Comments on: Why the MDUSD poll and project lists are important

By: tharrington

tharrington — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:26:18 +0000

Thanks, Linda. Sorry about that. I’ve made the correction.

By: Linda

Linda — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 05:17:46 +0000

Thanks Theresa,
Just wanted to clarify – In your last sentence that should read $1.8 billion instead of million. A billion dollar difference is a lot of money to take from our community and have it never reach our schools or our kids.

By: tharrington

tharrington — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:44:41 +0000

Regarding the MDUSD blog, the PowerPoint posted by Paul Strange shows that there was no information presented to the board regarding those polled being asked about two different tax rate options. Yet, trustees Gary Eberhart and Sherry Whitmarsh have said there was such a question. This is why I have requested the poll — to see the original source material district officials have cited.
Gary Eberhart wrote: “When the Board was presented the language to place the measure on the ballot, our staff made a decision to bring to the Board the methodology that places the payments for the new bond at the end of the payments for the original bond. The Board approved placing the bond on the ballot in a unanimous vote of approval.”
But this methodology wasn’t spelled out in the March 9 staff report, board resolution or PowerPoint presentation. It wasn’t apparent that the board had approved this methodology until two days later, when Paul Strange approved the tax rate statement.
Also, the district didn’t give the Times the total cost of the bond until April 20 — six weeks after the board voted. Therefore, there was a lack of transparency before the vote, which resulted in a public hearing that didn’t give the public the information it needed to voice opinions about the two options, because they were not disclosed.
The district’s financial consultant Jon Isom told me the other tax rate option (a new bond at $60 per $100,000) would cost a total of about $800 million (instead of $1.8 billion).

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:06:30 +0000

Theresa, how about a followup article on the 3/09 Grand Jury Report that said: “2. That current Board members be required to attend training or continuing education programs to learn and understand their role and financial responsibilities as elected Board
members and similar training be a requirement for new Board members.”

By: Wait a Minute

Wait a Minute — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:17:10 +0000

I hope for the sake of the MDUSD that the residents of this district run candidates against the existing board. Also, that someone (anyone living in the county can do this,but I can’t as I live in the City) make a complaint to the Grand Jury so that they can come in and put these people under oath and get to the bottom of all these scandals.

By: tharrington

tharrington — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:41:16 +0000

Post on the MDUSD Voice blog looks back at Gary Eberhart and Paul Strange’s 2008 goals: http://mdusdvoice.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/674/.
Do you think the new board majority and superintendent have achieved the level of transparency they desired?

By: Realia

Realia — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:37:00 +0000

All this secrecy and obfuscation by the district is distressing, as is the emerging tone of the MDUSD blog, which now is used as a mouthpiece by a school board member to slam community members who dare to question the almighty district, the Contra Costa Times, and its reporters – by name. MDUSD has rotted from the head down and is bullying and thin-skinned whenever anyone points it out. The same school board members who kissed the unions’ fannies for campaign contributions and other forms of support now attack, belittle, and try to take anything away that they can from district employees. These board members also promised transparency and accountability in their actions to the community, and I think we all know how that went. It’s time to clean MDUSD’s house – from the top down. Lest we forget, there are children and their educations to consider.

By: spaceymaid

spaceymaid — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:36:32 +0000

Not only is MDUSD not being completely open about the true cost of the bonds but has conned the tax paying public once again.They did not opt for the parcel because they were sure it would not pass. This school district is rife with unethical adminstrators who are not above breaking the law to cover their own misdeeds.MDUSD will never recover from the present fiscal crisis until they can gain back the trust and respect of its taxpapers.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:05:59 +0000

Theresa, what about the missing emails to be provided by Pedersen ?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:46:08 +0000

No, I don’t believe either the Supt or the Board has been transparent in its decision to structure the bond as a tax rate extension. It wasn’t mentioned in the staff report or in the Board resolution. There was no discussion about the two tax rate structures by the Board in open meeting, so how can there be transparency. I don’t understand how one can make the leap from the written Board resolution to what is being proposed. I am surprised some conservative tax group hasn’t challenged the bond approval in court — I guess there is still time. Seems like a lot of decisions about details have been made outside of the public meeting of the Board.
As for the projects, you are correct that you can’t prioritize until the list is complete. Pedersen retires September 30.