Fred Smoller's Rocco-mentary
Posted by: Jubal | 09/21/2007 10:58 PM
Fred Smoller -- Chapman University political science professor, political consultant and erstwhile Democratic candidate for Assembly (no-prize to first commentator to name the year and GOP opponent) -- is producing a documentary on Orange Unified School District Trustee Steve Rocco. (H/T to Total Buzz).
A Rocco-mentary, if you will.
Smoller has posted some clips on YouTube. They're entertaining to watch if one has never seen Rocco in action.
Meanwhile, the Rocco Recall sputters on. As the Greater Orange News Service first noted on Sunday and picked up here the same day, followed by the OC Register today,
recall organizers admitted they'd be unable to make today's deadline to
turn in 11,061 valid signatures to qualify it for the February 5 ballot.
According to the OC Register:
Instead, Rocco critics plan to stick with their original plan – to garner enough signatures by Dec. 5 to put the item on the June ballot.
Well, that's one way to spin it: failure to make the Sept. 21 deadline doesn't matter because that wasn't the original plan.
This recall ain't going to happen. Rocco recallers claim to have a third of the signatures necessary, but if that's
all they harvested after a few months, I seriously doubt they can
collect the other two-thirds during the holiday season.
Orange voters know Rocco is a looney and they'll sensibly turn him out in November 2008. But they don't hold him accountable for the state of OUSD schools for the simple fact he's not responsible. The Board of Trustees is controlled by a five-member majority. Rocco has zero impact on policy. He's a nuisance, but he doesn't prevent the district from functioning nor the board majority from working their will.
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Smoller ran against John Lewis in 1990 back when the 67th Assembly District was in Orange.
In case you might be interested, the purpose of the video is to illustrate the importance of informed participation, and the barriers busy people face to getting the information they need to cast an informed vote-- especially in low ballot races. The ROV does not vet candidate ballot designations (Rocco said he was a teacher, although he hadn't taught for more than a decade) and the Register and LA Times didn't print a single story about the race. All Rocco had to do was fill out a one-page form to get on the ballot; no signatures or filing fee. Most school board watchers feel Rocco has had a very negative impact on the policy process. He cost the district $60K in legal fees for a merit-less lawsuit (the case was summarily dismissed). He disrupts the school board meetings with irrelevant rants that prevent important work from being done. He sets a bad example for young people about the importance of public service. And he wastes tax-payer dollars because he refuses to go to closed session meetings--in which important issues that require privacy are discussed--based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Brown Act. He doesn't visit schools, because he refuses to be fingerprinted. Finally, should Rocco decide to run for another term, his ballot designation will likely be "Incumbent School Board Trustee." And this time, it will be accurate. Should he face more than one opponent, he might just get elected.
Smoller ran against John Lewis in 1990 back when the 67th Assembly District was in Orange.
Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!
He disrupts the school board meetings with irrelevant rants that prevent important work from being done.
What important work? Perpetuating mediocrity?
All Rocco had to do was fill out a one-page form to get on the ballot; no signatures or filing fee.
So what? Your point?
Most school board watchers feel Rocco has had a very negative impact on the policy process.
"Most school board watchers"? Who? Why should we care?
He doesn't visit schools, because he refuses to be fingerprinted.
Gasp!
And he wastes tax-payer dollars because he refuses to go to closed session meetings--in which important issues that require privacy are discussed--based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Brown Act.
Double gasp!
He sets a bad example for young people about the importance of public service.
Oh please. As if the ignoramuses being churned out of public schools have any idea who Rocco is.
What important work, "Rock Me" asks? How about a $100 million bond issuance that was discussed at the last Board meeting, or the drug testing program being discussed this week? OUSD has a $250 million budget, 31,000 students, and several thousand employees. Would the private sector ever tolerate a "Rocco" on the board of directors of a similarly sized corporation? My point regarding the "one page form"? Perhaps we need to set the bar a little higher in order to ensure that higher caliber candidates run for--and get elected to--local offices, such as school board. Why is it important for fiscal conservatives to be concerned about Rocco's behavior in public session? Because the legal fees he is costing the district are being paid for by taxpayers, and could be put to a much better use. (I thought conservatives were upset by government waste.) I invite you to watch the videos and decide for yourself if there is a problem? And what needs to be fixed?
Rocco keeps the other boardmembers and staff on their toes. He has my vote! When a college teacher tells me he is against someone then I know he/she must be doing something right!
Does Rocco really keep the other Board members on their toes? Doesn't that require someone capable of making a coherent argument, such as The Orange Net News, or Marjann Dunn of the Foothill Sentry, or Steven Greenhut of the Register. However, how does ranting about how the "Partnership" kidnapped your parents and murdered your father effectively challenge the school board majority? You may wish to watch the clip of what other citizens--who are not college teachers- have to say about Rocco, and the clip of him and his friend Evan Harris before the City of Orange, City Council. I agree, the Board should be challenged. I am often aghast at some of the decisions they make--such as putting a second school bond on the ballot when a prior one was defeated only six months earlier, and a close reading of a survey suggested that it would be defeated. However, Rocco is not an effective critic--because no one has any idea what he is talking about. Again, take a look at the clips and see if he does the job you think he should be doing.
Rocco does not participate in close session so he does not contribute to any decisions regarding staff, students and teachers. His performance in the open session is to obstruct and insult the parents and students of the OUSD. Rocco must be recalled.
Except recalling him would also cost tens of thousands of dollars to add the measure on the ballot. Rocco essentially is irrelevant and will probably stay in office until his term is up.
It is clear to anyone who watches school board meetings that he is not irrelevant, but does real harm. Of course, the major concern among recall folks I've spoken with is that he will be re-elected to another four year term. It is hard enough to get good people to run for school board (low pay, very long hours). Do they also need have to put up with someone who is mentally unstable and could possibly cause harm to themselves, or others? He has publicly joked about bringing a gun to the meetings, and he has almost come to blows twice with two other board members.
I do not know the precise figure, but the cost of the recall is greatly reduced because a special election will not be required; it is slated for the June ballot. Besides, Rocco has already cost the district $60,000 in legal fees, and it is likely this figure will increase since he is appealing the court's decision to dismiss his case for lack of merit.