Posted by Parent who is voting NO ON G, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 1:12 pm

News Flash Saturday May 9, 2009 (you won't get this info on the PUSD website or from SPS!)

The California Department of Education just released how much each district gets for ARRA fund (released on Saturday at:

Web Link

Pleasanton will receive $4,244,533! So this in on top of the $2.5 million for special ed so so far we have $6,744,533 of federal money coming to our district. And there is more! The CDE website said this $4.25 million is for general purpose. They will release the numbers of how much more we will receive for categorical programs in June!

NO NEED FOR A PARCEL TAX THIS YEAR! The federal money more than pays for all the programs listed in the Measure G wish list.

Posted by Yes on G, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Congratulations to PUSD for doing the timely application and approval of the ARRA funds. It shows that we can trust them to manage their money.

We all need to support Measure G. If we don't the kids will suffer. Programs may be cut, class size increased. I don't think that is what anyone wants.

Posted by Pleasanton Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 2:25 pm

If PUSD uses the ARRA funds as the federal government wants them to be used, there will not be layoffs or program cuts.

Congratulations to the community members who sent reminders to PUSD and the School Board about the deadline for ARRA funds applications.

Wouldn't want a repeat of the $7 Million Dollar grant PUSD almost didn't get because they didn't know they were eligible for it, would we?

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on May 9, 2009 at 3:06 pm

All that has been proven about the district's ability to manage its finances properly is that if there are watchdogs, they just might do what they should have accomplished without the scrutiny.

Posted by Enough Already, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 4:50 pm

Kathleen, stop the negative slander of the district already! Even with good news about funding, you still have to throw in a negative dig.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com

Slander is spoken. Libel is printed. They also must be false statements. It's not false that the District abandoned a goal of a 7% reserve, it's not false that a parent had to prod the District into applying for a grant they qualified for when they said they didn't, nor is it false that they've got unfunded liabilities.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on May 9, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Enough Already, I was responding to Yes on G. The money coming from the federal government is great news (and as someone else mentioned mentioned on another thread, money we will pay back with our tax dollars), but that doesn't mean all is well or that we don't need to be vigilant. Sorry you think that is negative. It certainly isn't slander.

Should the parcel tax fail (or if the vote is canceled), I don't consider that game over. For me and many others, this gives us a much needed reprieve and an opportunity to see the district put its fiscal house in order. It also gives the community time to consider what it values in K-12 education, and to determine what it is willing to support with additional dollars, IF that is needed.

Posted by Enough Already, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Kathleen, you are so "right" about everything you post, people can't even have an opinion about your negativity. Acting like a victim (in other postings) and then turning around doing the same thing. You want people to be open to hearing what you have to say, yet you are never open to an opposing viewpoint.

This is the typical tone from anti-G posters and I can comment on it using the wrong words, Stacey- thank goodness you corrected me!- if I want to! (Just like Carl posted earlier)

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on May 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm

EA: I'm not going to let a word like slander just sit there. I didn't say you weren't entitled to your opinion, nor did I ask you to stop posting your thoughts. I've apologized on these posts when and IF I crossed a line; I've corrected any misstatements when they've been pointed out. So, I'm not claiming to be "so right." I don't believe I've been "acting like a victim," but if you point it out I'll explain my comments or correct them if called for.

As to negativity, I guess if you use the words No on G, it can't be anything less than negative. I'll admit to that much and no more.

I've stated that it was not easy to be publicly against this tax, but I am not against any tax. I worked for the first facility bond and I voted for the second as well. Sorry if that doesn't fit the picture of the villain you want me to be.

Posted by Pleasanton Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 7:34 pm

EA - testy aren't you?

Attacking the person, not the issue. Same old story.

If you're pro-education, you should be thanking Stacey for teaching you the difference between slander and libel.

Telling the truth about PUSD decision making does paint PUSD in a negative light. But PUSD was holding the paintbrush.

Posted by Mom2, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 8:36 pm

San Ramon is receiving over $7,000,000....they still have a parcel.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on May 9, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Mom2--San Ramon is serving more students (someone pointed this out on another thread). They put a parcel tax in place before the state issues arose, forward thinking.