Part of the Bay Area News Group

Clayton Valley charter supporters ask to be placed on Tuesday MDUSD board agenda

By Theresa Harrington
Monday, September 26th, 2011 at 5:31 pm in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

After meeting with Deb Cooksey, Rose Lock and Julie Braun-Martin last Wednesday, the Clayton Valley High School Charter Committee hoped their proposal to accelerate the approval process for the charter petition would be placed on the Sept. 27 district board meeting agenda.

Here is a copy of an e-mail sent by Clayton Mayor David Shuey to the board today, expressing his disappointment in the district’s failure to address this request on tomorrow night’s agenda:

“Subject: September 27 meeting on Clayton Valley High School Charter Petition

Dear Gary, Sherry, Lynne, Linda, Cheryl,

As you know, on Friday, September 23 in the early morning I sent a request to all of you and Superintendent Lawrence requesting that the charter petition be added to the agenda for September 27, 2011 for a: ‘brief discussion and hopeful confirmation of a joint good faith timeline for approval or denial of the petition at your October 25, 2011 meeting. We would also like to, again briefly, ask the Board take up boardmember Hansen’s request that a study session or subcommittee of the Board be allowed to meet with the charter group in the interim before the October 25 meeting to further narrow down and hopefully reach tentative agreement on the issues. I make this request as quickly as was possible following our meeting two days ago with staff and our subsequent charter Executive Board/steering committee meeting. As there should be little or no need for an extensive staff report on this, I foresee no reason this cannot be added to the agenda this morning to allow inclusion in staff’s agenda package that will come out this evening.’

Therefore, you can imagine my disappointment when the agenda was finally posted (not sure when it was actually posted but it was not done until at least late afternoon or evening on Friday) to see we were not posted on the agenda. As a result, I and several others will be coming to your meeting to make some public comments on this tomorrow. We contemplated getting another large group of students, parents and community to come out like in the public meetings, but ultimately decided that just a few of us will come to voice our displeasure and to request further action and confirmation of the process going forward on this matter.

As I noted in my prior email, we were ‘disappointed in the Board’s de-facto denial of our petition, but were encouraged by the public and private comments of the Board and staff that there is a desire to make this work as a collaborative effort between the district and the charter. I would also like to thank Deb, Rose and Julie for meeting with us on Wednesday to go over our concerns and seek a mutually agreeable good faith resolution. I think some good progress was made in both sides understanding the concerns and positions better and laying the groundwork for a potentially mutually agreeable set of conditions that will allow charter approval for opening in 2012-2013. I will point out again that while the charter group feels many of the requested conditions are contrary to the law and requirements for charter approval, we are moving forward in good faith [without waiving our objections of course 🙂 – sorry that is the lawyer in me] to try and resolve our issues so that the district can be the approving body and we can benefit each other going forward. We also believe that some of the requested further information may be impossible to achieve to the degree desired of staff, but we will endeavor to provide as much information as possible and hope that you and staff will see the sufficiency of what is provided. An illustration of this, which may help in your understanding of some of our dilemmas, and which was discussed extensively with staff, is the condition that we provide you with a list and credentials for the teachers who will be hired by the charter. Given the fact that under the Board’s decision, there is no charter approved as the Board could vote in February to deny the petition, we cannot go out and become an official organization with the State to allow us to obtain our loans and lines of credit to begin operations. As such, we cannot hire our CEO/Principal and/or any staff. Thus, we also cannot be expected to be able to provide you with a list of teachers. Given the Board’s position on leave of absences, no teacher would or could be expected to make a decision when there is the potential there will be no charter approved. This is similar for any outside teachers who would be hired. Ms. Cooksey indicated she would be checking on this issue and get back to us on a potential resolution of the conundrum, but we will endeavor to provide as much information as to those teachers and credentials who we believe will be hired and the process and qualifications we will adhere to and require in hiring. Let me also point out that much of the requested specificity requested in the conditions may have similar constraints as without our CEO/Principal, staff and further committee due diligence on planning we find it difficult to provide all specific means by which we intend to meet our goals. This is why the petition has always had an opening of 2012-2013 so that we can due our proper due diligence in planning. Nevertheless, we will endeavor to provide as much specificity as possible regarding the means and processes by which we will achieve our goals.

Because of the tremendous amount of burden, time, energy and effort that will be required to provide further requested information to the district by October 12, 2011 (which we have committed to as part of our obligation under the accelerated timeline), we need the Board’s action confirming the timeline so that we do not expend this energy in vain. We believe that staff understood and agreed in principle to this accelerated timeline in our meeting on Wednesday, we know that ultimately the Board must also approve. This is why we must have this item on the agenda for September 27, 2011 so that we can move forward as proposed.

Finally, I want to again applaud Deb, Rose and Julie for their good faith efforts in meeting and discussing these issues with us on Wednesday and their agreement to continue to work with us going forward. I would also like to thank Mr. Eberhart for his attendance at our public rally/information on Wednesday night. I have received numerous feedback from citizens who were happy to see his interest in obtaining more information and apparent willingness to work with us to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution. I hope we can continue this as part of a study session/board subcommittee as we are requesting for Tuesday.’

What is necessary for two sides to work together in good faith is both actions and words, and what we have from your side is words that, unfortunately, don’t come with guarantees of good faith. Alas, it seems like we are continually forced to meet and decide how to respond to actions on your part that appear geared not toward a mutual resolution, but a continued delaying tactic. While this may not be true, and you may not see it this way, if you put yourself in our shoes you can see how it would appear given the history.

Nevertheless, despite our fears regarding the district’s motives, we are moving forward with the timeline of providing the district with our responses to your conditions on October 12, 2011. This will allow staff and the board to review them in time to make a final and definitive decision to unequivocally approve or deny the petition at your October 25, 2011 meeting. Proof of your good faith will be evident or not at that meeting. Certainly, your opportunity to take action on a study session or to select a subcommittee to meet with us to help define, narrow and resolve outstanding issues has been compromised but I will obviously leave that to you going forward. Perhaps there is still time tomorrow to appoint a subcommittee to continue the meet and confer efforts we have commenced with staff.

I once again implore each of you to understand that this charter is almost unanimously desired by the community, that the charter petition is solid and based on tried, tested and true successful charters in the state, and that we desire to work with you as the approving agency to help each other reach greater academic heights. With little or no public opposition against this charter, we should be working together to make it the best charter available and not working against each other. I only hope that in the end you prove your words with your actions.

I also once again renew my offer to discuss and/or meet with any of you individually to go over this matter and see if a mutual resolution can be achieved.

Thank you for your time and attention to this issue.

David “Shoe” Shuey
City of Clayton”

NOTE: The board is also meeting at 7 p.m. tonight to discuss strategic planning. Public comment will be allowed at the beginning of this meeting.

Two of five areas of focus in the draft strategic plan are “Supportive Family and Community Involvement” and “Respectful, Responsive Service and Communication.”

Here’s what the draft says regarding these:

“Supportive Family and Community Involvement:

MDUSD will actively build strong relationships with students, families, and
the community to increase trust, shared responsibility, and a positive perception of our district.

MDUSD will use multiple methods of communication and engagement to reach all stakeholders and increase opportunities for meaningful community input and participation to advance student achievement and learning in all subject areas.

Goals / Specific Results

2.1 Use multiple, regular methods of communication and engagement to reach all

2.2 Ensure that our communications are honest, accurate, thorough, and accessible to the public.

2.3 Increase opportunities for meaningful community input and participation.

2.4 Cultivate community, business, and higher education partnerships that advance student achievement in all subject areas.

2.5 Increase collaboration with cities, businesses, and the community to build a
community that supports and values education.

2.6 Achieve a positive perception of MDUSD among parents and community members and ensure that parents consider MDUSD a ‘preferred place’ to meet their educational needs.

2.7 Engage and involve parents in their children’s education to create shared
responsibilities for student success…”

“Respectful, Responsive Service and Communication:

MDUSD district and site staff will be responsive and respectful while providing outstanding service to co-workers, students, parents, and community members.

District and site staff will proactively seek opportunities to improve communication and customer service. Every person who interacts with MDUSD should be treated with dignity, respect, and courtesy.

Goals / Specific Results

4.1 Assess, adopt, and improve practices that encourage respectful, responsive
customer service.

4.2 Improve communication, both internally and externally, ensuring that community members, parents, students, and employees receive information, responses to inquiries, and services in a timely, efficient manner.

4.3 Improve employee morale by strengthening internal communications.

4.4 Ensure that employees consider MDUSD a ‘preferred place’ (culture and climate) to work.

4.5 Ensure that parents consider MDUS a ‘preferred place’ to meet their educational needs.

4.6 Diligently monitor and report progress on strategic plan initiatives to gain trust,
promote dialogue, and determine success.

4.7 Increase the use of technology to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
communication throughout the organization.”

Do you think the board should address the Clayton Valley High School Charter Committee’s request as an emergency item tomorrow (which could be posted 24 hours in advance)?

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

55 Responses to “Clayton Valley charter supporters ask to be placed on Tuesday MDUSD board agenda”

  1. Doctor J Says:

    Any board member is entitled by law to place an item on the agenda, and if Gary or Lawrence are restricting that ability, the courts should intervene and charge the offender the costs of enforcement. I challenge the Board members to stand up for the truth and what is right — enforce the public’s rights, and let the offenders pay for the lawyer’s bills.

  2. Flippin' Tired Says:

    It’s not an emergency, is it? The charter was approved, with conditions.

  3. g Says:

    I think the ball is in Cheryl Hansen’s hands. She can stand for her beliefs and make a request during the meeting to add “discussion” of the Charter into the current meeting. If that fails a vote agreement, she can formally request that Charter Study be added to the Oct 11 meeting as a “Study Session” Item–or she can sit back and let Gary continue to bully his way all the way to the next ballot.

  4. Just J Says:

    Flippen, Did you read the whole letter from the mayor? Have you read anything else that was posted…..Oh man I just realized that it is the same people who don’t want the charter. What a waste.

    YES Theresa they should put this on the agenda as an emergency. They should have acted in good faith and put it on the agenda in the first place! This is just more of the same and it shows that they will never act in good faith.

    Did you see the list of planning items. I think they are jealous that an entire community is banding together and very few will back them up! Everything on their list is from the charter. Maybe they should start with getting the kids to the right place at the right time. Oh yea maybe after the kids get to the right place they could teach them to read!

  5. g Says:

    Actually, not being a dire event, they cannot call an Emergency Meeting. Just J, Flippin’ does and says whatever Gary tells her to.

  6. Just J Says:

    G, You are right they cannot call it an emergency but they should hear this and it should have been on the agenda in the first place.

  7. Flippin' Tired Says:

    I’ve never seen so many people turn into toddlers when the don’t get their own way immediately. It’s not an urgent matter – getting special ed kids to the right schools, on time, now that’s an urgent matter. Getting nurses to schools to train staff how to administer EpiPens and emergency insulin shots, now that’s an urgent matter. When Doctor J, Just J and G sit on the board, then you can put whatever you want on the agenda, regardless of the deadlines the rest of the district must follow. I’ll hold my breath until the three of you muster the cojones to run, shall I? *lol*

  8. Wait a minute Says:

    I’m sure that Paul Strange/flippen and Greg Rolen as unethical, dirty-tricks practicing lawyers are dislocating their shoulders while patting themselves on their backs for having come up with the MDUSD’s sleazy leadership’s legal strategy of “we approved–with conditions” (that the rest of the MDUSD’s schools could not meet).

    It is in fact a Defacto denial designed to buy time for a group of people under increasing scrutiny and pressure for their countless and growing incompetent and unethical scandals.

    Their hope is to run the Charter folks out of money and stall for time while Stevie Lawrence’s #1 hatchet person Sue Brothers works on trying to convince enough teachers/parents to back out of their charter support.

    The fact of the matter is come February, the board will find some new lame excuse to further stall the petition. In the mean time Sue works her magic trying to undermine charter support in the CV community.

    Sue is getting all priority within the district for support and these resources come at the expense of the rest of the district. Meanwhile little Special Ed kids are experiencing atrocious transportation problems thanks to good old Greg Rolen’s incompetence as a transportaion overseer. I bet he laughs all the way to the bank as he pockets his $27,000 raise to oversee the train wreck that has become spc-ed transportation on his watch.

    The people in West Sac and Roseville both said that STU played the same style of sleazy political games and hardball there by recruiting informants and actively trying to divide and conquer.

    Don’t let them get away with Shoe. Your a far more competent and ethical attorney then Rolen. Bring as much political and legal heat as you can down on these losers.

    Lobby Rep George Miller to ask the Federal Prosecutor to start an investigation of their many mis-deeds involving corruption, mis-management, and abuse of power.

    Steve Lawrence knowingly signed legal Assurances for School Improvement Grants for federal dollars monies that he knew to be false. The entire solar/Measure C fiasco was nothing short of a conspiracy to steer that contract to Chevron and get Eberhart a job in the industry.

    Play offense Shoe!

  9. MDUSD Board Watcher Says:

    Hey Flippen,

    I mean Paul. Did you help Rolen?

  10. Number Eight Says:

    WAM #8,
    Speaking of SIG, will the board tonight hear the overdue Sept. 23 deadline and loss of $15 million according to Doctor J, or will the administration sweep that under the rug (along with the charter petition)? The board should thoroughly discuss where all these millions are going (going, gone), and add on whether Measure C will go over budget with $$$soft costs, whether Holbrook will get solar, whether Loma Vista gets a/c before K-12 schools, and whether Measure C is the funding source to build a new Bay Point school. The board meeting should be extended for an all-nighter!

  11. anon Says:

    If the charter school spent their time working to meet the conditions of the approval, they would be half way done by now. The only thing this shows is that they are not prepared to operate a school as complex as clayton valley. I mean really, stop complaining and start getting something done. The only thing you are accomplishing is proving that the district was absolutely justified in placing the conditions on the charter school in the first place.

  12. Charter new course Says:

    Who will be the vendor for scoliosis testing 18 months from now?

  13. CVCHS Supporter Says:

    The charter supporters are working on the conditions but if you read Mayor Shuey’s letter you will understand how their hands are tied with hiring an administrative leader or anyone else for that matter. The more ideas that I hear from the committee meetings, the more excited I am for the charter to happen as soon as possible. There is an incredible new energy flowing around Clayton Valley and the community. So many possibilities! Please encourage the MDUSD to approve the charter as soon as possible!

  14. Wait a minute Says:


    You know, if the MDUSD’s sleazy leadership spent their time on honestly fixing the myriad issues/disasters besetting them (like the imminent loss of $15 MILLION due to Stevie Lawrence’s incompetence/dishonesty).

    Instead they choose to fight the charter and prop up Sue Brothers with priority on all resources at the expense of ALL the other schools, they might actually improve the education of ALL the children to which they have been entrusted!

    The only thing this shows is that the MDUSD’s “leadership” is not competent or honest enough to run an organization as complex as the MDUSD.

    The only thing you are accomplishing is proving that the district cannot even meet its own conditions that it is trying to put on the charter to stall and kill it.

    And “Anon”, say hi to Sue for me!

  15. anon Says:

    @ Wait a minute,

    What does any of that have to do with the simple fact that the charter needs to comply with the conditions? The conditions are in place and if the charter is going to be approved, they need to comply. Why is that so difficult to understand and why is everyone that points that out attacked? I hope the charter organizers are not the hate filled anon attackers on this blog and on others. If they are, the students that attend that school are going to suffer.

  16. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I spoke to Trustee Lynne Dennler last night about the conditions and she said she thinks they are reasonable and that she’s most concerned about the financial health of the proposed charter.

  17. Just J Says:

    Anon #15, I don’t see attacks I see you not understanding what the problem is. The Charter is ok with some conditions and will meet them. There are some like hiring they can not meet that condition of telling you who will work there. You see the Board cannot become a “real Board” and hire anyone without an approval. So that is just one example of a condition that can not be met and will allow the District to deny. They are not saying anything about NO conditions. They are working at meeting the ones they can without a Board in place. Also the law is very clear about what the district can and can not look at. Ms. Dennler should talk a bit more in detail with the accountant that is handleing the books if she is confused. I am not sure but maybe she has a degree and an active accountant. I don’t know but maybe the board should have let the accountant speak more in detail about it. Perhaps the board should have agreed to meet with the Charter experts to discuss all of this before they acted on what they were told to do.

    This is NOT an attack it is just a conversation and I will agree to disagree with you.

  18. Theresa Harrington Says:

    One thing that I’ve noticed is different about the MDUSD board and other public agency boards is that trustees seem reluctant to ask questions of petitioners.
    At the Contra Costa Board of Education meeting where the Flex charter was approved, elected officials peppered petitioners with questions.
    City Council members also routinely ask numerous questions when developers or other petitioners come before them seeking approval for plans.
    Trustees have the authority to directly ask the petitioners about their financial plan, but they so far haven’t done that.

  19. g Says:

    Perhaps this is an indication of a certain level of “serial” consensus prior to the open meetings?

  20. Doctor J Says:

    “G” you beat me to the question. I think its pretty obvious.

  21. MDUSD Board Watcher Says:

    In my opinion this is an indication of Gary bullying the rest of the board. I don’t understand why the ladies of the board are not willing to stand up to him.

  22. Just J Says:

    One did tonight and it was AWESOME! We need 4 more just like her. Hopefully Theresa will have a great story tomorrow.

  23. Theresa Harrington Says:

    As Just J indicates, Trustee Cheryl Hansen asked to place the CVHS charter petition on the Oct. 11 agenda for reconsideration, after several CVHS charter supporters addressed the board during public comment.
    I shot some video, which I will post links to later today. Of course, I’ll also do a story later today for tomorrow’s CC Times, including the latest CVHS charter news and the board’s decision to move forward with planning to expand schools in Bay Point, along with possibly building a new school.

  24. Wait a minute Says:

    If Cheryl made the request and the other 4 ignore it then they are breaking the law and need to be held accountable as such.

    If the other 4 don’t ignore the request and show the appearance during whatever discussion ensues of having serially decided ahead of time then that is evidence of another Brown act violation and a complaint should be made to the Grand Jury for an investigation.

  25. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Board President Gary Eberhart acknowledged Hansen’s request. However, he tried to tell her to wait until the end of the meeting to introduce it.
    Hansen, however, insisted on making the request after public comment.

  26. The Observer Says:

    Hansen is the only board member who refuses to be bullied and intimidated by Eberhart’s antics. Watching his face turn different colors last night when Hansen presented her agenda item was a classic moment.

  27. Theresa Harrington Says:

    FYI: I just found out that the CDE has not yet notified most districts whether or not they will receive their SIG grants because it is waiting for clarification from the USDOE regarding requirements for increased learning time.

  28. Doctor J Says:

    @TH, can you post the MDUSD Corrective Action plans submitted for the SIG Grants ? Can you get a copy of the CDE letter requesting clarification from the USDE [DOE is Dept. of Energy] for increased learning time. Has any other state requested this too ?

  29. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Education reform advocate Lance Izumi weighed in on CVHS charter effort today at Contra Costa Taxpayers Assocation luncheon:

  30. g Says:

    The operative word was “disconnect”.

  31. g Says:

    Oh, and he commended Theresa for her “fair and balanced” reporting of the Charter situation! 🙂

  32. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Two letters to the editor about MDUSD: one supports CVHS charter, the other urges more money for libraries:

  33. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Two CVHS agenda items on Tuesday’s MDUSD agenda:

  34. Mommykinz Says:

    Rescind the approval with conditions… and that means?? What happens then? Open it up to a full fledged approval or denial at this meeting? or another?

  35. Clayton Squirrel Says:

    Thanks Theresa!

    I agree with both the letters in the Contra Costa Times. I have a successful senior at CVHS but my younger former public school child started at a private high school this year. I am seriously considering bringing her back to CVCHS if the charter is approved.

    The letter about the libraries needing to be staffed is also extremely important. Right now that private school student is staying at school and studying in the library most days until almost 6:00. That is just amazing to have those extra hours of study groups and supervision.

  36. Doctor J Says:

    I thought Mayor Shoe asked for “reconsideration” and instead this agenda item says “rescind”. Sounds like more Shennanigans by Eberhart/Lawrence. If not they can deny it.

  37. Just J Says:

    Ms. Hansen asked the board to recind the decision at the last Board Meeting. She wants a study session and then make a decision.

  38. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Trustee Sherry Whitmarsh just told me it’s her understanding that another motion cannot be made. So, in her opinion, the board cannot entertain a motion to make a final decision Oct. 25.
    However, Trustee Cheryl Hansen could ask to put a motion on the Oct. 25 agenda.
    “She could be putting it on an agenda every week if she chose,” Whitmarsh said. “It’s her prerogative.”.

  39. MDUSD Board Watcher Says:

    One must assume that smoke is literally coming out of Eberhart’s nose and ears given these events.

    He doesn’t like losing control of what he considers his board.

  40. Doctor J Says:

    Should we nominate Sherry for Ms. Congeniality ?

  41. The Observer Says:

    Hansen’s move to rescind is the only legitimate motion that can be made . She obviously knows that a vote to reconsider can only be made at the same meeting the original vote was taken. A motion to rescind may be made at any time.

    If a majority of the board chooses to rescind on Tuesday night, it can, if it wishes, move to either approve the charter petition without conditions or deny it. If they vote for the former, then the charter committee can move ahead; if they vote for the latter, then the charter committee can move immediately to appeal at the county level.

    Whitmarsh’s comments to Theresa are nonsensical and clearly show a lack of understanding in parliamentary process.

  42. anon Says:

    Oh great, they are going to vote to rescind their approval of the charter. Then what? It’s not approved and it’s not denied. What is it then? Is it in charter school limbo? I’m sure glad that Ms. Hansen placed this item on the agenda. Brilliant!!! This should fix everything.

  43. Doctor J Says:

    I believe that the Board can move to modify the conditions of approval.

  44. anon Says:

    Sure the Board can move to modify the conditions of approval if they want to violate the Brown Act and other open meeting laws that deal with proper notice.

  45. MDUSD Board Watcher Says:

    Anon #44,

    Hi Gary. Is the heat beginning to get to you? I notice you posting as anon on alot of the blogs lately.

    Unfortunately you cared more about maintaining your power than doing what is right for the children. You made lots of mistakes that now my children and I have to pay for. I look forward to the 2012 election cycle and you and Whitmarsh’s removal from the board.

  46. g Says:

    Sherry you have to follow the entire Brown Act–all the time, not just what sounds good to you this week.

    The District site has crashed, or been taken down because of Lawrence’s latest “news”.

    His “staff has been cut back so far” he can’t seem to keep up with the actual emergencies, issues with student safety and education problems he is either perpetuating or allowing to flourish.

    HOWEVER, just before anything comes to the public regarding the Charter–he manages to have ALL the time in the world to put out a derogative charter/financial statement!

    I want to remind you all, that regardless of the issue, a “HALF-TRUTH” is a “COMPLETE LIE”! That means we are dealing with elected liars and paid liars, and our children are the ones being cheated and lied to.

  47. Doctor J Says:

    June 30, 2012 is a Saturday. I think the law says that when a deadline falls on a Sat/Sun, that you get to the next Monday, just like income tax deadlines. So maybe the teacher’s deadline for notifying the district is really July 2, not June 30 ? That is really going to goof up Julie’s vacation in July. Maybe the district ought to get reasonable, approve the charter without conditions in exchange for an April 30 deadline ? Just saying.

  48. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Pat Middendorf said the charter organizers understand the district’s concerns regarding staffing and they are trying to be cooperative.
    However, she said she was very frustrated by the district’s incomplete responses to charter requests for financial information related to CVHS operations.
    She said Bryan Richards is difficult to reach and that he often tells them to look at websites to find what they are looking for, so they have spent hours searching for information that the district could provide directly, if it chose to do so.

  49. Doctor J Says:

    The district is playing hide the ball with the financials — nothing new, but it shows their bad faith and stonewalling tactics. Yet the district wants cooperation. Sounds more like hostage negotiation to me. After the outrageous tactics by the district in approving the charter with unreasonable and illegal conditions, and now with Lawrence’s propaganda piece which is so transparent, the charter really has little reason to be confident that the district will ever tell the truth. The sooner this gets to the county or state or the courts, the better. Until then, I don’t think the Dent Center or other high school administrators ought to plan any July vacations.

  50. Doctor J Says:

    The District has just admitted to robbing Peter [high schools] to pay Paul [elem schools]. Lawrence’s propaganda release has to be the dumbest move of the district since the Board gave the Gang of Five raises in the midst of teacher cutbacks, class size increases, cutting benefits, and all of the other things that have destroyed the morale of the district employees. Yet, the district has repeatedly refused to release the ACTUAL operating costs of CVHS. And if you don’t think Gary approved the release, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. Lawrence’s pressure tactics on the prinicpal’s is typical of his bullying style that he exhibited to all administrators when he first arrived and forced them into accepting the furlough days — agree to the furloughs or you are not a team player. Now all other high schools in the district realize the District has been stealing about $941 per high school student. The high school parent revolt is about to begin. Lawrence you just shot yourself in both feet at the same time with only one shot. That takes talent.

Leave a Reply