Part of the Bay Area News Group

MDUSD board to get disproportionality update and appoint more admins Wednesday

By Theresa Harrington
Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 6:25 pm in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

The Mt. Diablo school board will meet at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at the district office at 1936 Carlotta Drive in Concord. Here is the agenda, which includes a report on disproportionality, a resolution regarding the interim general counsel and other appointments:

“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. Info/Action
4.2 Existing Litigation – Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) regarding matter of D. Reynolds v. MDUSD Info/Action
4.3 Existing Litigation – Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) regarding Chester C. Lehmann Co., Inc. v. MDUSD, CCC Super. Ct. No. MSC 13-06811 Info
4.4 Anticipated Litigation – Significant exposure to litigation or claims made pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) Info
4.5 Anticipated Litigation – Significant exposure to litigation or claims made pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) Info
4.6 Anticipated Litigation – Significant exposure to litigation or claims made pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) Info
4.7 Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release/Complaint – Dismissal of Classified Employee 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/Action
7.2 Existing Litigation – Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) regarding matter of D. Reynolds v. MDUSD Info/Action
7.3 Existing Litigation – Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) regarding Chester C. Lehmann Co., Inc. v. MDUSD, CCC Super. Ct. No. MSC 13-06811 Info
7.4 Anticipated Litigation – Significant exposure to litigation or claims made pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) Info
7.5 Anticipated Litigation – Significant exposure to litigation or claims made pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) Info
7.6 Anticipated Litigation – Significant exposure to litigation or claims made pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) Info
7.7 Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release/Complaint – Dismissal of Classified Employee Action

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

9.0 Board Member Reports
9.1 Board reports Info

10.0 Superintendent’s Report
10.1 Superintendent’s Report Info

11.0 Consent Agenda Action
11.1 (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
11.2 (Item #2) Recommended Action for Certificated Personnel Action
11.3 (Item #3) Recommended Action for Classified Personnel Action
11.4 (Item #4) Classified Personnel: Request to Increase Positions Action
11.5 (Item #5) Request to Increase and Decrease Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for the 2013-2014 School Year Action
11.6 (Item #6) Fiscal Transactions for the month of December 2013 Action
11.7 (Item #7) Approve contracts with Kevin Clark Consulting and Training for coaching services provided at Rio Vista Elementary. Action
11.8 (Item #8) Approval of contracts with Camp SEA Lab for Ayers Elementary School and Westwood Elementary School Outdoor Ed Programs Action
11.9 (Item #9) Approval of contracts with Exploring New Horizons (ENH) for Silverwood Elementary School and Woodside Elementary School Outdoor Ed Program Action
11.10 (Item #10) Approval of contracts with the YMCA at Camp Arroyo for Meadow Homes Elementary and Rio Vista Elementary Outdoor Ed Programs Action
11.11 (Item #11) Independent Services Contracts for The Event Group, Inc. and Northgate High School Action
11.12 (Item #12) Increase contract with Document Tracking Services (DTS) to include Spanish translation of Single Plan for Student Achievement for Ygnacio Valley High School. Action
11.13 (Item #13) Adoption of Abriendo Paso (Pearson Publishers) and Azulejo (Wayside Publishers)for AP Spanish & Temas (Vista Higher Learning Publishers) for Honors Spanish Textbooks Action
11.14 (Item #14) Approve submission of the After School Education and Safety Renewal Grant for fourteen elementary and middle schools and a new ASES grant for Westwood Elementary School. Action
11.15 (Item #15) Request to increase Purchase order for VeCare Health Services Action
11.16 (Item #16) Request to increase Purchase Order #87733-14 to Sabah International Inc. Action
11.17 (Item #17) Notice of Completion Bid #1638: Weight Equipment Procurement at CVCHS Action

12.0 Consent Items Pulled for Discussion

13.0 Recognitions

14.0 Public Comment
14.1 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

15.0 Communications
15.1 District Organizations – At regular Board meetings, a single spokesperson of each recognized district organization may make a brief presentation following the Consent Agenda. Items are limited to those which are informational. Info

16.0 Reports/Information
16.1 Update on revised Corrective Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Plan Info

17.0 Business/Action Items

17.1 Resolution No. 13/14-28 in the matter of employment of retired classified employee Lawrence M. Schoenke. Action
17.2 Classified Personnel: Appointment of Educational Consultation and Behavior Management Specialist Action

17.3 Appointment of Vice Principal, Middle School – Sequoia Middle School Action

17.4 Award of Inspector of Record (Project Inspector) Contract for MDUSD Project 1663 Portable Replacements & MDUSD Project 1664 MS General Science Buildings. Action

17.5 Approval of Extension of 2012-2013 Single Plans for Student Achievement (SPSA) through May 2014 Info

17.6 Meeting Extension Action

18.0 Future Agenda Items
18.1 Future Agenda Items Info

19.0 Closed Session

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

20.0 Adjournment
20.1 Adjourn Meeting”

I’m happy to see the Powerpoint for the disproportionality report is already attached to the agenda. However, as usual, there are no meeting minutes to approve.

Do you think the board should require the superintendent, as secretary of the board, to produce minutes of the meetings (or to ask her staff to produce them)?

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

98 Responses to “MDUSD board to get disproportionality update and appoint more admins Wednesday”

  1. Doctor J Says:

    Maybe someone should ask the County Supt of Schools for copies of the annual report by each school board due July 1 to the County Supt of Schools. Would be very interesting to see what they say for the last 5 years. Education Code
    35025. The governing board of any school district may employ a person not a member of the board to act as secretary and bookkeeper for the board, and may delegate to such secretary the duties prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (c) of Section 35250.
    35250. The governing board of every school district shall:
    (a) Certify or attest to actions taken by the governing board whenever such certification or attestation is required for any purpose.
    (b) Keep an accurate account of the receipts and expenditures of school moneys.
    (c) Make an annual report, on or before the first day of July, to the county superintendent of schools in the manner and form and on the blanks prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
    (d) Make or maintain such other records or reports as are required by law.

  2. Doctor J Says:

    Why is there any question ? Education Code 35145: All meetings of the governing board of any school district shall be open to the public and shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. All actions authorized or required by law of the governing board shall be taken at the meetings and shall be subject to the following requirements:

    (a) Minutes shall be taken at all of those meetings, recording all actions taken by the governing board. The minutes are public records and shall be available to the public.

    (b) An agenda shall be posted by the governing board, or its designee, in accordance with the requirements of Section 54954.2 of the Government Code. Any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction pursuant to Section 54960.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that any action taken by the governing board in violation of this subdivision or Section 35144 is null and void.

    (Amended by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1452, Sec. 196.)

  3. Doctor J Says:

    Dark cloak of secrecy continues by Julie B-M on disclosing names of prospective administrators — even though such information is already delivered to the Board.

  4. g. de la verdad Says:

    RE: 35250 (a). As current in-action of the board currently stands, if the public wants to verify what happened during a meeting they must play through 3-4 hours of video. Video is good, but the law does not require that it be saved for more than 30 days.
    Does the board actually plan to watch a year’s worth of 3-4 hour tapes to ascertain whether the Minutes of each meeting are accurate enough to certify them?

  5. tmharrington Says:

    What minutes? Are you referring to the Board Action Summaries? Those aren’t even board approved.

  6. tmharrington Says:

    Hopefully, Trustee Brian Lawrence will continue to push for transparency on this.

  7. tmharrington Says:

    From 6:30-9 p.m. tonight, YVHS is hosting a “Cash for College Workshop” workshop: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_24903978/upcoming-cash-college-workshops-give-details-financial-aid

  8. g. de la verdad Says:

    No. Keeping thorough minutes is required by law. I’m guessing that minutes have indeed been kept. But to approve them for a permanent record, the board is going to have to (also) watch videos before they can become legal records.

  9. Wendy Lack Says:

    Wait! Are you saying that the MDUSD Board suffers from the same disease plaguing the City of Pleasant Hill? http://bit.ly/1d3JTUZ

  10. g. de la verdad Says:

    I would suggest there are board members who neither take notes nor have total recall. What would they do if someone walked in and asked for a copy of minutes of 12/11/13? As to the problem in PH, I would suggest someone look closely at morals/ethics clauses. https://twitter.com/kimlehmkuhl

  11. Brian Lawrence Says:

    Action has already been taken on getting the minutes up to date. I’ll ask the Superintendent to give an update in her report. Thanks.

  12. tmharrington Says:

    Brian, Glad to hear it. Thanks!

  13. tmharrington Says:

    Expect MDEA to be out in force for tomorrow’s meeting: http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102938290270-397/Mediation+Update+%231.pdf

  14. Doctor J Says:

    Brian, how about a report on how the facility repairs identified in the Williams September inspections are coming. Have they all been completed ? If not, why not. Its been 4 months since the inspectors identified them, and of course the school personnel knew they were there the whole time anyways. http://esb.mdusd.k12.ca.us/attachments/084c9573-fa3e-4ffd-9003-a024f55aceff.pdf

  15. g. de la verdad Says:

    Considering minutes disappeared nearly a year ago, it would seem there was inadequate oversight and/or faulty advice given by more than one “interim” office. Let’s hope the inadequate representation doesn’t carry over into far more reaching, and expensive, litigation advice.

  16. Doctor J Says:

    MDEA’s suggestion of a strike is all bark [actually more of a yap] and no bite. Its not taken seriously by anyone and frankly hurts their cause. If they really want to show their muscle, they would do a one day strike just to show the district they are serious and have unity.

  17. Doctor J Says:

    Actually maybe Loreen Joseph should be asked to return some of her Gang of Five pay for supposedly doing the minutes up to date. I don’t think she left until the end of April 2013 after the Supt and Gen Counsel were fired.

  18. MDUSDnomo Says:

    Unbelievable that PH would keep this “woman” on and representing their city. They obviously know she’s sending “minutes” out through twitter and in the midst of her bad language, family laundry and more – it’s dispicable.

  19. Doctor J Says:

    No record of actual Site Council Meetings with noticed Agendas and published minutes to support Lori O’Brien’s assertion in Board agenda item 17.5. Just take a look at the Northgate High agendas and minutes — they don’t meet the requirements set by Lorie: “• A clear vote by School Site Council (SSC) to extend the plan (with or without minor modifications) through 2013-2014 • SSC minutes must include explicit information of the review process and questions raised relative to the plan effectiveness”. I didn’t even need to look further at other schools with this glaring error. Is this another “wink and a nod” ? Can you find those votes required in the agendas or minutes for Northgate ? http://northgatehighschool.net/AboutUs/SiteCouncil/tabid/623/Default.aspx

  20. Doctor J Says:

    Trustee Lynne Dennler tardy again. Seems that it is becoming a habit of hers since she announced she would not be running for re-election.

  21. Doctor J Says:

    BANG Public Records suit set for hearing on March 19. Who will be exposed in MDUSD management ? on the Board ?

  22. tmharrington Says:

    I see Dr. Meyer has set up some community meetings to discuss LCAP, starting Jan. 28: http://www.mdusd.org/NewsRoom/Pages/CommutyMeetingswithDrNellieMeyer.aspx

  23. tmharrington Says:

    MDEA plans to leaflet parents at district schools about contract impasse and possible strike: http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102938290270-399/Mommy+(1).pdf

  24. tmharrington Says:

    MDUSD is seeking Teacher of the Year nominations through Feb. 7: http://www.mdusd.org/NewsRoom/Documents/teacher-of-the-year-nominations-2013-2014.pdf

  25. g. de la verdad Says:

    A Mt. Diablo High feeder pattern meeting being held AT Mt. Diablo High — Finally, and for the first time in about 4 years — instead of meeting in Bay Point!

  26. g. de la verdad Says:

    Will Guy Moore deny that: “Despite the [NEA’s] claims to be an advocate “for children and public education,” we should not expect unions at the bargaining table to be for anything but their own interests. Naturally enough, those interests favor existing arrangements, which protect jobs; limit the demands placed on members, including their accountability for student performance; and safeguard the privileges of senior teachers.”

    “Collective bargaining agreements demonstrate the failure of school boards to fight for the interests of students and taxpayers, not to mention the prerogatives of sensible management.”

    “Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that [salary schedules based strictly on years of experience…] have contributed to the well-documented decline in the aptitude of new teachers and to shortages in high-need subject areas. At a minimum, the rigidity of existing salary schedules restricts superintendents’ options for remedying these problems.

    When a leaflet is shoved at you, ask the union member to deny the above statements that were culled from http://educationnext.org/strikephobia/
    The article merits revisiting in 2014.

  27. Doctor J Says:

    Brian, you call what Dr. Meyer’s said , ACTION about agenda catch-up ?

  28. Doctor J Says:

    Here is what Redwood City School District has ALREADY done ! MDUSD is way behind.
    “The Redwood City School District is well underway in implementing the new requirements: In October the School Board had a work session to discuss the requirements of the LCFF and LCAP. Board members provided feedback and guidance to staff on the development of a community engagement plan. (View presentation: English, Español)
    In November and December, the Board had a series of 4 district-wide community meetings and school-based meetings to provide parents and the community with a budget update and information on the LCAP process.
    In January-May, the District will conduct a survey of staff and parents, hold a community input meeting, hold a day-long strategy session with community members prior to drafting the LCAP, and give all community members the chance to provide input once the LCAP is drafted.”
    Community Budget Meetings Scheduled for
    January 23, 9 -11 a.m. or 6:30-8:30 p.m.
    Last spring Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a newformula for funding public schools, the Local Control Funding Formula(LCFF). Under the LCFF school districtsmust show how their budget aligns with their academic plan. The Redwood City School District is seeking input from parents and staff as we begin to develop the 2014 Budget. You areinvited to participate in one of two sessions to help the District prioritizespending in key areas: student achievement, student engagement, school climate,basic services and Common Core State Standards. These meetings are a continuation of theLCFF Community Engagement effort that began with Community Information Meetingsheld during November, December and early January. In addition, parents andstaff will have the opportunity to provide input in a confidential survey to beconducted later in January.”

  29. tmharrington Says:

    Here is the Board Action Summary for last night’s meeting: http://www.mdusd.org/boe/Documents/action/2014/01-15-14.pdf

    Besides failing to mention anything about public comments, it also fails to record the actual votes taken or to mention the report out from closed session. This is definitely not an adequate substitute for actual minutes. But, it’s nice to be able to see who was appointed, since their names were not revealed in the agenda.

  30. g. de la verdad Says:

    Unfortunately, it seems I was wrong to assume the district had been following the law and actually “keeping minutes.” Now it seems we are taking a page from Pleasant Hill’s raving-lunatic plan. We’ll work backwards – from video – and “create minutes.” Geeesh!

  31. Doctor J Says:

    The SBE sets a great example. Minutes are posted as preliminary notes of the meeting within a few days, the video is available within a few days, and detailed minutes are approved at the next meeting. After Brian Lawrence’s declaration that “action” was already underway, it was very disappointing to hear Dr. Nellie’s sad-sack explanation — clearly no “action” had taken place. And Brian L. should have been livid at Julie B-M for hiding the names of internal candidates from the public for administrative positions. Seems like with Julie B-M’s prior “rolling of eyes” at Brian Lawrence, she is just mocking his bird dogging of this issue. Dr. Nellie ought to give Julie B-M a ten day unpaid vacation.

  32. tmharrington Says:

    Here’s a blog post regarding the SBE’s LCFF approval today: http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2014/01/16/state-board-of-education-takes-action-on-new-school-funding-formula/

  33. Tk Says:

    Strange comment. Not sure where it’s coming from though. MDEA is ready to strike after years of being disrespected and paid poorly. And with millions of dollars laying around, now really is the time to get what we deserve and hopefully keep our quality teachers in the future.

  34. Sherry Whitmarsh Says:

    I would ask why the MDUSD Board President of 2013 didn’t call for minutes. At one meeting the president stated she was also the parlimentarian and it would seem that she could have requested or demanded them during the board member update or agenda review meetings with the interim superintendent.

  35. Sherry Whitmarsh Says:

    I wonder if MDEA has realized that Governor Brown has stated that he will not have the state bail out STRS as it is underfunded and that districts and counties will need to take that on . Also I have no problems with performance increases but most parents do not support longevity increases. I think there could be perfomance metrics create by MDEA and MDUSD that would determine pay increases for teachers. I also would support incentive pay for teachers who work at Title I schools.

  36. tmharrington Says:

    LAUSD teachers are asking for a whopping 17.6 percent raise: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-utla-calls-for-176-raise-20140116,0,6920288.story

  37. Doctor J Says:

    Sherry, your Gang of Five including Loreen Joseph plus Steven Lawrence quit producing minutes following the March 25 meeting. Following the firing of Lawrence and Rolen on April 23, Joseph abruptly left the district and left undone minutes for which she had been paid to do with a “raise” approved by you for the “extra work” on November 17, 2009. I caution you against throwing stones at Cheryl Hansen when you live in a glass house. I take your post as your announcement of candidacy for School Board election in Nov 2014 — would that be correct ?

  38. Doctor J Says:

    Actually Sherry, Gov. Brown has said that teachers also will pay higher STRS contributions in addition to the districts. “The proposal, which [the Governor] discussed Thursday as he released his annual budget blueprint, is likely to include higher contributions from teachers whose future pension checks might otherwise be in jeopardy.” http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_24897102/gov-brown-vows-start-debate-over-teacher-pensions?source=rss

  39. Sherry Whitmarsh Says:

    The minutes were completed while I was on the board. It would be the responsibility of the board president to ensure they were done. I can understand that with staff departure in April and May that those months may not have minutes, but what about June – December of this year? Your are incorrect about my candidacy for 2014.

  40. Doctor J Says:

    Sherry, Board By-law 9122 says its the Superintendent, not Board President, who has the responsibility to ensure the minutes are done: “The Superintendent or designee, acting as secretary to the Governing Board, shall have the following duties:
    . . .
    2. Prepare and maintain the Board minutes”.
    Please show me a Board By-law where it says that the Board President has that responsibility. I disagree with you. First, there is no reason that minutes were not prepared for April by Steven Lawrence and/or Loreen Joseph until her departure. Second, there were “acting” Supts and then an “interim” Supt. Apparently they ignored the responsibility. Third, there is no reason that a professional minutes taker could not be hired to watch all the video tapes and make minutes for Board approval — Ed Code 35025. As a regular blogger, you know that I have been continually calling for the minutes since May.

  41. Sherry Whitmarsh Says:

    Dr. J. I don’t disagree that you have been calling for the minutes since May. I’m only commenting that if the Board president thought it was important, she could have made sure it was done. The board president along with the superintendent and vice president create the board agenda. It was obvious that approval of the minutes were not on the consent agenda for quite some time. It would have been interesting for the dialogue to occur in public if the president and vice president had the acting and interim superintendent put them on the consent as they would have needed to have a public discussion about the lack of its availability.

  42. Doctor J Says:

    Sherry, perhaps we can agree that any Board member could have and should have raised the issue in a public meeting — but none did. The fact that none did and it went on for so long, raises my suspicions as to whether there had been communication to all board members in a non-public meeting as to why the minutes were not being prepared. Perhaps a PRA request would produce written communications about this.

  43. Sherry Whitmarsh Says:

    I concur with you that it should have been raised in a public meeting

  44. g. de la verdad Says:

    I suspect we can all agree that Someone told Someone that either an Action (Only) Summary was ‘sufficient’ or that an Action Summary was all that first Someone intended to produce, and the habit rolled downhill to succeeding Board Clerks.
    Can we also agree that it is time to stop chewing the cud on ‘I came in fourth in a three person race.’

    Really! Let it go.

  45. Guest Says:

    It will likely take considerable time after the hearing for the court to issue a decision regarding what records, if any, MDUSD will be required to disclose.

  46. g. de la verdad Says:

    Three items of “Significant exposure to litigation or claims” in closed session may be related to Joseph Martin cover-up by mandated reporters? According to the story in the Mercury News three days ago, the Martin Case is also supposed to start in March.
    Does anyone know which court is hearing the case or what the actual start date is?

  47. Concerned13 Says:

    Martin’s criminal case will be held at the Martinez/Bray building – beginning on March 17, barring any continuances or plea deals.

  48. Doctor J Says:

    There will be a criminal plea I predict on March 17 — which will close the door on MDUSD’s ridiculous defense against the BANG suit and documents will be ordered produced on March 19. Lets see, that means on St. Patty’s day will be the plea, and by the first day of Spring, documents will be produced. The only day we don’t have covered is the Ides of March. :-)

  49. tmharrington Says:

    Here’s the link to the story about the mother of two victims speaking out against Martin and district officials who failed to report the suspected abuse, which was reported as far back as 2006: http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2014/01/17/governor-revs-up-state-board-of-education-during-funding-discussion/

  50. tmharrington Says:

    Here’s an opportunity for MDUSD and other districts to receive up to $15 million in Career Pathways Trust grants for linked learning: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr14/yr14rel7.asp

    Letters of intent should be sent by Feb. 14 and applications are due March 28.

    The CDE news release quotes my previous blog post about this based on an event at De Anza HS in WCCUSD: http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_24487145/deanza-high-students-el-sobrante-excited-by-hands

  51. tmharrington Says:

    Here’s more info on the proposed De La Salle Middle School, which will draw its students from low-income families in the Monument Corridor, providing an alternative to MDUSD’s low-performing schools that serve that community: http://www.contracostatimes.com/barnidge/ci_24946338/barnidge-sports-isnt-only-way-that-de-la#

  52. Doctor J Says:

    Wrong link or wrong intro — but they don’t match.

  53. tmharrington Says:

    Lafayette school district may float another parcel tax in May: http://www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-times/ci_24938081/lafayette-school-district-eyes-new-parcel-tax

  54. tmharrington Says:

    Here is the complete link: http://www.contracostatimes.com/walnut-creek/ci_24937991/concord-young-victims-mother-speak-out-against-suspected

    Sorry about posting the wrong link earlier. I’ll update that post.

  55. tmharrington Says:

    Here’s our story on the Linked Learning grants: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_24959966/state-schools-compete-250-million-job-training-grants

  56. tmharrington Says:

    I have received an e-mail from YVHS teacher Kelly Cooper seeking DonorsChoose.org donations for her class: http://www.donorschoose.org/project/celebrating-success-for-all-students/1169535/?rf=email_system_2014_01_teacherid_438508&challengeid=52966/&utm_source=dc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=teacher_promo_expiring

    Donations up to $100 will be matched if you enter the promo code INSPIRE on the payment screen through Jan. 25, according to Cooper.

    Here’s a list of all 221 projects in Contra Costa County seeking funding: http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/search.html?state=CA&community=7:1

  57. tmharrington Says:

    MDUSD is accepting comments through Feb. 21 on an environmental report related to proposed athletic field improvements at Clayton Valley Charter HS: http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Documents/cvchs-athletic-improvements-is-public-review-01-17-14.pdf

  58. Doctor J Says:

    More Measure C money spent on undisclosed projects in violation of Prop 39.

  59. g. de la verdad Says:

    Can anyone explain when/how Tim Cody became an “Interim Director” of Measure C, or when that particular position was created, or who approved the position, or how much it pays, or how many applicants were considered for the position?

  60. g. de la verdad Says:

    The Grand Jury said:

    “Recommendation #1: A district’s ballot language should inform voters of all intended uses of bond funds, the specific projects to be undertaken, the schools where the projects will be undertaken, the district’s initial priorities, and a realistic estimate of project costs.”

    Of the 9 districts, only MDUSD replied:

    “Will not be implemented.”
    Taxpayers will remember…!

  61. Doctor J Says:

    Jan 15, 2013 appointment by Steven Lawrence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaSsme2da3Q

  62. g. de la verdad Says:

    Pedersen’s post employment “contract” position as Manager expired, “…so Tim Cody will take over as the ‘representative of the district’ on Measure C and work with the board president on agenda….”
    When did Measure C get a “Director” position?

  63. Doctor J Says:

    Cody’s only approved position by the Board was as an Assistant. As soon as the 2013 salaries are available from CCT, we should see if Cody got a raise that was not approved by the Board.

  64. Doctor J Says:

    g it is CLEAR that MDUSD thumbed its nose at the Grand Jury by stating: “Will not be implemented.” to Grand Jury “Recommendation #1: A district’s ballot language should inform voters of all intended uses of bond funds, the specific projects to be undertaken, the schools where the projects will be undertaken, the district’s initial priorities, and a realistic estimate of project costs.” It will take a Taxpayer’s group to correct this — lets remember that Dr. Nellie and her new legal beagle Lawrence M. Schoenke LOST that lawsuit in San Diego, and likely would lose here again. Perhaps one of those “threatened” litigations is about Measure C unlawful spending practices ?

  65. g. de la verdad Says:

    Yep. I’m working on several of those right now.

  66. Doctor J Says:

    Theresa, perhaps you can post the BANG Briefing Schedule Order that was filed this morning in the CoCoCo Superior Court. And then when the Briefs are filed, you could post those as well. It would give us a pretty good road map as to what the district is hiding and who they are trying to protect.

  67. tmharrington Says:

    I see the district changed the title of the link to the CVCHS report to: “CVCHS Public Meeting.” It’s at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 28 in the CVCHS library: http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Documents/cvchs-athletic-improvements-is-public-review-01-17-14.pdf

  68. g. de la verdad Says:

    Yeah, taxpayers can send (soon to declare himself Emperor) Cody an email till 2/21, but the district is going to rubber stamp it on 1/28.

    If all high schools are getting their share of a loose $40million, then so should CVC, but heaven help the coffers if spending $40million on non voter approved wish-lists is overturned by the courts!

  69. Doctor J Says:

    MDUSD General Counsel Schoenke already lost that case with the California Supreme Court. I wonder if he would like to lose another one ? WTH, he’s only here for six months. In San Diego he’s known as “Bait ‘n Switch Schoenke”. Will Larry spend millions of MDUSD’s measure C money on lawyers just to lose another case ? http://voiceofsandiego.org/2013/11/13/the-school-districts-bait-and-switch-bond-problem/

  70. g. de la verdad Says:

    “Bait ‘n Switch” hmmm? He and Cooksey should get along just fine!

  71. tmharrington Says:

    Since you bring up Schoenke, I have heard again from the same group of parents who initially contacted me to object to the MDUSD board’s appointment of Dr. Meyer, based on concerns about the lack of mandated reporting in SDUSD. As you may recall, the MDUSD board has specifically asked Schoenke to oversee mandated reporting training in MDUSD. But, one SDUSD parent alleged in an email: “(SDUSD) Legal department is behind a lot of district ‘self investigating’ of parent claims of child abuse. Larry Scheonke headed up a department where all parent complaints were channeled and squelched. The statute of limitations often runs out on parents as they are put through so many delay tactics with district’s complaint process.”

    Another wrote: “The parent motto in SDUSD is ‘Mess Up and Move UP’ – that’s what we see.”

  72. tmharrington Says:

    Here is the BANG briefing schedule order: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mS2O1_NKceNGtaNTRjb2N3RFE/edit?usp=sharing

  73. Doctor J Says:

    Tim Cody salary for 2012 was listed as an “Assistant Project-Program Manager”. Total compensation: $157,863; Base Salary: $106,634; No overtime; $4348 in some kind of bonus; $19,967 Medical/Dental/Vision
    http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area

  74. Doctor J Says:

    Judge Steven K. Austin will hear this case on March 19. Here is a judicial profile from the Contra Costa Bar Association. First Brief and Declarations due Feb 7 by BANG. Opposition and declarations are due Feb 20. Reply by BANG due Feb 26. Profile says Judge usually rules from the bench. Hopefully Theresa will be able to be there. Maybe a Tentative Ruling will be issued the day before ?http://www.cccba.org/attorney/judicial-profiles/austin-stephen.php

  75. g. de la verdad Says:

    Ah, but what you’re missing is that his Base Salary was just over $82K in 2010 — but when they got to use Bond funds for payroll, he suddenly got a kick-up of almost $20K! Let the grandchildren pay for it! Then there are the desk jockey clerks hired in as Construction Managers making way more than long term teachers

  76. Doctor J Says:

    Tim Cody’s Board Approved Job Description as Assistant Program-Project Manager approved on August 10, 2010. Salary Range 25 of Management Schedule. Range 25 for Classified Management includes 24 vacation days, and 13 holidays. The Base ranges from $83,836 to $113,645. It appears that Cody is paid at the Year 15 step during 2012. Job Description: http://esb.mdusd.k12.ca.us/attachments/e0ed221c-42cd-4de1-bcc6-ebaf0887d60e.pdf
    Salary schedule: http://www.mdusd.org/personnel/Documents/Salary%20Schedules/salsched_mgmt.pdf

  77. Doctor J Says:

    Julie B-M needs to publicly explain how Tim Cody has leapfrogged from Step 2 to 15 from 2010-2012 on the Salary Schedule approved by the Board in 2006. Cody’s base salaries: 2010: $87,110 (Step 2); 2011: $101,194 (Step 5); 2012: $106,634 (Year 15). He also gets 24 vacation days and 13 holidays per year.

  78. tmharrington Says:

    Here’s a new blog post about the nine Contra Costa County schools participating in the regional Science Bowl at Las Positas College on Saturday in Livermore, including Mt. Diablo and Northgate high schools: http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2014/01/23/nine-contra-costa-county-high-school-teams-to-compete-in-regional-science-bowl-on-satu

    While MDUSD is sending two teams, four schools in the Acalanes district are participating and three from SRVUSD will be there.

  79. tmharrington Says:

    Are you a legal professional? Consider volunteering for the Contra Costa County Mock Trial program: http://www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-county/ci_24981447/contra-costa-county-high-school-mock-trial-program

  80. tmharrington Says:

    The title for the link for regarding the CVCHS meeting on Tuesday does not match the information in the official notice.

    The link on the district’s website now states: “Public meeting for the purpose of receiving public comments related to Draft Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration — Clayton Valley Charter High School, Athletic Improvement Project.”

    However, the official notice on page 3 of the link states: “The Mount Diablo Unified School District will consider adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and its findings at a public hearing scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on January 28, 2014, at the Clayton Valley Charter High School Library.” http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Documents/cvchs-athletic-improvements-is-public-review-01-17-14.pdf

    This was the basis for my news brief: http://www.contracostatimes.com/concord/ci_24980988/public-hearing-tuesday-regarding-proposed-clayton-valley-charter

    However, I received the following information this morning in an e-mail from Tim Cody, copied to Supt. Meyer and the board:

    “In the CCT this morning, there is a short article concerning the public meeting scheduled for next week at Clayton Valley Charter High School.

    To avoid any confusion, the purpose of next week’s meeting is gather public comments. The District will not be holding a public hearing nor will there be any consideration for adoption of documents next week. As always, once a draft CEQA document is complete, it will be presented to the Board for consideration.

    Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.”

    I have followed up asking why the official notice doesn’t say that.

  81. tmharrington Says:

    When I pointed out the fact that the posted meeting notice says there is a public hearing and plan to adopt the mitigated neg dec, Cody responded in an email:

    “You are absolutely correct.

    We are taking steps to immediately insert attached corrected copy into documents on deposit.”

  82. tmharrington Says:

    Here’s the corrected official notice, dated today: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mS2O1_NKcebTBfeF8tazN1OEE/edit?usp=sharing

  83. g. de la verdad Says:

    As I said a couple days ago; taxpayers can send (Emperor) Cody an email till 2/21, but the district is going to rubber stamp it on 1/28.

  84. Doctor J Says:

    Very sloppy work by Cody for a guy who earns $150,000 a year. Didn’t Cody have to publish in a newspaper and post the notice for at least 10 days prior ? Did he ? Doesn’t he have to start over again ? How about Cody signing off on the supplier who wasn’t paid ?

  85. g. de la verdad Says:

    CVCHS should get its share, but…. Dribbling these projects out a bit here-abit there is outrageous. This is the second (known) EIR we’re paying for on these projects. How many did it take to jam YV lights, etc down neighbor’s throats? Soon we’ll get another proposal for the new weight room portables, upgraded – intensified – brighter field lighting, etc.

    http://www.claytonvalley.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=197161&type=d&pREC_ID=421687

  86. tmharrington Says:

    Agenda for WCCUSD’s Wednesday meeting is already released: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mS2O1_NKced3VaMTRtX2tFZzg/edit?usp=sharing

    They are forming an LCAP committee.

  87. tmharrington Says:

    Although this is old news to many of you, Trustee Lynne Dennler has just confirmed to me that she does not intend to run for re-election in the fall. She said she didn’t make a formal announcement, but has let anyone who has asked her know, including MDEA and other possible candidates. As many of you also know, former MDEA president and retired CPHS social sciences teacher Mike Langley has already thrown his hat into the ring.

  88. g. de la verdad Says:

    The agenda is finally up–need a place to comment, please.

  89. Doctor J Says:

    WHY are no minutes attached for the Jan 15 meeting on Agenda Item 12.2 1/29 ? Brian Lawrence — you promised us “action” two weeks ago on bringing 9 months of delinquent minutes up to date, and so far we haven’t seen any “action”. How do you spell “trust” ? T R A N S P A R E N C Y.

  90. g. de la verdad Says:

    Item 13.15 is a Duplication of what was already approved on 1/15 as Item 17.5. Maybe duplication of effort wastes precious resources/time.

  91. Guest Says:

    When will Dr. J and g. de la Verdad announce their candidacies?

  92. tmharrington Says:

    FYI, Antioch school district is considering a parcel tax: http://www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-times/ci_24989041/antioch-school-district-ponders-parcel-tax

  93. tmharrington Says:

    Here is a new blog post with the agenda, for those who want to comment on it: http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2014/01/27/mdusd-board-to-meet-wednesday-to-make-interim-appointments-permanent-sunshine-local-1-contract-proposal-and-discuss-leadership/

  94. tmharrington Says:

    MDEA’s latest bargaining update says fact-finding certification has been postponed to give board a second look at budget: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=3129f6db-8ddb-42f9-b21d-128f8a23e620&c=cff98880-4eae-11e3-becd-d4ae5284344f&ch=d0b73330-4eae-11e3-bf46-d4ae5284344f

  95. Doctor J Says:

    Interesting that the District is ignoring the LCAP requirement of involving parents and community in determining the financial decisions.

  96. k. saint Says:

    Has MDUSD applied for this specific grant money? I have heard that MDUSD is part of the Diablo Delta Corridor Project http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yr13rel2.asp but haven’t really seen anything on this.

  97. tmharrington Says:

    I don’t know if MDUSD has applied for the Career Pathways Trust grant money, but it should. You are correct that MDUSD is part of the The Diablo Delta Corridor Project (D2CP) Consortium, which is a partnership of three school districts within Contra Costa County, with Antioch Unified School District serving as the mentor for the other districts in the consortium. The districts are supposed to collaborate with the Contra Costa Economic Partnership to focus on the Manufacturing industry sector as well as the Energy and Utilities industry sector, which reflect the growing career opportunities in that region.

    However, their participation initially did not include any grant money.

  98. tmharrington Says:

    Please note that I have posted a new blog item about the BANG v. MDUSD lawsuit seeking records related to the Joseph Martin molestation case: http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2014/03/09/news-groups-fight-to-obtain-district-documents-heading-to-court-this-month/

Leave a Reply