Pension Reform Is On The Way

Let’s be realistic. No matter how dire the situation gets, there’s no way our brain-dead state legislature will ever find their way out of California’s massive black hole of public employee pensions. Most of our representatives are too entrenched, too well-lobbied and too gutless to take effective action against the powerful public employee unions.

Thankfully someone is going to put real reform out for a vote to the people. Our Friends over at the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility have filed two pension reform initiatives with the state Attorney General’s office on Thursday, which will be put on the 2010 California ballot after the foundation gathers enough signatures to qualify.

empty-pockets
Say, how did that happen?

The initiatives would apply a benefits cap to the benefit plans offered to all new state, local government, school district, university and special district employees beginning July 1, 2011. Savings to taxpayers are expected to reach over 500 billion dollars over the next 30 years if adopted.

The plan saves money by limiting guaranteed benefits for government works to 75% of pay and requiring employees to wait until they reach MediCare eligibility age before retiree health benefits kick in.

California will never escape the budget crisis and its massive unfunded pension liabilities without enacting legislation built on solid fiscal principles. CFFR spells out the new rules in “The 10 Commandments”

  • Honor all pension contracts
  • Death and disability benefits shall not be changed
  • Pension benefits must be fair and adequate
  • Pension benefits must be guaranteed
  • Pension spiking abuse must be discouraged
  • Future generations should not pay retirement costs for today’s workers
  • Retiree health funds must not be diverted to any other purpose
  • Retirement benefit costs must be sustainable
  • Local agency voters shall retain the right to change benefits
  • Bankruptcies must be avoided

Democrat Bill Lockyer has admitted that the state will go bankrupt without serious changes to the pension system. Will angry voters support reform in 2010? I think so.

What Does Pam Keller Do All Day?

For most people the idea of being one’s own boss is an alluring if somewhat daunting proposition. With the freedom and self-responsibility come the risks – of freedom and self-responsibility.

So imagine the pleasant prospect of being your own boss, answering to nobody, and at the same time enjoying the safety of a government job with a regular paycheck and pretty good benefits. This is what Fullerton City Council woman Pam Keller gets by being the Executive Director of the Fullerton Collaborative and remaining an employee of the Fullerton School District. The people who print out her paychecks have no idea how she’s spending her time. She doesn’t answer to them. And the Collaborative Board seems to have shown very little interest in her doings, possibly because she’s actually in charge. Pretty sweet gig if you can get it.

Pam-Keller
Pam Keller - Teacher on Special Assignment

The memorandum of understanding between the Collaborative and the school district lists a series of vague directives to be accomplished by the Executive Director through the school year. The two most specific of Pam’s duties are “assist schools to link with community partners for support services” and “increase awareness of schools regarding community services”.

So essentially her job is to communicate with schools. What does that entail? Fire off a couple of emails, make a phone call every once in a while? No, that would only consume a few minutes per day. There must be more to this $51,000-per-year job.

If we give her the benefit of the doubt, it’s likely that the achievement of these goals requires Pam to spend most of her workday meeting with teachers and parents, visiting schools and attending parent/teacher meetings.

Is that what she does? How much time does she spend with teachers and parents? What are her work hours? Since she really is only accountable to herself, does anyone else know?

Regular teachers must answer to parents, principals and ultimately the Superintendent. Who does a “teacher on special assignment”, funded by an outside organization, answer to? Does Superintendent Mitch Hovey appraise her performance? Could he take appropriate action if he didn’t think she was performing well? He certainly has no incentive to question her since the Collaborative pays her salary regardless.

Ultimately, we expect that the Fullerton School District will have to answer this question: Does the perverse nature of FSD’s employee arrangement with the Fullerton Collaborative cause harm to the public by diluting accountability and hiding conflicts of interest?

Oops! Is it Really All That Difficult?

Quirk2
Sharon Quirk-Silva
Pam-Keller
Pam Keller

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey who is in charge over there at City Hall? Doesn’t anybody have a clue?

At their September 15, 2009 meeting, the Fullerton City Council deliberated over whether or not the Fullerton School District could get a two-year pass making annual payments on a $1,320,000 loan the District had received from the Redevelopment Agency for the renovation of Maple School nine years ago.

Without debating the merits of the proposal, we note that the suspension of payments was approved 5-0 by the City Council.

But wait! Both Sharon Quirk-Silva and Pam Keller are employees of the School District, and have no business voting on issues, especially financial issues, in which their employer is involved. If ever there were a case for recusal, this was it. At the meeting Mitch Hovey the Superintendent of the Fullerton School District was in the audience. Imagine that! You’re voting to defer over $50K in loan payments to the operation you work for and your boss is sitting in the front row! Hmmm. No bueno!

 We can’t imagine why it didn’t occur to either Keller or Quirk-Silva that there was an evident conflict of interest involved. Perhaps it never occurred to them because they see the District as some sort of charity, and doing favors for charities can’t possibly undermine the fiduciary responsibility that they have to the City of Fullerton. It’s all about the children, after all. But we merely speculate. Who really knows why they voted?

And even more baffling is why Richard Jones, the City Attorney failed to bring up this problem. Attorney Jones is paid, and paid a lot, to keep these meetings on the up and up, and keep his charges out of trouble, in loco parentis, as it were. Hmmm.

And finally we reserve a separate post for the performance by Mayor Don Bankhead, who really outdid himself on this item

The FSD Laptop Program: Breaking it Down

confused

“To be effective in the 21st century, the Fullerton School District believes that students must be able to develop innovative products and processes using technology, construct knowledge and demonstrate creative thinking.”

Mitch Hovey, Ed.D.

Our previous posts on FSDs Laptop Program have generated a wide array of commentary, some of which has been a bit off the mark relative to the specific posts. So we thought a general recap of problematic issues might be timely at this juncture.

  • Parents were being coerced into participating in the program
  • The laptops are way too expensive
  • Laptops are being lost and or stolen
  • FSD claimed the laptops were secure
  • The value of laptops in education is overrated

If anybody wishes to add items or to dispute them – fire away!

OC Register Digs Into FFFF’s School Laptop Post, Misses the Point

ocregister-laptop
OC Register Front Page - Saturday September 19, 2009

The OC Register ran a story today on our previous laptop post in which a mother came forward to warn parents about the dangers of FSD’s school laptop program.

Overall the reporter gave a fair assessment to both sides of the controversy, although the article made the mother out to be naive about her duties as a parent to watch her children closely. Those who actually read the mother’s statement on this blog know this to be completely false.

The mother accepted responsibility for wrongly believing the school administrators when they told her that the laptops were safe. In her own words:

I felt stupid for being so naïve in thinking that a child should have a laptop with access to whatever she could dream of. I felt safe in believing that a school district would have the best firewalls to protect my child like they promised that firewalls do. I do believe that parents have a responsibility to watch over their children, and this generation requires a new kind of vigilance, but I also believe that a school has the responsibility to be honest in their abilities to protect our children as well.

Had the district been truthful about the risks associated with the laptops, perhaps this incident could have been avoided. This tragedy acts as yet another example of government employees and electeds distorting or concealing the truth to further their own personal agendas, to the detriment of the public whom they are supposed to serve.

Bottom line: These laptops are not safe for kids to use without direct supervision at all times. That includes all the kids accessing neighborhood wireless on the playground, in front of school, at the bus stop,  at Starbucks or in their own bedrooms. So now the question is, how does a parent monitor a kid with a laptop 24/7?

For most parents, it’s nearly impossible.

School Laptops Help Children Find Pornography and Meet Sexual Predators

At the urging of Fullerton police, a mother sent us this chilling story of her 11 year old girl who was nearly lured into a meeting with a suspected sexual predator after spending months chatting with him on a school laptop. School district employees deceptively promised parents that the laptops were safe when they required parents to purchase them, ignoring evidence that abuse of the laptops is prevalent throughout all grade levels. Many other children have been harmed by the 1:1 Laptop Program, but this is the first time that a parent has had the courage to come forward with the truth.

What I am about to share is very personal, and something that I’ve feared sharing for months now. You see, my children are transfer students, and I’ve feared that our transfer for next year would be denied if I spoke up, or that my children would be humiliated from the publicizing of this. I’ve been afraid that somehow the message that I want to convey would be torn apart and somehow I would be accused of poor parenting. Regardless of my fears of discrimination or criticism I am coming forward because I feel that it’s my duty, as a parent, to warn other parents of the very real danger that exists for our children.

My daughter was a sixth grade student at Golden Hill Elementary School last year for the 2008-2009 school year. The parents of incoming 6th graders attended a meeting, prior to the school year starting, about the laptop program. We basically voted whether or not we wanted to participate in the program. It was my understanding that if I did not want my daughter to participate I could send her to one of the surrounding schools that was not participating in the program. Due to the fact that she was a transfer student, my husband and I did not want to transfer her out, as we felt that the other schools in our area were not, let’s just say, as nice of schools as Golden Hill. We agreed to the program because we felt that we had very little choice, and signed the appropriate paperwork to begin leasing our daughter’s very expensive laptop that we really couldn’t afford.

Parents were encouraged to ask questions after the presentation. Topics about internet safety were brought up, and the parents were told that many state of the art firewalls were in place. If a child were to search an inappropriate topic they would immediately find out about it and the child would be questioned. They said that a tech person from the district would come in regularly, if not every week, and randomly check the computers for such material, or to do repairs on the laptops as needed. I can honestly say that when the school principle and district technology and media rep stood up there and told me this, I believed them.

In the beginning of January, 3 ½ months into the school year, I checked my daughter’s email and found incoming emails that warranted suspicion. After further investigation of the emails I found out that my daughter was able to access pornography and that she was chatting with adult men online. She used her school laptop to access a pornographic website, from her bedroom at night, using the neighbor’s unsecured wireless. What I did not find out until later was that she was making plans to meet one of the men that she had met online. In the 3 ½ months that this was happening neither the school nor the district was alerted by her inappropriate web usage from her school laptop.

Looking back I can remember when I picked my kids up after school I often saw 6th graders, with their laptops open outside of the houses that surrounded Golden Hill. They were accessing unsecured wireless too. I wonder what they were accessing outside before and after school that they weren’t allowed to access at home. My daughter told me that many of the students had found pornography on their school laptops with ease.

I took the laptop to the Fullerton School District to be searched by the Technology and Media Assistant Director Sam Ricchio. I was so angry. I asked him how it was possible for her to get onto such websites if there were so many firewalls in place. I wanted to know why they weren’t notified right away like they promised us that they would be if such searches were occurring. Unfortunately, he didn’t have any answers for me. He searched her computer for days before calling me and recommending that I take it to the police for a more detailed search.

I took the laptop to the Fullerton Police Department. They were successful at doing a forensic search on the computer. They told me that she was in fact chatting online using Yahoo Chat. They tried to send a warrant to Yahoo to get the records of the chat sessions, but because Yahoo purges the chats so quickly, it’s not possible to get the records. Since there were no records, no crime was committed and the case was closed. A month after everything with my daughter was revealed; the Fullerton Police Department came to Golden Hill and taught on internet safety.

The school had a meeting at the end of the year for the parents of graduating 6th grade students. Parents were given the option to keep the laptop or to turn it in. We were encouraged to keep the computer because “It’s still a great computer with incredible firewall protection for your child. If your child looks up the word, say, ‘breast cancer’, it’ll be flagged.” My husband was so appalled by this that he approached the principal, Robert Johnson, and the district Technology and Media Director, Ted Lai, afterwards to confront them on the lack of truth in what was being promised. Ted Lai said, “Your daughter is a brilliant hacker, and her situation is a one in one million case.” It’s unbelievable that he would rather make sensational claims and accusations instead of recognizing the huge gaping flaw in the laptop program, which is lack of safety for our children. I called the detective who handled our case, and I told him what Ted Lai said. He sounded shocked at what he heard, and assured me that he never said anything like that to the principal or Fullerton School District. He said that it was far from a one in a million case, and that a similar thing happened to a child who attended a neighboring junior high, only she actually got in the vehicle with the predator.

Sam Ricchio recommended that I take all laptops and computer cords into my bedroom at night for safekeeping. He does the same thing in his own home. Our daughter no longer has private computer access, and my neighbor has secured her wireless. I felt stupid for being so naïve in thinking that a child should have a laptop with access to whatever she could dream of. I felt safe in believing that a school district would have the best firewalls to protect my child like they promised that firewalls do. I do believe that parents have a responsibility to watch over their children, and this generation requires a new kind of vigilance, but I also believe that a school has the responsibility to be honest in their abilities to protect our children as well. Let’s face it. Kids are kids. If you give them the key to unlock Pandora’s Box, they’re going to unlock it. It is unnecessary and unsafe for a child of any age to be given a laptop of their own.

My goal in coming forward with this story is to make parents aware that personal school laptops for children are not safe even though firewalls are in place, regardless of how much a child is supervised. Most children are not kept under constant surveillance by parents, caregivers, after-school programs, or even on school campuses. Seemingly innocent chat rooms are the hunting grounds for child predators, and the internet itself is filled with material that a child of any age should not have access to. This is not an isolated incident. This is not an outstanding circumstance or child. This can happen to your child or a child that you know. The police told me to consider myself lucky that I have my daughter with me, and that I did not have to identify her body from somewhere. They were right. I am lucky. Countless other families aren’t as lucky though. You can protect your children from what Fullerton School District believes is a safe and beneficial program. You can choose to NOT purchase a school laptop for your child, and to NOT support the laptop program.

What Color Is Pam Keller’s Parachute?

Won't take money from developers...
You will never see me taking money from developers...

Green?

We’ve been sharing information (when we find it) with our Friends about the unusual – well, unique, really – relationship between the Fullerton Collaborative and the Fullerton School District. Fullerton City Council woman Pam Keller is the Executive Director of the former, but remains an employee of the latter. We’ve coined a term for the process – “contracting-in.” It’s such a rare strategy that we’ve never actually seen it in use before.

Many of our Loyal Readers’ eyebrows have been caused to arch by the possibility that Pam Keller might have been soliciting donations for The Collaborative that actually went to pay FSD for her own services. And those eyebrows got even closer to hairlines when speculation began that Pam may have been soliciting donations from interests that had business before the City of Fullerton.

Today we share the 2009-2010 agreement between the Collaborative and the FSD – agreed upon by the Board of Trustees unanimously and without discussion as a “consent calendar” item.

PamKeller-2009-2010-Contract

Notice the asterisk in item #1 of the Collaborative’s responsibilities. It leaves open the possibility that the District may give the Executive Director a raise – and stick the Collaborative with the bill! Now we ask you – what kind of an organization would agree to an open-ended codicil like that in a contract? We’ll help out: one in which the Executive Director (who is also a board member), is the direct beneficiary, that’s who!

We also note in the 2009-10 FSD budget documents a throw away line stating that the Collaborative kicked in extra money to the FSD. It’s noted in that little box at the bottom of the document (below). Now why would the Collaborative do that? What kind of “charity” gives additional money back to a contractor? Possibly a charity whose fund-raiser’s efforts are so successful that a surplus exists which could be kicked back to the District to pay for that raise described in item #1 of the agreement. Of course we’re just speculating here.

Resolution for Expenditure

But, none of these speculations would be so thought provoking if the Collaborative’s mission weren’t so fuzzy, and if it had major expenses other than the cost of hiring a government employee to be its Executive Director/fund-raiser. But the mission is so loose as to be practically meaningless, and the cost of the Executive Director consumed most of its budget in 2007.

All of this really ties back to the fundraising issue and who actually gives money to the Collborative. But it’s perfectly clear now that the funds – donations, fees, whatever –  that go into the Collaborative, go to pay Keller – via the FSD; the question of additional “revenue” given to the FSD by the Collaborative opens up a new issue for people who contribute to this endeavor and who might start wondering why the Collaborative can’t be run by its own employee, or better yet, by volunteer labor.

Fullerton Parents Reject School Laptop Program

Click Here to View the Letter Mentioned in the OC Register

rejected

We were constantly told how wonderful the 1:1 Laptop program has been for the education of Fullerton school children, but something just didn’t smell right to us. Sure enough, we find out that many parents are finally saying “NO”. Resistance to the autocratic technology program has grown drastically in the last 6 months. After having a taste of the laptop program, parents at Golden Hill Elementary strongly rejected the continuance of the program at their school.

A report from the school district shows that Golden Hill parents failed to meet the 90% “willingness” threshold that is required for the laptop program to be continued. Despite ominous threats of moving children to an inferior school if the parents did not respond the survey “correctly”, only 51% of parents volunteered to participate in the program. The threshold was put in place after the ACLU sued the school district for violating children’s Constitutional right to a free education several years ago. Many parents at both Hermosa Drive and Nicholas Jr. High rejected the program as well, but the school district found enough money to subsidize parts of the program anyway.

After years of congratulating themselves for this high-tech boondoggle, the stupefied school board could only muster up support to continue the program at a single school. That’s not good, and it’s only going to get worse now that the parents are catching on.

How much longer can the district afford to keep shoveling money into the laptop pit as teachers are laid off and struggling parents stop paying their bills?

What will parents do when they find out how unsafe these Internet-ready laptops really are?

Stay tuned…

Pam Keller Week Wrap-up

I love the attention. Bring it on!
I love the attention. Bring it on!

We’ve spent much of the week examining what we could find out about Pam Keller and her “Fullerton Collaborative.” As a Fullerton City Council member she has cast some votes that even some of her devoted supporters have found, well, mystifying. These include the gargantuan “Jefferson Commons” and the mammoth “Amerige Court” messes. Only a crappy economy has stalled these excrescences from going forward, although several historic, mid-century modern buildings have been destroyed to clear the land for Jefferson Commons.

Pam has made a great big deal about not taking developer’s money, and her 2006 campaign manifesto talks about protecting the citizens of Fullerton from the nasty developer special interests that want to “shape our future.” It still sounds like a lot of campaign drivel, but it was clearly intended to appeal to a certain profile voter – just the sort of voter who should now be appalled at those approved projects.

Our series started out with a giggle over her “Woodstock” fundraiser aimed at ex-hippies who could break out their ratty denims and tie-dye T shirts and kick in $1000 to be a “Jimi Hendrix Fan Club” member. The fact that the party nearly coincided with the one year anniversary of her vote to approve the Amerige Court project propelled the conversation in that direction.

The discussion took another turn when we also noticed that Keller’s Fullerton Collaborative is supposed to combat childhood obesity – so it seemed disconnected that she would vote to move a McDonald’s right across the street from Fullerton High; except that the move frees up land for another massive housing project!

The mention of the Collaborative began a look-see into that group. We discovered that Pam is an employee of the Fullerton School District – not the Collaborative, which is convenient – for her – since she can pursue her philanthropy on the public payroll. We remarked that the money that goes to pay the FSD for Pam’s services constitutes the majority of the Collaborative’s expenses, and that in 2007 it operated in the red.

We also discovered that the Collaborative website makes no mention of who its “donors” are, which is pretty weird for a charity and even weirder for people who donate to them; and this led to all sorts of unpleasant speculation about the possibility that private interests in Fullerton that have business with the City might be donating to the Collaborative.

As speculation mounted about the possibility that land developers might be donating to the Collaborative – developers like Steve Sheldon and the Pelican/Laing boys – we picked up a couple of other interesting tidbits, such as Fullerton City Departments being “members” of the Collaborative where their boss runs things (from FSD Trustee Minard Duncan); and then that Pam Keller attended the now infamous Newport Harbor drinkies boat ride and dinner hosted by Steve Sheldon for Sharon Quirk; a boat ride also attended by the Amerige Court developers who paid $1000 a piece for the privilege. Our Friends wondered if Sheldon gave Keller a freebie and whether that fact had been divulged anywhere.

Finally, FFFF blogmeister Travis Kiger issued a challenge for Pam to reveal who the donors  to the Collaborative have been. And Pam responded by saying she would take it up with the Collaborative board (of which she is a member) at their meeting next month.

Well, that’s it so far. It’s been interesting digging into theses topics and others seem to be interested too: we have generated our highest visitor and page view numbers ever.

And rest assured, Friends, we won’t be letting go of this story any time soon, so stick around for the continuing saga!

Contracting In: A New Twist On An Old Idea

In government circles there is a concept known as “contracting out.” The idea is pretty simple. Certain services can be provided by the private sector at a fraction of the cost the government can manage. Things like tree trimming and janitorial services spring most readily to mind, but there’s no reason that any government function can’t be compared with the private sector for cost savings. Liberals hate the notion because it means smaller, less wasteful government.

It appears the Fullerton Collaborative has come up with a new wrinkle: contracting in. It pays a government agency, the Fullerton School District, for one of its employees, Fullerton City Council member Pam Keller, to act as Executive Director. Since the Collaborative also shares the same address as the District we assume they provide a desk and a telephone and a computer, too.

If we apply the notion that it generally costs more for the government to do something than a private citizen, we really have to wonder why the Fullerton Collaborative thinks it’s a good idea to have the School District provide this service. Common sense suggests that they could get a better deal by simply hiring Keller – or anybody else – directly, and cutting out the expensive bureaucratic middle-man. This may be a great deal for Keller, but what’s in it for the Collaborative? Of course some of our more cynical commenters have opined that the Collaborative is Keller!

Our guess is that most folks associated with the Fullerton Collaborative work for, or regularly importune the government at some level for something or other, and can’t quite bend their minds around this idea.

Oh, well.