CUSD Election Lawsuit in the Courts

The attorney representing Capistrano Unified wasted no time in filing the lawsuit challenging a county committee's decision that an ballot measure to decide how Capistrano Unified trustees are elected go before voters in June.

The issue is whether trustees, who represent seven geographical areas in the district, should be elected at-large, as they are now, or only by voters in each specific area.

Trustees, who want the issue decided in November with any possible changes put off to 2012, voted December 15 to file a lawsuit. The document, by Newport Beach attorney Phillip B. Greer, was in court on December 17.

In the 10-page writ of mandate, the district argues the county board for school district reoganization exceeded its authority by setting the June election -- when parents want it, so any changes can be in place by November, when three trustees face re-election -- and that the entire process is fatally flawed because it does not allow for appeals.

Trustees have repeated cited budget concerns -- the June election will cost the district $489,000, while a November vote would cost $8,500, although supporters of the change say subsequent elections will get less expensive because fewer voters are casting ballots for each trustee, so each election will not have to encompass all of the 200,000 voters in the district. If each trustee area had about 30,000 voters, for example, only 90,000 voters would participate in an election for three trustees.

The lawsuit goes on to say the June decision should be overturned because the panel that considered the date includes two former CUSD Trustees, Sheila Benecke and Shelia Henness. (The lawsuit incorrectly says they were both recalled. Henness was not.) Their participation, the suit alleges, creates a conflict of interest. (Usually, a conflict of interest is only present when an elected official benefits financially from a decision.)

No hearing date has been set yet. Stay tuned.

Here's a copy of the writ, which is assigned to Judge Gregory Lewis.

Download Election Lawsuit

Comments

[Judi Heidel]

Hello, hello, h-e-l-l-o! Can anybody hear me? Oh, my microphone was turned off. I think I was talking about Phillip Greer.

ONE of the (many) most amazing things about this PLEADING is the CAPTION.

CUSD,
Petitioner,
and

etc., etc., etc……..

Respondents.

I actually have children in the district so, perhaps misguidedly; consider myself a part of CUSD. I am not a party to this lawsuit. The CAPTION should read:

CUSD TRUSTEES,

Petitioner,

and

etc., etc., etc.,

Respondents.

Trustees, this is your lawsuit.
Please, leave your constituents out of it!
Admit it.
You are suing US, your constituents.
Whether or not you are “successful” with this suit, is utterly inconsequential.
You have completely alienated parents, teachers, students and all other constituents.
If you persist on this path you cannot possibly be re-elected.
Do you still REALLY not “get it”?

And do tell your attorneys to slow down. I worked for a law firm in another state for many, many years, and I think I can swear up and down, we never spelled our state name incorrectly in the caption. That was a preset heading, even back in those long ago days.

[insider]

The lawsuit and expense would quickly vanish if the ‘me first’ group would go back to the county committee and request the election to be in November. As for the ‘truth’ getting out I think every person who signed the petition should be told about the election cost as well as the 'me first', the group who circulated the petition, has asked for a waiver when the petition clearly stated the issue would go before the voter. The lies of ‘me first’ will be exposed in the coming months and the list long and ugly.

[Pass the Kool-Aid along with Capistrano Valley Unifed Jennifer Beall believers]

Inside what? Which bubble did you find?

[CUSD Grad, Parent, Teacher, Donor, and Voter in Support of Public Education]

Most of the petition signers I spoke with understood the change was supported by "reform" trustees. They supported you "insiders" and were spurring you on to institute the "reform" you promised. The waiver was a good news bonus that they have since learned about. They've gotten the "ugly" part. They're already unhappy with the "long" part. And they'll not be pleased to read your posted threats that I will copy and deliver to their doorsteps tomorrow morning.

[Here we go again]

Another example of the trustees spending my tax dollars on trying to save their position on the board rather than on the education of CUSD children.

[hard to watch]

Insider...

If CUSD does not change to by trustee area voting and the district gets hit with a lawsuit for not being in compliance with the CRVA, it will cost CUSD far more than the cost of a June election.

Regardless of the outcome of an election (June or November), the risk of a lawsuit for violating the CRVA exists until we do change to voting by district. Recent CRVA lawsuits have cost California school districts millions and millions of scarce dollars. Those who fought the CRVA failed.

The fiscally prudent move is to apply for the election waiver and assure that CUSD is in compliance with the CRVA (as recommended by attorneys for the California School Board Association.) Other districts have pro-actively applied for and have been granted the election waiver to protect them from potential lawsuits. The waiver was unanimously supported by all CUSD "interested parties" officially polled representing thousands. The trustees have a duty to make sure that we comply with CA law and to limit the district's exposure to potential lawsuits.

[An "outsider" - constituent that is]

Yes, the expense would quickly vanish if the "me first Board" would do the right thing and approve a waiver of the election. They clearly indicated their approval in the resolution in September noting many of the reasons the voting procedures should change. Only problem was they were deciding on the date when that was not something they were asked to decide. The County has specific procedures related to changes in elections in Orange County and they don't include asking the sitting board for their approval nor for their decision on when to have the election.

So - "me first Board" - please DO the right thing and rather then spending $490K or $8.5K, accept the offer from the State of California to make the change without any cost which is one thing you CAN do. Please.

[PuhLEEZ!]

Another ideas for savings: This selfish, all-about-me-and-my-political-connections Board should not be receiving full medical benefits. They do not work full time. No other part time district employees receive full medical benefits. Cutting the board's medical benefits would easily result in approximately $150,000 in savings. That is two teachers, or 10 classroom aides, or 4 librarians, or the cost of an entire sports program at a high school.

[shelly]

Insider,
What long, ugly list of lies? If you care so much about the children and the taxpayers of CUSD why wouldn't you just reveal your long, ugly list of lies instead of keeping it to expose it in the coming months? Whatever that means. It sounds like some kind of a threat. Why are you threatening people?

[An "outsider" - constituent that is]

Insider - Just what are you an "insider" of? Shouldn't it be the constituents of CUSD who are the "insiders"?