Comments on: Mt. Diablo board starts strategic planning

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:27:26 +0000

Thanks! Got it!

By: Linda

Linda — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:07:09 +0000

Mark said he would be happy to provide you the letter. I will shoot him an email.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:35:01 +0000

Linda, No I didn’t and yes, I do. I also plan to speak to Flex about this.

By: anonamom

anonamom — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:15:09 +0000

Nor is the superintendent allowed to ask them for their opinion on what staff presents as agenda item, as that opinion may tend to be transmitted to the next one he talks to, and that can be construed as attempting to “drive” the direction of a board decision. That in and of itself can be considered a serial meeting.

With this board, it seems there is all too often some information “sprung” at the last minute, with no chance for input by the public, who might have chosen to attend and speak had they seen all information to be presented.

By: Linda

Linda — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:14:16 +0000

Theresa,
Did you get the letter from Flex to the District that you were looking for? If not do you still want it?

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:00:19 +0000

The retreat facilitator said the superintendent is not prevented from speaking to each trustee individually. In fact, he encouraged the superintendent to do that so that everyone would be on the same footing going into the meeting. He said the superintendent should reach out to each trustee to see if they have questions, instead of passively waiting to be contacted by them.

Trustees may not speak to each other in “serial” meetings, however.

By: anonamom

anonamom — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:38:07 +0000

I thought “fields” was a pretty lame excuse. “Labs” would make sense, but considering the District denied the Charter application, I doubt highly if they really care if Flex has (or has to build their own) labs. They simply did not want to give anything Flex asked for.

The argument about the conflict with the Small Schools at Pleasant Hill pretty much falls through, considering Small Schools is what they say they are looking at combining at Glenbrook.

They really don’t have their ideas well put together enough yet, or have known for a long time what they want to do, but won’t publicly say it yet.

I can’t help but wonder if they did anything even closely resembling “traffic” studies. All of North Concord as well as the few neighborhood routes they will utilize may become a nightmare at school commute times.

As to Staff/Lawrence discussing with some Trustees, but not others, could easily be construed as attempted “serial meetings” to gain favor of certain items. They/He may just want to be VERY careful of that. People are watching and keeping score.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:08:22 +0000

Fields and a science lab were also cited. However, the Superintendent’s Council pointed out that Ygnacio Valley HS has declining enrollment and so much underutilized space that it recommended relocating Oak Grove MS to the site and creating a 6-12 campus. It has ample field and science lab space. Also, Deb Cooksey said the district decided against “Pleasant Valley” because there was already an alternative education program on the site. Perhaps she meant Pleasant Hill Middle School, which houses the Prospect small necessary high school. In that case, there was no clear rationale presented for denying Flex the use of Ygnacio Valley HS. The Flex operator told me he originally wanted to locate in an area near the Shadelands Business Park because it is centrally located. Glenbrook, on the other hand, is on the outskirts of the district.

Regarding communications, the board retreat facilitator said that information given to one board member should be given to all board members.

However, the district also has an obligation to inform the public — as well every trustee — about why it recommends specific actions. Cooksey’s explanation should have been included in the staff report to give the public, as well as the board, the opportunity to review it and comment or raise questions or concerns. The timeframe for the discussions was also missing. If Cooksey was in discussions with Flex regarding Glenbrook by Feb. 22 (three days before the written offer was made), Superintendent Lawrence should have informed the board and the public about this during his Feb. 22 school closure presentation.

By: anonamom

anonamom — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:09:22 +0000

I am bothered that the decision to deny use of all three of the schools that Flex had requested, but offer Glenbrook for Flex was supposedly due to the fact that he didn’t want High School kids coming and going on a campus with younger kids, but seemed to see no conflict of ideas when suggesting it would be ok for Flex students to share a campus, and come and go with “special” school kids.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:56:35 +0000

It is pretty clear that Lawrence is not communicating to ALL board members in unison. Lawrence is attempting to divide and conquer to protect his own skin. Disgusting.