Due to the large number of political letters received this week, not all could be printed in the paper edition of The Alpine Sun. Included here are the letters that are in the print edition, as well as letters that could not be included due to space constraints.

Forum thank-yous
     On Tuesday, Oct. 17, the Alpine High School Citizens Committee (AHSCC.com) along with the co-sponsors, The Soroptimists International of Alpine and The Alpine Sun, hosted a forum for our community to ask questions of, and hear from, the six Grossmont Union High School District Trustees candidates.
     I would like to personally thank all three organizations sponsoring this community event, as well as the individuals who assisted in its preparation and presentation. Thanks are also in order to the Alpine Community Center for the use of its facility.
     I would like to express a special thanks to Ms. Susan Manis of the Soroptimist International of Alpine. Sue artfully moderated this GUHSD board candidates’ forum, which was essential to its overwhelming success.
     The mission of the AHSCC is to achieve an exemplary High School for the students and community of Alpine, in the fastest, most economical and effective means possible. This school should embody the spirit and values of the Alpine community while being dedicated to academic excellence and cultural diversity.
     This important event embodies the AHSCC mission, and was very important to our holding of the Grossmont Union High School District to its promise of a new high school in the Alpine area. The passage of proposition H by the taxpayers and voters from our community was intended to benefit the entire east county.
     Proposition H is a local school bond measure passed by voters on the March 2, 2004 ballot to authorize $274 million for critically needed repairs and upgrades to our local high schools, and construct a new high school promised to the Alpine area. Proposition H also qualifies the school district for $120 million in State matching funds.
Good schools protect property values and the resale value of homes in our community.
     Again, sincere thanks are merited to all who contributed to this events’ overwhelming success!
Bill Weaver
Chairman,Alpine High School Citizens Committee

GCCCD accusations false
     The incumbents of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District Governing Board have been accused by their opponents of poor decision-making, fiscal mismanagement, and a lack of vision for the district, but these accusations are little more than recycled stale rhetoric intended to create the appearance of a crisis where none exists.
     Truth is, the incumbents (Deanna Weeks, Rick Alexander, and Bill Garrett) have a solid track record of actually doing things on the ground that have tangible positive results for the district and the community. They spearheaded the local bond measure that has successfully repaired, renovated and built new facilities for both colleges, receiving 14 straight clean audits and two taxpayer association awards along the way.
     They led the successful campaign for funding equalization, which was recently signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger, and will permanently add $3.5 million to the district’s budget; and they’ve demonstrated sound fiscal management by retaining an appropriate emergency reserve that allowed the district to weather the recent State budget crisis without any staff reductions or cancelled classes, while other districts around the state suffered both layoffs and significantly reduced class offerings.
     The incumbents have proven their leadership and commitment for having two strong comprehensive colleges to serve the educational needs of East County, and deserve to be re-elected, with honors, as trustees of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District.
Michael Wangler
Alpine

Election day is drawing near
     As election day draws near, I feel compelled to caution the community regarding the likelihood of scurrilous candidate comments in this week’s issue of The Alpine Sun. I have been in the community long enough to know the way the game is played.
     This is the last week for printed materials regarding the election, and as such there is no opportunity for rebuttal by any candidate who comes under attack. I fully expect to see a number of letters to the editor spinning events and making false accusations about individuals running for local office.
     It doesn’t take a great deal of intuition to foresee that my fellow school board member, Scott Barr, might be the subject of such a ‘hit’. We both failed to support a resolution proposed by Steve Hunyar a few months ago.
     I could not support it because it was premature, poorly-written, fear-driven and linked to culturally relevant curriculum, which I personally feel is needed in our social science curriculum. The ‘hole in the story’ hurts many students across our state and leads to disenfranchisement in our schools.
     Contrary to what I read in a recent e-mail, there is no intention of teaching “Gay and Lesbian 101” to our children. I would hope people would think critically about what they read, rather than getting caught in the web of spin and deceit.
     There are informational web sites without party affiliation, such as the League of Women Voters, www.smartvoter.com. Take some time to do research on the candidates.
     Additionally, we are a small community, talk to a teacher, talk to your neighbors, round out rumor with fact, do your homework. Be leery of letters or e-mail labeled as TRUTH that are delivered anonymously!
     Our teachers and staff members, our board president, Mary Wiggins, and myself as a Trustee, are supporting candidates we feel will do the best job for our students. There is no ‘liberal, Democratic, union driven scheme’ to take over our schools as was insinuated at the Grossmont candidates forum last week.
     Our schools do a fantastic job and we are fortunate to have an incredible team of educators. Let’s keep moving in a positive direction as a learning community, a community where students can look up to the adults as positive role models, not weak, fear-driven individuals whose exclusivity denies anyone’s voice being heard!
     Many thanks to the Alpine High School Citizen’s Committee, The Alpine Sun, the Soroptimist International of Alpine and Susan Manis for the excellent job on last week’s Grossmont Candidate Forum.
Ann Pierce
AUSD board member

Responding to attack
     In George Barnett’s Oct. 19 My Turn, this APG candidate once again took the familiar political attack posture. I can only surmise he is trying discredit Mark Price and I and ultimately discredit three terrific candidates for school board. Shameful.
     Allow me to refute his lies.
     Mr. Barnett states my partisanship voting article was written as part of my “education” column. It was written in my “Right of Way” column, which is about conservatism, not academics — a key difference.
     The theme of that article was: How can we make informed voting decisions on candidates who do not state their positions on issues? We are being asked to vote as if this were a popularity contest, not for the candidate who best represents our core beliefs. Party affiliation is one technique voters use to decide whom they are voting for.
     Two years ago, I put my party and conservatism on every piece of literature and on my web site. Win or lose, at least Alpiners knew what I stood for. I wasn’t trying to fool anyone.
     Another lie perpetrated by Mr. Barnett is that school board members do not endorse others running for the board. This has occurred many times in the past in Alpine and other districts.
     I endorsed my choices for school board for one simple reason. I believe they will act on my children’s behalf in a way that best represents my core values. It seems Mr. Barnett conveniently forgot to write Barr and Weaver are endorsed by the Democrat board members in Alpine.
     Mr. Barnett referred to my board Resolution asking our governor to veto SB 1437. SB1437 mandated our teachers include sexual orientation (homosexuality, bisexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism, etc.) as they teach Kindergartners on up. The Resolution passed our board 3-2 with Mary Wiggins, Mark Price, and myself in favor, and Scott Barr and Ann Pierce opposed.
     Mr. Barnett also needs a lesson in school board policy, which states any school board member can bring any resolution to the floor for a vote. Board members can vote for, against, or abstain from any resolution. By his standard, every resolution brought by board members is a “forced” vote.
     Mr. Barnett wrote this was a “never before taken forced vote.” That’s true. This is the first time our State Legislature has tried to force teachers to provide instruction on sexual preference as part of K-5 social studies curriculum. Our governor vetoed it, even in its watered-down form.
     Mr. Barnett so eloquently stated that Mark Price and I are “people who want the community’s children educated their special way.” The SB1437 Resolution vote certainly speaks for itself.
     I also really enjoyed how Mr. Barnett allegedly quoted me — quoting something he heard from another board member. Hearsay Mr. Barnett.
     Finally, let’s talk about my so-called “mark” as he calls it. If wanting all our children to be safe during a catastrophe, academically challenged, and increasing parental awareness are crimes, then I am guilty as charged. But at least I do not use the bully pulpit to badger people with whom I disagree, and worse, flat-out lie to Alpine.
Steve Hunyar
AUSD board member

GUHSD forum shows colors of candidates
     On Oct. 17, candidates for the Grossmont School Board participated in a candidate forum in Alpine. The results were revealing and left no doubt who should, and who must not, be elected. Here is my summary of what I heard:
The Grossmont Board is currently dysfunctional, and it’s no secret that Board President Kelly, who is running for re-election, is at the heart of the current 3-2 schism, which, on a board consisting of nothing but Republicans, is quite remarkable. At the forum, candidate Kelly showed why he has become such a problem.
     Here are some examples:
     Kelly seems to be living in a world apart from reality. He started the session by asserting that the Union-Tribune’s opposition to his re-election was predictable since they are a “liberal” newspaper. This drew laughter from the audience, since anyone who has lived in the county for more than 10 minutes knows that the U-T is starkly conservative.
     Kelly was asked a question about the district’s California Standards Test (CST) scores being flat to declining, and lagging behind the state’s scores. Kelly falsely claimed this was a lie.
     Had he ever looked at any of the District’s School Accountability Report Cards, on his own district’s web site, www.guhsd.net/SARC.html, he would have seen the truth — that District CST scores are, in fact, flat to declining. Here are the actual numbers:
     The district’s science scores dropped eight percentage points between 2003 and 2005, with only 23 percent proficient or advanced by 2005; in contrast, the state scores were steady at 27 percent.
     The district’s math scores showed only 20 percent proficient or advanced in 2003, and the same for 2005; in contrast, the state’s scores increased and are nearly double the district’s, at 38 percent.
     District English scores barely improved from 39 to 40 percent proficient or advanced between 2003 and 2005, but state scores increased from 35 to 40 percent.
     District history and social science scores increased by two points between 2003 and 2005 to 34 percent proficient or advanced, while state scores increased by four percent to 32 percent.
     When asked about the district’s obvious policy to make it hard or impossible for the public to obtain information on district operations, Kelly simply did not address the question. This is not surprising since the district’s secrecy campaign is well documented and indefensible. What has the district got to hide from its citizens?
     But, the most amazing part of the evening came when Kelly wrapped up. Most of us who follow district meetings are well aware of Kelly’s tendency to be rude and inconsiderate to those who disagree with him. But, when Kelly personally attacked Candidate Sundstrom, implying that Sundstrom’s occupation meant he could not be smart, the entire room was stunned.
     That action of disrespect alone spoke volumes about why Kelly must be voted out. Incidentally, Sundstrom addressed the insult with eloquence and calmness, rather than showing the kind of retributive character that seems to drive current district operations.
     The forum also revealed things about the other candidates. Candidate Hoy was very impressive. He was intelligent, respectful, thoughtful, and always responsive to questions. Hoy showed a basic pragmatism that made him immediately accessible and clearly understanding of others’ concerns.
     Candidate Sobel was smart, courteous and immensely qualified. He displayed substantial background in the kinds of operations that the district conducts, as shown by his extensive participation in community groups. For example, as a member of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Bond Oversight Committee.
     Both Sobel and Hoy expressed the resolve to cure the secrecy and dysfunction that grips the current board.
     Candidates Groce and Shield both seemed pleasant, but in over their heads. Groce, in particular, seemed to miss the point of some of the issues, and tended to spout current board philosophy too much, making it clear that she is likely to follow Kelly’s lead. For example, she is in the same denial as Kelly on California Standards Test scores.
     Additionally, she seemed to think that it was perfectly okay not to be able to access district information on the web because people could instead drive across town to the district office and pay to access information. Why should that be necessary? Districts across the country put things like their budgets on the web, available for free. Why is it that the Grossmont District cannot?
     In sum, Kelly showed most clearly why he must be voted out. He calls the truth lies, ignores district dysfunction, and continues to insult and attempt to bully. None of these qualities are what we want in district leadership. Groce and Shield were pleasant, but they do not appear ready for this job.
     Hoy and Sobel demonstrated an understanding of the district’s problems and the background and intelligence to address those problems. Sundstrom showed character and interest in the District that could make him a good third member. Based on what I heard, Hoy, Sobel, and Sundstrom should be elected.
Wayne Sakarias
Alpine

Time for a change in GCCCD
     Last week, the League of Women Voters hosted a well-attended forum for the Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College Board candidates.
     The incumbents touted the names of their political endorsers, enthused about their pursuit of new funds from the state, credited themselves for student fee reductions and extolled their budget management skills. One sixteen-year incumbent even claimed, as he does every four years, that he saved the District from the “brink of bankruptcy” in the early 1990s.
     The incumbents (Alexander, Garrett and Weeks) declared that GCCCD was on “solid ground.”  Yet the voters of East County have every reason to be alarmed, as are all the employee groups in the district.
     First, let’s replace incumbent boast with truth.  Many people throughout the state successfully lobbied for more dollars for community colleges--not just GCCCD board members.  California legislators, not the GCCCD Board, voted to reduce student fees at all California community colleges.  Finally, according to long time faculty and administrators, this district has never been on the brink of bankruptcy—despite the reckless chest-beating of one incumbent.
     The incumbents also have little cause to celebrate their expertise as budget managers.  The district’s budget problems exist because of the incumbents’ own spending priorities.  This district is in financial trouble.  Here’s why:
            1) The District Office budget has tripled in the last decade.  The Board has approved raises for district-level administrative salaries and additional district administrative positions.  Meanwhile, college employees do not have a current contract, and their salaries remain low compared to those in similar jobs countywide.

2) Since 2000, this board has frozen the hiring of additional full-time faculty members, despite increased enrollments.  Now only 42% of classes are taught by full-time faculty. Students suffer, because most classes are now taught by part-time instructors who have no offices or time to meet with students.

3) According to the California Community College Chancellor’s Office website, our District reported that only 45% of district funds were spent in the classroom.  Yet the minimum required by the State is 50%.

4) San Diego County is suing the District.  This lawsuit has the potential of costing GCCCD tens of millions of dollars.

5) Legal expenses and consultant fees have skyrocketed. Last year, fees were double those of the previous year. This year, they doubled again!  

6) The California Community College Chancellor’s Office is investigating questionable non-credit courses within the District.  If the District is found to be in violation, GCCCD could lose millions each year.

7) Top level district administrators use the District’s credit cards to pay for lavish lunches at expensive restaurants every day. How do they have the time?  Why dine on our tax money?  Two years after being hired, the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources is still reimbursed for “moving expenses” when he or his wife travel.  Board members are reimbursed for expenditures without verifying receipts.  Surely, such abuses are just the tip of the iceberg.

8) Over $25,000 was contributed to the incumbents’ campaign fund by attorneys and companies that contract with GCCCD. This implies an eyebrow raising relationship.

9) The GCCCD Vice Chancellor of Business has publicly stated that this is the “best budget year in the history of community colleges.” Yet the District informed the faculty that the “financial condition of the District is so uncertain” that contract negotiations have been canceled.

     The fallout of these budget blunders is everywhere. Half of all District Office staff left over the last two years. During the same period, over 40% of administrators from both campuses have left. Those still standing have been forced to organize and hire a bargaining agent, partly to defend themselves against intimidation tactics from the Board and District Administration.  Temporary employees have been plugged in to fill the gaping holes—including a temporary president, vice presidents, deans, and associate deans.  The college has had poor job applicant pools because applicants are wary.
     The blunders and mismanagement by the incumbent board members have resulted in inefficiency, instability, and the inability to meet student needs.
     It clearly is time for a change!  Elect Rosinski, Octon, O’Dunn, and Barr—educators, not career politicians--on November 7^th.
Michael Golden
President of Citizens for Educational Responsibility

Commitment to excellence
     Caught up in the political melee surrounding the upcoming election it is difficult to remember who is most affected by the decisions the five people that hold the title “Grossmont-Cuyamaca College District Governing Board Trustee” make. The real answer to this is the students.  Students make a conscious decision to attend one, or in some case both, of the colleges in this district. We will do the students a major disservice if we do not re-elect the incumbent board members Deanna Weeks, Rick Alexander, and Bill Garrett.
     As President of the Associated Students of Cuyamaca College (ASCC) I attended nearly every Governing Board meeting and I have seen first hand the three incumbents’ commitment to students and to excellence.
     Chancellor Suarez lobbied for equalization funding because it is a fact that we as a district were in the bottom third in regards to state funding. He could not have done that without help from the Governing Board. The three incumbents also fought for Proposition R which provided funding that made new buildings, repairs and renovations at both colleges possible.
     Separately, they have also made great strides to increase student success. As ASCC President I sat down with Ms Weeks to discuss student issues and concerns. She was very supportive of ideas presented by the student leaders. This not only made me confident in her ability to steer the District in the right direction, but I felt like I could come to her with student issues and she along with the rest of the board would find a solution. Bill Garrett was the board member who believed that the colleges should do something about the smoking issue on both campuses and we have made great strides in that regard. Rick Alexander believed that Cuyamaca College was not equipped to serve the students that enroll there. As a board member he has worked to rectify that situation.The board incumbents have started and now need to finish the Proposition R projects. 
     The fact of the matter is that there are buildings coming out of the ground at both colleges. The election of new board members would definitely put this in jeopardy.  Some have voiced a desire to stop all construction.  As a student I know that I would not consider going to a college that just altogether stopped developing. We as a District would be sending out a negative message to which the general public will respond “Well, if they cannot commit to building these buildings who is to say that they are committed to providing the best education to me or my son or daughter? Re-election will provide assurance that progress will continue to be made.
     The focus needs to be on giving students the best education possible at both colleges.    Let us not stop in mid-stride; let us as a community make our voices heard. Re-elect the people who we know will put students first. Re-elect Deanna Weeks, Bill Garrett, and Rick Alexander.
Rosalyn Johnson
ASCC President (fmr)

GCCCD board race turns nasty
     It is campaign season and in some races dirty tricks are out in force.  My twin brother, Wendell Cutting, would be appalled at the lengths the opposition to the current members of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District Governing Board is going to in order to defeat three solid, hardworking community representatives in a nonpartisan race.
     These board members – Deanna Weeks, Bill Garrett and Rick Alexander – have saved taxpayers’ money, brought new facilities to both Grossmont College and Cuyamaca College, reduced student fees, attracted excellent faculty and staff, continued to make sure that students are the number one concern and priority and won numerous recognitions for its outstanding fiscal management.
     Unfortunately, there is opposition from a group that wants a slate of candidates who wish to waste money, stop construction, and elect a rubber stamp board that will agree with higher costs to the detriment of students and quality education. Wendell would be dismayed to learn that their last-minute scare tactics seem to include lying to citizens, making irresponsible false charges and destroying signs. They have no track record of fiscal accountability or service to community college students and have NO moral foundation to be running a campaign, much less to be elected.
     Wendell told me that returning Deanna, Rick and Bill to office would be the most significant educational vote District voters will make for decades to come. My other brother, Wayne, and I agree.  Please elect Deanna Weeks, Rick Alexander and Bill Garrett November 7.
Lawrence E. Cutting

Campaign integrity
     I would like to share the letter I wrote to The San Diego Union Tribune in response to an article they published.  I would like to share it with you and your readers as I think honesty and integrity should be outmost in our minds when making our decisions to vote for the people to represent us.
     Re:  San Diego Union Tribune Article, "Crafted districts offer few surprises," dated October 9, 2006
Specifically this paragraph regarding Mark Hanson who is running for State Senator 36th Senate District.
     "Hanson, who lost his Lakeside home in the Cedar fire in 2003, is endorsed by state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, who says Hollingsworth sided with insurers over fire victims. Hollingsworth denies the accusation."
     To read the article in its entirety, please go to: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20061009-9999-1m9legis.html
     As a Cedar Fire survivor, I have followed most of the fire-related developments for nearly three years now.  That‚s how I know that Senator Hollingsworth is lying when he denies voting against the interests of fire survivors and in support of the insurance industry.  Actually if you look up his voting record you will find that he voted NO on every single bill before him from 2003--2005.
     On Senate Bill #2 (SB 2) (and also, similarly on SB 158), Senator Hollingsworth is recorded as voting NO.   The stated purpose of SB 2 was, "To help survivors of catastrophes recover by easing documentation requirements and expanding coverage so that reconstruction can be accelerated."  
     SB 2 would have allowed Alternative Living Expenses for the loss of a home for up to 24 months.  It acknowledged that, "Extending ALE to at least 24 months after a state of emergency recognizes that reconstruction is difficult when government agencies and building contactors are overwhelmed by skyrocketing demand." This claim is supported by the fact that very few fire survivors were able to complete homes in just one year, and over 50% have yet to complete homes.  We could have really used that extra year of ALE coverage, Senator Hollingsworth.
     SB 2 would also have required insurers to "pay 85 percent of policy limits for personal property losses without requiring an inventory from the homeowner when there is total loss and when a state of emergency is declared." Think about the sad and tedious task of recalling and itemizing everything you owned, as I had to do.  According to the record, during hearings on SB 2, "fire survivors spoke movingly about the trauma of having to provide extensive inventory requirements to recover personal property collected over decades... and about the concern that a lawsuit would be needed to recover under a policy." This plea apparently fell on deaf ears for Senator Hollingsworth; he voted no on SB 2.  
     It is becoming very clear that certain politicians have misled the American people.  Our own State Senator Hollingsworth apparently thinks that he can get away with this lie.  It's time we demanded the truth from our representatives.  They need to be working for US, not big business interests.  And if they do choose to support corporate interests above those of the people, they should at least have the guts to admit it.  Even though most of the fire victims are his constituents, it is clearly obvious that this Senator is not interested in them.  He proved that fact by voting NO on two important issues that could have helped us and anyone else in the future facing the same devastating loss as we have.
     The proof of this is clear, and you can look it up for yourself by going to:
     SB2 - http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_2_vote_20050907_0641PM_sen_floor.html
     SB 518 - http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_518_vote_20050907_0825PM_sen_floor.html
Kathleen Huneke
Lakeside
 
Departing assemblyman backs judicial candidate for bench seat
     For the past six years I have had the honor of serving the citizens living within the 77th State Assembly District specifically and the people of the State of California in general.
     One distinct and major problem I have observed that is causing untold problems for the citizens of our great state is “activist judges.” Judges that legislate from the bench rather than interpret the law as written and intended have become a shadow government that dilutes or laws, rather than administrators and interpreters of the law.
     We now have an opportunity to elect a judge that understands not only the laws of our state and nation, but one who understands the role of the judiciary in a free American society. That person is Larry Kincaid.
     Larry has been a law enforcement officer. He has seen the tragedy that people experience when for no reason they become victims of those who prey on society for their own benefit. And, he has arrested and interviewed those predators who have only contempt for our laws and our safety.
     Larry is endorsed by law enforcement officers and attorneys from throughout San Diego County. They have endorsed him because they understand his integrity, his honor, his honesty and the respect he has for our laws and the people they were designed to protect and serve. Larry has a deep respect and love for his God, his country and his family. And, he has a deep respect for you and your family. 
     Larry Kincaid is the type of judge we need sitting in judgment of the criminals who prey on our family and friends. We need a judge who respects and fully understands the law. We need a judge who will take his oath of office with no hidden agendas. We need a judge who will serve the law as written and intended for the people of our county. We need a judge who truly is “Tough on Crime!”
     Larry Kincaid is a product of San Diego County. He graduated from San Diego State University and the University of San Diego Law School. He has proven himself not only in his law practice but serving in the San Diego Superior Court as a Judge pro Tem.
     The time has come for each of us to vote this November for a judge who will serve justice in its fullest. There is a saying amongst street criminals: “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime!”
     During my 31-year law enforcement career, I often wished that we had judges who would serve the law rather than coddle the criminals with nothing more than a “slap on the wrist” for punishment.
     Let’s elect Larry Kincaid for our Judge, then that saying will be true and criminals in San Diego County will receive the time in prison they deserve!
     Join me in supporting and voting for Larry Kincaid for judge in this November 2006 election. We will all be proud of the judge the people have elected.
Jay La Suer
77th State Assembly District Representative

Proposition A and a New Airport
     The Airport Authority is required by state law to place a particular airport site recommendation on a county-wide election ballot no later than November 7, 2006.
     The ballot language proposed by the Airport Authority, Proposition A, is based on three compelling facts:
Fact No. 1. Lindbergh Field will not meet San Diego’s future air transportation needs. 
Fact No. 2. No other potential site except Miramar will work.  It is not only the best solution, it is the only solution.
Fact No. 3. With changing leaders and changing world conditions, no military planning 15 to 20 years out is set in cement. 
     Why will Lindbergh Field be inadequate?
     Lindbergh has by far the shortest, busiest single-runway in the nation. 
     The FAA predicts we only have 10 to 15 years before we start to experience severe congestion and delays leading to a host of problems that will drag down the economy and the quality of life of our region.
     We will experience higher ticket prices, delayed flights, fewer route choices, overcrowded terminals, lost jobs and billions of dollars of economic loss as businesses, workers, tourists and conventioneers decide to choose other communities with better, more modern airports.
    Lindbergh Field is on a mere 661 acres and no conceivable expansion or acquisition (including MCRD) will allow for the second parallel, independent runway which requires a separation of 4,300 feet.
     Second –  Miramar is the only potential site for a new airport.   During the past three years, the Airport Authority in an exhaustive search found no feasible, non-military site within 60 miles of our city center.  Extensive development has simply left no close-in non-military site.
     Comprehensive market studies of potential sites show any new airport must be located no more than 25 miles from downtown.  For the largest 67 cities in the United States the average distance from downtown is 11.3 miles with only 2 cities having their airports 25 miles out.
     Close proximity to downtown and major tourist attractions is especially important for a city where tourists and conventioneers comprise 50% of passenger traffic. 
     That leaves only three military sites.  In-depth analysis of North Island shows it is not suitable.  Camp Pendleton is too far from downtown at 40 miles.  Only Miramar will work.
     Miramar is at the exact center of current and future population, employment and the economic activity of the San Diego region.  Miramar is only 12 miles from downtown.  It has 23,000 acres – 35 times larger than Lindbergh’s 661 acres. 
     Third – contrary to what is being said by some, we do not want the marines to leave Miramar.  That could result in another lost opportunity such as El Toro.
     Past history teaches us that the military has often changed plans to meet changing needs.  We recall that during the early 90’s the Navy was adamant in declaring that they would never move any of their operations from Miramar.
     Then, in less than three years, they moved “Top Gun”, the F-14 Tomcats, and the E-2 Hawkeyes.  There are many other instances where the military was adamant about not modifying or moving operations and later did so.
     And currently, we do know the military has had a tentative plan to move the F18’s from Miramar to Yuma and possibly to base the joint strike fighter there.  The military will tell you this is just one of many tentative plans.  At the same time, they tell the Airport Authority they will not discuss “what if’s” with us. 
     One thing is for sure, with changing leaders and changing world conditions, no military planning 15 to 20 years out is set in cement. 
     San Diego has always supported the military.  Now we must ask the military to help San Diego with this extraordinary challenge.  This is the meaning and spirit of Proposition A.
William D. Lynch
Member, San Diego Regional Airport Authority

Unwarranted attack
     Wow!  If I were to believe George Barnett in the 10/18 issue of Alpine Sun’s “My Turn” I would wonder what the heck has been going on in Alpine’s schools!  From his comments regarding my husband, Steve and Mark Price, one is lead to believe that these two board members have been able to push and shove their own agenda on the entire Alpine community – regardless of the three other school board members.
     As two of five board members, Steve and Mark have worked diligently and tirelessly to continue the great works of the past board, and to bring new and fresh programs to our kids.  After all, just doing what’s been done in the past is well, old school.  It takes leadership and forward thinking to bring new ideas to a community.  For example, Mark Price brought the Excel Program to AUSD last year.  All three elementary schools and Creekside have adopted this program – to the delight of teachers, students and parents.  Everyone knows that rubber-stamping the same old routine will bring the same old results. 
     As many parents know, AUSD is an Opt-In district.  This means that ANYTHING other than the agreed upon curriculum cannot be taught unless the parent/guardian signs a consent form.  Merely not signing is not an indication of acceptance.  The bill (and subsequent vote) Mr. Barnett refers to is the one that our Governor vetoed.  It would have mandated that our kids – kindergarten through 5^th grade be taught which history influentials were gay and which were transgender, among other things.  Personally, I don’t believe this has any place in a school classroom.  Because AUSD is an opt-in district, Steve felt it vital that our district voice our concern about teaching areas that are not part of the good ol’ RRR’s. 
     Finally, as to the political nature of the campaign, our family found out personally how political and cutthroat candidates and especially their allies are, during election time - particularly during the last two weeks.  During his campaign two years ago, personal attacks and lies were in high supply from his opponent.  However, he did not respond or defend himself as political candidates are somehow acceptable targets.
     Mr. Barnett, your article cutting down two AUSD board members who are not running, and simultaneous endorsing two candidates for office is nothing more than a political ploy in those candidates’ favor.  Shameful politics indeed.
Linda Hunyar
Alpine

Superintendents message
     This is a terrific time to be in the Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD).  Under the leadership of the Board of Education, and with the assistance of a superb teaching, administrative, and support staff, we are making significant progress in meeting the diverse educational needs of our students.
     From our focus on improving standards-based instruction, to implementing new and ongoing Districtwide initiatives such as Professional Learning Communities, we have set the standards high for everyone.  Today, I’m pleased to share with you our track record of success, detailing the top ten major accomplishments Districtwide, while serving as your Superintendent. 
     We are most excited about the significant gains in student achievement.  These accomplishments outlined below serve as a tribute to the efforts of the wonderful families that support our students, and to the dedicated members of our staff, administration, Board of Education, and PTAs.
GUHSD Top Ten Major Accomplishments 2003-2006:
     1.     The GUHSD increased its ending budgetary balance by nearly $3 million over the last three years.  We have reduced our base budget by $13 million, producing an accumulated budgetary reduction of $30 million.  The District also paid off $28 million in construction debt over the same period.  These fiscally prudent measures were accomplished despite mid-year budget cuts from the state, a one-year deficit in COLA, and the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. 
     2.     Districtwide, student scores have risen by an average of 20 points in API test scores over the past three years.  Congratulations to our students and teachers for their hard work.
      3.     The GUHSD is successfully modernizing its eleven high schools for the first time in nearly fifty years after passing Proposition H.  The $274 million bond grew to nearly $400 million with additional state matching funds.
     4.     The GUHSD increased employee salaries by nearly 11 percent over the last two years.  District employees received a 6.89 percent salary increase for the 2006-07 school year, plus the equivalent of a 3 percent salary increase to cover the increased cost of health and welfare benefits over the past three years.
     5.     The GUHSD significantly enhanced student safety by adding video cameras; electrical, gas and fire systems; improved communication systems; and conducting safety audits by the former El Cajon Police Chief.  Formation of the East County Gang Task Force also improved safety, resulting in less gang-related crime.
     6.     The GUHSD presently has some of the finest Principals and Vice Principals in San Diego County and the state.  The District promoted eight of its current eleven Principals and twenty-eight of its forty Vice Principals over the last three years. 
     7.     The GUHSD instituted a student recovery program which locates students who have dropped out of high school and helps them re-enroll.  Our drop-out rate has been reduced from 506 students in 2003-2004 to 206 students in 2005-06.  Since January 2005, 137 students have been given a second chance to succeed.  
     8.     The GUHSD instituted a requirement that each high school is to have at least one female co-administrator. 
     9.     The GUHSD reinstituted a teacher intern program with SDSU and is in the process of establishing minority teacher and math teacher intern programs to help address areas of critical teacher shortages.
     10. The GUHSD saved millions by re-evaluating its expenditure of funds on the PowerSchool student information system.  District staff has created a new teacher/parent/student information system which is cost efficient and responsive to the local needs of our educational clients.
     Thank you for taking the time to review these accomplishments.  As we celebrate the academic progress and achievement outlined above, we also recognize the continued need to explore avenues to better challenge and prepare our students for higher education and careers after high school.  Our focus remains on student achievement and supporting quality teaching.
Terry K. Ryan
GUHSD Superintendent

Monster growth in Boulevard?
     I have been accused of wanting Boulevard to  grow by  leaps and  bounds and throwing in with  big development and wanting Boulevard to grow by more than 500%.  This is not true now, nor has it ever  been true.  I have not defended myself from these accusations that have been mailed to the public for the past few years  because I felt that I didn't have to.  
     People who know me, know that these statements are not true.  Now, I am getting personal "unsigned" mail  at my home accusing me of wanting to turn Boulevard into a "Monster" Community.  For the record, I nor the group I started KOPR (keep our property rights) has ever advocated for large growth in our area.  KOPR is exactly what it says, I and the Property owners who are members of this group only want the County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land use (DPLU) to leave our mapping and parcel sizes alone.  We want the map to stay as it is now and we feel that you don't fix something that is not broken.  
     KOPR also fought for and won the chance for Boulevard to have an ELECTED Planning Board for our Community.  We had several meetings with Supervisor Jacob who kept  referring us to the Sponsor Group and finally the Sponsor Group relented and allowed it to be placed on this November's Ballot along with Jacob's.  We did not get all that we wanted, we felt and still feel that "ALL" members of the Boulevard Planning Board should  be elected.  There are 4 seats that remained intact as appointed seats and we were given 3 seats for election.  Who you choose for those 3 seats is up to you the voter as it  should have always been.  
     As for my position on "growth," I would rather have 40 new homes placed on a 200-300 acre parcel and have families of 4 living in each one than have a "prison" with 150+ inmates and personnel condensed on an approximate 10 acre parcel.  Prisons do not help our local businesses stay in business, however 40 families may. Those prisoners and personnel use as much water or more than a household would, can anyone disagree with that?  
Yes, our future as a community  is  becoming more and more at hand, there is no where else to go to build except East.  Are we as a community going to be part of the problem or  part of the "solution"?  
     Do we want outsiders making decisions for us or do we "stand up" and go to the plate and say "hey" this is my town, I have a say!  Do we meekly back off and give a few the right to destroy our property values and to take our rights away?  I have lived here for 27 years and I am not going away, nor am I going to give in to those who try to make me into a "villain."  There are two sides to every situation.  I wish those who are so readily to criticize or write "unsigned"  letters, ask a  few question before doing so.  
     May our Community prosper and grow at a pace reflected from within the community as a whole and not from a government who would destroy us and those few who blindly follow.
Frankie Smith
Boulevard Panning Group candidate

Bitter endorsements
     Reluctantly, because of the confusing events of last week, I feel compelled to enter into the controversy which is Grossmont Union High School District politics. I know and care for all the parties involved, but here is what I believe all my conservative friends deserve need to know.
     Why did Priscilla Schreiber endorse the liberal teacher union candidates and not the three conservatives, Jim Kelly, Shari Groce and Rob Shield? In my opinion, based on my insider information, the short answer is a root of bitterness.
     When I left the board, all the conservatives were getting along famously until it was time for board officer elections. Priscilla wanted to be President, but the conservative majority thought it best to reelect Jim Kelly. Why? Primarily because the board majority knew that this year would be filled with very difficult collective bargaining negotiations and Jim Kelly was the most experienced board member. They were right, the negotiations were very difficult.
     This began a very tense period between Priscilla and Jim. I spent many hours over many months behind the scenes trying to broker reconciliation. After repeated attempts the bottom line is Jim was willing to reconcile, but Priscilla adamantly refused. Then she began a concerted effort to co-opt fellow board member Larry Urdahl against Jim. She succeeded. Now Priscilla has aligned with the liberal teacher’s union. For months she has been the teacher union’s attack dog on the board.
     Pricilla’s new friends on the left are working hard to elect at least one liberal so Priscilla can have her way in Grossmont. Ken Sobel, a labor union lawyer, endorsed by Priscilla, the Democratic Party and Grossmont Education Association, is as liberal as Ted Crooks who was recently repudiated by the voters for his left wing radical agenda. Ken Sobel is effectively the new Ted Crooks.
     It is very sad to say that, out of what appears to be simply a personal vendetta against Jim Kelly, Priscilla is poised to throw down the drain the tens of thousands of conservative dollars and thousands of conservative man hours it took to get conservatives elected to Grossmont.
     Recently, Congressman Duncan Hunter asked all conservatives in East County to stop bickering and move forward together to promote our shared conservative values. To that I say a hearty amen. As November 7th approaches, let’s get our eyes off personalities and back on our principles.
     Vote for those who truly represent your values: Vote for Jim Kelly, Shari Groce and Rob Shield. Turn out is absolutely critical this election cycle. Remind all your friends to value their vote, vote their values!
Gary Cass
Former Grossmont Union High School Board Member

Angry local politics
     I would like to thank George Barnett for his, “My Turn” article in the Oct. 19^th issue of the Alpine Sun.
     It is hard to keep informed on issues effecting our children, their education and the Alpine school district as well as the quality of life in Alpine and issues before the Alpine planning group when you are busy supporting your family and trying to raise your children to be decent caring adults.
     So, when I read the article by Mr. Barnett, I was taken a back by the hatred, anger and hypocrisy that seem to have permeated our local elections.  I expected to read about an opinion on partisanship in the Alpine school district but instead Mr. Barnett went on a personal hateful attack on Steve Hunyar and Mark Price. 
     The point of whether we should know or care what party a candidate for the Alpine school district belongs to, was lost in Mr. Barnett’s incoherent, ramblings of, “He Said, “She Said” gossip, innuendos and pontifications.  Knowing a person’s political party is only one bit of information that gives a base of discussion.  Everyone has partisan beliefs to some degree. It is up to us the voters, to learn more about the candidates, to question and to discuss issues and base our decisions on the whole picture.  In today’s political world there is not much difference between either political parties.  If you have nothing to hide, why not let people know what party you belong to?
     The article by Mr. Barnett was nothing more than a slander piece to hypocritically endorse and applaud his cohorts, Scott Barr, Ann Pierce and Bill Weaver. This disgusting tactic is exactly what turns people away from the political process and is why it is so hard to get well-qualified people to run for office.
     I am still deciding on whom to vote for on the Alpine school district board, but if Scott Barr and Bill weaver are as consumed with hate, intoleranance of others opinions and hypocrisy as George Barnett, then the decision becomes a little easier.  If they are not, then I would expect that they too would renounce the personal attack methods of Mr. Barnett.
     So, from all of us busy people trying to learn about the candidates and issues, thank you again Mr. Barnett for your Oct. 19^th article in the Alpine Sun.  You may or may not have swayed anyone on partisanship in local elections but because of your hateful hypocrisy you have put into question Scott Barr’s and Bill Weaver’s character and made it clear what candidate not to vote for on the Alpine Planning Group.
Joseph Murray
Alpine