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
Showing posts with label CEQA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CEQA. Show all posts
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
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
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
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Deja vu. And "Hey, haven't I seen this before?"
BCS has filed two new legal actions this week.
On Monday, they filed a lawsuit that looks nearly identical to the District's request for Declaratory Relief. This relates to the District's interest in acquiring the Raynor facility as a long-term location for BCS. I'm not sure what the benefit is in creating a duplicate legal action. Someone with a legal background is welcome to explain that to me. It feels wasteful. However, I remain interested to hear from the courts on how they view this issue, so we'll just wait for the hearing date.
BCS Lawsuit #1
Supporting Docs
Cover Sheet
They also filed a second action, in which they allege that the two-site solution is unlawful. I'm puzzled by this, since they spent over $300,000 this spring publicizing their willingness to "Compromise" and operate at Blach and Egan. I'm also dumbfounded that they suggest this solution isn't reasonably equivalent, since this solution is virtually identical to how LASD operates our own schools, right down to sharing time with BCS in the specialized teaching space at Blach. In addition to challenging the 2-site solution, it also challenges the CEQA study the district conducted this past year. This spring, they said they'd "heard the community", and they weren't asking to close an LASD school. That seems to be out the window now. When BCS challenges the site split and the CEQA, it leaves little doubt what they are requesting.
BCS Lawsuit #2
I am again deeply disappointed in the actions of the BCS Board. They fail to demonstrate a serious willingness to work together. Some folks have asked if, now that the final offer is complete, will we have time for joint meetings with the BCS board. I'd point those people to our agenda for this Monday's closed session, which lists 5 open lawsuits to discuss. BCS seems to be doing all of their talking through their lawyers, and it doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon.
On Monday, they filed a lawsuit that looks nearly identical to the District's request for Declaratory Relief. This relates to the District's interest in acquiring the Raynor facility as a long-term location for BCS. I'm not sure what the benefit is in creating a duplicate legal action. Someone with a legal background is welcome to explain that to me. It feels wasteful. However, I remain interested to hear from the courts on how they view this issue, so we'll just wait for the hearing date.
BCS Lawsuit #1
Supporting Docs
Cover Sheet
They also filed a second action, in which they allege that the two-site solution is unlawful. I'm puzzled by this, since they spent over $300,000 this spring publicizing their willingness to "Compromise" and operate at Blach and Egan. I'm also dumbfounded that they suggest this solution isn't reasonably equivalent, since this solution is virtually identical to how LASD operates our own schools, right down to sharing time with BCS in the specialized teaching space at Blach. In addition to challenging the 2-site solution, it also challenges the CEQA study the district conducted this past year. This spring, they said they'd "heard the community", and they weren't asking to close an LASD school. That seems to be out the window now. When BCS challenges the site split and the CEQA, it leaves little doubt what they are requesting.
BCS Lawsuit #2
I am again deeply disappointed in the actions of the BCS Board. They fail to demonstrate a serious willingness to work together. Some folks have asked if, now that the final offer is complete, will we have time for joint meetings with the BCS board. I'd point those people to our agenda for this Monday's closed session, which lists 5 open lawsuits to discuss. BCS seems to be doing all of their talking through their lawyers, and it doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
