REBUTTAL TO MARTINI’S ANSWER
On June 2, 2009, Carolyn Martini filed her answer to the Notice if Intent to Recall with the Napa County Election Department. The very first paragraph of Mrs. Martini’s answer states that the Board “has addressed challenges head-on” and “considered the voices of the community.” If this were actually the case, the Board would not be in the predicament it currently faces.
What Mrs. Martini does not seem to appreciate is that actions do in fact speak louder than words. If, as Mrs. Martini states, the Board approaches tough issues directly and listens to the community, then why did the Board decide that a search for a suitable superintendent candidate would be too difficult at this time and that it would just be easier to hire an in house candidate? Is this addressing a challenge “head-on”? Further, when several people of our community suggested that the Board offer Dr. Haley an interim or short term superintendent position, the Board ignored the community’s concerns and awarded Dr. Haley a contract that contains an automatic renewal provision that could keep Dr. Haley in place for many years to come. Is this the way in which Mrs. Martini and her fellow Board members “consider the voices of the community”?
Does the Board “address challenges head-on” and “consider the voices of the community” when the Board has adopted a standard policy at Board meetings that Board members are to refrain from interacting and speaking with members of the community in open session with respect to comments made during the public comment period? This policy is not a legal requirement; the Board has simply chosen to conduct its meetings this way. That means that there is absolutely no give and take between the Board and the community during Board meetings. How is the community to have a productive discussion with the entire Board when the most that the public can do is speak out at a meeting with silence as the Board’s response?
Mrs. Martini’s answer goes on to list some of the accomplishments of the Board. There is no question that the Board has recently implemented some valuable projects and programs and it should be commended for its work in that regard. But keep in mind that much of what the Board has accomplished would not be possible without the generous financial and logistical support of our community, and the dedication of the staff and teachers at each of our schools.
In her answer, Mrs. Martini also states that “[g]ood management is not an accident.” This may be a true statement, but it assumes that good management is currently in place within our School Board. Does “good management” include awarding high salaries to our executive administrators while teachers are told to be extremely conservative in ordering instructional materials? Does “good management” include maintaining so many lucrative executive administrative positions and implementing early retirement packages that now must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits to just two individuals? If, as Mrs. Martini states, “every penny we get is used to protect and provide for our kids,” then why has the School District made choices that deprive our kids of educational resources and programs and award handsome salaries and retirement packages to administrators?
If, as Mrs. Martini concludes, “[t]his is the way it is supposed to work,” then there is something fundamentally wrong with how business is currently conducted at the School Board level. Directing as much of our school resources as possible toward educating our kids is the way it is supposed to work. Mrs. Martini appears to have lost sight of that
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Letter to the Board regarding Brown Act
April 30, 2009
To the St. Helena Unified School District Board of Education:
On April 8, 2009, Allan Gordon submitted his letter of resignation to the St. Helena Unified School District Board of Education (the “Board”). The Board then posted an agenda for a special meeting to be held on April 9, 2009 (the “Special Meeting”), immediately following its regular board meeting scheduled for the same date. A copy of the Agenda for the April 9, 2009 Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees is attached to this letter for your reference (the “Agenda”). Item 6.A. of the Agenda reads as follows: “6.A. Selection of New Superintendent…The Board will discuss next steps in selection of a new superintendent.” This is the only description in the Agenda that addresses the business to be transacted by the Board at the Special Meeting. It was the understanding of several members of the public at that time that the issue to be addressed at the Special Meeting would be solely to determine the search mechanism to be used to locate a suitable candidate for the job of superintendent (i.e., would the Board look outside and/or inside SHUSD for superintendent candidates?). Further, on the afternoon of April 9, 2009, Ines DeLuna, President of the Board, sent an email to several parents stating in part: “Tonight I have scheduled a Special Board Meeting at 7:15 pm to address a resignation letter submitted by our Superintendent Mr. Allan Gordon yesterday.” As with the Agenda, there was no mention in Ines DeLuna’s email of the Board’s intention to hire the next superintendent at the Special Meeting.
During the public comment period of the Special Meeting, parents and other community members engaged in a discussion with the Board regarding how the search for a new superintendent should be conducted. While Board members stated that they were leaning toward focusing the search to within the SHUSD administration, several individuals who attended the meeting have stated that they had no idea that the Board was planning on filling the position that very night. However, during the closed session of the Special Meeting, the Board “unanimously voted to offer Dr. Robert Haley, Assistant Superintendent, the position of Superintendent.” Letter to the Editor from Ines DeLuna on behalf of the Board of Trustees, St. Helena Star, April 23, 2009.
As you know, California Education Code §35144 and California Government Code §54956 govern the notice requirements for special meetings of the Board. Both statutes state in part that the “notice [of a special meeting] shall specify…the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at those meetings by the governing board” Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1993) defines the word “specify” as “to name or state explicitly or in detail.” Further notice requirements are stated in Education Code §35145(b), which provides in part that an agenda of the meeting must be posted in accordance with the requirements of §54954.2 of the Government Code. §54954.2 requires that the posted agenda contain a “brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.” California Government Code §54954.2(1).
In Carlson v. Paradise Unified School District, (App. 3 Dist. 1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, the Third District Court of Appeal found that the school district in that case had provided an inadequate description in its posted meeting agenda and therefore the decision made by the district during that meeting was enjoined. The Court concluded that “the agenda item, though not deceitful, was entirely misleading and inadequate to show the whole scope of the board’s intended plans.” Id. at 200. The Court provided a clear explanation as to why sufficient public notice is such a vital component of school board procedure: “It is now the rule that local government bodies, elected by the people, exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business, and thus their deliberations should be conducted openly and with due notice…. The process of the education of our children is properly a matter of public concern.” Id. at 199. The Court went on to state that “[d]ecisions of local governing bodies of school districts may directly affect parents and teachers, alike, as well as the students themselves. Thus, it is imperative that the agenda of the board’s business be made public and in some detail so that the general public can ascertain the nature of such business.” Id. (emphasis added).
In this case, the description in Agenda Item 6.A. of the business to be transacted at the Special Meeting was vague and misleading. The description leads one to believe that the Board was planning to discuss the process to implement in the search for a new superintendent. In actuality, the Board went far beyond the scope of the Agenda description and ended up voting to offer the position to Rob Haley. There was nothing in the Agenda that would have alerted the public to the fact that the Board was going to hire the next superintendent at the Special Meeting. Taking the “next steps” in locating a new superintendent is not the equivalent of actually appointing the superintendent. In fact, on April 27, 2009, Ines DeLuna and Cindy Warren met with concerned parents regarding the Board’s actions at the Special Meeting. At the April 27, 2009 meeting, Ines DeLuna admitted to the parents that she “had no idea” when she went into the closed session of the Special Meeting that the Board would end up appointing the new superintendent. If the Board President (who has access to more information regarding matters to be discussed at a Board meeting than simply the posted agenda) was not aware of the business that the Board would transact at the Special Meeting, how was the public to ascertain that information from the “next steps” language of Agenda Item 6.A.? Another point made by Cindy Warren at the April 27, 2009 meeting was that very few people regularly show up at the Board meetings anyway. However, as the Carlson Court points out, “[i]t is a well-known fact that public meetings of local governing bodies are sparsely attended by the public at large unless an issue vitally affecting their interests is to be heard. To alert the general public to such issues, adequate notice is a requisite.” Id.
California Government Code §54960.1 provides that any interested person may take action to render null and void any action taken by the Board in violation of Government Code §54956; provided that prior written demand is made to the Board to cure or correct such violation. This letter serves as demand that the Board take the necessary steps to correct the action taken at the Special Meeting to fill the position of superintendent without adequate public notice in violation of Government Code §54956.
Sincerely,
Greg & Kathy Zelazny Pat Friday
Erin Przybylinski Kevin & Sallie Alfaro
Gene & Denise Armstead Kelly Rios
Missy Gott Tim & Maria Stel
John & Beth Milliken Bill Davis
Jeff Smith & Carolyn Duryea Guadalupe Huijon
Joanne M. Yates, PhD Craig & Tish Wagner
Pavi Lawson Denise Smith
Debbie Saldivar Grant & Leslie Ellis
Molly Morales Debbie Hansen
Stephanie Gamble Lynn & Carolyn Sanders
David & Katharine DeSante Dan & Diane Beltrami
Laurence Schlatter Wendy Cole
Catherine Durand Lisa Pelosi
To the St. Helena Unified School District Board of Education:
On April 8, 2009, Allan Gordon submitted his letter of resignation to the St. Helena Unified School District Board of Education (the “Board”). The Board then posted an agenda for a special meeting to be held on April 9, 2009 (the “Special Meeting”), immediately following its regular board meeting scheduled for the same date. A copy of the Agenda for the April 9, 2009 Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees is attached to this letter for your reference (the “Agenda”). Item 6.A. of the Agenda reads as follows: “6.A. Selection of New Superintendent…The Board will discuss next steps in selection of a new superintendent.” This is the only description in the Agenda that addresses the business to be transacted by the Board at the Special Meeting. It was the understanding of several members of the public at that time that the issue to be addressed at the Special Meeting would be solely to determine the search mechanism to be used to locate a suitable candidate for the job of superintendent (i.e., would the Board look outside and/or inside SHUSD for superintendent candidates?). Further, on the afternoon of April 9, 2009, Ines DeLuna, President of the Board, sent an email to several parents stating in part: “Tonight I have scheduled a Special Board Meeting at 7:15 pm to address a resignation letter submitted by our Superintendent Mr. Allan Gordon yesterday.” As with the Agenda, there was no mention in Ines DeLuna’s email of the Board’s intention to hire the next superintendent at the Special Meeting.
During the public comment period of the Special Meeting, parents and other community members engaged in a discussion with the Board regarding how the search for a new superintendent should be conducted. While Board members stated that they were leaning toward focusing the search to within the SHUSD administration, several individuals who attended the meeting have stated that they had no idea that the Board was planning on filling the position that very night. However, during the closed session of the Special Meeting, the Board “unanimously voted to offer Dr. Robert Haley, Assistant Superintendent, the position of Superintendent.” Letter to the Editor from Ines DeLuna on behalf of the Board of Trustees, St. Helena Star, April 23, 2009.
As you know, California Education Code §35144 and California Government Code §54956 govern the notice requirements for special meetings of the Board. Both statutes state in part that the “notice [of a special meeting] shall specify…the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at those meetings by the governing board” Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1993) defines the word “specify” as “to name or state explicitly or in detail.” Further notice requirements are stated in Education Code §35145(b), which provides in part that an agenda of the meeting must be posted in accordance with the requirements of §54954.2 of the Government Code. §54954.2 requires that the posted agenda contain a “brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.” California Government Code §54954.2(1).
In Carlson v. Paradise Unified School District, (App. 3 Dist. 1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, the Third District Court of Appeal found that the school district in that case had provided an inadequate description in its posted meeting agenda and therefore the decision made by the district during that meeting was enjoined. The Court concluded that “the agenda item, though not deceitful, was entirely misleading and inadequate to show the whole scope of the board’s intended plans.” Id. at 200. The Court provided a clear explanation as to why sufficient public notice is such a vital component of school board procedure: “It is now the rule that local government bodies, elected by the people, exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business, and thus their deliberations should be conducted openly and with due notice…. The process of the education of our children is properly a matter of public concern.” Id. at 199. The Court went on to state that “[d]ecisions of local governing bodies of school districts may directly affect parents and teachers, alike, as well as the students themselves. Thus, it is imperative that the agenda of the board’s business be made public and in some detail so that the general public can ascertain the nature of such business.” Id. (emphasis added).
In this case, the description in Agenda Item 6.A. of the business to be transacted at the Special Meeting was vague and misleading. The description leads one to believe that the Board was planning to discuss the process to implement in the search for a new superintendent. In actuality, the Board went far beyond the scope of the Agenda description and ended up voting to offer the position to Rob Haley. There was nothing in the Agenda that would have alerted the public to the fact that the Board was going to hire the next superintendent at the Special Meeting. Taking the “next steps” in locating a new superintendent is not the equivalent of actually appointing the superintendent. In fact, on April 27, 2009, Ines DeLuna and Cindy Warren met with concerned parents regarding the Board’s actions at the Special Meeting. At the April 27, 2009 meeting, Ines DeLuna admitted to the parents that she “had no idea” when she went into the closed session of the Special Meeting that the Board would end up appointing the new superintendent. If the Board President (who has access to more information regarding matters to be discussed at a Board meeting than simply the posted agenda) was not aware of the business that the Board would transact at the Special Meeting, how was the public to ascertain that information from the “next steps” language of Agenda Item 6.A.? Another point made by Cindy Warren at the April 27, 2009 meeting was that very few people regularly show up at the Board meetings anyway. However, as the Carlson Court points out, “[i]t is a well-known fact that public meetings of local governing bodies are sparsely attended by the public at large unless an issue vitally affecting their interests is to be heard. To alert the general public to such issues, adequate notice is a requisite.” Id.
California Government Code §54960.1 provides that any interested person may take action to render null and void any action taken by the Board in violation of Government Code §54956; provided that prior written demand is made to the Board to cure or correct such violation. This letter serves as demand that the Board take the necessary steps to correct the action taken at the Special Meeting to fill the position of superintendent without adequate public notice in violation of Government Code §54956.
Sincerely,
Greg & Kathy Zelazny Pat Friday
Erin Przybylinski Kevin & Sallie Alfaro
Gene & Denise Armstead Kelly Rios
Missy Gott Tim & Maria Stel
John & Beth Milliken Bill Davis
Jeff Smith & Carolyn Duryea Guadalupe Huijon
Joanne M. Yates, PhD Craig & Tish Wagner
Pavi Lawson Denise Smith
Debbie Saldivar Grant & Leslie Ellis
Molly Morales Debbie Hansen
Stephanie Gamble Lynn & Carolyn Sanders
David & Katharine DeSante Dan & Diane Beltrami
Laurence Schlatter Wendy Cole
Catherine Durand Lisa Pelosi
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
District Rules on Political Involvement
I was browsing through the Board policies online a couple of days ago, and
happened to read one policy that said that the District cannot be involved
in political processes such as elections. If the calls were as described,
that sounds like a clear violation of District policy and State law. It says
(in part):
"No district funds, services, supplies or equipment shall be used to urge
the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including any
candidate for election to the Board. (Education Code 7054)
"District resources shall not be used to disseminate campaign literature or
to purchase advertisements, bumper stickers, posters or similar promotional
items that advocate an election result."
See it here:
http://www.gamutonline.net/DisplayPolicy/505865/1
Or you can read the California Education Code here:
http://law.onecle.com/california/education/7054.html
happened to read one policy that said that the District cannot be involved
in political processes such as elections. If the calls were as described,
that sounds like a clear violation of District policy and State law. It says
(in part):
"No district funds, services, supplies or equipment shall be used to urge
the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including any
candidate for election to the Board. (Education Code 7054)
"District resources shall not be used to disseminate campaign literature or
to purchase advertisements, bumper stickers, posters or similar promotional
items that advocate an election result."
See it here:
http://www.gamutonline.net/DisplayPolicy/505865/1
Or you can read the California Education Code here:
http://law.onecle.com/california/education/7054.html
Legal Fees Spent with SHUSD Education Funds
Dear Editor:
On April 22, 2009 our SHUSD sued the Napa County Office of Education including a hand full of individuals in their capacity as employees of the NCOE, County Treasurer, Board of Supervisors, etc. for an allocation of tax dollars that relate to the educating of high school students from Pope Valley and Howell Mountain. Also, our SHUSD has entered into a legal harangue with the Napa County SELPA (and has threatened to sue) for supposed excess costs (some $378k) our SHUSD paid since June 2007 for providing special education services.
I've read the legal petition and the position appears to be based on old law deleted in 1980. The SELPA issue also appears to be flawed in that we (SHUSD) are the ones that asked to pull away from the county supported SELPA. But whoever is right, one thing must be known; SHUSD has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys, consultants, and staff resources pursing these arguments. These dollars didn't educate our kids nor did they stay in our town. That is a fact. Our district has postured itself in a very adversarial way that is all too familiar. I like to call this legal intimidation. Beat them down until they give you what you want; an adult's way of being a school yard bully.
I've personally seen the district actions force a family to hire an attorney. I've seen the district stall, delay, mislead, and misinform with hope they "go away". I've seen the district negotiate not in good faith (withdraw an accepted offer to settlement) and refuse mediation so that the issue to goes an exhaustive and expensive two week administration hearing. I've heard the words "I don't believe in mediation." I've seen the letters and emails directed to the Board. I've witnessed all of this. That is a fact.
In the end, we will continue to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars chasing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although the arguments appear colorable…what's the point? Are we working "with" or "against" people to solve problems? Remember the cost of it all and remember the kids.
Kevin Alfaro
On April 22, 2009 our SHUSD sued the Napa County Office of Education including a hand full of individuals in their capacity as employees of the NCOE, County Treasurer, Board of Supervisors, etc. for an allocation of tax dollars that relate to the educating of high school students from Pope Valley and Howell Mountain. Also, our SHUSD has entered into a legal harangue with the Napa County SELPA (and has threatened to sue) for supposed excess costs (some $378k) our SHUSD paid since June 2007 for providing special education services.
I've read the legal petition and the position appears to be based on old law deleted in 1980. The SELPA issue also appears to be flawed in that we (SHUSD) are the ones that asked to pull away from the county supported SELPA. But whoever is right, one thing must be known; SHUSD has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys, consultants, and staff resources pursing these arguments. These dollars didn't educate our kids nor did they stay in our town. That is a fact. Our district has postured itself in a very adversarial way that is all too familiar. I like to call this legal intimidation. Beat them down until they give you what you want; an adult's way of being a school yard bully.
I've personally seen the district actions force a family to hire an attorney. I've seen the district stall, delay, mislead, and misinform with hope they "go away". I've seen the district negotiate not in good faith (withdraw an accepted offer to settlement) and refuse mediation so that the issue to goes an exhaustive and expensive two week administration hearing. I've heard the words "I don't believe in mediation." I've seen the letters and emails directed to the Board. I've witnessed all of this. That is a fact.
In the end, we will continue to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars chasing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although the arguments appear colorable…what's the point? Are we working "with" or "against" people to solve problems? Remember the cost of it all and remember the kids.
Kevin Alfaro
Funding for Recall
Greetings to all of those who support the recall of the SHUSD Board of Trustees. Those of us who have initiated this recall, have done so with passion with the focus to bring quality education to all children in the district. We feel this is not being done with the current Board.
This effort is going to cost money to accomplish and therefore donations in any amount would be greatly appreciated and utilized professionally. Please make your checks out to "Citizens for Quality Education" and mail them to:
1241 Adams Street
Box #1010
St. Helena, CA 94574
We thank you for your support!!
This effort is going to cost money to accomplish and therefore donations in any amount would be greatly appreciated and utilized professionally. Please make your checks out to "Citizens for Quality Education" and mail them to:
1241 Adams Street
Box #1010
St. Helena, CA 94574
We thank you for your support!!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Signatures on Recall Petition ARE CONFIDENTIAL
There have been some questions and concerns raised on whether or not a person's signature on any of the recall petitions would be made public. We have confirmed this both with our campaign consultant and with John Tuteur.
Please be confident in knowing that when you choose to "voice your choice" and sign a recall petition, your name will NOT be released in any way.
We will keep you apprised as soon as we have the petitions ready for signatures. Recall is a democratic process that involves many steps. We are making every effort to properly follow the procedures of process and continue to strive for what is best for the students of SHUSD.
Please be confident in knowing that when you choose to "voice your choice" and sign a recall petition, your name will NOT be released in any way.
We will keep you apprised as soon as we have the petitions ready for signatures. Recall is a democratic process that involves many steps. We are making every effort to properly follow the procedures of process and continue to strive for what is best for the students of SHUSD.
Grandmother's Wisdom, "If Somthing Stinks, Its Rotten"
If something stinks, it means something is rotten. It is not a quote from Mark Twain but rather my Grandmother. Simple and seemingly old fashion, it sums up perfectly our School Board’s utter disrespect last Thursday. The School Board had received numerous emails and calls asking for qualification on rumors Allan Gordon was retiring and asking for clarification on details for hiring a new super-intendent.
Our School Board has know for months that Allan Gordon was planning to retire. It seems a clear conflict of interest given they are charge to oversea the role of Superintendent as an independent elect body. Something stinks.
Consider the details regarding the most important decision impacting our school and our children. The is an excerpt from an email sent by Ines DeLuna at 1:36 PM Thursday afternoon (an earlier email did not mention the special agenda and was only sent in response to another email.)
“Our regular meeting will officially open at 5:30pm at which time we ask for Pub-lic Comment on matters not on the agenda. We then adjourn to closed session and then come out again at 6:30pm for the regular meeting. Tonight I have scheduled a Special Board Meeting at 7:15pm to address a resignation letter submitted by our Superintendant Mr. Allan Gordon yesterday. We will have time during that Special Meeting again for Public Comment and I am sure we will have plenty of discussion by the board during the meeting. “
Others were not notified to much later including the Star. The School Board has know for months that Allan Gordon was leaving, why such short notice. There is no mention of in Ines’ email that the Special Meeting intended to address the hir-ing a new Superintendent. Despite the late notice, many concerned and actively involved parents attended the School Board Meeting on Thursday. The School Board announced and accept Mr Gordon’s resignation. They then moved to hire DC Haley. What happened to posting a job opening and performing a search? Is minutes a fair denomination for posting a job and finding qualified candidates? Something really stinks!
The involved parents who could attended Thursday’s meeting all encourage and pleated with the School Board not to hire Dc Haley and to perform a fair search. The School Board broke to closed door and returned an announced they were hiring Dc Haley. It was all pre-planned and scripted. The question is can they le-gally do this? They can’t justify their actions ethically. Something stinks?
Mr Gordon and the School Boards planned the retirement announcement and hiring Dc Haley the day before our school broke for Spring Break. Perfect timing given most parents would will only hear of the news until after the new Superin-tendent’s contract was signed (originally scheduled for last Thursday) and not have the ability to provide input. No teacher input either, although fear of re-taliation would hamper their voices without a fair search process.
The School Board not only announced Allan Gordon’s retirement but hired a new Superintendent. No best practices in hiring. No Search. No time for due dili-gence. No time for public, teacher or administrator input. No Transparency. What justification is there for hiring a new superintendent without adequate pub-lic notice? Something stinks, there must be something rotten going on.
The Board send out a long email the next day. The email must have been written in advance of the Board meeting given its length (the Board meeting finished up around 10:30pm). Every detail of the announcement and hiring was perfectly planned and scripted - remember, the Board has know Allan Gordon was leaving for months. Mr Gordon has been working on firming up consulting contracts for months with the Board. They justified hiring Dc Haley, saying he had experience, they wanted to promote from within and save money on not paying for a search. None of these reasons justify there utter disrespect for public opinion. There is collusion, secrecy and conflict of interest. There is no transparency required of our public officials. Twain said, “Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today.”
The School Board has created an environment of turmoil and distrust. Parents are in disbelief. Many are angry. We will never know if Dc Haley is actually qualified for the job. We do know he was Superintendent in Sebastopol where he quit with little notice shortly after a teacher’s vote of no confidence. He left the Sebastopol’s district in turmoil. We know Allan Gordon has been retained to consult to the district. He said it wouldn’t cost the district another penny for his to consult There are hundreds of people who volunteer their time and expertise to our school as volunteers. Is he volunteering his time? Are we paying him? If so, what are we paying him?
Why would the School Board take such rash hiring decision, disregarding best practices in hiring and fair and reasonable public input? Why would they collude with Gordon and Haley, disregarding their charter to oversea our school admini-stration? All of this stinks, something must be rotten.
Our School Board has know for months that Allan Gordon was planning to retire. It seems a clear conflict of interest given they are charge to oversea the role of Superintendent as an independent elect body. Something stinks.
Consider the details regarding the most important decision impacting our school and our children. The is an excerpt from an email sent by Ines DeLuna at 1:36 PM Thursday afternoon (an earlier email did not mention the special agenda and was only sent in response to another email.)
“Our regular meeting will officially open at 5:30pm at which time we ask for Pub-lic Comment on matters not on the agenda. We then adjourn to closed session and then come out again at 6:30pm for the regular meeting. Tonight I have scheduled a Special Board Meeting at 7:15pm to address a resignation letter submitted by our Superintendant Mr. Allan Gordon yesterday. We will have time during that Special Meeting again for Public Comment and I am sure we will have plenty of discussion by the board during the meeting. “
Others were not notified to much later including the Star. The School Board has know for months that Allan Gordon was leaving, why such short notice. There is no mention of in Ines’ email that the Special Meeting intended to address the hir-ing a new Superintendent. Despite the late notice, many concerned and actively involved parents attended the School Board Meeting on Thursday. The School Board announced and accept Mr Gordon’s resignation. They then moved to hire DC Haley. What happened to posting a job opening and performing a search? Is minutes a fair denomination for posting a job and finding qualified candidates? Something really stinks!
The involved parents who could attended Thursday’s meeting all encourage and pleated with the School Board not to hire Dc Haley and to perform a fair search. The School Board broke to closed door and returned an announced they were hiring Dc Haley. It was all pre-planned and scripted. The question is can they le-gally do this? They can’t justify their actions ethically. Something stinks?
Mr Gordon and the School Boards planned the retirement announcement and hiring Dc Haley the day before our school broke for Spring Break. Perfect timing given most parents would will only hear of the news until after the new Superin-tendent’s contract was signed (originally scheduled for last Thursday) and not have the ability to provide input. No teacher input either, although fear of re-taliation would hamper their voices without a fair search process.
The School Board not only announced Allan Gordon’s retirement but hired a new Superintendent. No best practices in hiring. No Search. No time for due dili-gence. No time for public, teacher or administrator input. No Transparency. What justification is there for hiring a new superintendent without adequate pub-lic notice? Something stinks, there must be something rotten going on.
The Board send out a long email the next day. The email must have been written in advance of the Board meeting given its length (the Board meeting finished up around 10:30pm). Every detail of the announcement and hiring was perfectly planned and scripted - remember, the Board has know Allan Gordon was leaving for months. Mr Gordon has been working on firming up consulting contracts for months with the Board. They justified hiring Dc Haley, saying he had experience, they wanted to promote from within and save money on not paying for a search. None of these reasons justify there utter disrespect for public opinion. There is collusion, secrecy and conflict of interest. There is no transparency required of our public officials. Twain said, “Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today.”
The School Board has created an environment of turmoil and distrust. Parents are in disbelief. Many are angry. We will never know if Dc Haley is actually qualified for the job. We do know he was Superintendent in Sebastopol where he quit with little notice shortly after a teacher’s vote of no confidence. He left the Sebastopol’s district in turmoil. We know Allan Gordon has been retained to consult to the district. He said it wouldn’t cost the district another penny for his to consult There are hundreds of people who volunteer their time and expertise to our school as volunteers. Is he volunteering his time? Are we paying him? If so, what are we paying him?
Why would the School Board take such rash hiring decision, disregarding best practices in hiring and fair and reasonable public input? Why would they collude with Gordon and Haley, disregarding their charter to oversea our school admini-stration? All of this stinks, something must be rotten.
Litmus Test of Transparency and our School Board
Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration. “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said on his first day in office.
The new litmus test required of publicly elected officials is transparency. Transparency does matter. We need not look any farther than the front page of the Wall Street Jour-nal, NY Times and Washington Post (or any newspaper in the nation) to realize collu-sion, lack of oversight and greed are the main reasons behind our world recession. Transparency is required to ensure fair and ethical representation.
Our School Board, publicly elected to overseas our school administration, should be held to the same standards of ethics, of transparency, as all other publicly elected offi-cials. We elected The School Board in good faith to manage our school district and to work in private with our Superintendent in what appeared to be a well choreographed, well planned and well orchestrated transition of power without benefit of public discloser, discussion or participation.
There are no disputes that for months, the School Board has know Allan Gordon was planning to retire. I have know for months Mr Gordon was planning to retirement. Mr Gordon asked me to set up meetings with various schools in Bordeaux (to discuss the possibility of forming exchange programs) for him in September 2009. I asked Mr Gordon directly, given the timing of his trip, if that meant he was retiring and he said yes. I sat in a meeting with Mr Gordon on Monday, April 6th. At that meeting, Mr Gordon was asked point-blank if he has retiring. Mr Gordon said yes. He was then asked what he was going to do. He clearly laid out the 3 consulting projects he would work on for the district and that he would be open for hire starting July 2009. He quickly ask all present not to mention his retirement before Thursday since it would be dis-closed at Thursday’s School Board meeting, April 9th. It requires weeks and months of discussion to agree to retirement plans, job promotions, special consulting projects. All this these discussions took place behind closed doors without any public forum and without the benefit of transparency.
There are commonly accepted best practices for hiring a new Superintendent, the same that were used when hiring Mr Gordon. We benefited from hiring Mr Gordon, a result of a rigorous and well performed search. By following the established best practices (post-ing the job, recruiting a pool of qualified candidate, setting hiring criteria, creating a committee of Board members, parents and teachers to interviewed a narrowed down list of candidates, making recommendations given the Board input which helps them hire the best candidate) provides the best guarantee of finding the most qualified candidate. It also provides needed credibility that a new hire needs to effectively lead. Why would our School Board breech public confidence, deny our community the opportunity to find
The new litmus test required of publicly elected officials is transparency. Transparency does matter. We need not look any farther than the front page of the Wall Street Jour-nal, NY Times and Washington Post (or any newspaper in the nation) to realize collu-sion, lack of oversight and greed are the main reasons behind our world recession. Transparency is required to ensure fair and ethical representation.
Our School Board, publicly elected to overseas our school administration, should be held to the same standards of ethics, of transparency, as all other publicly elected offi-cials. We elected The School Board in good faith to manage our school district and to work in private with our Superintendent in what appeared to be a well choreographed, well planned and well orchestrated transition of power without benefit of public discloser, discussion or participation.
There are no disputes that for months, the School Board has know Allan Gordon was planning to retire. I have know for months Mr Gordon was planning to retirement. Mr Gordon asked me to set up meetings with various schools in Bordeaux (to discuss the possibility of forming exchange programs) for him in September 2009. I asked Mr Gordon directly, given the timing of his trip, if that meant he was retiring and he said yes. I sat in a meeting with Mr Gordon on Monday, April 6th. At that meeting, Mr Gordon was asked point-blank if he has retiring. Mr Gordon said yes. He was then asked what he was going to do. He clearly laid out the 3 consulting projects he would work on for the district and that he would be open for hire starting July 2009. He quickly ask all present not to mention his retirement before Thursday since it would be dis-closed at Thursday’s School Board meeting, April 9th. It requires weeks and months of discussion to agree to retirement plans, job promotions, special consulting projects. All this these discussions took place behind closed doors without any public forum and without the benefit of transparency.
There are commonly accepted best practices for hiring a new Superintendent, the same that were used when hiring Mr Gordon. We benefited from hiring Mr Gordon, a result of a rigorous and well performed search. By following the established best practices (post-ing the job, recruiting a pool of qualified candidate, setting hiring criteria, creating a committee of Board members, parents and teachers to interviewed a narrowed down list of candidates, making recommendations given the Board input which helps them hire the best candidate) provides the best guarantee of finding the most qualified candidate. It also provides needed credibility that a new hire needs to effectively lead. Why would our School Board breech public confidence, deny our community the opportunity to find
Monday, June 1, 2009
Monthly Board Meetings
I have been thinking for some time about the manner in which the monthly SHUSD meetings are held. The main problem with them is that there is no forum for dialogue between audience and district personnel and Trustees. There is one 20 minute period allotted for public comment, however, the Board makes it clear that no response will be given on those comments made. So, if you have a question that you pose to the board that night, you have to wait ONE MONTH to get answers or continue to chase down the answer yourself. Historically, one would be lucky to get the answer in one month as it seems many NEVER get responses to their questions or issue. Personally, I am still waiting for 3 of the 4 members to repsond to questions I posed at the April 14th meeting. Still no response. Are they just choosing to ingnore the issue until I "go away"?
In addition, if you are in attendance and listening to a issue being discussed or a presentation being made, there is no opportunity to ask questions that night. This method is contrary to engaging parents and community members and it needs to be changed.
Lisa Pelosi
Citizens for Quality Education
In addition, if you are in attendance and listening to a issue being discussed or a presentation being made, there is no opportunity to ask questions that night. This method is contrary to engaging parents and community members and it needs to be changed.
Lisa Pelosi
Citizens for Quality Education
Our tax money should go to educating our kids and not to paying absurd admin overhead when we are asking teachers to count paperclips and photocopying materials. We believe in representative government and the need for transparency and ethics from those elected. We believe if one feels strongly about an issue, they should vote and take an active stance for causes that matters - it is our fundamental right and what separates us from horrible places on this planet where dissent equals death. We believe in the overwhelming research that shows all great schools have excellent leadership, engaged parents and fabulous teachers (you are encouraged you to read Teach Like Your Hairs on Fire and to look at the Gate's Foundation research, Great Schools, US News & World Report,,etc, we can give you many more references if you are interested). We think our current board has weakened all three core areas that create excellency. Adding financial mis-management, they have failed us as a community.
We have seen kids graduate and go to Stanford who started their first high school year learning in a field with broken glass. We believe we should expect excellency from all kids and given them a reason to want to excel.
If one can believe newspapers, we are looking at an additional $1 billion plus in cuts from public education so our school budget scenario is getting worse and not better. So why is it we are paying an 18 month guarantee on a 2 year contract of $206,000 (approx) total benefits to a Sup managing 1,400 kids when the job for Oakland Sup managing 46,000 kids pays about $260,000? Why do we have 3 executive admins in our district office? Why are we paying huge bucks to a district PR person (appox $94,000) ? Why do we have an Asst Sup for a school district with 1,400 kids when many high schools have larger classes than our entire district. How do we justify $400,000 in early retirement payments (for just 2 individuals) when we had to cancel after school tutoring from lack of funding. How do we, after knowing all this, ask our community to donate money to our schools to pay for field trips, teacher supplies, sports teams, library books, computers...etc
Yes, we are upset and possibly even more so with our School Board after seeing Haley's contract. Business is not education but common sense tells us people don't get 18 month salary guarantees ever but certainly not is this economy and after such vocal protests by the community (In business, the norm is 1 week of benefits for every year of service). His contract, although hard to interpret, is a self renewing contract with no expiration date. An additional year is added to the contract with our without an evaluation. How can this possibly be the case? How could 4 Trustees ever think this was an appropriate contract to draft and neglect to reveal it's context and meaning to the community?
We can't let this go since it matters. We can not complain if we are not willing as a community to stand up for what is right and fair and just. We deserve a School Board that leads, we deserve a world class school that promotes excellency in education and we should expect our tax dollars used to educate our kids and not pay for outsider's lucrative early retirement.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Talking points
I am currently working on the talking points, which should be available for review by EOD tomorrow (Thursday May 28). Tish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)