Comments on: Recap of MDUSD Clayton Valley HS charter cost meeting

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:34:11 +0000

MDUSD should find out Jan. 11 whether Meadow Homes and Oak Grove MS will receive SIG grants: http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr12/agenda201201.asp?print=yes
The State Board of Education expects to name the award winners in an addendum that hasn’t yet been attached to the agenda (Item 5).

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 23:19:46 +0000

Here is our Times story about the Pittsburg charter, which the state Board of Education approved, after it was rejected by the Pittsburg and County school boards: http://www.contracostatimes.com/twitter/ci_19451963

By: Wait a minute

Wait a minute — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:42:43 +0000

Dr J,

Yoy can bet that the citizens of the MDUSD are not getting their money’s worth out of the MDUSD’s legal dpt and I’m sure games are being played at the board level to cover this up.

Just the fact that Rolen has already cost this district over ONE MILLION DOLLARS in unneccesary transportation costs blows their unsubstantiated argument that the charter is going to “take money away” from the district.

How about the money that Rolen’s substantiated transportation incompetence has taken away? Why aren’t they complaining or doing something about that?

Then there is the whole issue of Stevie Lawrence, Rolen/Cooksey and EberMarsh/Mayo squandering huge amounts of district time and money resources in desperately fighting the charter while at the same time neglecting the many serious issues that plague this district.

The Neros fiddle and distract while Rome burns.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:56:08 +0000

From the FAC: School board keeping exorbitant attorney fees in closed session. Read all about it. Could this be happening in MDUSD ? http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2011/11/aa-school-board-keeping-exorbitant-attorney-fees-in-closed-session/

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:41:42 +0000

The closed session agenda has been particularly secretative about legal proceedings and not generally following the Brown Act Section 54954.5 (c) in describing the case “With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL–EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: (Specify by reference to claimant’s name, names of parties, case or claim numbers)”

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 07:55:03 +0000

I have covered other public agencies where elected officials will ask staff to answer questions that they already know the answers to — because they have asked ahead of time — but they ask again in public so that everyone has the same information.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 07:08:03 +0000

@TH#38, The defect in Eberhart’s encouragement is that it does not give the public the opportunity to refute false or erroneous statements of staff. Thus staff can say anything they want in private without public scruitiny of the statement as to its veracity. It smacks of a violation of the open meeting laws, i.e. the Brown Act. This is exactly why public testimony should be had AFTER the staff report. Eberhart promised openness and transparency, but he practices just the opposite.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 06:50:32 +0000

Anon: Thanks for the link. Our longtime Concord and Clayton reporter Paul Thissen has been transferred to the Livermore/San Ramon Valley. I will also share this information with the editor of the Concord Transcript.
Dr. J: Board President Gary Eberhart encourages trustees to ask questions of staff before the board meetings. The problem with this is that the public doesn’t become privy to the same information when staff fills board members in this way.
Trustee Linda Mayo said she “understood” that the petitioners hadn’t contacted the County Office of Education’s ROP program office. It’s unclear how she understood this. She could have asked them directly. She also could have asked them directly why they hadn’t developed more innovative courses.
Based on my experience covering several city councils and school boards, MDUSD trustees don’t exercise their ability to ask questions during public meetings as much as elected officials in other public agencies do.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 03:42:52 +0000

Please everyone visit the new site set up by the folks at the Clayton “Do the Right Thing” project. It is part of all 3 schools (MDE, DVMS, CVHS) and the city, CBCA and police department.

Please help them log 1000 acts of kindness in our community during December. Check it out. Theresa maybe you’d like to cover it to give it more traction?

http://www.ClaytonDTRT.com

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:58:04 +0000

@Sue Berg #29, I’m sorry Sue but you misquoted me. I just asked you to review the State BOE hearing on the Synergy Charter. I agree with Theresa’s post #30. Its really amazing how much the Trustee’s purport to “KNOW” with a skimpy staff report and virtually no questions. You have to really wonder how much back channel communication is being held. As far as curriculum development, that doesn’t happen in a couple of months, but takes time. You can’t turn an aircraft carrier around on a dime. It takes time.