Comments on: MDUSD implements transportation changes without first allowing public to see report on which they are based

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 01:36:17 +0000

Here is the blog post that takes a closer look at the June 20 letter to parents, comparing it to the FCMAT report: http://bit.ly/M2m9c0

By: g

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 01:18:19 +0000

Well, if they thought their transportation report would be in Rolen’s favor, they were wrong. Being “politically correct” it did everything but come right out and say “Rolen is ‘bleeping’ up your Transportation Dept!”

They were way overly generous in leaving his name under Lawrence’s in the organization chart.

The district eliminated a Transportation Director, and a Shop Supervisor. They have clerks and Special Ed employees making routing decisions. They have no control at all over fuel or parts purchase/usage. They have three driver trainers sitting around waiting for someone to train instead of driving a route…….. All they didn’t say out loud is that much of the department from Rolen down may be a bunch of gold-brickers.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:55:42 +0000

Dr. J: You are correct that she did not get back to me. Now, I regret having mentioned the email. I should have just started asking her the questions when she called.

g: Yes, Gillaspie said that FCMAT has sent its draft Special Education review to the district and is awaiting corrections. He said it would be done in about two weeks, which means it could be presented Aug. 13, if the district is committed to transparency.

Regarding the scope, this again reminds me of what Gus Kramer told me about some people liking to surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear. Or, as appears to partially be the case with the transportation report, people who tell them the same thing as their third party legal expert.

By: g

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:54:37 +0000

When you read the “Scope of the Work” on that 4/13 contract, you will see that they pretty much used the MGT report as their “outline” of directions given to FCMAT. Shocking?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:52:28 +0000

@TH, I would assume that Carolyn Patton conveniently did not get back to you today. Par for the course or dare I say . . .Standard Operating Procedure.

By: g

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:48:26 +0000

The district has shown quite well that they put little weight on the studies they have given lip service to.

On the other hand. The contract with FCMAT was for two separate studies:

$36,900 for both reviews.
$14,700 for Transportation
$22,200 for Special Education
to be paid “…from a one-time carryover or a district donation account.”

If there is a Special Education Review in the draft of what appears to me to be no more than a Transportation Report, it would fit on one of the periods!

Look again at the contract; the “Scope of the Work” spelled out under Special Education Program Review.

Is there another Report-draft-something else gathering dust to be sprung up on Aug 13?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:47:41 +0000

FCMAT’s own website only claims “dozens” not “thousands” in the Special Ed area: “FCMAT has provided special education management assistance for dozens of school districts and county offices of education across California to help them more efficiently and effectively provide the services that special education students need. FCMAT’s expertise in this area helps districts and county offices bring improved serves to students while maximizing available funding.”

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:27:17 +0000

It appears that the district may have done its own comparison, based on the information it inserted into the parents’ letter regarding the “similarly sized district.”

In the interest of openness and transparency, the district should share its comparative data with the public — including the names of the districts.

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:18:16 +0000

Seems like just another part of the well oiled machine is still turning. An audit is an Audit. Everything should be factual.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:04:29 +0000

Here is what Gillaspie said about FCMAT’s relationship with the district:

“Our relatonship with the district is very neutral,” he said. “We’re independent. We’re external. We just say, ‘This is our best opinion.’”

He said the district is under no obligation to implement any of FCMAT’s recommendations.