace with stringent federal No Child Left Behind benchmarks, OUSD again saw a mixed bag of scores that overall continue to present a bleak picture in key testing areas with what appears no successful plan to address the failures in place.

    OUSD: A FAILED FOCUS?
    While OUSD is unique in Orange County for the huge commitment of educational resources to the much maligned OUSD Focus on Results program (the program at one time was compared by a top OUSD Administrator as akin to “marriage encounter training”), the program has no proven impact on OUSD’s testing results. The 2006-2007 S.T.A.R. testing results again appear to show OUSD Focus on Results program, infamous for its waste of money, staff time, and focus on unproven approaches (i.e. teams of administrators and teachers leaving their workplace to visit classrooms for 5 minutes to do bulletin board checks to see posted student work), again did not produce scores that in anyway outshine districts that have not invested millions of educational tax dollars in wasteful hocus-pocus bureaucratic programs.

    In addition, community watchdogs point out that OUSD’s Focus on Results does not Focus on OUSD. In particular OUSD is a perfect example of California’s struggle with the “achievement gap”. OUSD’s Focus on Results has ignored and failed to address the locally well known “55 divide” effect (schools east of the 55 Orange Freeway in OUSD continue to outperform schools west of the 55 Freeway) that has racial, social and economic overtones associated with the state-wide testing scores “achievement gap”.

    When will OUSD Administrators
    FOCUS on AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP ?

    Furthermore, the “focus” of OUSD’s Focus on Results has produced an artificially imposed district-wide ill defined focus that has taken away from many of the real educational tasks at hand. Case in point is the dismal eleventh grade United States History Scores that shows OUSD is failing at the American enculturation of a generation of local students. In OUSD, only 38% of the soon-to-be legal adults have acquired enough knowledge of the United States to score Proficient or Above in the eleventh grade standards (meaning 62% scored non-Proficient in the state standards; 30% of those non-Proficient students are Below and Far/Below in the U.S. History standards testing). Those standards include an understanding of the following: the philosophy of the founding of the U.S. Government (Standard 11.1); industrialization and immigration (11.2); the role of religion in moral, social and political context (11.3); the rise of the U.S. as the only Superpower (11.4); understanding of the Great Depression and the New Deal (11.6); the U.S. role in World War II (11.7); civil rights and voting (11.10); modern social problems including drug abuse, immigration, out-of-wedlock births (11.12).

    El Modena H.S. was the only OUSD high school with a bare majority of 11th graders (56%) scoring Proficient or Above in the U.S. History Testing, but still, over a quarter of the students scored Below/Far below Basic in their testing (26%). Also of note in the U.S. History Testing: Richland Continuation H.S.-93% failed to score Proficient or Above in state U.S. History standards testing; Orange H.S.- 77% failed to score Proficient or Above in state U.S. History standards testing.

    The following chart outlines the OUSD U.S. History scores:

    OUSD SCORES: US HISTORY Grade 11
    OUSD district percentage Proficient and ADVANCED scores:
    38% of students

    OUSD district percentage of NON- Proficient scores:
    62% of students

    OUSD district percentage BELOW BASIC and FAR BELOW BASIC:
    30% of students

    U.S. History Scores by High Schools:

    Richland H.S.
    Proficient or Advanced 7%
    non-Proficient 93%
    Below/Far Below Basic 73%

    Orange H.S.
    Proficient or Advanced 23%
    non-Proficient 77%
    Below/Far Below Basic 40%

    Villa Park H.S.
    Proficient or Advanced 46%
    non-Proficient 54%
    Below/Far Below Basic 21%

    Canyon H.S.
    Proficient or Advanced 47%
    non-Proficient 53%
    Below/Far Below Basic 23%

    El Modena
    Proficient or Advanced 56%
    non-Proficient 44%
    Below/Far Below Basic 26%

    Mixed Results with OUSD “Focus” on Basics
    While districts with testing problems like to compare themselves to the much lower state-wide testing results that are impacted by scores from giant urban district’s like Oakland Unified and Los Angeles Unified, when comparing OUSD STAR scores to overall Orange County scores a true picture emerges of the continuing OUSD testing problems compared to the county gains.

    In OUSD math score comparisons of grades 2-7 with Orange County scores had OUSD equaling the Orange County Proficient or Above scores in only the 2nd grade level (64% scored Proficient or Above). All other OUSD grade levels were lower than the Orange County percentages. OUSD 4th graders tied the state-wide 56% Proficient or Above (seven points below the Orange County 63% mark) and only 48% of OUSD 5th graders scored Proficient or Above, below the state by 1 % point (State 49%) and Orange County by 3% (OC 51%).

    OUSD MATH SCORES: grades 2-7
    OUSD Grade Levels with scores BELOW or EVEN with Orange County % averages
    (Percentage of students at the PROFIECENT or ADVANCED levels)

    2nd
    OUSD % 64%
    OC % 64%
    Difference SAME


    3rd
    OUSD %60%
    OC % 63%
    Difference -3%


    4th
    OUSD % 56%
    OC % 63%
    Difference -7% (OUSD TIED state average at 56%)


    5th
    OUSD % 48%
    OC % 51%
    Difference -3 (OUSD BELOW state average 49%)


    6th
    OUSD %49%
    OC %51%
    Difference -2%

    7th
    OUSD %45%
    OC %47%
    Difference -2%


    The brightest spot in the OUSD scores were in the English standards in grades 2-11. Only four grades were the same or below Orange County Proficient or Above scores, while six grades beat the Orange County average by of two percentage points. OUSD Ninth graders scored the highest with 60% scoring Proficient or Above. That left leaving 40% of the OUSD ninth graders non-proficient in the ninth grade state English standards.

    OUSD ENGLISH SCORES: grades 2-11
    OUSD Grade Levels with scores BELOW or EVEN with Orange County percent averages
    (Percentage of students at the PROFIECENT or ADVANCED levels)

    GRADE
    2nd
    OUSD 54%
    OC 55%
    Difference -1%


    4th
    OUSD 58%
    OC 58%
    Difference Same


    6th
    OUSD 51%
    OC 52%
    Difference -1%

    11th
    OUSD 48%
    OC 48%
    Difference Same



    OUSD Grade Levels with scores ABOVE Orange County percent averages
    (Percentage of students at the PROFIECENT or ADVANCED levels)
    GRADE
    3rd
    OUSD 44%
    OC 43%
    Difference +2%


    5th
    OUSD 52%
    OC 51%
    Difference +1

    7TH
    OUSD 56%
    OC 55%
    Difference =2%

    8Th
    OUSD 52%
    OC 50%
    Difference +2%

    9th
    OUSD 60%
    OC 58%
    Difference +2%

    10th
    OUSD 51%
    OC 48%
    Difference +3%


    FOR COMPLETE 2006-2007 OUSD STAR TEST INFORMATION CLICK ON:
    OUSD STAR RESULTS

    This SPECIAL REPORT
    is a news production of ORANGE NET NEWS /O/N/N/

    Tuesday, August 07, 2007

     

    Orange Celebrates NATIONAL NIGHT OUT

    Orange Celebrates National Night Out
    Tuesday August 7th

    The Orange Police Department is hosting the 24th annual “National Night Out” on Tuesday, August 7 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Orange Target’s parking lot at 2191 N. Tustin Street. National Night Out is America’s evening
    against crime party.

    National Night Out is an annual national event designed to strengthen our neighborhoods and enhance police-community partnerships. The goal is to heighten crime and drug prevention awareness and build support for local anti-crime programs. This event is the perfect opportunity to get to know your neighbors. In addition, a prize will be given out to the neighborhood with the best attendance.

    Encourage your family, friends and neighbors to attend! For flyers to distribute in your neighborhood, please contact Orange Crime Prevention at (714) 744-7327 or (714) 744-7464 by July 23.

    Wednesday, August 01, 2007

     

    RECALL WARS



    SPECIAL REPORT


    a community service of the Orange Net News /O/N/N/

    Villa Park Recall Attempt sparks a
    Conservative Civil War


    Neighborly Villa Park, at one time a small basically one political party town, has been rocked by a Conservative Civil War between two groups of local and county conservatives. The latest twist in the battle for Villa Park is a July 13th letter from Dan Hess of the Orange County District Attorney’s Special Prosecution Office outlining the findings of the DA’s office in the allegations against recall target Villa Park City Council Member Deborah Pauly. The allegations that Pauly engaged in illegal electioneering are a key foundation of the recall effort and some supporters stated purpose to keep elections free and fair in Villa Park.

    Pauly supporters, including Tustin Attorney and Republican Activist Mark Bucher point to the letter as a vindication of Pauly and proof that the recall is sour grapes over a lost election. Writing for the OC BLOG, Bucher stated:

    The DA's findings simply confirm what most people already know - the recall is nothing more than a misguided effort by a few malcontents to get a "do-over" of an election that did not turn out the way they wanted.

    Recall supporters however have cried foul. They point out that the letter stated that Pauly was not “cleared” but that the DA’s letter states there was a lack of evidence of the allegations. Sources close to the recall have told ONN that eleven people wrote letters of complaint to the DA and further state that the DA did not interview all of them.

    In addition, pro-recall supporters claim that two witnesses claim Pauly was campaigning “within 10 feet” of a polling location while the DA’s letter states:
    “The witnesses could only describe general locations where Pauly was soliciting votes. In other words they were approximations”.

    Pro-recall supporters also point to Villa Park Elections inspector Bobbi Edison’s complaint to the Orange County Registrar of Voters Office as further evidence that the DA appears to dismiss. The DA’s letter addresses that issue as follows:

    “In addition, to your allegations, I was informed that in the evening of November 7, 2006 the Orange County Registrar of Voters Office received a complaint from Villa Park Elections Inspector Bobbi Edison. Ms. Edison reported that earlier that morning, City Council Candidate Deborah Pauly was soliciting votes near the City Hall polling place. Ms. Edison reported that she contacted Ms. Pauly and handled the situation. The Registrar of Voters Office noted the call but determined the matter was handled correctly and no further action was taken.”

    The DA’s letter also states that measurements were taken during it’s investigation. Pro- recall supporters state the DA letter states that some of those measurements show Pauly violating the 100 foot range of campaigning exclusion to a polling place. The July 13 latter states:

    “During our investigation, measurements were from the front door of the polling place to Pauly’s approximate locations. These distances ranged from slightly under 100’ to well over 100’, and simply could not be confirmed.”

    Two paragraphs later the letter continues to explain in conclusion:

    “It is important to note the fine line between legal and illegal activity under these circumstances. A person who stands 100’ from a polling place may legally and ethically solicit votes; yet this same activity becomes illegal and improper when the person simply takes a single step toward the polling entrance. Likewise, activity which is allowed every other day of the year becomes illegal only on Election Day. Thus, the evidence required to initiate the prosecution of this crime must be so precise as to the actions and distances involved that it completely eliminates the possibility of allowable activity. The evidence in this case does not meet that requirement”

    Those few feet may be difficult for observers outside of Villa Park to understand what the big deal is. In small town Villa Park some see those few feet equaling the very few 93 votes separating the three winners from the two losers as a very big deal. One very involved pro-recall supporter points to the above paragraph and states that the DA’s letter “leads one to believe that Pauly crossed this line but the DA refuses to do anything about this as the evidence, witness statements and all, are not ‘precise’ enough.”

    Some in the pro-recall committee see the Orange County Grand Jury as the next logical legal step as they continue to collect signatures on recall petitions. Meanwhile, they are quick to point out that they have over ½ of the required Recall Signatures and a little over a month to go to collect the rest.


    Special Reports are ecast over the Internet Community Group
    OrangeNetNews@verizon.net
    Local, Independent News and Viewpoints

    Ecast on the
    Internet Community Group i/)))cg
    A 21st Century Communications System


    For more information on the current issues of defending media freedom in the electronic world visit
    The ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION link: www.eff.org.

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    Greater Orange News Podcast subscibe or listen to reports CLICK HERE: