Part of the Bay Area News Group

MDUSD special board meeting tonight regarding strategic plan, closed session for action on dismissal of two employees and negotiations

By Theresa Harrington
Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 at 2:50 pm in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

The Mt. Diablo school board will hold a special meeting at 6 p.m. tonight to discuss the strategic plan, before going into closed session to consider and act on the dismissal of two contract employees and to act on union negotiations. The public is invited to speak before the board acts on these items. The board is expected to report out its actions after the closed session.

Here is the agenda for the meeting, which will take place in the district office at 1936 Carlotta Drive in Concord:

“1.0 Call to Order
1.1 President will call the meeting to order Info

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call Info

2.0 Public Comment
2.1 The public may address the Board regarding any item within the jurisdiction of the Board of Education of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. These presentations are limited to three minutes each, or a total of thirty minutes for all speakers, or the three minute limit may be shortened. Speakers are not allowed to yield their time. Info

3.0 Business/Action Items

3.1 Strategic Plan Action

4.0 Public Comment
4.1 The public may address the Board concerning items that are scheduled for discussion during closed session only. These presentations are limited to three minutes each, or a total of thirty minutes for all speakers or the three minute limit may be shortened. Speakers are not allowed to yield their time. Info

5.0 Adjourn to Closed Session

5.1 Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release Action

5.2 Negotiations Action

6.0 Reconvene Open Session

6.1 Report Out Action Taken in Closed Session Info

7.0 Adjournment
7.1 Adjourn meeting. Info”

Do you agree with the board’s decision to discuss the strategic plan before this closed session?

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

150 Responses to “MDUSD special board meeting tonight regarding strategic plan, closed session for action on dismissal of two employees and negotiations”

  1. Brian Lawrence Says:

    I recognize that it appears the Board is having lots of closed session meetings without results. However, when it comes to personnel matters, it is important that we take the necessary time to do things correctly. We certainly have ample recent evidence of what happens when you rush through these matters.

    If inappropriate things are happening in the District and need to be reported, if you feel that you are not getting a response through normal administrative channels, I’m always available. My email address is and my phone number is 925-526-5354. Board President Hansen’s email is

  2. Doctor J Says:

    Brian, please let me point out some “little things” — and yes the public is very frustrated because this is prime season for recruiting a new Superintendent.

    Why wouldn’t the Supt and General Counsel be present the other night for the discussion on the “Strategic Plan” ?

    Let me quote a small portion of Board By-law 9324 on “Minutes” “The secretary of the Governing Board shall keep minutes and record all official Board actions. (Education Code 35145, 35163) Copies of the minutes of each regular or special meeting shall be distributed to all Board members with the agenda for the next regular meeting. Any minutes or recordings kept for Board meetings held in closed session shall be kept separate from the minutes or recordings of regular and special meetings.”

    Who is responsible for making sure the Minutes are taken ? Steven Lawrence. And the originals are supposed to be locked up in a fireproof safe. Are they ?

    Brian, please tell me when the last time minutes of “Special Board Meetings” were kept and approved ? These By-laws are not “special” to MDUSD — they are all taken from “boilerplate” by-laws drafted by the California Association of School Boards — ironically headquartered in West Sacramento [Steven Lawrence’s last district]. Steven, Greg and Deborah have proved over and over again they are unfamiliar with them or just choose to ignore them. They are supposed to be reviewed every two years. CSBA puts our revisions every year, but tell me the last time the Board was asked to adopt a CSBA revision [other than AB1575 which was two weeks after the legal deadline.

    Minutes are to be presented and approved at the NEXT regular board meeting. Last minute Steven is more than a month behind on Board minutes. On April 8 no minutes appeared on the agenda. The last minutes to appear on an agenda were the minutes of February 25 which showed up on March 25, two meetings late. On March 11 the minutes of January 28 were presented. On Febriary 25 the minutes of January 14 were presented.


    I realize in the grand scheme of things that “minutes” might not seem like the most important thing in education, but Steven Lawrence’s habitual disdain for detail and legal requirements is really getting old. I know he delegates this to his “Gang of Five” secretary, Ms. Joseph, who is one of the persons who got a raise [albeit the smallest] but this is just another example of Steven Lawrence not knowing how to supervise and delegate — he abdicates.

  3. Brian Lawrence Says:

    Small things matter- it is like the broken windows philosophy when it comes to crime prevention. I’ll follow up on the minutes and provide a response. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

  4. Doctor J Says:

    Thank you Brian. For a mere $750 CSBA will do an audit on MDUSD By-laws to see which are up to date and which are not. I guarantee you that is much cheaper than having Greg or Deb do it ! Here is the link.

  5. Sue Berg Says:

    Yes, Dr. J, the Superintendent’s secretary was compensated three years ago with a whopping raise of $1,700 a year for having her workload nearly doubled after the Board cut the senior support position in that office. In a critical office where two of us often worked more than 40 hours a week, there is now just one.

    As the employee once responsible for attending Board meetings and producing the minutes, I know how hard it was to keep the records up-to-date when the Board met only twice a month. The current Board seems to meet weekly, if not more. The secretary is responsible for producing the agendas and minutes for each of these meetings while also responding to all the other demands of an office for the head of a multi-million dollar public organization and its board of trustees.

    Re: your comment #45:
    1) The City of Walnut Creek has long provided funding to support counselors at the Walnut Creek schools. Theresa can confirm if this continues to be the case.
    2) I take issue with the assumption you and some who attended the Pleasant Hill-MDUSD meeting state: that students transferring from PI schools need “catching up” when they get to non-PI schools. There certainly are good teachers, avid students, and involved parents at PI schools. Two of my grandchildren attend one in another district. They are at or above grade level in every subject area. Their teachers are excellent and parents actively raise funds for school supplies and programs. You, Dr J, who seem to know a lot about government grants, know that a school’s designation of PI is typically based on a subgroup’s performance, not on the majority of students. Painting all students from a PI school as being in need of “catching up” is impressionism, not realism.

    By the way, MDUSD has a great success story in a school’s subgroup performance: Bel Air Elementary closed its achievement gap last year. I’m still waiting for that good news story to get some press.

  6. Sue Berg Says:

    Dr J, #54: Sorry, can’t let that stand. A CSBA audit may identify needs for new and/or revised policies and by-laws, but the actual project to make the changes costs upwards of $10,000. MDUSD undertook such a project with CSBA’s assistance early in Gary McHenry’s tenure. The policies/by-laws fill two 4-inch binders. Staff from every department–personnel, business, curriculum, student services, special ed, maintenance, superintendent/Board–went through every page. With federal and state legislators continually passing new laws, keeping those documents up-to-date is a constant challenge. And each new and revised document has to go to the Board at least twice in order to be adopted. This task is staff- and time-intensive. In some districts, a retired administrator or board member has volunteered to manage the “policy project.” But assistance from CSBA, which has a whole department dedicated to policy maintenance, is necessary and costly.

  7. Doctor J Says:

    @SB#55 Wait until you see the STAR results this year. If they are like the “testing” you will need to see your doctor. Don’t be so cocky. I am sorry you were a victim of Gary Eberhart. You were a valuable MDUSD employee. If I was a parent of a child in a PI school, I would definitely transfer them to a quality school. I am still waiting for an explanation of why Steven Lawrence can dontate $5,000 to Academy Awards but can’t pay for classroom projector bulbs ? WTH ?

  8. Doctor J Says:

    @SueBerg#56 Its been over ten years now. Its time to get up to date. Also, its time that the Board Counsel do their job instead of spending most of their time in court on their own divorce as a result of infidelity.

  9. g Says:

    So you see Dr. J, if it costs a lot of time and/or money to enforce basic ethical standards and legal compliance maybe we should just forget it and accept the status quo.

    Likewise, I suppose no one on our sitting board should ask the County to contract with FCMAT to do a complete forensic audit to look at legal department expenditures OR personnel bribery and fraud against the taxpayers. An audit like that would cost in the neighborhood of $200K and only result in “recommendations” of collecting reimbursement of the ill-gotten taxpayer funds.

    Then again, that amount is still far less than the amount of the bribe.

    If such a Bribery case ended in either state or federal court based on Theft of Honest Services, in addition to possible criminal charges, the amount of the fraud would likely be ordered repaid either by the employee who first proposed the bribe, and the person who then accepted it, or maybe even personally by ALL persons who conspired to use taxpayer funds to pay the bribe as a means to cover-up even more egregeous claims.

    Certainly, in the case at hand, it would be much more advisable for the board to throw open the book of Ethical Conduct, come clean with the taxpayers, immediately Cease and Desist on any further bribery payments, and allow all parties involved to just call it a day.

  10. Theresa Harrington Says:

    g: What are you referring to?

  11. g Says:

    The “settlement” with Browne.

  12. Jim Says:

    @59,61 G — I think “bribe” is extreme. She was a logical candidate to sue for discrimination, so she opted for a financial settlement instead. Given MDUSD’s sloppy personnel practices, she might well have won much more through litigation than the sum in question. I’d consider it just another cost of doing business the “MDUSD Way”.

  13. g Says:

    No. First you bring suit, then you settle. Then the Board immeadiately Reports in Public Session on the Who, What, How Much of the Settlement.

    Agreeing to be “bought” before even filing suit is a “bribe.” Whether initiating or subsequently agreeing to the “bribe” to protect your own ass against possible termination for cause or being the sued party in a discrimination claim–or any other ligitimate claim–is collusion.

    Aiding in the creating a ‘cover story’, creating a ‘New job classification’, and a new ‘accounting classification’ to cover up spending $300K of public taxpayer money for an “empty chair” is Criminal Malfeasance.

  14. vindex Says:

    @brian lawrence. Thank you. Please take the time you need. Also, thank you for your openness.

  15. Theresa Harrington Says:

    g: It is interesting that Cheryl Hansen, Brian Lawrence and Barbara Oaks appear to know very little about what happened with Browne, despite Cooksey’s insistence that the board has been fully briefed about the settlement and that the previous board (including Hansen) “directed” the superintendent to enter into that generous agreement before any lawsuit was filed.
    If a lawsuit were filed, many more details would need to be publicly disclosed. Perhaps the previous board wanted to avoid that.
    And, as mentioned previously, Browne was able to tack an additional $31,000 onto her settlement claim without the superintendent even bothering to ask or inform the board about it before he signed the agreement.

  16. g Says:

    I don’t doubt that “some” of the previous board met outside the legal confines of a full board, to aid in the deception and cover-up. I think it was clear on 4/23/12 that both Hansen and Dennler had been illegally excluded from that “party” of Staff and selected Board Members.

    Later, after settlements were in negotiation, they may have been given a briefing, and did not even realise they had been illegally excluded from the initial dealings.

    Cooksey perpetuated the cover-up if she failed to provide this new board AND Hansen and Dennler with actual copies of those settlements which include “ongoing” payments.

    If this current board just sits back and takes an “oh well, what’s done is done” attitude and let’s that fraud continue unabated, then they become complicit.

    This entire issue goes far beyond the dollar amount.

    More than a couple people need to lose their jobs, and several people, both paid and elected, need to have their actions exposed.

  17. Doctor J Says:

    Has anyone checked the federal lawsuits instead of just the state lawsuits ?

  18. g Says:

    Shall I name a dozen or so?

  19. Theresa Harrington Says:

    g: But “what’s done” is not done until the board ratifies the agreement. But, you’re right, she’s being paid under the assumption that it’s a done deal and a majority of current trustees don’t seem to have any control over (or even complete knowledge about) the situation.

  20. g Says:

    Theresa, one would assume that a full board must ratify any such financial agreement. We know from experience in more than one circumstance during just the past year (deny it or not) that at least two, and probably three of the last board agreed, outside legal channels, and on more than one occasion, to take matters into their own hands.

  21. soooo frustrated Says:

    So why don’t the experts on this blog with all the answers, run for school board during the next election?

  22. Doctor J Says:

    So “frustrated” I will expect to see your name on the ballot.

  23. Watch Says:

    Soooo frustrated: watchdogs are necessary evils (or saints depending upon your perspective) to ensure checks and balances are in force in the system. You need informed and educated persons in and running the system, but you also need them outside the system to raise the red flags, challenge the decisions and the process, and keep those who are operating the system “honest”. You don’t want the G’s and Dr. J’s of the world becoming part of the system, you need them to raise awareness, and bring up issues, that others are too complacent or afraid to raise. And they have to be able to operate in a first amendment environment. Sure, it’s easier to sit on the outside and throw darts at those operating inside, but any administrator of any integrity will take the slings and arrows in stride and in balance with other information they have, and seek truth and make informed decisions in support of their constituents. You may not agree with what they have to say, but you need them on the outside nonetheless. I am thankful that they are there, doing their part to protect our interests. Time will only tell whether or not those in decision making positions have made the right choices in the interests of those they serve. And you always have the referendum process to voice your discontent if they don’t.

  24. C.s. Says:

    Dear Brian re 51. Get us a state or federal level INDEPENDENT investigator with a high level of knowledge for public funds, programs funds, etc. These same two employees are getting the most criticism and attention, somebody better start working their way through Personnel and Fiscal. Some of these people in managerial positions are mean, dishonest, and harming their departments. They have titles and matching paychecks for someone you would think has a CPA and at least a Masters. Employees will never trust the current Personnel structure. There are some people doing bad things in a bad climate but also some “must go” people. Julie Braun Martin and Lois Peterson should have been the wall that stopped some of this. Fiscal/Payroll, PLEASE don’t disrupt further or take any more attention or resources. Stop spinning and reinventing and renaming things. Get the basics down, first. Get some of the many who have left to come back and help. NEW MANAGEMENT. It has been unbelievable to watch upper management defend these people and forfeit their own jobs. It is not the sole job of Personnel help these managers save face and employment. Everybody knows the who, what and where: Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome.

  25. Doctor J Says:

    FCMAT news item today: Interesting investigation of a Supt from Monterey county for alleged use of district creditcards for his personal expenses.

  26. Doctor J Says:

    Holy Cow ! Wait until you read what is hidden under Agenda Item “14.5 Proposed Membership Reconstitution of Budget Advisory Committee” Talk about misleading the public ! “Remove Superintendent’s Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) and Gifted & Talented Advisory Committee representatives as the committees no longer exist. Keep one representative from each labor/association unit (6), one parent/community member selected by each board member (5) and the other remaining district committees: Measure A, Measure C, Community Advisory Committee (CAC) for Special Education, District English Language Advisory Committee (DELAC). The new committee participant number would be reduced from 24 to 15.” DOES THE BOARD REALLY WANT THE PAC TO DISAPPEAR ? WHAT WILL THE NEW SUPT WANT TO DO ?

  27. g Says:

    The fewer committees, the fewer people managers have to answer to, and the easier to pack in support for managers’ decisions.

    Also interesting on Every agenda, I wonder how they justify packing in hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Consent Agenda. “These Items are routine in nature…” Really???

    Then someone needs to explain how one ‘no bid now–no bid ever’ inspector can test things like the concrete pour on one campus and the electrical pull across town and the siesmic tie down on 2 modulars in two other towns all at the same time. Who’s comparing the actual construction contractors’ times against the $85/hr IOR time-cards? Yeah, she’s easy to look at and easy to work with–but someone needs to check her true Wonder Woman capabilities.

    Most of the 17 licensed inspectors in this county work with multiple and varied entities. But our ‘exclusive’ Ms. Jensen is and has been for years, Tim Cody’s “full time employee” (actually making more $$ than ANY other FTE in the district. Why? Because as Peder/Cody said: “She understands how we like to do things.”

  28. anon Says:

    I have a question about the fiscal report. There are multiple entries for Food/Meals for Empl (non conf).
    Please tell me we as taxpayers aren’t buying lunch for employees.

  29. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    Piggy backing on Anon 78. – what the hell is “suicide & self mutilation” pn page 2 of the fiscal report?

  30. Clayton Squirrel Says:

    Yes, it was a sad day when the Gifted and Talented programs were gutted at MDUSD. The MDUSD GATE advisory committee school representatives had started sharing what they were doing at their individual school sites and volunteers at other schools were beginning to try to put together those same programs at their own schools. Of course, in the classroom GATE programs could have worked the best but some some of them consisted of the GATE kids being asked to raise their hands so they could be passed an extra homework packet. One of the last meetings consisted of us being asked to modify and critique a 5 year plan for GATE at MDUSD but it was full of meaningless district speak. I think GATE started nose-diving around that time and we stopped meeting. My daughter never got a chance at Mock Legislature in 8th grade but her brother had LOVED it years before. Middle School MUN had been cut before either of them got to middle school because they couldn’t find someone to run it. Ever. For years. Our middle school started a lunchtime book club but then the librarians were cut and that died too. Scrabble Club and Chess clubs held in school libraries also suffered. Diablo View PFC started holding the college workshop for parents of middle school students that MDUSD GATE used to hold. MDUSD said it was a money loser. At DVMS it was a parent service and a fundraiser. The first year we advertised it at every MDUSD middle school and had a good turn out. The next year went well also with a new speaker. I am out of the loop now but I think DVMS still held it this year as well as their Astronomy Night (open to all). Astronomy Night is done in partnership with the Mt. Diablo Astronomical Society volunteers and is a GATE-type program that would cost the district nothing.

  31. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    Who in the district is using all the iPads and iPad Mini’s? $4178.43 for iPad Mini’s – pg 8.

  32. Clayton Squirrel Says:

    Middle School MUN had been a district wide program years ago. My college-going son was very excited to hear that Clayton Valley Charter High School will be offering MUN. I hope he heard right. That would be awesome. My son’s college has a very competitive MUN team that my son has not joined due to never being exposed to MUN before. I was just at a family gathering where 40 something’s were reminiscing about their high school MUN experiences and traveling to their local university’s law library. Wow.

  33. g Says:

    HFO–glad to see more people (finally) taking interest! Keep the Chart of Accounts up on a separate window. It will allow you to see who/what departement/school is doing the buying.

  34. PAC Member Says:

    As someone who was on PAC for many years, I want to point out that this was something that Gary McHenry instituted. While it was great to get together once a month and have access to the Superintendent, nothing of real value ever got done.

    Items that were brought up were generally site specific (i.e. Whatever the Northgate Reps wanted) and took forever to implement–if they ever were.

    Once Lawrence came in, the meetings became a way for him to talk about the budgets and other topics he thought were relevant. It devolved from a meeting where you could complain about things that would never change to one in which you listened to whatever the Superintendent wanted. I never got the feeling that Lawrence was into the whole PAC thing, but isn’t that his choice as a Superintendent? Just as it was McHenry’s to start one?

    Also, once Theresa started showing up with her video recorder and live blogging of the meetings, it made a lot of the attendees uncomfortable. We were all parent volunteers. We didn’t want to have what we said in the moment live blogged as if we were experts and in the know.

  35. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    Why is Marisol Padilla being paid $160.00 for spanish interpret 03/20/13 out if Measure C on page 57.

  36. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    Why is Marisol Padilla being paid $160.00 for spanish interpret 03/20/13 out if Measure C on page 57.

    Thanks G for the link – The acctg code is on Mairsol’s $160.00 under Measure C Bond Const:

    Site – program – function – description of item purchased

    000 – 7606 – 58 – 5890

    District wide – (# not listed) – facilities acquisition & construction – other operating expenses

  37. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    Who in the district is using all the iPads and iPad Mini’s? $4178.43 for iPad Mini’s – pg 8.

    Thanks again G – these are listed as being used by an elementary school, under the tier 3 school & library instr. grant. Program.

  38. Doctor J Says:

    This spending spree is like a horse race. Marisol gets a March 21 check for $7745 [doesn’t that exceed her contract ?] and here comes Mary Bacon heading down the stretch — $5400 check and consent item 9.11 for an additional $12,000 — remember the night Mary spent 5 or 6 hours at the Board meeting wasn’t even asked by staff to speak on her agenda item ? The only time she spoke up that night was to straighten out Steven Lawrence who tried to say the the Disproportionality committees were not subject to the Brown Act and just “local” committees — she made sure the Board knew those committees are mandated by the State Education Dept and totally subject to the Brown Act. I recall Steven being quite embarassed by it all and also can’t recall if it was Rolen or Cooksey too.

  39. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    I still want to know why Marisol is being paid anything from the Measure C Bond Construction program – why did she get paid $160.00 from this fund? What is she interpreting?

    I could not find the program number 7606 in the linked doc G provided, and the are several items paid listing that program number. I looked several times thru the doc, and just can’t find it – can anyone else?

  40. Doctor J Says:

    Administrative Regulation 6020 says one of the duties of the Supt is to: “g. Regularly meet as part of a districtwide parent advisory council to foster the participation of parents/guardians from Title I schools”. The regulation was adopted March 23, 2010 and has not been revoked by the Board, nor was it objected to by Steven Lawrence who signed off on it. Notice is says to meet “districtwide” not feeder patterns. All Title 1 schools are to be treated equally in all feeder patterns.

  41. Anonymous Says:

    Can you give us some background information on Steve Lawrence’s selection as superintendent of MDUSD? his track record? was there any opposition? were there other candidates?

  42. Sue Berg Says:

    PAC Member #84: The PAC was a well established group before Gary McHenry came to the district in 1999. He simply continued the practice of the Superintendent and senior staff meeting with parents once a month during the school year.

    My recollections are different from yours. Parents determined the agenda topics; the budget was reviewed almost every meeting. The group helped bring about several changes, including shortening the elementary parent conference period from 3 weeks to 2 and returning from PCM to a traditional math curriculum. Parents from Pleasant Hill schools, including Ygnacio Valley High, were long-time regulars. Walnut Creek and Concord had good representation, too. It was a lively, interactive group whose members asked a lot of hard questions. I took fairly comprehensive minutes, which no longer seem to be available on the District website. Copies should be on file in the Superintendent’s Office.

    The press did not attend meetings during McHenry’s tenure, and parents (and staff) spoke fairly openly.

  43. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Anonymous: Former Board President Sherry Whitmarsh told me there were not a lot of qualified applicants. I attended board’s interview of West Sacramento district administrators and community members, who all spoke very highly of Superintendent Steven Lawrence. After the appointment, rumors started to appear in comments on this blog that everything was not as rosy in West Sacramento as those interviews may have suggested. Sue Brothers has been a strong supporter of Lawrence’s, following him from his previous district to West Sacramento and then coming to MDUSD as a principal. There was no opposition to the unanimous appointment. The only trustee who appointed him left on the board is Linda Mayo.

  44. Anon Says:

    They are not letting the super go. Writing is in the wall. Too hard to replace and no good choices for interim. Too bad we can’t bet on this blog ’cause the smart $ says he’s staying. Rolen may be another story ’cause he’s easy to replace and there’s more bad conduct there.

  45. Doctor J Says:

    @anon#94 I guess you didn’t read about the 70 candidates for the Berkeley USD Superintendent ? Yeah, SEVENTY !!

  46. Anon Says:

    That’s great J but it doesn’t mean they will let him go now. Easier and cheaper to keep him through 6/14, then go for your great candidates. It’s like a football game, Board is just run in’ out the clock till summer and you all forget for awhile.

  47. Anon Says:

    J, forgot to say, let’s be real. You have 2 clear votes to let these two guys go. The hold up is CLEARLY Lawrence. He’s draggin’ his feet and stretching this out meeting after meeting. STILZl no new meeting to discuss further. He is playing all of us for fools. Like you I’d love to see change but it doesn’t take this long to decide if you want to make the decision. Lawrence has shown he doesn’t want to do it. Forget his blogs; actions speak.

  48. Doctor J Says:

    I think Steven Lawrence has been playing the Board like a fiddle — saying he is a candidate for this job and that job and if they let him go, it will take him out of the running. Do you really think he could be a finalist for the Hayward job ? The new state stats that came out today on suspensions, expulsions and truancies costing the district tons of money in ADA. Steven seems to do irrational things like tell Trustee Lynne Dennler there is no money to buy $350 projector bulbs for classrooms — and then he takes $5,000 out of the classrooms so he can give discounts to all of his employees for the Academy Awards dinner, including all of his top staff who make over $80,000 a year, but the struggling mom who can’t even afford to drive her daughter to school, would be required to pay twice as much as Steven Lawrence who makes $260,000 a year. What is wrong with this picture ? And we haven’t brought up the big ticket items like Mildred Browne and Kerri Mills — both getting paid to do the same job but only one showing up at work. Do you like that picture any better ? Its just cheaper to replace him that fight the constant battles when he stirs the pot. I guess we should mention SASS too — remember how he was going to save $50,000 a year — I would venture to say that Department has cost the district over a million additional dollars by itself, and except for the 3 SIG elementary schools last year, has been a dismal failure . Just think of the enormity of the substitute costs that G uncovered for the repeated testing assessments and data evaluations. Its one failure after another.

  49. g Says:

    Did you dig into the agenda for 4/22? THREE EEOC litigations–wow! Brooktree HOA (back again??) their last suit against the district and Northgate ended a few years ago –so what’s this one all about — the pool?

    Then I suspect that one ‘Anticipated Litigation’ is for the same person as the ‘One Certificated Employee’ but there’s no employee #–so who knows?

    And if all that legal co$t is boring–just look at that List on Item 9.3—I hope there’s no one being bought out or being over-paid for leave on that list.

  50. Theresa Harrington Says:

    There’s also a supt job opening in Byron. And I believe there were more than two dozen applicants for the Brentwood job. Jeanne Duarte-Aramas’ husband is a Hayward school board member, so I would venture to guess he is well aware of what is going on in MDUSD.
    When I was at the San Ramon PTA Legislative Dsy yesterday, I was struck by the camaraderie among the Acalanes, SRVUSD and Moraga supts. You can see video of them answering PTA questions thoughtfully and with grace, humility and a touch of humor at
    This is contrasted by the obvious tension between Steven Lawrence and County Supt. Joe Ovick, which is especially evident in their correspondence over the CVCHS costs and FCMAT report from which Ovick was excluded.
    Regarding Lawrence’s budgeting, don’t forget that he promised to save the cost of closing one school by creating a small high schools task force to look at consolidating high schools and to save additional money by redrawing the Meadow Homes’ boundaries to reduce busing. Neither of these has been done and he has never shown that the school closures and his other ideas really saved $1.5 million.

Leave a Reply