Foothills Sentry September 2024

Foothills Sentry Page 4 SEPTEMBER 2024 Circulation … 40,000 Published on the last Tuesday of each month and distributed to residences, businesses, libraries and civic centers. Printing by Advantage, Inc. 714-532-4406 Fax: 714-532-6755 foothillssentry.com 1107 E. Chapman Ave., #207 Orange, CA 92866 © Foothills Sentry 2024 Publisher/Editor Anita Bennyhoff 1969-2013 Editor Tina Richards editor@foothillssentry.com Sports Editor Cliff Robbins sportseditor@att.net Graphic Designer Jef Maddock graphics@foothillssentry.com Advertising Sales Andie Mills advertising@foothillssentry.com 714-926-9299 Office Manager Kathy Eidson officemanager@foothillssentry. com Guest Commentary Vote "no" on the Rancho Santiago CCD Measure G bond By Dr. Barry Resnick In 2006, the Rancho Santiago Community College District (RSCCD) put the $393 million Measure O on the ballot. It lost by eight points. Four years ago, RSCCD tried again with the $496 million Measure L. It also lost. Now RSCCD wants to try again, but will ask for even more money from Orange County taxpayers. On Nov. 5, taxpayers will be asked to approve the $720 million Measure G bond. The college dis- trict has been vague about where the $720 million will be spent. It wants taxpayers to issue a blank check, which is concerning, con- sidering past questionable finan- cial decisions. Currently taxpayers in Ana- heim Hills, Orange, Santa Ana, Villa Park and portions of four other Orange County cities con- tinue to pay on the $337 million 2002 Measure E bond. Santa Ana residents are also paying on RSCCD’s $198 million 2012 Measure Q bond. Multiple bonds With the passing of this bond, some taxpayers in Santa Ana could find five school bond as- sessments on their tax bills, including a Santa Ana Unified bond that has already passed and another one being proposed. For Orange residents, passage of this $720 million bond would be the third school bond assess- ment on their tax bills, including the 2016 Orange Unified Mea- sure S bond. In addition to the RSCCD bond, the taxpayers of Califor- nia will be asked this November to approve Proposition 2, a $10 billion bond for construction on both the K-12 and community college campuses statewide. Like Proposition 2, the pur- pose of the new RSCCD bond is to improve infrastructure and construct new classrooms at the two district colleges, Santiago Canyon College and Santa Ana College. The RSCCD would like ev- eryone to forget the infrastruc- ture nightmare of the Orange Education Center on Batavia. Built with Measure E funds at a cost of over $28 million, the building had to be torn down 14 years after it was constructed for problems too long to cite. Elec- trical, plumbing, non-ADA com- pliance and hazardous materials were just a few of the issues that plagued this building. Where are the students? It’s hard to understand RSCCD’s rationale to build more. Students today are taking classes online or in hybrid format in far greater numbers. This past spring semester at Santiago Canyon College, over half the credit students were en- rolled exclusively online. Distance education credit and non-credit enrollment for both colleges, based on a full-time equivalent, has tripled since the year prior to the pandemic, while the total number of students in the entire district for the same period is lower. Accountability and disclosure? With the passage of this bond, RSCCD acknowledges “strict ac- countability” is required as well as “public spending disclosure.” To accomplish this, the board promises to form a citizens’ over- sight committee made up of lo- cal residents. Previously, these committees cancelled and re- scheduled many meetings, met infrequently and left seats re- quired by law unfilled. The biggest failure of the dis- trict was not disclosing that two RSCCD senior administrators were serving as directors of a Hawaii-based insurance com- pany that received millions of dollars in bond construction in- surance premiums for the two bonds previously issued by the district. Questionable decisions Last October, the RSCCD board passed up the potential of $3 million in savings when it elected not to contract with Aet- na CVS Health for an employee health plan, considered superior to the incumbent plan. Instead, RSCCD renewed its employee health plan with the same vendor for the ninth con- secutive year. It’s hard to forget the RSCCD Foundation’s foolish attempt to partner with the Saudi govern- ment for the management of technical schools. The schools were in Saudi Arabia, and RSCCD employees were origi- nally told they would be given priority to assist with the training work. Controversy arose when it became clear female and Jewish employees would be prohibited from working on the project. To make the problem go away, RSCCD falsely claimed the Foundation was not part of the college district and was acting independently. An untold amount of public funds and resources were eventually wasted, resulting in embarrassment for RSCCD, which still lingers today. The Orange Education Center disaster, questionable financial decisions, lack of past oversight and disclosure, and lower on- campus enrollment are a just a few reasons the decision to vote “no” on the $720 million Mea- sure G bond is an easy one. Dr. Barry Resnick retired as a professor of counseling from the RSCCD in 2022 having served for 42 years. He and his family have been residents of Orange for 37 years. Eye of the beholder Dear Editor: As an attendee at the Intracorp- related meeting in the Orange City Council Chambers over the past several months, I was not surprised when builder Intracorp brought out proponents to support their project on the old AT&T lot on Katella Avenue. One proponent, Daniel Gehman, spoke glowingly of the “handsome and well-designed project.” After this project had been rejected by both the City Design Review Committee and the City Planning Committee, the Orange City Council overwhelmingly approved the project, with no explanation to residents and abutting homeowners regarding the about-face posture of the city council. Shame on the council for their negative posture against their constituents, and their stance against city rules on these high- density projects that do not take into account the neighborhood aesthetic. Speaking of Gehman and his recent post as a proponent of this project, I uncovered the following from his website: “As principal at Danielian Associates, Daniel champions the firm's multifamily studio and focuses on higher density, multifamily, mixed-use developments and infill.” Clearly, his comments weren't from a concerned neighbor of the project, rather focusing upon supporting developers who want to change the charm and character of the city. Jay Chais Orange Happy trails Dear Editor: The Irvine Company has closed Puma Ridge Trail, in preparation for building houses on the bluff south of Irvine Park. I have been walking that trail for 25 years, and I will miss it. Puma Ridge Trail Farewell Y ou were a good trail, Steep and challenging At the beginning And sometimes rutted, But then easy with a Wide expanse: Mountains in the distance Hills all around, Birds calling, Sometimes even a Golden eagle. And in spring edged with Blooming buckwheat bushes and Purple-pink Mariposa lilies. Then at the other edge of the plain you Zig-zagged down the bluff To meadows with hidden Paintbrush and poppies and Golden violets. Puma Ridge, we will miss you, Though you will still lie there Beneath houses and pavement and Manicured lawns in all your Glorious vanished wildness. Puma Ridge, rest in peace. Maureen McConaghy Orange Comments on candidates Dear Editor: The City of Orange is in serious financial trouble. Our city council has been struggling with the budget deficit, and has been forced to cut, or dramatically reduce, services and celebrations citywide, in an effort to bring the deficit under control. Adding to this situation is the upcoming election of a new city treasurer. The incumbent is not running for reelection. It is imperative that the new treasurer be an experienced, capable and qualified person who embodies all of these traits. Unfortunately, our city does not have any such requirements for candidates seeking that position. This has opened the door for someone without any qualifications whatsoever to throw his hat into the ring and run for this critical office. This person is Eugene Fields. Fields has run for multiple elected offices without any success (County Supervisor, Orange City Council), and has decided that, without any experience whatsoever in accounting, without a CPA license, and without the knowledge of how to run the office of treasurer in a city of 139,000 citizens, he is qualified. Fields’ most recent experience has been as a public information officer. It is hoped that he has the good judgement and common sense to withdraw his application from this position. He knows that he is completely unqualified, and now, so do the citizens of Orange. John Reina Orange Park Acres Dear Editor: I made an administrative challenge to candidate Steve Rocco’s ballot designation as “retired teacher.” I did so, because I believed that his ballot designation for OUSD’s Trustee Area 7 race was untrue, and ultimately confuses, misleads and defrauds voters. Although Rocco was a credentialed teacher between 1975 and 2014, as documented by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, his principal vocation was never “teacher,” and he does not meet the criteria to designate himself as a “retired teacher.” The Orange County Department of Education has no record of employment for Rocco as a credentialed teacher within Orange County by any school district, according to a response to a public records act request filed with the Orange County Department of Education. Transparent California, the state's largest public pay and pension database, does not list any pension payments to him. It is noteworthy that educators must meet the same threshold of five years of service to qualify for Cal-PERS as a candidate does to qualify for a “retired” occupation ballot designation (CCR 20716). Further, under CCR 20716, the use of the word “retired” in a candidate’s ballot designation is also generally limited to those who have not “had another more recent, principal profession, vocation, or occupation.” The mere fact that Mr. Rocco is claiming to also be a writer would indicate that he is not “retired.” The Registrar approved my challenge and changed Rocco’s ballot designation to simply “writer” on Aug. 16. Darshan Smaaladen Orange Dear Editor: Voters beware! Steve Rocco is running again for the Orange Unified School Board. You may recognize his name, as he runs for many governmental agencies throughout our county. Twenty years ago, in 2004, Steve Rocco ran for the OUSD School Board and misled the voters of our community by listing his occupation as an “Educator.” While Rocco did have a teaching credential, he never actually worked as a teacher. Rocco did not campaign and made no public appearances leading up to the election. Rocco, sight unseen and a complete unknown, was elected to the school board by voters who thought they were selecting a trustee with educational experience. What we got instead was chaos, and someone completely uninterested in governing our district. On the night the trustees were sworn in, Rocco arrived in his infamous sunglasses and beanie, and proceeded to read from a manifesto that went back over many years, droning on about conspiracies, entities and individuals unrelated to our school district. During his tenure, Rocco did not uphold the duties of an elected school board member. He refused to attend closed sessions (where trustees privately discuss important matters such as negotiations regarding OUSD properties, teacher contracts, new leadership hires, lawsuits); spouted conspiracy theories (including Albertsons owners attempting to kill him); and disrupted board meetings in any way possible. I was an active parent in the district back then. Rocco derailed board meetings and wasted our time and resources with his dysfunction. His unwillingness and inability to focus on the