Anti-SLAPP Appeal by BCS

2012-13 Facilities Litigation: anti-SLAPP Motion

Late last week, the District received notice that BCS has decided to appeal the anti-SLAPP ruling.  You'll recall that BCS filed the anti-SLAPP motion back in early December 2012.  (my blog post describing the motion, and all of the SLAPP-related posts).  There was a flurry of filings back and forth, and the courts ruled on this motion in January 2013, declaring that the District was not engaging in an effort to stifle debate, but that we were seeking guidance from the court on an issue of public importance.  At the time of that ruling, BCS elected not to present oral arguments, instead letting the ruling stand.

On Thursday, March 21st, the District received a formal notification of appeal from BCS.  This is all very curious because the legislature specifically prohibits appealing a ruling such as the one we have received.  In an email to BCS counsel, LASD counsel has pointed out that this appeal is unlawful, and has asked BCS to withdraw their appeal.  If BCS does not do so, the District will once again ask the court to impose sanctions against BCS.

There are those who oppose the District's cross-complaint, and I've heard a number of their concerns.  However, the courts have ruled three times now that LASD should be permitted to move forward with the action. 

I'd like to point out that LASD is not required to give this sort of notice to BCS.  We've done it out of a sincere effort to see if BCS is interested in dialing down the rhetoric.  In the bigger debate, there are significant legal issues that we see differently:

• the depth and breath of the discretion afforded to elected officials as they balance the needs of multiple constituencies
• the rights of the public to understand financing behind lawsuits which claim a public benefit
• the responsibility of a public entity to take action based the concerns of citizens who come forward with complaints

Any one of these is an interesting constitutional issue, and will certainly be discussed widely in legal community.  We have enough on our plates without having to deal with this sort of impermissible use of the courts.  The legislature has said this specific type of appeal is not permitted.  It would be good for both sides to simply move forward with the trial.  If BCS is so anxious for everyone to "know the truth", as their attorney pointed out this week, then let's move forward.  Let's not waste money on the appeal of a motion that shouldn't be and can't be appealed.  LASD has taken the high road by informing BCS up front of their error.  Hopefully their legal team will acknowledge this and gracefully step away.  It would be a simple step that places the needs of students ahead of the litigation.  It would be good for all sides.

The lawyers in the crowd will want to read the email, linked here
Email to BCS Counsel

BCS update to enrollment projections

Last night I received the attached letter from Ken Moore, Board Chair for BCS.  In the letter, he provides statements about the enrollment process, essentially confirming some of their earlier enrollment projections.  In the spirit of transparency, I'm posting it here.  It doesn't address much of the content we've asked for (and BCS has previously promised) but at least they are engaging.

Also, I believe that a couple of BCS Board members will be attending the LASD Board meeting tonight, so we'll have a chance to ask them questions as well.

See you at 7pm...

Letter from BCS 2013-03-24

Kicked out of BCS

This evening, BCS held a meeting to discuss the 2012-13 litigation. They had their attorney, Arturo Gonzalez, come and present his thoughts on the litigation. There was an invitation sent around addressed to "parents and community". A couple of people mentioned it to me, so I thought that I would attend to see what he had to say. I'm a big believer in listening. If you get your news only from one source, your view can get biased. I thought that by attending this meeting, I could hear the unvarnished version from BCS and see if there were any new facts I hadn't considered.

Unfortunately, it never got to that point. A BCS Board Member "asked" me to leave. Their Principal said that it was within her authority to have me arrested. I tried to persuade them to let me stay, and to listen. I have attended numerous meetings at BCS before, and it has never been a problem. I promised that would not disrupt the meeting, or even ask a single question. They were not to be swayed. The BCS Board member harassed and threatened me and said I had no business at the meeting.

In the long run, I wasn't there to create a problem. I just wanted to listen. At some point, though, you cut your losses. When I felt like there was no hope, I left. I was polite through the entire episode, but I was also unambiguous- I wasn't leaving voluntarily.

Inside the meeting, their attorney was telling folks to let other LASD parents stay. He is quite convinced that the facts are on his side, and that rational people will be persuaded by logic and facts and truth. Ironically, I agree with him that it is important to hear all of the facts, which is why I was there in the first place.

I can't imagine barring a community member from a meeting at an LASD school, especially not one that involves such an important issue. Last spring, I went to many LASD schools to discuss the proposed mediation settlement. There were BCS parents in the audience, but I didn't mind. If people want to hear what you have to say, why wouldn't you welcome them? If the facts are on your side, why wouldn't you want someone to hear those facts? Shouldn't those facts be out for everyone to consider?

I want to acknowledge that there were some BCS parents in the room who stood up for the LASD parents who also attended. They encouraged the open dialogue, and I applaud them for it. By that point in the discussion, I'd already been chased out, but I'm glad that some members of the community were able to stay, and I congratulate the BCS folks who were willing to rise above the chaos.

I've been taking a pounding lately from some BCS supporters who keep calling for more meetings and increased dialogue. Yet, on this occasion, when all I wanted to do was listen (and even their attorney said he was fine with me being there), I was chased away. More's the pity.

Favorable Ruling on BCS Motion

2012-13 Facilities Complaint; Cross Complaint

I love the power of social media.  This has already been posted on Facebook, but for those who may not have seen it, we received the ruling on BCS' MJOP (Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings).  This motion, heard by Judge Carol Overton on March 5th, sought to dismiss the LASD cross complaint.  This is the third such effort BCS has made.  Like the other two requests (including the anti-SLAPP motion), this was denied.

BCS argued that the District had an obligation to go to the SCCBOE to address our concerns before we filed the Cross Complaint.  The District argued that, since we weren't seeking for the court to change the behavior-- that we are only seeking clarification of whether this imapcts our facilities offers. 

The courts found for LASD- that we don't have to go to the SCCBOE first.  The ruling says, in part:
"LASD seeks guidance as to its own duties under the law with regard to its obligation to share its facilities fairly. Such a request calls on the court to interpret the law as it relates to LASD, not to determine whether Bullis has violated its charter."  That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

The District did seek sanctions, which the court did not grant.  However, the important take-away here is that the cross-complaint is moving forward.  The courts are willing to listen to the community's concerns about BCS admissions practices, and whether they serve all students equally.  Based on that, we'll understand what the impact is to the LASD facilities obligations.

Here's the full text of the ruling:
Order RE: Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings

Shared Space at Blach

2013-14 Facilities Offer

I received a very thoughtful letter from a BCS parent about the shared space at Blach.  Since I think this is an area where others may have some questions, I thought I'd share my personal thinking with a wider audience.  Again, this doesn't take place of official Board action, but it should help folks understand what I'm driving at.


The offer is premised around BCS 6-8th grade located at Blach.  I believe this can minimize the amount of duplicate space we need to build out.  I've advocated for an approach that "generally" allows 6th graders to have access to Specialized Teaching Space (STS) at Blach, but not "always". You can think of it in three buckets:


1) I don't have any concerns about giving 6th grade access to some areas, like the drama & music space. That's the same as an MPR they would have at Loyola or Santa Rita anyway, so no problem there.

2) Somewhere in the middle, 6th graders aren't really "entitled" to access to the track, the gym, soccer field, and tennis courts. However, I lean towards providing them that access. The big driver is because that access is in lieu of other STS that we might otherwise build out. The LASD Board can make a determination as a Board that providing this access creates a reasonably equivalent experience. BCS kids have more PE facilities, but maybe they don't have a small group space. it's not exact- but it is within the discretion of the Board.

3) There are some spaces, like the science labs, that aren't appropriate for 6th graders. We use chemicals there, and Bunsen burners, and we have made a determination that it's just not smart to allow access to younger kids in that space, so we don't share that with the 6th graders.

The parent also asked about building space where we can't provide enough shared access. If we can't provide reasonable access to shared space, then we would build it out. For example, the servery- we need it at the exact same time BCS would need it, so we can't really say we'll share. (Who gets it from 11:30-1pm while the other party gets it from 9:00-11:30? Not really fair, so that doesn't work. So we build a second servery.) But really, I want to minimize the amount of duplicated space. These portables cost a small fortune, and I'd rather time share than build out more buildings where we can. But for a lot of other space, we can work out sharing arrangements, and we are doing just that.

We have a plan for sharing PE space, including on rainy days. We really aren't barbarians. I don't want to see a scene with kids standing out in the rain while other kids have PE inside a warm, dry gym. I met with the Blach principal this morning, and she and her PE staff had just wrapped up a discussion about this.  It will be included in the final proposal. We really wanted Wanny to interact with Sandra more, but that hasn't happened. C'est la vie. We will have a specific offer in the final offer, in order to comply with the court rulings (that said we have to be specific). However, if the BCS staff is willing to collaborate, we can certainly entertain "swaps" etc.


So in the long run, I think we'll have a final offer that creates a very workable solution for both parties.  It won't be the whole "pony list" that BCS asked for, but it is reasonably equivalent and certainly workable and functionally equivalent. 

I also want to tip my hat and thank the Blach Principal and her staff.  We've had a number of conversations to pull together this offer, and their attitude was consistently one of partnership and fairness.  They are, pardon the pun, a class act.