The Enemies Lists: Just to Refresh ...

Having finishing reading the appellate justices' ruling that effectively ends the "enemies list" case against Capistrano Unified School District, let me just remind everyone of something ...

I'm not taking sides here or saying the justices are right or wrong in their decision that former Superintendent James Fleming and Assistant Superintendent Susan McGill should have tracked down the names of the unhappy constituents in their duties as overseeing the district.

But I was there. My name was on the list. Well, not the list from the Registrar of Voters, but another list. Remember, there were two or three.

The problem at the time wasn't whether something wrong had been done, but that the district refused to admit anything had been done. I remember near-violent meetings in the old Ed Center where parents and others whose names were on the list demanded to know why their names (and notes about where they lived, where their kids went to school, etc.) were on a district list.

Nobody at that time said "hey, we know folks are unhappy, we're just trying to figure out why."

Instead, Fleming said again and again and again that there was no list. Then-Trustee Marlene Draper shook her finger at the crowd and said there was no list.

Yet there were three.

So legally, the justices ruled that the district had the right to put together a list of unhappy constituents (it wasn't in their purview that the Registrar of Voters should not have allowed district people to see the petitions in the first place.)

But practically, I'm not sure the residents, constituents will ever really know. When former Public Information Officer David Smollar -- who seemed like a white knight for releasing the lists but now seems as involved as anyone -- made them public, Fleming's story was "Oh, that list. We made that list to see if the district's computers had been hacked and email addresses stolen."

He hadn't remembered, he said, and apparently talk of that list didn't trigger memories of the other lists, either.

And the denials went on long enough that those who knew of the lists had time to call Fleming (he notoriously didn't use email) and say "hey, we did make some lists, and here's the reason why." There's even discussion in the Grand Jury procedures about McGill telling Fleming about one of the lists early on, but that wasn't the list they were talking about at the time.

Maybe it was all innocent, but we'll never know how come the public wasn't just told that in a straightforward manner. And if it was all innocent, it's just as sad that careers and legacies and reputations were damaged and destroyed when such a simple -- and apparently legal -- explaination existed.

 It all comes down to trust, and the public trust in government is very, very fragile.

Comments

[Reality Check]

It reminds me of a quote that goes something like this: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Strong leaders with long, successful careers do not like to be backed into corners and forced to admit mistakes. Their leadership hinges on being respected. They fear exposure as human and fallible. I don't find that explanation difficult to swallow. We see it almost monthly with political, corporate, and entertainment big-wigs. I see it in my own extended family. If we want "government by the people," we have to admit they are people.

The facts remain that 1) the lists caused no damages; 2) the lists wasted no taxpayer dollars; and 3) one prideful man's transgression under pressure did not need to lead to a change in our entire board, administration, reputation, and culture.

For those "reformers" who want public schools to operate on a model of capitalism, or at least adhere to business practices, please name one CEO who would admit mistakes in response to "demands" from a "near violent" publicly-recorded meeting without fear of sinking the ship.

[Howard be my name]

Reality Check, I think you're confusing a few things. People were unhappy with Fleming and the board before the lists were created. In fact, when Kevin Murphy sent the non-blind email that caused the list to be created, he was in the process of recruiting people to work on the recall.

While anger over the list was one of the things that caused people to circulate or sign the recall papers, it was one of the minor issues. Personally, I think the building of the new administration albatross, er, I mean building, that was the biggest factor among several.

[Reality Check]

I've been following CUSD politics since the mid-70's and can't remember a time when everyone was happy. Unhappy voters and recalls lead to.... different leaders (who are still imperfect.) I'd give Gray Davis the same pass I'd give Fleming. And I like owning real estate more than leasing it for the long haul.

[Reality Check]

P.S. Before someone throws out the "Fleming apologist" label: I "apologize" for my bigoted Uncle Tony and my inebriated Aunt Louise. (I am sorry to inflict them on my children.) But I am not apologizing for Fleming; I simply see him as flawed and successful and do not think those to be mutually exclusive judgments. CUSD thrived under his leadership, and its success has continued since. The head-hunters we hired to find Farley said that the average tenure of a superintendent these days was a few years at best. That makes Fleming a success story by definition. Not every story has a happy ending. But you should try to compare apples to apples.

[Capo Parent Too]

Fleming needed to go. The DA had a political agenda to push as well. The latter doesn't mean the former is not correct.

The problem now is that the same very people suing are suing again because they didn't get their way.

And the thing is, I understand. What if you had been newly elected and your lawyers say, settle this, you will lose in court. What would you do?

The new trustees were told to honor a contract, were told they were following the brown act at their very first meeting and because two trustees and their political allies are pissed that they lost the election can't handle this, they will drag everything down with lawsuits.

This is what our district has come to, lawsuits and using the DA's office as a tool to get what they want, come hell or high water, whether it is the right thing.

No brown act was broken although while trying to show transparency in the March meeting some really stupid stuff happened, which pisses me off like you wouldn't believe, there has been no malicious intent by our new trustees.

And the irony? The two ladies who run to the DA, Sue and Ellen, they leak just enough to confuse everyone, they divulge things from closed sessions to help people fight their fight rather than doing it at the dais and defending their own beliefs.

It sickens me that we've come to this, again and that we are going to be spending more money on lawsuits, etc. because these two trustees don't really give a crap about education but about getting their way. And the same goes for their supporters.

So when are people going to get pissed off enough to say something? Recalled two, have two more that are causing even more harm and chaos. So when are people going to show up to board meeting and let them know that the way you handle your duties is not to show up with your own lawyer and to help a political ally sue the district to get a political leg up in the game.

I've never in my life seen anything as disgusting as what they are doing and it makes what Fleming did look like bullying in the Kindergarten yard.

[jollygirl]

There was a perfect storm brewing in CUSD during the last couple of years of Fleming's tenure (using an alternate meaning of that word, of course). A group of people with a political agenda had been targeting other school districts in the area, voters are historically conservative in Orange County (and pay little attention to school board elections), and what started as a more economical way to house the district offices met with a sudden downturn in the economy and real estate values.

Dr. Fleming's arrogant approach to leadership (which was never appreciated by most teachers) met this storm full on and he continued on his course as he always had. The Ed Alliance and a few local politicians were paying attention and struck at the vulnerable underbelly of a very fine school district.

Add two more elements...a local newspaper with neither the desire nor the intention of reporting the facts at the expense of it's own political bias and a close connection between the D.A. and those same local politicians...and a force 5 maelstrom hit head on. Careers were sacrificed, amazing educators were lost to other districts, and those who were left found themselves attacked personally and professionally.

I truly hope the constituents of CUSD will be able to find the peaceful harbor and do what they have always done so well...educate students.

[Save CUSD]

Agree completely jollygirl but the storm is still continuing to swirl around our district as the Es Alliance and its followers continue to litigate evrything they can think of to keep the waters boiling. It needs to stop and hopefully the constituents will see this and again show the support of education instead of litigation as a goal at the next election.

[Lena]

Nothing justifies the actions of the DA.

[Howard be my name]

Can anyone point me to the web site of the EA? I tried googling it and had no luck. I wanted to check something.

[Reality Check]

It was http://www.education-alliance.org/ but it is apparently no longer active or online.