Our Blogs

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Become a Fan

    « Tenative Ruling Against Reardon in CUSD Brown Act Suit | Main | It's Official: Reardon's Brown Act Suit against Dimissed »

    August 23, 2011

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e553809d938833015434c47edd970c

    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on the San Clemente High School Football Shakeup ... :

    Comments

    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    If the coaches have not been charged with criminal acts, why is at least one (Patton) being removed from teaching? Is CUEA representing the coaches?

    ARE they being removed from teaching? It really isn't clear in the articles - just that they have been removed from coaching.

    "I think the process just needs to be looked at?" What on earth could that mean! What process?

    I'm sure these are great coaches and nice men, but if they've done something illegal, tough dice. They've got to go.

    The Register reported that Patton was being put on "paid leave" from teaching. How can this be if he has not been charged with any crime? Shouldn't the union be making a statement about their constituents? Does anyone know if CUEA is representing any of these coaches?

    Assuming Coach Patton is on paid leave, the district has the right to do so. Since he's apparently being paid, he isn't being harmed in the eyes of the law even if he isn't coaching at the present time.

    Sorry, but I'm not all that worried about if he's teaching or coaching. These are the types of people who I wouldn't want in the classroom or the field. It is sad, regardless. The union protection should come in after the investigation is over, because you're right- at this point, he's still getting paid. Bummer is it's the kids who lose, IF the accusations are true.

    Wow! The accounts at Tesoro and CVHS are much higher than SCHS!

    Something still does not sit right. Are all the coaches in our district who were involved being put on "paid leave?" Why is Patton being singled out in this matter? Did he take more than other coaches who are still active in the district? I know...more to be revealed. Sometimes more is not revealed. When "myself" states, "these are the kind of people I wouldn't want in the classroom or the field," it implicates that Patton is looked at as some sort of criminal already. Yet, the papers have not reported that any other coach is being put out of the classroom despite that fact that some purportedly took as much, and more, than Patton.

    Very perplexing that SCHS has been singled out on this when Tesoro is listed with $99,682, Capistrano Valley $162,404 and Dana Hills $81,969. Why is only SCHS under scrutiny?

    I think it is only Patton with a testimonial record at this point.

    The comments to this entry are closed.