June 12, 2019 CUSD BOT Meeting Oral Communications

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Non-Agenda Items) Oral Communications will occur immediately following Board and Superintendent Comments. The total time for Oral Communications shall be twenty (20) minutes. Individual presentations are limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes per individual. 

QUICK LINKS| No Busing | Increased Truancy Rates | CUSD profiting off Parking Fees | Abuse of Student Privacy Rights when Obtaining Parking Permit | Elimination of Busing Violates CEQA- CUSD filed Wrong Toll Road Law Suit | Solution |

Must Listen to Audio Below

CUSD Truancy Rates are off the Charts due to a lack of busing and adequate parking. Students cannot get to school.


Board Audio 35:20 Fernada Diabla Teacher San Juan Hills High School 

Transportation Problems at Capo Valley and San Juan Hills. Worked to get a Public Bus route because kids in San Juan cannot get to school. Students are now depending on Ubber or Lift just to get to school at great expense. This is not financially sustainable and it makes it impossible for students to participate in extracurricular activities​.

Board Audio 38:05 David Fernadiz First Generation Latino that graduated Valedictorian at San Juan Hills High School 

Speaking in support of getting San Juan Hills Bus Transportation. His family only had one car and his dad needed that for work. If he had not been lucky enough to get a FREE bus pass all four years of school he would have missed a lot of school and would not have been able to graduate Valedictorian. He will be attending UCI in the fall and it is because he only missed six days of school. There are many students who cannot get to school. Carpools pay $30 per week. Lift is $10 per ride. This increases absenteeism. He had to quit football because if he did not catch the bus it was a one hour and 20 minute walk home. He reminded CUSD of their district pledge: "An Unwavering Commitment To Student Success" and encouraged them to bring back busing.

Board Audio 41:29 Martha Agular Non-english Speaking Parent to share her families experience about the hardships families experience because of a lack of bus transportation for students. 


Board Audio 46: 35 Trustee Amy Hannacek comments on busing. 

Board Audio 47:12 Up-date on busing by Clark Hampton  

CUSD hopes to add a new San Juan bus route next year.

[Clark's nose is growing]



The final Public Comment was from the new Principal at Oxford Prep.


Board Audio 44:05 Denise Alvorado New Principal Oxford Prep Academy

She wanted to introduce herself.


CUSDWatch Comment on Busing and Parking

Did you know that CUSD eliminated most of its bus routes durring the great recession, and has chosen not restore them so that money could be used for employee compensation increases.

CUSD has give five consecutive years of across the board compensation increases totalling over $150 million. Employee compensation is 90% of CUSDs' budget and Superintendent Vital's compensation has almost doubled since she came to CUSD in 2014. Transparent California shows that as of 2017 Superintendent Kristen Vital's total compensation was $419,971.40.

As a result of the lack of bussing, limited parking at most high schools, and exorbanant parking permit fees, truancy rates for CUSD are off the charts compared to State and County rates.

Truancy Rates Skyrocketed when CUSD CHOSE to eliminate busing.

Source DataQuest: http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ The data stops at 2015-16


Data from DataQuest: Truancy by District- http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/  

Aliso Niguel High School
Year Truancy Rate

Average Truancy

Rate 18.33%

2004 - 2005 8.22% 
2005 - 2006 22.30% 
2006 - 2007  26.84% 
2007 - 2008  22.10% 
2008 - 2009 12.21% 
CUSD Eliminates Busing reducing Bus Routes from 62 to 18
2009 - 2010 43.53% 

Average Truancy

Rate 37.16%

102.73% increase  after busing was eliminated

2010 - 2011 42.67% 
2011 - 2012  35.90% 
2012 - 2013 33.68% 
2013 - 2014 35.34% 
2014 - 2015 36.52% 
2015 - 2016 32.45% 


Capo Valley High School
Year Truancy Rate

Average Truancy

Rate 29.998% 

2004 - 2005 5.67% 
2005 - 2006 38.00% 
2006 - 2007  43.15% 
2007 - 2008  49.07% 
2008 - 2009 14.1% 
CUSD Eliminates Busing reducing Bus Routes from 62 to 18
2009 - 2010 55.88% 

Average Truancy

Rate 41.97%

Increase of 39.91% after busing was eliminated

2010 - 2011 48.46% 
2011 - 2012  44.80% 
2012 - 2013 42.92% 
2013 - 2014 33.90% 
2014 - 2015 33.06% 
2015 - 2016 34.78%  


Dana Hills High School
Year Truancy Rate

Average Truancy

Rate 24.57

2004 - 2005 14.79% 
2005 - 2006 28.64% 
2006 - 2007  35.27% 
2007 - 2008  33.39% 
2008 - 2009 10.76% 
CUSD Eliminates Busing reducing Bus Routes from 62 to 18
2009 - 2010 58.31% 

Average Truancy

Rate 61.34%

Increase of 149.65% after busing was eliminated

2010 - 2011 73.10% 
2011 - 2012  66.10% 
2012 - 2013 66.96% 
2013 - 2014 57.34% 
2014 - 2015 52.02% 
2015 - 2016 55.54% 


San Juan Hills High School

Year Truancy Rate
San Juan didn't open till 2007-08
2007 - 2008  26.62% 

Average Truancy

Rate 13.87% 

2008 - 2009 1.12% 
CUSD Eliminates Busing reducing Bus Routes from 62 to 18
2009 - 2010 50.56% 

Average Truancy

Rate 45.88% 

Increase of 230.79% after busing was eliminated

2010 - 2011 56.93% 
2011 - 2012  51.80% 
2012 - 2013 50.71% 
2013 - 2014 36.91% 
2014 - 2015 37.53% 
2015 - 2016 36.74% 


San Clemente High School
Year Truancy Rate 
2004 - 2005 7.38% 

Average Truancy

Rate 31.60% 

2005 - 2006 40.8% 
2006 - 2007  50.44% 
2007 - 2008  48.1% 
2008 - 2009 11.26% 
CUSD Eliminates Busing reducing Bus Routes from 62 to 18
2009 - 2010 72.93% 

Average Truancy

Rate 67.11% 

Increase of 112.37% after busing was eliminated

2010 - 2011 84.79% 
2011 - 2012  76.90% 
2012 - 2013 67.36% 
2013 - 2014 55.86% 
2014 - 2015 57.50% 
2015 - 2016 54.41% 


Year Truancy Rate
2004 - 2005 6.42%

Average Truancy

Rate 19.37%

2005 - 2006 23.89% 
2006 - 2007  30.57%  
2007 - 2008  27.81% 
2008 - 2009 9.99% 
CUSD Eliminates Busing reducing Bus Routes from 62 to 18
2009 - 2010 54.43% 

Average Truancy

Rate 55.39% 

Increase of 185.96% after busing was eliminated

2010 - 2011 59.93% 
2011 - 2012  54.40% 
2012 - 2013 45.29%
2013 - 2014 56.48%
2014 - 2015 57.21%
2015 - 2016 59.98%


When I started to look at the Truancy and absentee rates for Tesoro High School- to see if grading of the Toll Road without the required protective barrier was resulting in higher absentee rates. I was astonished to see how high truancy rates were in CUSD. Truancy in CUSD High Schools does not appear to be the result of bad behavior- suspensions or expulsions. It must be for "other reasons".

I published the above charts on facebook in 2017, and asked for thoughts on why CUSD High School truancy rates were so high, especially at Tesoro High School. I asked if it was increased illness due to fugitive dust from Toll road construction? Increased illness due to the lack of facilities maintenance? (All of CUSDs' HVAC systems are past their useful life and are not properly maintained). Tesoro parents said that parking is so difficult that when kids can't find a spot, they give up and skip school. 

Capistrano Valley High School has 600 spots for students to park. There are roughly 600 students per grade which means that most of the students holding a valid California driver license (Sophomores, Juniors and Seniors) will not be able to park on campus.  

The situation wouldn't be so bad if there was busing and/or adequate off campus parking within a reasonable walking distance to the school.  Many high schools in CUSD do not have public parking within walking distance to campus because on street parking during school hours has been banned on most public roads adjacent to CUSD campuses.

At Capistrano Valley High School, the situation has gotten so bad that students have resorted to paying daily parking fees at Saddleback Community College so that they only have a half mile walk to campus everyday. Saddleback charges a daily parking fee of $5.00 (that is $100 per month, and almost $1,000 per school year) for a single student. 

Why are taxpayers paying to park at a school that the state mandates students attend?

Why is CUSD allowed to profit from student parking fees when everyone else (staff and visitors) park for free?


Public Records Show Capistrano Unified School District Collects $500 Thousand Dollars Per Year in Illegal Parking Fees

This article is a follow-up to:
Know Your Rights: Free Public Education in California published in 2014

1-28-14 Up-date to reflect additional information from CUSD 


California Law AB 1575 Prevents Public Schools From Charging Students Illegal Fees To Participate In What Is Suppose To Be A "FREE" Public Education

More information about the "Free School Guarantee" and the legality of specific type of fees see:

"Assembly Bill 1575 ensures the 'free schools' guarantee is applied equally to all children in our state and remains a meaningful protection in our Constitution." Author of the bill, Assemblyman Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens
A Public Records Request shows that the Capistrano Unified School District collected $337,225 in illegal parking fees in 2013-14 and is on track to collect over half a million dollars in illegal parking fees in 2014-15.

Why School Districts Do Not Have The Legal Authority To Charge Students A Fee To Park On Campus:

1. California Education Code prohibits schools from charging students a fee unless the fee is specifically authorized by law. 

California Code of Regulations, Article 3. Privileges of Pupils. § 350. Fees Not Permitted.
"A pupil enrolled in a school shall not be required to pay any fee, deposit, or other charge not specifically authorized by law."
Capistrano Unified School District sites California Vehicle Code § 2113 as the law that authorizes the District to charge students a fee to park on campus.
"(g) A public agency, including, but not limited to, the Regents of the University of California and the Trustees of the California State University, may adopt rules or regulations to restrict, or specify the conditions for, the use of bicycles, motorized bicycles, skateboards, and roller skates on public property under the jurisdiction of that agency."
California Vehicle Code § 2113 gives School Districts the authority to establish "rules and regulations" governing parking; it does not specifically give Districts the authority to "charge fees" for parking.

2. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

The Equal Protection clause requires that the law (California Vehicle Code § 2113) be applied equally to everyone. The law is not being applied equally to everyone and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
1. Only students at certain schools are required to pay a fee to park on campus. It should be noted that Adult students are not charged. Students at J.Serra are not charged. Visitors to campus are not charged. Employees are not charged. 
2. The fees that are charged are different at each school. 
3. The "Privilege" of parking on campus is based on a students academic performance. Under Capistrano Unified's current practice, students have to maintain a certain grade in order to receive the "privilege" of parking on campus.  

3.  California Education Code § 49011 (4) Prohibits School Districts from offering "privileges" to students  in exchange for money.

49011.  (a) A pupil enrolled in a public school shall not be required to pay a pupil fee for participation in an educational activity. 
(4) A school district or school shall not offer course credit or privileges related to educational activities in exchange for money or donations of goods or services from a pupil or a pupil's parents or guardians, and a school district or school shall not remove course credit or privileges related to educational activities, or otherwise discriminate against a pupil, because the pupil or the pupil's parents or guardians did not or will not provide money or donations of goods or services to the school district or school.
The District's current practice is to offer the "Privilege" of parking on campus for a fee which is a violation of California Education Code § 49011 (4).

4. Taxpayer Funded Facilities

School Property is paid for by taxpayers for the benefit of students. It is unconscionable that District employees, certain students and visitors are allowed to park on campus for free while certain students are not. 

5. Punishing Students by revoking parking Privileges is morally and ethically wrong. 

When a student looses the privilege of parking on campus because of poor academic performance it exposes that particular student as being "academically challenged".  That brings up right to privacy issues. To add insult to injury, students who's permits are being revoked as a result of poor academic performance are charged an additional processing fee to revoke the permit.


Abuse of Student Privacy Rights

CUSD abused student privacy rights by requiring all students that wanted a parking permit to participate in a PTSA sponosred Mandatory Impact Teen Driver's Workshop which forced parents to attend the workshop with the student, and allowed the PTSA to scan student ID cards.  The PTSA then shared personally identifiable information with Impact Teen Driving which was engaged in research, research that gave Impact Teen Drivers the right to view student driving records years into the future. 

CUSD failed to inform parents of this research, and by requiring parents to attend, CUSD assumed parental consent without actually informing parents of the research, or Impact Teen Drivers right to review future driving records.


Open Letter to CUSD Trustees Regarding Staff's Response - 

First, I would ask if Trustees approved this response prior to staff issuing it?

Second, I would ask if CUSD's legal staff reviewed the State and Federal Constitutions when drafting this response?

Constitutional Challenge: Equal Protection 

Every person is entitled to EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS. That means that all laws and regulations (Local, State and Federal Government) must be applied to all people equally.

If CUSD would like to charge a fee to park on PUBLIC PROPERTY, then the District must charge EVERYONE (students, staff and the public).  

The CDE and the County Office of Education can make all the written proclamations they would like, but it does not change the individual rights each person has under the Constitution. If challenged in Court, these "selective" fees would be declared illegal. That is why most Districts provide adequate parking for their students and do NOT charge anyone to park on campus. 

Constitutional Challenge: Free School Guarantee 

Free Public Education System The California Constitution provides for a free school system.1 Since 1874, the California Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that this entitles students to be educated at public expense.

School districts may thus not levy fees as a condition for participation in any class, whether elective or compulsory.

Simple Test:

“It should be determined whether a fee for a particular item is specifically authorized by statute. If not, it should be determined whether a particular item is required by law to be furnished free or whether it comes under the category of ‘necessary supplies.’ If it does, then the district must furnish the item without charge.”

Parking fees remain suspect under the constitutional Free School Guarantee. Practically speaking, how can a State mandate that our kids attend school and then not provide adequate busing and parking for them to get to class in a timely manner. The severe lack of parking is unconscionable and should have been addressed years ago when CUSD chose to eliminate busing to save money. No busing- no parking - no opportunity to be educated. Then you punish CUSD's lowest performing students and ensure they have no way to get to class on time by denying them the opportunity to park on campus all together because they have bad grades. 

Although it might be argued that such a fee is “noneducational,” as are transportation fees, arguments can also be made to the contrary. CUSD mandated that students wishing to park on campus (AND THEIR PARENT) attend Impact Teen Drivers workshop as a condition of receiving a permit which makes in impossible for CUSD to argue that the parking permit fee is "noneducational).

Vehicle Code Section 21113

Regarding CUSD's reliance on Vehicle Code Section 21113 as authority to charge parking fees:

In United Stanford Employees v. Board of Trustees (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 319, the court concluded that a private university could impose a parking fee pursuant to this section.

Perhaps in reliance on this case, the CSBA sample policies suggest parking fees are authorized.

Public schools, unlike private universities, are constrained by Calif. Code of Regulations § 350, which states that any lawful fee must be specifically authorized. Vehicle Code § 21113 is not sufficient authority because it never mentions the word “fee,” nor authorizes a fee in any specific way. 

The ABUSE of our students has to stop. Any parent who is denied a parking permit because they failed to attend the Impact Teen Driving workshop should site the following: 

EC section 49011(b)(4) bars a school district or school, including a charter school, from requiring parents to perform “volunteer hours” as a condition of allowing their child admission, enrollment, continued enrollment, sibling preference, attendance, participation in educational activities or receipt of credit or privileges related to educational activities. EC section 49011(c) permits a school district or school, including a charter school, to request that parents volunteer a specific number of hours per school year, and to identify the benefits to the school district or school as a result of these truly volunteer services; however, such requests may not be coercive or imply a negative consequence to a student or parent.

CUSD- provide parking for all people free of charge, or charge no one. Schools are public property it is unconstitutional to charge only students to park when staff and visitors can park for free.


OPEN LETTER TO CUSD BOARD OF TRUSTEE's Re: PTSA's Mandatory Attendance for Parking Spot/Lottery 2017-18 School Year

Open Letter to the Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees:

I wanted to bring the following to your attention to ensure that the CUSD Board approved Staff's actions. To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen this item come before the CUSD Board.

Staff has given the PTSA the approval to sponsor a MANDATORY Impact Teen Drivers Workshop.

I wanted to express my concern about the PTA having the authority to demand mandatory attendance at a presentation in order for students to be eligible to be part of the parking spot lottery.

The PTA has no authority to mandate that a parent attend a PTSA event. The PTSA has no authority to scan student ID cards, and then share a students personally identifiable information with Impact Teen Driving.

Please note that the flyer does not indicate that this "workshop" is being done by Impact Teen Driving. I found that information out from parents on Facebook.

The Impact Team Driving web site is: http://impactteendrivers.org/about/our-efforts/train-the-trainers

Impact Team Driving is a 501(c)(3) organization founded by the California Highway Patrol, the California Teachers Association and California Casualty. California Casualty provides insurance to unionized employees such as Figher fighters & EMS, Educators, Peace Officers, NPs & RNs.


"A parent-teen workshop was created to be attended by parents and their teens together after school in the afternoon or evening. It shares the “What Do You Consider Lethal?” campaign and includes information on graduated driver licensing laws. Schools can choose to hold a school assembly during school hours and a parent-teen workshop after school on the same day for maximum impact in the community. Some schools choose to raffle campus parking permits off or make attendance by a parent with their teen mandatory for the teen to be able to drive to school."

The PTSA has no authority to hold a Lottery for parking spaces on PUBLIC SCHOOL PROPERTY, or to determine the criteria by which PUBLIC school parking permits are to be issued. 

In addition to my concern about allowing the PTSA  to be used in this manner, I am deeply troubled by the fact that Impact Teen Drivers is engaged in research, research that gives Impact Teen Drivers the right to view student driving records years into the future. By mandating that a Parent attend, you are forcing parents to consent to a research study that is not being disclosed to parents. There is not an "OPT IN" to sharing a students personally identifiable information. Information that this organization will be able to access years into the future.

Having served as a PTA Legislative Rep- I am concerned if PTSA money is being used for the purpose of putting on this event. Each school site is asked to make a $500 donation to sponsor a school site event. PTSA money must be used for school wide purposes - not events that impact only Juniors and Seniors.

I would further like to notify Trustees that this is the work of ACSA. ACSA is ex- Trustee Hatton-Hodsons partner in Systems Leadership Collaborative. 

Look at who is represented on this Board:

The Insurance Industry- Free Research

ACSA, and

Jack O'Connell, Retired State Superintendent of Public Education who endorsed Lynn Hatton for Trustee, now has contracts with CUSD through his company Capital Advisors.

1) Don't let CUSD collect personally identifiable data on students without families expressly opting in.

2) Charging a fee for students to park on PUBLIC PROPERTY is against the law if you do not charge staff and the public as well. I presented this issue to the Board in January 2014. That work is attached below.


The Elimination of Busing Violates CEQA at Tesoro High School and Endangers Tesoro Staff and Students

In 2008 the City of Mission Viejo threatened to sue CUSD over the elimination of busing after reviewing a declaration by the Board of Trustees stating that fewer school busses on the road won't lead to significant enviornmental impacts. Orange County Register: Mission Viejo may sue Capistrano Unified over busing cuts

“If the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process is not properly followed we will pursue both a short-term temporary injunction, a long-term injunction, and a writ of mandate to compel the district to properly review the CEQA process,” said Curley.

Capistrano Unified trustees approved a negative declaration that asserts a reduction in the school’s bus routes doesn’t impact the environment, such as by increasing the number of cars on the road, to the extent that an environmental impact report would be required.

Districtwide, a traffic study has projected 2,166 additional car trips during morning drop-off times and 2,506 additional car trips during afternoon pick-up times, according to an analysis by the district’s traffic consultant, Orange-based Kunzman Associates.

I have made multiple Publci Record Requests for the ERI for Tesoro High School. The one that I received and the one publish on the District web site under Toll Road Facts is for a school that was never actually built. 

This is the site and school construction plan for the EIR.


This is the school that was actually built- it is flipped and CUSD was forced to purchase two additional parcels of land in order to install its ball fields. Where is the EIR for the school that was actually built? And shouldn't a new enviornmental review be required because of the lack of busing and the shift in alignment of the Toll Road 800' closer to the school?


Here is CUSD's latest up-date on its Toll Road litigation


CUSD filed a lawsuit that as a matter of law, it could never win. In the EIR it specifically states that CUSD is responsible for all "sound/air quality walls, air filters, sound attenuating windows, connector road/signal".

The lawsuit they should have filed, was an action to Quiet Title on Parcel 82. When the alignement of the Tesoro Extension of the 241 was shifted 800' closer to Tesoro High School, a new CEQA review was required. The road that is currently being built next to Tesoro High School has no valid CEQA, or NEPA as required by law. CUSD had a duty to protect the health and safety of staff and students. When you add the effects of proposed climbing lanes on a toll road on school district property without bussing, it creates substantial health risks to staff and students.

The Capistrano Unified School District's callous disregard for the Health and Safety of students in unconscionable. Since the District chose not to file a law suit it could win, the District should be sued for not properly following CEQA. Why has no injuntion been filed? Where is the writ of mandate compelling the district to properly review the CEQA process? Why is Rancho Mission Viejo able to transfer CUSD property into the RIght of Way for the 241 (land the Ranch did not own at the time of the transfer)? Rancho Mission Viejo lost track of its parcels and violated the subdivision map act- but no one wants to acknowledge that. They would rather cause physical harm to children.

The criminal endagerment of children should not be allowed to continue. 


One possible Interim Solution

Maybe a cost effective solution would be to provide a trolly route between downtown San Juan and Gelsons Market and San Juan High School. And a second Trolly Route between Downtown San Juan and Capistrano Valley. And the compromise would be that parking at all high schools would be free for all people not just visitors and staff.

I don't believe the Trollys are in use Monday - Friday during school. How much could it cost to offer a new Trolly Route for the kids?