BCS Trial Date

OK, It's not the Super Bowl, or the date of the next Justin Bieber concert.  Nonetheless, it's the date we've all been waiting for.  The District's attorneys tell me that we have a date in court.

On October 30, 2012, we will actually have two hearings with Judge Lucas.  First, there's the attorney's fees from the 2009-10 case.  BCS has asked the court to award $1.3M, and the District is seeking discovery so that we can see whether that figure is warranted.  Since BCS has refused to provide information we need to make that assessment, we've asked Judge Lucas to compel BCS to comply.   She will hear the District's motion on Oct 30th.

And because she loves hearing from us (or, perhaps, because she's going to have all of her vegetables in one sitting), we'll be having a second hearing on the same day.  Given that Judge Lucas ruled against BCS from the Aug 30 motion, BCS filed a new lawsuit to complain about their facilities for 2012-13.  The Judge rightly decided that she could not evaluate that offer under the sham proceeding that BCS attempted to use on August 30, but that she needed to hear a full set of facts.  BCS clearly knew that was the case also, because they filed their new lawsuit before the Judge had even finished ruling on their previous efforts.

This is a hearing I'm really looking forward to having.  I strongly believe that the 2012-13 offer is fully compliant with Prop 39, and I look forward to having a judge weigh the facts and confirming what we already know.  We also will be bringing a cross-complaint to discuss the semi-private nature of BCS's program, and asking the court to clarify what our obligations are in light of their behavior.  The community has been seeking clarity on that question for 8 years, and it's time we get an answer from the courts.

So, mark your calendar.  I'll definitely be there, and I look forward to an exciting day!

A Bargain At Twice The Price

One of the things I'm cognizant of it getting good value for where we spend our precious resources.  So it might surprise folks to learn that I advocated for a 50% increase in an expenditure this past week.

Like many public schools districts, LASD contracts for mental health services through an outside agency.  In our case, the Community Health Awareness Council (or CACH) provides these services to LASD, as well as to other neighboring districts. 

What do these services look like?  CHAC professionals work with district students on a wide range of issues, ranging from depression and suicide to anti-social outbursts and bullying to divorce and family challenges.  Sometimes the family seeks help and LASD refers them to CHAC, and in other cases District personnel identify an issue and confer with the family to recommend that a discussion be opened.  I'm painting a broad picture, because the services really are tailored to the needs of the people involved.

I'm overwhelmed by the stories of people who have received these services.  By definition, the services are rendered at a critical time of need.  A child is in crisis, and CHAC is there to help. For some folks, it is a first contact point to begin to understand an issue their child is wrestling with.  Others may engage with CHAC directly to work through a problem over a period of time. The feedback we get is remarkably consistent- families are extremely grateful that the service was there when they needed it most.


Last year, LASD students received about 4500 hours of services, which works out to about 1 hour per student per year.  We make a small contribution to CHAC to help offset the costs of the services, but the amount we give is very small by comparison to what we get.  Last year, we donated  $31,476 to CHAC.  That means our kids received assistance from top-flight professionals for about $7/hour.  You read that right- $7 per hour.  And the preceding 10 years of contributions have been pretty bleak.

Surrounding districts have been contributing at a rate of about $10-$14 per hour of service received.  As a community, we benefit so much from these services, it doesn't feel right that we were so far off the scale.  Yes, times are tight.  Yes, we still ask the PTA to buy things like pencils and kleenex.  Over the past several years, the only increase in teacher compensation has been in their health care costs.  But this is a service we absolutely must have.  Our District is fortunate to have many more resources than many of those around us.  It just didn't feel right to continue to receive the services without at least stepping up the contribution to be in line with other districts.  I'm proud to say that we increased our contribution to $45,000 for this year.  The services CHAC provides are incredibly important to our kids, and I'm very grateful to the folks at CHAC.


I'd also like to thank LASD Board member Steve Taglio for calling this out.  I've been on the LASD Board for 3 years, and we've always know that we have received great service from CHAC and that it has been a "great bargain".  There's a difference between "a bargain" and " not paying our share".  Steve gathered the data to put it into context, which I think helped the Board make this decision.  Thanks, Steve.  And thanks to Monique Kane and the team at CHAC

Court requires BCS to file new suit

We just received Judge Lucas' ruling on the Aug 30, 2012 hearing.  It was interesting that BCS has already filed their new action- it pretty much telegraphed that even they understood that their efforts to tie the 2012-13 offer to the 2009-10 case was a procedural long shot.  In any case, though, Judge Lucas did go forward and issue a ruling.  She determined that the 2012-13 offer is a distinct legal offer, and that it would need to be evaluated on the merits, and therefore afforded the standard of review that provides some level of deference to the District.  This is all good news, and consistent with what the District had argued in our motions.

Since BCS has already filed their new complaint, that process is underway.  I'll provide updates to that as they come along.

Here's the ruling for those who are interested.

Order Denying Motion to Compel

Attorney's Fees: Delay in Discovery

A quick update on the attorney's fee demand from BCS.  As you'll recall BCS filed against the District for $1.3m in attorney's fees for their costs relates the the 2009-10 Appellate Court ruling.  (FYI, If you click on the label for "attorney fees" below, you'll see the various posts I've done on this topic.)

In any case... BCS has been resisting the District's discovery requests in this motion.  Judge Lucas asked that the sides "meet and confer", which is legalese for "go work it out."  LASD offered to reduce the discovery questions to a smaller subset, but BCS has dug their heels in and refused to provide any information.  LASD and BCS had a conference call with Judge Lucas this week, to discuss status of the discovery.  Based on that call, Judge Lucas has decided that she'll need to hear full motions on the issue, as the two sides remain far apart on the core issues.  A hearing has been set for Oct 30, 2012.  The actual hearing for fees will be pushed back from the current November schedule to a later date.


I'm disappointed that BCS filed for fees in the first place, particularly because LASD has never sought attorney's fees in any of the many cases in which we have prevailed.  However, given that BCS has chosen to do this, we will vigorously defend the District's resources.  Looks like we'll head back to court in October.

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)