Comments on: MDUSD Superintendent gives Measure C update

By: g

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:30:56 +0000

Oops, sorry, that last post should have been in Minyen’s column.

By: g

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:28:36 +0000

And while we are questioning proper or improper use of bonds and Prop55 funds, maybe we should bring up the 2002 bond (2006 Issue) $5.5 million, that was coupled with $5.5+ million in Prop 55 funds to pay $1,000,000.00 per acre to buy 11 acres in the Alves Ranch development in Pittsburg which, as of last record I could find, indicates it is about as close to being unbuildable as anything ever seen. Pittsburg officials describe it as a big “hole”, and said MDUSD is “on their own”.

MDUSD should have looked at least gone out and looked at the property BEFORE they slapped down $11really big ones on it!

Then again, Concord and Pittsburg share Seeno, so maybe we can get him shove some of his hill and creek grading on down and fill in our “hole”.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 02:44:44 +0000

Where is the annual evaluation of SASS required by the Board on May 11, 2010 ? Today’s public release of the district STAR test results are essentially “flat”. Here is what Lawrence promised and the Board required:
The members of this new department will be annually evaluated based on criteria that also include:
1. Whether or not the schools they support meet or exceed the growth targets identified by the State for school-wide and subgroup API data;
2. Whether or not the EL students in the schools they support make annual progress on the CELDT. Our goal is that all EL students are redesignated English proficient within six years of entering our schools.
3. Whether or not all students are making measurable gains on district benchmark assessments that measure students’ progress toward mastery of the State standards;
4. Whether or not our high schools are increasing the graduation rate, increasing the number of students completing CTE pathways, increasing the percentage of students taking AP classes and achieving a 3 or better on the end of course assessments, increasing the percentage of students taking the SAT/ACT, and increasing the SAT/ACT scores for all subgroups of students on an annual basis.
5. Annual principal surveys that focus on whether or not principals feel supported in moving their schools forward.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:07:17 +0000

Here is a separate post about the grand jury report: http://bit.ly/pd8KeS

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 04:20:02 +0000

@Anon#85, As far as I know the Grand Jury report “directed to the Board” [not the District] and its response was never noticed for discussion at any Board meeting, either in public session or private session. I believe under the Brown Act, it should have been noticed for public discussion so the public could comment on it and the Board could vote on the proper response. Since it was never noticed, it would have been illegal for all five board members to have considered it in secret. I find it horribly ironic that Greg Rolen’s poor performance was the subject of one of the issues, and he offered “his own defense” claiming that he took over some responsibilities, but there was no loss of legal work — that’s impossible since any time he spent doing non-legal work could not have been spent on legal work. I also wonder if it is a conflict of interest since as the General Counsel, the Grand Jury previously pointed out that he is the lawyer for the Board, and not for the District, and yet he now has two masters — the Board and the Supt. Doesn’t that give him a conflict of interest as a lawyer ? I think the Good Book says something about no man can serve two masters. I guess the Grand Jury can take up the matter again if it wants but based on today’s postings on the Measure C fiascos, it could probably include it in another investigation.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:52:02 +0000

I saw this response to the grand jury was posted. Has this been discussed at a oard meeting or posted for the public? The grammar errors aside, does anyone proofread Rolen’s responses or is he a one man show?

http://docs.docstoc.com/pdf/128122/5d683e80-1662-43fe-abe5-5f31c37ca875.pdf

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:37:38 +0000

@G, sure they can — usually the Union votes first. A week ago Langley told Theresa there was a breakthough on the second day and since then its been silence. Not a good sign in my book. Oh, and while you are asking about vehicles being taken home, you might want to ask about cell phone subsidies to employees. Remember Gov. Brown took most of the state cell phones away.

By: g

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:12:59 +0000

I don’t think they can officially tell us how negotiations came out until they take it to an open and Noticed Board Meeting for full disclosure and approval—not that that has ever stopped them before…!

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:38:55 +0000

Tomorrow is T minus 14 and we have no announcement of an approved agreement between MDUSD and its unions to save the $15 million in SIG Grants. Based on today’s revelations you have to ask yourself, since the district did not spend the SIG money on increased instructional time as required by the grants, what did it spend it on ? Bubbling ? Paying substitute teachers while teaching teachers how to teach to the STAR test ? Out of town travel, hotels, meals, mileage, etc. ? We need an accounting of the SIG expenditures too.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:31:04 +0000

The natural question which investigative agencies will ask: What is being hidden with the last audit in 2008 showing $8.9 million left, and then suddenly legally required annual audits stop, and there are contradictory reports on how much money is left in the bond fund ? Someone with subpoena power must investigate, because Theresa’s attempts to get the public records requests have been stonewalled once again by MDUSD. Chairperson Ferrante apparently admitted to Theresa that the audits for 2009/2010/and 2011 were never done. I wonder who will be on the lists of “interested persons” ? Once again, On Monday morning, DA Mark Petersen (925) 957-2200 ought to start receiving calls about the missing money and the nearly ten years of Brown Act violations. Next call should be to the Fair Political Practices Commission about lack of Financial Disclosures and Ethics courses. http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=42 Its time to take action. No one in MDUSD or any government body is above the law. Apparently Buttercupgate was just the tip of the iceberg.