In point of fact, those parents have incorrect information. LASD Superintendent Jeff Baier sent a letter today to BCS Principal Wanny Hersey to reiterate the sharing arrangements. In his letter, he provides a copy of the sharing schedule that has been in place since November, and mentions that the BCS Asst. Principal Schwartzbaum have adjusted the schedule from time to time to meet the needs of the parties. I provide a copy of the letter here in the hopes that BCS parents will see it and understand that the space has been provided properly. Whether BCS chooses to use that space or not is entirely up to them, but the District has provided the space.
Showing posts with label 2013-14 Facilities Offer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2013-14 Facilities Offer. Show all posts
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Play Space At Blach
At a recent LASD board meeting, quite a number of BCS parents expressed concern that BCS children at Blach had no place to play other than on the blacktop between the classrooms. I believe this surprised most of the LASD board, since we provided for that in the 2013-14 facilities offer. We actually had a lengthy debate when we constructed the facilities offer to provide both a way to share space (BCS and LASD kids playing together) and also a fall-back position in case the sharing didn't work out.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
BCS - new lawsuit, other items
It often feels like our time is consumed by the BCS issue. I'm so pleased that our staff is able to focus heavily on our students, and I try to write about that work as much as I can. While BCS continues to consume a great deal of Board time, we are doing some fantastic things in the classroom. However, I do still want to keep people posted on what's going on with BCS, and it's time for an update.
Negotiations
The Long Term negotiating teams did meet last night, and also on Oct 30. Some progress has been made, but there remain some significant "sticking points". I cannot yet predict whether these discussions will bear fruit. We will continue to take video and post them to the District website for those who are interested in watching the sessions.
All of the video can be found here
FO/FUA Violations
Next week at the Board meeting, we will be holding a public hearing on how to address the BCS violations of the terms of the Final Offer, and the Facilities Use Agreement that they signed. One BCS Board member has been quoted in the MV Voice as saying that they have not violated the terms of the agreement, and BCS Board Chair Ken Moore has accused the district of "inventing its own alternate reality". We have had BCS parents speaking in open session of our board meeting, admitting to BCS actions in violation of the FO/FUA and substantial evidence from the community and staff of the numerous violations. The Courts have already ruled that the conditions we imposed were legal, so the only question remaining is what we should do about it. I will be very interested to see if BCS has any light they can shed on this, but I don't think the District are the ones not inhabiting reality.
Here is the notification we sent to them for the hearing
and the recent MV Voice Article
and the Town Crier Article
New Lawsuit
Finally, we received service today of another lawsuit from BCS. (we receive notice it was coming on Nov 1, along with the facilities request for next year). Once again they are using CEQA to challenge District actions. I find this an odd disconnect. In the negotiations, BCS Board members have told us that we have the ability to essentially ignore CEQA and do whatever we want. In these lawsuits, though, they allege that we haven't followed it properly. That's a very strange set of positions to take. This latest lawsuit from BCS challenges the placement of a portable on the Egan campus, in space not used by BCS. That building is used to conduct classes for special needs students. I don't think I could conceive of a n action from BCS that would paint them in a less flattering light. Start with a law BCS is currently violating, a law which they claim the district has the power to ignore. Use that law to attack services we provide for a group of students that not only need additional services, but are part of a legally protected group (special needs). Top that off with community allegations that BCS doesn't serve that same group of students.
I can't imagine what their highly paid PR firm must think of all of this, but I sure wouldn't want to have to explain it to the public if I were in their shoes. (cue the music to mission:Impossible)
Here is the paperwork for the lawsuit
Bullis Summons
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (the actual lawsuit)
Notice of Election to Prepare the Administrative Record
Notice of Related Case (asks the court to join this lawsuit with the existing CEQA lawsuit)
Civil Case Cover Sheet
Notice to the Attorney General
Proof of Service
Negotiations
The Long Term negotiating teams did meet last night, and also on Oct 30. Some progress has been made, but there remain some significant "sticking points". I cannot yet predict whether these discussions will bear fruit. We will continue to take video and post them to the District website for those who are interested in watching the sessions.
All of the video can be found here
FO/FUA Violations
Next week at the Board meeting, we will be holding a public hearing on how to address the BCS violations of the terms of the Final Offer, and the Facilities Use Agreement that they signed. One BCS Board member has been quoted in the MV Voice as saying that they have not violated the terms of the agreement, and BCS Board Chair Ken Moore has accused the district of "inventing its own alternate reality". We have had BCS parents speaking in open session of our board meeting, admitting to BCS actions in violation of the FO/FUA and substantial evidence from the community and staff of the numerous violations. The Courts have already ruled that the conditions we imposed were legal, so the only question remaining is what we should do about it. I will be very interested to see if BCS has any light they can shed on this, but I don't think the District are the ones not inhabiting reality.
Here is the notification we sent to them for the hearing
and the recent MV Voice Article
and the Town Crier Article
New Lawsuit
Finally, we received service today of another lawsuit from BCS. (we receive notice it was coming on Nov 1, along with the facilities request for next year). Once again they are using CEQA to challenge District actions. I find this an odd disconnect. In the negotiations, BCS Board members have told us that we have the ability to essentially ignore CEQA and do whatever we want. In these lawsuits, though, they allege that we haven't followed it properly. That's a very strange set of positions to take. This latest lawsuit from BCS challenges the placement of a portable on the Egan campus, in space not used by BCS. That building is used to conduct classes for special needs students. I don't think I could conceive of a n action from BCS that would paint them in a less flattering light. Start with a law BCS is currently violating, a law which they claim the district has the power to ignore. Use that law to attack services we provide for a group of students that not only need additional services, but are part of a legally protected group (special needs). Top that off with community allegations that BCS doesn't serve that same group of students.
I can't imagine what their highly paid PR firm must think of all of this, but I sure wouldn't want to have to explain it to the public if I were in their shoes. (cue the music to mission:Impossible)
Here is the paperwork for the lawsuit
Bullis Summons
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (the actual lawsuit)
Notice of Election to Prepare the Administrative Record
Notice of Related Case (asks the court to join this lawsuit with the existing CEQA lawsuit)
Civil Case Cover Sheet
Notice to the Attorney General
Proof of Service
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
LASD/BCS meetings start tonight
Updated @12:30pm to include site evaluation information
Those who have followed the LASD/ BCS interactions over the past few weeks know it has been a challenging time in the relationship. However, I am pleased to say that we have arranged a series of meetings to discuss both BCS's short term concerns (primarily related to the 2013-14 facilities offer) as well as the District's desire to push forward with a bond to build new schools.
The meetings will have 2 members from the LASD Board of Trustees and 2 members of the BCS Board of Directors. Last night the District appointed Mark Goines and Steve Taglio as our representatives to the "short term" talks. Tammy Logan and I will represent the District in the longer term discussions.
The schedule for the meetings is as follows:
8/27 Short Term (Grade Level Restrictions)
8/29 Short Term (Site Capacity Restrictions)
9/10 Long Term
9/12 Long Term
9/17 Long Term
9/19 Short Term (misc items)
The Short Term meetings will be held at the Los Altos City Hall in the Community Meeting Room (commonly known as the council chambers). The Long Term meetings will be held at the Los Altos Hills Town Hall. All meetings will start at 7pm. These are all public meetings. Much like our Feb 15 2x2, the focus is on a working discussion. I'm anxious to see how we can collaborate and address the long term need to build more facilities while considering how BCS fits within the footprint of what we have today.
In parallel with naming these teams last night, we also asked LASD Trustee Pablo Luther to take on work with the Town of Los Altos Hills to evaluate potential sites in the that community. It's one thing to work on a hypothetical bond, but I think the conversation will move substantially if we have a site identified. Many thanks to Mayor Waldeck for his support of this work as well.
Those who have followed the LASD/ BCS interactions over the past few weeks know it has been a challenging time in the relationship. However, I am pleased to say that we have arranged a series of meetings to discuss both BCS's short term concerns (primarily related to the 2013-14 facilities offer) as well as the District's desire to push forward with a bond to build new schools.
The meetings will have 2 members from the LASD Board of Trustees and 2 members of the BCS Board of Directors. Last night the District appointed Mark Goines and Steve Taglio as our representatives to the "short term" talks. Tammy Logan and I will represent the District in the longer term discussions.
The schedule for the meetings is as follows:
8/27 Short Term (Grade Level Restrictions)
8/29 Short Term (Site Capacity Restrictions)
9/10 Long Term
9/12 Long Term
9/17 Long Term
9/19 Short Term (misc items)
The Short Term meetings will be held at the Los Altos City Hall in the Community Meeting Room (commonly known as the council chambers). The Long Term meetings will be held at the Los Altos Hills Town Hall. All meetings will start at 7pm. These are all public meetings. Much like our Feb 15 2x2, the focus is on a working discussion. I'm anxious to see how we can collaborate and address the long term need to build more facilities while considering how BCS fits within the footprint of what we have today.
In parallel with naming these teams last night, we also asked LASD Trustee Pablo Luther to take on work with the Town of Los Altos Hills to evaluate potential sites in the that community. It's one thing to work on a hypothetical bond, but I think the conversation will move substantially if we have a site identified. Many thanks to Mayor Waldeck for his support of this work as well.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
In Court Today: 2013-14 offer
Today we had a court date to discuss the first of two BCS challenges to the 2013-14 facilities offer. Today's discussion centered entirely around whether LASD was able to split BCS into two sites, or if that was a violation of the process.
BCS essentially argued that prop 39 says we have to start by placing them on a single campus, and then restructuring the remaining LASD programs around that. Judge Pierce also spent time clarifying whether the courts should evaluate all of the options independent of the elected Board of Trustees. He also explored whether we have a "ministerial duty" or if the trustees have discretion in how we allocate facilities.
LASD's argument was fairly brief. We pointed to the case law in Ridgecrest that specifically permits districts to split charter schools across campuses under certain circumstances, provided that the district makes written findings supporting that decision. LASD did this back in January 2013, as part of our extensive evaluation of options for BCS. LASD attorney Ray Cardozo drew the court's attention to the resolution, which specifically starts with the single site solution (Covington) but then explains how that would have a disproportionate impact on District students- particularly special needs students who are heavily impacted by changes.
Judge Pierce asked some good questions, and it felt like he'd done his homework. he had a good command of the various sites in the district, and what has happened before this hearing. He did ask about a possible return to mediation. Our attorney provided a brief answer. My thought is that we're willing to engage in a discussion, but it can't be starting with the same old position ("Close an LASD school") I've said in the past that we would enter into discussions if BCS drops or freezes the litigation we would be willing to meet. The biggest driver for that is some sort of tangible proof that if we agree to something with the subset, there's reason to believe it will be accepted by the broader BCS Board. I can expand on this later, but as I said, this is a position I've expressed before.
This was the first time I've seen the new attorney for BCS. I'm encouraged that he was focused on the facts and law of the case rather than some of the more colorful language that their prior counsel employed. Given the number of open lawsuits, it is far too early to declare a change in approach. However, we did manage to get this hearing scheduled within a reasonable time frame, and with a minimum of the shenanigans and delay tactics we've seen in the past. Hopefully we'll deal with the issues head on.
Judge Pierce didn't issue a tentative ruling before the hearing, so we are all awaiting his decision. He is repute to be someone who doesn't waste time, though, so hopefully we'll see something soon.
PS to A Friend: Thanks.
BCS essentially argued that prop 39 says we have to start by placing them on a single campus, and then restructuring the remaining LASD programs around that. Judge Pierce also spent time clarifying whether the courts should evaluate all of the options independent of the elected Board of Trustees. He also explored whether we have a "ministerial duty" or if the trustees have discretion in how we allocate facilities.
LASD's argument was fairly brief. We pointed to the case law in Ridgecrest that specifically permits districts to split charter schools across campuses under certain circumstances, provided that the district makes written findings supporting that decision. LASD did this back in January 2013, as part of our extensive evaluation of options for BCS. LASD attorney Ray Cardozo drew the court's attention to the resolution, which specifically starts with the single site solution (Covington) but then explains how that would have a disproportionate impact on District students- particularly special needs students who are heavily impacted by changes.
Judge Pierce asked some good questions, and it felt like he'd done his homework. he had a good command of the various sites in the district, and what has happened before this hearing. He did ask about a possible return to mediation. Our attorney provided a brief answer. My thought is that we're willing to engage in a discussion, but it can't be starting with the same old position ("Close an LASD school") I've said in the past that we would enter into discussions if BCS drops or freezes the litigation we would be willing to meet. The biggest driver for that is some sort of tangible proof that if we agree to something with the subset, there's reason to believe it will be accepted by the broader BCS Board. I can expand on this later, but as I said, this is a position I've expressed before.
This was the first time I've seen the new attorney for BCS. I'm encouraged that he was focused on the facts and law of the case rather than some of the more colorful language that their prior counsel employed. Given the number of open lawsuits, it is far too early to declare a change in approach. However, we did manage to get this hearing scheduled within a reasonable time frame, and with a minimum of the shenanigans and delay tactics we've seen in the past. Hopefully we'll deal with the issues head on.
Judge Pierce didn't issue a tentative ruling before the hearing, so we are all awaiting his decision. He is repute to be someone who doesn't waste time, though, so hopefully we'll see something soon.
PS to A Friend: Thanks.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Hearing Dates (tentative)
Today our attorneys informed us that we have some tentative dates for hearings in the various litigation threads going on. I like to think that these dates are "committed", but in the past these have moved at the last minute. Still, I'll share what we know.
2013-14 BCS Prop 39 Case
We have tentatively agreed to a hearing date on June 20th, 2013. This will focus only on the first of the two issues, the legality of providing non-contiguous facilities to BCS. (See my earlier blog posts that detail this thread). This would be for oral arguments in that case.
Raynor Case (LASD motion, + separate BCS complaint)
In the District's efforts to acquire a site for BCS, we also have a thread of litigation. Today, our attorneys successfully argued to the judge that the BCS case needs to be consolidated and heard at the same time as our request for declaratory relief. (BCS opposed the consolidation, but the judge agreed that these cases deal with the same facts, and can be consolidated.) That case will take a bit more work to prepare, so that hearing is currently set for July 22, 2013. Again older blog posts contain the details as well as the court filings so far.
I look forward to having these cases heard. Hopefully we can focus on the core issues, and avoid some of the iterations that have plagued the 2012-13 cases.
2013-14 BCS Prop 39 Case
We have tentatively agreed to a hearing date on June 20th, 2013. This will focus only on the first of the two issues, the legality of providing non-contiguous facilities to BCS. (See my earlier blog posts that detail this thread). This would be for oral arguments in that case.
Raynor Case (LASD motion, + separate BCS complaint)
In the District's efforts to acquire a site for BCS, we also have a thread of litigation. Today, our attorneys successfully argued to the judge that the BCS case needs to be consolidated and heard at the same time as our request for declaratory relief. (BCS opposed the consolidation, but the judge agreed that these cases deal with the same facts, and can be consolidated.) That case will take a bit more work to prepare, so that hearing is currently set for July 22, 2013. Again older blog posts contain the details as well as the court filings so far.
I look forward to having these cases heard. Hopefully we can focus on the core issues, and avoid some of the iterations that have plagued the 2012-13 cases.
Community Discussion at Blach
This evening we held a community discussion at Blach. The goal of the meeting was to have a forum where parents of both BCS and Blach could come forward and ask questions related to the logistics of sharing the site. I'm pleased to say that the event was well attended by parents from both schools. We also had a couple of BCS Board Members join us, at least one of their teachers, and of course their principal. We even had a member of the Los Altos City Council come join us.
Many of the questions ocvered things we'd considered in the final offer, but there were also questions raised that we know we still need to hash out. The "Final Offer" is a document that sapecifies the space BCS can use, but it doesn't address the practical realities of life on the ground. Blach Principal Sandra McGonacle will be discussing many of those issue with BCS Principal Wanny Hersey this summer.
I believe that the discussion was productive- parents raised questions about the sharing of facilities, and how that all will work. We continued a dialogue, and are working to establish a cooperative culture between the schools. That's a win in my book.
Many of the questions ocvered things we'd considered in the final offer, but there were also questions raised that we know we still need to hash out. The "Final Offer" is a document that sapecifies the space BCS can use, but it doesn't address the practical realities of life on the ground. Blach Principal Sandra McGonacle will be discussing many of those issue with BCS Principal Wanny Hersey this summer.
I believe that the discussion was productive- parents raised questions about the sharing of facilities, and how that all will work. We continued a dialogue, and are working to establish a cooperative culture between the schools. That's a win in my book.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Scheduling a community meeting
Updated 5/20: Due to a scheduling conflict (mentioned below), we've moved up the meeting by a day. It will be held on May 22 @ 7pm at Blach.
------
Some folks may be aware, LASD has tried to schedule a comunity meeting to discuss the sharing arrangements at Blach for next year. The sharing arrangements are new at Blach, and we were concernd that there might be questions or confusion. Attendees of the Board meetings in March and April probably recall a discussion amonngst the Board and administration about the clear value of having this type of discussion.
This week we sent out notices for a proposed meeting on May 23rd. However, BCS replied and let us know that May 23rd is also the night of the BCS Open House. As soon as we became aware, we reached out to reschedule. We hope to have that worked out quickly, and to hold this meeting before the end of school. Ms. McGonagle will send an updated notice when we fix a date.
The meeting is primarily directed towards parents who have students on this campus next year, but of course anyone will be welcome. This will not be a "legal" discussion- we're not aiming to talk about how the offer was constructed, or why we did "this" or "that" in the Final Offer. Rather, the focus will be on logistics and getting along. I hope that we will have a constructive discussion.
------
Some folks may be aware, LASD has tried to schedule a comunity meeting to discuss the sharing arrangements at Blach for next year. The sharing arrangements are new at Blach, and we were concernd that there might be questions or confusion. Attendees of the Board meetings in March and April probably recall a discussion amonngst the Board and administration about the clear value of having this type of discussion.
This week we sent out notices for a proposed meeting on May 23rd. However, BCS replied and let us know that May 23rd is also the night of the BCS Open House. As soon as we became aware, we reached out to reschedule. We hope to have that worked out quickly, and to hold this meeting before the end of school. Ms. McGonagle will send an updated notice when we fix a date.
The meeting is primarily directed towards parents who have students on this campus next year, but of course anyone will be welcome. This will not be a "legal" discussion- we're not aiming to talk about how the offer was constructed, or why we did "this" or "that" in the Final Offer. Rather, the focus will be on logistics and getting along. I hope that we will have a constructive discussion.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
LASD Delivers Final Offer
Note: This blog post is late- we delivered the final offer on April 1, 2013 as required by law. At that time, I delivered a letter to the community. This post includes that letter, as well as links to the various documents for the 2013-14 facilities process.
On April 1, 2013, LASD delivered the Final Offer of Facilities to BCS. They have responded with their Notice of Intent to Occupy, along with their customary statement that says they deem the offer insufficient and they reserve the right to sue us.
This offer is an exceptionally strong offer, and it is actually more than what is required by law. I can only hope that BCS will decide it isn't worth suing over this, and we can return our focus to the children we educate.
I state this in my letter, but I also want to point it out here: the District staff has worked incredibly hard to prepare this offer. There are countless hours devoted to measuring, counting, and calculating, as well as then working through all the logistical and programmatic impacts of this type of arrangement. The District's Chief Business Officer, Randy Kenyon, has taken point on this, and done a fantastic job. I also want to specifically call out Sandra McGonagle for her hard work. As the principal at Blach, she and her staff have gone through a great deal to revise their program to accommodate BCS and welcome them into a new way of sharing facilities. We are fortunate to have such superb folks advancing the work of the District. To accomplish this while maintaining such an excellent program, and to continue to achieve State-level recognition for our efficient administration, well, it says a lot about our team.
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
(letter to community sent on April 3, 2013)
Parents, Guardians, and Community Members
I'm pleased to say that the District has successfully completed and delivered the final facilities offer to BCS for the 2013-14 school year. This year's process incorporated an unprecedented level of community input, spanning more than a dozen public meetings over a 5 month period. In developing the Final Offer, the District has offered BCS generous access to shared space on the Blach campus, as well as maintaining their footprint on the Egan campus. The shared space, in particular, represents a significant change in the offers we have made to BCS. In addition to providing their 6-8 students with access to specialized teaching space, it also creates an opportunity for us to work together and share, thereby increasing trust between the groups.
The District also strives to be transparent in our operations, so I would like to acknowledge a mistake we made recently. Under the open meeting laws in California, we agendize all topics to be discussed in closed session, so that the community can stay apprised of those discussions. At Monday's Board meeting, we met with consultants to discuss real estate during closed session, as permitted under the Brown Act. However, in the press of preparing the Final Offer, we neglected to use the correct language to agendize this item. Due to this oversight, the Board is required to meet again and discuss this item anew, which will provide the public the opportunity to weigh in before the Board adjourns to closed session. We will do this by holding a special board meeting on April 15th at 6pm.
The process of delivering the Final Offer is a challenging one, and on behalf of the board I would like to extend our thanks to the district employees who have worked so hard to evaluate options, develop alternatives, and make adjustments to our program in order to make this all work. They have been professional throughout the process. We can all be grateful that we have such a fantastic team working on behalf of our students.
Have a wonderful spring break, and we will see you on your return.
Warm regards,
Doug Smith
President, LASD Board of Trustees
On April 1, 2013, LASD delivered the Final Offer of Facilities to BCS. They have responded with their Notice of Intent to Occupy, along with their customary statement that says they deem the offer insufficient and they reserve the right to sue us.
This offer is an exceptionally strong offer, and it is actually more than what is required by law. I can only hope that BCS will decide it isn't worth suing over this, and we can return our focus to the children we educate.
I state this in my letter, but I also want to point it out here: the District staff has worked incredibly hard to prepare this offer. There are countless hours devoted to measuring, counting, and calculating, as well as then working through all the logistical and programmatic impacts of this type of arrangement. The District's Chief Business Officer, Randy Kenyon, has taken point on this, and done a fantastic job. I also want to specifically call out Sandra McGonagle for her hard work. As the principal at Blach, she and her staff have gone through a great deal to revise their program to accommodate BCS and welcome them into a new way of sharing facilities. We are fortunate to have such superb folks advancing the work of the District. To accomplish this while maintaining such an excellent program, and to continue to achieve State-level recognition for our efficient administration, well, it says a lot about our team.
Date
|
Action
|
Documents
|
Nov 1
|
BCS submits request for facilities, incl. enrollment forecast and preferred location.
| |
Dec 1
|
LASD provides counter-projection to enrollment
| |
Jan 1
|
BCS responds to counter-projection
| |
Feb 1
|
LASD provides preliminary facilities offer (draft)
| |
Mar 1
|
BCS responds to draft offer
| |
April 1
|
LASD provides final facilities offer
| |
July 1
|
LASD adjusts classroom space based on final district budget for upcoming school year
(Note: This is a negotiated step, not part of the Prop 39 process)
|
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
(letter to community sent on April 3, 2013)
Parents, Guardians, and Community Members
I'm pleased to say that the District has successfully completed and delivered the final facilities offer to BCS for the 2013-14 school year. This year's process incorporated an unprecedented level of community input, spanning more than a dozen public meetings over a 5 month period. In developing the Final Offer, the District has offered BCS generous access to shared space on the Blach campus, as well as maintaining their footprint on the Egan campus. The shared space, in particular, represents a significant change in the offers we have made to BCS. In addition to providing their 6-8 students with access to specialized teaching space, it also creates an opportunity for us to work together and share, thereby increasing trust between the groups.
The District also strives to be transparent in our operations, so I would like to acknowledge a mistake we made recently. Under the open meeting laws in California, we agendize all topics to be discussed in closed session, so that the community can stay apprised of those discussions. At Monday's Board meeting, we met with consultants to discuss real estate during closed session, as permitted under the Brown Act. However, in the press of preparing the Final Offer, we neglected to use the correct language to agendize this item. Due to this oversight, the Board is required to meet again and discuss this item anew, which will provide the public the opportunity to weigh in before the Board adjourns to closed session. We will do this by holding a special board meeting on April 15th at 6pm.
The process of delivering the Final Offer is a challenging one, and on behalf of the board I would like to extend our thanks to the district employees who have worked so hard to evaluate options, develop alternatives, and make adjustments to our program in order to make this all work. They have been professional throughout the process. We can all be grateful that we have such a fantastic team working on behalf of our students.
Have a wonderful spring break, and we will see you on your return.
Warm regards,
Doug Smith
President, LASD Board of Trustees
Monday, March 25, 2013
BCS update to enrollment projections
Last night I received the attached letter from Ken Moore, Board Chair for BCS. In the letter, he provides statements about the enrollment process, essentially confirming some of their earlier enrollment projections. In the spirit of transparency, I'm posting it here. It doesn't address much of the content we've asked for (and BCS has previously promised) but at least they are engaging.
Also, I believe that a couple of BCS Board members will be attending the LASD Board meeting tonight, so we'll have a chance to ask them questions as well.
See you at 7pm...
Letter from BCS 2013-03-24
Also, I believe that a couple of BCS Board members will be attending the LASD Board meeting tonight, so we'll have a chance to ask them questions as well.
See you at 7pm...
Letter from BCS 2013-03-24
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Shared Space at Blach
2013-14 Facilities Offer
I received a very thoughtful letter from a BCS parent about the shared space at Blach. Since I think this is an area where others may have some questions, I thought I'd share my personal thinking with a wider audience. Again, this doesn't take place of official Board action, but it should help folks understand what I'm driving at.
The offer is premised around BCS 6-8th grade located at Blach. I believe this can minimize the amount of duplicate space we need to build out. I've advocated for an approach that "generally" allows 6th graders to have access to Specialized Teaching Space (STS) at Blach, but not "always". You can think of it in three buckets:
1) I don't have any concerns about giving 6th grade access to some areas, like the drama & music space. That's the same as an MPR they would have at Loyola or Santa Rita anyway, so no problem there.
2) Somewhere in the middle, 6th graders aren't really "entitled" to access to the track, the gym, soccer field, and tennis courts. However, I lean towards providing them that access. The big driver is because that access is in lieu of other STS that we might otherwise build out. The LASD Board can make a determination as a Board that providing this access creates a reasonably equivalent experience. BCS kids have more PE facilities, but maybe they don't have a small group space. it's not exact- but it is within the discretion of the Board.
3) There are some spaces, like the science labs, that aren't appropriate for 6th graders. We use chemicals there, and Bunsen burners, and we have made a determination that it's just not smart to allow access to younger kids in that space, so we don't share that with the 6th graders.
The parent also asked about building space where we can't provide enough shared access. If we can't provide reasonable access to shared space, then we would build it out. For example, the servery- we need it at the exact same time BCS would need it, so we can't really say we'll share. (Who gets it from 11:30-1pm while the other party gets it from 9:00-11:30? Not really fair, so that doesn't work. So we build a second servery.) But really, I want to minimize the amount of duplicated space. These portables cost a small fortune, and I'd rather time share than build out more buildings where we can. But for a lot of other space, we can work out sharing arrangements, and we are doing just that.
We have a plan for sharing PE space, including on rainy days. We really aren't barbarians. I don't want to see a scene with kids standing out in the rain while other kids have PE inside a warm, dry gym. I met with the Blach principal this morning, and she and her PE staff had just wrapped up a discussion about this. It will be included in the final proposal. We really wanted Wanny to interact with Sandra more, but that hasn't happened. C'est la vie. We will have a specific offer in the final offer, in order to comply with the court rulings (that said we have to be specific). However, if the BCS staff is willing to collaborate, we can certainly entertain "swaps" etc.
So in the long run, I think we'll have a final offer that creates a very workable solution for both parties. It won't be the whole "pony list" that BCS asked for, but it is reasonably equivalent and certainly workable and functionally equivalent.
I also want to tip my hat and thank the Blach Principal and her staff. We've had a number of conversations to pull together this offer, and their attitude was consistently one of partnership and fairness. They are, pardon the pun, a class act.
I received a very thoughtful letter from a BCS parent about the shared space at Blach. Since I think this is an area where others may have some questions, I thought I'd share my personal thinking with a wider audience. Again, this doesn't take place of official Board action, but it should help folks understand what I'm driving at.
The offer is premised around BCS 6-8th grade located at Blach. I believe this can minimize the amount of duplicate space we need to build out. I've advocated for an approach that "generally" allows 6th graders to have access to Specialized Teaching Space (STS) at Blach, but not "always". You can think of it in three buckets:
1) I don't have any concerns about giving 6th grade access to some areas, like the drama & music space. That's the same as an MPR they would have at Loyola or Santa Rita anyway, so no problem there.
2) Somewhere in the middle, 6th graders aren't really "entitled" to access to the track, the gym, soccer field, and tennis courts. However, I lean towards providing them that access. The big driver is because that access is in lieu of other STS that we might otherwise build out. The LASD Board can make a determination as a Board that providing this access creates a reasonably equivalent experience. BCS kids have more PE facilities, but maybe they don't have a small group space. it's not exact- but it is within the discretion of the Board.
3) There are some spaces, like the science labs, that aren't appropriate for 6th graders. We use chemicals there, and Bunsen burners, and we have made a determination that it's just not smart to allow access to younger kids in that space, so we don't share that with the 6th graders.
The parent also asked about building space where we can't provide enough shared access. If we can't provide reasonable access to shared space, then we would build it out. For example, the servery- we need it at the exact same time BCS would need it, so we can't really say we'll share. (Who gets it from 11:30-1pm while the other party gets it from 9:00-11:30? Not really fair, so that doesn't work. So we build a second servery.) But really, I want to minimize the amount of duplicated space. These portables cost a small fortune, and I'd rather time share than build out more buildings where we can. But for a lot of other space, we can work out sharing arrangements, and we are doing just that.
We have a plan for sharing PE space, including on rainy days. We really aren't barbarians. I don't want to see a scene with kids standing out in the rain while other kids have PE inside a warm, dry gym. I met with the Blach principal this morning, and she and her PE staff had just wrapped up a discussion about this. It will be included in the final proposal. We really wanted Wanny to interact with Sandra more, but that hasn't happened. C'est la vie. We will have a specific offer in the final offer, in order to comply with the court rulings (that said we have to be specific). However, if the BCS staff is willing to collaborate, we can certainly entertain "swaps" etc.
So in the long run, I think we'll have a final offer that creates a very workable solution for both parties. It won't be the whole "pony list" that BCS asked for, but it is reasonably equivalent and certainly workable and functionally equivalent.
I also want to tip my hat and thank the Blach Principal and her staff. We've had a number of conversations to pull together this offer, and their attitude was consistently one of partnership and fairness. They are, pardon the pun, a class act.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Responsible versus Influence
In tech, we talk sometimes about who is “responsible” and who has “influence”. You get to define a process or deliverable when you have primary responsibility for it. You influence it when you don’t have ownership, but have an interest in the outcome.**
Sales execs go to great lengths to determine who will make the final decision, and who is “providing input”. Likewise, in the professional services practices I run, I ask my teams to be crystal clear about who at the client has actual signature authority over a change order or acceptance for a deliverable. Knowing up front who “influences” versus who is “responsible” helps avoid ambiguity as you near the end of a process.
There is a huge disconnect right now, in that BCS seems to feel that they have the right to define the final facilities offer for the 2013-14 school year. That responsibility, by law, is assigned to the LASD Board of Trustees. We’ve offered them the opportunity to influence what we propose, but the LASD BoT will retain final responsibility for the content of the offer. We provided a preliminary offer that gave some insight into our thinking, and they had an opportunity to provide feedback through their March 1st response. That was a great opportunity to influence the Final Offer. Unfortunately, they have come back with a completely different proposal- once again trying to redefine the offer in terms of their choosing. In the process, they are squandering the opportunity to influence the outcome, because they’re so insistent on trying to define a path the District has no interest in pursuing.
The District is, therefore, proceeding with our legal responsibility and defining the Final Offer. I’ve reached out to BCS in the past few days to try to give them a chance to influence the final configuration. However, if they keep insisting on trying to define it on their own terms, we will do what we are responsible to do under the law- we will balance the impact on students, we will weigh the financial impacts, and we will define the Final Offer and move forward.
**Note: Using this explicit terminology has fallen out of favor in the collaborative workplaces of the Silicon Valley, but the concepts still apply. People describe it differently, but ultimately the concepts still exist.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
BCS delivers response to preliminary offer
2013-14 Facilities Process
I have only glanced through this, but I'm sure many will read it with great interest.
One thing I did seem to notice- if I read it correctly, they're demanding that we evict stepping stones preschool at Blach? I'll have to re-read in more detail. (section G, top of Page 9)
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
I have only glanced through this, but I'm sure many will read it with great interest.
One thing I did seem to notice- if I read it correctly, they're demanding that we evict stepping stones preschool at Blach? I'll have to re-read in more detail. (section G, top of Page 9)
Date
|
Action
|
Documents
|
Nov 1
|
BCS submits request for facilities, incl. enrollment forecast and preferred location.
| |
Dec 1
|
LASD provides counter-projection to enrollment
| |
Jan 1
|
BCS responds to counter-projection
| |
Feb 1
|
LASD provides preliminary facilities offer (draft)
| |
Mar 1
|
BCS responds to draft offer
| |
April 1
|
LASD provides final facilities offer
| |
July 1
|
LASD adjusts classroom space based on final district budget for upcoming school year
(Note: This is a negotiated step, not part of the Prop 39 process)
|
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
LASD provides responses to BCS questions
2013-14 Offer Process
On Feb 13, 2013, Tamara Logan and I met with BCS Board members Joe Hurd and Peter Evans to disucss the Preliminary Offer (PO). As I noted in my Feb 11 email to Ken Moore , there were some practical limitations to that meeting. For example, since District staff were already committed to a different meeting to review District finances, we wouldn't be able to provide answers to some of their questions. During the meeting, we kept running notes of the question, which all parties reiviewed and accepted. Since then, the District has pulled together responses to the questions.
Yesterday, I sent these responses to BCS. I've also committed that we would make these responses public, in an effort to maintain transparency in the process. I have attached the responses here.
Responses to BCS Prop 39 Questions
Transmittal Note to BCS
On Feb 13, 2013, Tamara Logan and I met with BCS Board members Joe Hurd and Peter Evans to disucss the Preliminary Offer (PO). As I noted in my Feb 11 email to Ken Moore , there were some practical limitations to that meeting. For example, since District staff were already committed to a different meeting to review District finances, we wouldn't be able to provide answers to some of their questions. During the meeting, we kept running notes of the question, which all parties reiviewed and accepted. Since then, the District has pulled together responses to the questions.
Yesterday, I sent these responses to BCS. I've also committed that we would make these responses public, in an effort to maintain transparency in the process. I have attached the responses here.
Responses to BCS Prop 39 Questions
Transmittal Note to BCS
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Meeting set to discuss Prop 39 Requirements
I received a confirmation today from Ken Moore indicating that BCS will participate in the Prop 39 meeting later this week. I look forward toa constructive dialogue. As is our custom, the public is invited to attend the meeting, which will be held at 7pm at the Covington Multi.
Monday, February 11, 2013
LASD offers to meet
This letter has just been sent to Ken Moore, Chairman of the BCS Board.
Ken-
This evening at our Board meeting, the District discussed the need for improved dialogue regarding the Prop 39 offer. As you are probably aware, we had previously considered holding a special Board meeting on February 25th to collect BCS input on the current prop 39 offer.
On behalf of LASD, I'd like to invite BCS to participate in a Prop 39 meeting on Wednesday, Feb 13th. Although this is exceptionally short notice, we believe this discussion would be beneficial to both sides. LASD is concerned that a meeting that late in the month would not provide adequate time to collect the questions you might have, prepare meaningful responses, and then to have that feedback incorporated in the BCS response due on March 1st. By accelerating the discussion, it gives a greater opportunity to provide information which might be important in your Prop 39 response on March 1st.
In keeping with the LASD requirements for openness and transparency, the meeting will be open to the public. In an effort to make the meeting as productive as possible,we are requesting that you send a team of no more than 2 people. LASD will do the same. Other Board members are welcome to observe from the audience, but our goal is to have a constructive dialogue, and we believe that is best achieved with small teams form both sides.
I want to make sure we set expectations correctly. Randy Kenyon will be attending a CACF meeting, and we are not likely to be able to answer a large number of questions. However, we'll collect the questions, discuss what you need, and we will commit to as quick a response as we can. All of our responses will be posted to the District web site, so that the public can follow along with the dialogue.
We are nailing down specifics of location, but I expect the meeting will be held at 7pm on Wednesday evening. Please let me know as quickly as possible of the BCS team will be able to attend. I've already discussed this with Joe Hurd, and I'm hoping that the BCS team will come in a spirit of collaboration and constructive dialogue.
Best wishes,
DJS
Ken-
This evening at our Board meeting, the District discussed the need for improved dialogue regarding the Prop 39 offer. As you are probably aware, we had previously considered holding a special Board meeting on February 25th to collect BCS input on the current prop 39 offer.
On behalf of LASD, I'd like to invite BCS to participate in a Prop 39 meeting on Wednesday, Feb 13th. Although this is exceptionally short notice, we believe this discussion would be beneficial to both sides. LASD is concerned that a meeting that late in the month would not provide adequate time to collect the questions you might have, prepare meaningful responses, and then to have that feedback incorporated in the BCS response due on March 1st. By accelerating the discussion, it gives a greater opportunity to provide information which might be important in your Prop 39 response on March 1st.
In keeping with the LASD requirements for openness and transparency, the meeting will be open to the public. In an effort to make the meeting as productive as possible,we are requesting that you send a team of no more than 2 people. LASD will do the same. Other Board members are welcome to observe from the audience, but our goal is to have a constructive dialogue, and we believe that is best achieved with small teams form both sides.
I want to make sure we set expectations correctly. Randy Kenyon will be attending a CACF meeting, and we are not likely to be able to answer a large number of questions. However, we'll collect the questions, discuss what you need, and we will commit to as quick a response as we can. All of our responses will be posted to the District web site, so that the public can follow along with the dialogue.
We are nailing down specifics of location, but I expect the meeting will be held at 7pm on Wednesday evening. Please let me know as quickly as possible of the BCS team will be able to attend. I've already discussed this with Joe Hurd, and I'm hoping that the BCS team will come in a spirit of collaboration and constructive dialogue.
Best wishes,
DJS
Thursday, February 7, 2013
BCS Presentation on Prop 39 offer
I run a professional services practice in my day job, so I end up negotiating a lot of agreements with clients. Typically there's a Professional Services Agreement, and a series of Statements of Work that fit under the agreement. As in any business, we want to have a long term relationship with our clients.
Occasionally when we start the negotiating process, it becomes clear that the parties have very different expectations. At that point, we have a lot of ground to cover. If I start lobbing back contract redlines with statements like "you guys are crazy, you don't know what you're talking about", what are the chances that I'm going to come to an agreement with the client? Even if I do, what are the chances that the next negotiation is going to go well?
This past week, BCS had a Board meeting and they discussed the Prop 39 offer. I've attached the slides presented by one of their Board members, Janet Medlin. I'm disappointed in the tone of this document. Frankly, it reads like pre-litigation notes much more than any sort of constructive dialogue. If someone is genuine in their desire to negotiate, and in a desire to foster better relations, they would moderate what they say. This document reflects no such moderation.
I have attached the document exactly as I received it from BCS. The red font, etc. are entirely theirs.
link to BCS presentation
This stands is stark contrast to the pleas from other BCS Board members for constructive discussions. However, the LASD Board has to deal with both ends of this spectrum. To those who argue in favor of increased engagement, a gentle reminder that the LASD Board has to deal with this type of discourse also. Unless this faction of the BCS board can be reigned in, I have little hope for any sort of constructive engagement outside of the courtroom.
In case it needs to be clarified- changing the text of the presentation isn't enough. What we say is just as important, and it is critical that the entire dialogue be more civil. There is a recording of the meeting that I'll try to get to post here also.
Occasionally when we start the negotiating process, it becomes clear that the parties have very different expectations. At that point, we have a lot of ground to cover. If I start lobbing back contract redlines with statements like "you guys are crazy, you don't know what you're talking about", what are the chances that I'm going to come to an agreement with the client? Even if I do, what are the chances that the next negotiation is going to go well?
This past week, BCS had a Board meeting and they discussed the Prop 39 offer. I've attached the slides presented by one of their Board members, Janet Medlin. I'm disappointed in the tone of this document. Frankly, it reads like pre-litigation notes much more than any sort of constructive dialogue. If someone is genuine in their desire to negotiate, and in a desire to foster better relations, they would moderate what they say. This document reflects no such moderation.
I have attached the document exactly as I received it from BCS. The red font, etc. are entirely theirs.
link to BCS presentation
This stands is stark contrast to the pleas from other BCS Board members for constructive discussions. However, the LASD Board has to deal with both ends of this spectrum. To those who argue in favor of increased engagement, a gentle reminder that the LASD Board has to deal with this type of discourse also. Unless this faction of the BCS board can be reigned in, I have little hope for any sort of constructive engagement outside of the courtroom.
In case it needs to be clarified- changing the text of the presentation isn't enough. What we say is just as important, and it is critical that the entire dialogue be more civil. There is a recording of the meeting that I'll try to get to post here also.
Friday, February 1, 2013
BCS Preliminary Facilities Offer Delivered
2013-14 Facilities Process
After a great deal of work and voluminous public input, we've presented the 2013-14 Preliminary Facilities Offer for Bullis Charter School.
This is part of the annual Prop 39 cycle, although this year we have made a conscious effort to ensure the process is as public as possible. Including the meeting we added this past Wednesday, we took public input at 7 different meetings, including facilitated sessions and broad public commentary. I am grateful to everyone who came out to share their thoughts with us.
Broadly speaking, BCS is split across 2 campuses: Egan and Blach. At Egan, they have about 40% of the students on that site, and they have about 40% of the land also. At Blach, they have 20% of the students and 20% of the land, but they also have further impact to Blach in the form of shared access to the specialized teaching space.
Given what this is, there's no way to please everyone. Some will think we've offered too much, and others will say we haven't accommodated enough. That's the job of the trustees- to weigh the input, and balance the needs of all students. I believe we've done a good job of meeting that goal.
I look forward to receiving feedback from BCS, and to considering that feedback in the preparation of the final offer.
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
After a great deal of work and voluminous public input, we've presented the 2013-14 Preliminary Facilities Offer for Bullis Charter School.
This is part of the annual Prop 39 cycle, although this year we have made a conscious effort to ensure the process is as public as possible. Including the meeting we added this past Wednesday, we took public input at 7 different meetings, including facilitated sessions and broad public commentary. I am grateful to everyone who came out to share their thoughts with us.
Broadly speaking, BCS is split across 2 campuses: Egan and Blach. At Egan, they have about 40% of the students on that site, and they have about 40% of the land also. At Blach, they have 20% of the students and 20% of the land, but they also have further impact to Blach in the form of shared access to the specialized teaching space.
Given what this is, there's no way to please everyone. Some will think we've offered too much, and others will say we haven't accommodated enough. That's the job of the trustees- to weigh the input, and balance the needs of all students. I believe we've done a good job of meeting that goal.
I look forward to receiving feedback from BCS, and to considering that feedback in the preparation of the final offer.
Date
|
Action
|
Documents
|
Nov 1
|
BCS submits request for facilities, incl. enrollment forecast and preferred location.
| |
Dec 1
|
LASD provides counter-projection to enrollment
| |
Jan 1
|
BCS responds to counter-projection
| |
Feb 1
|
LASD provides preliminary facilities offer (draft)
| |
Mar 1
|
BCS responds to draft offer
| |
April 1
|
LASD provides final facilities offer
| |
July 1
|
LASD adjusts classroom space based on final district budget for upcoming school year
(Note: This is a negotiated step, not part of the Prop 39 process)
|
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
BCS Preliminary Facilities Offer
(Note: This letter went to all LASD parents and those who subscribe to our email list. It includes a letter I sent to Ken Moore regarding the facilities offer that the District will deliver this week.)
Dear Parents, Guardians, and Community Members-
Last night at a Special Board Meeting, the LASD Board of Trustees instructed staff to deliver a preliminary facilities offer to BCS for the 2013-14 school year. The Prop 39 process provides for the District to make the preliminary offer, for BCS to respond with objections by March 1, and for the District to provide a final offer by April 1. This is the same process we follow every year.
Prop 39 requires the District Trustees to balance the needs of all students. Our offer to BCS this year proposes that their K-5 students be located at Egan, and their 6-8 students would be at Blach. In practical terms BCS would have about 40% of the students on the Egan campus, and about 40% of the land. Similarly, they would have about 20% of the students at Blach, and 20% of the land. However, Blach will also be impacted further because we are required to provide specialized teaching space to Jr High students. Principal Sandra McGonagle and her staff have worked with the administration to rework the Blach schedule to ensure reasonably equivalent access to the Specialized Teaching Space for BCS students while trying to minimize the impact on our own students. We have asked Principal McGonagle to reach out to BCS Principal Wanny Hersey to have a tactical discussion to review the sharing arrangements as proposed in the offer. We will consider that feedback as part of the final offer we present on April 1.
BCS held a PR event last week where they announced their willingness to accept a split between Egan and Blach. We are pleased that they are demonstrating an understanding of the need to balance the needs of all students. They have also acknowledged our requirement that all board-level discussions of the facilities offer be held in public, so that the community can observe the process. The LASD Board remains committed to transparency of this process, as we have done throughout the year. They also requested a whole series of Board-level meetings to discuss the offer. At this time, the LASD Board is planning to hold a Special Meeting on Feb 25th, and we may consider a further meeting in March.
The District cannot afford to spend as much time as BCS requests in meetings since we already are spending an inordinate amount of time dealing with the multiple lawsuits brought by BCS. BCS continues to litigate every issue and sub-issue within the 2012-13 offer, despite having lost every action they've brought in the past year. The courts have consistently recognized that the LASD Board is properly balancing the needs of all students. There are only so many hours in the day. LASD runs one of the leanest administrations in California. We rightly focus our resources in the classroom where they belong. In order to prepare the Prop 39 offer, we already divert tremendous resources to analyze possible scenarios and weigh the impacts. Couple that with the need to perform basic functions to continue to run a district that educates 4,500 students, and there simply isn't any additional time in the week to add another series of meetings. Said another way, we are already meeting with BCS several times per week to discuss facilities issues. It is unfortunate that BCS has decided that those meetings should be managed by the attorneys and held within the framework of the judicial process. I continue to call upon BCS to put a freeze on the litigation so that the hundreds of hours we spend each week on BCS issues can be spent more constructively engaged in a more respectful, solutions based dialogue.
I look forward to your continued input at the Board meetings.
Best Wishes,
DJS
(Link to the attached letter that I sent to Ken Moore)
Update @ 10pm. Someone contacted me and asked me to publish Ken's letter, to which this responds. Here is the letter and here is the presentation they used at their PR event.
Dear Parents, Guardians, and Community Members-
Last night at a Special Board Meeting, the LASD Board of Trustees instructed staff to deliver a preliminary facilities offer to BCS for the 2013-14 school year. The Prop 39 process provides for the District to make the preliminary offer, for BCS to respond with objections by March 1, and for the District to provide a final offer by April 1. This is the same process we follow every year.
Prop 39 requires the District Trustees to balance the needs of all students. Our offer to BCS this year proposes that their K-5 students be located at Egan, and their 6-8 students would be at Blach. In practical terms BCS would have about 40% of the students on the Egan campus, and about 40% of the land. Similarly, they would have about 20% of the students at Blach, and 20% of the land. However, Blach will also be impacted further because we are required to provide specialized teaching space to Jr High students. Principal Sandra McGonagle and her staff have worked with the administration to rework the Blach schedule to ensure reasonably equivalent access to the Specialized Teaching Space for BCS students while trying to minimize the impact on our own students. We have asked Principal McGonagle to reach out to BCS Principal Wanny Hersey to have a tactical discussion to review the sharing arrangements as proposed in the offer. We will consider that feedback as part of the final offer we present on April 1.
BCS held a PR event last week where they announced their willingness to accept a split between Egan and Blach. We are pleased that they are demonstrating an understanding of the need to balance the needs of all students. They have also acknowledged our requirement that all board-level discussions of the facilities offer be held in public, so that the community can observe the process. The LASD Board remains committed to transparency of this process, as we have done throughout the year. They also requested a whole series of Board-level meetings to discuss the offer. At this time, the LASD Board is planning to hold a Special Meeting on Feb 25th, and we may consider a further meeting in March.
The District cannot afford to spend as much time as BCS requests in meetings since we already are spending an inordinate amount of time dealing with the multiple lawsuits brought by BCS. BCS continues to litigate every issue and sub-issue within the 2012-13 offer, despite having lost every action they've brought in the past year. The courts have consistently recognized that the LASD Board is properly balancing the needs of all students. There are only so many hours in the day. LASD runs one of the leanest administrations in California. We rightly focus our resources in the classroom where they belong. In order to prepare the Prop 39 offer, we already divert tremendous resources to analyze possible scenarios and weigh the impacts. Couple that with the need to perform basic functions to continue to run a district that educates 4,500 students, and there simply isn't any additional time in the week to add another series of meetings. Said another way, we are already meeting with BCS several times per week to discuss facilities issues. It is unfortunate that BCS has decided that those meetings should be managed by the attorneys and held within the framework of the judicial process. I continue to call upon BCS to put a freeze on the litigation so that the hundreds of hours we spend each week on BCS issues can be spent more constructively engaged in a more respectful, solutions based dialogue.
I look forward to your continued input at the Board meetings.
Best Wishes,
DJS
(Link to the attached letter that I sent to Ken Moore)
Update @ 10pm. Someone contacted me and asked me to publish Ken's letter, to which this responds. Here is the letter and here is the presentation they used at their PR event.
Friday, January 25, 2013
BCS Accepts Split, Asks for More at Blach
In a Luncheon/PR event held this past Wednesday, BCS has stated that they will not seek to close down Covington this year, and are embracing the idea of a Blach/Egan split. (Patch Article, Town Crier Article) I'm certainly pleased to see that they're internalizing what we've been saying- that closing a high performing neighborhood school isn't a viable option. Now we have to figure out what comes next.
I was unable to attend the luncheon, as my invite arrived less than 48 hours before the event and I'd already made commitments to clients in my "other job". I will be interested to see how this proposal meshes with the delivery of education to the students we already have on these campuses. That will require quite a bit of analysis.
I've already been asked several times what I think of the proposal. From a practical viewpoint, I really don't know. Preparing the Preliminary Offer under Prop 39 is a time-consuming task. We have staff analyzing multiple options already, and they're stretched beyond the breaking point just to get that work done. The LASD Board gave instruction to staff on Jan 14 to analyze several configurations, and come back with their thoughts on those options. This new wrinkle from BCS arrived on January 23rd, and it's not fully fleshed out yet. Staff simply won't have time to add one more configuration to the options list and still complete their task for the Board meeting this Monday. Any consideration of the BCS request will have to come after the preliminary offer due on February 1st.
One other positive development has come from this- BCS is embracing the requirement that all discussions be public. I've been saying since October of last year that the process needs to be open and transparent. I've rejected requests for private meetings, and have emphasized the need for transparency. I do this for very practical reasons- I want parents on both sides to understand the balancing process. When parents at Blach understand that there is likely to be increased encroachment on their campus next year, I want them to have seen that we didn't do it lightly. Likewise, I want BCS parents to understand that we do have other considerations to balance, that this really is a "zero sum" situation. The district has a fixed set of buildings, land, and money. We can't just "add more" so we have to balance the needs of all students. By having the process open to the public, hopefully everyone will understand the trade-offs we've chosen to make.
At our last Board Meeting, I suggested that we might want one or more study sessions with BCS to discuss the preliminary offer. I still believe that is the right course, and I expect that I'll be taking that up with my colleagues on Monday at our Board meeting. As always, the public is welcome to attend and see how things progress.
It is worth noting that the litigation train keeps moving too. We were back at Court this week for a Case Management Conference, and we had discovery responses to deliver in answer to demands from BCS. We are a comparatively small school district. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the same people who work on the Prop 39 offer are also the ones who have to respond to discovery requests and sit through depositions. I wish they had 72 hours in each of their days, but they don't- which means that the time they spend on litigation is time not spent exploring creating solutions. I can't stress enough the need for BCS to dial down the litigation, so that we have bandwidth to explore other options for facilities.
I was unable to attend the luncheon, as my invite arrived less than 48 hours before the event and I'd already made commitments to clients in my "other job". I will be interested to see how this proposal meshes with the delivery of education to the students we already have on these campuses. That will require quite a bit of analysis.
I've already been asked several times what I think of the proposal. From a practical viewpoint, I really don't know. Preparing the Preliminary Offer under Prop 39 is a time-consuming task. We have staff analyzing multiple options already, and they're stretched beyond the breaking point just to get that work done. The LASD Board gave instruction to staff on Jan 14 to analyze several configurations, and come back with their thoughts on those options. This new wrinkle from BCS arrived on January 23rd, and it's not fully fleshed out yet. Staff simply won't have time to add one more configuration to the options list and still complete their task for the Board meeting this Monday. Any consideration of the BCS request will have to come after the preliminary offer due on February 1st.
One other positive development has come from this- BCS is embracing the requirement that all discussions be public. I've been saying since October of last year that the process needs to be open and transparent. I've rejected requests for private meetings, and have emphasized the need for transparency. I do this for very practical reasons- I want parents on both sides to understand the balancing process. When parents at Blach understand that there is likely to be increased encroachment on their campus next year, I want them to have seen that we didn't do it lightly. Likewise, I want BCS parents to understand that we do have other considerations to balance, that this really is a "zero sum" situation. The district has a fixed set of buildings, land, and money. We can't just "add more" so we have to balance the needs of all students. By having the process open to the public, hopefully everyone will understand the trade-offs we've chosen to make.
At our last Board Meeting, I suggested that we might want one or more study sessions with BCS to discuss the preliminary offer. I still believe that is the right course, and I expect that I'll be taking that up with my colleagues on Monday at our Board meeting. As always, the public is welcome to attend and see how things progress.
It is worth noting that the litigation train keeps moving too. We were back at Court this week for a Case Management Conference, and we had discovery responses to deliver in answer to demands from BCS. We are a comparatively small school district. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the same people who work on the Prop 39 offer are also the ones who have to respond to discovery requests and sit through depositions. I wish they had 72 hours in each of their days, but they don't- which means that the time they spend on litigation is time not spent exploring creating solutions. I can't stress enough the need for BCS to dial down the litigation, so that we have bandwidth to explore other options for facilities.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
