So for all of you (us) that have a lot to say about how things have been going in the MDUSD - here's your chance.A special meeting of the MDUSD School Board has been called and is scheduled to include closed session topics such as:
Superintendent's Evaluation, and General Counsel's Evaluation.
Public comment is welcome (and I highly encourage it since we have so many opinions around here, where better to air them but at the board meeting). I hope the board will be HIGHLY recommending, if not reprimanding, this Superintendent for his lack of communication. General Counsel now has created a lot of controversy. Something tells me they will have a lot to discuss behind closed doors. The Superintendent MUST do better. If he can't, or won't, do better, or do what is directed - he needs to resign. What a tragedy though for the district to lose another Superintendent at a time like this. But, he has to step up to the plate.
It simply can not be that hard for him to take 30 minutes out of his day each week to provide the community a "Monday Memo" of sorts. Just an update. What are you working on? Where are our strengths as a district? What are our weaknesses? Where can we help? What can we expect. It's not that hard. I'm certain he knows how to write given he's got those all important Ph.D. letters behind his name. Oh , by the way, why is there NO bio about him at all on the district site? http://www.mdusd.org/superintendent/Pages/default.aspx
You can view the agenda at the link here: http://esbpublic.mdusd.k12.ca.us/public_agendaview.aspx?mtgId=285
Doesn't the board love these two guys though? At least that is my impression. Hard to believe they would get a reprimand. I bet one of them (guess who) gets another hefty raise.
ReplyDeleteI believe the board has some issues with a few things. I am confident (and hopefully won't be proven wrong) they will direct the Superintendent to institute some sort of regular communication.
ReplyDeleteI guess time will tell. But this district will never get back on track w/out communication.
We can't control all the moving parts of the budget, or Sacramento, or many things - but we (THEY) can control the communication we get.
Communication - proactive communications - could've prevented most of what has happened on this blog in the last few weeks. Maybe almost all of it.
That is great news. I hope he will look at communication as not simply a write up about a meeting but instead as an opportunity to establish a relationship, and eventually trust, with the community. To get out in front of news, changes, and ideas rather than being reactive after the fact.
ReplyDeleteWhat a difference true communication will make. Just as I was giving up hope.
Well I think there actions will speak louder than words. So far there has been more communication from the board. From Lawrence, not so much. I'm not counting my chickens until they hatch.
ReplyDeleteI'm just guessing, but I do believe the board expects better. Even an outsider can see what is happening here. I believe the board wants best for this district. Maybe Lawrence is the wrong guy, maybe he just needs to be directed a little more. Who knows, but like anon said, we'll see what hatches :)
ReplyDeleteI am more interested in know which of the Board members called the meeting. Board members, who called the session ?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Supt called the session himself ? Has anyone considered that ?
I think that will tell us the direction of the meeting. But there may be other matters that have arisen that the general public is not aware of either.
The current issues already have been so public, that I don't know of any reason why they should not be handled in open public session rather than in closed session. Closed session is an option but they also can be handled in open sessions too.
Lets hope that its not just board members trying to take heat off of themselves, but rather to right a ship without a rudder.
Doctor J
The "public comment" statement on the agenda seems to be limited to the closed session agenda items only -- which as I understood Gary's demdand at the last special board meeting, public comment at special board meetings should be open to all issues. Did I misunderstand Gary or can Gary offer an explanation ?
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Doctor J,
ReplyDeleteFor someone who claims to know so much, you know so little. Superintendent Evaluations are scheduled regularly. That has been the case in this district for years. When the Superintendent was hired, we planned for a July review - prior to hiring him. We expect to have ongoing evaluations as we always have. You once again make it seem as if there is something unusual or "who called the meeting" matters. We did not make July due to scheduling issues for some of the Board members and so we are doing it on Tuesday.
Your comment that it should be in open session is again some suggestion that this is not appropriate. Evaluations are personnel matters and are always held in closed session.
As for General Counsel, I added that this time solely because we need to talk about scheduling and timing on that one. I don't anticipate spending much time on GC as two hours goes pretty fast.
I did not ask Gary about his intention, but we are not going to schedule general public comment when we are trying to get to closed session to do our work. That is not an appropriate time. My guess is that Gary felt that any time there is an open session special meeting, we should have public comment. That I agree with.
I think you need to spend some time figuring out how this whole elected official thing works so you are not spreading the impression that there are unusual happenings.
Gee Paul, thanks for taking the shot at me. Why didn't you take the shot at mdusdparents, or Annon 10:35 p, or Linda 10:55, or Annon 10:58 p ??? Perhaps you have an agenda with me, eh ? I'll take the bullet for all of us who thought maybe the Board had special reasons for the sudden notice of the meeting. I guess its all part of lack of communication.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Doctor J,
ReplyDeleteBig difference. MDUSDParents does not pretend to be knowledgeable about the inner workings of the district. MDUSDParents comments are cast in the a "belief" and indicated that the comments are "just a guess." MDUSDParents also does not have a history of pointing to irrelevancies and attempting to inflame the public over non-issues. So I guess you deserve the comment. AS for Linda, her comment was simply responding to MDUSDParents comment (I think, it could have been to the post it self) and indicated that communication needs to improve. No suggestions that there is anything sinister about who called the meeting or why.
Oh, and your welcome. I know you really thrive on the attention.
Doctor J- Paul did sound a little snippy, but with the way you have been throwing around all your accusations, can you blame him? I am not excusing Paul's tone, though.
ReplyDeletePlease don't compare yourself to other reasonable posters on this blog. Questioning what is going on is important, but you seem to have a personal agenda.
I can't blame someone whom you have targeted with voluminous anon comments for being a little testy.
Actually I think it was Sherry's announcement that perhaps made some think it was special, rather than just a "special meeting" and she did not respond to MDUSD parents inquiry about the purpose of the meeting.
ReplyDeleteWhatever, most of the time, but not always, these evaluations have been held during regular meetings. Perhaps there is more to talk about this time around. I think this is the first time anyone in the public has heard that there was the intention of the board to have a six month evalution. If the public had been told, perhaps there would have been less concern.
And Paul, for you to take a shot at me because I asked essentially a question as did others to determine the purpose of the meeting, shows exactly why my identity needs to remain behind the mask of the Lone Ranger. Vindictiveness abounds in MDUSD. And that is not a virtue.
Doctor J
Doctor J- How weird is it to want an evaluation of a new Superintendent after 6 months? Geez! If they waited a year, you would probably complain that it is too much time.
ReplyDeleteAre you an administrator? I don't know why the "public" at large would think this was an issue.
Dr. J, the thing about Paul or anyone taking shots at you (as you say) is that I think that you are one "critic" who refuses to call one of them or email one on one to get any of your concerns or questions answered. In fact, you've even said you refuse to go to the mdusd.net blog - and for that, it looks like you just prefer to sit here and criticize, Monday morning quarterback and whine - with no real intention of EVER solving anything or being part of a solution of anything.
ReplyDeletePaul, Gary, Sherry and Linda Mayo have all heard from me when I have questions. They all call me back. I get my questions answered. They know that I don't always agree w/ them or I wish things could be different but it doesn't stop me from calling or emailing, and it doesn't stop them from answering.
So, as the name of the blog implies. I'm a parent. I'm a parent who cares about this district. And I'm one who isn't afraid to jump in, help, coordinate, do, or in the cases that that require it, be an activist. I've been involved since about 2007 and have seen a lot of changes. I do not pretend to know everything, or anything in fact, but that is why I call and constantly inquire. This is why I started the blog... to have an open dialogue with other "like minded" parents and concerned community to come together and discuss, wonder, complain, solve and fix. We can do it if we work together. Every problem in the world can be solved if people work together toward the common good. Our good here is , and should be, THE KIDS. Nothing else. Not the politics, not the drama, not the personalities, not the sniping, or the put-downs. It's the kids. Can we get back to that please?
Please just stop unless you're ready to help. Your constant attacks have grown old and you don't even have the support from other district critics anymore. It doesn't help your cause to lose credibility.
MDUSDParents- Thank you for all you do.
ReplyDeleteDr J.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you have a job or not, but if you do, I'll bet your boss does NOT do your evaluation in front of the whole company.
I guess we can't expect the Supt to show at any of the three "meet and Greets" he scheduled for Tues -- at least one is in direct time conflict. More importantly, the parents in those three schools will probably not be able to attend the urgent Board meeting to voice any concerns they have about the Supt or General Counsel. And then I guess the Board members won't be able to attend the "Meet and Greets" like some did last week. I wonder if this was an intentional scheduling conflict or just a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing ? But then again, we know that Sherry, Gary and Linda knew about the meet and greets. I still haven't figured out what the urgent need for evaluations scheduled on short notice would be, if they had been in the works for six months. Perhaps Paul could still postpone them for a few days to avoid the conflicts and entitle all parents to have all the benefits of both meetings. I agree with MDUSDparents that parents should voice their concerns in the public comment. Why can't we get better scheduling ?
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Maybe I should read all of the posts before I comment but I can't help myself. I am shocked (NOT) that people are already blaming the new super. Give the guy a chance. It is the Board that hired him and the Board that has been in the news lets not make him a scape goat for Paul and Sherry and Gary. I think they have the best interest in their minds but they are all so power hungry people. Guys you can't controll everything. Try controlling yourselves first. COMUNICATION is so important.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe for a second that you three met after a meeting for a bite to eat and didn't discuss the business of the Board. There is no reason for this. I am actually surprised that the district has not been sued for some sort of violations.
Ok Paul...I am waiting for your comments that try to put everyone down.
Doctor J,
ReplyDeleteHere you go again. Do you realize how silly this comment is? I can't recall a single commenter during my tenure who has come to comment on Superintendent's Evaluation. If individuals have comments about the Superintendent or other district issues, they address them in open session public comment. You again make this seem somehow sinister. We scheduled this meeting to accommodate the schedules of the board and superintendent. The meet and greets are for the principals. I would, in fact, prefer that the Superintendent not attend. The focus should be on the principal and the parents who can make it having an opportunity to talk and get to know each other, not on the Superintendent getting to know the principal or the parents. There are other opportunities for that.
In addition, you again make the evaluation seem urgent or out of the ordinary. All you are doing is contradicting your claim that you are knowledgeable about the district.
Paul, I guess you didn't read the opening statement of MDUSDparents when she said: "Public comment is welcome (and I highly encourage it since we have so many opinions around here, where better to air them but at the board meeting). I hope the board will be HIGHLY recommending, if not reprimanding, this Superintendent for his lack of communication. General Counsel now has created a lot of controversy. Something tells me they will have a lot to discuss behind closed doors. The Superintendent MUST do better. If he can't, or won't, do better, or do what is directed - he needs to resign. What a tragedy though for the district to lose another Superintendent at a time like this. But, he has to step up to the plate."
ReplyDeleteAlso Paul remember that your fellow Board member, Sherry, in announcing the Evaluations INVITED PUBLIC COMMENT when she said: "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."
And Gary in announcing he would be attending a meet and greet invited all to visit with him.
So Paul are you saying that all five board members and the Supt knew of the Special Board meeting a week ago on Sunday July 25 ?? If not, when did they all know ? How about some transparency here ?
Doctor J
Dr j. I know Paul can answer for himself but he didn't say people can't comment, he's saying no one has ever come to comment. One of my pet peeves in general are al, the people that complain and never do a single thing about it.... So my post was an encouragement to go speak. There is public comment on this agenda so I hope people will go speak.
ReplyDeleteThese supt evaluations are not abnormal.... I don't think I implied anything was amiss when I posted about the meeting.
Doctor J,
ReplyDeleteReally? We should send out notices to let everyone know when board members find out about board meetings? This is getting pretty ridiculous. I don't think that has anything to do with transparency. What you are trying to do is create an ability to impeach Mrs. Whitmarsh. I will say that on this occasion she did not know until late in the week because I needed to move the meeting at the last minute due to business travel needs.
Under no conception of transparency could we ever need to let everyone know when we found out about a meeting schedule. In fact, non-substantive communications (such as scheduling) are not subject to the Brown Act. And for good reason - can you imagine if we were publishing all of our communications about scheduling? How confusing would that be?
It is easy to throw around the word transparency, but you really need to take into consideration what is relevant.
I did not discourage anyone from coming to the meeting, but does it make sense for us to try to avoid all other meetings in the district, when no one has ever taken the time to come to the meeting?
MDUSDparents, you encouraged public comment [we agree here] but Paul called my post "silly" because I pointed out the conflicts between the "Meet and Greets" [some parents will have to choose which meeting to attend] [inability of the Board and Supt to attend the conflicting "M&G's"]. Paul isn't "allowing" public comment, he is required by law to permit public comment.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you that Supt evals are not abnormal, what seemed to be out of the ordinary was the (1) sudden notice if they had been planning them for six months (2) a "special meeting" rather than held in conjuction with a regular meeting as many have been held in the past, and (3) conflict with the M&G's, which were Board member requested. If the Board is going to have regular six month evaluations of the Supt and General Counsel, let's get them on the meeting schedule and then no one is surprised, and meeting conflicts can be avoided.
I hope that people who have not voiced their concerns or approvals already will take the opportunity to voice them. Lets not forget that people are free to say what a great job the Supt and Gen Counsel are doing too.
Doctor J
Doctor J,
ReplyDeleteYour discrepancy between what Whitmarsh and Eberhart have said regarding public comment being "allowed" at the "special" meeting for evaluations and the views of Mr. Strange are easily explained.
Sherry and Gary have begun to realize that we (the public) are partners with them in improving the district while Paul still thinks he gets to run the district like his own little Bannana Republic with him as the dictator.
Best example, earlier in the year where Paul held the meeting soliciting parent input for ideas on how to solve the budget crisis and proceeded to shoot down literally EVERY idea.
Paul the gig is up, this is not the Bannana Republic you and you lawyer buddy think it is.
Isn't it time to play the "Who is Dr. J" game? Okay I will start.
ReplyDeleteDr. J are you...
Mike Noce (MDEA)?
Jeff Adams?
April Treece?
Sue Burg?
Gary Mchenry?
Linda?
My guess is that Dr. J is AT.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Dr. J is April Treece because in all the years that she was on the board, I never got a cogent response from her.
ReplyDeleteShe usually thanked me for my question and referred me to the board agenda.
I do believe that Dr. J could be Jeff Adams, because since he is running for school board again, he is trying to make ethics a wedge item.
Or, I guess it could be some other district administrator. There are many who have recently lost their jobs or are still upset over Gary McHenry leaving the district.
Is it possible that Dr. J is one of the current board members? I'm thinking maybe Dick or Linda?
ReplyDeleteI note that Misterwriter acknowledges that Lawrence doesn't believe in a Strategic Plan, but "goals and objectives". It wouldn't surprise me that Lawrence hastily draws up some G & O to "impress" the board for his evaluation. G & O are but a small component of a Strategic Plan. We'll see what the Board is satisfied with.
ReplyDeleteAs for my identity, I will not answer questions, as pretty soon someone will start down the telephone book.
Doctor J
Oh, the intrigue! Let it be. What's the difference between Dr. J and all the persons who sign as "Anonymous." (That is a rhetorical question folks.) If you don't like Dr. J's questions and comments, ignore them. Truth does not have to be defended.
ReplyDeleteMy father had a saying. "If BS was a brass band, we'd sure have a lot of music." Well, folks there's enough music around here for a parade. Let's work together for a positive outcome and stop the blame game.
Anonymous 10:20. Guaranteed Dr. J is NOT Dick Allen or Linda Mayo.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J,
ReplyDeleteI think is time you pack up your toys and go home.
I thought Gary said on the chat that he would release the poll results. Same old same old, lots of promises, no action.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all 33 comments on this thread, I can only say that I am very happy with my decision to leave the district. Cheap shots and catty remarks will get the MSUSD no where. I watched from 2003to 2009 a once great dist. fall apart.....Good Luck to all.
ReplyDeleteDr. J, where did you get "I note that Misterwriter acknowledges that Lawrence doesn't believe in a Strategic Plan, but "goals and objectives". It wouldn't surprise me that ..." I don't believe I said that or wrote that. I do not know Lawrence enough to assess that. Certainly the topic of a Strategic Plan has been voiced since the prior elections and has yet to be implemented, not that there have not been many other fish to fry in the district.
ReplyDeletePlease do not cite me without cause - and when you cite people it usually helps to link to the post that you are referring.
And while we are at it - you have an interesting approach baiting the board members. I see you got Paul to bite and play along.
I know others have asked who you are - I am curious if you plan on revealing yourself at any point? You play a good antagonist - what is your end game?
MisterWriter
Sorry Misterwriter if I misinterpreted you. My end game is the TRUTH that will help right the district ship and result in giving every child the opportunity to excel and learn.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
CCT reports Lawrence failed to submit reform packages for all six of the habitually underpeforming schools and may lose out on $15.4 million grant because he did not submit reforms for 2 of the six schools. Add that to his evaluation tonight -- or was that with board approval ? Who was asleep on the wheel on this one ? Perhaps the State Board will change its criteria and save his bacon. Or is there Board bacon to save too ?
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Any chance the superintendent and the general counsel both get the can tonight? In my opinion that would be the only outcome that makes any sense.
ReplyDeleteAnnon 7:25 am
ReplyDeleteNope. The Supt has "knowledge is power" -- Buttercupgate, MDBondgate, Nugentgate -- all of which could sink the ships of various board members. Same with the GC unless certain rumors prove to be true.
Just saying.
Doctor J
Doctor J- Count me as one of those people who could do without your version of "truth" and the way you go about getting it.
ReplyDeleteIf you are a truth seeker, what are you going to do with it once you get it?
How about your truth? Are you planning on running for school board?
If so, will you reveal yourself at that time?
Let us all just say that everybody, including the commentators, including myself, who participate in this blog, the Mayor of Claycord, MDUSD Parents, Mr. Writer and the like, are all part of a much broader conspiracy intended simply to confuse matters. We should all come clean and admit to everything using this formal response: “It all started at Steve Lawrence’s house during a fondue party that Theresa Harrington had planned. All we can say is that things got a little out of hand in the Chevron sponsored bouncy house and some solar panels got broken. More information will be available once Greg Rolen figures out is new risk management Iphone app.”
ReplyDeleteThanks 1:29pm! That was my guess all along. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI have to admit - 1:29, that's pretty funny,
ReplyDeleteI am pleased to see that MDUSD board members take the time to read our comments and then to respond in a dignified manner. I just have one quibble, though. The phrase is "you're welcome" not "your welcome". Someone that is so involved in education should know the difference. Other than that, great post!
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Not a matter of knowing the difference, just a matter of trying to fit posting into my otherwise hectic schedule.
ReplyDeleteI bet Paul's attorney buddy is getting another huge raise in the "closed" meeting as I type this. Good for him, he did a good job stonewalling the CCTimes on the poll issue, he deserves another raise.
ReplyDeleteAnnon 8:00 pm I don't think he will get another raise, but I think he wants one to pay all that alimony and child support.
ReplyDeleteI saw that the Mayor of Claycord posted those that have filed for the City of Concord election in Nov. I'm assuming the MDUSD board has the same ending filing date. As of the 6th we should know who will be running for the three seats. If no one steps out and runs I think everybody, including Dr. J. himself should keep their mouths shut!!
ReplyDeleteNope... I don't buy it. Just because I have things to say does not mean I have to run to make my voice count. Sorry, nice try.
ReplyDeleteAnnon 10:28 pm
ReplyDeleteDitto
Doctor J
10:28pm and Doctor J-
ReplyDeleteYou have things to say, but you don't have to run to make your voice count?
It's a great thing to speak out and make your voice count. Your game is to constantly criticize others without accountability. At least people on the board put themselves out there and ran for an election.
We should listen to you because...?
Anon. I'm not cut out for politics and what is sad is that there are great people who could do great things if not for the brutality of the system of politics. Unfortunately the ability to play the political game, get insulted , knocked down, called names , accused - has taken the front seat to wanting to do good things. I couldnt do what this board has done. I doubt sherry had any idea how bad it would be. Nope, not for me. I talk to the board, I'm on committees and I'm a worker bee - you are saying my voice doesn't count because I won't run? You are wrong. Now people like dr j who have acknowledged an unwillingness to come 'into the light,' for people like that I might agree with you. For people like me, don't be insulting.
ReplyDeleteI came across this quote the other day and immediately thought of Dr J and others on these blogs:
ReplyDeleteAny fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Friends, let's just take a deep breath. In the end, all of us would say that we want what is best for the children. We may have different ideas of what is "best". that is perfectly ok. I welcome that debate and while we all may have different opinions that is fine. But when the public debate is being manipulated by a few that are duty bound to share the facts and the truth, and they shade the truth and withhold information, that is wrong. Especially when they have been elected on a platform of openness and transparency. They should be publically called on it. When a powerpoint was represented as "the results" we the public assumed it was all the results. Oh, how wrong we were. Maybe some Board members were misled too. They, above all others, ought to be outraged. I haven't heard that outrage from the Board members. That is disturbing. As the public we should feel violated -- and many do. Because the trust we had was broken, we now have to ask for "source documents" to verify the truth of what is being said. Its a sad state of affairs. What will it take to restore our trust in our elected officials ?
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
As for last nights "evaluations" while much of that will probably remain confidential, I would like very much to hear from Board members of what expectations they have of the Supt and the GC.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
I also came across this quote, years ago:
ReplyDelete"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
In fact it is the motto and reason for the blog. It takes more than just those that will run and hold an office but it takes an entire community of dedicated citizens.
I've never been afraid to jump in and will continue to do so.
Oh and Lily Tomlin said (yes another quote):
I always wondered why somebody didn't do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody. -Lily Tomlin
It's a shame they did not broadcast the BOE meeting last night. Can anyone update us on the events?
ReplyDeleteAnon, they cant broadcast closed session. I haven't yet heard if anyone showed up to speak, but the public comment section is all they would've broadcast.
ReplyDeleteJust heard.... No one showed for public comment.... Big surprise huh?
ReplyDeleteGuess they either spoke up here or were at the Meet & greets. I am surprised at the unity of silence of the board last night and today so far. I wonder if it means anything.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Doctor j. It means it was closed session .... What do you expect them to say? Good grief already. Did you expect a full public report of the personnel evaluations? I wrote to Gary and Paul and they wrote right back, they aren't silent you just aren't asking the right source.
ReplyDeleteMDUSDparents. I would expect the Board members to say something general like: As a Board member, I believe that we will see improved communication from the Supt, the development of Strategic Plan, and the disclosure to the public of the hiring process.
ReplyDeleteAnthing wrong with that kind of a general statement, especially in light of all of the public blog comments ?
Doctor J
Doctor J- I don't believe for a minute that comment would satisfy you.
ReplyDeleteTo the Anon who says they are not cut out for politics. I don't disagree. It's not for me either.
Who was insulting you? Who are you anyway--I mean what posts are yours? I was referring to the comment that 10:28 made.
If you have brought things to the boards attention, then that is great. It's one thing to post anonymously and make productive comments, it's another things to be like Doctor J and spin all kinds of conspiracy theories.
You are right. I am sure when Sherry stepped up to run for the board with her full time job, PTA involvement and her family, she had no idea that people would twist everything she says around and make her out to be some kind of evil being.
Think about the kind of person who would run for school board today, knowing what they are getting into with the MDUSD. Good people are not going to put themselves out there for this kind of abuse.
Currently the Contra Costa County Elections Office show that two candidates have pulled papers for the November MDUSD election. There are three open positions. Papers have been pulled as of 8/2 by Linda Mayo and Jeff Adams
ReplyDeleteThanks Sherry. What is the process if no one runs for the third seat ?
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
I am not sure but I will check it out. I'm leaning towards the board interviews candidates and makes a selection. This is what occured when there was a death of a board member.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone interested in running there is a great PDF file on "School Board Leadership" from the California School Board Association found at www.csba.org. It describes the duties of a school board member and how it operates.
ReplyDeleteThanks Sherry. While you are checking it out, could you please ask which Board ? The current board or the newly elected Board ?
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Doctor J- I still think you are Jeff Adams, and if you are and win the election (by default this time), be prepared for the scrutiny that will come your way.
ReplyDeleteAnnon 11:13 am
ReplyDeleteBuy Jeff a Lone Ranger mask and see if it fits. You know what Johnny Cochrane said, "If it doesn't fit . . . "
Doctor J
the board has nothing to do with the election process! if you want to run for office go the the county offices in Martinez, fill out an application and pay the fees.
ReplyDeleteIf the number of candidates who want to serve on the School Board are equal to (or fewer) than the number of seats open, I wish there were some way to avoid an election.
ReplyDeleteElections are expensive. I remember about two years ago when the District was reviewing the various expenditures and budgets in a special workshop. A question came up on why Board expenditures fluctuates so dramatically from one year to the next. It turns out, the expenses are much higher (I think by about $150,000) in an election year. The District has to pay the County to run an election.
I wonder if there's any way to avoid an election in a situation like this. It seems wasteful to have to pay for an election if it's just going to serve as a rubber stamp of the candidates seeking office.
Somehow, I don't think it would be legal not to hold an election.
ReplyDeleteEven if there are less candidates than positions, couldn't a write in candidate possibly win?
I agree an election is probably required. But, it seems like such a waste. I doubt a write-in has ever won an election, or that anyone unopposed has ever lost an election (other than maybe a situation where most people voted "none of the above").
ReplyDeleteI do not believe for even a second that Jeff Adams is Doctor J.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J appears to be a juvenile sh** disturber. Although I may not have supported Jeff Adam's political views last time around, I think he is in the race because his heart is in the right place. God knows it is not going to be an easy job.
Dorothy and Annon 1:22
ReplyDeleteMy friend says she knows cities can avoid an election if there are not enough candidates, but not sure about school districts.
Annon 1:52 I have previously denied being Jeff. Doctor J will not endorse any candidate. Personally, I will.
Doctor J
Actually there have been a number of write-in candidates that have won public office. The one that comes to mind was Ron Packard, who won a congressional seat in the San Diego/Orange County area back in the 1980s.
ReplyDeleteAnnon 2:54
ReplyDeleteMy friend gave me Elections Code 10229 which talks about cities. Unsure if there is a comparable one for school districts. I was pretty surprised that an election could be avoided. But they are so costly that I can see why. Just think if Paul files late now, it will cost the district $150,000 or more. But it might anyway.
Doctor J
In 2005 there were two MDUSD board seats open. Gary Eberhart filed and so did April Treece. As a result there was no election and both candidates were refunded their filing fee. I know this Dr. J. because I emailed and asked the question. They answered. You might try the same.
ReplyDeleteThe county elections office updates its tentative candidate list daily at: http://www.cocovote.us/content.aspx?id=24
ReplyDeleteMDUSD is on page 29, as of today.
I just spoke with a county elections representative who confirmed that Paul Strange must file by Friday, even if the deadline is extended to Aug. 11 for non-incumbents. Also, if there are only two candidates, no election would be held and the candidates would be appointed. The board would subsequently appoint a third trustee.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information Theresa! Maybe the District will save some money on this election.
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe a really great candidate not willing to undergo the rigors of an election, can be appointed.
ReplyDeletePossibly you MDUSD Parents? Many of us think you would be a great board member!
ReplyDeleteTheresa- Since you are reading posts on this board, can you please comment why you are so motivated now to find fault with the bond, i.e. the poll results, when you didn't seem this bothered before the vote?
ReplyDeleteWish I could have attended the board meeting on Tuesday. I had to work my second job instead.
ReplyDeleteAnnon 11:13
ReplyDeleteTheresa's journalist profession, as protected by the First Amendment, is to have a "nose for news". Lets remember that the Supt sought out the Editorial Board support of the CC Times and began the unraveling of the truth behind the bond with his own double talk to the Editors.
Your question about "before the vote" -- are you asking about before the Board vote or before the election ? If the board vote, it really begs the question. The bond was on the Board agenda for three days, and the Supt had the pollster present the powerpoint as "the results", which we all now know was only the partial results. If you are talking the election, Theresa's public records request was made before the election and thus began the stall game by Rolen.
I think Theresa is doing her job as a journalist.
Doctor J
Dr. J- Theresa's "journalist" profession?
ReplyDeleteYou say-"Lets remember that the Supt sought out the Editorial Board support of the CC Times and began the unraveling of the truth behind the bond with his own double talk to the Editors"
That's right, so where were her journalistic instincts then?
If she smelled something rotten in the double talk, she could have followed the story then.
More likely, someone discontent with the vote went to the Times after the fact. If that is when the story presented itself to Theresa, then that is pretty sad and not very professional.
A good reporter would have asked why the district was going with the numbers they did and asked about the poll before the vote.
All of the negatives I saw decried the financing, but never questioned the poll results.
Dr. J- No matter what someone says against the district, you embrace. It's obvious you have something personal going on.
Please spare us your "it's for the kids" line.
Annon 2:01 pm
ReplyDeleteCheck your timeline. I think you have it a little out of order.
And it is for the kids.
But MDUSD may have lost out on $15 million by only submitting 4 of 6 improvement plans for habitually underperforming schools. Remember there are 7 more potentials when the Star tests are officially released next month. Most districts now have their Star test results -- lets see how long MDUSD can keep those hidden, especially if the six underperforming schools now jumps to 13. For the sake of the kids, lets hope not.
Doctor J
Dr. J- What do you mean check my timeline?
ReplyDeleteDid Theresa start to investigate the things she is writing about now BEFORE the election? Are you saying she did?
I see you have moved on to a new complaint.
Pray tell how your complaining on this blog helps the kids. You complain and someone else does the work?
No wonder the district is in tough straits.
Dr. J,
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you are describing the Superintendent's statements to the Press as "doubletalk." If the Superintendent were trying to hide the truth, he wouldn't have mentioned the two options in the first place.
Anon 2:34
ReplyDeleteYes, Theresa started her investigation before the election. She made her records request about two weeks before the election. You can check the dates if you want to.
How does having the truth help the kids ? If all the Board had the whole truth about the poll before their Board vote, they may have considered different options, may have postponed their vote, may have waited until the November election [only pay for one election, not two], may have got more public input and gone for a parcel tax instead of the costly bond issue, etc. Someone, and I am not sure we know who yet, didn't want the whole truth out there to have a public vetting of what the right course of action was.
Truth and knowledge always make for better decisions.
Doctor J
Two weeks before the election? Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Lawrence dodged a bullet since the State will now fund the four School Improvement grants for four of the six "persistently underperforming schools" that applied for the funds. Remember that two didn't apply because the Board and Supt felt there was improvement being made in those two schools and they did not want to replace the principals. Next weeks STAR tests will tell us if the Supt and Board bet on the right horse. Of course, they already know since they have those results. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J