Comments on: MDUSD superintendent and other top administrators hired attorney to defend against Brown Act violation allegations

By: Giorgio C.

Giorgio C. — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:22:15 +0000

@84Dr. J,
I am familiar with the BSA. It took a lot of effort to get them to come in and help clean up a problem with my own state agency. In fact, I finally had to enlist both the Feds and BSA in order to accomplish anything. They should also be given authority as they have none. They simply make recommendations, hence my simultaneously contacting the Feds. I am proud to have a letter from the BSA acknowledging my efforts as a whistleblower. They normally do not provide such a letter, but I needed it to protect myself from retaliation.

The BSA currently receives approximately 5,000 complaints per year. I do not believe school districts are part of their purview. They are responsible for overseeing the following agencies.
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/agencies

They do oversee the Dept of Ed, but not the school districts. If the CDE is not fulfilling some sort of legally required obligation with respect to overseeing the school districts, then one can make a complaint against the CDE.

We need someone tasked 100% of the time with providing oversight of our schools.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:31:29 +0000

Brentwood fires its Superintendent. http://www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-times/ci_22684669/brentwood-school-board-votes-fire-superintendent

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:25:23 +0000

More than 700 school boards have adopted resolutions asking Congress to stop sequestration, which would deeply affect education funding: http://nsbac.org/?p=1452

The MDUSD board is not one of those . Instead, it seems to be challenged just trying to keep up with its own district business.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:15:50 +0000

I can’t believe that it is proper for the district to pay for the personal legal expenses of the BIG5 in their contract issues with the district without Board authorization.

By: Wendy Lack

Wendy Lack — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:23:29 +0000

Surely the District has an approval policy for contracts and expenditures that covers both individual expenditure amounts as well as cumulative amounts to vendors — so as to avoid circumvention of authorization rules in this manner.

If not, this is a clear loophole in the District’s financial policies that needs to be plugged pronto.

It’s disappointing that the District keeps shooting itself in the foot, with one abuse after another. Perhaps the Finance Director figures these kinds of shenanigans won’t be noticed if they keep coming faster and piled higher and deeper?

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:52:30 +0000

HFO: Thanks for pointing that out. As I have previously stated, the Bay Point Master Plan Committee has met secretly, but there have been no agendas or minutes posted. Now, however, a new report by Schreder has appeared on the Bay Point Master Plan website, after nothing was posted since May of last year: http://www.baypointmasterplan.com/. Perhaps Nacht and Lewis were also involved with that.
As usual, there seems to be a discrepancy with the dates. Although the report itself is dated Feb. 5, 2013, the link to it on the website is dated Feb. 26, 2013. Maybe that’s the date it was uploaded – one day AFTER the Monday board meeting, so no one could bring it up, since they didn’t know it existed.
The Nacht and Lewis payment fell conveniently below the $25,000 threshold for board approval. Perhaps the board should consider lowering that threshold to $20,000, if it wants to be kept in the loop.
Hopefully, trustees will request a board presentation of the report, so they and the rest of the public can find out what has been going on in the secret meetings.

And speaking of secrecy, Trustee Brian Lawrence on Monday asked Julie Braun-Martin to release bios of candidates to the public at the same time the board receives them, so the public can weigh in on appointments. This means the public will know the names of candidates BEFORE they are announced and voted on. Hansen agreed that the public has aright to this information. Slowly, Brian Lawrence and Hansen are forcing transparency on the district.

And the superintendent announced some good news at the meeting: Diablo View and Foothill middle schools, along with College Park High, are all receiving site visits because they are being considered for recognition as California Distinguished Schools.

Please note that I have started uploading video clips from Monday’s board meeting to YouTube.com/tunedtotheresa.

By: g

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:45:38 +0000

HFO: We’ve spent a wad already for the Alves site. Much of it (other than the original approved Engineer agreement running nearly $200K) has been kept in increments under the $25K that comes to the board for approval.

By: Hell Freezing Over

Hell Freezing Over — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:28:56 +0000

$20,675.00 to Nacht and Lewis Architects for “Y110800 Alves Master Program” warrant date 12/07/12

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:01:52 +0000

And the district management can’t understand why the public has mistrust of the district ?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:00:14 +0000

@G#112 Funny, because at the Board meeting Steven Lawrence said the cost was exactly what the contract said which I believe was like 22,200.