Voice of San Diego failed to see the problem with too much collegiality between the teachers union and Poway Unified

Was the first warning that something was wrong in Poway a May 2012 article by VOSD's Andrew Donohue?

In May 2012 Voice of San Diego presented an idyllic image of the Poway Federation of Teachers in a story about PFT President Candy Smiley.  Editor Andrew Donohue gushed about "the unique lesson Poway has to teach."

Three months later Voice of San Diego did an excellent job explaining Poway Unified's CAB scandal (the capital appreciation bond deal exposed by Joel Thurtell) but VOSD never connected the bond deal to excessive collaboration between Candy Smiley and the district.

I gave information to Voice of San Diego showing that both teacher union officials and school officials have been shirking their duties as they have formed over-friendly relationships with each other. Individuals on both sides have advanced their own personal agendas at the expense of the students and teachers they are paid to serve.  In November 2012 I warned about the dangers of too much collegiality between teacher unions and school districts.

Now, three years later, Voice of San Diego has finally decided that there's a problem:

 How Poway Unified Went from Big Happy Family to Family Feud
Ashly McGlone

April 20, 2015

For years, Poway Unified School District has existed as a kind of educational Never-Neverland: a place where school officials and the teachers union sailed through negotiations, brokering amicable deals that – for the most part – left both sides content even in tough times.

But that all seems to be unraveling.

It turns out that Poway’s successes occurred while the district and teacher’s union were breaking labor laws that require public notice of their contract talks. Now other labor unions are mad, and new school board members – elected to provide more oversight in the wake of a bond-deal blowup – are seeking change.

At the center of the dispute is Superintendent John Collins and the president of the Poway Federation of Teachers, Candy Smiley.

“John and Candy cut up the pie,” said school board member Charlie Sellers, who was elected in November. “The previous board simply rubber-stamped their action and this board is actually questioning their actions and they don’t like it.”...

VOSD has certainly changed its tune.  It is no longer talking about the "unique lesson that Poway has to teach." The relationship that Andrew Donohue wanted other districts to emulate now seems rather ominous: "Over the last two decades, though, the union and district have forged an uncommonly collaborative bond that started with trust on the budget and has now gone far beyond."

Yes, they were collaborative all the way to a huge scandal about CAB school bonds.

I don't believe that the Poway school board would have been able to pull of the CAB stunt without the blessing of the teachers union.

When there's too much "collegiality" among the people who run schools, different points of view don't get aired. Decisions are made behind closed doors. All the public ever sees is the smiling faces of the people who get along so very well together.

P.S.  I'm waiting for Voice of San Diego to formally announce a big change in its no-anonymous-comments policy.  The policy was suspended in February, when VOSD decided to disconnect links to all commenter profiles.  The explanation given for this decision was that some commenter profiles had been accidentally disconnected due to the launch of the new website.  It's a wonder that VOSD has not been able to reconnect the links over the past two months.  

Should Your Company Go After Anonymous Bloggers?

I'm not anonymous. My name is Maura Larkins. But sometimes people will only reveal the truth if they can remain anonymous.

Should Your Company Go After Anonymous Bloggers?
By Cynthia Hsu
FindLaw.com
October 24, 2011

If your business has ever received criticism by an anonymous blogger, you may be irritated. You might also start to wonder if defamation law might be on your side.
Suing someone who has caused harm to your businesses' reputation and cost you money can be an option.

But it's more difficult now that there are various online platforms like Facebook, online message boards, Twitter, or forums where bloggers can keep their identity under wraps. Businesses may wonder if it's ever an option to go after someone who is nameless. It is - but whether or not it's a good idea is up for you to decide.
If you have the blogger's IP address, there are methods that you can employ to track down where the offending posts came from.

On the other hand, if all you have is their username you may have a more difficult time getting a handle on their identity. An Internet Service Provider (ISP) like Google isn't required to give you their personal identifying information. In fact, they'll likely fight to withhold this information to protect their customer. You'll probably have to win a court order to reveal their identity.

And courts can be hesitant. If the defamatory post is considered political speech, it can receive a high level of First Amendment protection. This can hinder your chances in court.

Courts, however, seem to be more inclined to grant orders in cases where anonymous bloggers have posted confidential insider information on the web.

You should also be aware that the blogger themselves can assert certain privileges to shroud their identity. In some circumstances, they can claim a reporter's privilege, which can protect them under their state's shield laws.

Companies that go after anonymous bloggers will likely face hurdles even though remedies are available under defamation law. Therefore, it might be necessary to go through several court proceedings in order to prevail.

California protects anonymous speech online

New state law adds protections for anonymous online speech
October 03, 2008
First Amendment Coalition

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that greatly strengthens the right to anonymous speech online. Assembly Bill 2433 raises procedural obstacles to out-of-state companies that subpoena California-based internet service providers for the IDs of anonymous posters. Unless there is a demonstrable basis for the underlying lawsuit, the subpoena will be thrown out and attorney’s fees charged to the out-of-state company.

Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (one of the co-sponsors of the bill) explains:

One of the most pernicious threats to anonymity is the filing of trumped-up lawsuits as an excuse to force ISPs to reveal speakers’ identities. Once such a lawsuit is filed, speakers who want to protect their anonymity must find a way to pay a lawyer to go to court and prevent disclosure of their personal information. That can be a real hardship—in fact, even the threat of having to go to court may discourage many people from speaking out in the first place.

Californians have long had an extra layer of protection against these lawsuits. Thanks to California’s anti-SLAPP law (SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) they can file a special motion to strike any cause of action based upon their speech or petition activity. The anti-SLAPP law works fine to stop an abusive subpoena if the underlying lawsuit is filed in California. But there’s a loop-hole: An appellate court recently ruled that the anti-SLAPP provisions don’t apply if the underlying lawsuit is filed outside of California. As a result, speakers and companies in California were exposed to frivolous satellite litigation without the shield of deterrence provided by the anti-SLAPP law. AB 2433 closed this loophole by amending California law to provide that individuals whose information is subpoenaed can move to quash the subpoena (i.e, to prevent production of the requested information) and, if they succeed, seek compensation for the costs of going to court.