Don't get snowed by BCS: Vote for Bryan Johnson for LASD

I try pretty hard to stay away from school politics.  While I'm passionate about the topic, I want to respect the people who have taken up the mantle and are running the district.

Elections are another matter entirely.

I am often asked my opinion of the candidates for local elections.  As I have done in the past, I'm applying my experience on the board, my history in working with many different parties, and my own judgement about what direction we want to travel in the future.

Bryan Johnson For LASD
Bryan is well qualified to be an LASD trustee.  He has volunteered countless hours at Santa Rita where he is a parent.  He also has attended many, many school board meetings and spoken up when he felt compelled to do so.  He will hit the ground running because he has context.  He understands what we're doing in our schools today, and can provide his thoughtful input to the process.  I have no doubt about Bryan's ability to be a positive force for our children.

This coming board will have to deal with critical issues like how to share the bond proceeds fairly amongst our students.  Bryan has the experience and the temperament to do this wisely and thoughtfully.  I trust that he will weight the interests of all public school students who live in our community (and yes, that includes BCS students).

Tanya is a BCS Parent - and has no place on the LASD Board
Having negotiated the BCS peace treaty, I am not trying to cast a bunch of aspersions here.  However, I fundamentally do not believe that someone who has chosen to send their kids outside of LASD can be as effective a trustee as someone who has current, up-close experience with our schools.  If you don't know what's going on in our classrooms, how can you help set policy effectively?

I'm also troubled by Tanya's blatant attempts to distort the truth of her allegiance.  She speaks of volunteering for LASD schools for over a decade.  Let's examine that a bit.  She did volunteer when her kids attended LASD schools, but as soon as she got them into BCS, she quit working for LASD schools.  I don't fault her for that- most parents volunteer where their kids attend.  But again, it is hard to know what LASD kids need if you're spending your time elsewhere.

Tanya did work on a district committee to discuss possible school sites, but I was part of the board that appointed her to that committee.  We were crystal clear about Tanya's involvement- she was included to represent the perspective of BCS parents.  While that may be appropriate on a committee, it is not appropriate for the full board.

Also I dug into the financial records for the two candidates.  Bryan received numerous donations from a cross section of community members.  Not surprising.  (See Bryan's 460 here)  Tanya has far out-raised and out-spent Bryan.  (Tanya's 460)  Interestingly, the vast majority of her money is from anonymous donors.  Now, one might read this as innocuous.  After all, a candidate is only required to disclose the names of donors who give more than $100.  Tanya lists only 4 (two of whom are BCS founding families).  The remaining $4556 is all in donations of less than $100.  (for those who don't want to do the math, that's 46 donations of $99 and one $2 donation).  Why am I suspicious of this?  Because last election, I took a lot of flak from BCS when I called out the fact that almost all of Martha McClatchie's money came from BCS families.  It isn't hard to imagine a campaign strategy where donors are asked to give only $99 so that there isn't a big paper trail that goes back to BCS.

Why do I get so annoyed about this?  After all, I've certainly known BCS parents who are more difficult to work with than Tanya.  First, and I've said this before, I value transparency in local government.  Hiding one's allegiance seems like a sleazy thing to do, particularly in our very well educated community.  If you believe it is time for a BCS candidate on the LASD board, then have the courage of your convictions.  Run as a BCS candidate.  But don't lie about your background in an attempt to hoodwink the local voters.

I also worry about what happens if things go south.  After all, part of the job of the board is to defend the district in the event of litigation.  Picture this scenario:  If the BCS board decides they are unhappy with how the bond funds are spent, what happens if they sue LASD?  Do we really want a BCS parent in closed session with LASD attorneys, mapping out legal strategy? Although Tanya's term would expire before the peace treaty is done, does anyone think this isn't an "entry point" to have a BCS supporter on the board after the treaty has expired?


As a final thought, I like to apply the "mirror test".  If things were reversed, how would people react?  For example, I'm a retired board member with 5 years of service to public education in a high performing local district.  Yet, I would fully expect that BCS parents would be up in arms if I were to lobby to join the BCS board.  After all, my kids went to LASD schools.  I am not a deep expert in their program. Why would LASD parents be better served by having a BCS parent on our board?  We wouldn't.

I don't bear some enormous grudge against Tanya.  However, I think our kids are best served by a candidate I know will ALWAYS place the welfare of our students first in his deliberations.  I will be voting for Bryan Johnson.

Ethics, and Thanks

10 Nov 2014 8:15am Update:  I've added the links to the FPPC filing, as well as cross references to my prior blog posts.  At this time, Measure N is at 57.31%.

First, a massive THANK YOU to everyone who turned out and voted.  It looks like Measure N has passed, with 56.22% of the votes cast.  Likewise, it looks like we have elected three excellent trstuees to the LASD Board, returning Tammy Logan and installing first time trustees Sangeeth Peruri and Vladimir Ivanovic as new Board members.  To all three candidates, I offer my thanks for being willing to take on the task of representing our community.

I also offer my heartfelt thanks to all members of the LASD Board with whom I have served, including Mark Goines, Bill Cooper, and Margot Harrigan, as well as Tammy Logan, Steve Taglio, and Pablo Luther.  All seven of us have held strong opinions, and we often disagreed, but we managed to do so civilly, and the District is much better off for the service of all of these fine folks.


Back in October, I wrote a couple of blog posts that were critical of Martha McClatchie and John Swan, and the pro-BCS PAC that was deceptively named "LASD Parents for Great Schools".  I caught a lot of static from BCS parents when I posted this.  The most benign suggested that I was better off to merely voice support for those I liked, but not to criticize people or groups with whom I did not agree.  When I wrote those posts, I had to weigh the advice of my grandmother (If you can't say something nice...) with the need for people to understand what was going on.

Obviously I decided that transparency was more important than {fill in the blank}.  I mean that sincerely.  In one of the many emails I exchanged on this topic, I told a prominent BCS parent that I value transparency in governance above any bond campaign and above any individual candidate.  If people knew that "LASD Parents for Great Schools" was a front for BCS campaign money, but they were still willing to elect John or Martha, so be it.  But I didn't want them being elected because people were mislead by the name of the PAC, or by the campaign statements that hide the BCS connection of the candidate or their support of charter schools as a matter of policy.

Today I got a bit of vindication in the form of a late campaign filing.  A community member forwarded to me the FPPC docs for the California Charter School Association.  The last minute filing disclosed that the CCSA gave $22,000 to the "LASD Parents" PAC, and another $6,000 directly to John Swan's campaign.  Holy cow!  Really??  That's more money than any one of the three winning candidates spent.  And remember, this money is in addition to the funds Martha and John raised on their own.  In total, Martha, John, the BCS PAC, and the CCSA spent around $100,000 trying to buy a seat on the LASD Board of Trustees.

I don't expect that those folks who criticize me are suddenly going to recant and send me flowers.  However, this should serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of the community.  Leopards don't change their spots.

This election came perilously close to swinging the wrong way.  Early returns had John Swan on the Board instead of Vladimir, and likewise the early results for Measure N were grim.  We came really close to being deceived.  The message I hope people take away from this is that they need to stay involved so they can be informed.  We all have a responsibility to understand the issues on our own, not to just take the deceptive headlines of a shadowy campaign group that has neither a public face.  Look beyond the generic campaign-speak and understand where the candidates have been investing their time, so you have a deep understanding of how they will act when they're representing your interests.  If nothing else, don't drop off the map over the next two years- because I'm guessing we haven't seen the last time of sleazy big-money politics in our small California community.

Truth in Campaigning (c. 2014)

Update: 10/22/2014, 8:46pm

Since i posted this article, the filings at the county have been updated to remove the independent expenditures and reclassify funds as being spent directly with the campaigns.  It appears that the "Parents" PAC has been working too closely with the candidates, and has updated their filings to reflect that.  I certainly applaud the honesty, but it opens new questions.  The new form shows a combined total of  over $12,500 in expenditures for Martha McClatchie and John Swan.  This is starting to take on the air of someone with an agenda...  Updated docs are found here and here

Original Post follows:

A couple of years ago, I wrote a few pieces about the campaigning process, and why it was important for folks to understand who is funding political campaigns.  In the last election cycle, the BCS candidates tried to disguise their affiliation with BCS, which seemed disingenuous to me.

Fast forward two years, and we have the same problem all over again.  I've never been a great fan of PAC's.    (See my blog posts from October 2012 for clarification).  I find it even more troubling when groups try to dress themselves up as something they are not.

There is a new direct mail piece out in support of Martha McClatchie's candidacy for LASD Board of Trustees.  As a reminder, I met with Martha and found her willingness to cloak information from our community to be troubling.  (See Endorsements )  However, there's a new mailer out that tries to give the impression that Martha has significant support from LASD parents.  This has not been my experience, and it isn't helped by the facts underlying this mailer.

The return address on the mailer is 1787 Tribute Road, Suite K, Sacramento, CA 95815 which is the home of this political consulting company:  http://www.deaneandcompany.com/

The mailer traces back to a PAC registered at 26625 St. Francis Road, Los Altos Hills.  A quick search of county tax records shows this address not to be located in LASD.  It turns out this is the home of David Spector- a member of the BCS legal team.

The group's campaign filings are available in Santa Clara.  A diligent community member chased these down and I am posting them here.  One might reasonably ask why I've posted them, and the answer is simple: transparency.  It is important to know whose interests someone represents.  

In the most recent filing from this group, I'd note that there a current and former BCS Board members, BCS founding families, and other vocal supporters of BCS.  There's also a community member who is actively involved in the "No on N" campaign.  Read the list, and decide for yourself.  The filing also shows that they've spent nearly $10,000 on this mailer alone.  Mind you, when I ran for the LASD Board in 2009, I spent about $3500.  They're spending nearly 3x that on a single mailer.  I would also wonder whether the filing itself even complies with the legal requirements.  On the form, it requires "Full Name, Street Address, and Zip Code of Contributor" - yet the contributors are not listed by street address- simply by city.

All I can say is, I'm glad we live in a state with aggressive campaign finance disclosure laws.

As I said in my previous post- being a BCS parent or supporter doesn't automatically disqualify someone from the LASD Board in my mind.  Technically, one might argue that these folks live within the LASD boundaries and they might even be parents.  However, they don't appear to be largely parents of children in LASD schools.  

This pattern of strong support from the BCS community further supports my concern that Martha doesn't understand the LASD community.  We expect transparency and integrity from our public officials.  In my opinion, this mailer falls well short of the mark.

Another win - no lawyers' fees!

Yesterday we received a ruling from the Superior Court that LASD does NOT have to pay BCS's legal fees from the 2009-2010 case.  I've already written a lot about the legal fees demand from BCS, and have chronicles quite a bit of this particular part of the legal drama.  (Link to all LASD Observer posts on attorney fees).

The judge spent the better part of 10 pages thoroughly dissecting every aspect of the BCS claim for fees.  It breaks down into two major findings:

1) BCS did not "win" enough of the 2009-10 case for them to claim they were entitled to fees.  The courts highlighted that on the key issues, such as their demand for the Gardner campus, the Appellate Court rebuffed the requests.

2)  Even if BCS had won enough of the case, they did not confer a "public benefit" on others.  That is, they stood to gain a great deal more than their costs in litigation, which means they really aren't eligible for legal fees.

An honest read of the ruling will show that the District's request for fees/ sanctions over and above the sanctions already issued was denied.  The courts pointed out, in effect, that this is high stakes litigation, and we're going to incur substantial costs.  I wish it didn't have to be this way, but that issue is largely under the control of a Board where I am not a member, so we'll take it as it comes.

I won't try to add a lot here, other than to thank the court for their thorough research on the issue.  Given the judicial record in this case, and the fact that BCS has (unsuccessfully) appealed many of the recent rulings, it appears that Judge Lucas was extra careful to dot every I and cross every T.  I know how she feels.  Still, it's nice to see the courts give such careful consideration to an issue and to be affirmed in the key aspects of the outcome.  I look forward to a time when the headline on this blog will indicate that LASD and BCS are both spending all of our resources in the classroom.


Once again, I'd like to thank Ray Cardozo at Reed Smith for his expert work in this case.  Ray has been extremely diligent going through a very difficult discovery process to uncover the facts that underpinned the district's successful defense in this matter.  Ray, Adam and Paul at Reed Smith, as well as John, Dino, and the rest of the team at BWS Law- thanks a million.  (OK, thanks $1.5M!)

And of course here is the ruling

Truth in the Courts

In my other post today, I discuss the efforts of a community member to get a copy of Ken Moore's declaration in part of the recent court battles.  BCS thwarted that effort by seeking and obtaining a protective order to prohibit LASD from providing a copy of that deposition to the community member who sought it.  This post examines an important "story within the story" around that process.

In the recent battle over Ken Moore's deposition, BCS filed a request for a protective order to prevent LASD from delivering a copy of what we consider to be a public record* over to a member of the public who had requested that record.

In their argument to obtain the protective order, BCS started by suggesting that Ken Moore was concerned for his safety.  In his sworn declaration to the courts, he tells the court that he is afraid of kidnapping.  "One of the most significant ways I deal with the potentials threats has been to maintain as low visibility as I reasonably can. In that regard, I do not use Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, or the the like.  I do not allow my place of employment, nor the boards that I am associated with, to post any photographic or other images of me".   Yet at the time of the hearing, he was personally featured in a promotional video on the front of the BCS web site.  He's identified by name, so there can be no doubt who he is.  (You can view that video here if you'd like  Ken Moore appears around the 6:20 mark.)  He also has appeared in various other publications like the Silicon Valley Business Journal.  So this clearly wasn't true.  Yet it appears in Moore's sworn declaration to the courts.

I've done declarations, and I can understand if someone made a mistake.  This seems unlikely, though, given the examples listed above and others that I won't include here.  Ken's declaration goes on, though.

"In support of the above goal of maintaining low visibility, I have asked the local newspapers to feel free to quote me, but not to use my likeness.  In light of safety concerns and the simple fact that I am a parent volunteer, the local papers have honored my request".  This statement seems to suggest a pretty sophisticated discussion with the local media.  I'm not an expert on the press, but from what I do know, they tend to consider editorial control to be sacrosanct.

Given my surprise at this statement, I did what a good reporter would do- I investigated.  I contacted the Los Altos Town Crier, The Mountain View Voice, The Daily Post, and the San Jose Mercury News.  Each and every one of these papers denied ever having had such an arrangement in place, or even having knowledge of any such request.  In various ways most of them said the that the suggestion they would make such an agreement was preposterous.

I also asked Mr. Moore himself.  He acknowledged that he had no such agreement with the Town Crier, but refused to elaborate on any discussions with other media outlets.

I submit that these statements are not minor and they are not mistakes.  This was absolutely improper.  In the next paragraph of his declaration, Mr Moore says "I was raised in Los Altos and Los Altos Hills and have lived there for nearly 60 years.  I greatly value the ability to walk the streets, shops, and restaurants and not be recognized or harassed by charter school detractors."  So apparently we've moved from kidnapping to plain old privacy.  But it gets better...

In an ex parte hearing with Judge Lucas, the BCS lawyers confessed that they wanted to prevent copying of the deposition "[b]ecause we believe there could be misuse, embarrassment, [and] harassment [of] our parent volunteers"   Really?  That's what we're worried about?  That someone is going to poke fun of the BCS Board?

According to this declaration, Mr. Moore keeps his image off the internet and he has an agreement with the local press not to run his picture either.  In reality, his attorney confessed to the judge that the real issue was a desire to suppress someone else's free speech, but she didn't correct anything in Moore's sworn statement.

Why do I care about this?  These are just minor details, aren't they?


Folks, this situation is difficult.  We are wrestling with issues of huge importance- literally, matters of Constitutional law, and issues that will shape the future of public education in our state for possibly decades to come.  If participants to these discussions feel that it's ok to invent "facts" to place before the court, we will *never* have any peace.  The community member who sought the video of the deposition lost his request.  I believe that the court was swayed by the declaration Mr. Moore provided.  That BCS was able to submit a false declaration to protect themselves from parody- that isn't how justice is supposed to work. As long as this is how we pursue this issue in the courts, without an honest airing of the facts, I fear that this issue will never be resolved.


*California law has a presumption that public records should be disclosed, unless there are extenuating circumstances.  I will concede that the statue around disclosure of depositions does include an exception for "embarrassment".  To my understanding that is meant to protect ordinary citizens if they need to file a suit involving medical malpractice, or a victim of a sexual assault.  I don't believe it was meant to protect people who are spending taxpayer funds to sue a public school district.  In this case, we're weighing "embarrassment" with the ability of citizens to understand how their government is functioning.

The Streisand Effect at BCS

In 2003 Barbra Streisand sued a photographer to block publication of photos of her home, citing privacy concerns.  In ruling against her the courts found that she did not have an absolute right of privacy, and that the public had a right to see the images. The irony was that in filing the lawsuit, she brought far more attention to the picture than would ever have been generated had she simply kept silent.   (Wikipedia page)

Why do I bring this up?  Strangely, BCS seems unaware of the Streisand Effect.  They have recently spent considerable legal effort to prevent the public from viewing the depositions of BCS Board Chair Ken Moore and former BCS Foundation Chair David Spector.

A member of the public filed a CPRA request asking the District to provide a copy of Moore's and Spector's depositions.  We get CPRA requests all the time- it is part of being a public entity.  The laws in California properly favor disclosure of public records so that the public understands how the government is doing their business.  It's not surprising that someone would want to see these videos.  After all, BCS, (a purportedly public school) is suing LASD, a public school district, for more than $2M in legal fees.  The basis of the BCS claim is certainly a matter of public interest.  Going straight to the source material- the depositions- is actually pretty smart, since it would give the viewer a direct view into the rationale of those who filed the lawsuit in the first place.

BCS started by suggesting that Ken Moore was concerned for his safety.  This was provably false, though.  (See my other post today).  Eventually, the truth comes out, though.  In an ex parte hearing with Judge Lucas, the BCS lawyers confessed that they wanted to prevent copying of the deposition "[b]ecause we believe there could be misuse, embarrassment, [and] harassment [of] our parent volunteers"   Really?  That's what we're worried about?  That someone is going to poke fun of the BCS Board? 

I try to give deference to the courts.  They are charged with a difficult job- sorting out this kind of dispute.  In this particular instance, though- I don't understand this ruling, try though I might.  Parody (the basis of BCS's request for the protective order) is protected First Amendment speech.  The First Amendment was specifically created to protect objectionable speech. After all, speech that is not objectionable speech rarely needs to be protected.  If it were up to me, I'd place the First Amendment and transparency of government above the possible embarrassment of a couple of community members who are suing the public schools.  That isn't my call to make, so I will respect the court order so I won't be posting the video here.  (For the record, I don't have a copy of it).  But I would encourage the public to get to know who these folks are.    

I hate to say this, but to my mind, this comes with the territory.  I've been on the LASD Board for 4 1/2 years.  In that time, people have said made plenty of false accusations and posted ridiculous and sometimes hateful things on Facebook, the Town Crier comments section, and elsewhere.  I don't like it, but it's part of the gig.  As citizens, we have a constitutional right to complain about our government.  When you step forward and take a leadership position to help govern a public school district, particularly as president or chairman of the Board signing  letters to the community and declarations to the court, well, some folks won't like what is being said.  But I didn't run to the courts and seek to hide from the public - all while spending the taxpayers' money.

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

   

New School Year, Same Old PR Stunts

Once again, BCS has proven they are willing to use children to create PR stunts.

In the summer of 2012, BCS refused to answer questions about student furniture.  As a result, LASD was forced to make decisions about where to put furniture for the BCS students.  Shortly after school started, BCS then hired expensive luxury coaches to take students over to the Blach campus for a photo op.  They snapped pictures of kids on the floor, and then ran to court, asking the judge to condemn LASD for failing to provide adequate equipment for BCS.  Fortunately, LASD had a full record of the discussions, including email history showing that BCS had intentionally stalled.  The courts saw through the charade and threw the complaint out.

Fast forward to this year. 

The facilities offer for 2013-14 is specifically crafted to provide complete facilities for BCS K-5 students at the Egan campus, and complete facilities for BCS 6-8 students at Blach.  There are enough classrooms, flex space, library space, offices, and yes, playground space and asphalt play space for all BCS K-5 students at the Egan facility, and similarly we've made appropriate arrangements to share space for BCS middle school students at Blach.  The Final Offer spells all of this out.  BCS agreed to this condition when they signed the Facilities Use Agreement for the school year.  Knowing all of this, and fully aware that they've legally agreed NOT to take K-3 students to Blach, BCS chose to do it anyway.  So what happened?

BCS took photos of children playing where they aren't supposed to be playing, and then blames LASD for the situation.  They've run another full page ad in the Town Crier, complaining that LASD hasn't properly shared facilities.  Of course they fail to mention that those exact same kids have an empty playground just a few miles away.

At some level, I'm amazed that parents tolerate this.  I have school-aged kids of my own.  I would be furious if the school to which I'd entrusted them took my children to a facility that is not properly prepared for them.  I'd be even more outraged if I realized that my child was being used by a highly paid PR firm as nothing more than an extra in a photo shoot designed to mislead the public in my own community.

This trick was a bad idea last time, and the courts saw right through it.  Does the BCS PR team really think so little of our community that you'd try the same trick all over again?

Thanks for the support

Over the past 24 hours I've heard from a number of people who wanted to express their outrage at the BCS press release issued yesterday.  People who attended the meeting know I didn't say what BCS alleges.  (For those who didn't attend, the video is up on the District website.)  I reached out to BCS yesterday for confirmation of the release, but they have not replied.  In any case, I appreciate the words of encouragement from so many folks.  Trust me, my skin is thick enough that this kind of crap is annoying, but it won't dissuade me from taking the right path.

Some have suggested that I should take legal action against BCS.  I haven't made up my mind yet.  The press release contains intentionally false and misleading statements.  Frankly, I thought that our community was above such smear campaigns. 

Regardless of their poor handling of me in the press release, I'm much more concerned about the quotes attributed to their Board members.  LASD is investing a tremendous amount of time and energy considering BCS's request for short-term improvements to their facilities offer.  Those requests would have significant impact on the broader community.  Lobbing caustic quotes into the public during that process does not build support for their position.  Further, the District has been crystal clear that our willingness to support changes to the current facilities agreement are tied to the BCS willingness to cooperate with us on a long term facilities solution.  Comments like this do not build confidence in the general public, and indicate a combative mindset from BCS.  I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail at some point.

Again, though, I want to thank everyone for the outpouring of support.  It is ironic that in their attempt to vilify me, BCS has triggered a strong showing of support.

It's all in your persepctive

I've been thinking a lot about communication lately- how people view problems, and how their perspective impacts the way they view what is being communicated.  In my day job, I run a professional services practice, and this is second nature.  If we communicate the same information to a large number of clients, I know that some clients will react differently based on their own view and how the information is affected by where they are in their respective businesses.  This really came home to me when I watched two of our teams describe their perceptions of the same interaction.  Folks from both sides viewed it through their own specific lens- their role in our organization.

This was interesting, but it became a sort of epiphany this week as I was watching the videos of the first two LASD-BCS negotiation sessions.  For those who are interested in the videos, they can be found here:

Video 1: August 27th meeting
Video 2:  Thursday, August 29th meeting

There's an exchange at the end of the second meeting where BCS Board members are questioning the need for the detailed CEQA study, and LASD Board members are pushing back.  It got me thinking about the different perspectives at the table.

BCS is a charter school.  They are, by definition, not encumbered by most of the regulations that apply to traditional school districts.  Hence, it shouldn't surprise us when BCS board members are skeptical of the detailed process we have to follow.  They don't live in that same world, so they don't have the first-hand experience that compels us to be process-driven on issues like this.

Likewise, their leadership is appointed, not elected.  They feel that their ultimate accountability is whether or not parents choose to enroll students at the school.  This gives them the flexibility to do what the directors feel is right, and then see whether people continue to attend. 

The District operates very differently.  This isn't to say "better"- I'm simply highlighting how our operating environments drive different behaviors. 

LASD is not a charter school, so we have a lot of regulations that apply to us.  It's been estimated that charter schools only have to worry about 25% of the EdCode in California.  That means LASD has 4x the regulations that we deal with every day.  It is no wonder, then, that our institutional memory drives us to follow detailed processes.  That's not to say we don't innovate- we do, and we are very proud of the work that happens in our classrooms.  However, we also have to make sure we keep up with the myriad requirements from the State and Federal Government that are part of our daily existence.

The other piece is that we're an elected board, and we're driven by that connection to the broader community.  As mentioned above, a charter school is more-or-less accountable only to the parents of kids who attend.  LASD has enjoyed an extremely supportive relationship with the entire community- they support parcel taxes and bond measures, parents and community members volunteer as art docents and library assistants and lunch servers, and they participate fully in the process of running our schools.    In order to maintain this support, we are very careful to be extremely open, to include the broad community in all that we do. 

As a simple example, the LASD Blueprint Process intentionally included members of the public and folks who don't have kids in our schools.  When BCS did their strategic planning, they focused on input from existing parents.  The differences in how we operate drives the differences in our behaviors.

I'm not sure where to go with all of this.  It helps me think about their behaviors, and hopefully they'll understand our frame of reference too.  I don't yet know how we can help their board members understand our operating environment (other than continuing to explain it), but I'm going to be thinking about it.  In addressing this difference in our perspectives, we might find a way for us to bridge the gaps in our expectations.

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.

LASD to attend BCS Board Meeting

On August 6th, LASD Superintendent Jeff Baier will be presenting the results of the Superintendent's Enrollment Growth Task Force to the BCS Board of Directors.  There will also be an agenda item where the BCS and LASD boards can discuss what this means, and how we might move forward.  LASD will be agendizing this meeting (although technically under the Brown Act, we aren't required to do so, as we are actually attending BCS's agendized meeting). 

This presentation will include the same material that Jeff has presented to the LASD Board of Trustees, the Los Altos Hills Town Council, and other local agencies.  It clarifies why we need additional school sites and provides some of the supporting data that drives that conclusion.  Given that so many entities participated in the Task Force, it is only right to give those groups a read-out on the findings.

One of the key findings of the Task Force is that LASD and BCS need to work together on building community support for additional school sites.Clearly that will be front and center on my mind when we get to the second agenda item.

Even during the summer, I get occasional pings from folks asking about meetings with the BCS Board.  This meeting has been a long time in coming.  BCS has requested some tactical discussions about the 13-14 offer, but the LASD Board really wants to focus on how we can work together to address the long term needs.  I'm looking forward to this discussion.

Also, I've been pinged about why this meting hasn't been noticed yet.  The meting is not a regularly scheduled meeting- it is a "special meeting"  As such, the Brown Act requires the agenda to be posted at least 24 hours in advance (instead of at least 72 hours in advance, as is the case for regular meetings).  Technical the LASD Board doesn't need to agendize this meeting, as it is a noticed meeting of another group, but we will do so in an abundance of caution.

Hope to see you all on Tuesday night!

Litigation Update

It's the summertime, and we'd all like to forget about some of the drama- but I still get questions, so I thought it would be good to share a quick update on the litigation. 

2013-14 Lawsuit
This suit, filed by BCS shortly after the final offer was delivered, raised two challenges to the District's Final Offer of Facilities.  The first part of the challenge asserted that the District could not split BCS across two campuses.  (blog post)  Judge Pierce issued a ruling in favor of the District on the first part just a few days after the hearing.  (ruling for LASD). 

The other part of that lawsuit challenged the District's underlying CEQA study that authorizes the split and provides facilities for BCS at each site.  All CEQA suits are heard by CEQA judges (not the normal Superior Court judges) so we will be in front of yet another judge.  The hearing date for that final part of the 13-14 lawsuit has not yet been set.  We are currently working with BCS on the gathering of documents for the evidence in this effort.   I don't have a court date for this, but the schedules are proscribed by statue, and they're pretty aggressive.  I believe we'll be in court late this summer or early this fall.

"Raynor" Challenge
When the District began exploring the purchase of Raynor in Sunnyvale, we filed a request to the courts for declaratory relief- basically, asking the courts to rule in advance that it is legal for the District to acquire a site outside the District boundaries.  BCS filed a separate lawsuit asking that the District's bid for Raynor be voided by the courts.  Although LASD was not selected by Sunnyvale as the preferred bidder, our request for delcaratory relief is still before the courts because it asks the general question of whether this is legal (vs. the specific question of whether Raynor is legal).  We will have a court date to hear arguments on this issue some time the week of July 22, 2013.  It is my understanding that the Charter School Association has filed an amicus brief in this issue.  (brief)  I'm not surprised by their position -- nor their involvement.  However, it should come as no surprise that I don't agree with what they've said.  We'll see what the courts have to say next week.

2012-13 Lawsuit
When BCS filed their challenge to the 2012-13 facilities allocation, they peeled off key issues to litigate first.  Those issues were all won by LASD back in October 2012.  (court docs, blog post)   There remain a few questions on the BCS case, but I'm not clear on how would those proceed given the fact that the 2012-13 school year is complete.  As a positive step, the 2013-14 case seems to have been moving at a much faster pace, so we shouldn't find ourselves in that position again.

2012-13 Cross Complaint
When the District was approached by community members with concerns about BCS behavior, we filed a cross-complaint asking the court to determine how such actions might impact our duties under prop 39.  For most of last year, BCS tied up that cross-complaint using the anti-SLAPP statute.  (blog post)  With the Appeals court clearing the anti-SLAPP suit, the District is able to move forward with discovery in that lawsuit.

2009-10 Appeal and Attorney's Fees
From the 2009-10 lawsuit, we are still working on the attorney's fee demand from BCS.  The courts sanctioned BCS in November 2013 for refusal to conduct discovery in this case.  (blog post)  BCS appealed these sanctions, but the appeal was denied.  At this point, we've received discovery from the BPEF (Their version of the LAEF), but have not yet completed discovery with BCS itself.  Once that discovery is complete, we will move toward a hearing on the actual fee demand from BCS.  There is not a date set for that yet.



So, the litigation machine moves forward.  I am reminded of some very sage advice I received last year.  "The best way to win a court case is to do the right thing in the first place."  I continue to be encouraged by the consistent rulings from the court for LASD.  I believe it shows that we have been doing the "right thing" throughout this process.  I say that not with any sense of gloating or malice- I simply hope that folks begin to understand that the District is, in fact, acting in accordance with the law.  If we all want a different outcome, we're going to need to find a way to negotiate our way to that outcome.

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.

Raynor Site

Tonight I attended the Sunnyvale City Council meeting where they discussed and acted on the sale of the Raynor site.  Readers may recall that LASD put in a bid on this site as a possible home for the Bullis Charter School.  Unfortunately, the council has provided direction to Sunnyvale city staff to begin negotiations with the Stratford School.

Readers may also recall that the District has an open request for Declaratory Relief.  We've asked the courts to determine that we are legally permitted to locate BCS outside of the District boundaries.  We felt that BCS would eventually sue LASD over this question, so it makes sense to ask the courts for clarity.  I am disappointed to say that BCS did show up and speak in opposition to the District's bid.  According to her own statement, this was done at the direction of the BCS Board.  I will leave it to individuals to interpret her statements.  I've attached the recording here.

It would be reasonable to inquire whether this means the Declaratory Relief is no longer required.  We've actually asked the Court the broader question- whether it is permissible to locate BCS anywhere outside the District boundaries.  The Raynor site was certainly one example, but it is obviously not the only location outside of our boundaries.  Thus, it makes sense to have the courts clarify this issue now.  Hence, I don't anticipate any changes to the request.

I'm obviously disappointed that we didn't get the nod tonight, but I certainly wish the Stratford School and Sunnyvale well in their negotiations.  Meanwhile, we'll press on considering other options.

Win at the Court of Appeals

Last fall, the lead attorney for BCS mocked the Superior Court judges, saying that they just don't have the time to study complex issues and that they generally don't understand cases like the ones we are involved in.  Given the BCS willingness to run to the appellate courts, it seems that they've viewed the 2009-10 case as the sign that teh appellate courts are "in the BCS camp".

Back in December 2012, the Appellate court took just days to rule against BCS on one of their appeals. (link)

More recently, (this past week), the District was pleased to have the Appellate Courts dismiss the BCS appeal in the Anti-SLAPP case.  Recall that BCS brought an anti-SLAPP motion against LASD in an attempt to kill the District's cross-complaint.  By filing the anti-SLAPP, and by appealing when they lost at the trial court, BCS was holding at bay any legal discovery activities that might otherwise proceed.  Now that BCS has lost their appeal, LASD will be able to move forward with discovery.

The Cross Complaint is an important action because it asks the courts to examine BCS admissions practices and their treatment of certain student groups, and asks the court to then determine whether those actions should impact LASD facilities allocation to BCS.  Now that the roadblocks are cleared, we'll begin the important excavation work that is necessary to pull together the information we need to put before the court. 

I have no illusions that the Cross-Complaint is moving swiftly to trial.  BCS has, in the recent past, defied Discovery, and has been sanctioned by the courts for their behavior.  (They've appealed those sanctions too, so we'll have to wait and see what happens there.)  However, clearing these roadblocks is important- we need to move forward and get clarity from the court on the questions we've raised.

Regardless of what BCS attorneys seem to think of the trial courts, the Appellate Courts seem to think they've been "getting it right", because they have affirmed their decisions.

LASD Brief - 2013-14 Suit

2013-14 Facilities Lawsuit

Yes, I understand the frustration- we're not even done with 2012-13, and we're already talking about the 2013-14 lawsuit.  Not much I can do about that...

LASD has filed our reply brief in the 2013-14 facilities dispute.  After LASD delivered our Final Offer for 2013-14, BCS accepted the offer and promptly turned around and filed a suit to challenge the offer.  They highlighted two lines of attack-
1) They've challenged the District's ability to split the BCS program across Egan and Blach
2) They've also challenged the CEQA process under which we have allocated space to their program

After some legal wrangling, we've agreed that the case will be heard on a somewhat expedited calendar.  The District remains very confident of the offer we've delivered, and the sooner the courts rule on this the better.  Part of the process to expedite is that BCS will argue their key area of concern (the split across two sites) now, and will hold back the CEQA argument for later.

As BCS has been compelled by the courts to provide documents in the litigation, they've asserted that much of it is "confidential" and cannot be shared with the public.  I'm not clear on the legal reasoning of positioning one's self as a public school but maintaining that much of your documentation is private.  However, rather than add yet another that legal battle to the docket, we've submitted the documents under seal.  If a member of the public comes forward to challenge the confidentiality of those documents, the court will rule on whether the docs should be released or not.

This hearing will take place on June 20 in Superior Court.  The public is always welcome to attend these hearings.


LASD Opposition to BCS Motion for Judgement
Cardozo Declaration (part 1 of 3)
Cardozo Declaration (part 2 of 3)
Sorry, Part 3 is under seal for the moment

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.

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.

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.