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 Schools Forum Makes Policy Clear as Mud
The good news is that the South County rep on the County Board of Education will soon be changing. New blood was voted in (I believe the June election) and should be taking that seat soon. I suggest we get to know her as soon as possible. We know the rest of that troop can't see, or manage to hear, anyone who comes from South County. Perhaps the new person will be able to wake them up.— November 16, 2012 3:27 p.m.
Chula Vista Ethics Meeting Draws Mayor and Three Police
Let's take a look at another interesting 'arrangement' and subsequent voting by Pamela Bensoussan. After 'gifting' the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce an annual handsome sum of TOT reveunue (transportation and hotel occupancy tax) money to 'market' the city to visitors, the stakeholders of the hotel/motel owners group voted to stop the funding after it was learned that nearly all of it went to subsidize, supplant, executive salaries at the Chamber. Pamela Bensoussan and Mayor Cox voted AGAINST removing the subsidy. Hmmmm....now take a look at the Chamber's website and you will see (such a surprise) that the Chamber endorsed Bensossan over her opponent in the upcoming City Council election in November. (They also endorsed two candidates for another seat, which means at least the Chamber Board evaluated their positions on business and found both of them worthy --- they did not take sides in that race.) IF the Chamber WERE an independent organization funded by member's dues and other non-public sources, that body arguably has the right to endorse whomever they please (with the caveat that members of the Chamber Board who are paid by public entities should abstain from discussing or voting on any endorsement because their memberships are paid with public $$$ and they should therefore be neutral.) But, we have seen that the Chamber has NOT BEEN an independent organization, taking city $$$ to supplant their operational costs. Now that the City has decided to stop the 'gift' of City monies to the Chamber for nebulous 'city marketing efforts' (it would be interesting to find out when the city/TOT money stops flowing), we should be vigilant to make sure that pipeline is not opened again in the future.— October 29, 2012 11:11 a.m.
Sweetwater School Board Awards 2-Year Contract to Ed Brand
Not to mention the board's authorization for Fast Eddy to spend up to $250,000 of public funds without board approval for ANYTHING....smacks of subsidy for Ricassa and Quinones' approaching legal bills, and perhaps other kickbacks to Board members. Quinones probably voted against the contract because she knew it would pass anyway, and probably worked it out ahead of time with Cartmill, McCann and Ricasa. She needs votes come November. However, I do think there are some state requirements about expenditures over a certain level, but then.....this is corrupt-ville after all and who pays attention to state requirements, the District's own bylaws, or even state law? We know the Brown Act doesn't apply to Sweetwater, and the accounting shell games continue.— September 27, 2012 12:51 p.m.
Sweetwater Interim Superintendent Ed Brand Resigns
Good question jnojr! A quick calculation for STRS if he makes $252,000 x .02 (the age factor up to 62) x 25(if that is the number of years for which he has service credit in STRS) it would be $126,000 in pension, instead of the $118,000 he is getting now. Let's say he 'unretires' from STRS and takes the sweet (pun intended) Sweetwater deal. Not much of a difference, you might say! However, take alook at the benefits part of the package: he will take benefits until eligible for Medicare (at 65), so that's about another seven years, regardless how long he stays with SUHDS. Some unanswered questions here, of course, because I am guessing at his total years of service in the formula. Then there is the monthly mileage at $750 (another $9,000 PER YEAR) even for the one month he gets in vacation, plus all the other paid holidays the district gives. So, that brings the salary/mileage up to $261,000 and does not even include the medical benefits the board just gave away for SEVEN years. And a guaranteed buy out if his contract is terminated.... Talk about SWEET! The board should burn in hell. Instead, they put the kids and district in purgatory with this megalomanic in the driver's seat.— September 25, 2012 2:40 p.m.
Sweetwater Interim Superintendent Ed Brand Resigns
It seems Joepublic's comment of September is on target. Brand is setting it (and us) up for a grand contract buy-out if/when he is terminated...likely to occur after the election and new board member(s) takes seat in December. If he kept the current consultant agreement, he would not get a buy-out...that seems to be the motivation behind his demand for a new contract rather than staying through December when the consultant agreement is supposed to end. Even if the election goes his way, the board is likely to have two fewer occupants after the January trial (Ricasa and Quinones), and again his job will be in jeopardy. What games! Sadly, it's all about Brand and some members of the board's perceived notion of power and control, and of course, money. Theoretically, the board is to set policy and hire a supe to manage operations. Well, we've been 'managed' and the public will is dismissed, dissed, and ignored. What policy? Bah Humbug!— September 23, 2012 1:21 p.m.
10News and Sweetwater's John McCann, True Patriots?
Trying to post, but the first one didn't take. Eastlaker is right on target. We should not be distracted from the focus on the heart of the corruption, that is the core issue. There are multiple versions of the shell game going on...button, button, who's got the button; blind man's bluff; you get the drift. The ventriloquist controlls his puppets very well, it's just difficult to determine who's playing Howdy Doody and who is supposed to be Clarabelle! There is enough blame to go around, enough duplicity, enough distain for the public's right to know to last hundreds of years. We have seen that the County Office of Education is, as my wise friend says, 'do-less' and worthless. Let's not expect change, or 'sober behavior from a drunk' because we will always be disappointed. Our kids will continue to suffer, as will enducational integrity of our community, until some entity (insert Grand Jury, Superintendent of Public Education, FBI, etc.) who is supposed to protect the public and the public till steps up to the plate. I am reminded of a saying during the Nixon Administration: A public office is a public lust. Seems to apply here.— September 16, 2012 2:46 p.m.
No Confidence Petition for Sweetwater's Ed Brand
savesweetwater: correction - they are not worthy to serve US. They serve at our pleasure and report to us.— September 9, 2012 8:01 p.m.
No Confidence Petition for Sweetwater's Ed Brand
And so the shell game continues! The wording of the agenda item is so vague it is either designed to take care on only routine business (which should be taken care of in a regular meeting -- why a special meeting?), or transfer legions of balking teachers who are complaining about chaos resulting from erratic administrative directives in the first month of the new year, OR to reclassify Brand from interim to permanent superintendent. Perhaps the intent is to do more than one of the above in one sitting, or as much as they think they can get away with, even if taking action on the employment of a superintendent during a special meeting is illegal! HMMMMMMMMMM Most such agenda items will indicate the position title(s) of those to be discussed during the meeting, and usually cite the legal code which authorizes the discussion in closed session. This does neither! When, oh when, will the Grand Jury be summoned? We know the County Board of Ed is looking the other way and whistling in the dark. Remember the purpose of the Brown Act: "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." This, folks, is all about control.— September 9, 2012 10:53 a.m.
Sweetwater Schools Chief Walks Away Before Q&A on Dirt
For the record, I DO fault the SUHSD attorney for his specious opinion about SUHSD Brown Act violations and what the board is entitled, and NOT ENTITLED, to do as they attempt to abrogate the public's right with regard to public comment. He is a relatively smart lawyer and knows better! As a long-time provider of legal advice to school districts, he certainly knows (or should know) the details of the Brown Act. Please do not give him a 'pass' for not being a Brown Act expert. That law is relatively easy even for lay people to interpret.— August 20, 2012 3:29 p.m.
Sweetwater Schools Chief Walks Away Before Q&A on Dirt
In RE: Brown Act violations - I find it simply outrageous and bizarre that the board's own attorney makes the specious opinion that the board may determine when the Brown Act is 'convenient' for them. The Brown Act is a LAW, and its provision for public comment is not discretionary or an option if the Board 'feels like' following it or if it is 'convenient' for the conduct of the meeting of the public agency. It seems the SUHSD continues to play fast and loose with both the law itself and its spirit : "The public's business shall be done in public."— August 20, 2012 12:28 p.m.