The city’s purchase of the water system may be up for debate. The excellent partnership between the city council and the school board is not.
Ex-State Superintendent Jack O’Connell may appear as if he is speaking for the school board or trying to portray himself as knowing what is best for our students and community but, the truth is, he submitted a letter to the COURIER without input or agreement from the Claremont Unified School District Board.
Sadly, Jack O’Connell himself is, to use his words, picking a “political fight” over the water system by trying to insert himself and his opinions into the issue. While his assertions may or may not hold water, what is true is that he is not speaking on behalf of the school board.
As locally elected officials, we are well aware of the needs our schools and students face. We also know the financial requirements of the district, the revenue we may expect from the sales of surplus property, and the community’s commitment to education.
What we don’t know is why Jack O’Connell writes about the water issue expressing concern about Claremont schools when he did not do so while he actually was responsible for what happened to our students.
His talk of upcoming local school bonds is surprising. The school board has not had an agenda item to even discuss a local school bond in over three years. As for a statewide school bond, he is more aware of that possibility than I am. However, expressing worry over a statewide school bond while conflating it with the local water issue is inappropriate.
Unified School Board