Dear Editor:
Two points:
1. Gilroy Unified School District continues the
”
shuck and jive
”
that convinced a majority of those voting Measure I was in
Gilroy’s best interest. It’s primary selling points: a Citizens
Oversight Committee and
”
Measure I money would remain in Gilroy.
”
Dear Editor:
Two points:
1. Gilroy Unified School District continues the “shuck and jive” that convinced a majority of those voting Measure I was in Gilroy’s best interest. It’s primary selling points: a Citizens Oversight Committee and “Measure I money would remain in Gilroy.”
Both promises were broken within weeks.
On March 14, 2003, “GUSD announced plans to hire two full-time construction managers to oversee … facility upgrades …” – as long as “the special citizens committee gives its approval.” Earlier, Nov. 25, 2002, Charlie Van Meter, GUSD facilities director, emphasized “They (the committee) do not have approval authority, but they are a reporting authority to the community.”
GUSD can’t have it both ways. Either the Oversight Committee (members selected by – surprise, surprise – GUSD’s “leadership”) has authority to approve/disapprove GUSD proposals or they don’t. If GUSD’s press release claims they must have the committee’s “approval” to hire individuals, Mr. Van Meter was wrong.
Which is it?
“Measure I money would remain in Gilroy.” That’s not true. The first expenditure, some $690,00, went to a Texas-based firm to sell bonds authorized by the Measure. The proposed cost of two full-time construction managers to be paid with Measure I money – will they be Gilroy residents? If not, will they move the Gilroy to assure Measure I money remains in Gilroy?
Which will it be?
A Notice to Bidders by GUSD was published in the San Jose Mercury News (April 15) for Bid #0203-12 – Gilroy High School Maintenance – $650,000. If Measure I money is to remain in Gilroy, why send this notice to firms outside the community? If such notice is required by law, thus opening GUSD’s grandiose plans to any and/or all within the state, the promise “Measure I money will remain in Gilroy” was/is a lie.
Why is that?
2. Speaking of shuck-and-jive, Paul Correa’s second City Council campaign has begun. His long-winded letter (April 15) attempts to reflect concern for Gilroy’s fate if Council approves a $5.4 million incentive to Newman Development Group. He waves the flag, insults council members (if they’re that bad, Paulie, why seek to associate with them?) and, midway into his ranting, gets to the purpose of his vitriol: the evil Wal-Mart. In his union-directed nonsense, Paulie emphasizes the evil Wal-Mart might well “generates no new tax revenues” – “two years down the road, Wal-Mart may see something it likes better and close down” – and his climax of calamity “there are hundreds of empty ex-Wal-Mart stores around the country.”
Ohhh woe, Paulie, ohhh woe!
Paulie moans the proposed incentive money could serve the community in better ways. He whimpers and sobs other businesses must make do without incentives – let evil Wal-Mart do the same.
Is that the foundation for another council run, Paulie – a pro-union blather using Wal-Mart as your whipping post? Go that route and you’ll prove two things – unionthink will control decisions you might make and most clearly, you have neither the grasp nor intelligence to deal with issues vital to Gilroy’s future.
James Brescoll, Gilroy
Submitted Tuesday, April 15
