Orange Unified Vote Recalls June Battle

It has been five months since a recall campaign transformed the board of trustees at Orange Unified School District. But in time-honored Orange schools fashion, the opposing parties are bracing for the next chapter.

Like a blockbuster movie that begs for a sequel, the school district that has had more than its share of headlines is undergoing yet another rancorous campaign as the district moves toward an election on Tuesday.

As with any sequel, the cast of characters and the theme have changed little.

Two of the three trustees ousted in June seek to reclaim their seats, and the forces behind the recall are now supporting a slate of candidates they hope will solidify their hard-won majority. Orange Unified trustees are elected from each of seven district areas.

“If the old board gets back in, teachers will leave in droves,” said Melinda Moore, a parent who helped spur June’s recall campaign. “We don’t want to go back. We can’t go back.”

Moore and others charge that the previous board majority had an imperious manner and showed little respect for parents or teachers.

Martin Jacobson, one of the trustees ousted in June, wants his seat back from Trustee Melissa Taylor Smith.

At a series of recent candidate forums, Jacobson and trustees from the previous majority accused the local teachers union of dividing the district in an attempt to gain control of the board.

“The union spells respect, m-o-n-e-y,” he said during a recent interview. “The union’s priority is not education. It is not children. The union is about more money for less work, and we should kick them out of our community.”

Smith, a Presbyterian pastor who has two children in the district, countered that such rhetoric is exactly what motivated many parents to side with the teachers.

“It wasn’t the pay issue alone,” she said. “The old board treated teachers with disregard. Orange Unified is overdue for a healthy change of direction.”

In all, 10 candidates are vying for four seats. Another recalled trustee, Linda Davis, seeks the seat she lost to Kathy Moffat. John Ortega, who replaced Maureen Aschoff in June, is not due for an election until 2003.

Meanwhile, Trustees Terri Sargeant and Kathy Ward, members of the previous majority who were not targeted by the recall campaign, are facing challenges from Kimberlee Nichols and former trustee Rick Ledesma, both of whom are backed by the teachers union and their supporters. This is Ledesma’s second showdown with Ward, who beat him in the 1997 election.

Alan Irish, an accountant, is also running for Ward’s seat, and retired engineer Edward Priegel is the longshot third candidate for Sargeant’s seat. Neither Irish nor Priegel is backed by the teachers union or by supporters of the former majority.

The contest could again turn the tables in this troubled district that serves 30,000 students in Orange, Villa Park and parts of Anaheim, Santa Ana and Garden Grove.

Union Candidates Have Raised More Money

At least in terms of funding, the recall forces candidates have an advantage over the previous board majority this time around. Moffat, Smith, Nichols and Ledesma have raised more than $125,000 for the upcoming election. The four members from the former majority have raised slightly less than $21,000, including $11,200 in personal loans, according to the most recent campaign contribution filings.

“Once you lose an election, everyone takes a step back,” said Robert Fauteux, former treasurer of Stop the Union Takeover, which failed to halt the June recall despite a war chest of $118,840. “We are hoping for the best,” said Fauteux, who is helping the campaigns of the former majority trustees. “We are hoping the voters of the district recognize the union has taken over again.”

The state and local teachers unions, which helped raise more than half of the $85,000 spent to oust the three former majority members in June, have contributed an additional $45,000 in money and services for the upcoming election.

The teachers and parents who supported the recall say the amount of contributions for their side underscores the growing support for the new direction the district has taken since June.

“There is no support for them,” Moore said of the old board. “You need an army of supporters. I’m doing all I can, putting up signs, walking the precincts. . . .”

Moore and like-minded parents complain that the former board was more preoccupied with gay student clubs than the exodus of teachers from the district.

Orange Unified gained national attention in 1999 when the education board blocked the formation of a gay student club at El Modena High School. A lawsuit followed, and the club was eventually allowed as long as there was no discussion about sex.

It was only one chapter in a district where controversy seems more common than milk spills in a kindergarten class.

From accusations that the current board ignored open-government laws and a grand jury investigation into alleged violations of the election code during the recall campaign, there is little in Orange Unified that does not become political fodder for one side to discredit the other.

Last month, an activist sued the current board, alleging it violated open-government laws by meeting behind closed doors on the fate of Barham Ranch, a piece of undeveloped land owned by the district. Critics quickly seized the opportunity to call the new board irresponsible.

And the Orange County Grand Jury is investigating allegations by former district official Kathy Moran that recall volunteers from outside the district illegally gathered signatures for the June campaign.

Moran said she has been subpoenaed by the grand jury to testify. County prosecutor Pete Pierce confirmed his office is investigating Moran’s allegations, but declined to comment further because grand jury proceedings are confidential.

The recall forces say Moran’s allegations are baseless and politically motivated. Moran, who was appointed by the former board to negotiate benefits and salaries with the union, was dismissed by the new board in July. Moran denies her motivations are political.

Underlying the accusations and counter accusations is a pivotal issue that has consumed and divided the district for more than a decade: teacher pay and benefits.

Lifetime Health Benefits Ended for Teachers in ’92

Both sides agree Orange Unified teachers are some of the lowest paid in the county, but they disagree bitterly as to the causes and the solutions.

Until 1992, the district offered lifetime health benefits for its teachers. The program, passed before Proposition 13 put a cap on property taxes, was intended to attract the best teachers.

The district terminated the program, saying it represented too much of a financial drain.

“We took the hard steps,” said Jacobson, who was first elected in 1993. “Nobody wants to make the tough decisions on their watch. They want to make the most money and let the future generation of kids pay the price.”

By the time Sargeant, Ward and Davis joined the board in 1997, labor relations in the district were going from bad to worse. Last year, teachers staged a one-day sickout that kept nearly 60% of their ranks at home.

Local teachers union leaders say what galls them is not so much that the district had to tighten its belt, but how much of a squeeze the board put on teachers with little regard for their concerns.

“They were not accountable,” said Paul Pruss, a 25-year veteran teacher in the district and the current president of the Orange Unified Education Assn., the teachers union. “They did not answer to anybody. The only time they became accountable was when they were recalled.”

In the last four years, 727 teachers have resigned in the district, almost half of the total staff of 1,500.

The new board majority, which includes veteran Trustees Robert Viviano and Bill Lewis, say they are making inroads in mending the fences.

“There had been a breakdown in the relationship between the employees and the district, including the board,” said Viviano, who was first elected in 1991 and was recently named board president by the new majority. “We need to move away from confrontation.”

At least until the election, confrontation will be hard to avoid.

One of the first things the new majority did after taking office in July was to replace former board appointees to the district’s labor negotiations team. Within a few weeks, the new board and the union settled on a tentative agreement for a 5.5% pay increase across the board for teachers.

“The union has bought both sides of the bargaining table” was Davis’ immediate reaction.

Davis and the previous majority argue that they are not against pay raises as long as they are affordable, but they would like to see the bulk of the raises go to teachers in the middle of the pay scale because that’s where the retention problems are.

They accuse union leaders, most of whom are veteran teachers and therefore on the high end of the salary scale, of putting their interests ahead of those of the whole district.

Pruss calls the charges “ludicrous” and counters that veteran teachers in the district have been left behind in terms of raises, which has led to a flight of talent and experience from the district.

A salary survey by the Orange County Department of Education for the 1999-2000 school year showed the most experienced teachers in Orange ranked ninth among the 12 unified districts in the county. Since then, senior Orange teachers have received raises that total more than 25%.

Pruss and others accuse the former board majority of hiding money in the budget that could have gone to pay raises. As evidence, they cite a report recently commissioned by the new board that says the district has kept overly cautious levels of reserve funds, above the minimum mandated by the state.

The previous majority members say caution is warranted especially at a time of economic uncertainty.

“What do I gain by keeping money from the teachers?” Ward asked.