Prop. B is extensive in its wording but in reality it boils down to a couple of simple points: the initiative would give most new employees 401(k)s instead of guaranteed pensions and 2) it attempts to impose a five-year freeze on employees’ pensionable pay. Pretty simple right? And with the city of San Diego in deep, deep financial problems and as most people are themselves having to face harsh economic times, the initiative resonates with a lot of folks.

Like Prop. B we could be wordy and editorialize in length about this measure, but we will keep it simple: this pension reform plan will not work and it will not save the city the millions as promised.

The pension reform will not work because you cannot freeze public employee pay by vote and the 401(k) plan will only affect new hires. It does nothing to change the pensions or the payouts. And more than likely, if this proposition does pass, it will end up in court for a long time before it can be implemented.

This pension reform is not really about pension reform. It is not the employees or their pensions that drove the city to become the “Enron by the Sea.” At the root of the pension debacle is that elected officials and private sector corporations started the practice of diverting money from the pension fund to increase the city budget to pay for popular city initiatives, such as the ballpark, the convention center expansion, and for the cost of hosting the 1996 Republican National Convention.

During good times, when the stock market is booming, those expenses can be covered. But when stocks crash… well we all now know the results. The pension scandal itself arose when the pension board and then the city council voted to lessen funding requirements and increased benefits (including to several members of the pension board) and sold municipal bonds without disclosing the underfunding.

Nowhere in this $2 billion debacle was it reported that it was the employees who created this mess. Yet Prop B backers want to try and fix this mess on the backs of the employees by freezing employee pay, after years of pay cuts, layoffs, and furloughs???

We are not so naïve to say that there are no problems with pension payouts such as the DROP program, again another problem created by politicians. There needs to be reform. But let us not fool ourselves and blame the problem solely on city employees. If there is to be real interest in fixing the pension problem the politicians should start by reforming the pension board.

This pension reform is not about reform but is more of a political philosophical tug-of-war over who will control the city, corporate America or the workers and their Unions. DeMaio wants to continue feeding corporate America and minimize the impact of the Unions at city hall.

At La Prensa San Diego, we are going to side with the workers. After decades of work in the city, they deserve and earned a guaranteed pension. The work they do is not glamoures, nor is it high paying. The rank and file worker are not the ones abusing the pension system so let’s not make them scapegoats on this issue.

We recommend a No Vote on Prop. B.

Bob Filner, throughout his 19 years as Congressman of the 51st District, has served this diverse community of South San Diego with energy, enthusiasm, and dedication. It can never be said that Filner was an absentee representative. You call Bob Filner’s office, he responds and he is in the community. Filner has proven himself a tireless worker which is trait that he will bring to the office of Mayor for the City of San Diego.

Filner has represented the best interests of the Hispanic and ethnic community, and they have rewarded him by re-electing him over qualified Hispanic candidates. Filner was an early advocate of civil rights and he has fought for federal funding for border infrastructure. He has been an advocate of improved U.S./Mexico relations, quality education, protection of the environment, and universal health care.

Congressman Filner has served as Chairman of the House of Representatives Veterans’ Affairs Committee. He has achieved a national reputation for his work on behalf of our nation’s veterans, both current veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and more elderly veterans from the Vietnam and Korean wars and World War II. He has created bonds with the Filipino community with his fight to restore honor and benefits to the Filipino Veterans and Merchant Mariners of World War II.

But what sets Filner apart from the other candidates is his perspective on Pension Reform. While the three other candidates for Mayor agree and support Proposition B which would strip middle class workers of hard earned pensions, Filner, with the support of the Unions, is developing an alternative for Prop B.

Although Prop B is being decided in June by the voters of San Diego, Filner has proposed an alternative plan. However, neither Prop B nor Filner’s alternative is a fully restorative answer to the pension deficit problem. And they are radically different in perspective. The difference between the DeMaio plan and Filner’s falls more along the line of a philosophical difference. With Prop B, Councilman Carl DeMaio is hoping to fix a problem by placing the burden on the backs of the rank and file. Prop B would freeze their pay and switch new employees to a 401K retirement plan. Prob B is a plan to fix a problem that was not created by the middle class workers.

Filner’s proposed plan looks to fix the pension deficit but doesn’t ask the workers to carry the burden by reducing their pensions, their Union representation, or their wages. Instead it caps pensions at $100K per year and seeks more aggressive investment strategies for the management of the retirement fund.

The Pension deficit is a problem created by politicians, the business community, and Union leadership and that is where the fix is needed. We have yet to hear how the next Mayor of San Diego is going to fix the persistent problem of the San Diego City Employee’s Retirement Pension Fund which acts with impunity and without accountability. That was where these so-called leaders sold out the city and created the pension deficit.

Filner has been a tireless worker for the Hispanic community and as Mayor would work to support the working man of San Diego. For these reasons we support Bob Filner for Mayor of San Diego.

Four years ago in 2008, community members felt that it was important to have a city attor-ney elected by a majority, to serve and be responsive to the community as an elected official. This newspaper supported that idea and Prop. Q passed with over 58% majority vote.

In 2010 Glen Googins became the first elected city attorney for Chula Vista.

Googins was not the choice of many of the same people that first proposed and supported an elected city attorney. Now, these same people are looking to change the terms of the original proposition and add on another layer of bureaucracy.
Prop C would reduce the salary of the city attorney, set term limits, and limit the authority of the city attorney. It would authorize the establishment of the office of Legislative Counsel to advise the City Council on its legislative duties and on conflict of interest issues.

The argument for this proposal starts out stating that “an elected city attorney should be a position of public service sacrificing personal gain for the public good.” While we laud this sentiment with a city council person, where there are no required qualifications to serve other than the ability to get one more vote than all other candidates, qualifications to serve as city attorney are specific and require the services an educated and qualified professional.

Salary for the city attorney is based on the medium income of city attorneys within six comparable cities. In 2008, this seemed reasonable and no circumstances have changed to warrant a compensation change.

The second change proposed by Prop C, to apply term limits, two four-year terms, is problematic at best. In the State of California, term limits have proven to be a disaster, and as such, have prompted a vote on Prop 28 that would expand on the number of years legislators can serve. We should learn from past mistakes and not hobble the city attorney with term limits. Again, the City Attorney is a professional position and when you get a good one in office, it would be counter-productive to see him leave after two terms. Accumulated wisdom is a good thing as City Attorney.

The last change proposed by Prop C is to create a Legislative Counsel, appointed by the City Council, which in effect would take some of the work away from the City Attorney and create yet another office. This change has been called for to eliminate a conflict of interest issue when complaints are filed against the City Attorney.

This Proposition doesn’t not project any cost for this new office, nor does it identify where the money would come from to pay for salaries and staffing. Before we vote on something we should have at least some idea of the cost.

In 2008 voters made their voices heard when they agreed with the terms of an elected city attorney. In 2010 once again the voters of the city made their choice for a city attorney. Let us allow this process time to work and let’s give the present city attorney a couple of terms at least before we decided the system needs fixing. To fix something that hasn’t proved itself broken doesn’t make sense.

We recommend a No Vote on Prop. C – City of Chula Vista.

Proposition 28 would change the term limits of the State Legislature to a total of 12 years in office in either the State Assembly or the State Senate. Under current term limits, politicians are limited to a total of 14 years in office—including a maximum of six years in the State Assembly and eight years in the State Senate.

When term limits were passed in 1990, voters were fed up with career politicians who through the fortune of incumbency, influence, and money were able to carve out political legacies, providing little opportunity for fresh faces and ideas. The poster child for the term limit movement was Willie Brown, who served 30 years as Assemblyman, 15 of those as Speaker of the House. Brown was undoubtedly the most powerful politician in Sacramento. Even Governors had to seek him out for support.

It was with this backdrop that the voters voted in term limits.

Now two decades later, glaring problems with term limits have persisted and they need to be addressed. These ugly problems are most pronounced whenever State Legislators try to pass a budget, which are usually extremely late and look more like piece meal plans than a meaningful, effective budgets.

We have learned that experience and trusted working relationships is a valuable commodity at the State level. At present with the constant turnover of elected officials, inexperienced politicians rise to leadership positions with little knowledge, fixed ideologies, and a lack of willingness to compromise. And due to the lack of experience and knowledge, these elected officials, now more than ever, become dependent on bureaucratic establishments and lobbyists. Lobbyists and special interests with institutional knowledge and deep pockets exert great influence over California’s state legislators. They not only help them to get elected but also are a key part in “educating” them about how to do their jobs.

Term Limits are needed, but in the present form they are not working in the best interest of voter or the state. State politics has become nothing more than a battle ground for the left and the right with neither willing to cross the proverbial line drawn in the sand. The art of compromise and working together is absent and becomes magnified during budget talks.

Term Limits need to be tweaked in order to better serve the voter and the State. Prop 28 is a step in the right direction. Something has to change because what we have now is not working.

We support a Yes Vote on Prop 28 – State of California.

This past week the Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney went out on the campaign trail along with Florida Senator Marco Rubio in what could be described as a vice presidential trial run. Rubio received a warm welcome among the folks at this town hall meeting in Aston, PA. Rubio, of Cuban descent, was their number one choice as VP.

Sen. Rubio took another step along the VP trail Wednesday with a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution. At another event, he proposed a compromise version of the controversial DREAM Act for illegal immigrants, the biggest difference between his version and that of Sen. Orrin Hatch, his will not offer citizenship to the students, leaving them in a sort of limbo.

Rubio has been a Senator for only 15 months now, which gives him little national and international experience. He had served in the Florida State Senate for nine years, but he does bring three things to the Romney campaign that put him on the short list. He is a darling of the Florida Tea Party which Romney needs to court. Rubio brings youth and enthusiasm. But most importantly Rubio, who is Hispanic, generates a lot of Hispanic interest.

Would the addition of Rubio be enough to swing the Hispanic vote, or least the 35-40% they would need to win an election? That is the question the Romney and the Republican Party will have to answer.

For most Hispanics though, the Republican Party is still the anti-Hispanic party, which is dominated with politicians like Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer, the likes of Rodger Hedgecock and Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and the minutemen. There is an old saying that putting makeup on a pig doesn’t make the pig pretty. Putting a Hispanic on the Presidential ticket doesn’t change the Republican Party.

But wouldn’t it be ironic that the Republican Party which is considered anti-Hispanic would be the first Party to put a Hispanic in such a prominent position, propelling Rubio from relative obscurity to national prominence? This would be something that the Democratic Party, the Party that is supposed to be the Party of Hispanics, has failed to do, to promoting a Hispanic in such a significant manner.

It has often been discussed that the Democratic Party has taken the Hispanic vote for granted! If the Republicans continue down this road of reaching out to Hispanics, and if they temper the anti-Hispanic sentiment, the Hispanic voter could begin looking at voting for a Republican Hispanic vice presidential candidate. It will only take 35% of the Hispanic vote to swing a victory over to the Republican side.

One last note: it has been suggested that Rubio is not your typical attack dog VP candidate and that all of this grooming and elevating of Rubio to national prominence is with one eye to the 2016 Presidential race, when Rubio could run for President!

There are two health related bills in Sacramento that deserve support. The bills are Timely Access to Birth Control (AB 2348) sponsored by Assembly member Holly J. Mitchell and Safe and Early Access to Reproductive Health Care (AB 1338) sponsored by Senator Christine Kehoe. At the heart of both bills is the goal to provide timely, local, affordable reproductive health services in relation to birth control by allowing Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and Certified Nurse Midwives more opportunity in the area of birth control and early abortion care.

In San Diego, access to clinics and doctors is readily accessible, although throughout the state this is not necessarily the case. Approximately half of California’s counties lack an accessible abortion provider and many areas lack health professionals authorized to dispense birth control. AB 2348 authorizes a registered nurse, in addition to a doctor, to dispense birth control. At present while the nurse does all the preliminary work to perform first trimester abortions through a very safe procedure known as aspiration. it takes a doctor’s signature to actually dispense birth control. This basically eliminates the need of a doctor signing off on birth control prescriptions.

SB 1338 is a little more problematic, but in a closer look represents an opportunity for low income underserved women who do not have local access to a safe, early, abortion care, the much needed access.

At present Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and Midwives can provide medication abortions up to nine weeks of the pregnancy. This bill will authorize these same medical professionals to perform first trimester abortions through a very safe procedure known as aspiration.

SB 1338 is the result of a long-term study which supports the safe and early access approach. 16,000 patients received the same services, half by doctors, half by trained Nurse Practitioners, Certified Midwifes, and Physician Assistants and the results were equal in satisfaction and low complications in both groups, the big difference being that many women knew their Nurse Practitioner and where more comfortable in familiar surroundings.

Abortion and the talk about abortion is never an easy topic, it often draws out extreme positions and opposition to this process. While we understand the stand against any sort of abortion process, women have the right to a safe and healthy abortion. This is all that these two bills offer, allowing women in every part of California to have access to birth control and and receive early, safe abortion care from providers they already know and trust, in their own communities.

At the same time abortion rights have come under attack and funding has been diminished. Not only is this a stand against the attacks against the right to a woman choosing what is best for them, but these two bills address the issue of better managing and effectively spending tax payer dollars by preventing unintended pregnancies.

Howard Cosell once said famously that sports and politics don’t mix. Yet the more you stare at the world of sports it becomes obvious that it’s not “sports and politics” that don’t mix, but sports and a certain kind of politics. If an athlete wants to “support the troops,” rally behind a new publicly funded stadium, or in the case of Tim Tebow, do commercials for rightwing evangelical hate-shop like Focus on the Family, then you are a role model. Anyone who dares step out of that box would bear a very different set of consequences. This was seen sharply with the case of Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen. In an interview with Time Magazine, Guillen said in the freewheeling, macho style that has become his trademark, “I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that [expletive].” Guillen was immediately suspended for five games for his comments.

Given that Guillen manages in Miami and given that the team just opened a new $2 billion taxpayer funded stadium, the comments elicited an all-too-predictable firestorm.

To be clear, I have no problem with what Guillen said. Castro’s ability to survive since Eisenhower was President of the United States is remarkable.

I also have no problem with South Florida’s very well connected, rightwing Cuban community, flexing their muscle in an effort to denounce Guillen. Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from criticism.

I do have a tremendous problem with the Miami Marlins franchise suspending Guillen for five games without pay.

I do have a problem with Guillen becoming yet another person from the world of sports who gets fined, loses money, and has his job threatened for daring to have something political to say.

I have a problem with him, in order to save his job, having to grovel like a broken man at a press conference that was only missing a stockade. Guillen had to say, “I come to apologize on my knees with my heart in my hands,” and “I’ve learned not to speak in politics where I don’t belong.” He then renounced Castro, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and every last red short of Paul Robeson. Those kinds of political statements were fine.

This kind of awful morality theater is nothing less than the stone-cold definition of a chilling effect on free speech.

As Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, said, “Baseball managers are entitled to the same Constitutional rights as anyone else. Period, full stop,” Marshall wrote. “In fact, we ought to call an end to the all-too-common ritual of public humiliation, confession, and absolution that follows whenever some celebrity says something stupid or offensive. It’s the closest thing our supposedly free society has to a totalitarian show trial.”

I know that there are those who will rush to say that the First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with Ozzie Guillen’s case. They will point out correctly that the First Amendment is about the government not being able to pass laws abridging freedom of speech. They will also say that that as soon as we enter our private workplaces and whenever we represent our employer, the Bill of Rights isn’t worth more than tissue paper. Yes, democracy in the streets and dictatorship on the job is as American as apple pie.

But please consider this: The Miami Marlins and their new stadium would not exist without billions of dollars in taxpayer commitments. While legally it is a private entity, it is in all but name an entirely public funded operation. Shouldn’t that loosen the awful restrictions placed on Guillen and all pro athletes who are scared to speak out for fear of having to suffer a similar fate? As long as sports teams take public funds, the people who play them should be entitled to see their playing field as a public square with all the First Amendment protections implied. Then everyone would be protected and not merely the Tim Tebows of the world.

Athletes have a proud tradition of using their hyper-exalted platform to try and change the world. We should defend their right to do it.

Dave Zirin is the author of several books on sports and has just released a film titled, “Not Just a Game: Power, Politics & American Sports.”

It was billed as a mayoral debate on education, where the four candidates for mayor, Bob Filner, Bonnie Dumanis, Carol DeMaio, and Nathan Fletcher for an hour and a half shared their knowledge and vision on education held at the University of San Diego.

Education is one of the most important issues to voters and where the next mayor stands on education is equally important. And, in today’s world where mayors are taking a proactive stance when it comes to the running of school districts, Los Angeles Mayor Villagrosa wants to take over the LA Unified School District, for example, it has become increasingly important to know where these candidates stand on the issue of education. At present the mayor of San Diego has no say in the running of the school district. They do play a role in providing support.

After the debate one thing was abundantly clear we are glad that none of these candidates will be in charge of educating  our children!

In general, while Congressman Bob Filner was in tune and understanding of the plight of the teachers, supporting Gov. Brown’s tax proposal for more money for education for example. It should be noted he, as the lone Democratic candidate, has the support of the teacher’s union. At the same time though he was not familiar with the recently passed Parent Trigger law which had to be explained to him by Nathan Fletcher. Fletcher, now an Independent candidate, has for months now been on a listening tour discussing education with the community. While Fletcher was well versed in education he didn’t offer anything new and relied on one example, one school, as a model for education which he often referred to.

At the other end of the spectrum was the Republican perspective provided by Carl DeMaio who repeatedly touted his pension reform plan as the model for city schools and a total deconstruction of the way education is run now with a school district modeled after charter schools which he cited as an unqualified success. Unfortunately the moderator failed to follow up on this hyperbole about charter schools. DeMaio pretty much followed the Republican blue-print for education.

While DeMaio was following the Republican plan, candidate Bonnie Dumanis was following the plan put forth by the San Diegans 4 Greater Schools who tried to qualify a ballot initiative that would allow for five elected school board members and four board members appointed by the mayor. Dumanis went a step further and said that she would have the schools fixed in her first term of office. Clearly she has no concept of what it takes to “fix” the school district.

While we could go on and discuss the merits of the candidates’ vision for education, the one area where all the candidates failed their test was when it came to the question of educating Hispanic and Black children.

While all the candidates were adept at spouting dismal statistics that we all know about, the failure rates of minority students, and the relationship to crime statistics, none had an answer as to how as mayor they would address this issue.
Congressman Filner talked about the Six to Six program, before and after school programs, and collaborative support. DeMaio hinged his remarks on fixing the budget deficit by passing his plan for pension reform which would free up more money for libraries and after school programs, Fletcher talked about putting an IPad in every child’s’ hand, none addressed the root problems of poor education for minorities.

While it must be noted that there is no one answer to the problem of educating minority children, there are many areas that as mayor they could have addressed. They could have talked about some of the systemic problems that many minority children and families face that are a hindrance to their education.

Education starts before Kindergarten, as mayor the city can support pre-school programs such as Head Start at the MAAC Center and the Neighborhood House Association. The mayor can support programs such as the Barrio Logan College or Reality Changers both of which are putting minority children into college and could do more with the support of the city. None of the candidates used either program as a successful program to emulate.

The mayor can provide a safe school environment with police support. The mayor can provide after school programs, which Filner did emphasize, and provide computer and technical support which Fletcher advocated for. The other areas of challenge in teaching minority students is the lack of support at home, the city can look to find a way to provide tutoring and a safe place to learn. Many parents deal with drug and alcohol abuse, the city can work to deal with these problems. Affordable housing, good jobs, clean neighborhoods, these are all issues that affect children’s education and areas that the next mayor can look at.

Yet none of these topics came up with the exception of Filner and Fletcher who briefly touched on a couple of salient points. Short of that the conversation on the education of minority education was shallow at best which was disappointing! In the area of education minority children these candidates earned a failing grade.

Last week we published a commentary by Sylvia Puente entitled “Immigration Isn’t Everything: The Latino Vote Will Not Be Blindly Cast.” This has been our sentiment over the many years. This point was further highlighted this week, when we sat down with a delegation from Africa which was in San Diego to learn more about immigration, human rights issues, and the media.

One of the first questions from this group of men was are Hispanics unified, did the different groups all agree on the issues? The Hispanic community is complex and is diverse as we explained to the African delegation. The term Hispanic in of itself is ambiguous at best, a term created to fit all of the different ethnic groups into one neat box in order to deal with these burgeoning communities and potential voters. And as a way to deal, or better said, not to deal with the issues of the Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Bolivian, etcetera, etcetera, the term Hispanic does very little to identify these communities and nothing in regards to identify the issues related to these diverse groups. Miami’s Cuban issues are different than the issues of the Mexican Americans in San Diego.

At the same time the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and special interest groups have marginalized the various ethnic group’s issues down to the single issue of immigration. It is because of this, we believe, that Ms Puente wrote her commentary.

As we stated to the Africans, when we go to bed at night what keeps up tossing and turning is worring about maintaining our business, our children’s’ education, employment, home foreclosures, these issues and many others that have historically and distortional impacted minority communities. To address these issues would take political commitment and accountability and this something that the politicians have done their best to avoid. A prime example would be President Obama’s lukewarm stance on immigration. So the issues we were addressing in 1976 when we first started publishing La Prensa San Diego are the same issues that we are addressing today, in reality, very little has changed.

By stating that the Latino vote is much more than about immigration is by no means stating that immigration is not important – it is an important issue.

How society deals with immigration gives us the opportunity to see how they view our communities. The every increasing right wing attitude of the Republican Party as demonstrated by the Minute Men and the Tea Party with their view that immigration should be dealt with as a police action, as criminals breaking the law. This justifies the building of a border fence and a militia roaming the borders in the name of protecting the borders from illegals. We asked the African visitors, if stopping illegal immigration was the goal then why not a border fence along our northern border with Canada?

The immigration issue provides us with a prism by which we can see and determine how we as Mexicans are viewed by many. The immigration issue is then highlighted by the draconian measures like banning ethnic studies and anti-immigrant laws passed in such states as Arizona.

The Democratic Party while taking a humanistic approach to the issues of our ethnic communities has historically taken this voting bloc for granted.

As we wrapped up our meeting with the delegation, and as we do with all groups that we are fortunate enough to talk with, we state that what makes America great is that we are provide with the tools to make changes, to change our circumstances, and this is through the power of the vote. But that it is incumbent upon us to exercise this power and that the role of this newspaper is to inform, educate, and encourage our readers to vote in their best interest.

Change does not come over night, it is a long drawn out process but it does come. We saw this recently in Arizona where state Senate President Russell Pearce (R) in Mesa, Arizona, the author of the state’s controversial immigration legislation, lost a recall election this past November and was voted out of office.

When we vote we can change the topic of discussion and hold elected officials accountable for their actions. The election year is upon us and we have at hand the opportunity to create change through the power of our vote, make it count!

The Chula Vista Elementary School Board is once again going to pick the next school board member to fill the seat being vacated by board member Russell Coronado. This will be the third appointment to this board in recent history, sadly denying the voters the opportunity to elect their representative. The sad part about this is that it didn’t have to be this way.

In 2009 Douglas E. Luffborough was appointed to the board, in 2007 David Bejarano appointed to the board, and prior to that Larry Cunningham was appointed in 1998, and he has sat on this board for 14 years and counting. This new appointment for Russell Coronado’s seat will bring the total number of initially appointed, hand-picked board members to four of the five board seats. The sad part about the CVESD appointment process is that once appointed, these new “officials” achieve incumbent status and rarely, if ever, lose an election. The financial backing of incumbents by contractors and other financially interested parties is just too great to overcome. Current board members are the only people who get to pick and choose who will be allowed into the exclusive CVESD club.

The appointment process could have been avoided if Coronado had resigned his seat much earlier. A more considerate resignation may have allowed for an election to have taken place within the normal cycle of elections. Instead, Coronado’s delayed resignation falls into the sweet spot of the usual appointment process that we have seen too often: there is too little term left to financially justify a special election, yet too much term left to leave the seat vacant until the next election. This is the district’s modus operandi.

In 2010 when Coronado moved out of his home in Chula Vista to the North County, no longer a member of the city or the district for which he served, Coronado knew that he was a lame duck board member. While the question was asked it was never disclosed how long a board member could serve when not living in the city or district to which he was elected.

For all intents and purposes this whole appointment process feels as though it was predetermined to come out this way, with the next board member selected by a few instead of by an election. It’s like the movie, “GroundHog Day,” where the same thing keeps happening over and over. There are more questions out there then answers as to why now instead of sooner? Or even later? Why not just serve out the remaining 9 months allowing for the election process to work? Why not leave the seat vacant for 9 months, and let the election process work?

We are disappointed that the voters of Chula Vista Elementary school district are once again left out of the process of selecting their representative to the board. Not knowing what the family emergency that precipitated the Coronado resignation, we are disappointed that Coronado didn’t act in a more timely fashion to resign his position years ago when he moved out of the area allowing for a timely election to take place.

With all that said, for those interested in exploring an opportunity to be appointed to the CVESD board, applications are available at the superintendent’s office, 84 E. J St. or on the district’s website at cvesd.org.

We can’t help ourselves, we are caught up in March Madness and the fact that our own Aztecs are once again in the big tournament. For those of our readers who are not big sports fans, you know who you are, March Madness is when the best college basketball programs for the year compete to determine who is Numero Uno. 72 teams start out and three weeks later a team is crowned champion.

We can’t help but be excited because once again our very own San Diego State Aztecs are in the tournament. By the time most of our readers peruse this editorial, the Aztecs will have either won their first round game… or not. Their first game is today, Friday the 16th at 9:30 in the morning.

As a long time alumni we have gone through thick and thin with the Aztecs. It has always been fun to go and watch the team play. They didn’t always win but they always played a good game. We saw them play in Peterson Gym, the San Diego Sports Arena and now in Viejas Arena. They may not have won a lot, but they played an entertaining game under such coaches as Smokey Gains. We watched Michael Cage, probably the Aztecs best player until last year when Kawhi Leonard led the Aztecs to the Sweet 16. For those non-sports fans this means the Aztecs won their first two games in the tournament making them one of the best 16 teams in the country.

Last year a lot was expected of the Aztecs. They were expected to make it to the Sweet 16 and even further. This team was loaded with some very talented players. Two of them now play in the NBA. This year our Aztecs were not expected to win many games, it was to be a rebuilding year. But these Aztecs surprised everybody because not only did they win, but they tied for 1st, as league champions.

This is what makes this year’s Aztecs special. They overcame a lack of height, a lack of experience, a lack of a deep bench, and a brutal travel schedule that was out of the twilight zone. This team played hard and they overcame all of this, the ultimate underdog overachievement.

Most of the so-called experts predict that the Aztecs will lose their first game in the tournament, but we are sure they did not take into account the Aztec heart. The experts don’t know about these Aztecs overcoming long odds all year long.
Win or lose, we are proud of the Aztecs. In true sports vernacular, we say ‘wait until next year’ when this young team comes out to play and the odds are on their side.

Go Aztecs!

As the race for mayor in the city of San Diego heats up, the main topic of this year’s campaign will be Pension Reform. The main proponent behind the reform effort on the ballot this June is mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio. He, in essence, is running two campaigns: the Pension Reform Initiative and of course his mayoral campaign. And as expected, both are intrinsically intertwined.

The success of the pension reform initiative will go a long way in determining the success of the DeMaio for mayor campaign. For this reason, as a newspaper we are seemingly updated daily by the DeMaio camp on pension reform issues. Apparently DeMaio is a one trick pony: he rarely sends out any other news updates on the rest of his campaign platform. Readers and viewers of news note that DeMaio is able to attract a lot of air time touting the issues of pension reform.

DeMaio’s latest missive goes on about the increase in the number of employees earning $100,000 this past year. He states that there is a 9% increase over last year.

We have a few issues with his latest news.

First, the growth of those earning $100,000 or more included several Chief Financial Officer’s salaries and other executive type salaries. In today’s market CFOs earning this type of salary is the norm. Anything less and the city would be unable to hire the type of professional required to adequately fulfill these positions. For example, this same week it had been recommended that the city council salary be increased to $175,000 to be more in line with the market. Of course with this being an election year, political salaries was voted down… this time.

It was the fire department where the greatest increase in those earning over $100,000 was most significant. This is a catch-22 sort of situation. Over the years the city council has decreased the annual budget for the fire department, leading to fewer new hires, which then required the existing personnel to do more, work longer and earn overtime. When most candidates run on strong Fire and Police platforms, DeMaio is suggesting further cuts to an already slimmed down department.

Our second issue with this type of information is that we see this as a red herring. The pension reform initiative is primarily targeted at the rank and file workers within the city whose contracts are negotiated through the collective bargaining process. These are the workers who have seen their pay cut, their benefits cost rise, and they earn a lot less than $100,000 per year, more like $40,000 per year. Yet it is with the rank and file where the pension reform will have the greatest impact.

DeMaio is using the salaries of CFOs and other top executives to rationalize the reform, and further erode the income of the middle class working families.

In reality pension reform will have little impact on the salaries of San Diego’s CFOs. Police and Fire personnel will in the long run be taken care of by the voters who insist on these services and by elected officials who normally support strong Police and Fire services, with the exception of DeMaio.

News that the Supreme Court will review Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration should be welcome because it will settle the question of whether state law can supersede immigration powers belonging to the federal government. The controversial law, S.B. 1070, gives police unprecedented power to detain and check the documents of residents suspected of being illegal, and aims to set up the most aggressive process of prosecution and deportation in the nation.

By reviewing this law the Supreme Court takes an important step in attempting to resolve an important and divisive issue. Unfortunately, regardless of how the high court rules, the core issue at the heart of the debate will remain unresolved–namely, our broken immigration system.

Lost in the legal battle over the constitutionality of Arizona’s law are three mutually reinforcing truths:

First, America’s failed immigration system is the flip side of a failed foreign policy. For example, America has not insisted on good governance in Mexico. As a result of Mexico’s corrupt and unstable economy, which has not provided a decent standard of living, its citizens flock to the U.S. in search of a better future.

In the meantime, our country has added 59 million more people since 1990, excluding the illegal population. This means that our already-broken economic system needs to produce more jobs; protect more of the vulnerable; and build more schools, roads and bridges. The welfare system we have created along with a broken immigration system is unaffordable under the demographic and economic circumstances of the twenty-first century.

Some would argue that we would not have become a global superpower without opening our doors to immigrants – that smart, self-motivated immigrants spurred the innovations and created the jobs our economy needed to thrive.

This is no longer the case.

I would argue that it is our system of government, our principles and our way of life that create a culture of opportunity, not the influx of outsiders. Instead of importing large numbers of immigrants, American foreign policy must reorient itself to the soft power of exporting American values and know-how to foster leadership and innovation in other nations.

A second fact lost in the debate is that global prosperity requires a new narrative on immigration and cross border migration. If we allow the poor to escape to rich nations and then redistribute the wealth to take care of the needy new arrivals, we will only impoverish ourselves in the process.

It is imperative that wealth be created indigenously in order to assure global prosperity. This is especially true for the economies of Mexico, Central and South America. How to do it?

One solution is to immediately pass the DREAM Act with the proviso that undocumented college graduates use their degrees to rebuild their communities back home. We can enhance opportunity by establishing a micro-finance plan for those who want to return to their native countries but need start-up capital, and by creating a private-public partnership plan so that jobs are created south of the U.S. border and immigrants (illegal and legal) who are living in the U.S. have the option to return to their homelands and re-build new lives for themselves.

Last year America imported $8 billion worth of toys from China. Imagine for a moment a scenario where American consumers purchased these same toys from our southern neighbors, creating a win-win situation for the region at large.
The third irrefutable truth is that there is a direct correlation between America’s high unemployment rate and immigration. Since 1986, when former President Reagan signed an amnesty bill into law, the U.S. population has increased by 69 million, excluding undocumented aliens. This figure is equivalent to the entire population of France.

In essence, today we have too many jobs chasing after too few openings. Unmanaged immigration has drastically skewed labor’s supply-and-demand curve, resulting in more people in the labor pool and lower wages. This correlation is especially true for America’s black teenage population, now suffering a 40.7 percent unemployment rate in cities across the country. Under this scenario the American economy has to grow by a staggering 6 percent a year to create all the jobs necessary to soak up the excess numbers in the labor pool.

Job creation is the fundamental challenge currently facing the American economy. This is especially true for blacks, teenagers, the elderly and low-income wage earners. Fix immigration and America’s current nightmare of high unemployment and stagnant growth will give way to a new economic beginning.

Rob Sobhani, a former professor of international affairs at Georgtown University, is the author of Press Two for English. Reprinted from Latina Lista

The Chula Vista Police Department has adopted a new pro-gram that will post, on the internet, those apartment complexes and units which require numerous police responses for issues such as domestic violence, disturbing the peace, loud noise and other issues that require a police response. The program is called the Apartment Safety Project.

Some have expressed concern that the Apartment Safety Project is an invasion of privacy and find it unsettling that the program is focused on the West side of Chula Vista.

At first glance this may seem to be another case of Big Brother looking over your shoulder. Yet on a closer look it is not as intrusive as it might seem.

The Apartment Safety Project is a result of a two year study that quantified what the beat cop already knew: the worst apartment complexes in regards to police responses were on the West side of Chula Vista. The study also included focus groups, safety programs, and community meetings with tenants. Discussions focused on the most pressing issues, such as drug activity, and advised apartment managers on better management practices.

It should be noted that no personal information from police responses will be disclosed. Callers, victims, witnesses, and offenders will remain unnamed. Only the location of the disturbances will be reported. The data will provide vital information to potential and current renters and will help them determine whether apartment complexes are safe and peaceful.

Landlords will also be able to use the reports for future tenant screening. We liken this reporting to the internet maps of the residences of registered sexual offenders living in the state of California. If you are a family with young children, you would want to know if a registered sexual offender lives on your street. Wouldn’t you also want to know that you are moving into an apartment that experiences repeated calls for gang or drug activity, or loud parties and unwanted loiterers?

The fact that the initial project focuses on the West side of Chula Vista is akin to the question of the thief as to why he robs banks. Because that is where the money is! This same logic applies here: Why focus on the West side? Because that is where most of the calls come from, as detailed in a two year report compiled by the police department. The project starts out in the West side but is intended to include all Chula Vista rental complexes of 8 or more units in the near future.

The program is not only intended to inform future tenants of the living circumstances but to hold the owners and managers accountable at troubled complexes. This will hopefully lead to better screening processes, management skills, and evictions of tenants who repeatedly disturb the peace of other residences.

In the long run, the Apartment Safety Project will provide all residents of Chula Vista with smarter police services which better utilize their time. The taxpayers will receive better services for their dollar. And Chula Vista police officers may be more frequently referred to as “Peace Officers.”

It first caught our attention a couple of weeks ago when one of the many e-newsletters we receive noted the story of the city council candidate in Arizona that had to take an English test to determine if she understood English well enough to run for office.

Arizona is the epicenter for everything anti-Hispanic. But it is unheard of that any political candidate has to face any sort of test to determine eligibility to run for public office. Since we first heard about this story, the candidate failed the test and has been banned from running for public office. The decision was upheld by the State Supreme Court last week. We found this incredible that a U.S. citizen is banned from running for public office.

The candidate was Alejandrina Cabrera, a U.S. citizen who lives in the city of San Luis, a community near the Mexican border where most speak Spanish. Ms Cabrera has admitted that her English needs work. But the judge ruled based on the Arizona state law which requires public officials to know English and barred Cabrera from appearing on the ballot in March. This ruling has sparked a debate about the slow assimilation process and the issue of English as the official language of the United States. Equally important a Spanish speaking city council member stokes fears of a divided country, divided by language.

We believe that any person who runs for public office in the U.S. should have a basic understanding of English, reading and writing, not only to represent their constituency but to also represent the city. Public officials need the ability to communicate beyond the boundaries of city limits. But it should not be a sociolinguistics expert who writes and administers an English test to determine who is fit to represent a community.

The question of who should represent a community should be determined by the voters. This is the way Democracy works. If a person is willing to serve, as Cabrera has had a history of being politically active in her community, instead of judicial barriers, there should be opportunity for this person to put forth her name and ideas as a candidate. It is up to the citizens to determine whether or not someone is fit to represent them in office. What will be next, if the law is allowed to stand, intelligence tests in Massachussetts? Morality tests in Minnesota?

While the Republican Presidential debates across the country fuel Right Wing/Tea Party rhetoric about assimilation, English-only laws, and bilingual education, for the Hispanic community, this ruling is seen as yet another effort to limit and keep in place the Hispanic community.

Right Wing fear of Hispanic community growth is no more obvious than in Arizona, where SB 1070 introduced the first stringent and comprehensive anti-immigrant legislation, banning of Hispanic/Chicano teachings, and the state law limiting Spanish speakers from running for office.

The effort to limit Hispanic empowerment can also be seen in Escondido where there is a strong anti-Hispanic element that is trying to block district elections in order to preserve the status quo.

This country is a copycat country, and with the legal success of Arizona limiting the ability of Spanish speaking candidates from running for office, we fear that it won’t be long before we start seeing other states trying to incorporate the same type of laws. But this is America, a country that prides itself on being the land of the free, of self-determination, taking pride in pulling ones’ self up by their boot straps, and in Democracy. Creating laws that limit all these ideas is just plain wrong. It is not a question if Cabrera speaks English well enough to satisfy some law, but whether or not Cabrera is regarded well enough by the voters to represent the community. It is the right of the voters to make that determination, not some sociolinguistics! The Arizona law and the judge’s ruling are the beginning of a slippery slope which diminishes the power of our citizens to determine who should represent them.

A couple of weeks ago the San Diego County Board of Su-pervisors came one step closer to changing the way the Supervisors re-draw their districts every ten years. Couple this with the recently voter-passed term limits placed on the Board of Supervisors and change is inevitable.

For decades the County Board of Supervisors has been one of the last good old boy bastions in local politics. The Board has been a place where White Republicans have held forth, with the exception of Leon Williams in the 80s. The current roster of Supervisors have served on the Board since the mid 90s, often times their re-elections are mere formalities. This in part has been due to the fact that the County Board has had the responsibility of re-drawing their own districts every ten years in such a manner that they have been able to confirm their safe seats.

For minority communities, the supervisors’ race has been a constant frustration. With the exception of Williams, no minority has served on this Board. In addition, no Democrat has come close to winning a seat. Democrats consider it a small victory when they are able to force a run-off.

It is with this backdrop and the threat of a Voting Rights lawsuit that Supervisor Greg Cox put forth a plan to change the way future re-districting is done. The first step in taking this responsibility out of the hands of the Supervisors is to change the state election code that would allow the County to establish an independent redistricting commission. Current state law requires county supervisors to draw the electoral districts.

On a 4-1 vote, naturally the only dissent vote was from Supervisor Bill Horn, the first step toward legislative change was taken that would allow the County to establish an Independent Redistricting Commission. For this, Greg Cox and and his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, with the exception of Horn, deserve kudos for doing the right thing!!!

For football fans this is a great weekend. The Super Bowl, in all its glory, features the New England Patriots versus the New York Giants. We continue to lament the fact that our San Diego Chargers didn’t even make the playoffs. But wait till next year!

For political junkies the Republican presidential primaries have been entertaining to say the least. From Herman Cain’s plan to electrify the border fence to the front runner Mitt Romney who earns more interest money in one year, over $20 million, than most earn in their whole lifetimes, and the lives of their descendants. To Newt Gingrich who has so much baggage that the Obama people are hoping he wins.

The Republican primary has been fascinating as we have watched the wannabe winners come and go, and the contenders tear at each other. Gingrich, the quintessential bulldog prototype politician is the darling of the extreme right wing and seen as having the aptitude to go after President Obama. Romney is seen as soft, but this too is changing as he has allowed himself to fall to the level of Gingrich as they attack each other, making for good television. That and outrageous amounts of money being spent by these political PACs, mostly on behalf of the Romney campaign. And the Supreme Court, criticized for their decision which allowed PACs to raise and spend without transparency.

Then there is the Sweetwater High School District scandal that has recently exploded. Sweetwater has been a bastion of bad news for quite some time now and with each passing day, as the media frenzy works overtime, more and more bad news keeps coming out.

The latest news was the release of Vega report. After the long delay of its release, it confirmed the feelings of many in the community that illegal political back room deals were being made at the expense of the taxpayer. What will come of this we are anxiously awaiting to see.

The other piece of good news was that a group called ‘Occupy Sweetwater’ attempted to serve the school board members with recall papers. We see this as a good next step. It is time for a clean sweep and a clean board. This board has so many issues and miscues over the years that community confidence in this board is gone.

There are times in life when you need to wash the board clean and start over, this is one of those times. It is time for a fresh start.

OAKLAND— Around this time every year, millions of parents in California are working through the school enrollment process. Unfortunately, while many don’t have a choice regarding what school their child will attend, those who do often find their options bewildering.

My wife and I are both educators (her currently, me formerly). We know the education system well, and what qualities to look for in a school. Still, even we were confused when we moved from San Diego to Oakland and began looking at local public schools.

After months of research and hours spent talking about the pros and cons of schools, we filled out our “options” form with our top three school choices. In some ways, this final step was a leap of faith. The school we picked had low scores but we liked the Spanish immersion program and believed that the principal and teachers could turn it around.

Our experience is not uncommon, as conversations with numerous other parents showed us. As parents, we know that the schools we select will have lifetime implications for our children’s success. But as we make these choices, we lack high-quality information on school performance.

The first problem is the school rating system. Every school in California has two separate ratings.

California has a state system called the API (Academic Performance Index) that ranks schools on a point system up to 1000. However, schools are also ranked by the federal rating system based on AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). A school can be highly ranked in the state system and do poorly in the federal system. Neither system provides a full picture of how well a school is performing.

For instance, California’s API system doesn’t tell parents how groups of students – such as English Learners, students with disabilities, Latinos or African-Americans – are doing. The federal model provides this information but fails to give the school any credit for the academic progress of students who haven’t achieved grade level standards.

Under the state system, nothing happens to even the very worst schools. Under the federal system, schools that are making considerable progress can be labeled failing and suffer sanctions. Neither system really tells parents whether the majority of students in the school are on track for graduation and college-readiness.

Recently, the Obama Administration gave state leaders the opportunity to apply for a waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind law, which mandates that states apply assessments in basic skills to all students in certain grades if they are to receive federal funding. Such a waiver would allow California the opportunity to develop and use a single school rating system that provides complete and transparent information on school performance for parents and community members.

Eleven states around the country took the option and applied in the first round. Thirty other states have signaled their willingness to apply in the second round in February. California remains undecided, with leaders in Sacramento throwing up an array of excuses as to why we should not join that list.

At a recent State Board of Education meeting, supporters of the waiver asked leaders to quickly come to a decision. Among those gathered were superintendents from the Central Valley’s Sanger Unified School District, Long Beach Unified School District, and Morgan Hill Unified School District in the Bay Area. Advocacy groups including Children Now and Education Trust-West were also at the meeting.

The arguments put forward ranged from building a better accountability system to allowing districts to focus on the highest-need and lowest performing schools, targeting them with the attention, resources and reforms they need to improve. Such steps would help ease the widespread confusion prevalent among parents by providing more concise and accurate information and could also help resolve the widening achievement gap.

Additionally, a waiver from NCLB would offer increased flexibility with federal dollars so state and local leaders can target those dollars at vital areas such as improving teaching and leading, implementing our new state standards, and increasing academic rigor so all of our students graduate college and career ready.

Sadly, no decision was forthcoming form the State Board during the hearing. Instead, leaders stated that they will postpone making a final decision on whether or not to apply for a waiver until March.

In the meantime, it is critical that parents and community groups let state board members know that it is time for California to submit a waiver application. We can’t afford to lose this opportunity to build a transparent, high-quality system for rating schools and districts, one that provides crucial information on how well our schools are doing in preparing all children for college and career.

As parents, we deserve to have all the information we need to make the right educational choices for our children’s future.

Arun Ramanathan is executive director of The Education Trust—West, a statewide education advocacy organization. He has served as a district administrator, research director, teacher, paraprofessional and VISTA volunteer in California, New England and Appalachia. He has a doctorate in educational administration and policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His wife is a teacher and they have two children in a Spanish immersion elementary school in Oakland Unified.

For those who saw or heard his speech, his opening video montage played to the music of “Hells Bells” (a Padres’ crowd pleaser). We were astonished to watch images flash of a young black kid with a backdrop of the ills of our barrios and neighborhoods – including crime and presumably gangs, drugs and poverty, and the boy running from this to a new football stadium, new convention center, new library, high rises.

Some have described this video as a bit disturbing. We couldn’t agree more.

The message we got was that all the problems of the barrios and innercity neighborhoods can be fixed with big projects such as a new football stadium – bam! crime is down. A new library – zap! the achievement gap between whites and minorities is solved. A new convention center – pow! drug problems are solved.

Sanders did not address the problems of our neighborhoods. He used them as props in order to sell his legacy.

Sanders’ speech glossed over or blatantly ignored the issues of foreclosures, health services, homelessness, crime, gangs and drugs that plague our children. The issues the pollution, of gentrification, lack of affordable housing, poverty, remained unimportant compared with shiny new projects.

This has been the problem with the Sanders’ administration throughout his tenure. Issues of importance to Hispanics have taken a back seat to the grander issues. The economic disaster of the Pension Fund debacle, the roots of salvation have been on the backs of the working poor who have had to give up healthcare, cut backs on pensions, and the loss of jobs. The homeless issue has been addressed by placing a homeless shelter in Barrio Logan next to an elementary school. While every community in the city has a working citizens advisory group, again in Barrio Logan the mayor has blocked the creation of such a group and has controlled the redevelopment process.

In hindsight, the opening video of the boy running away from the problems of the barrio to the communities to downtown splendor does in fact reflect the leadership of a mayor who has abandoned the neighborhoods for the glory of big development.