Grossmont Union has a contract with voters
I understand and share the frustration of Ami Adkins regarding the bond expenditures in the Grossmont Union High School District (“District should fix existing schools first,” East County Letters, Feb. 1). However, I am in favor of a new 12th high school. Both the upgrades to the heating, ventilation and air conditioning and the 12th school were included in the language of the bond passed in March 2004.
|
Write us
The San Diego Union-Tribune welcomes letters to the editor. Because of the number of letters received, and to allow as many readers as possible to be published, it is the policy of the newspaper to publish no more than one letter from the same author within 120 days. Letters may be edited. It is also our policy to publish letters supporting or opposing a particular issue in a ratio reflecting the number received on each side.
To be considered for publication, a letter must include an address, daytime phone number and, if faxed or mailed, be signed. It may be sent to Letters Editor, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Post Office Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, faxed to (619) 260-5081 or e-mailed to
letters@uniontrib.com. Letters submitted may be used in print or in digital form in any publication or service authorized by the Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
|
|
Funds are not “being diverted” for the 12th high school. It is clearly stated in the bond that the school will be constructed from bond and matching state funds.
However, who is deciding the priorities of these projects? At the last Citizens Bond Oversight Committee meeting, reports and charts were distributed that showed $97,573 was spent on aquatic upgrades at Valhalla High School. I am personally not familiar with this high school but see that this is not even listed as a site need on the original Needs Assessment as currently posted on the GUHSD Web page.
The bond is a contract with the citizens who voted for and approved it as stated on the ballot.
BARBARA LOWE
Alpine
At a Grossmont Union High School District planning meeting and workshop Saturday, Bob Kiesling, executive director of facilities management, and Scott Patterson, deputy superintendent of business services, spoke out in favor of delaying the 12th high school construction project.
However, they were not at all persuasive with their arguments or justifications. Very little tangible or substantive data was presented to back up their reasoning for not moving forward with the new high school, funded by the passage of Proposition H in 2004. We in the Alpine area must help by assisting GUHSD's board, and determining the substantive data.
Those who attended an earlier Citizens Bond Oversight Committee meeting on Jan. 31 were led to believe that this workshop would provide substantial details about building the 12th high school. It did not.
We expected information explaining how each of the top four sites stacked up against California's School Site Selection and Approval Guide's requirements. The board directed the district administration and its consultant to do so last summer when the Alpine High School Citizen's Committee presented the top four sites, as determined by a community survey. Alarmingly, we did not get this information.
Board members were equally disappointed by the void of helpful details. Member Dick Hoy was very vocal about the lack of substance and specific data in the presentation by the staff and administration. Trustees Larry Urdahl and Priscilla Schreiber were equally frustrated at the lack of detail provided.
We left Saturday's session with very little accurate or helpful information about the process that would enable the construction of the new high school to go forward, as called for in Proposition H.
Where do we go from here? How do we assist the GUHSD governing board to get the information it needs? How do we engage oversight committee members who we expect to be responsible for overseeing the spending of Proposition H money?
We must demonstrate our support and resolve to the original bond measure's explicit language relating to constructing a 12th high school, and make sure board member Urdahl's desire for a board-sanctioned study commission comes to be.
If approved, President Schreiber will appoint the commission members. They will concentrate their efforts in three areas, curriculum and facilities; site selection, and finance. This commission, to be composed of experts and Alpine community representatives, will work with the district business manager and superintendent. The purpose of this commission will be to come up with recommendations enabling GUHSD to provide the community with the 12th high school.
We need your help, tonight and in the future. Information is available from www.ahscc.com.
BILL WEAVER
Chairman,
Alpine High School Citizens Committee
Species preservation concept explained
On behalf of the Alliance for Habitat conservation, we would like to offer our perspective on the recent editorial regarding Rancho Guejito (“Priceless treasure/ Public can buy vast North County rancho,” Jan. 16).
The alliance was formed nearly 20 years ago to promote the concept of multispecies planning and preservation. The resulting conservation program is a model for public-private environmental stewardship. Unfortunately, the basic premise of the program as a voluntary, incentive-driven partnership with the private sector appears to have been lost upon some of the same environmental groups who supported this effort in the late nineties. The call by them to force the owners of Rancho Guejito into a preserve system is an absolute violation of this program, regardless of the value of the land as open space.
The alliance is also concerned about your call for TransNet environmental monies to be used for acquiring the Rancho Guejito property. The alliance, as one of the key groups in support of the TransNet extension, strenuously disagrees that these monies should be spent outside of the existing preserve system. Spending all of the funds on one property, rather than completing the original preserve, would abrogate one of the criteria included in the implementing ordinance approved by the voters. It should not be spent to force an unwilling seller to the bargaining table. This would be a violation of the terms of the TransNet extension.
This is not to say that the alliance believes the owners of the property should be beyond environmental regulation. If they choose to move forward with annexation, or with any development either with the county or the city of Escondido, they would be subject to the same laws every other developer must comply with, including both the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts.
The Multispecies Conservation Program and its various incarnations in San Diego County were conceived as a public-private partnership, born out of the spirit of motivating good planning and avoiding fragmented habitat design. All of this was to be accomplished voluntarily and not through coercion. Any effort to force a property owner into a program or to expend public funds to acquire properties from unwilling sellers is in contradiction to this basic tenet.
BETH FISCHER
President
Alliance for Habitat Conservation
The benefits of community colleges
Regarding “Report: 2-year college paths fall short” (Local, Feb. 2):
I was appalled when I read the article regarding a report written about California community colleges by Nancy Shulock, a California State University Sacramento faculty member. She concludes that community colleges are failing to achieve their goals due to flawed state policies such as “open-door access” and “low fees.”
I'm a proud community college graduate and have dedicated my life to community college students as a counselor at Grossmont College. I'm proud that California community colleges have an open-door policy. I'm proud that California community colleges have been able to keep their fees low to make sure access is available to everyone.
The report is flawed in that it tries to look at community colleges through the lens of a four-year university and in the end is not helpful to community colleges, their students or policy-makers. If the report's recommendations were followed, the result would be increased student fees in community colleges and limited access to a college education for tens of thousands of students. The students who would be shut out are the very ones the report purports to help, and the ones who need the colleges the most.
The report does not address the income gains that result from just taking even one class at a community college and the impact of those gains on the overall economic and social health of our state. While transfer and graduation are important, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that taking some college courses results in a 21 percent gain in income for high school graduates and a 57 percent gain for those that have not completed high school.
One of my job responsibilities at Grossmont College is to coordinate the Transfer Center, a center that assists students though the university transfer process. I can site many examples of students who would never have had the opportunity to transfer to a four-year university had it not been for the California community college. These students entered Grossmont College with remedial English and math skills and little to no income. They worked hard in our remedial programs to increase their skills and then complete university level courses for transfer, some taking five to six years. The point is that these students are now productive citizens with four-year degrees. Without the community college, they would have never achieved this goal.
There is plenty of data to show the success of the the state's community college students. The California community college accountability data shows that over 51 percent of students who seek a degree, certificate or transfer to a four-year institution do so or become prepared to do so within six years of starting at a community college campus and over 55 percent of all CSU graduates attended a community college.
If you're not into data, just ask your friends and colleagues what their experience has been at a community college. You'll be amazed at how many have been enriched by the California community college experience.
BONNIE SCHMIEGE
Transfer Center Coordinator, Counselor
Grossmont College
An incorrect teaser on Jamul casino dispute
I was dismayed to see the teaser headline on the front page of the East County local news section Feb. 3: “2 tribal dissidents lose bid to stop eviction from Jamul reservation.” To one of many Jamul residents who vehemently oppose the casino, this seemed like a dramatic setback for us.
However, I was even more dismayed when I read the story inside. The teaser was completely inaccurate and misleading. I am an attorney, so I know whereof I speak. Apparently your teaser writers are not and do not.
The text of the story makes it clear that the only loss by the tribal dissidents was on their argument that Southern California Intertribal Court Judge Anthony Brandenburg does not have jurisdiction over this dispute – a decision to the contrary that Brandenburg made himself. A hearing is to be held by that same judge later this month to determine the merits of the eviction notices.
In addition, a San Diego Superior Court judge has enjoined demolition activity on the reservation pending a decision on the merits of the eviction notices and other arguments made by the “dissidents.” Thus, no decision has yet been made as to the validity of the eviction notices.
How this can be construed as a “lost bid to stop eviction” is beyond me.
In its editorials, the Union-Tribune has supported a casino in Jamul, regardless of the consequences to the community.
It is important to have a balance reported on the issue.
Oh, and one final note. It is easy to brand others as NIMBYS when it is not in your back yard.
KRIS NESTHUS
Jamul
