Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Sweetwater's gathering storm
The district, specifically Ed Brand, continues to play sleight of hand with appropriate documents for the Bond Oversight Committee to review. The prior chair of the committee made the same charge against the district,specifically that they dont provide adequate financial information on a timely basis, for the committee to adequately do its job, over a year ago. The current chair makes the same charge!— January 30, 2013 10:32 p.m.
Sweetwater board meeting times may change
Kudos to the Trustees for making the right decision last night on the time change. It was hilarious to see Brand outed in calling Lopez' boss - he turned red as a beet when Bertha brought that up. It is a shame how Bertha is disrespected by her peers. She in essence made the same motion as McCann. I know she is not as polished as McCann, Cartmill and Ricasa, but her heart and mind is in the right place. Of course, the court proceedings will impact her fate. I think Cartmill hears the community and its concerns, he does have a 9th grader in the district. I really believe the meetings should run better with him as Board President; they cant be any worse than they were under the prior Pres.— January 29, 2013 10:21 a.m.
Sweetwater board meeting times may change
I hope every one of you on this thread that disagree with the time change contacted the Trustees to voice your displeasure with this attempt. Please dont assume they wont listen (although they probably will not!). Still, they need to hear directly from us via emails, phone calls, attendance at the meeting tonight, on community blogs and social media - from all sides. Maybe, like the speck of dust in Horton Hears a Who, our collective voices will ultimately be heard by the Trustees and they will make the right decision!!— January 28, 2013 3:41 p.m.
Sweetwater U partnership opposed by Freedom from Religion
Again, i think this is a very good idea that can benefit our students. Yes we dont have to send our kids to GCU, and as long as other choices are available im ok with it. I still have concerns over why and how GCU was selected, considering the Fed govt lawsuit, them being a for profit religious school, and the Frontline story, and the fact that at least 1 trustee was kept out of the loop. Knowing how Brand operates, i bet only 1 or 2 trustees knew details about this partnership, and he probably left the rest out of the loop. Again who from the district benefitted from this? If this idea of Sweetwater U does not cost the district and taxpayers money, and their is no quid pro quo with certain district leadership or trustees, then it can be a benefit to our students. Unfortunately, our district does not have the best track record with transparency and honesty, so these type of decisions that are dumped on us smell fishy!— January 25, 2013 2:13 p.m.
Sweetwater U partnership opposed by Freedom from Religion
So those that attended the meeting last night, what did you think? I have to admit, i like the idea that accelerated/advanced students can take college courses and get a head start on their freshman year. Just think, your child entering their Freshman year of college with credits towards their gen ed requirements done. Maria Castilleja was the district spokesperson, apparently Ed Brand had some Chinese delegation thing going on so he was not available. She says she called SDSU and UCSD and they said they would accept the courses offered by Grand Canyon U if transferred. The Grand Canyon U rep said it has regional accredidation similar to all other Arizona universities (NCASP). He nor the district would comment on the lawsuit filed by the federal govt nor on the Frontline story. We were referred to their PRRep. GCU apparently has a similar partnership with the San Juan Capistrano School District. Imagine this Sweetwater U idea - our kids having an option of various trade schools, Universities, JC 's, and vocational schools, to attend at discounted rates. College courses would transfer, arrangements would be made with employers for internships and jobs for our students. We are in utopia here at SUHSD with pink unicorns!! Actually, in theory its a great idea. However, many questions exist, like why GCU? What is the connection to Ed Brand? What financial incentive, if any, is the district and/or Ed Brand, receiving? We were told privately that the district had a committee that Brand put together, and they selected GCU. Were any teachers, students or parents on this committee? Why not? Bertha Lopez attended the meeting, and she knew nothing about this committee or this University, why not? She's a trustee!! Although a great idea, too many unanswered questions remain. Transparency by Ed Brand would surely help! For the sake of my 3children, i hope this idea is developed and their are options available other than GCU!!— January 25, 2013 7:32 a.m.
Sweetwater U partnership opposed by Freedom from Religion
Confuzled, i have 2 students in the district, with a third to follow. I have no desire to limit choices for my children. However, i do have a problem with a public school partnering with a for profit Christian school that may not have all its accreditations, and whose credits may not all transfer to other universities. On top of that, it costs more to take credits at this school. So why the partnership? Who is benefitting from this arrangement? It likely is not the students for the aforementioned reasons. Also, when i read the board resolution of Nov 2011 directing district staff to "proceed with the establishment of Sweetwater U", i do not believe partnering with this school satisfies this resolution. So the question is, who benefits from this arrangement, and where did this school come from? Why not local schools that are more affordable with full accredidation? And why the rush? Why no input from stakeholders like the public, teachers, parents and students to fully develop this Sweetwater U idea? What are the specifics of this partnership? It appears this was a rushed decision without a thorough review or plan. Sound familiar? Ipads, pre K - 6 charter school, etc. This type of decision in a vacuum just lends more support to those that believe Ed Brand is a corrupt, tyrant of a Supt who only thinks of what is best for him and not for students, parents, teachers or the community— January 24, 2013 4:11 p.m.
Serious supporters of Sweetwater trustee Pearl Quiñones
Fireflycobra, you may be right on that issue. And it is a real concern that 80% of the districts budget is for employee compensation (all employees of the district, from top to bottom, not just teachers). I own a business, and if 80% of my revenue was for payroll I would be out of business!! I believe this a part of the reason for the district's continual budget problems. However, as I mentioned on another blog in The Reader, right now in my mind the imminent concern in our district are these issues with the Trustees and Superintendent. I believe their actions have really damaged the reputation of our school district. And this has an impact on students, teachers, neighborhoods, on all of us!! As a community of residents and parents, we need to have a united voice so that the Trustees and Superintendent will hear us, and they will immediately stop their questionable practices and decisions. As far as your stated concerns about Alex, If union membership agrees with your assessment of him and current union leadership, they should be voted out.— January 21, 2013 6:21 p.m.
Sweetwater U partnership opposed by Freedom from Religion
Timtim, I'm neither a union member, teacher, administrator, Bertha, John, Jim, Arlie or Pearl supporter. Just a parent of children in the district and a member of this community who has lived here my entire life and gone to the district schools. There are many issues at this district, too many to discuss here. But, you have to admit that this districts leadership and trustees have been an embarrasment to this community and students. 4 of 5 trustees indicted for criminal actions, prior Supt indicted for the same, current Supt making questionable decisions for non 7-12 items, the list goes on and on. Although the union is not without its faults, the negative publicity and embarrasing actions and decisions are on the part of our board and district leadership. Lets start with correcting that. Once that is in place, we can turn our attention to the Union and any negative impacts they may be having on our schools, children and community.— January 21, 2013 12:32 p.m.
Sweetwater U partnership opposed by Freedom from Religion
To all the rumors out there that the start time has been changed, i have emailed the board president and will call him tomorrow. Lets try to end the rumor and see what he says. Anniej had posted previously that board policy dictates start time, and as usual she is correct. BB 9320b states start time is 6:30pm. Of course we all know how well this district follows their own board policies!!— January 20, 2013 10:33 a.m.
Ryan Leaf in state prison
tomjohnston, all very good points in comparing Leaf's performance on the field to that of Mannings. However, when it comes to NFL scouting, on the field performance is usually not the only thing being looked at. Backgrounds are usually checked very thoroughly. In Mannings case, he had the bloodlines of an NFL dad, was a superb student and an excellent all around person and leader. A further look at Leaf's background showed a kid with incredible talent, but not very well liked by teammates, below average performance in class, and other red flags. Had the Chargers not been in such a need for a QB, and had they done their due diligence, they would have passed on him and we could have avoided his association with them and our town.— January 19, 2013 12:56 p.m.