Demanding Better Schools
Guest
|
Post by Demanding Better Schools on Jan 20, 2005 10:40:16 GMT -8
This is totally wrong: www.sgvtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,205%257E12220%257E2663293,00.html I have nothing against the person that the board selected. I have a problem with with how this was done. Three of the board members expressed the reason for not doing a professional search as "stability." That is totally unacceptable when you look at the stats of the school district. The school board members that voted for this must go. Rosmary Garcia, Lisa Harrington, & Ilean Ochoa voted for this. Xilonin Cruz-Gonzalez and Burke Hamilton voted against this. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jan 20, 2005 10:51:12 GMT -8
Thank you for the information. So when is the next school board election and who can we get to replace them.
|
|
|
|
Post by For change on Jan 20, 2005 17:01:22 GMT -8
I'm all for the change. We need some new blood on the school board AND the city council. Keeping things as they are now is not working.
School board election is in November 2005.
City council election is March 8, 2005.
|
|
|
|
Post by MtnGirl on Jan 22, 2005 9:35:31 GMT -8
Don't we have a new school that is going to be built in the new Monrovia Project? I think that now is the time to make sure that we have excellent people on the school board. The school board is going to need to be involved in the hiring of staff for the new school as well. Do we really want a board that is afraid of change? I don't think so. It is critical that the current schools are improved and that the school district is run on a much higher standard. I believe that if you expect more from the students, that you will get more. We need to expect more from the board members, our teachers, the students, and the parents.
I don’t appreciate the board spending school money on something that the schools get nothing in return for. There is not a limitless supply of money, as far as I know. The school district should only justify spending money on things that result in improving the quality of education for the students. Giving someone who quit, someone who did not fulfill their contract, 10 years of health care payments and not getting anything in return does not make any sense to me. How does that improve the quality of the education for the students?
|
|
|
|
Post by McLite on Jan 22, 2005 10:40:30 GMT -8
What's interesting that I observed about this vote of the school board is that the two people who voted against the status quo (or voted FOR change, as we might say) are the two newest people on the board: Burke Hamilton and Xiolinin (sp?) Cruz-Gonzales. I'm pretty sure the others have been there ever since my family moved into Azusa, which is a little over 10 years ago now. That sort of supports everyone's suggestion that change is a good thing.
I feel the same about the council. Except for Rocha, who I think has been progressive as being more of a community advocate than a typical politician, they've been like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy: "Diane: Development, Christina: Preservation, Dick: Mean Conservative, and David: Culture (the fancy word for someone who does absolutely nothing, just like Jay Rodrigues on Queer Eye!). They all seem to have tunnel vision on one thing each, and not always in a way that benefits the community. I'd like to see more well rounded people on the council. Christina Madrid and Dick Stanford will both be gone and David Hardison and Diane Changnon will both be staying (she keeps her council seat for two more years even if she doesn't get elected mayor).
A friend sent me the web sites of a few candidates, and so far I've gotta say I think my vote for mayor will go to Uriel Macis, the current city treasurer. The platform he has on his web site really shows he's aware of everything that needs to be done throughout Azusa, and his experience clearly demonstrates that he's able to make progress without laying it on the backs of residents financially. His awareness of that "there's a lot more work to be done in Azusa, and I'm prepared to do it" compared to Changnon's recent spouts of of "everything's so great, there are no problems because I've been a council member" speaks volumes to me. Maybe if they start to sense that leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, her campaign will take on similar goals to Macias's..... But I don't think she's demonstrated a focus on anything but development on the council. Personally, I think she's not enough in touch with the overall needs of Azusa (the whole city) to be mayor. Development is great, but such a blind commitment to development can be negligent. New development in one place doesn't automatically fix problems in another, and even her accomplishments in that have been marginal when you consider she's been there more than a decade.
As for the council, one of my two votes goes to Rocha. He's already well rounded and seems to examine things carefully and votes his conscience on the issues. I know he reaches out to various parts of the community when the others have seemed oblivious to them. I like that he cares about planting more trees in Azusa, and I think there IS a big problem in our city with not having trees. I hope he does more community education on that (my friend who lives in another part of the city had two neighbors just in the last year totally cut down three HUGE full grown pine trees because they "didn't like the needles." Stupid, stupid, stupid...)
I've seen two other web sites of people running for council. So far, I like what I've read about Bob Donnelson. Again, someone who seems like he'll pay attention to all problems in the city and wants to be progressive. Like Macias, he seems able to distinguish our assets from out shortcomings. So unless I see one of the others do something amazing, my second council vote will go to him...... I also saw Kieth Hanks's site. He ran and lost for council twice before (the last time he lost badly). From what I read, I'm scared he'll become "Dick Stanford Part 2." He's talking A LOT about how the council should encourage citizens to participate in religion, and how that will solve so many problems. Apparently, he thinks the separation of church and state only applies to STATES and not CITIES -?!... I like the council to stay OUT of that part of my life, thank you very much. All the others, I know almost nothing about.
So that's all where I'm at right now. (and sorry for the long post!)
|
|
OUTSIDER LOOKING IN
Guest
|
Post by OUTSIDER LOOKING IN on Jan 22, 2005 22:54:31 GMT -8
I have known Diane Chagnon for several years. She is far superior to Macias, and without Madrid holding Chagnon down (as with most great ideas our Council has had recently) you will see a fine Mayor emerge. You need to realize that Macias is just a puppet for Madrid, and by voting for him, our city will be the same, stuck in the past as Madrid likes it!
|
|
INSIDE seeing things CLEARLY
Guest
|
Post by INSIDE seeing things CLEARLY on Jan 23, 2005 1:04:35 GMT -8
That is a flat-out LIE! I know both of them and weighing the averages, I'd bet probably better than you do. You sound like that same poster who was on a couple months ago here 'warning' us that ANYONE who dared to run against Diane Chagnon just HAD to be Madrid's puppet. Your accusation is total bull. Uriel Macias barely shares any of the same views as Christina Madrid (the most obvious example being their starkly different positions on Monrovia Nursery). So what in the h@ll ARE you talking about? What a desperate attempt to slam him! He has an excellent track record as City Treasurer and has certainly done a lot more in his four years there than Diane Chagnon has done in the last TEN.
Did Madrid somehow prevent Diane from keeping her DECADE OLD promise to have the downtown revitalized? It's a little hard to swallow the idea that Madrid's one vote (almost always a minority vote) has been 'holding Diane down' over and over. Spare me...... I guess you're forgetting the OLD piece of cr@p Monrovia Nursery proposal, the 'Rosedale' project. I'm not. My family and I were here then too. What a pile of garbage that would have been. Talk about blind support of development! No one was a bigger supporter of that than your girl, Chagnon. Thank GOD the voters defeated it. It was a landslide, too, but more than 5 years later we've STILL never heard an apology from Diane Chagnon for her nearly selling Azusa down the river in the name of (any type of) development. Believe me, a lot of my neighbors here in the Cove would have chosen to move to some other city had Chagnon got her way on 'Rosedale.'
I'd probably be a little more impressed with your candidate if I actually ever heard her recognize any of the various problems, for example, our city's neighborhoods have and give a plan to do something about them. But I won't hold my breath because she seems altogether incapable of admitting a shortcoming (ignoring blighted areas) or a bad decision (Rosedale). Humble and conscientious of her whole community Diane Chagnon is not. In my opinion, anyone who believes that the quality of life and crime problems in Azusa don't require direct attention is totally oblvious to reality.
About Madrid, she is soon to be out of the picture anyway and you know it. So drop the whole Diane vs. Christina and Christina having puppets conspiracy theory, because it's bull and it's TIRED! I'd hope that next time you decide to come from the 'outside' and 'look in' here, that you use something of substance to make an argument or actually discuss the issues. Not just make up a cheap lie.
I've already heard here in MC that one of our own residents (who's in charge of a certain important organization in Azusa) is spreading ANOTHER lie for Diane, that Uriel Macias is trying to make the election a racial issue. Some food for thought: the people who would most likely have issues with racism are the ones making up that bullcr@p rumor. With these sets of TOTAL LIES going around to discredit Uriel Macias in support of Diane Chagnon, it just makes me believe she and her supporters must be a lot more threatened by Macias than I thought they were. So next time you decide to 'look in' try to fight fair and NOT make up hysterical offensive lies. At least everything I said about both of them is true and is about the issues, not immature gossip.
|
|
|
|
Post by What the heck on Jan 23, 2005 7:27:14 GMT -8
What the heck is all of this? First of all, the topic of this message is to discuss the school board, not the current election. This stuff about the current election should be on a different thread. Second of all, before people make any decisions, I think that they should go to hear these people speak at one of the forums that are available so that they can then hopefully be able to make an informed decision from them. Most of us have never spoken to any of these people. And these forums will give us an opportunity to hopefully hear the issues. And to hear all of this ranting before the forums, I really feel that it is inappropriate. Please allow us to hear them first. Just my two cents.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tribune on Jan 27, 2005 8:05:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by tribune on Feb 3, 2005 8:36:57 GMT -8
|
|
