Foothills Sentry February 2022

Foothills Sentry Page 4 February 2022 JOHNSON MOTORCARS 31 Years of Specializing in the Service and Repair of Mercedes-Benz Gary Johnson 714-997-2567 982 N. Batavia # B13, Orange, CA 92867 gary@johnsonmotorcars.com Guest Commentary TUSD recall effort fails in fact finding By Ronna Sarvas Weltman A small group of parents and residents from Tustin and other Orange County communities initiated a recall of three Tustin school board members. Their ac- tions threaten both the reputation and academic quality of Tustin schools. From the very beginning, this recall campaign has been note- worthy for its use of misinforma- tion to frighten and mislead par- ents and community members. Recall proponents cite disap- pointing test scores, neglecting to add that these test scores were ob- tained before some of the trustees threatened with recall were even serving on the board. The irony here is that they were inspired to run, in part, to address and im- prove those same test scores. They cite trustees’ support of an ethnic studies course, but the ethnic studies curriculum is state- mandated, and for good reason: Studies show that students en- rolled in ethnic studies perform better in all of their classes. They falsely claim Critical Race Theory is being taught in our classrooms. Yet, all of our school board members readily agree it has no place in K-12 edu- cation because it is a graduate- level elective regarding historical precedent in present-day legal codes offered in law schools. Finally, they complain that board members don’t listen to them. This would be understand- ably frustrating if it were indeed the case. Board members are lis- tening. They cannot, however, ac- cede to inadvisable requests such as dropping mask requirements or cancelling mandated classes. And who foots the bill for this recall? Taxpayers. The instiga- tors of this recall have avoided all mention of how it will be paid for. The hundreds of thousands of dollars required by the county registrar to verify signatures, and then hold an election, will come from district coffers. How many teachers or other staff members will have to be fired to make up for this shortfall? The recall advocates have vio- lated election laws. They have failed to disclose who is paying for their flyers and mailers, as re- quired by law. They have posted signs in public right-of-ways, vi- olating city ordinances; when the signs were properly removed by city staff, they lied that the signs were stolen. Their Facebook page falsely identifies them as a “community center,” another unethical claim. Their behavior throughout this process defies the good citizen- ship that we value in our com- munity. We want our children to have a bright future. The last thing Tu- stin needs is replacement school board members who flout the law, ignore science, and threaten our kids’ right to learn the science, math, history and social studies that help them develop into self- sufficient and fully prepared citi- zens. Since the beginning of the pandemic, our schools, under the leadership of the board, have added school nurses and mental health professionals. Mobile vac- cine clinics have been provided on school properties. The district has collaborated with the city to promote vaccines. Teachers have been assigned to evaluate stu- dents to help classroom teachers bridge learning gaps. This has helped keep our schools open, keep our kids safe, and helped them thrive, despite unprecedent- ed challenges to academic and emotional growth. The petitions were due to be turned into the Registrar of Vot- ers on Jan. 25. The registrar has 30 days to certify them. We want to be proud of our schools for graduating students who will succeed in tomorrow’s global marketplace. That’s why we all need to support the school board members who were duly elected by our community. After all, we voted for them. Our votes should count. If you get a ballot asking for your vote on this recall, vote “No.” A “No” vote on the recall is a big “Yes” for our community. Ronna Sarvas Weltman is a volunteer advocate for children and families. She lives in Cowan Let the sun shine Dear Editor: The following are comments made at the Jan. 11 Orange City Council meeting regarding a pro- posed cemetery on a dumpsite: Mayor Mark Murphy and Ana Gutierrez, thank you for meeting with us in December. When we met, you stated one of your goals is to be more transparent with Or- ange residents. Because the Kornerstone Cem- etery has not yet been an agenda item, we are not able to have a response from the city council re our concerns. As you continue to hear from our group, OC Health and other agencies on the current and ongoing health and safety issues, can you tell us how your goal of transparency will apply to nonagenda items like this one? Does code enforcement visit areas of concern for compliance, or is it the responsibility of the residents to report violations? The YMCA had five methane monitors that had to be released on a regular basis to avoid a methane gas explosion. Now that the building is burnt and the mon- itors are gone, who is monitoring the methane gas, and with what equipment? Is this a safety risk? I look forward to a response from city council, with its 2022 transparency goals, to assure that violations are not being ignored or disregarded, and our neighbor- hood is safe. Sharon Galasso Orange Shovel it Dear Editor: Many residents of the nearly 100-year-old equestrian commu- nity known as Orange Park Acres keep horses. But these days, the horse manure is being shoveled at us by Waste Management and its henchman, Supervisor Don Wagner. Thanks to Wagner, WM enjoys a monopoly in the county portions of OPA -- and a license to steal. They have saddled OPA county residents with unbridled costs for the recycling of ma- nure. In May, Wagner spurred the Board of Supervisors to approve a 10-year franchise contract for WM. He promised OPA residents input, but ultimately allowed none, ramming through a back room deal with shameful maneu- vering, as part of a longer term attack on a horse lovers’ enclave. On Jan. 11, WM held an on- line meeting – dubbed a “Town Hall” – to propagandize its latest extortionate rate hikes. Fatuously rationalizing the latest 100-900% increases as the inevitable con- sequence of WM’s need to com- ply with new state recycling law, WM’s off-camera representative cherry-picked questions, dodged truths, and then fingered consum- ers for the failure of WM’s alleged previous attempts to recycle. In truth, it’s WM that has re- fused to reuse the refuse. Ashley, the snidely WM Re-education Officer, told us horses “bleed money,” which must have been news to the one-third of our com- munity who are of moderate in- come or less and whose homes (often rented) are below median value for the area. Residents who attended the online meeting in good faith were left frustrated, in- sulted and livid. CR&R -- which handles the ser- vices in the city portions of OPA -- isn’t raising rates and charges a fraction of what WM gets. Per- sonally, my rates have gone up over 300%, and I have neighbors who are looking at increases that are triple that. If this is the best Wagner can do for OPA, then it is time for a new supervisor. Jan Breslauer Orange Park Acres Tradition Dear Editor: I agree with James Reichert (January letters) that the Villa Park City Council should have a peaceful transition to the leader- ship positions. Last year, adher- ing to “tradition,” I nominated Chad Zimmerman for advance- ment to mayor pro tem (it was his turn), and would have nominated him this year for mayor. Howev- er, in the past year, Zimmerman demonstrated a serious lack of good judgement when he voted “no” on the decision to submit the already approved 2021 Housing Element update in compliance with the state-required deadline. The only possible meaning of that “no” vote was that Villa Park should not submit the Housing Element update. The update is Villa Park’s plan to comply with the state mandate to provide for 296 affordable units within our city. The ramifi- cations of noncompliance are sig- nificant: loss of state funding and imposition of penalties and state assumption of land-use authority. It appears that Zimmerman now views his action as wrong – but only when his elevation to mayor was in question. Can he now credibly advocate for ap- proval and implementation of the Housing Element on behalf of our city and residents? One questions Reichert’s real concern regarding a “tradition” of advancement. Where was he in 2015 when his friends on council denied Councilman Bill Nelson’s advancement to mayor pro tem in favor of Rick Barnett? That was the real embarrassment to our city. Barnett had already served as mayor and mayor pro tem. Nelson had been elected first in a slate of six candidates in the pre- vious election, was in line for ad- vancement, and had given many years of significant service to our county, city and community. Nelson had certainly not acted against the best interests of the Attorney Kevin Shenkman sent the following to Orange City At- torney Gary Sheatz, Jan. 8. Following the settlement and entry of judgment in Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, et al. v. City of Orange, we were able to cooperate on de- veloping an appropriate district map for the Orange City Council. That judgment specifies criteria that must guide the development of future district maps as well. We have followed the City of Orange’s development of a district map for the 2022-2030 elections with great interest. It appears now that the City has focused its consideration on four maps – 105, 108, 109 and 119. Of those four, map 119 is the only one that is appropriate and consis- tent with the judgment. The most significant difference between map 119 and the others, is that map 119 does not alter District 5, which includes the El Modena neighborhood as well as much of the working-class neighborhood between the 55 Freeway and Tus- tin St. According to the data pro- vided by the City’s demographer, this results in District 5 being 59% Latino by population, and 40% Latino by citizen-voting-age population. Map 119, like the cur- rent map, also includes a second strong Latino-influenced district – District 2 – at 54% Latino by population and 43% Latino by citizen-voting-age population. Based on the undercount of La- tinos by the census in 2020, and the trailing nature of the citizen- voting-age population, it is likely District 5, as drawn currently and in map 119, will be a majority- Latino by citizen-voting-age pop- ulation this decade. In contrast, maps 105, 108 and 109 all significantly reduce the Latino proportion of District 5 – with Latino citizen-voting-age populations of 31, 31 and 32 per- cent, respectively. In some places, a 31% Latino district would give Latinos the ability to elect a can- didate of their choice; the City of Orange is not one of those places. In contrast, the 2020 election demonstrated that Latinos can elect their preferred candidate in District 5 as currently constructed (at 40% Latino by citizen-voting- age population). We worked cooperatively to develop lawful and effective dis- tricts for the City of Orange, and those districts were an unquali- fied success. I hope the City will not attempt to reverse that prog- ress by diluting the Latino vote in this new round of redistricting. Kevin I. Shenkman Shenkman & Hughes Orange districting on notice