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.]

  • Doctor J

    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.

  • Doctor J

    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.)

  • Doctor J

    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.

  • g. de la verdad

    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?

  • tmharrington

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

  • tmharrington

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

  • tmharrington

    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

  • g. de la verdad

    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.

  • Wendy Lack

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

  • g. de la verdad

    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

  • Brian Lawrence

    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.

  • tmharrington

    Brian, Glad to hear it. Thanks!

  • tmharrington
  • Doctor J

    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

  • g. de la verdad

    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.

  • Doctor J

    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.

  • Doctor J

    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.

  • MDUSDnomo

    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.

  • Doctor J

    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

  • Doctor J

    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.

  • Doctor J

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

  • tmharrington

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

  • tmharrington

    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

  • tmharrington

    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

  • g. de la verdad

    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!

  • g. de la verdad

    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.

  • Doctor J

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

  • Doctor J

    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.”

  • tmharrington

    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.

  • g. de la verdad

    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!

  • Doctor J

    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.

  • tmharrington
  • Tk

    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.

  • Sherry Whitmarsh

    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.

  • Sherry Whitmarsh

    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.

  • tmharrington

    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

  • Doctor J

    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 ?

  • Doctor J

    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

  • Sherry Whitmarsh

    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.

  • Doctor J

    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.

  • Sherry Whitmarsh

    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.

  • Doctor J

    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.

  • Sherry Whitmarsh

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

  • g. de la verdad

    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.

  • Guest

    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.

  • g. de la verdad

    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?

  • Concerned13

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

  • Doctor J

    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. :-)

  • tmharrington

    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/

  • tmharrington

    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