Part of the Bay Area News Group

MDUSD board to meet at 7:30 p.m. tonight

By Theresa Harrington
Monday, April 22nd, 2013 at 6:32 pm in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

The Mt. Diablo school board will hold a regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. tonight in the board room at the district office, 1936 Carlotta Drive in Concord.

Here is the agenda:

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

2.0 Announcements

2.1 In closed session, the Board will consider the items listed on the closed session agenda. Info

3.0 Public Comment
3.1 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

4.0 Adjourn to Closed Session at 6:00 p.m.
4.1 Negotiations – The Board may discuss negotiations or provide direction to its representatives regarding represented employees, pursuant to EERA (Govt. Code Section 3549.1) Agency negotiators: Julie Braun Martin and Deborah Cooksey. Agencies: MDEA, CSEA, Local One M&O, Local One CST, MDSPA, and Supervisory. Action
4.2 Existing Litigation – Brooktree Homeowners Associatoin v. MDUSD and Northgate Community Pride Foundation Action
4.3 Existing Litigation – Marilyn Jamerson v. MDUSD (EEOC Cases) Three Matters #555-2010-02583, #555-2011-00290, #555-2012-00158 Info
4.4 Anticipated Litigation Info
4.5 Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release/Complaint Action

5.0 Reconvene Open Session
5.1 Reconvene Open Session at 7:30 p.m. Info

6.0 Preliminary Business
6.1 Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call Info

7.0 Report Out Action Taken in Closed Session
7.1 Negotiations Info
7.2 Existing Litigation Info
7.3 Anticipated Litigation Info
7.4 Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release/Complaint Info

8.0 Student Representatives
8.1 Student representatives will report on activities at their schools. Info

9.0 Consent Agenda
9.1 (Item #1) Items listed under Consent Agenda are considered routine and will be approved/adopted by a single motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items; however, any item may be removed from the consent agenda upon the request of any member of the Board and acted upon separately. Action
9.2 (Item #2) Minutes of the meetings of March 11 and March 25, 2013 Action
9.3 (Item #3) Recommended Action for Certificated Personnel Action
9.4 (Item #4) Request to increase and decrease Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for the 2013-2014 school year Action
9.5 (Item #5) Recommended Action for Classified Personnel Action
9.6 (Item #6) Classified Personnel: Request to Increase Positions Action
9.7 (Item #7) Fiscal Transactions for the Month of March 2013 Action
9.8 (Item #8) Award of Bid for RFP #1636 – Fire System Testing Action
9.9 (Item #9) Williams Quarterly Summary Report Action
9.10 (Item #10) Award Inspector of Record (Project Inspector) Contract Action
9.11 (Item #11) Agreement between Mt. Diablo Unified School District and Independent Contractor Dr. Mary Bacon Action
9.12 (Item #12) Award Inspector of Record (Project Inspector) Contract Action
9.13 (Item #13) Approval of Master Contract (PO#86799) with 1-on-1 Learning with Laptops, a State Approved Provider of Supplemental Educational Services (SES), to provide tutoring services to eligible students at the nine Title I schools, as follows: Bel Air, Cambridge, Fair Oaks, Meadow Homes, Rio Vista, Shore Acres, and Ygnacio Valley Elementary; and Oak Grove and Riverview View Middle Schools. Action
9.14 (Item #14) Approval of Master Contract (PO#86812) with Extreme Learning DBA Aavanza, a State Approved Provider of Supplemental Educational Services (SES), to the eligible students at the nine Title I schools, as follows: Bel Air, Cambridge, Fair Oaks, Meadow Homes, Rio Vista, Shore Acres, and Ygnacio Valley Elementary; and Oak Grove and Riverview Middle Schools. Action
9.15 (Item #15) Approval of Master Contract (PR#73278) with ! 1 A 1 ! TUTORIA !, a State Approved Provider of Supplemental Educational Services (SES), to provide tutoring services to the eligible students at the nine Title I schools, as follows: Bel Air, Cambridge, Fair Oaks, Meadow Homes, Rio Vista, Shore Acres and Ygnacio Valley Elementary; and Oak Grove and Riverview Middle Schools. Action
9.16 (Item #16) Authorization to submit a USDA Farm to School Planning Grant for Mt. Diablo Unified School District. Action
9.17 (Item #17) Authorization to submit a grant to Kaiser Permanente Community Benefit Program for the CARES After School Program Action
9.18 (Item #18) Authorization to submit a grant to the Mt. Diablo Health Care District (MDHCD) for the CARES After School Program. Action
9.19 (Item #19) Workforce Investment Act, Title II: Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Section 231 and the English Literacy and Civics Education (EL Civics) supplemental funding Action
9.20 (Item #20) First 5 Contra Costa School-Readiness Grant Action
9.21 (Item #21) Increase Contract between Mt. Diablo School District (MSUSD) and Maxim Services, Non Public Agency (NPA) for the 2012-2013 school year Action
9.22 (Item #22) Resolution 12/13-41 Day of the Teacher Action
9.23 (Item #23) Asian Pacific Heritage Month Action

10.0 Consent Items Pulled for Discussion

11.0 Public Comment
11.1 The public may address the Board regarding any item within the jurisdiction of the Board of Education of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District that is not on this agenda. These presentation are limited to three minutes each, or a total of thirty minutes for all speakers, or the three minute limit may be shortened. If there are multiple speakers on any one subject, the public comment period may be moved to the end of the meeting. Speakers are not allowed to yield their time. Info

12.0 Communications

12.1 Alternative Education Foundation – Carol Fidler Info

13.0 Superintendent’s Report
13.1 College Park Basketball Team Info
13.2 Distinguished Schools, College Park High, Diablo View Middle, Foothill Middle Info

14.0 Business/Action Items

14.1 Public presentation of the District’s Initial Successor Agreement Proposal to California School Employees Association (CSEA) Action

14.2 Public presentation of the Initial Successor Agreement Proposal for Public Employees Union Local #1 Clerical, Secretarial and Technical Units (CST) and Mt. Diablo Unified School District’s Initial Successor Agreement Proposal to CST Action

14.3 Public presentation of the Initial Successor Agreement Proposal for Public Employees Union Local #1 Maintenance, Operations, and Facilities/Transportation/Landscape/Warehouse/Food and Nutrition Services/Technology and Information Services/Substitute Custodian and School Bus Driver Units (M&O) and Mt. Diablo Unified School District’s Initial Successor Agreement Proposal to M&O. Action

14.4 Boundary Modification for Bay Point Elementary Schools Info

14.5 Proposed Membership Reconstitution of Budget Advisory Committee Action

14.6 New Members on Budget Advisory Committee Action

14.7 National Association of College Admission Counselors (NACAC) Action

14.8 Approval of Non-Public School Adjustments Action

14.9 Creation of a New Job Description for Administrator of Equity and Disproportionality Info

14.10 Healthy Schools Act Update – Pesticide Spraying Info

14.11 College Park High School Attendance Boundaries Update Info

14.12 Meeting Extension Action

15.0 Future Agenda Items
15.1 Graduation Requirements Info
15.2 Board Goals 2013-2014 Info
15.3 Mt. Diablo High School Academy Info

16.0 Board Member Reports
16.1 Board reports Info

17.0 Closed Session
17.1 Items not completed during the first Closed Session will be carried over to this closed session. Action

18.0 Adjournment
18.1 Adjourn Meeting Info”

What is the most interesting thing to you on tonight’s agenda?

11:57 pm UPDATE: Here’s a recap of what happened:

(I arrived after the report out of closed session and the student rep comments)

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

58 Responses to “MDUSD board to meet at 7:30 p.m. tonight”

  1. Jim Says:

    I have to wonder if any of the SES providers (9.13, 9.14, 9.15) have any track record of actually improving student achievement. Does anyone ever ask? Or is the district just spending those funds because they have them available and they have to show they’re “doing something”? These SES programs have become notorious all over the country for offering trendy, useless programs from favored contractors.

  2. Theresa Harrington Says:

    If you have time to watch the video, I’d highly recommend watching Willie Mims’ public comment regarding pesticides. He had the board practically falling out of their seats laughing.

  3. Doctor J Says:

    Steven Lawrence might think about this job that didn’t get filled.

  4. Wait a Minute Says:

    Honestly Dr J,

    S Lawrence might want to think about retiring because its my feeling he is virtually un-employable as a superintendent in at least CA now. I understand he is the butt of many bad jokes at the State Dpt Ed.

    If the board is giving him time to find another job it could be a very long wait.

  5. g Says:

    Watchdog Alert: John Parker has tried to bring the issues to light on the Lease/Leaseback phony non-bidding, and more recently the IOR contracts.

    First problem is, John is a gentleman and far too polite at BOC meetings and at the podium — and he gets NO help from anyone else on the BOC who should be seeing the same problems.

    Second problem is, the old board was crooked, and the current board is easy–and either can’t or won’t come right out and say “that doesn’t make any sense” when Pedersen and now Cody fabricates responses.

    There are only 720 hours in a 30 day month (528 hrs M-F).

    Just since Jan 28th, three no-bid IOR contracts have been issued totalling $437,000.00.

    — @ $85.00/hr that’s 5,141 hours. Feb-Aug months only have a total of 5,064 hours (24hrs per day).

    So, even if there were NO unfinished jobs overlapping from prior to Jan 28th– and NO new ones added from now till August– ONE inspector would have to work 24hrs/day – 7 days/wk non-stop, and still could not complete the job/bid price.

    Even if ONE Inspector sub-contracted with TWO other qualified Inspectors, (which is not permitted per some of her contracts) that would mean THREE people working 8hrs/day – 7 days/wk, not-stop for 7 months and still, they could not complete the job, considering the bid price.

    Does Alisha Jensen have an Architect degree, a CCCo. Business license, or a CA Contractor’s license, Worker’s Comp and Bond, which would allow her to hire and payroll for qualified subs, assistants, or even clerical help?

    One of my points is; since an IOR needs to be on the job site MOST of the time during ALL jobs/work being done, THE HOURS CONTRACTED are impossible.

    Another point; with all of the work being done, and considering it is active simultaniously on various sites spread out across the entire 150 mile network, ONE person, TWO, even THREE cannot do the job without fudging the inspections and the paperwork.

    Recommend reading Exhibit “A” to see what a job entails:

    Are we saving money going with one IOR as Lead IOR? Maybe–because hiring four or more inspectors might cost more. But at least the inspection process could be done properly. With so many modulars being built, and knowing they are constructed using Glulam, a “special” certification is needed to inspect the glue-laminated wood product on EVERY project, multiple times. Did you know that the amount of glue used/permitted is dependent on the climate of its final destination? When that process is skipped, you end up with issues like we have at Delta View and maybe other sites; excess moisture penetration–Mold–bad air– and the added costs of special inspections and remediation.

    Alisha Jensen is not certified in Glulam inspection.

    Another point; John fed the board the ideas, so– the board asked, “WHO chooses the inspector?” Cody said “The Architect puts the IOR name on the plans.” What does that have to do with ‘choosing’? Someone on the board should have at least had a WTH look on their face.

    The choice, the contract, is NOT with the architect, NOT the engineer. The Construction Manager chooses, contracts with AND pays the IOR. The A/E and the Contractors merely collaborate when the IOR signs off on the drawings and the construction. Certainly if you have an architect or builder who says they don’t like working with Inspector X, that could influence the choice–but that is as far as it goes.

    The board asked “HOW do we know what kind of inspector we need?” and got a schpiel about how DSA is going to change to a “card” system. That has nothing to do with the job requirements, it merely makes the paperwork more streamlined. Again, no board saw this as a non-answer.

    Finally Dennler asked “If the Architect chooses them, what do we have to do with it?” and she got a ‘smirk’ and the reply, “We get to pay them.”

    The board asked “HOW do we know what the cost of the IOR should be,” and the reply was “I generally figure about 2% of the contract price.”

    What does that mean if the BFF no-bid contract price was inflated to begin with?

    Has anyone ever compared the contract bid prices to the DSA Tracker prices listed? Good luck trying to sort out that mess.

  6. g Says:

    Sorry– while that was a great link. The Exhibit ‘A’ that I referrenced is here:

    Cody took info from that first link I gave and broke it down into multiple proposals to the board — to make it look less shocking, I suppose.

    Bottom line is, I suspect no one is getting $85.00 per hour on the job. But someone is getting more like $185 (or who knows what) per hour actually worked.

  7. Doctor J Says:

    Can’t we compare one of her contracts with other districts ? Or compare other inspectors contracts with other districts ?

  8. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Here’s my story about the meeting, focused on the boundary changes:

  9. g Says:

    Dr. J: I’m glad you asked. Where, besides MDUSD, except one job at Peralta has Alisha Jensen worked in the past several years. If you were making a half million or more a year off one district, would you be looking for more work?

    For another example, from a real company with varied experience (admittedly a couple years old) have a look at this agenda with all attachments from Santa Rosa.

  10. Doctor J Says:

    @G#9 Yikes when you read how professionally Santa Rosa District did their RFP with sealed envelopes, gave a complete report to the Board, it makes our Board look like amatuers being snowed by Pete Pedersen and now Tim Cody’s mysterious methods. It just doesn’t take that much more staff work to do it professionally to give the taxpaying public confidence their tax dollars are being spent wisely. Is there any trust left in this district administration ? Board, lets fix it instead of just being head nodders. If you get incomplete reports, phoney excuses, tabled the item and make them do it right. After a few times, they might get it or get out.

  11. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Dr. J: Speaking of doing things professionally, neither the pesticides PowerPoint nor the CPHS boundaries PowerPoint were posted before the meeting, leaving the audience with virtually no info ahead of time. Although Trustee Brian Lawrence asked about the first one, no one asked about the second one. Staff appears to need to be reminded constantly to post PowerPoints ahead of time. Also, the previous Bay Point plans should have been attached to the Monday agenda. The public shouldn’t have to hunt all over to find out what is being discussed.

    Anon is Good: Mayo said:,”Fiscal services has a place in everyone’s heart because they prepare their checks.”

  12. Doctor J Says:

    Brian Lawrence must be busy because we still don’t have any posted approved minutes on the Board agenda website.

  13. g Says:

    Without this blog, the board members would not even notice missing items from the website.

    Is it too soon to point out that they approved a ‘new’ position for Director of Equity, without even asking how much of the SpEd 15% would be spent on yet another talking head? After five years of knowing of the problem, three years of knowing it was serious, one year of knowing it was so outrageous they were ordered to take funds from the very neediest, youngest students to try to fix ongoing poor management—.

    At last, they have what they wanted— a nice fresh allotment of fund$ to feed their machine. Let the kids eat cake.

  14. hOLD THE MAYO Says:

    Do not trivialize what the employees have been through under Richards and continue to go through. We don’t want your heart. We need your level head to do the right thing and clean out these managers and potentially prosecute them if found to be colluding, mistreating, job abandonment, ignoring racial slurs etc. There are managers who refuse to speak with or help the very workers they are paid to support. I don’t want to hug it out. Do your job.

  15. Theresa Harrington Says:

    G: I was very surprised that no one asked what was being cut to create that job. They only asked which funds the money came from. Someone should have asked what that money has been funding that will no longer be funded.

  16. ret3ver Says:

    @Hold the Mayo: It seems people are oblivious to what has happened to employees under Richards….The managers need to be cleaned out and get some that will do their job which is supporting the people they are there to manage!!..Why do we continue to pay their salaries????

  17. g Says:

    From day one of the Equity ‘Team’, all that has come out of the ‘planning’ is a rehash-reshuffle-regurgitation of Mary Bacon presentations over many years– with updated RtI and our stats inserted. Even a cursury look at what she has presented at seminars, and in her writings shows what would have been remarkable plagiarism if they hadn’t brought her on board at her very hefty pay rate to validate what they fed us on 1/28.

    What it comes down to is that they really cannot cut anything from SpEd mandated programs. General Ed has been supplimenting SpEd and so in the end, the 15% $1.1million will just be an added cut from some General Ed programs.

    Despite the growing numbers of managers and SASS who have not had success in any form, from day one the $1.1million was earmarked to hire 5.3 people who would ‘begin’ to ‘try’ to ‘start’ the Program, with an additional 2-3 year timeline. That should just about eat up the funds.

    When they can no longer just ‘begin to try to start’–and have to actually show progress– I’m sure they hope it will be like everything else in the past. There’s always another $upplemental Program coming.

    Failure Pays. (Salaries)

  18. Wait a Minute Says:

    If Bryan Richards, Deb Cooksey, Greg Rolen, Stevie Lawrence or any other managers are using/tolerating ANY ETHNIC SLURS in the workplace then anyone with knowledge can report this to the Federal EEOCC as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    See here for how to file a Charge of Discrimination.

  19. Wait a Minute Says:

    Sorry that was the wrong link for filing a Charge of Discrimination, try this:

  20. S Says:

    G – It is not taking away from Sp. Ed. The Equity problem is within Sp.Ed. It is state mandated. The district has no choice. The person hired will be righting the wrongs. You call him/her a talking head before you know anything. This is a long time coming all across the nation and is a vitally needed job. I personally have a passion for seeing this issue fixed and know a lot about it.

    Theresa – no final decisions have been made about the state mandated reallocation of funds. Only that it must happen. But as kids are exited from Sp. Ed. because they were identified for it inappropriately (though not maliciously) the costs should come down to cover. Short run it will have an impact. Long run, ideally, it should right itself.

    I would like to ask a question. Has anyone made a list of the “crimes” which warrant firing Lawrence? I really can’t find what specifically people are upset about, only that they are upset. Richards as well. Rolen is the only one I have seen specifics on.

  21. g Says:

    WAM– Did you notice on Monday’s agenda that there were three EEOC cases in the Litigation section? Someone apparently already knows what they don’t have to tolerate.

    We just don’t know if they’re from Dent or not.

  22. Wait a Minute Says:

    I can’t imagine how expensive it would cost the district to try and fight the EEOC if thats what they intend?

    Of course, not fighting it and complying will also have its costs.

    Meanwhile, why is it taking the Board so long to dismiss Rolen and S. Lawrence???

    Remember, those dismissals should only be the first in the necessary clean sweep of the corruption, incompetence, and apparently prejudice within the ranks of senior management.

  23. Theresa Harrington Says:

    S: Thanks for this clarification. The question remains: What is the short-term impact? And of course, it remains to be seen if the district will be able to exit students from special ed to cover the cost in the long run.

    Regarding Lawrence: The board appears to believe there may be reasons to dismiss him, but no one has alleged that he has committed any crimes, to my knowledge. Trustees have mentioned low employee morale and a general distrust of the district as a reflection on his leadership. The board unanimously approved Richards’ contract, so his job appears secure.

  24. Theresa Harrington Says:

    MDEA has released the names of finalists for Academy Awards:

    Laura Clack, Sequoia El.

    Mindy Schroeder, Fair Oaks

    Erica Shaw, MDHS

    Jory Sydlaske, Horizons

    Mary Anne Shaw, College Park

    Jojo Miguel, District Office

    Alice Conover, Foothill

    Kirk Wetterholm, Foothill

    Jeannie Duarte-Armas, District Office

    Christine Ulrichsen, Crossroads

    Gerry Barrera, Sun Terrace

    Charlie Litten, Foothill

    Dr. Verna Ogden, Sequoia El./Northgate

    Sandy Davis, MDHS

    Liz Kim. Strandwood

    Heidi Brown, Mt. Diablo El.

    Aida Attiga, Sequoia El.

    Gwendy Longyear-Hayden, Delta View

    Jennifer Risken, Sequoia El.

    Debbie Hermens, District Office

    Mike Noce, Foothill

    Ricardo Pinzon, MDHS

    Diane Coventry, Hidden Valley

    Dan Reynolds, MDHS

    Dr. David Franklin, Sequoia El.

    Cindy Gershen, MDHS

    Liz Mangelsdorf, Sequoia Middle

    Sandy Johnson-Shaw, MDHS

    Carlene Hunt, Horizons

  25. g Says:

    When all we can see is an empty chair with 18 months of pay and benefits tied to it, and creative accounting methods to disguise it, we can’t help but believe there is more than one crime lurking in the shadows.

    Yes ‘S’, correction of disproportionality has been a long time in coming…with far too much time spent ignoring it, thinking about it, talking about it, planning to fix it. While the 1/28 presentation says ‘we learned in 2010’… they really were first advised of a need to get busy and fix the problem in 2008.

    How many kids did they lose the chance to help in the last 5 years?

    They lost however many it would take to get a funding mandate. Now, at last… a plan is on paper, hiring has begun… can training and catered lunches be far behind?

  26. Doctor J Says:

    Breaking News — Special Closed session for tomorrow April 25 — agenda not yet released to public.

  27. Doctor J Says:

    Anyone seen the Budget Advisory Committee Agenda for tonight’s 5:00 pm ? I would say another Last Minute LuLu.

  28. g Says:

    Very interesting Agenda tomorrow.

  29. Doctor J Says:

    Triple Header. Looks like the first employee up is for “info” and the second employee is for “action”; then we have the Time PRA for “action”. Or is this just another “fire drill” ?

  30. Doctor J Says:

    Here is the quote from the agenda — sorry for the double post
    3.1 Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release/Complaint Info

    3.2 Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release/Complaint Action

    3.3 Board Response to the Public Records Act Request of the Contra Costa Times Acti

  31. Wendy Lack Says:

    Here’s the link to the 7:00pm April 25th closed session agenda:

  32. g Says:

    The devil is in the details. That second item has 4 employees.

  33. Watch Says:

    As I read the agenda, under 3.1 the board is considering information regarding a personnel matter. (It could be a complaint or report.) Under 3.2, there are two certificated employees, Lawrence by number and Rolen by number.

  34. g Says:

    Whomever published the agenda should get a one day suspension without pay for not being more careful. They took the dirty laundry down, but not before some of us saw it.

  35. Anonymous 4 Says:

    23 TH: There’s low morale at MDHS under McClatchy’s “leadership.” Things have gotten worse.

  36. Doctor J Says:

    @G, I haven’t found any Government Code section that prohibits a school board from holding an open session about discipline of an employee, including dismissal. In fact Board By-law 9321 gives the Board the choice of holding the disciplinary action in open session rather than closed session by only requiring that the Board “may” [not required to] hold the disciplinary action in closed session. If I am wrong, someone speak up.

  37. g Says:

    Dr J: You are entirely correct. All codes indicate that personnel matters May be held in open session. In fact, they thought it an important enough matter that it says that if a complaint is brought against someone, they may insist that the board hold the action in open session so that they may openly confront their accuser.

    I’d pay for entry to one of those sessions!

  38. Doctor J Says:

    @G#37 A district wide fund raiser. Brilliant. But public flogging is just not my style. I would hope the Board announces the charges and punishment, so the word is passes around the district. Both of these violations are according to Board policy required to be taught by the Supt — once again if you don’t read the by-laws how would you know. 🙂

  39. g Says:

    OK. In this case, no flogging, no names of offender or school. Also agreed; the offense, policy violated and the full ‘range’ of possible penalties all should be announced openly as a learning tool.

    When do you suppose either of the accused were last, if ever, required to acknowledge full understanding of these ‘common sense’ policies.

  40. Anon Says:

    I found online that Gov. Code 54947 allows the board to consider personnel matters in closed session. In the Brown Act manual I found online, the court cases encourage boards to hold these matters in closed session. They say the purpose for the closed session is not to publicly embarrass the employee. There may also be confidential information to be discussed by the board in considering the dismissal. They also say it would not be wise for the board to present such information in open session.

  41. g Says:

    Yes, it is ‘allowed’. I hope you went on to read the manner in which the board is ‘required’ to report out on these matters, including who voted yes and who voted no any time money is involved.

  42. Anon Says:

    G 41, I am glad you mentioned that! I did read about the reporting out requirements, and am baffled at the lack of information reported out. But maybe money has not been involved yet?

  43. Hold The Bologna Says:

    Steven Lawrence was just a rubber stamp for Bryan Richards. Mr. Richards and company need to go. Get these employees a federal attorney with some expert in public funds and schools and you will see employees past, some way past, present hopefully tell them enough to get somebody prosecuted. We need to get rid of the now famous mom-agers, people who were given outrageous positions and salaries, given their job duties, all to be part of Richards little club. These people have acted like high school girls and gotten away with it. There is a power vacuum in Payroll which has led to numerous problems but the good news is that there are many, many qualified candidates out of work. There would be a turnaround within weeks if you get someone who is there to do the job and not further some personal agenda or vendetta. The focus is off the district, sadly. Get a balanced, knowledgeable, reliable person, happy to be employed and does not mistake our district as their personal sand box. All of these jobs Richards exalted to a shameful level, moving his friends and supporters under the fiscal umbrella, letting them mistreat employees and act as managers…..all of them need their jobs and salaries reviewed and the board needs to ask the question: why do we need these people? There is a case of open racism they are ignoring. I do not feel any federal funds should come to this district until this person is gone. Get us a federal prosecutor.

  44. Anon Says:

    Oakland just hired one of their board members to be superintendent. Do you suppose Mrs. Hansen will try her luck in that position?

  45. Wait a Minute Says:

    Hell no, Cheryl Hansen is way to classy to do that.

    In any case, Mrs Hansen is retired, so there is no way she could be a permanent superintendent.

  46. Wendy Lack Says:

    An exciting case to watch:

    “Leaders of a deeply troubled Pennsylvania school district are considering a plan to convert all of its individual schools into charters beginning next fall – an immediate and sweeping change that’s never been attempted before in American K-12 history.”

  47. Wendy Lack Says:

    Important bond oversight conference May 10th in Sacto, sponsored by California League of Bond Oversight Committees, will feature State Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan (

    Details at:

  48. Doctor J Says:

    @Wendy#46 Talk about thinking out of the box ! Just think how much more money would hit the classroom if Dent were shut down — granted there would still be some “overhead” money but the charters are much more efficient at that. Jim, think of what the competition would do ?

  49. Doctor J Says:

    Theresa, are you covering the Special Closed Session tonight ?

  50. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Yes, they just went into closed session with Julie Braun Martin to discuss the first item. Hansen said the second item involves four employees. There was no public comment. Felicia Stuckey-Smith, Braun-Martin and Joe Estrada were the only employees here. Estrada is recording the open portions of the meeting, but he is not livestreaming. There is a man who may be an attorney here in the audience, but no one else except me. Braun-Martin told Hansen, “He said I could go first.” Not sure who she was referring to, but it might be this man, who is leafing through papers as he waits.

Leave a Reply