An Open Letter - To Whom It May Concern:

By Bill Weaver

One incumbent up for re-election ran publicly as against Proposition U in 2008, that is; He ran against the GUHSD repair and modernization measure, which has improved our schools so significantly!

Why is the incumbent majority BAD for the GUHSD?

The majority incumbent first ran for a Grossmont Union HS District Governing Board position in 2008. He ran publicly as against Proposition U, the GUHSD repair and modernization measure. Being against Prop U, means not wanting to do the needed improvements for our high school district. This is Bad for the GUHSD. Many more positions taken are detrimental to the GUHSD providing the "best possible" public education.

Also, this one incumbent is letting the GUHSD Administration unwisely spend its limited bond money on projects never intended under either of the bond (both H and/or U) programs. The size and scope of many projects are questionable. These are pork barrel projects, which cannot be sustained under the current depleted state of the GUHSD operating budget. Let's work to the betterment of all the GUHSD schools. One for all, and all for one is how District Administration should be approached, in togetherness. A spirit of cooperation to build a great high school district is what we strive for.

Recently, In a Bond Workshop Meeting report, it was clearly stated that the proposed Performing Arts Centers (PACs) would require one Full Time Employee (FTE) per building for maintenance. He, the incumbent, in this same workshop, attempted to pass a motion that would stop a Board Discussion and simply allow the schools to make their own decision whether or not to build these PAC's (despite the ruinous effects that this policy has already had on the bond project list).

The incumbent was advised that no such motion could be made because it was a workshop, but it was clear that he wanted to allow the PACs to go through. Really? So this Bd. Majority Incumbent, He would allow building a new PAC or MPF building on each campus, after just having let maintenance staff go. So, how are personnel layoffs, and budget tightening, aligned with the construction of projects that clearly require it's own maintenance staff? A vote to move on non-essential facilities before the passage of Prop 30 could be disastrous, and this sends the wrong message to the loyal GUHSD personnel.

There has yet to be a vote on these buildings, but the PACs just simply relabeled as Multi-Purpose Facilities doesn't bode well. The Bond Project Budget is being busted! Originally Multi-Purpose Facilities (MPF's) were budgeted at $10 M (each), then they became PACs at $20 M (each), Then they were lowered to $14 M. (each), Really? Is there fixed theater seating in the MPF's? Are these MPF's or are these more opulent PAC's in disguise?? You are bloating the project list already, and now you're about to lay off personnel. REALLY?