Rowland vote to Valle Vista nearly unanimous; South Hills, Glendora move forward to final meeting set for Oct. 22 in Long Beach

This Blog is going places, the people, the layout, amazing to see such dedication and focus.

Wow I am impressed, they came up with some great alignments. As a graduate from Los Altos in the early 70's I see a huge error where they put Los Altos. The era of dominance is over. A change in demographics and enrollment have destroyed the LAHS athletic program. The new head football coach is inept, sorry but he is to inexperienced , Los Altos needs a football coach with lots of experience and a staff that can at least make them competetive. Maybe in this age of cutting back and manuevering to save money a move should be made to merge Los Altos and Wilson into one high school. It would save allot of money and be much more competetive in athletics. The days of engage and Conqueror are over for Los Altos football! I am glad to say I was there in the 70's when both the team and the coaches were competetive. All I can say is the answer may be a weaker league and Go Band. ha ha

Webster's, in a perfect, unbiased world, you are right. Except the real world is run by bias and personal gain. So, if the league reps in October are Charter Oak, South Hills, Rowland and Glendora, why wouldn't they thumb their noses to their fellow schools that are screwing them over by booting them to other leagues? I'd bet my life that they will. If this scenario happens, then it appears that Charter Oak, South Hills, Glendora and Rowland will all vote against Prop A, which would send it down. The first three will vote for Prop B and Rowland, who wants Prop C, will dissent. Will anyone else oppose Prop B, if not, it will pass. My humble opinion is that the releaguing decision rests solely on which schools have the vote in October which is just wrong at every level.

The reps will probably be different next year as they are rotated year to year within leagues as well as the league presidency. The league reps will be instructed by the league how to vote at the council meeting and league presidents and league secratarys attend the CIF counci9l meeting as well. it would be difficult for the league reps to stray from what the leagues want. I firmly believe the final vote will 5 to 2. With Chaffey Unified controlling Baseline and Mt Baldy, that's 2 votes. In each league, don't look at who the rep is, look at who comprises each league and what they would want. For example, do Bonita, Los Altos, and DR really want South Hills in SAl with them? Answer that question, and you know how the Miramonte league will vote. Do the same with each league, and you will come up with 5-2 if you really know who runs each school.

Brad,

Unfortunately, you could be right. That's why I said... *hope*

By design, the "League Representative" to the council should *represent* the league. If I had a horse in this race I'd make sure that everyone in the league was aware what the majority of the league wanted and put a little pressure on the Rep to vote in accordance to everyones wishes.

Just like coaches need to communicate with ADs who need to talk to Principals so the Principals vote according to the school staff's wishes.

But that doesn't always happen either.

Joe Amat, it's human nature to take care of one's own interest so being the self-serving humans that the league reps are, they will take care of their own schools first. Especially the D'Ranch rep who you will recall at the council meeting objected to being leagued with Charter Oak for competitive inequity reasons even though they lost in last years Div 4 baseball final to Northview, this years Div 3 football final to CO and after going undefeated in league including two double digit wins over CO went 3 rounds into the D-3 basketball playoffs. My understanding is that these reps have absolute power so they don't have to consider what other schools want and, instead, will vote to set up their own schools in the most favorable position to win. This is why leaguing decisions should be determined by an independent panel of people that have no personal interest in the matter.

I would *hope* that the Leagues Council Representative would do their job and at least go into the meeting voting according to the wishes of the majority of the league. If the leagues are doing their due diligence in preparing the Reps, they should already know what the vote will be on Proposal A, B, & C (in that order) ... yay or nay.

But that's a big "IF"

Thanks for the info Joe Amat. The way I read it, Nogales votes for the San Antonio but all three proposals have them moving to the Valle Vista, Diamond Bar votes for the Sierra but all proposals have them moving to the new Miramonte/San Antonio and Ganesha votes for the Valle Vista but all props have them moving to the Montview. So, three of the seven reps are voting for a league in which they will no longer be a member or, looking at it another way, they are voting for their school to be OUT of instead of IN a league. Mind boggling stuff. Isn't this like letting Republicans in primaries pick the Dem's Presidential nominee and vice-versa? As evidenced by her objection at the council meeting to what would have been a great local Miramonte with Charter Oak in the mix, we can expect Monica Principe for D'Ranch to take care of her school's interests translated get rid of Charter Oak in football so they can win a league and perhaps a DIII CIF title. There is no way the 1900 student Charter Oak belongs in the Sierra League which is Div II when D'Ranch is basically the same size BUT gets to pick and choose from the best athletes (I'd like them to disclose their intradistrict transers) from the four Pomona High Schools which total 7600 students. Does anyone think that its a coincidence that D'Ranch is so successful in the major sports while Pomona, Garey and Ganesha stink? Since none of the four objecting schools have a vote and with the majority of the voting schools getting what they can live with via Proposal A, it appears that it will pass.

sgvpride,

League duties like COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE, PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, & LEAGUE COORDINATOR usually rotate in leagues and where you finish has nothing to do with it. And if you were talking about the SAL rep, Nogales, coming in last... didn't they just win league in Basketball and Baseball?

I believe the SAL rep is the principal from west covina.
Why would they send someone who has been last in almost every sport.

Brad,

The 2008-09 Council; Representatives from each league are:

BASELINE Chris Hollister, Pr. Los Osos HS
MIRAMONTE Monica Principe, Pr.Diamond Ranch HS
MONTVIEW John Steven Coke, Pr. Azusa HS
MT. BALDY Tim Ward, Pr Chaffey HS
SAN ANTONIO Nancy Padilla/Bruce Alley, Pr’s Nogales HS
SIERRA Denis Paul, Pr. Diamond Bar HS
VALLE VISTA . Jesse Altamirano, A.D. Ganesha HS

Does anyone know the names and school affiliation, if any, of the seven league representatives? I imagine that this person is an official (AD or Principal) from a member school in the league. If this is true, then this process is a joke as this person will vote for what is the most favorable for their school and not for the league in general. Heck, this school may be the voting rep for a league in which after re-leaguing they will not even be affilliated with anymore. How can this be the best method to settle this dispute?

People

You're not listening. It's the 7 leagues that vote as one vote per league, not individual schools. My feeling is the original proposal will pass 5-2. Think about the leagues and what they want. When the original proposal was passed, I'll bet you that leagues pretty much voted as blocks with a couple of exceptions. You're going to see the same thing at CIF council meeting. There is no love for Glendora and even less love for South Hills. There was never any proposal that had South Hills in SAL, do you really think any of those leagues are going to vote for South Hills moving back into SAL. There are a lot of schools who don't believe they belong in SAL. Just stating was is and what I've been told. It's a shame Glendora has to be lumped in same proposal because I think there is not same sentiment for them.

I read the article in Todays paper and it looks like a long shot that Rowland gets releif. It looks like in order for that to happen that 1. The original proposal needs to be shot down (likely from what I think) and 2. The 2nd proposal giving Glendora and South Hills releif needs to be shot down. (Not too likely if you ask me). If that gets shot down then Rowland has a chance but that would stick Glendora way out in the baseline and I do not think that will happen.

The scary part of this convoluted mess is that these are the same people that are in charge of educating our children. Looks like Glendora, Charter Oak, South Hills and Rowland will oppose Proposal A so it will go down. Rowland will certainly oppose Proposal B but will anyone else? My money is on Proposal B.

Or, in the fateful words of the Don in the case of Glendora or any other appellant, evey time they think they are out they drag them back in. Pomona belongs in the Mt Baldy. Los Altos and Wilson in the Valle Vista. That gives you eight teams in each. Better balance for scheduling and competition and easier geographically. With all the funny money maneuvering, maybe all the school districts will declare bankruptcy or secede from CIF if the manage to keep theirw doors open at all what with the state hoarding all the revenues that are rightly theirs.

If original passes, then I believe Glendora and or South Hills would be allowed the floor at the CIF Council meeting to make one last appeal to ALL leagues in section. After discussion, all leagues would vote on whether to help them or not. I believe this is what I have heard happening 4 years ago. Bottom line, if you consider who is in each of seven leagues, i would not hold out hope for any of the 3 schools to get what they are asking for.

Basic, you have it exactly right. I asked PR guy Thom Simmons that this morning. If the league reps pass the original plan, then they don't even hear the appeals. The only difference is that there are 8 league reps voting as apposed to 40-something principals.

So at the end of the day, if the league reps decide on a "yes" then both appeals would be overturned?

How about voting on item C first and going from there???

It will be really intersting if they just vote yes on the original proposal A. What would be anyone's recourse if that happened?

I don't understand the logic of this process at all. You have two appeals that are overturned, but it will mean absolutely nothing if league representatives vote on the original proposal in September. Like Judge Judy says, "this is outrageous." Why have appeals if nothing can be overturned?

Exactly, can't they make a final decision already. Every time I think it's over, there's a new date to consider.

Freddie how long did it take for your head to stop spinning just trying to decipher that mess.

Wow!

Late!

Mike the Clone