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
It would have been prudent...
Hmmmmm. I wonder why someone would plead to anything if he, or his/her lawyer felt there was not enough evidence in the first place. Wouldn't it be better odds to go to trial in that case? You are right, Judge Espana did nothing to advance the cause of the people's rights and chose instead in multiple instances to pat the perps on the head (Jim Cartmill, especially) and tell them they didn't do that much wrong. I don't know who appointed her, but I believe we will all have the opportunity to let her know at the ballot when she is next up (likely in 2016) what we think of her brand of not-so-much justice, slaps on the hand, and failure to stand up for the rights of the taxpayers in South County.— December 9, 2014 2:58 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
Very good suggestion eastlaker. Everyone should know what liabilities the District might be facing. Some will be characterized as 'confidential personnel matters' but should be included and listed as such. Some will be characterized as 'ongoing real estate negotiation' but can still be included. Please don't let the closed session items cloud what the public should rightly be entitled to know.— December 9, 2014 11:10 a.m.
It would have been prudent...
There is certainly enough blame to go around....Brand, Gandara, henchpeople, and of course, the corrupt board, all doing for themselves instead of for the students of the District. The point about Shinoff et. al., as they do appear to be the district's primary counsel, is that they in all probability assisted and abetted much of the perfidy....including much that was done without the benefit of public vetting, be it defiance of the Brown Act or ignoring requirements for public hearings in regards to determination of the status of property the public owns prior to the district declaration of it as 'surplus'. It does take a band of thieves to loot the District's coffers, and that cannot be done unless the District's lawyers are compliant. By the way, who processed the requests for the TRO's and 'cease and desist'? Who gave the 'lecture' on 'civility'? I'm just sayin'..... Wouldn't it be best, now that we have a clean slate of new TRUSTees, to begin fresh with new legal counsel that is not tainted with the past or any allegiances to past players. I'm just sayin'.....— December 9, 2014 10:45 a.m.
It would have been prudent...
Good lawyers win their cases. Good ETHICAL lawyers who represent public interests cannot also be lapdogs.— December 8, 2014 3:33 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
I think you give Shinoff and Co WAY too much credit for doing what lawyers are supposed to do. Yes, lawyers whom you and I hire are supposed to win for us. District Counsel are supposed to help the District protect its interests and to follow the law! There were too many instances of failures to follow the Brown Act, to hold requisite public hearings to declare properties surplus (instead of facilitating the district's nefarious path to shady real estate entanglements) to look the other way and pat Dan Shinoff and Co on the head and say, 'good boys', you were only doing your job. I know Dan Shinoff and he is a good lawyer....he wins. I am disappointed in the fact that he has seemed to fail to help the District's so-called leaders stay on the right side of the ethical and often legal line. I think it is time to find new legal counsel who are able to guide the district, advise the leaders as to their legal and ethical responsibilities, and keep what is supposed to be open government open. Shinoff and Co. do not meet those criteria! Good lawyers are not lap dogs...— December 8, 2014 3:16 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
A superb suggestion, eastlaker. Stutz, Arelano, Shinoff et al. have been in the district's pockets too long and their allegiance, defense of, and blind eye to to questionable board and administrative practices suspect. They need to go! Surely there are other law firms with less baggage and more backbone.— December 8, 2014 10:45 a.m.
It would have been prudent...
It occurs to me that with the new districting areas in place, that each new board member has an opportunity to get 'closer' to the issues that beset the SUHSD schools in his/her district. Perhaps they might consider forming a 'district advisory council' composed of at least one parent from each school site to help keep the board member informed of issues that impact the students in those schools, giving the board member an 'ear to the ground' so to speak.— December 7, 2014 12:31 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
If any of the 'antagonists' know any of the new board members well enough, they might offer to 'buddy up' one-on-one for a few months to provide context and historical counter point to whatever the superintendent and admin. is promoting in each month's agenda. The Brown Act prohibits three or more of the new board members from getting together without pubic notice, but there is no prohibition that would keep them individually from meeting with any of the group that has studied the agendas so studiously for so many months. If I were a new board member, I would seek out the authority and expertise, and those who have been so rigorous in their studies of the district and its issues certainly are authorities— December 7, 2014 11:32 a.m.
It would have been prudent...
Just saw that an agenda for the swearing in of new SUHSD members tonight is posted online on the district's board docs. There is an opportunity for public comment. Closed session tomorrow at 10 a.m. for workshop on the Brown Act (yea for that!) and board member ethics (double yea for that)....and it looks like a couple of other items that may be related to real estate and/or personnel. I do hope the new members pay attention to the training and understand that they are now couriers of the Public TRUST!— December 5, 2014 4:06 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
The only person who would be in a position to answer that question is Padilla himself. I do not know if this would be the appropriate time for him to rock the boat with the ROv staff, but it is a question that should be asked and answered: Did the ROV office call Padilla to inform him of the same info they were supplying to McCann on that Tuesday evening when he had been dining with SUHSD school superintendent at Miguel's in Eastlake and supposedly left the restaurant to take a call from the ROV. Bottom line, we tax payers need to know that the ROV staff is even-handed in its treatment of ALL candidates and what they do for one they need to do for all.— December 4, 2014 2:21 p.m.