Page 1 of 1
Posted on May 2 at 9:05 a.m.
Randy Rowse is a consummate idiot. Go away and back to Culver City Randy.
On Cops Take Aim at Public Art Piece
Posted on May 2 at 8:48 a.m.
Can't speak about him personally but that entire system is beyond corrupt.
You sound like you know what you are talking about Beachgirl. Your posts are right on and to the point. Please continue to try to enlighten the public. It's very refreshing to hear an honest assessment of that joke of a system.
The appellate court is not a place for any employee of the Santa Barbara legal syndicate - I mean "community"
On Judge George Eskin to Retire
Posted on March 12 at 7:35 p.m.
Zappa - wouldn't usually lower myself to respond to such an odd and strangely ?/bizarre/immature/unbalanced? comment but please take care. I think I know who you might be so I am compassionate to your plight.
Perhaps a nerve has been hit?. Take care -- you've acheived your goal in muffling free speech and concern for children as I am signing out. This "discussion" has taken a strange turn for the worst thanks to you.
Please feel free to express yourself as you deem necessary-if you need to continue with personal insults that is your perogative. Just trying to spread the truth in the best interest of the community and in the best interest of our children - most importantly. Peace :-)
BTW - it's not just me and foofighter. I have no idea who FF is. Check things out and educate yourself. Best!
On SBCC Parent Child Workshops in Danger
Posted on March 12 at 12:49 p.m.
P.S. - there is nowhere near a two year waiting list at the school we attended and you refer to jj. In the past 2 years the attrition rate has been shockingly rapid. We were losing families every other week - literally. In fact, we didn't even have enough parents to populate the "committees."
Sadly many of the first to go, were in fact the very few "token" (sorry don't like tt word but using for lack a better) lower income families that did sneak in after strict evaluation by "herr director."
They would be very quickly identified and ostracized by other parents. This is the precise demographic the workshop preaches they cater to. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What was happening was obvious and sad and no one talked about it.
Posted on March 12 at 12:07 p.m.
You are absolutely right, foo fighter.
Even though there are benefits to the workshops, which we all concede, it is a policy decision that SBCC should not be intimidated by and back down from this time - despite Marty's behind the scenes (possibly illegal) shenanigans.
Participating parents should pay for the "workshops" to continue. They are well able to bear the cost if they value their director and assistant directors as they claim.
The prior director did make 115k - btw. Even though she was a "better" director than the current, it was still far too much for what her job entailed, especially in the waning years before she retired.
Well written and succinctly stated post, foo.
Posted on March 12 at 9:32 a.m.
Yes, the Oaks former director M.S. was wonderful as is the current asst director who worked tirelessly with M.S. and continues to do so for the current "director." My children and I created wonderful bonds at the Oaks, as well, which we still maintain to this day. Unfortunately M.S. stepped down after 25 plus years at the helm.
The current director is very different and problematic. It is sad to see a wonderful institution decline due to questionable "leadership."
One poster recommended looking at the EdHat discussion which is still accessible through its archives. There are a wide variety of views expressed there regarding the workshops. While individuals may be "upset" by the truth that is reported about the Oaks I have yet to see anyone dispute it.
BTW what constites a "dissapointing discussion" as noted by a poster above? One that voices differing opinions from your own? Public discourse and debate has a positive effect on one's community. Those who wish to silence others should review the First ammendment.
Posted on March 11 at 9:35 a.m.
Right on, foofighter.
And to the poster above, Zappa I believe, why is telling the truth, considered an act of the "disgruntled" as you put it?
Typical co-op (oaks) attitude - create crisises where there are none to validate your pay/position, lie if you must and independent thinkers need not apply.
But keep the negatives quiet.
Just wait until ALL of the stories start emerging.
Again, this is not child care for students in class. It is an entirely different animal.
The co-ops should be independently funded and if not some SERIOUS accountabilty needs to be imposed as children are suffering due to irresponsible "leadership."
Some Grand Jury attention is not a bad idea.
Posted on March 11 at 8:12 a.m.
These workshops are not for low income parents or students. They do not "function as day cares during the day and parenting classes at night." They are attended by upper middle class and above parents - many of whom are older and very well established. They operate for 3 hours a day 2-4 days a week depending on the childs age and parental preference. Given the MINIMAL duties of the director as well as a continuous stream of contorversy and problems emanating from the "workshops" (esp the Oaks) SBCC would be making a smart and rational decision if they were to cut director salaries or significantly cut ties with the workshops. They have their positive aspects when the children are the focus - which they are often NOT at least at the Oaks - and should continue if possible however not at SBCC and taxpayer expense. The well - to -do parents can very easily manage to take over financial responsibility from SBCC. This has been brewing for quite some time now - hopefully the college will not cave to a small interest group due to Marty Blum's presence on the board and her manipulation of reality. I hope the new president does not get smeared by Blum as the last pres of SBCC did as Blum is vicious and relentless - her dumb act is just that - an act. It is simply a matter of dollars and cents/sense - the co-ops do not need SBCC to pay inflated salaries of inept (some - not all) directors who do little to no work and are a liability to the college due to their irresponsible actions.