Comments on: Tensions rise in MDUSD as employees face layoffs, tough negotiations, school improvement

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:02:06 +0000

MDUSD’s refusal to produce the records is the first part of the coverup of Diablogate. This is a front page story. They want to stall until after the election.

By: tharrington

tharrington — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:31:23 +0000

They refused to give me the poll results, saying: “…it does not reason that a poll that was funded by, retained by, and it is the property of a campaign committee is subject to a Public Records Act request. If you can provide legal authority contrary to our understanding we will be more than happy to consider said authority and reconsider your request.”
I replied with legal authority and am awaiting the district’s reconsideration of my request.
The district delayed providing me with the 2010 Bond Facilities Plan correspondence, saying it is “in the process of collecting that information, as it is quite voluminous.”
I have narrowed my request to include only the email Pedersen sent to site administrators and the 32 responses he received regarding their priorities for improvements. The district hasn’t yet responded to this request.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:24:47 +0000

CTT Editorial Board says Vote NO on C ! Very factual editorial opinion this morning. Terrific letter to the editor by Roy Larkin of Concord. Now that the Board just spent nearly $300,000 of school money to finance the election, who is going to take responsiblity for that waste of money ? How many jobs will that cost ?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:23:01 +0000

Theresa, what happens today if they don’t give you the documents ? Lawsuit ? Front page story ?

By: tharrington

tharrington — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:55:27 +0000

Pedersen said it would have been a lot more difficult to compile the 2010 Measure C list of projects if he did not have the work of the 2002 Measure C oversight committee to draw from.
“I’m not about to tell sites what they need,” Pedersen said.
Principals reviewed the lists of 2010 projects, but it was Lawrence’s idea to add 10 middle school science labs, Pedersen said. If Measure C passes, Pedersen said he would need to work with a group of science teachers to come up with a model that would work for all sites.

By: A.J. Fardella

A.J. Fardella — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:09:01 +0000

Thank you Theresa,

You’ve done excellent factual research about all of the issues and claims connected with this story, I certainly appreciate it.

At the risk of being repetitive, when all is said and done the two things that bother me most is the purported mantra that if you are against this new Measure C Bond, that you are against our kids and schools, secondly that they are selling this Bond using the good works of the 2002 Measure C Bond.

In the recent Measure C mailings they completely leave out any information on the cost of the Bond as it’s structured. They also tout all of 2002 Measure C success. Extremely and Deliberately Misleading.

On the MDUSD website for Measure C they have quoted my April 2008 report to the MDUSD Board, “everything was managed perfectly and all projects completed.” which is true. But the intention is to give people the perception that this Bond Measure carrying the same name is remotely similar to the last one. It isn’t even close.

http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Pages/measurecjune2010.aspx

Also just for the record Theresa, you told me in a phone interview we had last week that the MDUSD Superintendent told you in response to your question “why wasn’t the new Bond proposal brought before the current Measure C Bond oversight committee?” that he said the Oversight Committee had been disbanded. Obviously the above MDUSD webpage proves that it has not.

Sherry Whitmarsh is factually incorrect about another thing, at my last count 4 not 2 out of 16 members of the 2002 Bond Oversight Committee are supporting this new Bond. John Ferrante and John Parker being the most active, Judy Dawson and Jay Beddecare being the other two. I don’t know why Sherry even points this out, it does not reflect well on the Oversight Committee’s collective opinion of the new Measure with only 25% support.

More devastating in my opinion in the long term for MDUSD is that this fiasco will sour the electorate on considering a well formulated, fiscally reasonable Bond proposal in the future which we really do need to do.

When it comes to maintaining the sanctity of our children’s education the approach needs to reflect the seriousness of the purpose. That means honesty, stakeholder participation, fiduciary conservatism and committment to discipline. Especially in these difficult fiscal times, our kids future demands it.

Cheers!

A.J. Fardella

Planning Commissioner, City of Pittsburg

Member (former Chairman) 2002 Measure C Oversight Committee

Parent of three beautiful Children attending MDUSD schools.

By: tharrington

tharrington — Sun, 30 May 2010 19:30:55 +0000

I asked Pete Pedersen about increased electricity costs due to the installation of air conditioning. He conceded the costs would go up, but said they would be partially offset by the solar projects. However, he was not willing to claim the solar projects would completely cover the increased costs.
“It shouldn’t jack up electricity bills because the solar is going to be designed to accommodate the prospective load, which should significantly mitigate the costs,” he said. “But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. I don’t want to tell you it’s a wash.”
Pedersen’s analysis of solar costs and savings is at http://www.contracostatimes.com/education/ci_15191849?source=rss.

By: A.J. Fardella

A.J. Fardella — Sun, 30 May 2010 08:36:57 +0000

And since you brought up air conditioning and power and money, what sense does it make to put air conditioning into schools which will increase electrical expenses which is liquid capital the District is dying for to save teachers salaries.
So let me get it straight money to pay for new electrical costs from air conditioning you want to add is your brilliant logic?? Oh the solar will compensate?? But I thought the solar was going to put money back in District coffers through saving energy.

Sure am glad you cleared that perfect logic up for everyone.

Cheers!

A.J.

By: A.J. Fardella

A.J. Fardella — Sun, 30 May 2010 08:28:59 +0000

Do the math, and know your history Sherry. Measure C is an obviously ill-conceived list of projects propped up with irresponsible financing.

And as far as poiltical agendas go, seems you are happy to carry out Gary and Pauls which will leave no political future for you. Sad that they are silent and have thrown you to the wolves.

It speaks volumes that the Board did not have the courage to face the public and cancelled their last meeting.

Cheers!

A.J.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Tue, 25 May 2010 08:54:21 +0000

@Involved community member. I love your admonition to “open communication” by the Board — yet look at what they did today — cancel all board meetings until after the election, effectively censoring the truth about the true cost of the bond: taxpayers will pay back 1.87 BILLION for 348 million. That is hardly “open communication” — its pure censorship to prevent public comment at the Board meetings. You are right: the Board and the Supt. don’t get it. Its pathetic. Don’t forget the kids.