Comments on: MDUSD board meeting June 4, 2012

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 01:22:39 +0000

I have posted Lawrence’s responses, along with my original and follow-up emails: http://bit.ly/LCbPpd

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:54:45 +0000

I have received Lawrence’s response and will post it shortly. I still have not heard back from Peterson.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:07:07 +0000

@G Just because a bank robber gets away with one bank roberry, it doesn’t mean he can’t get prosecuted with the next one. I think DA Mark Peterson opened a can of worms and he is now trying to figure out how many worms are in the can. If he doesn’t pursue Eberhart and Lawrence now, its going to look like collusion and corruption, and start a federal probe — oh that could be ugly for the 2014 election. Besides, conservative special interest lawfirms like the Pacific Legal Foundation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and maybe even the First Amendment Coalition might be eager to make a test case out of Measure C.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:59:34 +0000

3% Bonus to Lawrence, the BIG5, and all other Dent and site administrators according to the secret management agreement with DMA that matches any raise or bonus given MDEA.

By: g

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:46:25 +0000

Dr. J: Really! Didn’t you understand from 2002 that “add classrooms” was the exact same thing as “buy acreage, build entire schools”! Really!

They got by with it then. Only Pedersen and Eberhart are significant as carry-overs from back then. Who do you think is “advising” Lawrence and Rolen on the subtleties of diversion tactics?

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:39:42 +0000

Here’s the announcement of MDEA’s approval of the tentative agreement: http://bit.ly/KhuWay

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:30:18 +0000

@TH#115 The lie of all lies: “acquisition . . .of certain real property . . . as set forth in the bond proposition approved at the election.” Not a word about acquisition of real property in the bond proposition. Read it for yourself: http://www.cocovote.us/getdocument.aspx%3Fid%3D332&sa=U&ei=f1_ST7ilDsqamQWuqJCFAw&ved=0CA0QFjAE&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNH9oFeKnIwtUTjPKGRaj0jqMVcmPg

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:22:39 +0000

Yes, that’s true. However, sometimes the district fails to respond to informal requests. When this happens, I follow up with a formal PRA. But I always remind the district that the initial request should have been honored as a PRA.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:20:14 +0000

Here is a great list of “legal resources” provided by the First Amendment Coalition about PRA requests. It would appear that any request, verbal or written, is considered a PRA request. http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/category/resources/access-to-records/

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:05:37 +0000

As a side note, a YVHS resident told me that Sherry Whitmarsh assured the neighbors that she would ask staff to pursue mitigation to the field lights project, if it is approved, after the board votes to approve it.

He was skeptical, so he asked her to give him her word, which she did, according to the resident.

How likely do you think it is that the board would pursue mitigation to a project after it is approved?