Comments on: More details regarding Clayton Valley HS costs

By: Wendy Lack

Wendy Lack — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:16:28 +0000

@ Another CV Parent #33:

I recall Dr. Lawrence telling a Pleasant Hill group a few weeks ago that the CVCHS was financially sound because there is an existing student population in sufficient numbers to make the school viable and predictable. So the staff recommendation against the charter on financial grounds is inconsistent with Lawrence’s earlier statements. How is the public to reconcile the contradiction?

This whole charter petition sounds as though it has become politicized — that rational discussion of the issue by the District is neither desired nor possible.

Guess tonight’s vote speaks for itself and it appears the legal bills are going to be racked up soon, by both the District and charter petitioners.

By: g

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:44:58 +0000

If you are going to use Robert’s Rules for most things, you should have to use them for everything!

The time to “change” the Agenda is a)before it is ever posted, or b) in public, at the very beginning of the meeting, when the board SHOULD be asked if it wants to “approve” the Agenda as presented. This is a step that MDUSD skips right on past–even though we now know Gary says he “carries RR around” with him now–haha.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:44:00 +0000

Perhaps I am wrong, but didn’t something change in the Agenda under consent matters ? Something looks fishy there.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:36:51 +0000

You can watch video clips of tonight’s board meeting at: http://qik.com/tharrington

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:31:08 +0000

Here is a separate blog post that details the resolution to deny the charter: http://bit.ly/uN5juK

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:23:04 +0000

Yes, I think that would be helpful. It would also be helpful if changes or additions were somehow flagged.

By: Another CV Parent

Another CV Parent — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:21:15 +0000

Theresa, perhaps the agenda needs a “last updated” date somewhere?

By: Another CV Parent

Another CV Parent — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:18:01 +0000

Wendy, the board won’t make a decision based on the financial impact to the District. They’ll make it based on the fact that the financial plan submitted by the charter steering committee isn’t sound. That’s why staff is recommending that they deny the charter.

The financial impact to the district is information that will have to be included in the district’s next financial statement to the County BOE (in December, I think.) It’s certainly fair and appropriate to let the public know when a particular decision will have a major impact on the district’s budget. If the vote is “yes”, then the district will have to start to work immediately putting together a list of potential cuts, which will once again be discussed and voted on by the board, with input from the public.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:12:27 +0000

I don’t disagree that the charter committee wanted a decision tonight.
I just think it would be more transparent if the district would indicate somewhere on the agenda that the agenda recommendation had been changed and an attachment had been added.

By: Another CV Parent

Another CV Parent — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:08:10 +0000

Theresa, the staff recommendation says they got another iteration of the budget from ExEd on November 4th. I imagine that’s why the staff recommendation wasn’t posted until today. Perhaps that’s why Mayor Shuey isn’t upset that it wasn’t posted until today. The staff could have said the budget was so late in coming in that they wouldn’t be ready for tonight’s meeting, but they agreed to go ahead with keeping it on the agenda for tonight. And that’s what the charter steering committee wanted, a yes or no vote tonight.