Comments on: MDUSD to swear in two new board members Monday

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:50:51 +0000

Following up on what Dr. J wrote, it is better to err on the side of saying more than necessary than to say nothing at all before voting, especially on controversial items. For example, we have no idea why Trustee Lynne Dennler flip-flopped on whether or not to allow AIS to stay in the running for new translation contracts. Similarly, Mayo did not say why she wanted to exclude General Counsel Greg Rolen’s contract from the extensions that were approved. And outgoing Board President Sherry Whitmarsh didn’t explain why Mildred Browne’s contract was not offered for extension with all the others. Whitmarsh and outgoing Trustee Gary Eberhart also said nothing before voting to deny the Clayton Valley Charter High conversion. The public deserves to know why a trustee is voting a certain way or making a certain motion.

Also, as g points out, Trustees can raise questions to staff during board meetings. Often, staff members do respond to such questions. It would be enlightening if a trustee would ask Pete Pedersen to explain his rationale for lease-leasebacks tonight (instead of asking ahead of time, then leaving the public in the dark about the answer). And when trustees do get answers ahead of time, which they consider for their votes, they should tell the public what their questions and answers consisted of (as Dr. J states).

By: g

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:40:22 +0000

Do you suppose the board members know that when/if they need clarification on an Agenda Item, they may question any ‘staff member’ present at a board meeting?

“With the Chair’s permission, I would like to ask Mr. X to detail/explain/clarify Issue Y,” and then go right ahead and ask the question without waiting for the Chair to respond.

It is up to the board President to jump in (quickly) and object and explain why they object, if they see a problem–but it is NOT up to the chair to try to answer (or put their spin on) the question that was posed to the staff.

It would be really refreshing to see the Brown Act and Roberts Rules given a fair chance at district meetings.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:19:47 +0000

My biggest criticism of Linda Mayo is that she says she “asked” staff member X and received a reply so she is satisfied — without ever explaining what the question was nor what the answer was so the public cannot hold the MDUSD staff accountable nor understand what issue Linda Mayo had that prompted the question. As their Board “training” emphasized: Board members do it in public, not in private. As Shoe said in his post yesterday, lets usher in a new era of transparency and accountability. He believes Cheryl Hansen can do that best. I don’t disagree.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:35:55 +0000

As a general rule, I have noticed that many politicians fall into the trap of repeating themselves over and over again, appearing to believe that if they say the same thing enough times, the audience will get what they are trying to say (I’m talking about city council members and other elected officials, as well as school board members). It is good for all elected officials to be short, succinct and to the point.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:30:53 +0000

Oh My God G, you hit the nail on the head. It’s the droning on and on that loses everyone. By the time the horse is dead I have no idea what she was first advocating. It’s clear that she reads this blog. Hopefully she understands and can take constructive criticism.

By: g

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:19:44 +0000

The Supt (or his “Designate”) already has the ability to approve contracts (and other payouts) UP TO $25K without board approval, but only if it does not push that particular contractor’s “combined” amount of contracts for the year OVER $25K.

It’s the “Designates” and the “other payouts” you have to watch out for.

“Designate” nearly always equals Rolen and/or Pedersen; each of whom, with board approval, have made some of their favorite people very wealthy off the backs of the taxpayers.

We have the ability, finally, to have true board oversight and honest scrutiny.

I hope Mayo doesn’t throw that (her votes) away just because she doesn’t like Hansen’s style.

And a word to Ms. Hansen: Please, make your point — most people out here agree with you. Reiterate clearly if it seems absolutely necessary. But do not beat a dead horse with every argument. It’s the droning on (and on) that becomes irritating, and I believe you may have lost some arguments that you might otherwise have won.

When overly irritated, some people may sometimes vote against what would normally be their choice simply out of petty spite (think Eberhart/Whitmarsh), or those with short attention spans – prone to flip-flop, (think Mayo/Dennler) may have just lost sight of the pros and cons.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:05:09 +0000

@Anon 6
Welcome back Sherry…haven’t heard from you or Gary for awhile. Of course, you and Gary always understood and followed board policy to the letter. Of course, Gary and you were always the most congenial board members, never a harsh word, glower, attempt at intimidation, or ongoing lectures about other board members. And now, of course, you are both old news, irrelevant, and, thankfully, gone,

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:34:20 +0000

@Anon#6 – Name calling has resurfaced by “anon” — sounds familiar. As for Board By-laws and Board policy, forget the generalities, and name specific by-laws and policy and meetings so we can verify. From my observations, Cheryl ran circles around Sherry Whitmarsh, Gary Eberhart and Greg Rolen about Board By-laws and Board policies. And lets not forget Robert’s Rules of Order when Sherry didn’t even know what to do when a “Point of Order” was raised.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:05:13 +0000

WAM,

Officers are always nominated and voted on in open session. Cheryl has “sidelined” herself with her caustic character and inability to understand and follow board policy.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:13:45 +0000

Officers, by law, are nominated and elected in open session. They can’t have the elections in closed session.