BOTA Pressures BOUSD Board.

Within a hour of Gail Lyons, Nicole Colon and Kerri Kropke storming out the BOUSD Board meeting Monday night, the BOTA/CTA shill Jim Rogers flooded Brea teachers with the message below.

Reading between the lines.

Hi BOTA Members,

Thank you SO much to everyone who attended and/or spoke at the board meeting this evening. We achieved our goal of packing the chambers and definitely made a statement. For those of you who were not there to witness it, the bond vote unfortunately failed. We cannot afford to lose momentum now.

Please read the following message from Jim Rogers, our CTA staff member for BOTA. Jim is also a teacher of many years and Brea resident, and he has our back! We must take action!

There is nothing on the BOTA website about this “demonstration” and no members vote was taken to ensure a consensus. When the “blue shirts” were commanded to stand by that Elmer Gantry on steroids, Joe Bartell, they did so with obvious hesitation.

Why? According to “blue shirts” that contacted us on the patio after the meeting and via email yesterday… BOTA members are as conflicted as the community at large, especially about the golden board perks.

Dear Members of BOTA,

Tonight’s School Board meeting did not go well for the children you serve, let alone your working conditions. A big thanks to everyone for wearing there BOTA shirts yesterday. For those members that were able to make the Board meeting last night, your presence was very important. Your strength as a unit comes when it’s time to stand together.

Tonight the Board failed to reach a super-majority to place a bond on the March ballot. This holds huge ramifications to BOTA members other than working in substandard classrooms and school sites overall.

Because of the age of the schools, plumbing and sewers, electrical, plaster and paint, roofing, and so much more updating is greatly needed. Too many classrooms have been displaced over the years. This is the obvious need for a bond.

What you don’t think of right away is the other complications that will come without a bond. Fixing the problems that pop up each year drains the General Fund of the monies that provide your wages, health benefits, and retirement payments. When any new monies are needed to fix breaks at the aging sites, there is less left to provide raises and enhancements to benefits.

BOUSD has $38,000,000 now to fix any of these items!

A bond must be passed in order for your bargaining team to be able to make agreements that improve your standing.

This is the union’s entire interest in this, not teachers or students, but in maintaining the union’s power.

It’s time for BOTA to show Carrie Flanders it’s strength! Paul Ruiz has been against the last three bond measures, and therefore we must not waste our energy on him, (at least until he runs for re-election.)

So, the union wants to bully Carrie… remember that folks!

Carrie and Paul both want a bond! They also want a board that isn’t taking money from students or is compromised by their need to perpetuate personal benefits.

The November Board meeting will be Monday, November 18, 2019, at 6:30 p.m.

WE NEED EVERY MEMBER TO SAVE THIS DATE!

Your strength in numbers will be needed to pass the bond, however, we must show Carrie Flanders that you have the strength to make it happen.

I wonder if Gail Lyons will make a copy of this message and, with tear filled eyes and quaking voice, wave it at the next meeting as another example of bullying?

Monday night she overlooked the message sent to parents during the campaign for Measure K to boycott downtown businesses – a clear attempt at bullying.

We need at least 150 members to show up at the November 18th Board meeting. Your presence alone will do the trick, but it’s appropriate for anyone who would like to speak also. (Speaking is not an expectation.)

Parading 150 red shirted teachers around (better than brown shirts) will do little to advance their cause… union power. Recent polls suggest roughly 80% of Brea voters support rescinding health insurance subsidies before working out the details of a school bond and putting it on the ballot.

That’s 120X your little band of red shirts. Get rid of the golden perk and Brea voters are inclined to support a well designed school bond.

We are going to wear RED FOR ED November 18th! We are then going to turn the Boardroom RED!!!

Again, thank you for your participation thus far, but please know how important it is that you turn out for this Board meeting! 150 strong!

Sincerely,

Jim Rogers

CTA Regional Uniserv Staff for BOTA

BOTA is expecting defeat.

This communication was written BEFORE the board meeting, evidence of the foreknowledge of their weak position. They anticipated defeat and played right into their own shortcomings. Brea teachers and parents, for the most part, are too smart to fall for their strategy of intimidation and misinformation.

“An Open Letter To BOUSD From Dwight Manley”

 

Tiered Water Rates – Part 1.

For almost two weeks before Brea Council’s August 20 meeting, I had been trying to find out if the San Juan Capistrano suit regarding tiered water rates and their non-compliance with Proposition 218 would impact Brea. I even emailed City Attorney Markman, who cut his teeth on water issues and enjoys quite a reputation in that area, for his opinion… and got no response.

Instead, at the end of last Tuesday’s meeting (when most people had been bored to tears and turned channel 3 off), Markman casually tossed out this “opinion” in an effort to wave off any possible inquiry from residents.

Capistrano Taxpayers challenge the city’s tiered water rates.

Markman, did acknowledge a “significant lawsuit” potentially effecting Brea and many California cities who have implemented tiered water rates. On Friday July 29, 2013 the Capistrano Taxpayers Association (CTA) and the City of San Juan Capistrano faced-off in Superior Court to decide whether the City of San Juan Capistrano was out of compliance with the restrictions imposed by Proposition 218 (passed in 1996).

As with most laws, Proposition 218 is mired down in legalese and, especially for the layman, is difficult to whittle down to the basic facts. Suffice it to say, Prop 218 was an effort to curtail bureaucrats looking for ways to raise revenues while avoiding Proposition 13’s restrictions. Shut off one faucet and the bureaucrats find another one to open… in this case tiered water rates.

Using conservation as an excuse to impose another tax.

jmarkman_bMarkman suggests that it was Brea’s intention to increase the per unit cost of water in an attempt to discourage users from squandering water. Prop 218 prohibits this, requiring rates to be tied directly to the cost of delivery.

His hinting at the silly notion of having to create 15,000 individual rates and the possible loss of Lifeline and Senior Citizen subsidies is worse than a smokescreen. It struck me as wholly unfounded gibberish designed to scare Brean’s away from sticking around to hear the truth when it finally emerges.

In 2006, Brea’s initial two tiered rate structure was concocted by a consultant; in 2009 Brea adopted a three tiered rate structure, again dreamed up by a consultant.

I’m still trying to determine if we’re talking about one or two consultant firms here. I have a somewhat complex CPRA request submitted, hoping to pull a few facts out from under the rug at city hall. Do stay tuned.

A few serious questions from the policy wonk in me.

In 2006, 10 years after Prop 218 became law, how many of those involved in implementing Brea’s non-complying water rates understood they were breaking the law?

Did the City Attorney, who’s professional resume is likely unequaled in the state when it comes to water issues, forget to mention to Council that their vote for tiered water rates may come back to haunt them one day?

Did the consulting firms accidentally or conveniently exclude any mention of Prop 218 in their recommendations to staff and Council? If so, would this lift the “intellectual property” protection on their calculations and other work property making them available through the California Public Records Act?

Did staff have knowledge of Prop 218 and it’s limitations? Were their reports remiss in giving Council a full and complete set of facts upon which to make their decision?

Wouldn’t be the first time. Remember when Council accidentally gave themselves raises only having to rescind them later due to public pressure? Remember, just a couple of weeks ago, when Council had to retroactively approve a $3.4 million purchase of water rights made by staff without proper authorization?

Will the swallows come back to Capistrano?

I’ve made inquiry to the Capistrano Taxpayers Association for their assessment of whatever appellate actions may still be in process. Their own communications indicate taking a wait-and-see attitude, though their spirits seem quite high. They believe that, sooner or later, the Appellate Court will uphold their claims.

Tonto_1Still, I would like to get to the bottom of Markman’s rather cryptic comment, “We’ve been waiting for this for a long time.”

What do you mean “we” Kemosabe?

Are you including Council? The consultants? Who has known that this could blow up in our faces and for how long?

Was there really a conscious disregard for the law or are Brea taxpayers, once again, witnessing wholesale corporate stupidity in action?