"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Mister Writer also posted a great post on the "story" that Theresa Harrington keeps trying to repeat! It's old news Theresa!!
I would like to know why Gary is quoting different numbers for the solar project than those presented by the administration's "solar expert" at the June 22, 2010 board meeting?
Gary answered a question (on the MDUSD blog) to a guy named Joe Smith, that Greg Rolen doesn't have the poll results. Here is the quote, "Today when I asked Greg Rolen to send me a copy, he told me that he was going to ask me for a copy. So at this point, I'm not sure who has a copy of the poll results, but when I find them, I am going to post them. "If Greg Rolen doesn't have the poll results then where the hell did all his statements about hiding them from us for the public good come from?This stinks to high heaven. Somebody is hiding something, the question remains what and why?
Doctor J= Joe Smith?
Anon 10:02 Its all about credibility. Does Rolen have any ?Anon 10:06 Nice try. Why does everyone assume I am male ?Doctor J
Dr. J - if you want people to accept your position you better reveal your identity. I think we have all figured out that you are part of the administration, but frankly we are getting tired of the accusations without the substance backing it.
Perhaps he/she is part of the past administration and is not happy about McHenry being forced out.Who is to say that Joe Smith is a real name anyway?
Annon 12:25 and 12:28I don't understand the paranoia with who I am. What difference does it make ? I am for the TRUTH. I don't care about acceptance -- the TRUTH is what I want. GE's refusal to answer the questions about Buttercupgate and Rolen speak volumes about the deception going on. Be sure to pay attention to the questions and comments by the guy from the First Amendment Coalition, and then read his webpage about all the public entities he has sued and won against. GE better be ready to be under oath for the next round of questions. It won't be pretty. Gary even had a friend of his bait me on the blog -- wonder if he had district IT guys looking for my IP address. If he did, what a waste of taxpayer dollars. Wow, the actions of GE and his friends remind me of Nixon and Haldeman. How sad. We'll see if GE really posts the whole poll or not. Doctor J
Dr J you are a total moron with your attitude. I no longer care what you have to say. You want to be believed then you need to stop hiding
I swear Dr. J, Your quest for "truth" rings hollow. You keep hammering Gary about things that might be of interest to you (God knows why) but have little impact on the workings of the district.You are so negative that it's obvious you have an agenda. I am done reading your posts.
The board should immediately resign. They are a bunch of incompetent boobs. Especially Paul.
Dr J I agree with the other posters that unless you are in the open you have no credibility either
Dr. J,You claim that others are paranoid; I think it's you. Do you really think I am baiting you? Aside from my wife and one other person, I didn't tell anyone that I was going to be doing the CCT chat yesterday. I tried my best to answer all of the questions that I could. It's a little tough to keep up with all of the questions from an entire chat room as one guy, particularly if the one guy has my typing abilities. I went on the chat as me, not as an anonymous snipe hiding from the light. I stepped up and did my best to answer the questions asked of me. I sincerely hope that you are not one of our employees, sitting around all day wasting the tax payers dollars monitoring and responding to blog sites while the rest of the district is hard at work trying to educate our students. That would be a real crime.
Gary, I invite you and others to read the transcript of the on-line chat at CC Times. When my questions weren't being answered, I even summarized them for you. You didn't answer them. You still have the opportunity and I invite you to go back now and answer them either here, or on CC Times. As you are aware they range from the Strategic Plan to Chevron gratuities to the Buttercup meeting. BTW, I thought your typing abilities were excellent. All of us need spell check. I am sorry that Sherry didn't participate along with you. I don't do this on the taxpayer's dime. If you wish to continue to call me names, that is your perogative. I have never called you a name. Lets get the truth out there and move on. What did you think of the Seattle Strategic Plan and the MDUSD Vision that I adapted from their plan ? Doctor J
Gary, I read my post and want to emphasize one point. I have never called you a name on this blog, to your face or behind your back. Doctor J
Dr J,You are no Lone Ranger. You claim that I am untruthful, but it was me, as myself, that went on to the CCT chat yesterday and did my best to answer all of the questions asked of me. I have repeated over and over again that if someone has a question of me, they can e-mail or call me and I will do my level best to answer their question. I have responded to you over and over again and I have stated publicly that I am willing to meet you anytime, anyplace, live and in public to have a public debate with an audience of our community. I am not willing to have a debate from behind a computer. You claim that I am dishonest, but what I have said and the statements that I have made are supportable by factual evidence. You continue to run your mouth about secret meetings and backroom deals and make accusation of illegal activity and impropriety. You have made your claims over and over again, but you have no evidence of wrongdoing, because there has been none. We are doing our best, under very difficult conditions, to provide all that we can for the students of this district. I am available and I will try to answer the questions that I am asked from the parents and community members that mean so much to our school district. I am not inclined to answer the same questions over and over that you continue to ask. I'm going to let you in on a secret that most people already know, you will not find the truth hiding in the shadows. No one ever has. You have proven that you are not after the truth. You are only interested in agitating the community. We are doing our best to serve the children of our district. Either grab and end and help us lift or don't, but you are not providing anything positive to our students by adding more weight to our already heavy load. The one area that I agree with you on is people should go and take a look at the transcript from the CCT chat. Once people do that, they will see that I made an honest attempt to answer the questions asked of me. If I didn't have an answer, I said so, but I did answer the questions honestly and openly. Did I let some of your recycled questions go by me, yes I did, and I will continue to do so. The moment that you are willing to step into the light, I am willing to stand with you and debate the issues. Until then, your demands of me will fall on deaf ears.
Gary, you didn't answer the new questions either: Did Chevron pay for any of your meals or provide you with any gratuities ? The public has a right to know this of their public servants. You didn't answer this new question: What is your position with the Supt getting a Strategic Plan ? I invited you to comment today on the Seattle Strategic Plan and the adaption of the Vision for MDUSD -- you haven't. Since you in the past have been a proponent of a Strategic Plan, I would like to know what you thought of the Seattle plan. As for the continuing questions, the public has a right to know if its public servants met at the Buttercup Restaurant as I have asked you previously. This question will linger and fester until you tell us the truth. Either you were there or you weren't; its that simple. Gary, I have never called you the names you allude to either on the blog, to your face or behind your back. I have applauded you for several things including refusing to give the Supt carte blanche the night you guys approved Nugent. I also applaud you for insisting on public comment on all issues during special meetings. Doctor J
I have answered the questions that you have asked. As I said, come into the light and debate the issues and the facts.
Gary, I don't see answers to the Chevron meals & gratuities nor to the Strategic Plan or the Seattle plan questions. Perhaps you can block and copy them again in response to this comment if you did respond to them. I will not enter your blog as you want to identify my IP address -- which I have already taken some steps to reroute my information to protect my identity but it is not foolproof. I did accept your offer to debate and you invited me to choose the forum. I chose the CC Times as the forum. You then backed out for unknown reasons. I am sure Theresa will set up the live chat if you want. Then we have a transcript so there can be nothing uncertain of the questions and answers. Doctor J
Doctor J,Since the Lone Ranger and Zorro are fictional characters, I feel that you’re being anonymous smacks more of the KKK – the harassment of people from behind the mask. It does not feel like truth and justice, it feels spite and vengefulness. If you have any real proof, then take it to the correct authorities. That does mean that you will need to take off your hood.
Dr. J:There is one thing I know for certain about you.You certainly do love attention.Thanks for being so entertainingly wacked. Credible though in any way shape or form anymore? I think not.So, I'm now tuning out.In the immortal words of another superhero:Up UP AND AWAY!!!!
Annon 11:14Anytime an elected official gets perks from a potential "vendor", the public has a right to know and the extent of that. I asked Gary if he got any meals paid for by Chevron or received any gratuities from them. Its simple: yes or no. If Gary want to give an explanation, that is fine. Even if the answer is yes, that doesn't mean its illegal. But there are limits and Gary has taken "ethics" classes to know what those limits are. As for the questions about the Strategic Plan, the Seattle Plan, and Vision for MDUSD, I am interested in knowing what Gary's current feelings are about those issues. There are no right or wrong answers. As for the Buttercup meeting, Gary and Sherry both need to answer the question as to whether they were there. Its kind of like running a red light and getting a ticket. Its not the end of the world. If you are guilty, admit it, pay the ticket and be more careful. Maybe its more serious than that or they would have answered the question. Only they can say. Its a yes or no answer, and if they want, an explanation. The public has a right to know. Doctor J
How about this:Doctor J= Jeff Adams?I know that Jeff is running for school board and he lost the election badly last time.
Doctor J- Who do you think you are getting this information about the Buttercup Grill and the meeting at the Superintendent's house for?Do you see anyone other than you or Joe Smith (another pseudonym?) asking those specific questions?There were a lot of posters on the Chat yesterday and everyone had good questions, but you keep harping on these things that seem to matter a great deal to you.What will it reveal? It was said that Chevron has a policy of not paying for people's lunch. Since the district has opted to go to bid for the solar work, Chevron appears to have dropped out.So, what is your issue? It's almost like your main interest is NOT the students, but in maligning Sherry and Gary.Get over yourself. Gary- Thank you very much for your time yesterday. I hope that you can talk to the rest of the board and the Superintendent about doing another meeting on this subject because it is very complex and I got the feeling from the chat that there were still more questions that needed answers.I don't mean Measure C meetings, I mean a meeting to discuss the aspects of the solar decision that people were talking about yesterday.
Doctor J,The answers you have sought are already on Gary's blog. You can't simply keep repeating questions and not acknowledge the answers.
Annon 12:05 & 12:10GE knows I don't use his personal blog. So I haven't seen any answers. The questions were first asked on this blog and CC Times. I am not Joe Smith and I am not aware of who he is, correct name or pseudonym. I think you are mistaken about the "competitive bid" -- its described yesterday either as a RFQ or RFP, which as I understand it both of which give discretion to the district board as to who they will select, and it is not strictly based on "low bidder". Yesterday, I thought yesterday's statement of Peter Sheer, Executive Director of the First Amendment Coalition, was extremely concerning when he said: "I'm troubled by the appearance of a "pay to play" culture governing selection of contractors, consultants, legal, banking and other services for this huge project. This is similar to the culture of pay-to-play that has recently been exposed in CalPERS' selection of investments. " this was after he learned that following their appointments by the Board as "Bond Counsel" and "bond underwriters" each then donated a large sum of money to the Measure C campaign. If Gary won't answer the questions where they were asked, why don't you save us all a lot of time and block and copy them to this blog ?Doctor J
Doctor J- You didn't say you weren't Jeff Adams.
Dr J,There you go again, alleging that I may have have violated a law. Just as Peter Sheer, the out of town attorney, did yesterday with his "pay to play" comment. The questions that I did get and answered yesterday were good questions and I'm glad that I was able to participate. I have broken no laws and I have done nothing to personally benefit from the work that I do for the school district. If you truly believe that I have broken a law you should contact the Contra Costa County District Attorney's office and file a complaint. Unless you are willing to stand behind the things that you say, all it is is chatter. More of the same, blah, blah, blah. Don't you get tired of it? I know we are tired of it.
Oh, Gary please. Post your answers here or on CC Times where the questions were asked. Its just common courtesy. I didn't accuse you of violating any law. I just used an analogy of a traffic ticket -- an infraction. As for Peter Sheer, I was surprised by his particiaption and more surprised by his knowledge of the MDUSD situtation, although he had not been brought up to speed on some of the details until during the discussion. Who invited him to participate ? Doctor J
Thanks for all of the other comments. I know that I should just let Dr. J's comments slide given his complete lack of credibility, but he when he starts alleging that I am personally benefiting from the work that I do and makes comments that allude to me breaking laws, I have a difficult time being quiet. I know that the solar project that we are contemplating for our district is a complex issue. We will have more meetings at the Board room on the issue before we chose a vendor and move forward with the project. As I have said, if there are people that would like to get together to have more in depth conversations on the issue, I'd be happy to set up a time and place and we can get together and spend a couple of hours talking about the entire project and what opportunities that it brings to the district and the students that we are trying to serve.I will also try to keep up with my blog. It is time consuming to do so and unlink Dr. J, I have work that I must attend to.
Doctor J- File your complaint with the DA if it has legs. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time!Stop with your personal agenda (Jeff?) and move on! You seem to want everything on your terms.Have you seen a groundswell of support for the things that you are posting? No, it's quite the opposite.
Gary, I just asked some simple questions which have simple answers but can't seem to get any answers from you. You are reading between the lines with a great imagination. Personally benefitting ? You took the ethics class. I think the FPPC allows you to accept certain amounts of meals and gifts without violating the law, doesn't it? so what is the problem in answering the question ? If someone buys you a lunch at McD's , I don't think that is a personally benefiting, do you ? But if someone gave you Giants season tickets, that might be a different story, wouldn't you agree ? I just pulled that example out of thin air so don't get paranoid about it. I agree the contemplated solar project is complicated, the funding issues have more twists and turns than a pretzel, but please don't make it more complicated by having meetings at the Supt's house with Chevron people, or refusing to answer simple questions like meals and gratuities. You ran for the Board on being "transparent" -- why don't you live up to it and answer the simple questions ? Still waiting for your answers on Buttercup and Chevron. Doctor J
Doctor J, what is amazing is that in speaking with Gary and Paul, I get any question I want answered. And instead of doing the "RIGHT THING" and calling Gary, you continue here. It just makes you sound a bit like a nut... sorry but you aren't helping yourself by going on and on and on. Just call him! Give us all a break please.
Annon 1:11 Why would I file a complaint with the DA ? You guys have vivid imaginations. Doctor J
mdusdparentsYou know I can't call Gary without revealing my identity. The questions to Gary are simple yes or no answers, and if he wants to he can explain them. Instead he writes paragraphs avoiding the yes or no answers. Doesn't make sense to me. He is the elected official, not me. Doctor J
Gary has answered your questions on his blog. I certainly think it is fair for him to put them there at his discretion as you won't even identify yourself. As for three board members and a superintendent having dinner together. There is nothing inherently illegal about that. It is completely appropriate. Why should he justify your question with a response when even if this did happen, it is totally appropriate?
Jeff Adams, in fact, holds a doctorate, so it is not out of the question. Something tells me, however, that he has better things to do than monitor these blogs all of the time.
Annon 1:56I asked the Buttercup question weeks ago on CC Times, and again on this blog. The Chevron question was asked yesterday morning on CC Times live chat, and again on this blog. Now for Gary to refuse to answer the questions where they were asked, but on his private blog,is not just rude but disengeneous, especially when he knows I do not participate in his blog. So until he has the courtesy of responding to where they were asked, I have not received an answer. Doctor J
HE DID ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!! AND YES, I'M YELLING!!!
annon 4:07Scrolled through all the posts above and don't see them. yell if you want. rant if you want. Gary didn't respond to my questions in the forum I ask them and he has been active in these two forums. Doctor J
Dr. J- Who hasn't yet denied he is Jeff Adams--NO ONE CARES BUT YOU ABOUT BUTTERCUPGATE!Isn't it possible for MDUSDParents to check your ip address as easily as it is for Gary to do so?
Yeah, why does Dr. J care so much and keep calling it Buttergate? Do the board members and the superintendent seriously do not have a right to go out to dinner together? Is that a law somewhere, if it is, it's ridiculous. I see politicians out to lunch together all the time with staff members at EJ Phair in downtown Concord. This seems a little invasive of their privacy. Give it up, GE isn't answering your question here. If I were him I would stop responding on all blogs except my own. He has made it very clear on many blogs including this one that Cheveron has not paid for anything for district members. Can we just move on?
Gary did promise to post the poll results and we have yet to see those. I think the silence speaks volumes but that is just me.
9:07 (Dr. J?)- Why are the poll results so important? Will it change the outcome of the vote? Even though the financing wasn't great, the voters still passed Measure C by a wide margin.Why do you think it matters and what will change if you know that answer? I am not against seeing the poll results, but you are like a dog with a bone with this issue that is more drama than substance.
Dr. J- Interesting that you keep pressing Gary to answer your questions, but you haven't answered if you are Jeff Adams. Are you? The question has been asked and not answered, and according to your rules, you must be hiding something.Also, I wonder if the mention that Dr. J's IP address could be found through this website scared him away.Just sayin'
I promised to post the poll if and when I get it. Right now, I don't have it. The poll is not in the possession of the District. The poll is in the possession of the bond campaign committee. My understanding is that the bond campaign may decide to release the poll. If I had the poll, I would release it immediately. I don't have the poll.I have always favored giving people any information that they request and this is no different. There is nothing contained in the poll results that the district needs to hide from. This is just another case where the newspaper has people thinking that we are trying to hide something. We are not hiding the poll results, we just don't have them in our possession.
Gary,I just can not let you get away with that answer. The bond committee is Superintendent Lawrence, Linda Mayo, Mike Noce, Mike Langley, and a handful of parents and teachers. Exactly who is saying "no" to you? Has the whole committee reconvened to address this issue?
Gary,I appreciate everything you do, but this just doesn't make sense. If there is nothing to hide just post the freaking poll results. If there is something to hide (and to be perfectly honest the longer this hide the poll results game goes on the more I am inclined to believe something is being hidden) then won't we be better owning up to it now and figuring an appropriate course moving forward?
Gary,I am not Dr. J nor Joe Smith, but I believe the question about the poll results is valid because it speaks to a larger issue of how Board members make and explain their decisions to the public.In deciding to place a $348 million dollar bond on the ballot and to choose the payment schedule it did, what information did the Board use? Did it share all that information with the public? Were the results of a poll part of that information? If so, they should given to members of the public who ask for them. Yet it seems that no Board member nor District administrator can find these elusive poll results. Does that mean the Board did not use the poll results in making its decision? If not, why not?Yes, the bond passed. The poll results should be a moot topic by now. And that would be the case if the Board officers (who used to argue strongly about the public's right to background information on agenda items) had made sure the results were available at the Board meeting when the election decision was considered and approved. And if the district's General Counsel had not stonewalled a reporter who asked for them.It's not about poll results. It's about transparency. If the district leadership won't share this information, suspicious minds will think there's other information not being shared as well.
Did you miss something in what I wrote? Maybe I misstated it. I thought what I said was that if I had the poll results, I would release them immediately that there is nothing to hide. I don't have the poll results. I have never seen the actual poll results. I have only seen a power point presentation which was a summary of the poll results. So I am not disagreeing that the poll results should be release ASAP.
Linda, thanks for clarifying that the Supt and Linda Mayo are on the bond committee. That alone makes the poll results public record. Lawrence or Mayo have access to the complete poll records. Why haven't they still been produced ? I will bet that they are now or at some time have been sitting in the Supt's office. Interesting that Gary hasn't called the polling company and asked for a copy. As Linda said, the commissioning of the poll occured during a MDUSD committee meeting on MDUSD property. Doctor J
Gary,Can't you just order the poll results to be released? All these people work for you right?If there isn't a game of hide the poll results going on why did Greg Rolen send a letter to the Contra Costa Times saying essentially that he has determined that it is in the public interest to keep them hidden?
Annon 11:49Excellent and well reasoned recap. It makes one wonder what else hasn't yet been uncovered.I also agree with Annon 11:29. I imagine the next thing we will hear is that the Supt never saw the poll results. How unbelievable will that be ?Doctor J
Annon 7:34Yes, Gary can or Sherry or Linda or Paul or Dick or Steven. Great question about why did Rolen send such a letter -- his "client" said to. What happened to all the copies of the poll in the meantime ? Remember that Rolen is one of the Gang of Five and last November while the Board was laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, cutting staff, cutting staff hours, Rolen got a RAISE of $27,998 !!!!! As for the missing poll results copies, well, perhaps Rosemary Woods has been reincarnated. All Gary has to do is call the poll company and have them emailed to him so he can post them. He doesn't need anyone's permission to post public records. Doctor J
Doctor J,Upon what basis do you conclude that the Superintendent and Linda Mayo's membership on the committee make everything the committee does public? It simply does not. If you are relying on Peter Scheer's statements, go re-read them. He specifically stated "in their official capacity." The superintendent is certainly not on the committee in his official capacity. He is a volunteer on that committee. Although Linda does not have the same restrictions as he does, her participation was on an individual basis. It is so funny to watch you grasp for any straw and then try to turn it into some kind of proof. You make statements like they are fact and your have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly hope you don't work for the district, because you are a perfect example of someone who will accept anything that remotely supports your position, no matter how weak it is. This is a sign of low intelligence and a lack of confidence. My guess is that the other comment that appears to support you was posted by you as well. There is no story here, go away.
Gary cannot order the poll released. First of all, he is just one board member. Second, the district did not hire the pollster and did not pay for the poll. Accordingly, the district does not own the results. The committee owns the results. The committee is not a committee of the district. By law it is a separate and independent group. Gary has no authority over the committee. The Linda who is commenting here abandoned the committee and her attempt to pin down Gary is quite disingenuous. Gary has never been a member of the committee. Linda knows who is on the committee. If she has a question for them, ask them, not Gary. And Linda, how do you intend to "not let" Gary "get away" with that answer? By making your inane comment? Nice effort.
Doctor J,There you go again. Gary can just call the poll company? The poll company who did not work for the district? The poll company hired by someone else? Your willingness to jump to conclusions and see facts in falsities is hilarious. Everyone on this site sees through your alleged facts.
Annon 8:15Anything the Supt and Board members do that involve the district become public records. When is the Supt not the Supt ? 24/7. when is Linda Mayo not an elected official ? 24/7. Now if the Supt was a volunteer for the Little League, unaffiliated with the school district, that is clearly outside. But where the Supt is a member of the Bond Committee organized to support a Bond election proposed by the Supt to the Board, and approved unanimously by the Board based on poll results commissioned during a MDUSD Committee meeting on school property, that are now being hidden, it is clear those are public records. To say otherwise, doesn't meet the smell test. Doctor J[I sign my posts] Let Gary post the entire poll and end the controversy. What Gary wants, Gary gets. He's done it since 1995.
Doctor J,I know you think you are smart. You are not. The view of the Superintendent's role or Mayo's role is simply not in accordance with reality. I know it seems simple to you so I will try to explain it in very easy terms. The Superintendent is P-R-O-H-I-B-I-T-E-D from participating on the committee in his official capacity B-Y L-A-W. No district resources can be spent on the campaign. Please, try hard to understand that your view of the world is so narrow and naive that your conclusions are baseless. Try again, you can say it all you want, it just won't make it true. Again, I hope you don't work for the district. I really hope. I think you won't give your name because you are running for school board and now that you have said so many stupid things, no one would ever vote for you.
I have noticed an awful lot of name calling lately and wonder why we can't discuss these important matters without name calling ? I have also noticed lots of the name calling is directed towards women. Let's all do better.Annon 8:22 & 8:25Unless the poll results are posted soon, I got the feeling that the CC Times and the First Amendment Coalition will file a lawsuit, subpoena the records, take statements under oath, and then get the district to pay the attorney fees as the victor. Is it really worth that ? More important, can the District afford it ? I hope those with the power to release all the poll records will do so, whoever they may be. Doctor J
Doctor J- You have not answered if you are Jeff Adams. Don't you think it is hypocritical for you to keep harping on Gary for things you believe he is not addressing, and yet you have not answered that question.I'll put it the way you like to put it.Doctor J- ARE YOU JEFF ADAMS? It's a yes or no question.
Really? Gang of Five? What is that about? Last November, Superintendent Lawrence wasn't even part of the district. Is he in your Gang of Five? Was it a Gang of Five when McHenry, Mayo, Treece, Allen and Rolen were in power?Why does Linda Mayo not get any of your derision, Doctor J? She had the supposed poll results, and I assume she isn't part of your Gang of Five.She also doesn't put herself out there on this or any other blog to defend herself.
Anon 8:22There is nothing disingenuous about my comment or the fact that I left the committee. If you want to say I abandoned the committee go right ahead, people who post anonymously say what they want anyway. I left the committee because I believed the bond to be fiscally irresponsible and I made my opinion known to the committee and the superintendent before I left. I also left because of the direction the campaign was taking in their messaging about what the bond was, and what it would provide for our kids. I believed the messaging was purposely misleading and wanted no part of a campaign like that. If you want to say I abandoned the campaign, so be it. I have no regrets about leaving the committee and the campaign. My comment about not letting Gary get away with his answer is because once again his answer appears to be saying that he really "wants to if only he could." Well I want people to know that he can ask for that document anytime he wants. It is just more of the same game of words and semantics. Here is a thought... why wouldn't the committee give Gary a copy of the polling results for a ballot measure that directly provides dollars to a district where he has a leadership role? Why would they logically deny his request?
Anon 8:58No.Doctor J
Anon 9:07The Gang of Five refers to the five key players who got raises in Nov 09 from Board admist the layoffs of teachers and staff, class size increases, reduction of hours. The Gang of Five includes the lawyer and the accountant. Remember that everyone in the district was being asked to take on additional responsibilities, but only these five got raises. The Board also extended their contracts, even though the new Supt had no say in it. I think there was a split vote but I may be mistaken about that. Doctor J
Linda, are you Dr. J? Your questioning is becoming very similar. You keep asking the same question over and over again, a question that I have answered over and over again.I will try to answer it once again. This time I will provide a little more depth in hopes that I can find a way to reach you.OK, here we go...The campaign committee and the and the school district are two distinct entities. They are required to be separate by law.The campaign committee paid for and received the poll. To my knowledge the campaign committee has never sent the poll results to the district in any form. There were two ways that the poll could have been done, the first is the way it was done, by the campaign committee with no district involvement. The other way would have been for the district to pay for the poll. It was my thought that we had just done a poll that the district paid for in 2009, why did we need another poll that was going to say virtually the same thing. When I was asked if the district should do a poll, I said no because I thought that in light of all of the cuts that we were making, I thought that the community wouldn't like to see the district paying for opinion polls while we were laying off teachers. I still think that is solid rationale. So now the CC Times has requested the poll. They should have asked the campaign committee, not the school district. I have asked our staff to try to get the poll. I have been speaking daily with them about that and they are working on it. I have also spoken to a member of the campaign committee and I believe that they are headed towards a release of the poll. If/when that occurs, the poll will be provided to the CC Times.By law there must be a firewall between the campaign committee and the school district. If that firewall was not in place, there would be many complaints about that. The firewall appears to be working excellently.We are doing our best to find and release a poll that has no bearing on anything at this point. That said, the release will occur, I am fairly sure of that. You can keep asking the same question over and over again, but the answer will not change. 1 + 1 = 2, no matter how you ask the question.
Dr. J- No, you aren't Jeff Adams? Are you related?The reason I ask is that I heard that Jeff Adams is running for school board again. He got beat pretty bad in that election and it would seem like an advantage to him to make the ethics of those who beat him an issue.Again, I don't hear you calling out Linda Mayo when she had the same access as Gary did.Can you tell us why?
Linda,Alright, I understand you left the committee because you were unhappy with the tax rate extension approach and you don't believe that the sunshine can power a school.
Gary,Thank you very much for your comments and explanation at 9:41. I buy your view and argument 100%.The thing I still can't wrap my head around given everything you've said is why Greg Rolen sent a letter to the CC Times stating essentially that he had determined it to be in the public interest to NOT release the poll to the CC Times. Why would Rolen do that given everything you have just posted? Is Rolen in possesion of the poll results?(Caveat: given the recent openess of Gary, I would vote for him again today in a heartbeat, all the other board members pale in comparison and should be shown the door).
Dr j... I hope you've seen you are being mocked on the mdusd.net blog. Ha ha.
MY KID LIVES IN BRENTWOOD AND GOES TO CLAYTON VALLEY HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Gary 9:41. The membership overlaps on these two supposedly distinct entities. I know in theory that they supposed to be separate. But the facts are that the Supt worked on the bond election committee while at the district office and you know that. Didn't you meet with him there and discuss it ? There are too many emails floating around from Lawrenece on the district email about the bond election to deny this. I hope as a Board member you ensure that the District has a policy to preserve electronic public records and procedures to prevent destruction so as to not violate the law. I hope you realize that your electronic communciations as a board member or concerning board business are also public records and must follow this same policy. Where do we find the District policy about obtaining public records ? I don't see it on the website. Gary, one last thing, Government Code Sec. 6253.1 requires the district to be helpful in assisting the public in obtaining the records. That doesn't sound like how Theresa was treated, does it ? Perhaps you could correct that.Doctor J
Annon 10:18Mockery is just an uneducated person's way of a vain attempt to raise their intelligence level. Doctor J
Doctor J- Could you please say, "No, I am NOT Jeff Adams or am related to him in any way?"Don't you think it is fair to ask that? You want answers from others, but yet it seems like you are hiding something.It's a simple question. Your "no" in a previous post seems like you were trying to avoid the question.
Doctor J-Anonymity is just a way to make baseless accusations without having to hold yourself up to scrutiny.
Doctor J,You are so deep. Wow I feel enlightened. Maybe mockery is just laughing at someone who is making a fool of themselves. Keep it up, the laughs keep coming!
Annon 10:07Not that I am aware of.As for Linda Mayo, yes she should release her copy or demand a copy and deliver it to Theresa for publication. So should every board member. So should the Supt. So should every member of the CUES committee.Doctor J
Great post on the MDUSD blog Gary about Buttercupgate! Hopefully Dr. J will leave that issue alone now! I get that what you are saying is you can't force the bond committee to hand over the report, you've asked them to, and asked the district to ask them to. You've done your job. People let's leave Gary alone. He's said he will post the report when he gets it, although I could careless about what it says some of you seem to think it's going to say a whole lot.
Annon 10:34You asked for yes or no. I gave it to you. Now you don't like the "no" ? What is it about "no" that you don't understand ? Geez, my mom and dad taught me what "no" meant at an early stage. See my post 10:38. Annon 10:36 Your statment is a little ironic, isn't it ? At least I sign my posts with my Mark Twain.Doctor J
Oh Please Doctor J- Are you serious?You ask Gary over and over again the same question and he has answered, but not to your liking, so you keep asking it again.Don't you think you are being hypocritical when you say "You asked for yes or no. I gave it to you. Now you don't like the "no" ? What is it about "no" that you don't understand ? Geez, my mom and dad taught me what "no" meant at an early stage. "That is pretty funny coming from you!On another note, why aren't you harrassing Linda the way you are harassing Gary? Oh. Is it because she doesn't post to blogs? It would seem to me that your interest in getting that information could be addressed to her.In case you want to contact her with these same questions, her email address is email@example.com. Please report back to us and let us know what she says about getting the polling results.Finally, you said,"Annon 10:36 Your statment is a little ironic, isn't it ? At least I sign my posts with my Mark Twain."How does your using Doctor J give you superiority over people who post anonymously? Talk about irony!!I guess I'll use my own nom de plume now...
Great CC Times article posted on On Assignment -- Education about why the poll and project lists are important. Theresa summarizes the chronology of what happened when, and who said what. She asks the pertinent questions: "Do you believe the board has been transparent about its decision to structure the bond as a tax rate extension? Are you satisfied with the lists of projects be be built?"Doctor J
I see this discussion has caused Paul Strange to crawl out from under his rock over on the other blog.
Gary,Based on your other comments about Dr. J I can only assume that your comment suggesting I am one in the same, is simply an insult.I think you have forgotten that I am a parent, a volunteer, and an MDUSD community member. I am one of your constituents. I suspect your job is difficult right now but I expect you to take a higher road than that. I have not insulted you personally, I have simply voiced my opinion in opposition to the bond measure and the lack planning and communication both surrounding the election, and ongoing in the district.No I am not Dr. J and you can confirm that with MDUSDParents if you wish. I have a static IP address so it should make it very easy.
3:20 - Yes. The reality is that I have put in thousands of hours of time per year for the school district and recently I have been very busy with work and family, so I have not been spending as much time on the blogs. Don't think I am not working hard for the district, it is just that I don't have the luxury of time that I used to.Nice to see you too.
There is a special closed session board meeting on Tuesday, August 3 for superintendent's and general counsel evaluation. The meeting begins at 7:30 and there is public comment before the board moves into closed session.I have been up to my eyeballs at work and having one on one time with my daughter while by other daughter is at camp.
Sherry,Thanks for the information. Should we expect a raise for the general council after this meeting. He's been outperforming expectations this year, particularly in the area of stonewalling public information requests from the Contra Costa Times.
Thank you Sherry, I had seen that on the board agenda page earlier, and I must admit I've never noticed a general counsel eval in the past... is this a normal occurance like the Supt eval is?
MDUSD Parents,As I recall, the District's General Counsel used to report to the Superintendent (not the Board) and the Superintendent was responsible for his evaluations. At some point, the Board changed things so the General Counsel reports directly to the Board and the Board conducts his evaluation. I think that is why you didn't see the General Counsel evaluations included on Board Meeting Agendas in the past.
The change of general council reporting occurred due to a recommendation in the grand jury report.
Yes, the change was made due to the grand jury report during Gary McHenry's tenure.
Remember the 3/30/09 post McHenry statement of the Board in response to the Grand Jury report ? An excerpt: "That’s why theDistrict takes the Grand Jury’s recommendations so seriously and why we are working so hard to keepour house in order. 1. Currently, the Board President and Superintendent jointly prepare the agenda for board meetings. 2. The Board and the Superintendent are committed to providing the Board unfettered access to information."Oh my, how quickly our elected officials forget. "unfettered access" ???? Where is the poll ??Doctor J
Gary Eberhart just posted on MDUSD.blogspot.com that the poll results are now available at:http://protectourlocalschools.org
As you read the poll, the real underlying question, and why it has become MDBondgate, is . . . who knew what and when did they know it ? Who had this poll ? Did the Supt have the poll ? Did any of the Board members have this poll ? If not, why not ?Knowing the contents of this poll may have shifted some votes by the Board based on recent comments. Or at least provoked a public discussion of the options. Each Board member can answer that question for her or him self. Doctor J
As I read the poll, it seems the decision to extend the payments at the same tax rate (about $60 per $100,000 of assessed value)was made before the poll was designed or taken. It doesn't appear the Board considered any alternatives before voting to approve placing the bond on the ballot.Maybe Linda (who posts on the blogs) can let us know if CUES ever considered alternatives while she was serving on that Committee. Or, maybe someone can email Linda Mayo and ask her if the CUES Committee reviewed various options before the poll was designed and taken. It would be interesting to find out why the CUES Committee (or District Staff) only brought the one alternative forward for the Board's decision.
Dorothy,The CUES committee, which was really the Local Funding Planning Committee (LFPC) due to the rules surrounding elections, did not discuss the bond options before the poll was taken nor did we discuss options after we received the poll results and before the board voted.The LFPC was not given COMPLETE details for any bond structure prior to the March 9 board vote, which is when I left. The committee was told the bond would be an extension of the 2002 bond but all other details were sketchy. The superintendent was not sure of the date the current bond expired, what the current bond rate was, or when the new bond would expire. In fact, he told the LFPC he thought the new bond would extend to 2045 and that the current bond would expire in 2026 but he was not sure. Both of which have proven to be incorrect.I think the important point is that the main focus of the committee was not if the bond was fiscally responsible, but if it could obtain the votes needed to pass. Sadly, I am afraid that may have been everyone’s focus.At that point in time, with the little information I had, my greatest concern was that we were financing assets beyond their useful life and that we were pursuing a bond when what we needed was a parcel tax. In the middle of the meeting I asked the superintendent how he could justify something so fiscally irresponsible and the campaign consultant replied “the voters will vote for this.”Like I said the fiscal impact was not the focus – the committee discussed the community support for the bond and the details/messaging for moving forward with a campaign.
Linda- What were the discussions by the rest of the CUES committee who didn't not quit. They must have been aware of the things you are mentioning. I remember hearing, specifically, at a PAC meeting that the decision to go forward with the extension rather than the dual bond payoff was a decision that was agreed upon by the CUES committee.In my opinion, all this talk now about the fiscal focus rather than the fact that the voters wanted a bond to help the schools is like Monday morning quarterbacking.Anyone on the blogs saw your voluminous posts about the fiscal impact. If the general population made the decision without further investigating the financial aspects of it, then that's just the way it is.Welcome to CA politics--where the ballot is so bloated that even the most diligent among us throw up our hand at the complex nature of what we are voting for!
Linda,Thanks for your input. Unfortunately, this will continue to look like the Consultant sold everyone a "bill of goods." If even the Superintendent didn't understand the bond financing, then how could the public understand it? Maybe the public should have done more research. But, the reality is that the next time the District asks for money (a parcel tax or another bond measure), the public will be far more skeptical and far less inclined to support the measure.I think the public was generally pleased or at least satisfied with the success of the 2002 Measure C and that may have encouraged many to approve the 2010 Measure C. Will the 2010 Measure C leave the same legacy or will the public (and the press) still be crying foul the next time the District asks for funds?
Dorothy,I think the consultant did exactly what he was hired to do and that was to run a successful campaign. I also believe the pollster did what he was hired to do and that was to poll the community.It doesn't matter how one spins it, it is the responsibility of our superintendent and board to consider the financial implications of any tax measure they put on the ballot. I can assure you that the campaign consultant was not making those kinds of decisions nor would I really expect him to. The campaign consultant does not have a fiduciary responsibility to the community.Yes, I believe today, as I did on March 9, that this bond measure will hurt the district's ability to pass a parcel tax in the future.
In the March 9 approved Board minutes, the Supt introduced the consultant and the poll "results" were presented. The question is whether the Supt or any board member knew that the results presented were only partial and not the complete results. Did someone by 'silence' help conceal the complete results ?Doctor J
Doctor J- Why is everything a conspiracy theory with you?No matter what the issue is, you seem to ascribe some dastardly motivation to it.
Annon 9:19 pmTRUTH is the standard. TRANSPARENCY is the method. A conspiracy requires two or more. The poll should have been subject to public scruitiny. When public officials decide that the public is too dumb to understand the facts, they become a danger to society. Doctor J
Doctor J- You said, "...When public officials decide that the public is too dumb to understand the facts, they become a danger to society. " Who is the danger to society? The public officials for "deciding" something, or the public for not taking the time to get real answers? Instead of taking responsibility, you want to shift the blame of an inattentive electorate to the public officials. Where were all the questions about the polling before the vote? I don't recall Theresa Harrington asking this question before the vote. Daniel Borenstein didn't mention the poll in his editorial either.Dr. J- Why weren't you asking these questions before the vote? In all the articles and blog postings, writers accused the district of not knowing the total cost of the bond or withholding the fact that the payback would be over 40 years--but no one questioned the poll results.Now all of a sudden the poll results are the smoking gun in some evil plot against us apathetic voters.The poll showed positive responses to the questions of the financing. It may not have asked about other financing, but is that illegal? Polls tend to skew to the results they are seeking.With all due respect to Dick Allen, his questioning people's honesty about the other options is as offensive as his not asking the questions himself, beforehand. We are wasting a lot of time blaming the board and the Superintendent when the public had the power to reject this bond. They didn't.Is this really a good use of our time at this point?
The poll results show nothing other than if the Superintendent or Board members became aware of another option, they didn't learn about it from reviewing the poll.I don't think there's any plot or conspiracy to hide information from the public. If Board members learned about the option that would have doubled the Measure C rate initially, they likely would have quickly dismissed that as a viable option. Does anyone on this blog believe the District could have convinced anyone to pay about $120 per $100,000 of assessed value instead of $59 (the old rate under the 2002Measure C?). I don't.Sure, the Brown Act requires open deliberations and transparency. And, you can argue the Board members should have disclosed anything they reviewed or relied upon in making their decision. But, I doubt any Board member really gave any thought to an option that would double the rate.Even if a majority of the Board knew about available options and deliberately withheld that information from the public (and I've heard or seen nothing to indicate that is true) it would be far too late to challenge the Board's action. The Measure went before the public and the public voted to approve it. Unless someone can prove some sort of election fraud, inadequate disclosures, etc., it's too late to challenge the election result.Instead, those concerned about fiscal responsibility should participate in decisions on the projects or improvements the money will fund. If solar panels only last for twenty years, maybe the public should insist on delaying the sale or issuance of some of the bonds, or set aside some of the Measure C funds to replace the panels in twenty years. If the Measure C funds are used for routine repairs and maintenance, maybe the public should argue for setting aside some of the future Measure C funds for future routine repairs and maintenance expenditures. If the Bond Oversight Committee and the public take a critical look at proposed Measure C expenditures, the public can ensure the money is put to good use and that we avoid having to issue another bond measure while we're still paying for 2010 Measure C.