Letters

On June 7, 2016 voters will once again have an opportunity to demonstrate their support for the acquisition, development, and operation of regional parks for everyone in Santa Clara County. With approval, Measure A will continue the Park Charter Fund, ensuring a critical local, stable funding source for Santa Clara County Parks until 2032.Measure A is NOT a new or additional tax— it simply dedicates a small portion of existing property tax revenue for County Parks. The Park Charter Fund equates to about 1 percent of the county’s total budget, and includes a mandate to acquire more parkland and develop new park facilities. The measure has been endorsed by scores of regional leaders, including all five county supervisors.Since 1972, Santa Clara County’s Park Charter Fund has acquired over 50,000 acres, including 29 parks, which provide a diverse range of recreational opportunities to residents and visitors alike. From kayaking on the bay to camping in the redwoods to learning about the history of agriculture in Silicon Valley, our regional parks provide enjoyment and inspiration for residents and visitors throughout the county.Santa Clara County is one of the fastest growing and most diverse regions in the country. Regional parks offer a multitude of ways for communities to connect and refresh.Upon the passage of Measure A this June, the county can use Park Charter Fund to ensure safe and well-maintained parks, open more lands to public use, enhance visitor experience, fund the regional trails network and complete the connected system of regional parks. In addition, Measure A will allow the parks department to continue to protect and preserve the natural beauty and biodiversity of our parks so current and future generations can enjoy all that nature has to offer.Larry Ames, former Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Commissioner, said, “The county has done a remarkable job of acquiring and preserving land both for environmental protection and for future public enjoyment. But the county currently can’t open nearly a quarter of the land to the public yet; the lands need to be made safe and accessible. For example, old mine shafts need to be fenced off and old wells capped, and then amenities such as parking lots and sensitively sited hiking trails are needed so that the public can safely enjoy the lands they have helped preserve.”Yes on Parks! is leading the campaign to secure the next 15 years of park funding in Santa Clara County. For more information, visit YesOnParks.com.We are proud that our endorsers include: Honorable Zoe Lofgren, US Congress; Honorable Evan Low, CA State Assembly; Gustav Larson, Vice Mayor, Sunnyvale; Don Rocha, Councilmember, San Jose; Carl Guardino, President & CEO Silicon Valley Leadership Group; Peninsula Open Space Trust; Sempervirens Fund; SPUR San Jose; Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition San Jose? Parks Foundation.Garnetta AnnableChair, Yes On Parks

I am a Morgan Hill resident and have a question about the warning signs posted at Paradise park regarding Glyphosate (trade name: Roundup) spraying.Many people, including myself, walk this path everyday. There are kids being walked through the park to Paradise Valley Elementary School, people walking their dogs, squirrels, cats and other wildlife. Lots of ball games on the grounds, too. All that chemical poison and pollutant is going right into the groundwater and creek.Why is the city spraying with something so unhealthy when there are better alternatives? Not to mention the fact that we're enjoying seeing green after four years of drought!There’s an abundance of research on the dangers of Glyphosate.Experts at National Institutes of Health, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, World Health Organization and many countries are banning this based on medical evidence. WHO calls it "likely carcinogenic.”  There are a number of cities in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond this state that are going green. Integrated Pest Management, which substantially reduces the use of pesticides, has been implemented in San Jose, San Francisco, Boulder, Davis, Santa Monica, Isla Vista and other cities. Some of the so-called “inert” ingredients in Roundup appear not to be so in Argentina, where the miscarriage rate is 100 times the norm. Thirty thousand physicians there have asked to ban it.Given all the foot traffic in the park, especially the little ones, I would respectfully request that the city investigate healthier “green” alternatives, especially with the drought situation.Sincerely,Marilyn HawkeMorgan Hill

I recommend and endorse Pam Torrisi for election to the Morgan Hill Unified School District Board of Education on June 7, 2016. Pam is the one candidate to bring back civility, honest and open dialogue and good governance principles to our school board.Pam's service to our community and school district has been long and commendable. She came to Morgan Hill as a young girl, attended middle school and graduated from Live Oak High School in 1969. She took a position with our district as a Teacher's Aide working with Special Needs students, retiring 30-plus years later with the highest of accolades. During her long tenure she was recognized by her peers and elected President of the Classified Employees bargaining unit, serving more than 10 years in that position.I am a founding member of Community for Positive Governance (CFPG), a grassroots organization formed a few months ago in response to the resignation of Amy Porter Jensen from our Board of Education. Ms. Porter Jensen resigned because she was bullied and harassed by some members of the community and at least one board member. It was apparent to CFPG that there was a high degree of dysfunction on the BOE. We adopted a goal of reestablishing Positive Governance in the BOE through the election of candidates that adhere to the principles and philosophy of Positive Governance. The June 7 election (to fill the Porter Jensen vacancy) will be our first chance to make that happen.Pam also lives in the new district that the board voted to adopt and will run again for the full term in November. We request your support in that endeavor.Please consider Pam Torrisi for MHUSD BOE.Respectfully,Roger C. KnopfMorgan Hill

Fellow Army veteran remembers KennedyMay I add to the chorus of praise for former Mayor Dennis Kennedy, to touch on another of his contributions.Fifty-two years ago, in 1964, Dennis and I served as fellow 1st Lieutenants on a mud-steeped old Luftwaffe air base near the West German-East German border outside Kassel, Germany. Dennis was the Executive Officer of our HAWK Missile Battery, which was armed with 110 men and 36 air defense missiles pointed east.Dennis was a superb officer, a tireless worker with the painstaking precision of the engineer that he was. I still have the mental image of him laboring at his desk, always the last officer to leave other than the night's duty officer.He was exceedingly generous to me, lending me not only his sports car once to drive the many kilometers to Group Headquarters in Kaiserslautern but also his tan summer dress uniform when I took a few days leave to see my parents in Cincinnati. The uniform still hangs in my attic closet.Dennis and I bonded immediately, in part because two of his friends back in California—Norm Matteoni and Bob Saxe—had been law school classmates of mine at Notre Dame.While no one was shooting at us in those mid-60s Cold War days, the duty was long and arduous. We officers pulled 24-hour duty several days a week, in addition to regular 10-hour days, often in the worst weather Northern Germany could throw at us. Through it all, Dennis Kennedy served his country admirably, always bearing that upbeat smile and a high sense of duty.When Dennis rotated back to the states for his Army discharge, I succeeded him as Battery Exec. To the surprise of none of you who knew him, the transition was seamless. Everything was in perfect order. It was an incredible privilege to serve with him and I cherish the memory.Edmund AdamsCincinnati, OhioSV Flex issues approach resolutionA recent Morgan Hill Times article, “Silicon Valley Flex Academy charter in danger?” (April 1 edition) was misleading and used out-of-date information.First, there is no adversarial relationship between the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) and Silicon Valley Flex Academy. We are two educationally minded entities working together to find solutions to temporary complications.Second, the information in the Times’ article was outdated as it was based on information almost 30 days old. The staff of both SCCOE and Silicon Valley Flex have been communicating extensively since then and meeting to resolve all issues, a fact confirmed by both Silicon Valley Flex and the SCCOE staff. All issues have been resolved or are in the process of being resolved.Finally, it is important to note that the school’s educational practices and results were not called into question and the school was recently approved by the SCCOE board for a new term of five years.We have visitors from all over the world come to see our model. With every visit, we are celebrated for sharing this extraordinary model and the successes it has brought our students academically. As we continue to work with our colleagues at the SCCOE in resolving both the issues presented and their genesis, we will focus on continuing the provision of an outstanding education for the students, families and local community.Caroline WoodHead of School, Silicon Valley Flex AcademyEditor’s note: Full videos of the March 2, 2016 and Nov. 4, 2015 county board of education meetings—where the discussion of operations and finances at SV Flex took place—can be viewed on the SCCOE website sccoe.org.

On Nov. 19, 2015 a major update within the County of Santa Clara's General Plan became effective. The revised local-serving use definition, known as R-LU 57, attempts to set reasonable limits of "size, scale and intensity" of new institutional and commercial uses in the unincorporated areas. The change was initially quite well-received by neighborhoods, but after a short honeymoon of just four weeks, citizens revolted against the new law.I am the appellant in the Canh Thai Temple matter. This temple has become famous as the "bad neighbor Buddhist Temple in San Jose," but at stake are issues of even greater import than code compliance. In a recent open letter to the county supervisors, my neighbors and I urged awareness and action: "The current R-LU 57, ignoring Floor Area Ratio completely, encourages the buying of small lands for establishing institutions; it could even encourage the owner of a 15-acre property to split their land 10 times to create 10 Canh Thai Temples. We urge you to look at the long-term market-driven consequences of disregarding density and the General Plan."This temple is a peculiar case in point. It is on land that San Jose planners and voters designated as greenbelt by saying “Yes” to Measure K in November 2000, by an 80 percent landslide. For San Jose, the greenbelt is to be the green forever, as it is permanently delineated by the 15-percent slope contour. Even if Canh Thai Temple were to be identified as urban in scope—as the neighbors have protested, quite vigorously—there is zero chance of the property ever being annexed by San Jose. Measure K specifically requires any redrawing of the greenline to be approved by the voters.Two recent permit reviews have already eroded the credibility of the new "local-serving use." First was the approval of the VVGC (Hindu Center) on Dec. 17, 2015 by the Planning Commission. At 16,500 square feet, the VVGC will be the largest religious institution ever built in the unincorporated areas. Second is the Canh Thai Temple proposed for Evergreen, heard by the Board of Supervisors Feb. 9. The Canh Thai Temple, situated on a small 1.6-acre property, has more than triple the density of most other unincorporated religious institutions.Additionally, in the pipeline is the 29,000 square foot Cordoba Center. The unincorporated county has been the home of a dozen religious institutions, all under 10,000 square feet. Soon, it could be home to the newest megachurches.Overly dense and intense rural development has been an ongoing point of dispute between San Jose and the County over the years. Rural density is of enormous importance, since it limits the growth-inducing potential of developments that, otherwise, would become hidden future costs to the city—such as heavily used roads and other services.R-LU 57 formerly stated the following, to limit large uses in the rural residential areas: "Commercial, industrial and institutional uses may be established only where they serve the needs of the resident population and result in a net overall reduction of travel demand." To uproot discriminatory language about the origin of patrons, the new R-LU 57 replaces "local" with "local intensity:” New uses are now blind to origin of patrons; the new permits, instead, are compared to existing uses' building size and attendance limits. Furthermore, the size thresholds can be exceeded if developers include "maximal mitigations" of feasible scope, including financial feasibility. This begs the question: If you cannot afford to mitigate your large impacts, how could you afford to create big impacts and large buildings in the first place?The county, once again, is urbanizing. Owing to R-LU 57, it is only a matter of time before developers discover all those pots of gold and start looting. Only one thing can stop this runaway train: Reminding the supervisors that the County's General Plan has an underlying intention of low-density development. That intention should not be undermined by a stealth "small" change that is in fact far-reaching.

Councilmember's comments 'insulting'

My wife and I attended Mayor Steve Tate's State of the City address Feb. 25. I was disappointed to see the low turnout of residents at this very important event. The speech was very long on vague, lofty goals and very short on budgetary specifics related to these goals. That opinion aside, what really irked me were a couple of statements noted in the handout flyer distributed to the attendees: "The City is committed to engaging the community and being responsible stewards of public resources" and one  of the “ongoing priorities” is "Preserving and cultivating public trust.”In my opinion, there have been many questionable misuses and squandering of public resources, with a great number involving the myriad of wasteful downtown projects. (The $3.6 million Third Street Promenade comes to mind along with the recent $200,000 “Spider.”) But one of the most flagrant, if not at least questionable spending decisions, involve the compensation package and perks given to our City Manager. As reported by the Morgan Hill Times July 17, 2014, the City Council not only gave Steve Rymer a 3-percent raise after only one year of service, but they also voted July 2 of that year to give him a 30-year, $900,000 home purchase loan at 3 percent interest with no points or other mortgage fees that average homebuyers pay. Mayor Steve Tate justified this decision "because we could provide incentives in terms of his longevity here in Morgan Hill." I think a $200,000-plus salary with generous municipal benefits would provide more than a bit of incentive to quite a number of qualified, experienced city managers.Then, even more outrageously, after four closed session meetings, the City Council on March 18, 2015 announced and approved giving the City Manager a $110,000 home improvement loan at a below market rate of 5 percent, in addition to a $3,200 per year raise. City resident Doug Muirhead justifiably voiced concerns regarding this at the sparsely attended council meeting, but it was a done deal regardless.More recently, as reported by the Morgan Hill Times, an additional $10,800 raise was approved 4-0  by the City Council in its March 2 meeting. Mayor Tate was absent. This all could be seen as blatant cronyism, if not at least excessive misuse of public funds. Besides, how is someone earning $228,000 per year not able to manage securing a  $900,000 mortgage from a private lender?My purpose is not to disparage Mr. Rymer or his work, but to point out that without public input, those we entrust with our hard-earned money often spend it very unwisely. Our streets are in disrepair, our water and waste infrastructures are soon to be overburdened and our quality of life in this town will suffer. This is not the time to be spending excessively on questionable artwork, pop-up parks or extravagant public payrolls.It's disheartening that more Morgan Hill residents don't get involved in city affairs unless it affects their immediate neighborhood, but city planning and spending affects us all eventually. Other than city officials and employees, there were maybe a handful of residents that attended the meeting in addition to a couple of dozen high school students there getting their civics certificates.The city's outreach program is weak at best. These important issues should be announced to all residents by either citywide mailings or methods other than the "Nextdoor" or City of Morgan Hill websites, which I doubt many people visit, or short blurbs in the local paper.I encourage Morgan Hill citizens to make an effort to get involved and come see and hear how their city operates and spends their resources before making their choices for city officials in the November 2016 election.Ask for specifics and don’t just accept lofty platitudes. It's your money they'll be spending.Zenon KomarczykMorgan Hill

Much has been written in the Morgan Hill Times regarding a proposed deal for the county agriculture land in the Southeast Quadrant of Morgan Hill. This plan will cover 229 acres of prime farmland for a Catholic High School, as well as for sports, recreation and leisure areas.

Deadlock censure vote a sign of disrespectAccording to the dictionary, the verb “recuse” means to withdraw from a position of judging as to avoid any semblance of partiality or bias. Trutee David Gerard recently voted in his own disciplinary reprimand (at the Feb. 2 Morgan Hill Unified School District board of education meeting). Not surprisingly, he voted against the motion. Two of his other board members voted with him to deadlock the board from taking action.Here is the real important story, not the unfortunate incident involving Trustee Rick Badillo and the police. The story is about how three board members did not view the outrageous disrespect shown to Superintendent Steve Betando and their fellow board members to be worthy of censure. They all agreed that using racist and sexist comments as well as encouraging a parent in the recall of Board President Bob Benevento is just satirical fun protected by freedom of speech and not breaking the law.The argument that Mr. Gerard did not expect the emails to become public is a little ridiculous based on the fact he was copying his comments to others and using a MHUSD server.The fact Mr. Gerard saw no ethical problem and did not recuse himself from his own disciplinary action, speaks to why he is still a threat to the good governance of our children. The fact that two of his fellow board members, Mr. Badillo and Trustee Gino Borgioli, are not even willing to censure him for his admitted actions speaks to their acceptance of these violations of education codes and agreed upon board norms as OK.Mr. Gerard gave his verbal apology but took no responsibility for his actions.Instead, he went on about mob mentality and how the attacks on him were orchestrated and not a true reaction of community members to his behavior. He called out names of citizens who reacted to his offensive behavior and claimed they were threatening him. He continues to see himself as the victim and martyr, and refuses to see the damage he is responsible for to this community and the good work MHUSD is trying to do.Censure is not taken lightly. It does not keep the elected official from attending meetings or voting. It monitors and limits the damage the elected official can do when they have violated policies and procedures in a grievous manner. It is a shame three of our board members do not see Mr. Gerard’s violations as being important enough to warrant this step.I wonder if it is because they recognize their complicity in these events since two of these board members were copied on these emails?Kathy Sullivan, Morgan HillTrustee not a victimI went to the Morgan Hill Unified School District Board of Trustees meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 2 hoping to see David Gerard resign from the board. For the past two months a parade of Morgan Hill residents and district employees have spoken to the board asking, and even demanding, David Gerard's resignation over his despicable and hate filled email messages to some parents and trustees Gino Borgioli and Rick Badillo.Instead, the entire audience at the meeting was subjected to ridiculous arguments by Borgioli and Badillo justifying Mr. Gerard’s horrible behavior and trying to avoid a censure resolution up for a vote before the board.Acting as apologists for Mr. Gerard, these two trustees embarrassed themselves with twisted logic trying to say that Mr. Gerard was entitled to free speech and simply made an error by sending his hateful emails through the district server and that Mr. Gerard never intended for these emails to be published.Unfortunately, Trustee Badillo failed to recognize the fact that, as elected officials, their communications sent through district channels are public records which are open to inspection by the public.Finally, David Gerard made us endure a 27 minute rehash of the other trustees arguments and attempted to make himself look like a victim. Well, let's be very clear about this, Mr. Gerard is no victim and his insulting, hurtful and racist language used to describe his fellow trustees and district staff members have caused a great deal of anger within our community, justifiably aimed at him. Trustees Badillo and Borgioli appear to tacitly condone Mr. Gerard’s horrible behavior by attempting to explain his unacceptable actions as freedom of speech and a mistake.I think most everyone at the board meeting recognized Mr. Gerard’s arguments for what they were: a pathetic attempt to shift blame and attention away from his despicable acts and claim to be a victim of mobbing behavior by members of the community.Apparently, Mr. Gerard will force members of the community to mount a recall campaign against him, culminating in a special election which will cost thousands and thousands of dollars from the district’s general fund.Anyone in the community who has not read the horrible emails that Mr. Gerard wrote needs to educate themselves and read those emails! Community members need to attend upcoming board meetings and demand Mr. Gerard’s resignation. Mr. Gerard is no victim in this and he will ultimately be held accountable for his behavior both in the emails and his refusal to do the right thing and resign.Steven SpencerSan Martin

Friends and Family of Nisei Veterans (FFNV), a Japanese-American WW II veterans organization, will host a meeting 12:30 p.m. Feb. 13, at the rear building of the Morgan Hill Buddhist Community Center, 16450 Murphy Ave. Potluck lunch will be served at 11:30 a.m., and the public is invited.  The highlight of this meeting is to feature four speakers on the subject of a legendary segregated Japanese-American unit—the 442nd Regimental Combat Team—rescuing the “Lost Battalion.” The 442nd  RCT, formed in 1943, was initially engaged in Italy and quickly became a formidable and well-respected fighting unit. “Go For Broke” was its motto.  For its size and the length of service, the 442nd  RCT became the highest decorated unit in U.S. Army history with 21 Medal of Honor awards.On Oct. 24, 1944, the 1st Battalion of the 141st Infantry Regiment, 36th Division (originally the Texas National Guard), became surrounded and trapped by German forces in the Vosges Mountains, France. The 1st Battalion was deemed “lost” because repeated attempts by 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the 141st Infantry Regiment failed to rescue the 1st.  The Division Commander then ordered the 442nd RCT to rescue the “Lost Battalion.” Even though the 442nd RCT just came off bitter battles to liberate nearby towns and thus was severely short of manpower, they smartly saluted and valiantly pressed on. It was another opportunity to prove their loyalty to America after being classified as “enemy alien” after Pearl Harbor. On Oct. 30, after taking extremely heavy casualties, the 442nd RCT broke through and rescued the “Lost Battalion.”Tom Graves, professional photographer and the author of “Twice Heroes”, will introduce other speakers. He will give the overview of the 442ndRCT, and present the importance of the battle to rescue the “Lost Battalion.” He will also comment on why this rescue lives on in history.Franz Steidl, author of “Lost Battalions”, will give an introduction to the regional military situation, military motives behind the battle and its results. He will also make an audiovisual presentation.Al Tortolano (soldier of the 1st Battalion, 141st Infantry, the “Lost Battalion”) will talk about his side of the battle, what his fellow soldiers faced and knew and what they went through before the rescue by the 442RCT.Lawson Sakai (a 442nd RCT vet) will talk about the Regiment itself—its origin and training. He will then focus on his role during the battle to rescue the “Lost Battalion.”Brian ShiroyamaMorgan HillSurvey data in contextThe Times recently published an article about the Godbe Research survey commissioned by the city to gather data to assess the overall perceptions of living in Morgan Hill, to gauge satisfaction with the city’s performance and obtain opinions about a variety of city characteristics. In that article, the following was written:“About 62 percent of survey respondents said they would support an ordinance to update the city’s Residential Development Control System, extending it to 2035 with a population ceiling of 64,600 for that year. The current RDCS or growth control ordinance sets a population cap in Morgan Hill of 48,000 for the year 2020.”The actual language in the survey that resulted in the 62 percent figure reads as follows:“Shall an ordinance to update the city’s voter-approved Residential Development Control System (RDCS) and extend it to 2035, including a population ceiling of 64,600 for the year 2035 (consistent with the current growth rate) and policies to encourage more efficient land use, water conservation, sustainable transit-oriented development, and better implement the existing voter-approved RDCS allotment system, be adopted?”The omission of language from the survey has the potential of creating a false perception of what the 62 percent supports, especially when another part of the survey indicates support for a growth moratorium. Regardless of which side of the growth issue residents favor, it’s important that the information being made available is accurate.Chris MonackMorgan Hill