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...
Visduh....the royal 'we' must be contagious, as that is the only pronoun McCann seems to have in his vocabulary when referring to the outcome of the election or his part in the political process. I agree that the $1 per vote to be recounted seems excessive cost to pay the ROV for the recount. Seems to me that there should be a stipulation that any outcome with less than a certain percentage of difference (say one percent) between top vote getters should be subject to an automatic recount.— December 4, 2014 11:30 a.m.
It would have been prudent...
I think the critical difference is the lack of a mainstream newspaper and investigative reporting. The Reader has been the ONLY news outlet to report about the shenanigans at SUHSD and in the City of Chula Vista, and it has not the influence or reach of the Los Angeles Times. Thank goodness for Susan Luzarro and her persistence to help keep us informed and thank goodness for the Reader for providing this forum.— December 3, 2014 1:02 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
For starters, there is a different DA in Los Angeles, as well as a different Federal Grand Jury. According to the news story in the LA Times, it was the Federal Grand Jury that has ordered the investigation of the LAUSD Ipad debacle.— December 3, 2014 11:05 a.m.
It would have been prudent...
Agreed eastlaker! A new board of trustees has been elected, and will soon take their seats on the dais. Let's hope this interim superintendent will have done sufficient orientation to bring them up to speed quickly as they dive into the district's massive number of questionable scams....er projects. Those whom they represent need to keep their feet to the fire to do the right thing...that is easier said than done, of course. So.... the citizenry needs to: Show up at meetings, inquire as to items on the agenda, pay attention to even small things, be heard during public comment at board meetings, request information to which the public is entitled, and don't take 'no' for an answer. The public is paying the tab for the school district and is entitled to participate in the process as entitled by law. Unfortunately, except for the Reader, there is no real 'press' to regularly report the doings of the district as in the past.— December 1, 2014 1:52 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
Surely Ed Brand and all his pals, David Malcolm, etc.etc. are all likely and usual suspects when underhanded deals involving public assets occur.— December 1, 2014 11:48 a.m.
It would have been prudent...
Here's another thought on the subject: It may not be possible for the new board to fully evaluate each and every one of the administrative staff between the time the new board members are sworn in mid-December, and the December 31 notice deadline for those admins who have multi-year contracts. I propose that the new board consider issuing a blanket 'notice' prior to December 31 to ALL administrators, effective June 30, 2015....those whom they decide to keep can receive cancellation notices prior to June 30. That way, everyone who possibly would get such a notice will have received one timely. That would give the new board ample time to fully and appropriately work with the superintendent to evaluate the entire administrative staff by June 30, while still meeting the requirements of the law.— November 30, 2014 3:24 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
IMPORTANT INFO FOR NEW SUHSD BOARD: It occurs to me that the members of the new SUHSD Board of Trustees might plan to re-evaluate the employment of members of the district's administrative staff. Depending on the length of the employment contract, administrators have rights to notice of their employment is to be terminated as of June 30, 2015 (the usual 'end' date for employment). I believe that administrators with one-year contracts expiring June 30 must receive official notice by the prior March 15; administrators with multiple-year contracts must receive official notice by December 31. As the December 31 deadline for providing notice for holders of multiple-year contracts is approaching, the new board might wish to consider which of the administrative staff are 'keepers' and which are not, in a timely fashion and inquire as to the nature of each administrator's contract provision. In any event, administrators who receive appropriate notices are entitled to compensation through the end of the academic year, June 30. Of course, they may be 'dismissed' earlier by placing them on administrative leave but are still entitled to compensation. Just sayin'— November 29, 2014 1:20 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
Perhaps it is the road of least resistance to their monthly stipends and additional benefits! Certainly not because any one of them are looking to do any work on behalf of those they are supposed to be representing. What a 'lilly-livered' (as Sister Mary V used to say to us 4th graders at St. Rose) bunch of pathetic excuses for so-called public servants. I am dumbfounded that not one of them managed to raise any alarm or concern about going down the path....even 'good intentions' lead to hell if not supported by any backbone.— November 26, 2014 10:50 a.m.
It would have been prudent...
Excellent questions Susan! We'll await answers from the City and the District ASAP.— November 25, 2014 5:59 p.m.
It would have been prudent...
anniej, eastlaker, joepublic....it certainly looks like there are numerous 'issues' wrong with the action that the temporary interim 'what me worry?' board took on Nov 20 that surely it can be undone when the new board is seated! This 'rush to judgment'...er action...in order to keep the questionable real estate scam on track, after the superintendent had agreed that the public had not been adequately heard... Guess he just followed direction to head everyone off at the pass and gain some time for the backroom deals to go forward. Again, it seems to me that there NEVER was, or were, public hearings declaring any of the properties surplus! Once again it looks like the law, and the right of the people to be heard, have been subverted. Yes eastlaker, it is sickening!— November 25, 2014 3:12 p.m.