only granting a five-percent increase over her previous salary in
Oxnard only added to the indignity. After hearing this bad news the
official candidate refused the position, of course, paving the way
for the district insider.
So when Aponik supporters wax sanctimonious over the outrage of it
all, do they think these kind of tactics came out of nowhere? And how
can Rogers rely upon the self-serving statements of disgraced former
board president Denise Wilcox, and then call into question people
like BUSD attorney Richard Currier, without being troubled by the
ridiculous contradiction that Wilcox was always Currier's biggest
defender on the board?
And doesn't anyone remember Aponik's enthusiastic participation in
the dastardly treatment meted out to David Bayer, the left-wing Adult
School principal who was fired three days after he announced his
congressional campaign against Carlos Moorehead -- a race he
ultimately came close to winning? Some of the statements Aponik made
against Bayer in the accompanying lawsuit make hilarious reading in
light of his current problems.
No one is denying that the BUSD has some problems, but to sever
Aponik from the relationship, and then personalize the issue by
trying to turn it into one of character and honesty doesn't help
anyone. Longtime board-watchers like myself know that here were some
very good reasons for getting rid of Aponik. He was not "all that" by
any means, and when he piously claimed last spring in the Leader that
he never sought the superintendent job in the first place, that noise
I heard around town wasn't just a giggle.