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

[val]

Insider...how arrogant! You must feel that you are very important. You sound like a bully making a playground taunt! These tactics aren't going to work a second time.

Maybe "insider" is the same person who posted on another thread...saying that we would all be on the "outside looking in" when the board they support was still in office after upcoming elections. It's as if being on the "inside" is more important than doing what is right for the children of CUSD. No thanks...I'll gladly stay on the outside!

[Me]

Insider is just starting the "drum beat" of their propaganda campaign. Same as before.There will be criminal" postcards,lies about unions sponsored candidates,attacks on "Fleming apologists", and whatever ugly else their PR firm will come up with. Last time 16% voted. This is how they get in. This time we need to make sure that the other 84% wakes up. If they are re-elected then we should do not blame them. We should blame ourselves.

[insider]

Such a reaction leads me to think you all have a lot to hide. I noticed no one addressed the deceptive petition you all circulated; you know when you told the voter who signed it would go to an election. Then the ‘me first’ turned around and started in on the waiver. I wonder if the cost was also hidden????

More to come…………

Oh and ‘hard to watch’ are you a lawyer or do you just play one on this blog???

[hard to watch]

insider...
Since there was nothing "deceptive" about the petition, we ignored your inaccurate taunt.

[Change is in the air]

The petitioners were told of the availability of a waiver by the State of California by our "Superintendent" Bobbi Mahler. She was actually doing her job as superintendent by providing relevant information about the topic at hand. This waiver has been utilized by other districts in the State to prevent the use of district funds for an election that even our Board acknowledged in their "resolution" was a good idea. In their Resolution passed before the County had made their ruling on the petition they include as their reasoning for the resolution that "at-large electoral systems such as the District's are subject to challenge under the California Voting Rights Act of 2001" and "by trustee area electoral systems are not vulnerable to challenge under the CVRA". They understand that the change is necessary. The idea of a waiver was discussed and supported by many, many REAL constituents in meeting after meeting from September on.

And BTW - this "District Proposal" mentioned in that resolution is inaccurate. The petition to change the way trustees are elected was presented by the REAL constituents. These same constituents had asked many times in earlier months for the Board to make the proposal to no avail. The REAL constituents had no choice but to take on the issue and circulate a petition to make the change. The decision by the County Committee was in response to the REAL constituents proposal and had nothing to do with a "Board Proposal" done after the board had sat on their hands and not taken the appropriate action. Too little too late and the result was the County approved the petition with the election to decide on the change to be at the next succeeding statewide primary election as allowed in the California Election Code. This is in June 2010.

Does that help you Insider?

[Change is in the air]

PS - Hard to watch is correct - there was nothing "deceptive" about the petition. Just REAL constituents asking for a change in the way we elect our trustees.

[Unite for What is Right]

Long and ugly list, Insider? People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. It would seem appropriate for the discussion to focus on facts and not manufactured rumors or smear campaigns. The people in this nation are very, very tired of the "win at any cost" smear campaigns that only further divide us. We want to be united to do the right things that benefit our children and our schools. You are not someone we want as our leader. You do not embody the qualities or temperament of a leader, nor do any of the current board members.

[An "outsider" - constituent that is]

You are being too kind to help out insider "Change is in the Air". He knows full well the board messed up and now they are scared to death the change could happen before the next election and thereby easily lose their precious board seats.

[public school supporter]

How funny. The reform board is scared out of their skivvies. The public finally woke up and realized that a board of trustees that ran on a pack of lies and innuendos, supported by outside interest groups, and "overwhelmingly" elected in an election with less than 16% voter turn out, has no clue how to govern a school district. Their political lives will die in CUSD and their reputations for trying to ruin a once great school district will forever haunt them.

[insider]

Did the petition state the measure would go before the voters, YES or NO
If yes then the people who circulated lied to the ones who sign when they turned around and started after the waiver.

Why a waiver, because they know it will not pass and this is the only way this small group of long time Fleming supports can get the change they think will make a difference.

My point remains, this is the first of many lies by the ‘me first’ group

And for the record I am just as much a constituent as the rest of you, I might not agree with you, your group, your criticism of the current board, your political motives, your choice of candidates but I would never marginalize one’s right to vote or say they are not to be counted.