Plenty of Reasons for Orange Recall

Re “Misinformation Is Driving the Recall of Orange School Trustees,” June 10 commentary by Maureen Aschoff:

So recall elections are to be brought only in situations of malfeasance? Guess what: That’s why we did it. Malfeasance is defined as “wrongdoing or misconduct, especially by a public official.”

If anyone, including Aschoff and her fellow members of the Orange Unified Board of Education, Linda Davis and Martin Jacobson, would read the reasons for the recall found on the petitions and in the voter pamphlet for the June 26 election, it would be obvious that wrongdoing and misconduct are standard operating procedure for these public officials.

Don’t forget that it was this school board, not the recall committee or the registrar of voters, that voted 5-2 to have a separate election when consolidating with the June 5 election would have saved thousands of taxpayer dollars.

Patty Nance

Treasurer

Orange Recall Committee

Anaheim

*

Aschoff’s commentary illustrates how far genuine journalism has declined at The Times.

The Times not only has done an immense disservice to the citizens in the Orange Unified School District, The Times has ignored data reported in its own columns.

The Times let Aschoff claim without any factual support that Orange Unified has the same percentage of new teachers as neighboring districts. Yet, on July 30, 2000, The Times reported that Orange has “the highest percentage of non-credentialed teachers in the county, at 25%. The statewide average is 11%.” In that same July 2000 article, The Times reported: “Of the 760 teachers Orange hired in the last three years, 46% lacked full credentials,” contrasted with neighboring Santa Ana Unified, of which The Times reported: “Of that district’s 3,000 teachers, about 12.5% hold emergency permits.”

I faxed to The Times 17 pages of audited data that show more than 60% of Orange teachers now have less than five years of experience and that the overwhelming number of new teachers are placed in minority schools.

In its July 30, 2000, report on Orange Unified, The Times noted: “On average, 36% of the teachers in the district’s predominantly minority schools lack a teaching credential, compared with 9% in the district’s predominantly white schools.” Any good newspaper would verify Aschoff’s claim that Orange Unified provides “competitive” salaries. Every one of Orange Unified’s salary coordinates is below the county median by as much as $10,000.

Orange Unified’s health insurance is just as grim. Teachers call it “assisted suicide.” The Times could also read Orange Unified’s state-audited budget reports for that last decade and verify that Orange Unified runs average balances of unrestricted cash surpluses approaching $10 million per year. Yet The Times lets Aschoff proclaim that such surpluses are “nonexistent.” Tell that to the state auditors.

The Times also lets Aschoff falsely claim that the school board has avoided raising taxes to increase teachers’ salaries. School boards can’t raise taxes to increase teachers’ salaries.

The Fair Political Practices Form 406 shows that the monetary support for blocking the citizen recall is coming from everywhere but within the Orange district. The school board is controlled by these outsiders who don’t want to lose their control.

John F. Rossmann

President

Orange Unified Education Assn.

*

As Aschoff states, recalls are traditionally a response to malfeasance or criminal activity. Recall target Linda Davis has been found guilty by the California Fair Political Practices Commission of using taxpayer funds for self-promoting political propaganda; the entire board is under investigation for violations of the Brown Act.

As for malfeasance, the board purchased Barham Ranch in a real estate maneuver that seems to be quite outside the scope of a school district.

Teacher salaries and benefits are noncompetitive. There are a few districts that are now worse, but moving up from last to the bottom pack does not make you competitive. Surprisingly, the superintendent that the board handpicked is paid very, very competitively, despite having no background in California education.

The teachers and staff certainly do not receive any respect from the board. The $9.8-million unrestricted fund is quite existent on form J100 submitted by the district to the state.

For Aschoff to complain about the cost of the recall is pure hypocrisy. Despite strong criticism from the community, this board has consistently held odd-year elections that cost the taxpayers an extra $150,000 each election. This board chose to schedule the recall election June 25, when it could have scheduled it June 5 and split the cost with the city of Orange.

This board acted with complete disregard to the students, parents and taxpayers of the district and necessitated this recall. Because the voters will vote yes, this will be the last $150,000 this board will get to spend.

Christopher Koontz

Orange

*

Maureen Aschoff would have us believe that the recall is all over some misinformation.

Last year about one-sixth of the teaching staff left the district to teach elsewhere. To find out why, go to www.orangerecall.com, click on Issues to read statements from teachers who have left.

Sue Guilford

Orange