Open Letter to BCS Parents

Note:  I have sent this letter to BCS Board Chair Ken Moore and asked him to share it with his parent community.  It has also been sent to LASD parents.  I copy it here for those community members who may also be interested. 

Unfortunately,the hyperlinks to various documents were not converted into the PDF document that went out, but perhaps folks will find those links here.



 30 November 2012




Dear BCS Parents:

Yesterday you received a letter from Ken Moore, laying out his views relating to the BCS-LASD litigation and inviting BCS parents to contact LASD Board President Mark Goines. Given Mr. Moore’s invitation for improved dialogue, I thought I would reach out to you to further explain the litigation developments, including certain points that Mr. Moore did not accurately recount.

The District is not asking to close down BCS.
Mr. Moore alleges that LASD is trying to shut down BCS. This is flat-out wrong. LASD’s relationship with BCS is very simple- we provide facilities as required under Prop 39. We have no say in BCS operations or other practices. Responsibility for BCS operations and oversight lies with the SCCBOE, not with LASD.

LASD has filed a cross-complaint in the current round of litigation. In that complaint, we do call out certain issues that concern us about BCS recruiting practices, pupil management, fund raising, and other aspects of the operation that seem to be inconsistent with the concept of a public school and equality among public schools within a district. We did so after a number of parents, some of whom had applied to and/or enrolled children at BCS, came forward with troubling allegations and assertions that we believed merited raising with the Court. We have been very specific in what we requested of the Court in our cross-complaint. We do not ask for the Court to "shut down" BCS, or even ask them to order a specific change in BCS behavior. Rather, we have asked the Court to clarify LASD's legal obligations- nothing more. I understand that folks may doubt me on this, but I’d invite you to read the actual filings with the court.

On the issues BCS deemed most important to their 2012-13 complaint, they've lost all three complaints.
Mr. Moore’s recent letter fails to acknowledge that LASD allocated BCS more than 11 acres this year- far more than they had in 2009-10. BCS is apparently choosing to run their program on a subset of that space, but that's a decision made by the administration and the BCS Board. Mr. Moore also complains about LASD "withholding" facilities, but of course does not acknowledge that the District exercised reasonable discretion to provide comparable space to BCS. (I wrote about this back in August, and my explanation lined up pretty much exactly with what the court eventually ruled.) It's not that LASD is acting illegally- it's just not what the BCS Board wanted to happen.

LASD acted in good faith throughout the mediation process. The parties have differing views of the outcome of the mediation. Before we even entered mediation, LASD said that any deal reached had to reflect community input and have the support of the community so that we could pass a bond. That required community input. Upon drafting a framework for discussion, LASD held a series of meetings, both large and small, to collect community input. One of the biggest surprises in that input was that the LASD parent community was willing to work very hard to pass a bond to build a new school for BCS- as long as it also meant that they might be able to keep their own school. Frankly, this is different from what I expected going into the mediation, and it was a change to the content of a possible agreement, but we explained it to the BCS Board and invited them to work with us to resolve it. The BCS Board wanted “site certainty”, meaning that a possible new campus location was not something they were willing to consider. That was not supported by the broader parent community, meaning we would not be able to pass a bond. BCS wasn’t willing to consider the community input, so the mediated framework fell apart.

The BCS Board has said often that they are “willing to go back to the mediated agreement”, and accused LASD of reneging on that agreement. It is meaningless, though, to offer to go back to something that both parties hadn’t yet agreed to. When retelling the story these days, the District’s requirement to solicit and incorporate public input is being ignored. One vocal group of people seem to think the LASD Board should force through an agreement that doesn’t reflect the community’s wishes. The current LASD Board has openly acknowledged that prior Boards failed when they ignored the wishes of the community (in closing Bullis Purissima). To have some of those same people ask us today to once again ignore the wishes of the community is frustrating. The logical conclusion of that action would be that parents at Almond, Covington, Gardner, or Santa Rita would then be the ones forming the next charter school and suing the district again. They would complain that we’ve put the interests of BCS ahead of the interests of their students- something the law specifically prohibits us from doing.

In his thoughtful op-Ed piece recently published in the town Crier, BCS Board Member John Phelps noted that “[u]sing a global perspective to teach about the interconnectedness of communities and their environments, the Bullis Charter School program nurtures mutual respect, civic responsibility, and a lifelong love of learning.” It is simply inconsistent with that stated mission for BCS to fail to consider the community’s views.

The recent court rulings should be a wake-up call to the BCS Board.
Over the past 2 1/2 months, BCS has lost a series of court appearances- the Aug 30 motion, all three parts of the Oct 30 complaint, the fight over discovery (including sanctions for behavior the court deemed unreasonable), and a slew of procedural efforts designed to do little more than increase the cost of litigation for LASD. In response, the BCS attorney has insulted the judge, threatened to defy the order to pay sanctions, and the BCS Board has plans to appeal all three of the rulings they don't like. For all of the millions –literally, millions-of dollars spent on legal fees, the courts have ruled that the District’s behavior has been correct on nearly all counts. As a result of the District’s one loss at the Court of Appeal, the District changed our methodology of calculation and is in compliance with the court requirements. But Mr. Moore's suggestion that the Court of Appeal will be the salvation is unfounded, and it ignores the different facts now on the table. The ongoing litigation war waged by the BCS Board has forced LASD to be extremely careful and thorough in analyzing and applying the law. At this point, the courts have repeatedly held that we are meeting our obligations. The facts of these new cases are different, and chasing every loss to the Appellate Court is a waste of taxpayer resources and is divisive to the community.

Suing the District for exercising what the courts recognize as an exercise of our reasonable discretion as elected representatives is not a winning strategy. It will never bring healing to our community, and it won't achieve what BCS wants. BCS parents need to reach out to their Board and ask them to work cooperatively with LASD. The District needs to balance the needs of ALL students, including the 4500 that attend LASD schools. If the BCS Board can approach the discussion with that idea in mind, with an appreciation for the need to educate all public school students in our community, we'll all be much happier with the results.

I don’t expect that this letter will suddenly make each of you into LASD supporters. However, Mr. Moore’s letter invited parents to become informed about the facts and to dialog with the District Board about them. Clearly we have different views of the facts. How we choose to resolve those differences- in court rooms, or by working cooperatively in our community—will impact the quality of life in our community for decades to come. The LASD Board has many upcoming meetings to discuss these issues, and I encourage you to come and participate, particularly if you can do so with a mind toward working together to solve these problems. I would also urge each of you to contact Mr. Moore and the rest of the BCS Board and ask them to cease the needless litigation, and work with the LASD Board of Trustees to find solutions that our entire community can support.

My email address is dsmith@lasdschools.org, and I welcome all constructive comments and suggestions for a path forward.



Sincerely,


Doug Smith
Vice President, LASD Board of Trustees

Deposition Transcript: Andrea Eyring

I meant to post this one when the final transcript arrived.  This is the deposition of Andrea Eyring, BCS Board Member and Prop 39 lead.  The deposition relates to the facilities complaint for the 2012-13 school year.

As is my practice, I won't provide any commentary, so as to leave the best parts for our lawyers.

One note:  Transcripts are technically the property of the court reporter who takes them down.  I'm told it's OK to post this, but please do not download it.  If you need a copy, you'll need to contact the court reporter.

Transcript of A Eyring

BCS Files Suit (Again)

BCS apparently didn't want to wait for Judge Lucas to rule on the jurisdiction issue (discussed in this blog post).  They have served the District with papers for a new lawsuit.  It's curious that they didn't wait for Judge Lucas, but whatever the reason, I look forward to the opportunity to defend the District's 2012-13 offer. 

I've briefly reviewed the 25 page complaint.  As one might expect, I take issue with a number of the "facts" they allege, but of course that's why we're going to trial in the first place.

The fast summary of the brief is as follows:

• They recount the history of the relationship, albiet with substantial embelishment
• They add complaints about the MPR/ City Gym
• They complain about the furnishings at Blach (without acknowledging their failure to respond to requests from LASD)
  
• They then ask the judge to grant them a contiguous site, though they don't specify which site.
• They also ask for attorney's fees in this case.

They have filed a Notice of Related Case (actually, two notices?), so that means we should end up back with Judge Lucas again.  I believe that is a good thing, as she has already invested quite a bit of time learning the nuances of what's going on.

None of this is a surprise.  Most of it is copy/ paste from prior suits and their various last-minute additions to their earlier motion.  As I said, I look forward to a complete and full airing of the facts.  I think that the Judge will determine that we've followed the law, and acted within our reasonable discretion as elected trustees.

I obviously haven't met with my fellow trustees since this suit was served, but recall that we have previously authorized council to file a counter-suit, formalizing our request for the judge to examine BCS's status as a semi-private school.  As much as I look forward to a full discussion of the 2012-13 offer, I also look forward to judicial review of the BCS status.


Here are the filings:

Verified Pet. for Writ of Mandate & Complaint

Letter to Judge Lucas
Civil Case Cover Sheet
Summons
Notice of Related Case
Notice of Related Case (109CV144569)

BCS Further Amends Complaint

The Bullis Charter School has amended their motion to include two new issues:

1. their dissatisfaction with the state of the facilities prior to the beginning of school
2. their dissatisfaction with the District's resolution to the City Gym/MPR issue (see related blog post)

I have no idea what the judge will make of amendments filed less than 48 hours before the court date.  BCS Board members constantly remind us that we are all part of the same community, yet they run to the courts for recompense with every issue.  BCS was not the only school inconvenienced by construction that took longer than expected.  For example, the Egan music room was also not finished prior to the start of school.  Their teacher scrambled and made due for a few days, and fortunately I haven't received any notifications of lawsuits from an Egan parent yet.  It seems that BCS is using litigation as a strategy to wear down the District to try to  force the only outcome they deem acceptable.

Folks, this is the reality of construction, and the reality of living together in the same place.  It takes time, and occasionally, when you have 10 weeks to get something done, it doesn't finish on time.  I won't address every point they've raised in this latest set of documents, but suffice it to say that if you want peace, you can't come demanding it with an iron fist.

As always, though, here is the paperwork for public reading.

BCS Letter to Judge Lucas
BCS Amended Proposed Order
POS Amendment

L Stone Declaration
A Eyring 2nd Supp Decl
Eyring Exh 1
Eyring Exh 2
Eyring Exh 3
Eyring Exh 4
Eyring Exh 5
Eyring Exh 6
Eyring Exh 7
Eyring Exh 8
Eyring Exh 9
Eyring Exh 10


And they've requested to use PowerPoint at the hearing
Application to use PowerPoint
Proposed Order Granting Use of PowerPoint
POS PowerPoint

BCS Facilities on Day 1

Well, it has finally arrived.  The beach towels are packed away, the camping gear neatly stowed, and backpacks and book bags have been brought out of storage.  The first day of school is upon us.

This summer hasn't been much of a break for District personnel.  Getting the new BCS facilities ready has been quite a journey.  We have been working at it all summer, determined to avoid last minute delays such as what we encountered last year.  Still, nothing is ever perfect, and there have been just a couple of last minute adjustments.

The Appellate Courts ruled last year that the District can't count the BCS Mutli towards our Prop 39 obligations.  The reasoning was that BCS had purchased the Multi at their expense, so it was considered unfair for LASD to consider that in our facilities offer.  This meant that the 2012-13 offer needed to include some sort of multi-use space for BCS.

The original plan was that we would share the City gym, and that the District would eventually build a new MPR for BCS in between the Egan Multi and the City Gym.  Indeed, we specifically drew the BCS map to include that space for that specific reason.  The interim plan was that BCS would use half of the city gym.

The LASD Board has to balance the needs of all students, however, not just the needs of BCS.  As we met with staff late this summer, we began to see that carving up the city gym would have a substantial negative impact on the Egan PE program.  Additionally, close followers of our budget would know that we only have about $100,000 in our capital fund right now- and we've received estimates from $300,000 to $750,000 for a new MPR.

Fortunately there is a solution.  Two years ago, LASD build a brand new music room (about 2000 sq ft) in between the city gym and Egan- exactly where we considered placing the BCS Multi.  By vacating that multi, we could provide that space to BCS.  That's part 1.

Part 2 has to do with space the District already provided, but BCS isn't using.  The Appellate ruling instructed LASD to provide BCS with child care facilities, similar to what we have on other district sites.  However, BCS did not respond when the District asked whether it would using the allocated child care space for that purpose.  That leaves us with another large building that can be used.  (One of the things we did win in the 2009-10 ruling was that we don't have to provide space for programs BCS doesn't intend to offer -- in that case, seventh grade).

It is important to note that BCS middle school students have access to all appropriate PE facilities.  They have use of the gym at Blach, along with tennis courts, track, and other specialized space.  The District is in no way impacting the PE program- but we are maximizing use of the various gymnasiums we own by allocating them for use by middle school students in each program. 

I attended the BCS board meeting last night, and was there when this news was delivered to the BCS Board.  (A copy of the letter is here.)  Audience members didn't have to be mind readers to know that the BCS board was unhappy with this latest development.  However, the LASD Board and Administration need to maximize the use of facilities for all students.  One might wonder if BCS intends to litigate over this change.  It will be interesting to see if they really intend to try to use the courts to force LASD to spend $300K that we don't have.  Hopefully calmer minds will prevail.  I recognize that the late timing of this news will cause last minute adjustments, and that is always a challenge.  For the inconvenience that this causes the BCS staff, I am truly sorry. However, we're all supposed to be the grown-ups.  Egan and Blach staff are also dealing with a number of last minute changes brought on by the sharing needs.  As the adults in the room, we all have to adjust and do our best to adapt to these types of situations.

I look forward to a successful school year for both LASD and for BCS.  Maybe with a little bit of luck, the waters will calm a bit and the storms can subside, allowing us all to focus on the children.