Editor:
I am writing in support of Michael O'Neill for the open, two-year seat on the Pacifica City Council. I had the pleasure of serving on the Pacifica School Board for six years with Mike. During that time, the majority of the school reconstruction program occurred, we made very difficult budget reductions, concluded multiple successful union contract negotiations and oversaw critical administration changes, all of which enhanced the school district in the face of adversity. Mike was a strong leader during this entire period, with many creative ideas. He was tireless in keeping our perspective on delivery of services to the children of Pacifica. He has continued with these efforts on the school board in the intervening years. If folks are looking for a proven public service veteran, one who will transfer success from years of experience on the school board to the city council, please strongly consider voting for Michael O'Neill.
Avram Frankel
Sharp Park
70 comments:
He was on the PTA. BFD
The school board isn't the PTA.
Here's an example of the minutes from the Pacifica School Board Meeting, 10/3/12. and the 2012 meeting agendas and minutes.
Protocol looks a lot like City Council meeting procedure and responsibilities. And if Mike O'Neill is elected, he already has similar trained reasoning. The learning curve should be easy and fast. That's good.
The first commenter is a gobble, gobble, gobble, turkey, funk-jive turkey gobbler.
I'm not voting for O'Neil, but the person who thinks being elected to the school board is the same thing as being in the PTA is so uninformed, he or she shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Here's a calmer point of view on why O'Neill works. He has been on the board of a $20 million plus organization for 14 years. No structural deficits. The city of Pacifica is around $25M annually and financially is a mess.
Campbell talks a good game about what he wants to do but never quite got around to it while on the planning comiss for 5 years. For example, over 5 years, he never said zip about helping homeowners while on planning, yet he is really, really in favor it it now.
Hands down, O'Neill.
Steve Sinai said...
The school board isn't the PTA.
October 31, 2012 1:50 PM
Same difference Sinai, same difference!
Campbell talks a good game about what he wants to do but never quite got around to it while on the planning comiss for 5 years. For example, over 5 years, he never said zip about helping homeowners while on planning, yet he is really, really in favor it it now.
Sounds just like Jimmy Vreeland, big dreamer of moving over the hill and getting into the Senate. Heck Jimmy, even floated a rumor he was getting a job in the Obama cabinet.
Nice going Jimmy V!
Campbell is a smoother talking attorney version of Vreeland 2.0
BTW How would you know? You never been to a school board meeting nor a PTA meeting.
So if the school board is doing so well why are the all the people who where on the school board all bailing off?
Me thinks they know the school board is in financial trouble and it's being swept under the rug till after the election.
Like all things Pacifica.
Mike O'Neill got a heartfelt endorsement from 2 people who clearly have known him for years.
From what I have read about Mr. O'Neill over the years in the Tribune, he has done his job. In an elective office, no higher compliment. He brought budgets in on time; modernized the schools; increased test scores with very constrained budgets.
He educated this community's children. He is not only qualified for council, this town is lucky to have him on council
@821 You're right. O'Neill has done his job and he's done it very well. Of everyone running this time he's the one who can and will make a difference because of his experience, personality, and character. We must keep Campbell from winning a seat and then dominating this council. No surprise that Campbell is endorsed by Dinah Verby, Nick and Andrew Leone and that they also endorse Ervin and Nihart. That's what they want for Pacifica. What about you? Hasn't Pacifica suffered enough? Vote O'Neill and let's make a fresh start. And before you vote for an incumbent take a look at who supports them and why.
@506 School districts all over CA have financial pressures. O'Neill has dealt with them and done it successfully. I assume he's running for council because he feels he can improve Pacifica and Lord knows it needs improving. His track record is enough for me. He's better qualified than anyone now on council or in the running.
443anon Campbell is a smarter, more analytical version of Vreeland. He runs colder and smoother. He'll run circles around the ninnies and they'll thank him.
So when was the Laguna Salada School Disrict taken over by the county when it collapsed, financially speaking? Was that when Mr. O'Neill was on the board? He has been on the board a very long time. Is that an asset, or not?
Just asking.
"So when was the Laguna Salada School Disrict taken over by the county"
Never.
Anyway, O'Neill was a board member of the Pacifica School District, not the Laguna Salada School District.
Nice try, though.
@1006 pathetic, truly pathetic.
Anonymous said...
443anon Campbell is a smarter, more analytical version of Vreeland. He runs colder and smoother. He'll run circles around the ninnies and they'll thank him.
October 31, 2012 9:55 PM
And Vreeland was described as a smarter more analyticall version of Peter Loeb.
Not that smart and Peter Loeb, belong in the same conversation
The Pacifica School District was formerly Laguna Salada. The name was changed in '80 or '81.
Also, with the exception of Sunset Ridge, there are no PTAs in the district.
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/grand_jury/2000reports.php?page=00salada-2.html
Print | E-mail
LAGUNA SALADA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Summary | Background | Findings | Recommendations | Responses
Summary:
The grand jury finds that the Laguna Salada Union School District (LSUSD) Board of Trustees fails to exercise proper oversight of the district. Many of the current policies are flawed or incomplete. By failing to update its policies and practices and follow those policies currently in effect, the board often operates in a dysfunctional, uncivil manner, with a disregard for keeping the public informed.
In not following its own policies, the board trustees have improperly delegated responsibility that is theirs and have not been forthcoming with the public. The board has allowed the superintendent to hire and fire without prior board approval, increased the superintendent's compensation without public comment, and allowed topics such as lawyer-client privilege and the transfer of principals to be discussed in closed, rather than open, session. The board failed to disclose on the ballot its intent to build a middle school in 1997 when the district voters passed bond Measure D to modernize schools. The board has neglected to take corrective action to recommendations from the independent auditor.
In addition, the grand jury is deeply concerned that the planned not-for-profit foundation, which is being established to manage the district's real estate assets, may violate the Brown Act unless its business is conducted in public and may constitute an invalid gift of public funds. The taxpayers of the district must clearly be informed and assured of legal validity before public funds or other assets are transferred to a non-public entity.
The grand jury recommends the LSUSD revise its polices and practices and receive training in the use of policies, conflict resolution, and board oversight. The board should correct audit deficiencies and review its fiduciary obligations. The grand jury further recommends the 2001-2002 grand jury evaluate and monitor the district's planned not-for-profit foundation.
Background:
In July 1999 the grand jury received a citizen's complaint that included accusations of the Ralph M. Brown Act violations and questionable financial practices by the Laguna Salada Union School District (LSUSD) Board of Trustees. The grand jury received a concurring complaint from a second individual. The 1999 grand jury did not have sufficient time to consider the charges; the 2000-2001 grand jury voted to pursue the inquiry.
In doing so, the grand jury examined district agendas and minutes from July 1, 1998, to the present; closed session agendas from July 1, 1998, to the present; all governing board policies; annual financial statements for 1997-2000; contracts with various district contractors; the superintendent's contracts; credentialed teacher and administrative salary schedules; and the district's implementation plan. The grand jury visited three school sites, interviewed several current and former LSUSD trustees, former and current school administrators, staff, and general consultants and attended several school board meetings in the fall of 2000.
Located in Pacifica, LSUSD is a district of ten school sites. There are four K-5, two K-8, two 6-8 schools, and two closed sites. A new middle school, Ingrid B. Lacey, is under construction. The FY '99 budget was $19 million. The school population is approximately 3,500 students, down from a high of 11,000, and has been declining by about 100 students a year, a figure that increased in the current school year. An estimated 1,000 to 1,500 students who live in the district currently attend private schools, which means that as many as 30% of district students choose not to attend district schools.
In June 1997 district voters approved a broadly-worded $30 million bond issue, Measure D, for "districtwide projects such as structural repair and improvements to existing schools" and "...constructing new classrooms, libraries, computer and science labs, and art and music classrooms...." A video produced by the pro-bond campaign stressed the deplorable conditions of the schools. At the time the bond was put on the ballot, the LSUSD Board of Trustees understood that the cost to repair the schools would exceed $30 million. The additional funds were expected to come from the sale of surplus school property. The superintendent, who was hired after passage of the bond measure, and bond counsel later obtained substantial funding from the state Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). The currently projected cost of modernization is $67 million. As of April 2001, $47.4 million has been raised, a sum that the district expects to rise to $87.4 million after sales of surplus school property and addition of interest. Completion of all school modernization is expected by 2005.
A 1999 audit by the district's independent auditor notes the "perception of board policies and regulations is that they are of little value." Interviews with members of the school district board and administrative staff in August and September 2000 supported the conclusion that district board policies were in need of review. It was also evident that the intent and interpretation of the policies differed among members of the board. The superintendent and board members indicated they planned to work with representatives of the California School Boards Association to update and revise the policies to bring them into agreement with the California Education Code and current practices of the district.
In April 2001 the LSUSD Board voted to form a private, not-for-profit foundation to manage its real estate assets. The foundation's purpose, according to school administrators, is to allow flexibility in the district's expenditures. While articles of incorporation and by-laws are not yet adopted and the corporation itself may not yet be legally formed, administrators say that the board of directors of the foundation will consist of three board members and two community members appointed by the board, plus the superintendent, a non-voting member. A $1 million gift and the $10 million proceeds from the sale of a school site were or will be transferred by the district to the foundation, according to LSUSD officials.
op of this page
Findings:
The grand jury finds a pattern of lack of openness and failure to inform the district's voters dating back to the 1997 Measure D bond issue. Two members of the 1997 board indicated during grand jury interviews that, in addition to school modernization, the board intended to build a new middle school and that bond money was to be used to that end; yet nowhere in the bond publicity or the wording of Measure D is any reference made to construction of a new middle school. The board, moreover, voted to complete the middle school before all existing schools were modernized, a priority which district voters could justifiably have reason to feel was not communicated to them at the time of the election. The board also had not identified sufficient funds to pay for the modernization and to build a new middle school when they began the modernization and building program, conduct that is financially risky, managerially unsound, and unfair to taxpayers. With the sale of surplus school property and receipt of OPSC funds that were later sought and received, the modernization project now appears to have adequate funds.
The grand jury is concerned about the cost effectiveness of the entire modification and building project, including the construction of a new middle school. When completed, LSUSD will still have nine active school sites, more than comparably sized districts operate, and an enrollment that has been dropping consistently in recent years.
The grand jury finds that on several occasions the LSUSD board has not followed the appropriate steps or procedures to conduct properly its closed or open sessions. This results in members of the public not being informed or able to participate in debating issues before the board. Agendas and minutes show that board members also failed to make all the necessary and appropriate efforts to fully inform each other and the public and to allow the public to participate after becoming fully informed. One example of failure to inform the public was the approval of the superintendent's contract in. December 2000. Minutes and agendas show no open discussion of the contract which was put on the consent calendar and summarily approved. The board justified this action by viewing the contract as a mere extension of the existing superintendent's contract, but the contract increased compensation in excess of the percentage increase granted other employees and provided new benefits. It was, therefore, by the board's own adopted policy (Board Policy 2121), not a continuation of the existing contract, and should have been discussed in open session.
A second earlier example occurred on October 11, 2000. After a closed session hearing, the board failed to announce in open session the actions taken in closed session. These actions dealt with the possible waiver of the attorney-client privilege following the grand jury's request to confer with the board's attorney. The public had a right to know the board was being investigated and what the board was discussing. The board's attorney, a deputy county counsel, reasoned that the possible waiver of the privilege during open discussion was more important than the public's right to know and participate. As discussed in a recent grand jury report, under the Brown Act (Government Code �54950 et. seq.) this subject was not properly set forth in the agenda and was not a proper subject for closed session. A similar example occurred in May 1999, when the board met in closed session to discuss transfer of school principals, a topic not appropriate to closed session according to the Brown Act. Board Policy 1120, "Community Relations Governing Board Meetings," does not now reflect the limited nature of closed sessions permitted under the Brown Act.
The grand jury also finds that the board fails to follow its own policies. Although, for example, the superintendent's performance should be evaluated by July 1 (Board Policy 2123), in 1999 and 2000 the evaluation was late or not done at all. The grand jury was informed through interviews with LSUSD board members that on several occasions a board member's request to remove an item from the consent calendar for discussion was denied and that on another occasion a board member was denied the opportunity of adding an item to a future agenda. The denials were made on the ground that it was "tradition" for two or more board members to make such a request. Such a response was contrary to the Brown Act (Government Code �54954.3), the board's own policy, and the spirit of the Brown Act which calls for openness and everyone's right to be heard on board calendar items.
Recommendations:
Recommendation 4.5
The Laguna Salada Union School District Board of Trustees and administration should complete the revision of the district's policies before the start of the 2001-2002 academic year. Thereafter, board members should take deliberate steps to cause their practices to conform to the new policies.
Recommendation 4.6
Early in the 2001-2002 academic year the Laguna Salada Union School District Board of Trustees should provide training sessions for members of the board and administration in the interpretation and application of all its policies and procedures, old, new, and revised.
Recommendation 4.7
The Laguna Salada Union School District Board of Trustees should hire a conflict resolution management facilitator to attend board meetings and provide ongoing seminars, instruction, and guidance on conflict resolution. All board members should attend.
Recommendation 4.8
The Laguna Salada Union School Board of Trustees should promptly schedule training for itself in board oversight, including the board's role in setting policy and appropriate delegation of authority. Additional training in the intentions and specifics of the Brown Act should be provided. The board should then implement practices consistent with the Brown Act.
Recommendation 4.9
The Laguna Salada Union School Board of Trustees should direct the superintendent to correct the deficiencies found in the June 2000 audit and report on corrective measures in a public board meeting not later than September 30, 2001.
Recommendation 4.10
The Laguna Salada Union School Board of Trustees should develop, as policy, accountability and ethical standards pertaining to public funds and property. The board should carefully reconsider its fiduciary obligations to the taxpayers, parents, and children of the district as they pertain to the management of properties owned by the district and to funds collected and used by student body accounts in the district.
Recommendation 4.11
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury should monitor Laguna Salada Union School District's actions over the coming year in areas that gave concern to the current and past grand juries and evaluate the legality, openness, and accountability of the not-for-profit foundation to which the Board of Trustees plans to entrust public funds and other assets. The articles of incorporation, by-laws, policies, procedures, and purposes of the not-for-profit foundation should be examined closely.
@621 Uh huh and they've all been smart enough to absolutely hold power in this town for 30 years or more. And it isn't over, yet. Underestimate them at your own peril. And Pacifica's.
yawn
From this morning's history lesson it sure looks like Mike O'Neill has plenty of experience in cleaning up a mess, regaining public trust, and being an effective elected official. He's just what this sneaky, useless council and this dying town need.
uh oh somebody is taking a page from the Romney campaign primer. pick a screw up...his statements on Chrysler/Fiat, FEMA, or that ridiculous fauz hurricane relief romney rally. and right here we have an attempt to smear O'Neill and Ervin. wrong book! pity the fool.
I got the date of the school district's name change WAY wrong.
The switchover from "Laguna Salada Union School District" to "Pacifica School District" happened in 2004.
Off by 24 years -- geez, sorry about that.
Please Pacifica be smart just this once and vote O'Neill. A Campbell Council will be a disaster for this city. Haven't we had enough?
Hey Fogel, not to worry. Your facility with numbers clearly qualifies you for director of finances for the City of Pacifica.
Welcome aboard!
Wonder who anon735 supports?
Rich Campbell is more apt to listen to public opinions. I didn't find Mike O'Neil was always welcoming to public views at the School Board meetings. I know it's a drag to sit through all those long meetings, but that's what he signed on for. He could at least pretend to act interested in what people had to say. I'm voting for Campbell. He's creative and goes the extra mile to find solutions.
Hey at least Chris Fogel,mans up when he makes a mistake.
City Council has never manned up for all the mistakes then have done over the past 20+ years.
I don't care about who listens to who.
O'Neill has a record of getting things done. All Campbell has done is make it harder for people to build in Pacifica.
Between the planning commission and the school board, O'Neill has 18 years of appointed and elected public service. Not to mention his work for so many other organizations in this town. He is far more qualified than any other two year candidate. There is really no argument against O'Neill that isn't just hog wash.
O'Neill is, by far and away, the most qualified candidate this town has had in some time.
That's what a lot of people like about Campbell. He's no-growth and they love it! We're going to end up with him, Ervin and Nihart.
Get out your checkbooks people and prepare to know nothing about your city!
That's interesting that you don't place value on the public's opinion. That just goes to show how one sided you and all your followers are. Even this blog is one sided! Why does it only post letters in favor of O'Neill? There were plenty of letters this week for other candidates. How can anyone take you seriously? I certainly don't!
Campbell is not against growth! Have you ever talked to the guy? You're completely uniformed.
Mike O'Neill is so much better qualified than any one else who's running or currently on council. His lengthy public service experience on the school board has involved the same challenges council faces--and so studiously and politically avoids. He's no one's puppet, he's got real mental toughness, and he will be effective. Let's really raise the bar for council in Pacifica and elect Mike O'Neill. This town's future depends on this election. Don't blow it Pacifica!
Track record! Campaign rhetoric is pure bulloney. Take a look at his track record on the planning commission and you'll see Campbell is a smart guy completely committed to the flawed policies that have almost destroyed Pacifica. The code words are appropriate and sustainable and the result is no revenue for Pacifica. Vote O'Neill and give this town a fighting chance.
what? anon 327 says there's a campbell uniform. talk about elitist.
320 so stop your whining and post a letter. love to read it.
Campbell is for "smart" growth, which is the same as no growth.
The Pacifica Tribune endorses Nihart and Erwin for the 4-year seat and split on Campbell and O'Neill for the 2-year seat.
http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica/ci_21897572/pacifica-tribune-endorsements
"Why does it only post letters in favor of O'Neill? There were plenty of letters this week for other candidates."
The blog tends to post a letter or two a day. We'll get to the pro-Campbell letters.
I voted "yes" on Meas. L years ago, and I am voting "yes" for Campbell now. The handful of people I know who voted "no" on Meas. L (most voted "yes"), simply weren't comfortable with the density of the housing component. They loved everything else about the proposal. They weren't confident that our City Council could mold the project. We need a power house City Council! With Campbell on the Council, we'd have a better chance at getting those projects through. He's a skilled negotiator with developers. Vote "yes" for Campbell!
Oh boy. A good attorney will take either side of most cases.
Campbell, a Vallemar, Nobee
You people are stoned. I have no other excuse!
@411 Can't say I share your enthusiasm and optimism for Campbell's position on growth but I do recognize that he will be the dominant force on council. A Campbell Council. We are so screwed.
@430 Exactly! A Campbell Council is coming our way. We never learn. Oh well, it'll be interesting to watch.
Wow, the Tribune wimped out when it came to endorsing O'Neill.
They're all talk.
How about you Fix Pacifica. Care to go on the record in recommending either Campbell or O'Neill?
Or you just going to keep quiet and blame it on the NIMBY's being able to count?
The Trib endorsed O’Neil, Campbell, Nihart and Ervin on their website. Vallone was a no-show for interview. Maybe she figured it wasn’t important since it was going online and not in the paper... Anyone know why they didn’t have it in Weds paper?
Then Pacifica deserves Bankruptcy!
Anonymous endorsements are not believable.
Interesting give a & take about Rich Campbell listening, his leadership or what smart growth means. I actually don't think Rich Campbell makes sense or is forthright.
His position in Rt. 1 widen: a drop off at police station and kids somehow walk to Vallemar school. Pedestrian overcrossing. Rework school start times. None of this makes any sense nor is supported by any voices in town. Vallemar parents are aghast at the implications. Why doesn't Campbell upfront say he is against widening on maybe enviro grounds, costs, ride the bus? No one, I repeat no one is going to drop their kids off at the police station at any time under any circumstances to walk to the Vallemar school. A complete non-starter.
An overcrossing has never been discussed in the 15 years Rt. 1 has been debated and cars cause the congestion, not peds. Finally, schools have staggered start times and even School Bd Pres Kaufman (a Campbell endorser) should fess up to that.
So Campbell's entire position on a key issue--Rt. 1--is a fiction. It's manufactured to give him political cover and the appearance of thinking about it. That's my fundamental problem with Rich Campbell: absent the political talk for this race, the first time he has ever been public with his views, what does he really stand for?
Steve Sinai said...
Anonymous endorsements are not believable.
November 1, 2012 6:06 PM
so who do you endorse Sinai?
Anonymous said...
Campbell is not against growth! Have you ever talked to the guy? You're completely uniformed.
November 1, 2012 3:27 PM
What has he done on planning to try to bring in any growth. Pacifica only has a few parcels left.
The quarry-the hippies and nobees scream you can't turn us into Daly City and pave everything. You can not build a city in the quarry.
Waste Water Treatment plant-they think they are going to get a 40 million dollar library. The city is fking broke.
Pedro Point flat parcel the x catholic church owned parcel-the pedro point nobees want to leave it vacant so their dogs can poop there.
Palmetto-you people are killing me if you think this will be a downtown. There never was or never will be a reason to go to Palmetto. Its a complete eyesore and the city doesnt have the money and no how to wipe the whole street out and start over.
Anonymous said...
Campbell is not against growth! Have you ever talked to the guy? You're completely uniformed.
November 1, 2012 3:27 PM
Vreeland, was for the Peebles, plan for the quarry, but he told the other side no way we will let Peebles, build anything in Pacifica, Vreeland, hand appointed Campbell, for the planning commission thus I can't vote for the guy.
"I voted "yes" on Meas. L years ago, and I am voting "yes" for Campbell now. The handful of people I know who voted "no" on Meas. L (most voted "yes"), simply weren't comfortable with the density of the housing component. They loved everything else about the proposal. They weren't confident that our City Council could mold the project. We need a power house City Council! With Campbell on the Council, we'd have a better chance at getting those projects through. He's a skilled negotiator with developers. Vote "yes" for Campbell! "
it is thinking like this that has bankrupted Pacifica.
anon730 Didn't Sinai a couple days ago say who he was voting for? I think so and O'Neill was absolutely one of them. I believe the others were Vellone and Nihart.
Who knows what arm-twisting and deal-making went into that Trib endorsement. Is the rumor going around true? Was this the handiwork of a newly formed Trib citizen's advisory committee?
Did they succeed where the chamber couldn't or wouldn't in dumping Vellone? Quietly, on line. It's all so hush hush, so Pacifica. Who knows? And then, not endorsing O'Neill? What on earth? Screwed again.
"so who do you endorse Sinai?"
I voted for Nihart, O'Neill and Vellone.
I wouldn't have a problem with Ervin or Spano, but I do worry about Spano and O'Neill splitting the vote and both losing.
How starved are we for ability and real intelligence on council that we think Campbell will change his spots? It's not going to happen people. Discard his reassuring campaign rhetoric and what do you have? An EPA attorney hiding behind the endless search for smart, appropriate, sustainable development. A Campbell Council is a continuation of the same flawed policies that have nearly destroyed this town. We can't afford that. Mike O'Neill has the only shot at beating him. Give him your vote.
Then take a stand Steve. Say the Fix Pacifica endorses Oneill
No way, Mike O'Neill is not getting my vote. I don't want to see businesses like used car lots, outlet malls and Targets in Pacifica!
And there folks, at 742, we have Pacifica's basic problem put into one incredibly foolish statement. We'd rather be broke than sully this ramshackle town with revenue producing businesses.
Steve Sinai said...
"so who do you endorse Sinai?"
I voted for Nihart, O'Neill and Vellone.
I wouldn't have a problem with Ervin or Spano, but I do worry about Spano and O'Neill splitting the vote and both losing.
November 1, 2012 10:57 PM
Mary Ann has been on council for 4 years and didn't do much besides apologize for raising fees and taxes.
O'Neil is a yes man. He would be horrible on council plus he can not be trusted
vellone can not balance her own check book let alone the city's thus its a poor choice.
I like Mary Ann's apologies. She cries, grimaces, always delivers melodrama, and excuses. But hey, plenty of councilmembers produce far less and political careers have been built on this kind of crap. I think O'Neill would be The Sheriff and we need one. Vellone actually gets my vote because she's been so shabbily treated by her former friends. Call it a sympathy vote. It's as good a reason as any.
@939 we're just going to have to get a bigger rock for you.
Post a Comment