Part of the Bay Area News Group

MDUSD Bay Point mystery meeting explained

By Theresa Harrington
Monday, October 15th, 2012 at 12:41 pm in Bay Point, Education, Martinez school district.

When I heard after-the-fact from a district parent that a Bay Point master plan meeting was held last week, I contacted Pete Pedersen to find out what it was all about.

In an email, he responded, in part:

“On Wednesday, October 10th we convened the first meeting of the committee exploring the Bay Point master planning exercise. This is not a Board-appointed committee but rather, is a committee that was formed at the request of the audience attending the last public master planning meeting at Riverview last year. The meeting was not publically noticed. All Bay Point sites as well as Mt. Diablo High have designated volunteer committee representatives and each of these participants was individually contacted/noticed…”

Pedersen added that the PowerPoint presentation from the meeting should be added to the Bay Point Master Planning website soon.

As of now, it still has not been posted on the site:

The previous Bay Point meeting, held May 15, also was not publicly noticed. And although the PowerPoint from that meeting is posted on the website, there are no minutes from the meeting posted, so there is no public record that this committee was formed.

The website assures readers: “Your opinion matters!” But, if only a select group of people are informed about the committee and its meetings, it appears that many people who might have opinions about the Bay Point Master Planning process could be left out of the loop.

Do you think these meetings should be publicly noticed and that minutes should be posted on the website?

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

24 Responses to “MDUSD Bay Point mystery meeting explained”

  1. MDUSD Board Watcher Says:


    In my OPINION, Pete Pedersen is only concerned with lining his double dipping pockets and protecting the golden goose.

    He cares nothing of following the law. Again this is all my OPINION.

  2. g Says:

    “All Bay Point sites as well as Mt. Diablo High have designated volunteer committee representatives and each of these participants was individually contacted/noticed…”

    Ask him one more question: How many of those “designated volunteer committee representatives” of Mt. Diablo high live in Concord?

    My educated guess is that, just like the hand picked school closure committee, you won’t find any true Concord representation.

  3. g Says:

    That site also includes a just 8 month old “DRAFT Student Resident Projections by School Boundary.”

    And yet…the District contracts him to do ANOTHER ONE?????

  4. g Says:

    I’m speaking of the District’s well financed good-buddy Jack Schreder or course~

  5. Theresa Harrington Says:

    John Parker raised questions about this contract at the last board meeting. Unfortunately, I arrived late and missed his comments, but here is Pedersen’s rationale for the contract and the board discussion that followed:

  6. g Says:

    Stutter-Stutter, and next year we’ll need another update, and the next and the next…and, well, just so long as we keep Pedersen and Schreder well funded for the next ten years or so.

    And why should the school district (which includes taxpayers for another 28,000 students) be footing the WHOLE bill for Bay Point’s Master Plan FUTURE for school needs?

  7. anon Says:

    Good Lord,
    Is Cheryl Hansen the only one with a brain on this board? Want to know how many kids are at each school? Check attendance. To spend $24,000 +, on yet another study should be considered criminal. Any study done by Shrader this year will be out of date by next year, according to their standards.
    I am so thoroughly disgusted here. Gary and Linda, I voted for you last time, and I am regretting it. Linda, if you run again, you will not have my vote.

  8. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Here is the agenda item for the contract:
    The vote was 4-1, with Hansen against.

  9. MDUSD Board Watcher Says:

    Anon #7,

    I doubt Linda will be able to run again. Lots of credible rumors of a recall Mayo campaign depending on the outcome of the election.

    Best case, Linda is relegated to the minority with Dennler and the district doesn’t have to spend funds on the recall.

  10. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I wonder how Linda Mayo would like this video, produced by PTA moms in the Walnut Creek school district to promote Prop. 30:

  11. Doctor J Says:

    The first part was soooooo Linda Mayo naive — $300 car wash is her speed. Anything to preserve her full family M/D/V benefits as a “volunteer” Board member. For the record, its to support both 30 & 38.

  12. Anon Says:

    The answer to the mystery plan is that Rolen plans on moving to Bay Point.

  13. Anon Says:

    Walnut Creek school district publicly supports the propositions

  14. Anon Says:

    So what’s up with all these meetings with only hand picked people allowed to attend?
    This is such bs.
    The district should start realizing who is paying the bill….oh wait they don’t care because there is no one who will hold them accountable

  15. Doctor J Says:

    Remember that Steven Lawrence formed his secret boundary change committee over a year ago, and it fizzled when exposed to sunlight. Instead he has found it more effective to adjust the FTE’s of teachers behind closed doors, and cause de facto boundary changes. He abhores public accountability. And when there is public accountability, he doesn’t stick around for long.

  16. Doctor J Says:

    Parent Trigger is alive and well.

  17. Jim Says:

    @16 — It ain’t over ’til it’s over. The Adelanto district can oppose the charter operator’s proposal, and then we are on new legal ground, because Parent Trigger has not yet been tested that way. I suspect that the district is out “judge shopping”, trying to find a legal angle that can be contested in a jurisdiction with judges who are more favorable to the local monopoly. I wish the parents luck, but this law was almost designed to invite legal delays.

  18. Anon Says:

    The Agenda still hasn’t posted. Must be some last minute shenanigans going on over in Dent.

  19. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The superintendent’s secretary usually sends me an email when it’s posted. For the last three meetings, the emails were sent between 5:17 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. So, it looks like it’s business as usual.

  20. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I just got the email. Agenda is posted:

  21. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Board will receive a report on SIGS:

  22. District Teacher Says:

    Dr. J, the best line in the Huff Post article is: “Parent Lori Yuan argues that ‘parents who believe that a charter is going to magically make their kids score higher, be smarter and achieve success’ will be disappointed.” 100% of the school’s students are eligible or free or reduced price lunch. And those parents are going to run the school? I can understand why the trigger was pulled at CVHS, where many parents are deeply involved in the school and are serious about deciding how to improve it. But this school takeover is a bad idea whose time will come. I wish them well, should they have their charter, but unless they cede total control to an outside concern, it will likely be a disaster.

  23. Jack Weir Says:

    The “mystery” meeting in Bay Point, which was not publicly noticed, continues the policy of behind-the-scenes activity typical of the current district board. With the notable exception of Trustee Cheryl Hansen, they persistently prefer to operate at all levels without public input and scrutiny.
    Pete Pedersen, who retired as Assistant Superintendent of Facilities to become the in-house bond project manager (the proverbial “fox in the henhouse”) has no business representing the district in master planning matters. He continues to do the dirty work Eberhardt, Whitmarsh and Mayo prefer not to be associated with.

  24. g Says:

    Jack Weir: You echo the sentiments I have been dogging for two years! Pete Pedersen is no longer a District employee.

    He is a “Contracted” individual who should have NO input or financial access on any matter other than for that which the contract was written–Project Manager for those items listed on the ballot for 2010 Measure C–PERIOD.

    We were sold a bill of goods that said if we let him run Measure C, he would save millions over what we paid the previous outside company to manage 2002 Measure C.

    He now heads a veritable “company” of “managers”, most drawn from within the district. With the exception of one or two secretaries, each person he has put on his “team” now draws Manager Salary and district benefits, and use of district vehicles without a breakdown of cost accounting.

    How do we know the cost of “replacing” those individuals at M&O? How do we know what percentage of their work is for Measure C versus normal/daily district work? Said another way; how do we know how much normal district work is actually being charged to Measure C?

    Measure C accounting is broken out to individual sites and projects making it nearly impossible to compile stats on exactly what his “company” is really costing.

    And HOW in the world did this “contract” for Measure 2010 C put him in charge of all expenditures for 2002 C, AND Prop 55, AND give him access to spend Measure A for his “company’s” little ‘extra’ needs.

    And, don’t get me started again on his “fox in the hen house” absolute monarchy over the so-called “Independent” Oversight Committee!

Leave a Reply