Part of the Bay Area News Group

MDUSD seeks input on draft CVCHS waivers

By Theresa Harrington
Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 1:42 pm in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

The Mt. Diablo school board will hold a public hearing Thursday regarding waivers it intends to submit to the California Department of Education seeking to avoid an anticipated negative financial impact when Clayton Valley High converts to a charter next year.

Under current law, the district anticipates it would have to pay about $980 per student more than it receives from the state to the charter, costing about $1.7 million. The proposed waivers would shift this additional cost to the County Office of Education or the state, if approved.

Although the district has posted an agenda for this public hearing, it has not yet posted the actual waivers for the public to review.

However, I have learned that portions of the waiver application have been distributed to the Budget Advisory Committee. I’m posting the information sent to the committee below.

Memo from CFO Bryan Richards:

“Budget Advisory Committee Members

Attached are preliminary attachments A and B for the District’s application for a waiver regarding the financial effects to the revenue limit regarding the Clayton Valley conversion to an independent charter. Part of the CDE’s waiver process is that such requests be shared with one of the advisory committees to the Board. Since this most directly affects the District’s budget, we are sharing it with you. Please review the information and let us know if you agree or disagree with the District’s application for the waiver. Also, if you have questions about the information, please feel free to ask them and we will get you answers. According to our legal counsel, we do not need a formal meeting of the committee to meet the requirements of the statute, just to get your input. I will put this on the agenda for our next meeting in March to update you on the status and to have an opportunity for any additional questions that may come up to be asked. Please note that this item goes before the Board of Education at a special meeting on February 22nd so please respond before then if possible.

Thank you for your assistance.

Bryan Richards
Chief Financial Officer”

Proposed waiver language (language to be stricken is bracketed):



(1) Waive the stricken through provisions of Ed Code Section 47632(j)
(2) which provides that:

“If a charter granted by a county office of education after having been previously denied by a school district, the sponsoring local educational agency means [the school district that initially denied the charter petition.]”and substitute the following language: “the approving County Office of Education that granted the charter.”


(2) Waive the stricken through provisions of Ed Code Section 47660 which provides that:

“(a) For purposes of computing eligibility for, and entitlements to, general purpose funding and operational funding for categorical programs, the enrollment and average daily attendance of a sponsoring local educational agency shall exclude the enrollment and attendance of pupils in its charter schools funded pursuant to this chapter.

(b)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), and commencing with the 2005-06 fiscal year, for purposes of computing eligibility for, and entitlements to, revenue limit funding, the average daily attendance of a unified school district, other than a unified school district that has converted all of its schools to charter status pursuant to 47606, shall include all attendance of pupils who reside in the unified school district and who would otherwise have been eligible to attend a noncharter school of the school district, if the school district was a basic aid school district in the prior fiscal year, [or if the pupils reside in the unified district and attended a charter school of that school district that converted to charter status o or after July 1, 2005]. Only the attendance of pupils described by this paragraph shall be included in the calculation made pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (h) of Section 42238.”

Practical Effect of Waiver

Either of the above-reference waived provisions would have a neutral fiscal impact on our district.

• Under the first scenario, the Contra Costa County Office of Education, would be deemed the sponsoring local educational agency of the conversion.

• Under the second scenario, the Clayton Valley Charter High School, a conversion charter, would be treated the same as a start-up charter and the funding difference between the District’s unified rate and the high school rate, would not be borne by the remaining students and families of the district.”

Rationale for the waiver:




On January 11, 2012, Contra Costa County Office of Education approved the conversion of Clayton Valley High School to an independent charter school. CVHS is the District’s second largest high school and houses approximately 5.47% of the District’s pupils. Mt. Diablo USD is a low wealth unified district funded below the statewide average. The inclusion of the school’s students in the District’s revenue limit and then having the District pay out to the charter general purpose block grant based on the statewide average high school district rate causes the District to lose $979.84 per unit of ADA at the school. This creates a loss of approximately $1.74M annually at a time when school funding has already been cut, and is proposed to be further reduced in the 2012-13 budget. This creates a significant hardship upon the remaining students in the District.

Funding a comprehensive high school conversion charter in a unified district at the high school district rate ignores the reason the high school district rate is higher than the elementary rate. It is higher to help cover the costs of students who are more expensive to serve: continuation; community day; and other students at risk of dropping out of school. Comprehensive high school students are not that much more expensive to serve than elementary or middle school students due to the fact that State law mandates a single salary schedule for unified districts. However, under current scenario, the District will retain all of the expensive to serve students and will lose the funding with which to serve them.

If the effect is spread across the entire District, it results in a loss of $56.68 per unit of ADA (a 1.09% decrease) for all other schools in the District. However, many parents in the other communities in the District feel strongly that other feeder patterns should remain unaffected and the impact of this cut should be borne solely by the Clayton Valley feeder pattern. There are currently 3,504.68 units of ADA in the other schools that are part of the Clayton Valley feeder pattern. A small portion of two of the schools feeds into another high school attendance area, but their ADA is included in this calculation. Spreading the loss of revenue among these four elementary schools and two middle schools would create a loss of funding of $496.81 per unit of ADA (a 9.53% decrease) on these campuses, and would put their funding at $4,711.35/ADA, well below the statewide average for elementary school districts.

Maintaining this disparity also works against the State’s intended objective of district unification and consolidation as it creates a penalty should any high school in the consolidation ever decide to convert to charter status.

Until now, conversion charter high schools have been predominantly limited to the Los Angeles Unified School District. If a school in LAUSD of 1,777 converts out of a district of 571,225, it comprises only 0.31% of that district’s students. The conversion of the school in LAUSD creates a loss to the other LAUSD schools of $3.05 per ADA. In our District the loss is nearly 20 times that amount.

Through this waiver, the District seeks to neutralize the financial impact to the other students of the District. This can be accomplished by having the County Office of Education deemed the Local Educational Agency responsible for the charter school for the purposes of Education Code Section 47632, and by not requiring the District to include the charter students into the District’s revenue limit calculation for the purposes of Education Code Section 47660.”

Do you think the district should call a special meeting of the BAC, so members could publicly discuss the waivers and hear each others’ comments and questions?

3 P.M. UPDATE: Here is a link to the letter originally provided to the district by the charter’s attorney, suggesting a waiver:

FEB. 23 UPDATE: Here is a link to the waiver application and attachments:

FEB. 27 UPDATE: Tonight, the school board expects to accept resignations from 64 CVHS teachers and to approve retirements for eight more: This means 72 teachers have chosen not to continue working in MDUSD next year.

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

66 Responses to “MDUSD seeks input on draft CVCHS waivers”

  1. Doctor J Says:

    Last minutes I could find of the Board of Trustees appointing members of the Budget Advisory Committee shows that almost every one of them has its term expired. So I don’t know how a non-appointed or expired committee can approve anything ?

  2. Theresa Harrington Says:

    They are not required to approve them, just to give input.

  3. Doctor J Says:

    All terms expired except for two people on the Budget Advisory Committee, and one of them is from Clayton ! I am sure the district will make up some fable about consulting with a defunct committee. Another failure in the last two years by Lawrence in not keeping the citizen advisory committees current. Of course, that was intentional, because he doesn’t like citizens knowing what he is doing or not doing. Now it comes back to haunt him once again.

  4. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Do you think it makes sense for the BAC to wait until March to discuss the waivers as a group (after the public hearing in February)?

  5. Doctor J Says:

    In a quick check of the CDE website, I couldn’t find the board advisory council review requirement so until we see that language, I don’t think we can speculate what the Board should do or shouldn’t do or when they should do it. Under the General Waiver instructions, the Site Council was to approve before it went to the Public Hearing before the Board. My guess is that would apply here since its not just Board approval, but an actual public hearing, ten days notice [that didn’t happen], and Board approval or denial. I can’t tell from Theresa’s Blog post what language is struck and what is substituted in the waiver.

  6. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The language to be struck is in brackets, like this: [xxxx]

  7. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Here are the members approved by the board in December:

    Note that the rationale states: “…many parents in the other communities in the District feel strongly that other feeder patterns should remain unaffected and the impact of this cut should be borne solely by the Clayton Valley feeder pattern.”

    Do you agree with this?

  8. Doctor J Says:

    It appears that the District is trying to cheat the charter out of the higher ADA it is entitled to by law, which is the high school ADA rate, since the waiver does nothing to provide that any other entity will make up the difference.

    Lawrence should have treated CVHS better in his first two years.

  9. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I thought the idea was that the state would make up the difference. Deb Cooksey said the district cannot waive the apportionment, so that means CVCHS is entitled to the state-mandated amount. It’s just a question of where the money will come from.

  10. Doctor J Says:

    I couldn’t find the Dec 11 agenda on the electronic bb search. But compare the two lists — what a difference ! Where in the waiver does it say where the additional allocation will come from ? I don’t think the SBE has the power to mandate the state to pay it, only to waiver certain portions of the Ed Code. I still don’t understand why the District has posted the exact language of the waiver. And I don’t understand how they think they can get by with less than ten days notice of the public hearing.

  11. Theresa Harrington Says:

    It was Dec. 13th.

    FYI, I have added an update with a link to the letter suggesting a waiver by the CVCHS attorney, in case you want to compare it to the district’s waiver.

  12. Doctor J Says:

    @TH, Sorry I was referring to Dec 2011 list. As far as the waiver goes, as long as CVCHS gets the High School ADA amount, MDHS getting a waiver is just dandy, and will probably lead to more MDUSD high schools seeking charters since MDUSD has been “shorting” them from the normal high school ADA allocation amount if they were not “unified”.

  13. **anon Says:

    I’m so confused. The district’s website indicates Feb. 22nd at 6:00 pm as the community input meeting for the proposed Strategic Plan. But the agenda on Feb. 22nd at 6:00 pm only indicates the discussion of the waivers for CVCHS. Is it me?

  14. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Actually, they are both on the agenda:

  15. Mt Diablo Jester Says:

    Wow who would have thought,

    The video we put together that predicted Gary and Co. would take out their anger on the CVHS feeder pattern is more relevant today than it was back then.

    Just google MDUSD Parody.

  16. **anon Says:

    Thx, Theresa: very disappointing that the Strategic Planning input is again on the back burner and that all the time and monies spent on the waivers regarding CVCHS have no basis and won’t make a bit of difference. CVCHS is a done deal-they need to face it. However, the Strategic Plan for this district could be a tool for preventing other high schools from going charter.

  17. g Says:

    Steven Lawrence is a scab-picking pissant!

    Alas, he moans. Heed my words, as I assure my spot at the favored right hand side, and pick at the wound yet again and again and…: “…and thus, the loss would not be borne by remaining students and families of the District.”

    $1.7 million spread out to 30,000 students wouldn’t hurt nearly as much as YOUR LOSS of at least two years @ $1.7 million of specified educational assistance funding hurt the 600 kids at Glenbrook, or the two to three years of potential loss of QEIA at Mount D.— which: OH, by-the-way, Mount D. will be receiving those same cheated and shortchanged Glenbrook kids over the next couple of years. Good planning!!!

  18. anon Says:

    Of the members listed on the link @ #7, Sherry Whitmarsh’s person is vehemently opposed to the charter and rallied her PTA to speak against it at board meetings. It should be interesting to see how this pans out.

  19. **anon Says:

    @MDUSD Jester (#17): you nailed it (sadly) in the MDUSD Parody-somehow this highly creative and talented parody has become an actual documentary on the state of affairs at MDUSD. However, the more i speak with folks in my community, the more your parody drives home that this supt and certain board members are guaranteed casualities in the upcoming elections. As Shakespeare said: “many a truth is said in jest”.

  20. **anon Says:

    @ G #17: couldn’t agree more. And the only way to get rid of the “scab-picker” is to NOT VOTE for: EBERHART, WHITMARSH, or BRIAN LAWRENCE in the upcoming election because when they’re gone, both the “scab-picker” and Rolen will be ousted.

  21. anon Says:

    Am I missing something? Applying for the waivers only means that either the County or the State would have to pay the differential funding between a high school district and a unified district. It doesn’t change the funding that the charter receives. It just brings in more funding to the district so that the additional funding that the charter receives doesn’t negatively impact the district. Is there anyone who is in this district that believes that’s a bad thing?

  22. Anon Says:

    our children are now identified as units-MDUSD “where units come first”

  23. Another Parent Says:

    I don’t see the need for a public meeting of the committee. It’s not required by law and members are free to ask for clarification from the District if they need it.

    Why would anyone be AGAINST the waiver? Approving the waiver DOES NOT mean CVCHS would get less money. It means the state would take the hit for the extra funding instead of MDUSD. This is exactly what CVCHS’s attorney suggested that MDUSD do! It makes no sense for anyone to criticize the supt. for doing this.

    It’s unlikely the waiver will be granted. No district has ever received such a waiver and given the state’s financial situation I don’t see the state granting it. But kudos to the Richards and the supt. for trying.

    Some of you will criticize MDUSD for ANYTHING!

  24. Theresa Harrington Says:

    It’s interesting that the “rationale” mentions the idea of taking the loss from the CVHS feeder pattern, which would cost nearly $497 per student. The waiver says that “many parents in the other communities in the district feel strongly that the other feeder patterns should remain unaffected and the impact of this cut should be borne solely by the Clayton Valley feeder pattern.”
    However, it doesn’t state whether the board supports this idea. Parents don’t make these decision, trustees do.
    This appears to leave the door open to a board discussion regarding taking the extra money from the CVHS feeder pattern if the waiver is rejected.
    Also, the rationale appears to blame the extra cost of educating high school students on continuation schools. While these costs are significant, the district is omitting the fact that it also spreads other costs it receives from CVHS-generated revenues throughout the district for special ed and centralized services at the district office.
    The rationale also fails to acknowledge that the amount per student that is contributed per student to districtwide costs varies widely, from 4 percent to 15 percent of high school ADA revenues. Other feeder patterns are now paying far less toward districtwide costs than CVHS. It wouldn’t be fair for the CVHS feeder pattern to take the entire hit, while the district continues to take far less from other feeder pattern revenues for districtwide costs.
    (Feeder patterns paying less than CVHS toward districtwide costs are MDHS, YVHS and Northgate.)

  25. Helll Freezing Over Says:

    TH @24:
    In regards to the claim that other parents brought up the cost to other feeder patterns (which I highly doubt was a ‘regular’ parent as had been stated when the charter trigger was first made public) – it would also be very interesting to see how many of the CVCHS students enrolling for 2012-13 are from the “other” feeder patterns; and also how many came in from the other high schools.

    The same interest goes for finding out how many CVCHS feeder pattern and high school families decided to try ‘other’ MDUSD high schools instead of CVCHS.

  26. Doctor J Says:

    @#23 An. Parent: No one has given us the link to the CDE requirements as of yet so we don’t know what is required and what isn’t. Since we haven’t seen the acutal “waiver”, we don’t know precisely what the district is requesting of the CDE. Why all the secrecy ?

  27. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Yes. The district’s rationale appears to assume that only students living in the CVHS feeder pattern will attend the school. In reality, the school has already received numerous “intent to enroll” forms from students in other feeder patterns, according to a CVCHS board member. If these students end up attending the school, those other feeder patterns would lose ADA and the charter would be serving a larger area — with the entire district potentially feeding into it.
    So, the issue is more complex than the district’s waiver states.

    Dr. J: The district should post the actual waivers with the board agenda ASAP, otherwise the public hearing notice is misleading. The public can’t give input regarding something the district isn’t letting it see.

  28. School Teacher Says:

    They specifically mention this hardship being caused by a high school converting into a charter. I think the specific word used is “penalty”. What would they do if an elementary school pursued a conversion charter? Based on how vehemently they denied CVCHS solely based on financial impact, would they embrace an elementary charter conversion because they might save the district money since they are funded at an ADA rate that is less than the blended unified rate? I get the impression from people that the way the district keeps track of funds doesn’t make it easy to follow them, and therefore allows games to be played with them. Somehow there should be an end put to that.

  29. Theresa Harrington Says:

    That’s a good point. An elementary conversion would save the district money, according to the funding rate.
    Also, ironically, the superintendent has said that the district actually spends more money per student on elementary schools because many of those teachers have more years of experience than high school teachers.
    This is why the district makes the argument in the waiver that “Comprehensive high school students are not that much more expensive to serve than elementary or middle school students due to the fact that State law mandates a single salary schedule for unified districts.”
    In truth, he could say that comprehensive high schools are not more expensive (instead of not “much more” expensive) in this district.

  30. Wait a Minute Says:

    The idea that “many parents from other feeder patterns” think that the CVCHS feeder pattern should “bear the burden” of the loss of revenue because of the charter is really COMPLETE B.S. AND RETALIATION because they are in reality a very small group of people that are personal friends of the MDUSD’s failed leaders or in other cases have simply been frightened and mislead into supporting these failed leaders strategy of diversion from our own failed decisions and blame, divide and conquer.

    This kind of poisonous and divisive tactics by the EberMarshes and Stevie Lawrence/Greg Rolen’s of this district are shameful and emblematic of the bankrupt “leadership” that is running the ship onto the rocks here.

    Just as the many dictatorial “leaders” in the Mid East are constantly trying to divert attention away from their own mafia-racket and doomed governments by blaming “outside agitators” for their failed policies as their people rise up against them so to does the MDUSD’s failed leaders try the same here as their new scandals grow by the day.

  31. Theresa Harrington Says:

    It’s unclear whether the district plans to support its contention about “many parents” with any actual evidence.
    It could, of course, cite the public comment at the CVHS hearings. But, out of more than 33,000 students, a fraction of parents actually testified or wrote letters opposing the charter. And some parents in other feeder patterns supported the charter.
    This is why it’s important to know how the board itself stands on this issue. Citing an unknown number of parents could be construed by the state as being a weak and vague argument.

  32. Doctor J Says:

    @TH#27 As far as I can tell, the District has blown the Ten Day Notice period for the Public Hearing by failure to publish the notice ten days in advance, and just yesterday the Supt’s Admin Asst directed each school to post the notice, which was just one week, not ten days prior to the meeting — and not all schools did that. Yet, the actual “waiver” remains a secret. Pittsburg didn’t have any trouble following the waiver rules last December, why does MDUSD blow it time after time ???

  33. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Most reasonable people would assume that a public notice would include the waiver, so the public has time to review it before the meeting. However, I’m not sure if that’s required.
    Obviously, the board will need to see it to consider it.

  34. Doctor J Says:

    Roller Coaster leadership ! Feb 22 Agenda CHANGED this afternoon. Adds a 4.1 Discussion — specific topic not identified. If this is about the Waiver, its way too late for the TEN DAY NOTICE. Can’t Greg Rolen and Deb Cooksey get anything right ?

  35. Doctor J Says:

    @TH#33 — I would hope someone would stand up at the Public Hearing, and say, you want comment and testimony — SHOW US THE WAIVER TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE !

  36. anon Says:

    If they want to short the feeder pattern of CVHS, then let’s make sure the feeder patterns for the High schools with the largest percentage of transfers to continuation schools bear the brunt of those higher costs.
    And, according to the 2010 public employee salary info, the Principal at Northgate makes nearly double the salary of the Principal at YVHS, so I think Northgate owes the feeder patterns of YVHS the difference.

  37. John M Says:

    Hmmm, Sifting through the legaleze it appears that the “waiver” would make the County responsible for the difference vs. the State. So, where would the funds or credits if that sounds better come from? Basically the same bucket. Mello Roos assignments ah hem assessments on local property owners would make up for any loss or financial hardship. That would be fine as long as those assessments are coming from the Town of Clayton or the attending students parents and not Concord. Oh wait, the School is in Concord not Clayton. Why is this being done again? Who will be allowed to attend CVCHS. MDUSD better take another look at the support level from staff at CVHS. I think the Board will find amidst the confusion and uncertainty, the level of support for the Charter is diminishing rapidly.

  38. Doctor J Says:

    Sleight of hand — “waiver” shows up this morning attached to Thursday night agenda to give appearance it met the “ten day” public hearing notice requirement. NOT! #5 on Waiver says Budget Advisory Committee “sent email on 2/16/12” — that’s within the Ten day period. #4 Public Hearing advertised: “newspaper” When? Where ? “Posted each school” sorry, not meet the ten day requirement. “Other (Please specify)” Not specified — wonder why ?
    Why can’t two full time school district lawyers just get it right — this isn’t the first waiver this year !

  39. Doctor J Says:

    Timeline for untimely Public Hearing set for Feb 22, 2012 on Waiver for CVCHS ADA costs.

    1. Sue Berg posted on Jan 5, 2012 #81 in topic Mt. Diablo District seeks forgiveness:
    “As the person once responsible for posting public notices of upcoming public hearings in MDUSD. . . . The notice of a public hearing must be posted in the local newspaper and at the District Office ten days beforehand. And, of course, it appears in the agenda of the meeting in which it will be held.”

    2. At Board Meeting on February 6, Supt Lawrence asked that a Waiver application for CVCHS costs be heard on February 22, and attached to the Agenda for the Strategic Plan. Since “Waivers” require “Public Hearings” “ten days notice is required to the public” as Sue Berg stated above, which would have been on or before Sunday February 12.

    3. No notice of the public hearing was published in a Newspaper by Feb 12. The district so far has failed to disclose if or when the notice was published and what newspaper, but checked the box on the waiver form posted Feb 21.

    4. First copy of the Board Agenda for Feb 22, WITHOUT the Waiver attached was emailed to schools for posting by the Supt’s Admin [recipent of Gang of Five raise] on Thursday Feb 16 — doesn’t meet the ten day requirement.

    5. Second copy of the Agenda, revised without identifying it as a “revision” is sent out via email for posting on Friday after the close of school to all schools — again doesn’t meet the ten day requirement.

    6. Tuesday morning, February 21, 2012, the “Waiver” finally gets attached to the “Board Agenda” for the meeting to be held on Feb. 22. Again, doesn’t meet the ten day requirement.

    Board members should require the Supt. to start over and follow the law in having a TEN day “Public Hearing Notice” as required by law !

  40. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Feb. 22 board meeting. The district hasn’t yet posted the audio and the agenda doesn’t show whether a vote was taken. I am still out of the office and will return on Monday.

  41. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Reminder: Friday is the deadline to submit “Intent to Enroll” forms to the CVHS charter:

  42. Anon Says:

    **Anon-Any news from the Feb. 22 Buttercup meeting? Diablo magazine reported on charters in the burbs

  43. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I have posted an update with a link to the list of CVHS 64 teachers who are resigning and eight who are retiring at the end of the year. All told, 72 teachers have decided not to work for MDUSD next year. I’m not sure how many are left to “bump,” which the district repeatedly warned about.

    However, about 24 MDHS teachers could be slated for layoffs, if the MDHS QEIA wavier falls through. It’s likely that could cause more “bumping” than the CVHS mass departure of teachers from the district.

  44. School Teacher Says:

    So much for the district’s concern about a flood of teacher’s wanting to bail on CVCHS. Makes you wonder how many of its other concerns are valid/legitimate (we still don’t know how much it REALLY costs to run CVHS, do we?).

  45. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I just spoke to Mike Langley, who told me he has been informed by the district that 11 CVHS teachers will remain in MDUSD. He said the district expressed “sound and fury” over the potential impact of the Clayton Valley High conversion on teachers at other schools, versus “almost dead slience” regarding about 22 teachers at MDHS who could be laid-off or end up impacting other schools if the QEIA grant is lost.

    “When you look at the board agenda and see all those seconday teachers (leaving through resignations, retirements or possible layoffs due to the loss of QEIA),” he said, “you’re really looking at 2-to-1 caused by errors by the district and lack of follow-through on a very important grant.”

    Langley recalled Trustee Lynne Dennler’s suggestion that all schools should have a mechanism for airing and resolving conflicts, after the MDUSD board’s CVHS charter vote. However, no one followed up on this suggestion. A few months later, MDHS voted no confidence in Principal Kate McClatchy.

    “We still don’t know what’s going on with the principal at Mount,” Langley said. “The large majority of the staff haven’t been satisfied. Everytime we try to talk to her (McClatchy) about that, we hear it’s just five troublemakers. But more than five people voted no confidence.”

    What else may be simmering beneath the surface at other sites?

  46. Doctor J Says:

    McClatchy holds an Ace of Spades of unknown (to us) dimensions and likely known by Lawrence, Eberhart and Rolen. Thus, she will be protected.

  47. Doctor J Says:

    Theresa, why hasn’t the audio of last weeks Public Hearing on the CVCHS Waiver and the Strategic Plan been posted ??

  48. Theresa Harrington Says:

    That is a very good question, which I will ask tonight.

    In addition, I have learned that Trustee Cheryl Hansen requested three other items to be added to tonight’s agenda, which were not — even though she submitted them in time. One specifically dealt with minutes and making audio recordings of meetings available to the public.

  49. Doctor J Says:

    @TH#48 Oh my. That’s enough to get some blood pressure raised — someone is trying to p.o. Cheryl. I thought she verbally asked at the last meeting for the minutes issue to be on the agenda when Eberhart objected. Verbal requests are enough to qualify under the Board By-laws and Ed Code. BTW, did you notice that the minutes for Feb 6 on pages 2 through 7 say “January 23” !! That’s what you get for the Gang of Five raise — reduced minute taking and incorrect minutes.

  50. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Hansen apparently submitted her requests in writing two weeks in advance, with no hint that they would not appear on the agenda until she saw it and noticed they were missing.

Leave a Reply