The entire Konocti district is focusing on students” needs
In regard to Mr. Watkins” letter to the editor which appeared in the Oct. 18 edition of the Clear Lake ObserverHAmerican: I have to admit I am confused by the editorial policy of Lake County Publishing. I seem to recall that in regard to the June election that the Lake County Record-Bee stated that it would not publish letters either supporting or not supporting specific candidates. They would only publish letters that dealt with issues.
I would like to assure parents and the community that any concern or allegation that is brought to the attention of our superintendent and the five members of the Konocti Board of Trustees is investigated thoroughly and handled appropriately. I am sure that everyone is aware that state law and education code forbid us from commenting publically on any personnel issue.
I am extremely proud of the accomplishments and positive achievements in the Konocti District in the last four years. This has only been possible because the superintendent, the entire five-member board and all employees have worked hard to focus on students and what”s in their best interest.
Carolynn Jarrett
President, Konocti Board of Trustees
Watkins is delusional
I volunteered to be part of Challenge Day on Thursday, Oct. 12, at Lower Lake High School. I had no idea what it involved or what it was about, but when asked if I would volunteer, I said yes. Before I went to the school, I heard that a negative letter had been written in the Lake County Record-Bee. It was 7 a.m. I hadn”t read it nor was I given the details ? just told that it was bad and it was about Lower Lake High School students. I couldn”t read the letter as I had to be at the high school on time.
Once there, I found out that Challenge Day meant spending the day with a big group of students participating in this unique program. It”s an experience that”s difficult to explain. You had to be there to understand the emotion and impact. Throughout the day I learned about what these kids and the other adult volunteers had been through in their lives, and what students face both in and out of school. They learned about me as well. These kids were strong participants and it was a powerful day!
After this emotional experience I read Darrell Watkins” letter in the Record-Bee (“They have no business holding office,” Oct. 12). Darrell Watkins, of Kelseyville, never seems to really know what is real ? yet our local papers seem to cherish printing his strange, delusional crap (per Webster”s dictionary: nonsense; junk; trash).
I now see this same letter of his printed in the Clear Lake ObserverHAmerican as well (“Unruly students are running the Konocti district schools, Wednesday, Oct. 18). While it”s the editorial policy of the Record-Bee and ObserverHAmerican to not print letters about candidates, I”m told it”s at the editor”s discretion to print what they choose, regardless of the policy. When I asked Cynthia Parkhill “why” they would print it, she said “That”s what we do.” I am also told that both papers” policy is to print rebuttals of their choice.
The part of the letter that is most offensive is his description of Lower Lake High School students. He has no idea who our kids are, yet he labels and slanders them ALL. Since I know our kids I have to correct him. Like every school everywhere, we have all kinds of kids: kids who are productive, obedient, disciplined, responsible kids. We have our share of struggling students, brilliant students, average students, tough kids, respectful kids, scared kids, unruly kids and kind kids. Some kids have overcome incredible odds and horrible things. Our employees at Lower Lake High School work with all of them with dedication, passion and intensity to give them the opportunities they need to be successful.
Believe who you want, Darrell Watkins, write what you will about me, but don”t write lies about our children, our schools and my fellow board members when you don”t know what you”re talking about — as usual!
Anita Gordon
Clearlake
School board devotes many hours to the Konocti district
My daughter just graduated from Lower Lake High this past June. I still have two children in the district ? one that is attending Pomo and one that is currently enrolled at Lewis school. Both schools are doing a very good job.
You can”t look at performance totally by test scores. Test scores are important but, only part of the whole picture. I have two children still in school within the district and both have severe handicaps and are expected to test just like everyone else. You can imagine how that affects overall test results.
I think it”s wonderful that there are more candidates for the KUSD board of trustees but, do they realize how many hours go into being prepared for the meetings and mountains of papers involved? I am a parent who has been involved in various committees as a parent. I would?hope?the new candidates start attending some of these committees to see what”s involved in working for the needs of all children in this district. We live in a small but very diverse community. As a parent I have to constantly advocate for my children and that would be the same anywhere.
Liz Todd
Clearlake
What are challengers about?
Isn”t it time that school board candidates Gina Dickson, Jamie Hopper and Julie Alves come out of the shadows and tell the voters what they are about? Their ballot statements are vague and say nothing about what they”d do if elected. With only a few short weeks left before the election, these challengers have never approached the podium at a school board meeting and, in fact, have yet to sit all the way through a single one. Gina Dickson was the only one of these challengers that showed up for the candidates” forum in Lower Lake but left quickly and refused to stay and debate with incumbents Anita Gordon, Herb Gura and Carolynn Jarrett.
Most disturbing is that infamous right-wing zealot Darrell Watkins, who lives half a county away from Konocti district and has no children attending school here, has taken a sudden interest in this race. Does Watkins have reason to believe that Dickson, Alves and Hopper support his extremist ideas which include physically disciplining (aka beating) children in our schools? The voters have no way of knowing until the challengers step up and speak out either for or against Watkins” positions.
Current school board members Gordon, Gura and Jarrett have well-documented records, which voters can use to make an informed choice. Thus far their challengers have offered little information other than campaign signs hastily placed in vacant lots.
Arthur Mull
Clearlake
Read ballot on Measure J
Lake County Voters should read the Lake County Sample Ballot Voter Information pamphlet. Measure J is $190 million in bonds for Yuba Community College District. Lake County homeowners would be assessed $16 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.? Lake County assessments would be used not only in Lake County, but your money would also go to support Woodland, Marysville, Sutter and Colusa County classrooms.
The argument in favor of Measure J, signed by Messers Cooper, Cornelison, Doty, Robey and Dr. Louise Bennicoff-Nan, addresses only Lake County, with no mention of the other counties. I, for one, have no intention of paying other counties to support their educational needs. Perhaps I do not understand the measure. Two semesters of semantics and Hayakawa lectures may have led me astray, but I do not believe Lake County homeowners as a rule are philanthropic.
Bill Tett
Spring Valley
Forum is more questionable than candidates” shared involvement in soccer team
I recently attended a meeting of the Lower Lake Community Action Group (LLCAG) where candidates for Konocti Unified School District Board of Trustees were hosted as guests and given an opportunity to speak and answer questions regarding School District Business. All three incumbents and myself had dinner at the head table along with the Dean of Yuba College, Clearlake Campus. It was a wonderful meeting and a great opportunity to meet and greet members of the community of Lower Lake. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of LLCAG for inviting me and for working with me on my time constraints.
My only concern about that meeting is that three of the five members of the current KUSD School Board were present at the same function, speaking about issues directly related to the business of the School Board and KUSD.
Is this not in violation of the Brown Act? This is the same act cited to me repeatedly regarding myself and some of the other candidates having children on the same soccer team, in the same grade/class at school, etc.
Although this meeting was not a violation of the Brown Act, it is certainly more questionable than soccer and elementary school contact with board member. In fact there was enough question regarding this issue that the Judge”s Breakfast, which all board member candidates attended and each of us spoke about our platforms, chose to reschedule one of the incumbents so as to avoid the possibility of a Brown Act violation occurring.
Should we only be citing these laws and regulations when they apply in our favor, or do we want members of our government, representing our interests, to stand up for what is right whomever it favors?
Gina Fortino Dickson
Clearlake
Editor”s Note: The reason that a Brown Act violation did not occur when three incumbents appeared as participants in a local candidate”s forum is spelled out in ? 54952.2, which states: “(c) Nothing in this section shall impose the requirements of this chapter upon any of the following:
“(3) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at an open and publicized meeting organized to address a topic of local community concern by a person or organization other than the local agency, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency.”
Prop. 87 will decrease funds for K-12 education
Those worried about the future of our schools should be concerned about one particular ballot question — Proposition 87 — which will impose an oil tax that penalizes education. According to California”s independent Legislative Analyst, Prop. 87 would decrease state and local tax revenues available for schools and public services.? The initiative also skirts preexisting education funding requirements passed nearly two decades ago through Proposition 98.
Proposition 98”s author estimates that Prop. 87 could deny K-12 education funding of up to $1.9 billion over the next ten years.? Following the Legislative Analyst report concluding that the initiative will also reduce local property tax revenues, firefighter and police organizations have joined many educators in opposing Prop. 87. On top of robbed revenue, higher fuel prices resulting from a tax on California-produced oil will further strain school district transportation budgets.
While California”s educators do not deny the need for alternative energy research, we believe that Prop. 87 is simply the wrong means of doing so.? Despite ads presenting Prop. 87 as an opportunity to stick it to the oil companies, we”ll be sticking it to our kids, our businesses, and our local governments.? Prop. 87 gets a well deserving F.
Marian Bergeson, past president
California School Boards Association
Doesn”t he have anything better to do?
In response to Arthur Mull, I just think you are all so funny! It has been very well stated as to where Gina Dickson, Jamie Hopper and I, Julie Alves, stand. We are anything but vague! As to the Lower Lake forum, I explained to Sheila Bening that I was not going to be able to attend as I had 11 little soccer players that were counting on their coach. However, Gina Dickson was able to attend and she did speak. Not once did she refuse to debate with the candidates. So where did that source of information come from?
As to your other comments, they are just too rediculous to respond to. Do you not have anything constructive to do with your time other than just sit around and compose wierd, sick and false statements?
We have all set ourselves as examples for the children in this community. I would like for you and your friends to please be reminded of that. I am sorry that we have offended you by running for a seat on the Board of Trustees. It is long overdue that parents of school age children become involved at the district level. Wherever this election takes us, this is about the children! It is about their education, safety and futures. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!
Julie Alves
Clearlake
Proposition 90 is a taxpayer trap
Vote no on Proposition 90. It”s a taxpayer trap! A deceptive initiative disguised as eminent domain reform contains hidden provisions that will cost California taxpayers billions. Read the fine print. Sure we need eminent domain reform but not this one.
Why do leading organizations oppose Proposition 90? Because the taxpayer trap would cost all taxpayers billions of dollars in new payouts any time a law or regulation is passed to protect our neighborhoods, control development, protect air and water quality, restrict undesirable businesses or enact new consumer protection laws. That”s because the measure contains a hidden provision that allows
irtually anyone to sue claiming a new law or regulation has impacted the value of their property or business — no matter how far-fetched the claim — and taxpayeres will be on the hook to pay the bill!
Do you want a gravel pit behind your backyard or next to the lake? Forget noise and air pollution. Who needs to breathe Lake County”s crystal clear air?
The taxpayer trap would result in thousands of frivolous lawsuits and more bureaucracy and red tape. Under Prop. 90. virtually any speculative landowner or business looking for a windfall can file a lawsuit under this measure, claiming even the most minor new law has impacted the value of their property. After a somewhat similar law was recently passed in Oregon (a much smaller state), more than 2,200 claims were filed ? seeking more than $5 billion in payments that taxpayers of that
state could utimately have to pay. Ouch!!
Prop. 90 could drive up the cost of infrastructure projects like schools, traffic relief and flood control. Prop. 90 requires new and unreasonable payouts whenever agencies acquire property for public works. These provisions will drive up the cost of infrastructure projects, cause delays, or even halt work on much-needed community projects. Taxpayers pay, or citizens lose out on the congestion relief, road repairs, schools, utility services and other infrastructure projects we need.
The taxpayer trap could prevent voters and state and local agencies from enacting environmental protections; there goes our coastlines. It would jeopardize funds for police, fire and other critical local services and make it more difficult to enact new consumer protection and even anti-crime laws — so an adult bookstore goes into a house next to a school!
One of the scariest provisions of Prop 90 would be that it would undermine the authority of local communities and local voters to decide what types of projects get built in their neighborhoods, the businesses that locate in a neighborhood and how a community decides to grow. If a developer wants to put in 1,000 new homes where maybe 400 should be, he can jolly well do it. The board of supervisors won”t want to get sued for the amount the developer could get for the other 600 homes.
Register to vote and vote No on Prop. 90, the taxpayer trap.
Anita Sombs
Lakeport
Election Policy
This is the last edition of the Clear Lake Observer*American before the Tuesday, Nov. 7, election, in which we will publish letters that address new allegations. No election-related letters will appear in the Wednesday, Nov. 1, edition unless they specifically rebut opinions that have already appeared in print within the Clear Lake Observer*American.
Address correspondence to:
Letters to the Editor
Clear Lake Observer American
PO Box 6200
Clearlake, CA 95422
