With 100% of precincts counted, Measure O fails.                                        Board of Directors just wasted half a million dollars of taxpayer money on this election.                                        Criminal complaints against the district will continue to be pursued.                                        Criminal and FPPC complaints against the Astro-Turfers will continue to be pursued.                                        Your property taxes based on indebtedness will now go down, as they should.                                        

More Campaign Violations

Criminal Use of Public Resources

If you still need another reason to vote against this tax measure, surely criminal use of public resources should get you off the fence. All for the love of money.

What's wrong with the message at the bottom of this page?

  1. The Board is contributing an incentive of "Community Service Hours" to get parents and their children to "volunteer" for the precinct walk. It's not volunteering when you receive a benefit for doing what's being asked.
  2. The Board is contributing the public resources of the Diamond Bar High School parking lot and quad to hold the coordinating event.
  3. On information and belief, the e-mail list(s?) being used is one used to inform students and parents of homework, grades, etc. That would be the property of the school district, wouldn't it?

There's no mention of the Astroturf "committee." That's because the Board and the school principals and employees don't distinguish between themselves and the "committee." When Lily Eibert (Chen) runs the "committee" and is also Vice President of the WVUSD Parent Coordinating Council, who can tell?

The Education Code prohibits using district resources "urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate", let alone its own ballot measure. See California Education Code §7054 That would be cheating, wouldn't it?

This kind of prohibited activity couldn't occur without the willing participation of all involved -- parents, teachers, administrators, and the Board. It's a culture of corruption, starting at the top. Violations of §7054 are crimes that can result in serious criminal penalties.

Education Code §7054.

The California Supreme Court has weighed in on this section of the Education Code. The Court addresses both the fixture issue (school facilities) and internal communication channels (parent e-mail list).

The District contends that permitting employee organizations to use the mailboxes to endorse school board candidates will unfairly advantage those organizations and the candidates they endorse, because it allows them, but not other candidates and organizations, to use the mailboxes to communicate with teachers about these endorsements. We agree that this special access to an internal channel of communication to influence elections is a potential abuse that section 7054, and the Stanson decision, were designed to guard against. (See also Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1 [reaffirming Stanson's basic principles].) Therefore we conclude, consistent with the purpose of section 7054, that the broad term "equipment" was intended to encompass mailboxes specially constructed at taxpayer expense to serve as a school's internal communication channel, which one group may not use to its exclusive political advantage. We agree with the Court of Appeal that, unlike school furniture, for example, which may be incidentally used for a host of different purposes, the term "equipment" is plausibly applied to fixtures dedicated to a specific use.
San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of the San Leandro Unified School Dist. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 822, 835

Why does the California Supreme Court think this is such a serious issue?

the use of the public treasury to mount an election campaign which attempts to influence the resolution of issues which our Constitution leave to the "free election" of the people (see Cal. Const., art. II, 2) does present a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral process.
Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal.3d 206, 218 (1976)

The parents have been brainwashed into thinking there's nothing wrong with this. They've been promised goodies. Can you find "2 story classroom building where the A portables currently are" in the ballot measure? Of course you can't, because none of the promises the Board is making to the parents are on the ballot. Eight years ago, of course, the Board promised that those portables would be replaced. The money for that was blown on the Taj Mahals at Chaparral Middle School and Diamond Bar High School. But what's a promise between family?

Note: We're not linking to the original message at GroupVine.com to protect the identity of the source.

 

 


Copyright © 2015, Richard Michael. All Rights Reserved.