First off he tells us why we should toss the incumbents out of the Rocklin City Council

An excerpt caught my attention: For the record, Councilman Scott Yuill is an advisor for the WSCA. He would not even voice his support for the school when the WSCA leadership team presented their charter to the Rocklin School Board. Why bother to be an advisor when you will not support the cause? Is Mr. Yuill trying to build his resume for a higher office? Mr. Yuill has been on the council for less than 2 years and he is already out of touch with people of Rocklin.

The Rocklin school board shot down a charter from the organization that is running the best-performing school in Placer County. Scott Yuill, the newest Rocklin City Councilmember did nothing, even though he is an advisor to the WSCA – the charter that got derailed.

Given that Yuill endorsed Ose after refusing to support Doolittle – could Yuill’s desire to play both sides be catching up to him quickly after less than 2 years in office?

Then Klang follows up on the ‘Good Ol Boy’s Network’ theme.

For the record – this blogger counts Kathy Lund as a personal friend. While Lund is not up for re-election this time around, I can see no reason why she deserves the same scorn that Yuill and Brett Storey (both actively campaigned for Ose) deserve.

Of note – George Magnussen (sp?) was a leader in the failed recall of Klein and Simmons.

File this under the category of small world – Lund, Klein and Simmons have all been PCRA endorsed in the past.

Finally – with all due respect to Mark Klang (also a friend) given that the opponents to the incumbents appear to be a bunch of disgruntled Democrats that tried to stop Clover Valley’s development (that was approved years ago)...

Someone had better come up with some good candidates and reasons before they will get serious consideration for their bid to unseat “the good old boys”.

I am sure we have not heard the end – be sure to keep an eye on Better Rocklin

“The Republican race for the Fourth Congressional District is shuffling once again.

Citrus Heights attorney Suzanne Jones has officially filed papers and has announced she will vie for the seat being vacated by Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, who said in January he would not seek a 10th term in Congress.

Though she currently lives in Citrus Heights, she said she has plans to move back to Granite Bay.”

Wow, I guess another person outside the district is running…that makes it 3 of 3 now. Does that issue really matter in this race now?

LINK

sacbee.com

“A new program in Placer County aims to ensure that every child age 5 and younger has health insurance.

The First 5 Placer Children and Families Commission this week unveiled the program, which works to enroll eligible children in government-funded insurance programs and offers a new health insurance product for those from families whose incomes are too high to qualify.

Coverage costs between nothing and $15 per child, with a maximum monthly payment of $45 per family. Eligibility is limited to families with incomes less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level, about $60,000 a year for a family of four.”

Who’s the Placer Co official behind this one? Don’t we have enough budget problems in this county? You’re telling me someone making $60K a year is elgible for public assistance? So where were the Placer Co. Stupivisors at when Oracle and HP are paying $30K for most of their lower level employees? I guess these folks should be on food stamps and in public housing.

Any of you “Children First” apologists rethinking your position on education funding yet???

By Deb Kollars – sacbee.com

“If I were to get laid off, I’d get my last paycheck and then get booted out the door,” Young said. “To see administrators soaking up the gravy is really infuriating.”

Young was referring to the March 19 decision by the Grant school board to give big buyout checks to as many as 19 top tier administrators in the district. The proposed individual payouts range from about $100,000 to more than $250,000. If all 19 take the buyouts, it will cost $3 million, according to Dave Gordon, Sacramento County’s superintendent of schools, who is investigating the buyout package.

The retirement deals included $10,000 cash incentives that were required under employee bargaining agreements at the time.

LINK

The biggest news – Prop 93, Term Limits fraud, loses. Big winner, Steve poizner – big loser, Fabian Nunez and Don Perata.

Prop 94-97, the referrenda against the Indian Gaming compacts put on the ballot by the Labor Unions failed. The CRA supported these measures while some could not sort through the Gambling issue – the voters did, by about 10% statewide.

Big winner – property rights! The NIMBY / IHMYCHY crowd couldn’t stop measure H in Rocklin.

Big Winner – taxpayers…

Measure J fails 58-41 in favor (needed 67%)... this was the measure that would have increased the park tax 50% and then indexed it in future years. They should have tried to renew it at the same rate…

Measure G fails 52-48 in favor. This was one of those 55% bonds that the Loomis School District went to the ballot with for the third time.

Don’t forget that the Placer GOP Central Committee and the Placer CRA were being attacked over our opposition before we even opposed this measure!

Because the Central Committee is now an endorsing body – there are several who now want to take the committee over for the express purpose of preventing any future endorsements. This is another of the angles in the Ose v. Oller race – Ose has participated in the Liberal takeover of two county committees in the past…

Rumor has it that Placer is in the crosshairs. Those supporting Ose have to know about this angle as well…

Yesterday’s post about the draft report from the Education monopoly in Rocklin was an apt harbinger.

Steve Paul allowed legal counsel to rail on the WSCA charter proposal for an hour in the meeting last night. He then refused to allow the WSCA folks a rebuttal.

The entire Rocklin Unified School board voted 5-0 against the charter.

They hid behind the report as expected citing defeciencies in the WSCA charter.

State law requires a 60 page report, the WSCA’s report was 700 pages.

Look for some fireworks as those who want school choice are not going to take this affront laying down.

Dear Jack Day, (Jack is a Loomis School Board Member)

If you honestly believe that taxes are too low and taxpayers bear the blame for the conditions in our schools, then we should politely agree to disagree. I am sure that we can still work together on the areas where we agree. Every disagreement should not be considered an insult to someone’s integrity. Rather than raising taxes again and again and again, the Republican volunteers I work with would prefer educational reforms that would reduce the costs of running our local schools. I hope you will let us know if there is an opportunity to work together toward something like that. I can certainly understand your frustration after so many years of fighting to improve the schools. If tax increases are always the first resort, I don’t believe that we will ever be able to get the educational establishment to focus on the real problems facing our schools.

I take issue with your comment about “this unilateral determination” in the context of the Placer County Republican Party endorsement, but perhaps I misunderstood your point. I am not aware of any unilateral determinations with regard to the opponents of Measure G. It almost sounds as if you are saying that the Placer County Republican Central Committee, the Placer County Republican Assembly, the California Republican Assembly, the Placer County Taxpayers League, the local No on G Committee in Loomis, and the California Taxpayer Protection Committee all acted unilaterally TOGETHER in opposing Measure G. These groups did not hold any joint meetings and most members of the different groups do not even know each other. In any event, separate endorsements by unrelated organizations do not constitute unilateral action. I apologize if I am jumping to the wrong conclusion about what you meant.

By contrast, the vote of your Board of Trustees was a unilateral action. If my information is correct, your Board of Trustees did not contact any of the bond’s opponents or likely opponents when you unilaterally decided to place Measure G on the ballot in a low turn-out special election. Instead of placing a normal bond on the ballot (requiring two-thirds approval from voters), your Board unilaterally decided to seek a “Proposition 39 bond” requiring only 55% voter approval. If you consulted anyone about that decision, I am not aware of it. I note that there is an unresolved legal question about whether Proposition 39 bonds are even eligible for placement on a special presidential primary election ballot. Perhaps the courts will have to resolve that matter if the bond receives approval. In any event, it seems more accurate to say that your Board acted unilaterally, but the bond opponents did not.

As a result of the unilateral action by your Board of Trustees, the Placer County Republican Central Committee did not receive ANY notice of Measure G until it was too late to invite your Board members to a meeting to explain the need for it. We had no reason to even suspect that local school boards would seek to take advantage of the special election on February 5th to place Prop. 39 bonds on the ballot. I was willing to call a special meeting during the holidays, if necessary, but there was little or no support on the part of the Central Committee for such a special meeting in the middle of the Christmas season. Thus, as a result of the unilateral action of the Board of Trustees, the Central Committee had no opportunity to meet with you in public before the vote to oppose the bond was taken. I am as frustrated about that as you are. In the future, I hope you will let me know if you are planning to place bonds and tax increases on the ballot.

For your benefit, I should mention that our Central Committee members are just as unlikely as most Republican voters to support a tax increase for schools or for any other purpose. Easily two-thirds of our Committee members agreed with Ken Campbell’s argument that we should NEVER support a Proposition 39 bond and we should continue to fight to overturn that disastrous initiative and restore the two-thirds vote for tax increases that Proposition 13 required. I am not saying that to defend the fact that you were not invited to speak, since I really wish the Central Committee had been given enough time to invite speakers. I am just trying to explain that speakers would not likely have impacted the outcome of the Central Committee endorsement.

I look forward to having the opportunity to work with you on something positive in the future. I am sorry that we disagree on Measure G.

Tom Hudson, Chairman
Placer County Republican Party

I am writing to invite you to a Team Doolittle Briefing. Please join with our key supporters for news about our plans for 2008. You have been an important part of my election efforts, and I want you to get the inside news directly from me and my campaign advisors.

The first session of the 110th Congress showed that despite being in the minority, we Republicans can and will stand on principle and successfully fight against harmful legislation. We defeated Democrat efforts to stop funding for our troops fighting the war on terror and held back Democrat efforts to raise taxes by a whopping $250 billion.

Even without a Republican majority in Congress, I was able to secure funding for important projects in the 4th Congressional District, including funds for the Lincoln Bypass on Highway 65, law enforcement communications in Placer County, the Dorsey Drive interchange for Nevada County, the Modoc County Medical Center and emergency response equipment for Oroville, the Grizzly Flat Fire Station in El Dorado County and $14 million to help finish the new Folsom Bridge.

As always, I am eager to get your perspective on numerous issues currently facing our country. I hope you will feel free to share with me any question or comment you may have.

The particulars of the Team Doolittle Briefing are as follows:

(DELETED BY BLOGGER)

Julie and I look forward to seeing you on January 10th. Please call our campaign headquarters at (see website) to confirm your attendance.

Sincerely,

(John Doolittle’s Signature)

The latest Doolittle is retiring rumors – were apparently started by a left-wing blog and then amplified by this e-mail. The media took this e-mail and ran with it.

Measure “E” the Dry Creek School Bond – I replied to someone who posted a comment criticizing us for opposing their bond.

I asked the obvious question about an audit of the district to see what they did with their money… On New Year’s Eve, I was at a get together with someone who is a substitute teacher in the district who told me…

That the Bond is being floated to complete a middle school campus that the district ran out of money to complete. The issues at hand were cost overruns and money that was spent on items other than the school.

The administrators attempted to compel this person and others to campaign on behalf of this bond. This acquaintance refused to do so and characterized the sentiments of others as being the same.

Like Western Placer Unified – some heads need to roll in the Dry Creek District, starting with the Teacher’s Union who hand-picked their board.

Measure J – the Rocklin Park Tax.

The measure was not put on the ballot by the Rocklin City Council. This measure was put back on the ballot by the same citizens board that got the original tax passed in the first place.

The issue that burnt me out on this tax was not only do the proponents want to increase it 50% per parcel – they want to index the tax up every subsequent year for the CPI!

Measure H – the Environmentalist groups referendum against development. Vote yes and support the Rocklin City Council, vote no and support the Sierra Club and people who like small clogged freeways and cities with nowhere for people to live.

Visit Clover Valley for All to learn the facts that the local media and the Sierra Club can’t hide.

Measure E – Dry Creek School Bond – NO
This is a fiscally-irresponsible $67.3 million school bond for the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in the Roseville area. This District has adequate funding and their revenues are growing rapidly, so they have no business asking taxpayers take on additional debt.

Measure F – South Placer Fire “Tax” – NO
UPDATED 1/3/2008
Measure F – Spending Limit Exemption for the South Placer Fire Protection District – NO
This ballot measure would exempt the South Placer Fire Protection District from the Gann Spending Limit. District officials insist that this measure will not lead to future parcel tax increases or benefit assessments, and no such taxes and fees have been proposed by staff or by the District’s Board of Directors. However, this measure would allow the District to continue to spend more than the California Constitution would otherwise allow and we oppose it on that basis.

Measure G – Loomis School Bond – NO
This is a fiscally-irresponsible $17.7 million school bond for the Loomis Union School District . This well-funded District needs to prioritize its spending, rather than demanding higher taxes every year.

Measure H -Clover Valley Development in Rocklin YESFor many years, environmental wackos and “no-growthers” have opposed every plan to develop the privately-owned land in Clover Valley, which has been slated for development for a generation. The Rocklin City Council finally approved a dramatically scaled-back development plan, with widespread community support, but leftist radicals gathered signatures to force it onto the ballot. If this measure fails, the land owners will either demand full payment for the private land that they have not be allowed to development (which would be astronomically expensive and un-affordable for a small city like Rocklin) OR they will take back all the compromises and build a much larger development that the environmental wackos will hate even more. For the sake of private property rights, voters need to support Measure H.

Measure J – Rocklin Park Tax Increase – No
This is an unnecessary and unfair parcel tax that the proponents have tried to disguise as the mere continuation of an existing tax that was about to expire. In fact, this measure would increase the expiring tax by 50% from $30 per parcel to $45 per parcel (regardless of size, value, or benefits received), then increase the tax every single year to adjust for inflation. In a small city whose budget has doubled in five years, the proponents are pretending that the only way they can fund parks is to increase taxes, despite the fact that most city residents already pay enormous Mello-Roos bonds and developer fees to pay for these same parks.