Part of the Bay Area News Group

MDUSD board to discuss Clayton Valley HS charter petition Tuesday

By Theresa Harrington
Saturday, October 8th, 2011 at 7:08 pm in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

At Mt. Diablo district Trustee Cheryl Hansen’s request, the school board expects to discuss the Clayton Valley High charter petition Tuesday.

Hansen made the request Sept. 27, after the board heard public comments from the following charter supporters: Clayton Mayor David Shuey, Clayton Councilman Joe Medrano, CVHS teacher Neil McChesney, and CVHS students Sara Kommer and Clayton Martin.

Below are links to videotaped portions of some of the comments. Unfortunately, I was only able to record a couple segments of Shuey’s comments and I missed McChesney’s.

Here’s part 1 of Shuey’s comments:
Here’s part 2:

Here are Medrano’s comments:

Although some in the community have said the charter petition isn’t innovative enough, Kommer showed her ability to “think out of the box” with this creative appeal to trustees:

Martin’s approach, on the other hand, was more traditional:

Trustee Cheryl Hansen announced that she wanted to place the Clayton Valley HS charter petition on the Oct. 11 agenda:

Here is what appears on the Tuesday agenda:

Item 13.2:
Subject: 13.2 Review of and update on the Clayton Valley Charter High School organizer’s efforts to meet the requirements for approval indicated in the Board’s September 13, 2011 Resolution approving, with conditions, the establishment of the Clayton Valley Charter High School

Summary: Review of the status of conditions required of the charter school petitioners. Staff will report on the meetings that have been held between September 13 – October 11, among the Board, district representatives and the charter school.”

This is an information item only, not slated for a vote.

Item 13.3
Subject: 13.3 Motion to rescind the Board’s action of September 13, 2011 entitled, ‘Resolution of the Governing Board of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District Granting, With Conditions, the Charter for the Establishment of the Clayton Valley Charter High School’

Summary: Vote to rescind the Board’s action on the charter school approval, with conditions, which occurred on September 13, 2011.

Recommendation: Staff recommends not rescinding the Board action of September 13, 2011 that approved the establishment of the Clayton Valley Charter High School with conditions.”

There are no additional reports or documents outlining progress on the conditions or the reasons for staff’s recommendations. It’s unclear whether any PowerPoint presentations will be added later.

Here is a link to the Sept. 13 resolution approved by the board:

Shortly after this agenda was posted, Superintendent Steven Lawrence sent out the following message to the community (which is not yet posted on the district’s website):

“Mt. Diablo USD News Update
Where Kids Come First
October 7, 2011



Under State law, the Board cannot consider the financial impact of a charter on the District when considering whether to approve or deny a charter school. Now that the charter has been conditionally approved, the District must determine the impending on-going financial impact. The information below was not part of the Board deliberation on the charter petition, but it now must be considered as part of the Board’s fiduciary responsibility to maintain fiscal solvency and educational programs for all District students. The fiscal impact must be included in the 2011-12 First Interim financial report in December.

Per Student Funding

1. Not all school districts are funded at the same rate. Unified school districts receive less funding per pupil than high school districts under California’s funding formula. Educational programs generally become more costly as students’ progress through the grades. (As explained below, however, our district is atypical regarding the cost to run an average elementary versus middle/high school).

2. Our district receives the unified school district per pupil funding amount of $5,207 per student. By contrast, a conversion charter high school would receive the average amount for high school districts which is $6,148.

3. Our district, not the state, will be responsible for paying the conversion charter the $941[1] per student difference between the unified rate and the high school rate. Payment will come from the funds generated by all other students in our district.

4. Under AB 114, which was part of the 2011-12 budget adopted by the state in July, 2011, districts must transfer additional funds to new charters at the rate of $127 per student out of their state categorical funds. Our district is using most of these funds to balance our budget including keeping people employed and maintaining programs.

5. Consequently, one component of the charter’s cost to our District is:

$1.8 million[2] or $55 per pupil district-wide.[3]

Additional Expenses

6. Currently, the average district teacher expense including salary, statutory benefits, and health/dental benefits is:

· Elementary: $78,748

· Middle School: $71,285

· High School: $69,261

Note that our elementary teachers have more years of experience than our secondary teachers. Therefore, the district’s average elementary school teacher expense is 13.7 percent more than a high school teacher.

7. Given the variance in teacher costs, plus the impact of the State budget cuts, and the overall cost of programs, we use revenue generated from each high school to support all programs and teachers district-wide. We estimate that due to the charter conversion, our district will have to cut an additional $598,002 to offset CVHS’ contribution to the General Fund.

Total Fiscal Impact

8. Therefore, the board must plan to cut the General Fund by $2.4 million[4] or approximately $74 per pupil, beginning in 2012-13 school year when CVCHS opens. This will need to be an on-going, not one time, reduction.

9. School Services of California (a leading school finance authority) analyzed and verified the calculations above. Our District finance team is willing to partner with the charter organizers to bring in the Contra Costa County Office of Education or Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), both unbiased outside organizations respected for their financial analysis ability, to conduct another review of the above calculations.


1. When CVHS converts to a charter school, any CVHS teacher or classified support staff member who wants to remain a District employee has the right to do so. The state’s contractual ‘bumping’ process will displace more junior teachers and support staff members district-wide to ensure the district absorbs the more senior staff members from CVHS who intend to remain employed by the district. A teacher’s ‘bumping rights’ will be determined by his/her years of experience and credentials. A classified support staff member’s “bumping rights” are determined by job classification and hours of service. This ‘bumping’ will impact a majority of our schools.

2. Before March 15, 2012, we will create ‘bumping’ lists and issue layoff notices to the least senior teachers throughout the District. We will need to go through the same process for classified support staff members by April 30, 2012.

3. Teachers and support staff members at CVHS need not notify us until June 30, 2012, whether they will remain with the District. The timing will make it difficult to retain teachers who receive a layoff notice and are uncertain about their District employment. We continue to ask the charter organizers and our CVHS faculty and staff members to provide the District with as much notice as possible. Early notification will allow our district and CVCHS to adequately staff and plan for the students. We ask for professional courtesy and integrity in this matter.


1. Our district must redraw the high school attendance boundaries to create a home school for students who currently attend CVHS and wish to attend a district high school.

2. Based on space availability, students who are removed from or leave CVCHS will have the right to attend the high school in their attendance boundary.


[1] $6,148 – $5,207 = $941

[2] $1,792,960 is the total amount lost because of the $941 difference and the $127 per student loss in revenue.

[3] In a May 2011, News Update, we explained the above facts, but did not know about the additional reduction of $127 from districts’ categorical funding to new charter schools.

[4]$1,792,960 + $598,002 = $2,390,962″

Here is a response from the charter steering committee, which I received today:

“Oct. 8, 2011
Response from Steering Committee:

The Clayton Valley Charter High School Steering Committee is shocked and disappointed at the latest action of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District superintendent. This clearly undermines the previous public statements of both the district staff and board that they wish to work in a collegial manner with the charter steering committee. Both the timing of the superintendent’s ‘News Update’ and the content make it clear that the superintendent has no interest in working with the charter.

Following the Board’s de-facto denial of the charter petition under the guise of an ‘approval with conditions,’ the charter group moved forward in good faith efforts to meet and confer with district staff to respond to and reach agreement on the 56 conditions. There have been two meetings with staff and a multitude of emails back and forth between both parties. In fact, the charter has been appreciative of the efforts of staff, particularly Deb Cooksey, Rose Locke, Julie Braun-Martin, and Felicia StuckeySmith, and felt that both sides were working in good faith toward a mutually agreeable resolution of the conditions. Our last meeting was on Thursday, October 8, 2011, one day before the superintendent’s update was sent out to all parents in the district. At no point during our meeting with staff or at any other time were we informed the district, or at least the superintendent, was working on a separate track aimed at publicly undermining the good faith meet and confer process going on with staff. However, the superintendent did choose to meet with district principals during the week to share this information. In point of fact, the superintendent has never been involved in direct communication with the charter steering committee since the petition was submitted.

Following the release of an earlier and very similar ‘update‘ from the superintendent on August 26th, informal discussions were initiated between the charter steering committee and the board after the issue went viral in the media. It was our informal understanding that an effort would be made on both sides to work more closely together so as not to engage in one-sided, potentially misleading information being disseminated. Clearly, this is not the case for the district and so the charter steering committee is once again forced to respond to propaganda when we would rather concentrate on continued progress toward resolution.

As the ‘update’ was provided to everyone, including the charter, after 6 p.m. on Friday night, we are working to review and respond to the claimed facts and impact.

We hope to have a comprehensive response by the board meeting on Oct. 11, 2011. However, in the interim, we have the following thoughts and comments:

1. What is the purpose of this public ‘update’ if the board cannot consider this in its denial or approval of the petition?

2. Where in the update is there listed any data or foundation for the savings the district will incur as a result of not having to pay for the expenditures of running Clayton Valley? Remember, the district’s own staff report previously estimated the district would save approximately $1.7 million from closing CV. What is the actual per ADA cost of operating the school and and why won’t the district disclose this figure?

3. What data was given to School Services for their review? Did they get information or were they asked to verify the cost savings? Why did the district choose not to share the fact that they were hiring an outside source to review the charter financials at any time before the staff recommendation?

4. Why did the district not partner with the Charter to ensure that this was a ‘fair’ assessment that included cost savings before making it public? Why does the district continually and deliberately refuse to work with the charter steering committee? It is extremely difficult to interpret these consistent tactics as anything but underhanded and nefarious.

5. Why, despite repeated requests by the charter for financial information dating back to April of this year, including the costs to run CV (and therefore the potential savings to the district should it not be responsible for those costs), has the district not provided that information even today?

6. Why, if ‘Educational programs generally become more costly as students’ progress through the grades’ has the district apparently continually underfunded ALL high schools from the average daily attendance rate the state indicates should be given for students in high school? Doesn’t this point to historical and continued fiscal mismanagement and misappropriation by the district?

7. If the district and state recognize the district is underfunding ALL high schools in the district, why do not other high schools in the district demand proper funding or request their own charter?

8. Why would the country and the state have written charter legislation and encouraged charter schools if doing so would devastate existing districts? Similarly, why have so many conversion charters throughout the state been approved and successfully operated, collaborated with and positively impacted their districts? Is MDUSD doing something different such that it would be the only district to suffer from a charter and, if so, isn’t that more a condemnation of the district’s management?

9. Why has Superintendent Lawrence never met or communicated with the charter since the petition?

10. Why does MDUSD use an archaic account code structure that is out of compliance with the rest of the state of California? Is it so it can massage the numbers to suit its purpose? The district’s own financial records are constantly in question and fiscal solvency seems to be teetering on the brink; perhaps the public deserves a closer look at MDUSD’s books.

We will be making a formal request that the superintendent share any information that we provide regarding the district claims to every MDUSD family, just as the current ‘update’ was disseminated. In the interest of unprejudiced truth, this seems a fair proposition. We urge anyone interested to come to the Board meeting on October 11, 2011 and ask the board to answer these and other questions. Please pass this information on to those who want to hear from both sides of this issue and please see our Facebook page or website ( for further information.

Clayton Valley Charter High School Steering Committee”

I spoke to Trustee Sherry Whitmarsh on Friday about the Tuesday agenda items. Here’s what she said:

“My position is the board voted 5-0 to continue a certain path,” she said. “That’s the way the board felt at the time and if Ms. Hansen has changed her mind, she’s free to make the motion and the rest of the board will decide if they want to agree with her or agree with staff’s recommendation. My understanding is it’s only a motion to rescind. There is no other motion that can be made.”

However, Whitmarsh said Hansen could continue to place the charter on future agendas, if she desires.

“She could be putting it on an agenda every week, if she chose,” Whitmarsh said. “It’s her prerogative.”

Whitmarsh, who hadn’t yet seen the agenda, said she would wait to see what the staff report said about progress made before deciding how to proceed.

“There has been nothing so far that would change my mind,” she said. “The board voted 5-0. In my opinion, the board has never gone back to rescind something that the board all supported as a 5-0 vote. It’s interesting that here’s a board member who voted with the entire board and now wants to rescind the motion.”

Trustee Cheryl Hansen left me the following voice mail message today about her expectations for Tuesday:

“I think it’s time that we do the right thing with the charter school petitioners. I think they’ve acted in good faith with very serious intention and commitment and my goal is to kind of correct what I see as a vote that was not a good way to go.

My view of this whole thing is that we need to respect them enough to give them an up or down vote — meaning an approve or deny vote — and the only way to get to that and make it right again is to actually rescind the original vote.

So that is why I had mentioned at the last board meeting that my intention on Tuesday is to get an update on what’s been going on with these meetings, which I had no real knowledge of — and that’s part of what I’ll bring up Tuesday night — what in the world’s been going on behind the scenes with these meetings with the charter school?

I think things need to happen out in the open, which is why I had suggested a couple of times that we have a board charter school study session, because I think things are much more trustworthy when they happen out in the open with the public’s opportunity to participate and listen.

So, my goal is to try to rescind the vote and then hopefully move onto an up or down approve or deny vote. And my vote would, of course, be to approve without conditions.”

Bryan Richards, the district’s chief financial officer, reported at the last board meeting that the district had an unrestricted “undesignated fund balance” of $30.8 million, which was $7.6 million more than anticipated.

Do you think the board should rescind its original vote?

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

146 Responses to “MDUSD board to discuss Clayton Valley HS charter petition Tuesday”

  1. WHOA! Says:

    Curious, if you factor in the ada lost, then you also have to factor the teacher salaries saved, right?

  2. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Whoa: That is what the charter committee has been asking. So far, the district hasn’t shown how it is factoring in its reduced costs for operations, including teachers’ salaries.

  3. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Political columnist Lisa Vorderbrueggen has checked out the Fox News piece and says it’s untrue:

  4. g Says:

    Just a little math pulled from the 2011-12 Budget. CVHS is about 5.8% of the TOTAL K-12 student population. Do they get about 5.8% of the total revenue of $270,395,432.00? That would be, $15,682,935.00. NO, because $72,587,742.00 of the total revenue is “Restricted” and accounted for seperately. So, let’s just say CVHS doesn’t need (or get) ANY of the Restricted funds (it does, but we won’t count it).

    That leaves $197,807,690.00 Unrestricted. Does CVHS get 5.8% of that? $11,472.846.00?

    NO, because the Restricted funds budget comes up short by $43,049,965.00 and has to be supplemented from the Unrestricted fund.

    So that leaves $154,757,725.00 Unrestricted. Does CVHS get 5.8% of that? $8,975,948.00.

    NO, because $13,764,388.00 has to be “put aside” for “Uncertainties” like IRS and “possible” State shortages.

    So that leaves $140,993,337.00. Does CVHS get 5.8% of that? $8,177,614.00?

    That is roughly an ADA of $4,333.00 and I would guess it is pretty close to what MDUSD would have to admit to if budgets “per school” were line itemed.

    The District says it gets $5207.00 ADA. It says it would have to supplement the ADA $900.00 to bring CVHS up to “average” $6100 High School Rates. Of course here you have to see some Lawrence game playing, because they wouldn’t have to cover “average”. They would have to base costs on using the State’s small-medium-large district formulas, but that is a very small percentage difference.

    The District does not want anyone to know how much HIGH SCHOOL allocation is being spent elsewhere! We know they don’t evenly distribute the $5207 evenly between K-12 schools.

    My spiralling-cost math may be a bit fuzzy, but I’m guessing they would actually have to come up with closer to $1767.00 in order to also cover the $800.00 or so ADA that they have been “shorting” CVHS all along. I wonder if all of the high schools are being “shorted” something between $900.00 and $1700.00 ADA because of the Districts inability to properly distribute State allotments for K-8 versus High School cost of education–and its own fuzzy math.

    $1767.00 ADA might be what they’re really fighting over. But of course, they can’t legally consider the money when considering the Charter application, can they?

  5. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Superintendent Steven Lawrence has promised that by Monday, Bryan Richards will provide me with the data that backs up the message Lawrence sent out last Friday.
    Here is information from the CDE regarding charter funding:

  6. g Says:

    I have to disagree with one premise of Lisa V.’s interpretation of what has happened in the solar industry questionable practices.

    If anyone in Miller’s Firm lobbies, directions to do so come from the managing partners. If money is made, the managing partners get “theirs”. If influence is bought through campaign donations, the managing partners benefit. Miller IV cannot be exempted nor excused in his complicity .

  7. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I touched base with Lisa regarding this comment and she emailed this response to me:

    “This is a federal loan guarantee. Miller IV’s firm was hired to lobby the state. SunPower hired an entirely different firm to do its federal lobbying.”

  8. Dan Says:

    So Theresa,

    They are giving Bryan Richards an entire weekend to “cook the books”.

    I see it’s business as usual in the MDUSD.

  9. Theresa Harrington Says:

    It’s not clear why the information is not available now.
    Neil McChesney said Bryan Richards is often busy and difficult to reach.

  10. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    @Dan 108

    Given the districts’ track record of saying many times they will provide the requested cost details over the past several months only to have those dates come and go without even an acknowledgment or apology for not doing what they said they would, or delivering any part of documentation requested, I doubt anything will be provided by Monday.


  11. g Says:

    Theresa, I disagreed more generally with Lisa’s protection of the Miller IV involvement with SunPower, and while she was just debunking the DOE loan association, the attempt to separate State lobbying from Fed lobbying was, in my mind disingenuous.

    SunPower paid $138 thousand to Miller’s firm in 2010 and so far $38 thousand in 2011 for “renewable energy” multiple legislation in CA.

    California legislation directs much of the energy decisions for the Country and the employment and manufacturing of much of the energy industry both here and abroad.

    So if renewable energy is being lobbied for and mandated in CA, it must be followed and lobbied at the Fed level as well, to keep Fed funding flowing into CA as the first lobby intended.

    It matters little who the lobby check is made out to, as long as the result is a win somewhere up the chain for the company and their lobbyists.

  12. g Says:

    I should have added that I like Lisa V.’s local coverage, and especially appreciate her live interviews at election time. But you will rarely find me on the side of Lobbyists, no matter what the cause might be.

  13. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The charter committee says it has met all the conditions of approval and hopes the board will give final approval to the charter on Oct. 25:
    Here’s a new blog post with details I learned today:

  14. Doctor J Says:

    Funny how district staff after many meetings refused to make a written report about the 56 conditions. Is the Board going to vote on each and every separate condition after discussion ? Could be a long meeting. Hope Gary shows up so he can get a little culture about “small potatoes”. We will see if he allows the same type of open and honest exchange of dialog that happened when he wasn’t there.

  15. Doctor J Says:

    Why doesn’t Lawrence just provide the ACTUAL costs of operation of CVHS instead of arbitrary averages. CVCHS has been asking for them for six months.

  16. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I have asked for this information (as has Clayton Mayor David Shuey) and Superintendent Lawrence has promised this to me by Monday.

  17. Wait a Minute Says:

    The problem is that Stevie Lawrence is infamous for dishonesty and bullying of staff to support his decisions.

    Whatever numbers that he gives will reflects this.

    In any case, it is ILLEGAL for the BOE to even consider fiscal impact.

    There is now so much evidence of fiscal impact being the main criteria for denial that any legal action against the district would be a slam-dunk, albeit at a cost in time and money.

  18. g Says:

    Interesting that the online Agenda for that 10/11 meeting was changed after it was published (and after the meeting?). The change was the way it should have been in the first place though. 13.2 and the original 13.3 were combined.

    Just interesting that they can change the published Item after the fact, when it seems it should have been kept as published and then explain a “pull and change” in subsequently published minutes.

    Obviously, someone is watching Theresa’s Blog and paying attention to comments.

  19. Doctor J Says:

    @G #118. Changing the published and posted agenda within the three day notice period and after the meeting — wow, the Board Secretary might be in some hot water — oh that is Supt Lawrence. Oh, I can see some corrections possibly in an “amended notice” or noted in the minutes, but you can’t change the actual posted agenda that qualifies for the Brown Act. There has to be a paper trail of any changes or corrections. YES, not only do the highest staff read the blogs — so do the rank and file staff — they just pray that their “trips” are not publicized like Mildred Browne’s Entourage trip to the Marriott in Sacramento for three nights for a 1 1/2 day meeting. I wonder if Lawrence and others have their reservations for the annual Monterey/Asilomar trips ?

  20. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I noticed that the agenda was changed also. I assumed it had been discussed at the meeting, but since I wasn’t able to attend, I don’t know if that’s the case.
    Also, the motion and votes don’t show up at the bottom of the agenda items like they usually do after meetings:
    The superintendent’s secretary told me this is because there was some sort of computer glitch.
    Since Board President Gary Eberhart was absent, the responsibility for administering the electronic voting was passed to Trustee Sherry Whitmarsh. Apparently, this system was problematic.
    I’m not sure if the district plans to eventually update the agenda with the motions and votes.

  21. Doctor J Says:

    Let’s remember that Supt Lawrence’s official position on the MDUSD Board of Education is “Secretary” and he alone is responsbile for keep the accurate records. The fact the Supt’s secretary helps him, does not relieve him of his responsibilities.

  22. Wait a Minute Says:

    I doubt there was any sort of a “computer glitch”.

    Its far more likely that this is a clumsy cover-up.

  23. Dan Says:

    I can guarantee from my informants on the “inside” that this is yet another attempt at a cover-up.

    Brown Act violation galore in the MDUSD.

  24. g Says:

    Theresa, it looks like you had a fun whirlwind (pun intended) vacation, but I missed your usual live-action-reporting at the meeting.

  25. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Thanks! Yes, I enjoyed visiting the “windy city.”
    Regarding the meeting, Trustee Cheryl Hansen told me that she has begun personally audiotaping the meetings herself so that she has a record of what happened.
    For the rest of us, we will have to wait to see what shows up in the minutes.

  26. Doctor J Says:

    @TH#125 Oh yeah ! Cheryl disputes some of the minutes and another Trustee says, that’s not how I remember it. Cheryl hits the play button — checkmate.

  27. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    TH @105 – on 10/14/11 you posted:

    “Superintendent Steven Lawrence has promised that by Monday, Bryan Richards will provide me with the data that backs up the message Lawrence sent out last Friday.
    Here is information from the CDE regarding charter funding:

    So, it’s Monday – got data?

  28. Doctor J Says:

    @#127 — Its becoming harder and harder to differentiate between Lawrence’s broken promises and lies.

  29. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I did receive data, but it includes several spreadsheets, which I haven’t had time yet to try to analyze.

  30. Anon Says:

    There is a Budget Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, open to the public. You can get Brian Richards right in front of you.

  31. Doctor J Says:

    @TH #129 Are these “actual costs” or just “averages” that he prepared for Lawrence’s propaganda piece ?

  32. Theresa Harrington Says:

    It does not appear to include an actual breakdown of CVHS costs. Instead, it includes spreadsheets based on ADA.

  33. g Says:

    I’m not an accountant, but I have done a little old fashioned “pencil” bookkeeping for a $20 million Company. A good, and simple, spreadsheet for me lists Assets in one column and then “spread” of Revenue and Expenditures across a row, so you can intersect and come up with a true bottom line figure for each Asset.

    They will have to come up with something like that to send to County/State if they ever want to “charge” correct expenses to the Charter School. Is it possible they don’t even keep an “Account” per “Asset” spreadsheet(yet)? If that’s the case, OMG!

  34. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Instead, it includes an “overview of calculations,” instead of an actual breakout of those calculations.

  35. Wait a minute Says:

    I’m sure the CVCHS people will have experts look at it.

    Hopefully we will get a full report on what their conclusions/findings are.

  36. Doctor J Says:

    @TH #134 Are you feeling cheated again ? Where are the actual costs ?

  37. Anon Says:

    Well I suspect it has something to do with Bryan Richards needing an entire weekend to “cook the books”.

    I can imagine them all sitting around a table desperately trying to come up with a way to obfuscate the true costs of running CVHS.

    I’d bet in a true apples to apples comparison, that the district comes out ahead if they let CVHS go. The real problem here: Eberhart’s Ego

  38. Theresa Harrington Says:

    It looks like the district just made calculations based on ADA, without looking at actual costs per site.
    There is a spreadsheet titled “Raw Teacher Salary Data,” which is blank.

  39. Wait a Minute Says:

    Well as they say in the business, garbage in=garbage out!

  40. Doctor J Says:

    @TH #138 — A blank page with “Raw Teacher Salary Data” — reminiscent of Rosemary Woods and the famous missing tape recordings she erased. Accidental I am “sure”. Why does the Board let them get away with this crap.

  41. Theresa Harrington Says:

    They said to follow up with questions, so that’s what I’ll have to do.

  42. Doctor J Says:

    Don’t play their game — turn it over to the First Amendment Coalition who can get attorney fees for winning a public records request.

  43. Anon Says:

    Theresa are you going to go to the Budget Advisory Meeting? (thursday) You’d assume they’d be talking about such an “important” matter at a budget meeting would you not?

  44. Theresa Harrington Says:

    It’s interesting that the district doesn’t list Budget Advisory Committee meetings on its website under “upcoming meetings:”
    Yet, it lists the Parent Advisory Council, board meetings and Community Advisory Committee meetings.
    Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend. However, it would make sense for the committee to discuss the CVHS conversion impact on the budget.

  45. g Says:

    Theresa, I have also looked for BAC info. Richards’ Fiscal Dept. site shows a link for BAC meetings, but it is a “dead” link. What good is that?

    On old minutes prior to 2009 you could at least find Budget Committee meetings and BAC members listed as being in attendance. The only “maybe constant” that I can find is that several from 2002 and 2010 Measure C Committees were/are also on BAC and some also on PAC. Some people are on the same two or three committees at the same time. In fact, I can’t find a Committee that Ferrante has NOT been on except maybe PAC. Can’t help but wonder; are they really outstanding citizens, or certain shoe-ins when committees are being built because they are good at looking the other way when things aren’t quite right, good at leading others to follow the directions of the Staff, and good at redirecting discussions when others disagree with Staff?

    Whatever the case, there is just too much going on in the District that is not available to the public on the website (since Lawrence came in).

  46. g Says:

    Although it is in essence Richard’s committee, looking back at Whitmarsh’s now silent Blog, she apparently was in charge of putting together the BAC. On 4/29/11 she stated that she had received 10 applications for the 17 openings.

    Maybe she could enlighten us on who, what, when and where–and Why so secretive?

Leave a Reply