Pro
Editor’s Note: Valerie Peters Wagner wrote this letter in response to a letter by George Pardon that was published in the Event News (Oct. 10). The letter has been edited to be more generic towards the Measure Q&R issues.
Pro
Editor’s Note: Valerie Peters Wagner wrote this letter in response to a letter by George Pardon that was published in the Event News (Oct. 10). The letter has been edited to be more generic towards the Measure Q&R issues.
Critics have made it their endeavor to attempt to destroy Cypress School District since the grand jury report “Orange County School Districts: Dire Financial Futures,” was released. They are very angry about the bonds voters approved in 2008, saying, “voters didn’t understand the kind of bonds being sold.” [Geroge] Pardon is frustrated because rather than addressing the entire board, he spoke to one board member and he reports “the district pays no heed to the grand jury. Instead of focusing on what it would take for unification, as the grand jury recommended he continues to invest his efforts in tearing the District down.
While quoting State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Mr. Pardon neglects to date the quote back to 2012, well after our bonds had been sold. Hindsight is always the best view. No one in this community is more aware of the debt instruments than I. In my role as Board President of the Cypress School District, I personally reviewed each bond document prior to signing them. As I signed them, I reminded myself, “The voters approved this,” while personally I voted no on Measure M.
This is the ethical part of being an elected official. I do stand for the constituents, not myself. I am only one fifth of the decision making entity that sets the direction, establishes the structure, provides support, ensures accountability and acts as a community leader. That is how our form of government was designed, to capture the desires of all.
One thing critics and I do agree on is that voters need to know what the Cypress School District’s plans are. While stating that “Our school board and district administrators are supposed to be overseeing our schools, not be in the land management business”; it should be noted that “land management” has been part of the jurisdiction for more than 100 years when Charles Damron donated the parcel that has become the ARCO/Am-Pm on the corner of Moody and Ball for the first school house. We became “landlords” back in the 1980’s when Mackay, Morris and Damron closed “the first time” and “developers” in the early 1990’s when Cypress Park (senior housing) was built. Portions of schools have been “leased” to the city for years as parks and closed school sites are leased to non-public education groups for the benefit of the students.
As a Retired Education Administrator I have difficulty understanding critic’s position against an efficient administrative building. Currently offices are spread out over the 6.3-acre site and most visitors don’t go beyond the Board Room or lobby; some make it out to the Ed. Center or Instructional Material Center. Fewer see the warehouse, Child Nutrition Director’s offices, Maintenance and Operations Buildings or Transportation Facilities. The Technology Bungalow, however is the one that gets to me most, located out behind the bus storage area across from between what I like to refer to as “Bomb Shelter 3 (has blue tarp) and 4”. This District Service Center, that should be representative of a 21st Century learning environment is far from it. I invite the community to visit the location to see it for themselves.
In 2004 when Damron was closed and the tenants at Mackay were moved there, the planning and negotiations began for both of the current sites. It has taken ten years, the death of Superintendent, Dr. William Eller, hiring replacement Superintendent Sherri Lowenstein, The Five Year Facilities Assessment, A Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team Study, Measure M, Consolidating Dickerson with Vessels, Closing schools, Modernizing fully or partially the six remaining schools, hiring Superintendent Beverly Hempstead to move our academics into the 21st Century and now Measures Q & R. While opponents want to focus on taxes or attack the School Board and Administrators, these ballot items are in accordance with Measure D for the purpose of rezoning. A no vote means things stay status quo, and the properties stay zoned as they currently are, PS-1A Public, Semi-Public, which can only be used for such things as schools, churches, cemeteries and parks.
I have given the Community of Cypress School District the last twelve years in return for insurance and a few dollars a month ($36/mo this year) and the satisfaction of doing my civic duty. And yes I will be happy to do it for another four years if that is the will of the voters.
Working Together Toward Tomorrow
Valeri Peters Wagner
CSD Board President
Con
I read with sadness the letter by Valerie Peters Wagner regarding the Cypress School District’s attempts to justify Measures Q and R on the upcoming November ballot. Ms. Peters’ letter described how dedicated and committed the School Board is, how long it took them to come up with their current scheme, and how hard they’ve all worked on developing their plans. She even describes the condition of the School District Office and laments how difficult it is to work in.
None of those points are in dispute.
Many of us are voting “No” on Measures Q and R because they are ill-defined and, regardless of how hard everyone has worked up to this point, the current plans for the sites are flawed and need reconsideration. The School District is not even sure what parcel of land they will receive in the swap. That makes our choice very simple: If we don’t know, vote “No.” When the plans are actually better-defined, bring them forward and let’s talk. I, as a Cypress resident and business owner, am not willing to give the Cypress School District a “blank check” with my vote.
Steven K. Mauss
Cypress
Plan has questions that need to be answered
How exactly does the (past) closing of schools, increasing classroom size, swapping land, and constructing a new district facility educate our children?
Ms. Wagner states that critics have made it their endeavor to attempt to destroy the Cypress School District since reading the grand jury report, “Orange County School Districts: Dire Financial Futures.” If by destroy she means that critics have been diligent to point out what the Orange County Grand Jury has to say about Orange County School Districts and their financial futures then yeah, I guess they’re out to destroy the Cypress School District.
Ms. Wagner says that critics are “very angry about the bonds voters approved in 2008, saying voters didn’t understand the kind of bonds being sold.” Well, I’m one of those voters who voted “for” the Bond Measure in 2008 and learned recently that the $40 million dollar bond will cost us taxpayers $210 million dollars to repay. I don’t know if others are angry but I’m damn angry!
I cannot find any archived documents showing that anyone made public, the tax implication of that $40 million dollars!
The one positive thing that Ms. Wagner points out in her castigation of critics is that Measure Q and R are in accordance with Measure D, which, is the Measure that was passed by Cypress voters many years ago requiring voter approval for rezoning of certain land/property. If I’m not mistaken there was a grassroots movement in 2012 to strike down Measure A which “also” centered on Measure D’s requirement of voter approval. Perhaps the take-away here is to keep the spirit of Measure D alive and vote No on Q and R on principle.
Bob Render
Cypress
Measures Q and R – A Sad State of Affairs
When you see the signs up around town that say ‘Yes on R’ indicating they represent "Citizens for Better Cypress Schools", it’s important to know that the Principal Officer of that group works for Warmington Homes which is the planned developer of the Mackay School site. The Treasurer of this group heads up Lysa Ray Campaign Services in Santa Ana.
When the District tells you that these ballot measures are going to provide more money for our kids, it’s important to know that the total of all of the expected net revenue from all of the potential leased properties will only cover the costs of the District Administration salaries and benefits.
If the District’s plans play out, the District and Board will be responsible for 7 revenue generating properties and only 6 public schools. The District Administration will be rewarded with a new office complex while our kids are in renovated 50 year old buildings and the taxpayers are being stuck with a $210 million bill for the $41 million borrowed.
The District pays no heed to State Treasurer Bill Lockyer’s statements about the bonds sold: "The people running school districts are educators and not generally finance experts." and "I don't think they knew what they were getting themselves into." and "It's another method of pushing debt to future generations".
The District pays no heed to the Grand Jury recommendation to consider unification of elementary school districts with high school districts to achieve cost savings. The Grand Jury report also states “The Grand Jury understands the conflict of interest for school boards and superintendents to inform the public of the potential financial benefits to unification.”
It’s important for the voters to know that as the District pursues exchanging the Mackay and Dickerson School sites for revenue generating properties, they don’t know what the properties will be or where they will be. This is risky business.
Property values have taken a roller coaster ride a few times in the last 20 years. Our School Board and District Administrators are supposed to be overseeing our schools, not be in the land management business. This is about our children’s education, not a game of monopoly.
Vote No on Measures Q and R.
For more information, visit the Facebook pages of Concerned Cypress Citizens or Citizens for Responsible Development of Cypress, CA.
George Pardon
Cypress
