Our Blogs

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Become a Fan

    « Soderberg Guarantees No CUSD Strike This Year | Main | Governor Brown: 'For Years, State has Shortchanged Public Education' »

    May 12, 2011


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

    Suprise, suprise, suprise. Something is rotten in the DA's office it seems. Just thinking of the ramifications of this and the claims Fleming and McGill will have makes me dizzy - with glee. I can't even begin to comment on how bad this is. Why hasn't this been reported in the OCR? They always report of legal activities related to CUSD in great detail - over and over. Why no mention of this little tidbit? Oh yeah - something is VERY rotten in the DA's office. And then there is that pesky old $700,000 "settlement" that was based on all of this. My oh my.

    I hope Fleming and McGill drive the golden spike into this trans-county "railroad." And sue Smollar on the side.

    Is Greenhut still at the OCReg? He looks for any opportunity to bash Capo. He calls other people out on their ethics but he is not so worried about his own lack thereof.

    If anyone committed perjury, it was the DA's office and David Smollar. Smollar was a disgruntled employee who hated Susan Mc Gill, a much admired and respected education leader.

    Well, Susan will be vindicated and Smollar will always be known as a liar. He will never again be hired by a reputable agency that values honesty in an employee.

    I agree that there's a stink in the DA's office and that the enemies' list wasn't worth prosecuting. But it worries me that people seem to be longing for some sort of "Fleming good ol' days."

    Not everything Fleming did in CUSD was bad, but there was a lot he did that was wrong, too. The long time "Fleming board" had issues, not the least of which was that they rubber stamped everything he brought to them and that they had extensive discussions in private which ought to have taken place in public. (These weren't minor Brown Act violations, they were blatant and ongoing transgressions.)

    In our haste to demonize the DA and the "Beall board," let's not deify Fleming, the Fleming board, or even Susan McGill. None of them were 100% evil, but they were certainly far from perfect.


    And not recreating the "Fleming Board" was why the five candidates Children First did run were chosen. Most all of of us involved in recruting these candidates and getting H and the Recalls passed and Gary, Lynn and John elected were not fans of the way things were being run before the "Beall Board" either. That is why when I read from Reardon or others ( it is easy to know Reardon's posts ) and they claim the current board is "union" or similar it sounds so ludicrous to me. Anyone that knows Gary, Lynn or John knows that they are the real deal and breaths of fresh air and committed to the best CUSD can do. Howard, I know you weren't implying anything different but I know Reardon and other Beall lackies read our posts. It was never a choice between "Fleming" and "Beall" but was about the future of public education in CUSD vs an effort to use past mistakes as a means to privatize publicn education.

    Thanks, "CUSD's future." Many people seem to feel there are two alternatives: 1) a board like the Fleming board and 2) a board like the Beall board. I think the current board represents a third alternative and there are probably many other alternatives. I'm glad you are one person who understands there are more than two possible kinds of boards.

    As I say, it bothers me when I read posts that seem to be longing for "the good old days" of the Fleming era. Anyone who thinks those days were particularly good wasn't paying attention at the time. And just because he wins in court doesn't mean he was not guilty of significant wrongdoing.

    By the way, Helen Reardon posted some informative and thoughtful comments on Patch recently. http://sanjuancapistrano.patch.com/articles/ex-capistrano-unified-supt-cleared-of-charges-over-enemies-list

    While it's possible she's exaggerating some information, it sounds as though her family has a pretty legitimate complaint. I don't like Jim Reardon's Brown Act lawsuit, not at all. But I don't think it's productive to demonize the Reardon's over their earlier lawsuit. Please read Mrs. Reardon's comments. Assuming her statements are accurate, it's time to stop complaining about that suit and move on.

    "Assuming" - you know what they say? When you assume, you make an ...out of "u" and "me." I agree...it is time to move on in this district. (and drop the dead weight, like Palazzo and Addanizi.)


    I absolutely agree with you! And let's not forget why Fleming brought Smollar on board in the first place! Fleming wanted a manipulative spin doctor to twist the truth in Weekly Updates and in the press. Many of us that worked at the district office didn't like Smollar at all and we didn't understand why a school district that was educating children needed a spin doctor from the newspaper world. Fleming brought Smollar in to be a snake and Fleming got bit by the snake. CUSD has had a long history of focusing on all that that isn't important to kids. This new board and Superintendent really does seem like a breath of fresh air even with all the stink from Sacramento and Rancho Santa Margarita.

    I'm sorry....just because someone believes that Fleming was wrongly accused and is happy to se egg on the face of the Bealls and friends in NO WAY means that they want Fleming back, or anything resembling him and his old board. It does, however, help to show what a corrupt group was part of the whole thing, including the lawsuit, the settlement, etc. Don't go assuming that appreciating the irony in the situation means that we want him back.

    The comments to this entry are closed.