Sunday, June 12, 2005
Picture This: Entire Capo board target of recall
Steven Greenhut
Sr. editorial writer and columnist
The Orange County Register
sgreenhut@ocregister.com

LINK

We've all grown accustomed to the advertisements produced by teachers' organizations as they promote higher local or state taxes to pay for our supposedly underfunded education system. They feature pictures of crumbling walls, putrid restrooms, overcrowded classrooms. The pitch: The schools need more tax dollars.

The argument by those of us who oppose higher taxes is harder to make. We usually don't have compelling pictures to show. Our argument: Schools have plenty of money. The problem - the same problem that afflicts all governments - is that those trusted with the money often spend it foolishly. Which is why schools should operate as a market rather than as a government monopoly. Competition for customers - in the case of schools, that would be the parents - tends to make an organization spend more efficiently. But that's a debate for another day.

The "give us more" vs. "spend it better" debate is in full blossom in Sacramento, as the California Teachers Association battles Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over his proposed budget.

Locally, the debate is being waged in the Capistrano Unified School District, where a group of parents began collecting signatures on June 4 to recall the entire seven-member school board. Often local school board recalls are about educational philosophy or politics, as has been the case, for example, in battles between liberals and conservatives in the Orange Unified School District.

At Capo, it's different. The recall leaders I met with at the Register recently share different political perspectives, and I could distinguish no conservative or liberal philosophy driving their concerns. Supporters of the current board claim that the recall is run by special interests, but they won't say what interests those are, and I can detect no interest group other than a group of parents consumed by local issues, although some of them are veterans of a past battle with the district over a school expansion.

The recallers say they are energized by the arrogance of power by the school superintendent and what they see as his rubber-stamp school board; a waste of resources; inattention to the needs of parents and students.

They argue that the district spends its money on unnecessary things, and would be better able to meet the well-recognized overcrowding problem if they were more focused on education rather than on bureaucracy-building. They raise some serious points.

The official recall notice served to each board member says: "You are recklessly spending tens of millions of dollars on an administration building and over $100 million for a single high school next to a dump - while our schools are in dire need of repair and our students are crammed into substandard portable classrooms with non-functioning restrooms. Your reckless deficit spending has created a self-inflicted, multimillion-dollar budget crisis that puts our children at risk and resulted in massive program cutbacks - severely diminishing the quality of education."

A Register article from May 2001 about school overcrowding paints a dismal picture of students crammed in like sardines and bare-bones facilities. "At Capo Valley High, there is no cafeteria, no auditorium, no nurse and no school-based police officer," the article explains.

Capo Unified continues to absorb growth from fast-growing south county communities, so problems cannot be pinned entirely on the board and the administration. The district is building a new high school in San Juan Capistrano. Its enormous cost - now at $120 million and rising - is about three times the average cost of new high schools across the state, according to recall supporters, and has become a core issue for the recall.

Meanwhile, the district is building new offices for the superintendent and staff. Recall activists insist it has a view of the ocean, although Board President Marlene Draper says it does not. View or not, the beautifully designed 126,000- square-foot facility has become another recall lightning rod.

During the first day of signature-gathering, lines were long, according to recall activist Jennifer Beall. "People were livid," she said. "All we had to do we show them the pictures of the portables compared to the beautiful new $25 million administration building."

The district said the building is needed because it's a poor long-term investment to keep leasing space, and has raised concerns about employee safety. "Employees continually dodge both cars and heavy trucks on Calle Perfecto as they traverse up and down and across a street with no sidewalks," said Superintendent James Fleming in an April 25 memo to board trustees. But recall advocates wonder about the safety of students who are crammed in classrooms and forced to traverse overcrowded streets and parking lots.

"Our first focus always has been the schools," retorted Draper, in a phone interview. She said the district's investment in repairs and new building in the fast-growing area has been "staggering."

The office will be paid for by redevelopment dollars in a deal the district struck with the city of San Juan Capistrano, and will not impact the district's general-fund budget, school officials explain. That's true, although recall supporters argue that the same money could be used to upgrade classrooms.

Another key criticism by recall opponents is that the board is nothing but a rubber stamp for a powerful superintendent - whose $274,000 annual compensation package is the highest in the county, according to the Register. The board has voted 7-0 or 6-0 (with one abstention) on every matter except one over the past three years. Draper doesn't deny that, but argues that there is plenty of debate and contention among board members.

"The teachers and education are good," said recall activist Thomas Russell. "The problem is a wretched administration and a 7-0 board of trustees that doesn't oversee them."

Recall supporters expect a new forthcoming slate to have various views about education. "Maybe we'll have some 4-3 votes," said another activist, Kevin Murphy. "We'd actually have a conversation."

The recall supporters don't disagree with Fleming and the board that resources are stretched at an overcrowded school district. And they agree that some of the support for the recall comes from parents disgruntled by the proposed closing of three elementary schools and the controversial new high-school boundaries. But, ultimately, they argue that this effort is about reforming a board that is imperious and wasteful.

Draper wants to know why these longtime spending issues weren't raised during the 2004 November regular election, when four board members were re-elected without opposition.

The recallers have good questions of their own. Is $25 million too much for an office building? Is $120 million too much for a new high school? Is the superintendent overpaid and unaccountable to the public? Critics also wonder why Fleming claims to be facing budget cuts even as his district budget keeps growing.

In a true market for education, we wouldn't need elections to decide such things, but there I go on a detour again.

School board elections so frequently operate under the radar screen that anyone interested in openness and public debate ought to welcome this squabble. The election could come down to the photographs - the ones comparing the portable classrooms to the drawing of the resort-quality administration building. For once, the pictures might benefit those who take the "spend it better" side of the argument