More Taxes and More Lawbreakers
[Robin Goldsworthy’s] editorial, “Cheering our Supervisor” (CV Weekly, April 13), says it all. Though it was not the first time in my life, it was one of the rare occasions in my life when I agree and applaud any editorial fully. Of course you have given enough reasons to contemplate the possibility of moving out of the state. Bravo for saying it so succinctly and boldly.
Yes, the recent $52 billion tax increase bill, supposedly for the roads, is atrocious, unnecessary and totally unwanted. Earlier also tax raises, in the name of road repair and maintenance, have gone elsewhere; no reason to doubt it can happen again. The high-speed rail is going to be yet another big burden on taxpayers for decades, if not generations. So much for the pet project of Gov. Brown, who will not have to fight in the next election.
The state has no money for anything worthwhile for the public and the lawmakers unashamedly raise taxes to waste it. However, they have money to fight the federal government on every issue, including illegal immigration and climate change, etc. Think about it: highly paid attorneys led by former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder are being rewarded for defying and defending the defiance of the laws of the land. The state that should protect lawful citizens and extend full help to the feds to protect our borders and curb crimes is supporting, defending and protecting violators of our laws. What a disgusting spectacle!
I suggest the federal government to not just stop funding “sanctuary cities and sanctuary states” but also charge those officials and politicians who defy laws and protect the violators. Let them not confuse the people; it should be a clear distinction between “illegal” and “legal” immigrants, as [Goldsworthy] rightly pointed out. The violators defy the laws, and the brute majority of California lawmakers join them in defying the authority and protecting the illegals, including illegal criminals. Wow!
All that has to stop. Robin, you are not the lone wolf; I am one with you. I am sure there is the silent majority that supported enforcement of the laws and effectively raised its voice last November. Let California lawmakers take note.
Yatindra Bhatnagar
Our AP Students Lose
While preparing for their May AP exams, next year’s AP students will have four [fewer] instructional days than AP students have this year. This is because of a choice that the GUSD approved 2017-18 calendar made to remove instructional days from the beginning of the year and put those days at the end of the year “after” the exam.  
The irony is that this is a contradiction of the whole reason that GUSD moved the school start date to a date before Labor Day.
In 2009, GUSD promised parents and teachers that moving “two Mondays before Labor Day” would provide 10 extra instructional days for our AP students and would not shorten our 11 full weeks of summer. However, while transferring instructional days, the calendar also added 10 new holidays and shortened our summer to nine weeks.
In 2016, after 2,500 teachers and parents signed a petition to “Save Our Summers,” GUSD invited the community to “fix” our calendar. In response to specific questions asked by GUSD, the community voted to: shorten Thanksgiving week and eliminate “teacher only” days – the Friday before Labor Day and days that made winter break longer than two weeks.
The community voted to limit our holidays to 25, start on Monday, Aug. 20, 2018, and end first semester at winter break. Doing this will restore the four instructional days and return to 11 full weeks of summer.
Transferring instructional days was never discussed, nor approved in any of these meetings.
It is bittersweet that our upcoming summer of 2017 will be longer because these instructional days were transferred. Sadly, unless the 2018-19 calendar chooses to adopt the choices of the community, we will return to nine full weeks in the summer of 2018.
Marilyn Bayles
La Crescenta
Another Glendale City Election ‘In the Books’
The candidate forums that I attended yielded a good slate of candidates for [Glendale] City Council. They each had their own ideas and thoughts about our City. I was pleased to note that this year we had candidates from South Glendale and also Far North Glendale. Unfortunately, none of them were elected.
It is time, in my opinion, that we citizens of South and Far North Glendale, which sometimes I feel are “stepchildren” in the scheme of things, had direct representation on the City Council. Surely, even though we are assured that the Council represents all of Glendale, a councilperson residing in his/her neighborhood is much more aware of what is happening and also [knows] the desire of his/her neighbors.
How can this be achieved?
In my opinion, the time for council districts has arrived. Both Glendale College and Glendale Unified School District have moved to elect their governing boards by district voting rather than at-large voting. It is time for the City Councilpersons to be elected by districts and we citizens should ask our City Council to adopt this prior to our next election.
Joe Kroening