Comments on: MDUSD 9-10-12

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:24:45 +0000

Here are the Standards establish by the CSBA for School District Board members to govern their districts by. How is MDUSD doing ? http://www.csba.org/~/media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx

By: MDUSD Board Watcher

MDUSD Board Watcher — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:49:09 +0000

TH #146,

“Aren’t trustees supposed to be making decisions based on what’s best for students?”

Theresa that is the most hilarious thing I’ve ever seen on your blog. I suspect that you typed it with tonuge firmly in cheek.

This board doesn’t give a moments care to what would be best for students.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:31:02 +0000

But why wouldn’t Hansen support it? Aren’t trustees supposed to be making decisions based on what’s best for students?

By: MDUSD Board Watcher

MDUSD Board Watcher — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:25:18 +0000

My read on the whole Prop 30 refusal was that Hansen outsmarted Ebermarsh and Mayo.

I suspect the cabal of Eberhart, Whimarsh, and Mayo were going to refuse to vote yes on a Hansen motion to support Prop 30, as a way of publically humiliating her.

When Hansen didn’t make a motion, the three dumbos of the board didn’t know what to do (hence the stammering lie by Whitmarsh, “well as board president I thought I couldn’t make a motion”).

Point Hansen!

VOTE NO ON WHITMARSH!

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:43:10 +0000

That is certainly the way it appears, especially since they endorsed Prop. 38 and the one with the most votes wins.
Does this hurt Whitmarsh’s credibility when she says she supports both propositions?
I wonder if MDUSD board members have been invited to Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla’s “Yes on 30″ rally Oct. 10 in Todos Santos Plaza, featuring former MDUSD teacher-turned-state-Supt. Tom Torlakson: http://bit.ly/PBKcOy
MDEA’s invitation to the event states: “All students and teachers will take 11 furlough days this school year if Prop 30 does not pass.”
Curious that a board that purports to put “students first” would not take a position on a proposition that could prevent the loss of up to 11 school days.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:40:45 +0000

As far as I can tell the MDUSD board is suggesting we vote NO on Prop 30, given that they refused to endorse it.

By: Seriously...

Seriously... — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:26:25 +0000

@140 Theresa…I completely agree. As long as there are no consequences, MDUSD and other school districts like Poway will employ unethical and possibly illegal schemes to extract/extort cash at the expense of taxpayers. Schools must realize that although they may not have their day in court…they WILL have their day at election time suffering the consequences of a failed Prop. 30, a failed Prop. 38, and failed bond ballot measures.

By: Wait a Minute

Wait a Minute — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:49:30 +0000

I say we don’t wait on the MDUSD board majority and “Team Lawrence/Rolen” to screw up this district anymore then they already have and THROW THE BUMS OUT!

Please tell all your friends to VOTE NO ON WHITMARSH!

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:25:16 +0000

It appears that Poway felt justified because the attorney general didn’t sue the district. Maybe that’s what MDUSD is waiting for, as well.

By: Seriously...

Seriously... — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:19:42 +0000

Speaking of school bonds, a huge story broke this morning about Poway Unified’s misuse of bond premium to pay cost of issuance and prior debt. Poway Unified failed to provide any evidence or documentation showing that their use of bond premium was legitimate. If Poway can’t produce such evidence, what exactly did our Board obtain that would justify MDUSD’s use of bond premium to pay cost of issuance? See this story at:

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/education/article_2dfa8c46-05cb-11e2-b3d5-001a4bcf887a.html