LTUSD not in agreement regarding equality of ball fields
By Kathryn Reed
Lake Tahoe Unified School District is going to come up with a list of priorities for the ball fields it owns to give the committee recommending how to spend $500,000 of taxpayer money.
The district owns all the fields where children and adults play softball-baseball-soccer on the California side of the South Shore except for the one by Lake Tahoe Community College. The city of South Lake Tahoe, though, owns some of the improvements.
At issue Tuesday night at the school board meeting was whether the softball field still under construction at South Tahoe High is of equal caliber to what the boys play baseball on.
Board member Sue Novasel emphatically and repeatedly said they are not equal.
“It should be equal, which would be a fence and lighting,” Novasel told her fellow board members June 12.
Even with the 4-0 approval (Judy Cefalu was absent) to allocate $160,557 from the special reserve fund to pay for improvements, that doesn’t buy a fence or lights for the softball field.
Facilities Director Steve Morales is of the belief that what has been done and the worked slated to be done will comply with the Office of Civil Rights complaint filed in 2010 against the school district.
“It’s not a regulation size softball field and is a regulation baseball field,” Novasel countered.
The Title IX issue was not resolved at the meeting.
Morales and Novasel will make a list of what the district would like improved, with the high school softball field likely to be at the top.
The fields committee of the Measure R joint powers agreement will meet June 25 at 4pm at Lake Tahoe Airport. This group is running out of time to have a plan of action together before the JPA board meets July 27 to hear proposals and possibly vote on how to spend the half million dollars for field upgrades.
this seem to be a recurring ‘problem’ with public agencies: how should we spend this taxpayer money? while there exist compelling arguments that each faction presents, justified by this or that agenda, how about the option of ‘let’s not spend the money’? economic conditions are the agenda behind this position…
Why shouldn’t we comply with Title IX? No one is rushing to spend money because it’s there. I’d rather spend the money on a field that is equal to what boys play on than wait to be sued for not complying with the law and spend the money on a lawsuit.
It’s clear the first sentence of the article is designed to entice “anti-government readers” – anything an agency does is “spending tax payers money” even if one of their employees goes to the d*** bathroom – so exactly what was the point of that sentence?? – as “Local” comments above, this doesnt seem to be a decision of whether to spend money or not spend money – it’s how to use allocated funds that within some general parameters (god knows the article doesnt tell us which parameters?), but are descretionary. Summaries of locally relevant news is a great service, but can we avoid trying to be the local Fox News outlet? It would allow for some more enlightened discourse!
City and School District boys vs girls fields are not even close to equal! Mr. Morales needs to step down before he gets everyone in a lawsuit. It’s clear to him girls are 2nd class citizens and that will not go far in court. Why didnt Mr. Morales talk the Athletic Director before starting the girls softball field at the High School?
During the crafting of Measure R which is providing these funds, I distinctly remember recommending to the JPA board that whatever improvements are made to any ball fields, the goal would be to make them attractive to tournament organizers. This would not only bring immediate economic benefit to our community but also provide for a much better experience for our local ball teams. Supervisor Santiago acknowledged that and agreed with me. I expect the board to include it in their deliberations. In light of the Title IX issue, it seems to me that a tournment quality field would also meet those requirements.