Will you be attending the next meeting? You can view the latest agenda at the link for the electronic school board to the right side of this page.
They will be talking about some important issues, including the school closure transition plan, budget cuts, the use of part of Glenbrook for the new Flex charter school and importantly, discussion of the district's goals and the development of a strategic plan is on the agenda.
A ray of sunlight through the dark clouds of MDUSD: Agenda item 14.11 “Strategic Planning” a draft time table and plan outline by Cheryl Hansen and Sherry Whitmarsh. Maybe even a rainbow might be on the horizon. I’m thinking a pot of gold might be too much to ask.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Still no plans being made public for Holbrook?
ReplyDeleteThe outline for the Strategic Plan is promising, but including the broad term "community" so often is distracting to a few thousand households since the Board already threw their entire community "under the bus" (pun intended)!
Can someone tell me what the contract involve for children in non public schools involve? Are they just going over contracts or are they trying to pull back kids?
ReplyDeleteCan't believe the district has to pay $60 per hour for translating services.
ReplyDeleteHow much is the "Measure C Coordinator" going to earn ? Another "double dipper" ? Its hard to believe they have budgeted $11 MILLION dollars for administrative positions -- I thought Measure C prohibited administrative salaries ?
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Measure C does prohibit administrator's salaries. That promise polled well so it made it into the ballot statement.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cocovote.us/content.aspx?id=109
Dr. J,
ReplyDeleteWhat's your answer? Should the district have done what many districts do, hire a construction management firm that charges between 8% to 12% of the bond? I think if you sit down with Pete Petersen he will tell you that what has been allocated is well above what they believe they will spend over the course of the bond expenditures. But just for arguments sake, lets say that they do spend $11 million managing the $348 million bond. That is a cost of just over 3% to do the construction management. That's pretty much a no-brainer.
And as far as your "double dipping" comment goes, it also has no merit. Pete Petersen retired. He probably did so because with as many years of service as he has in, working more didn't give him additional money. So he retired and is collecting the retirement that he has earned over the decades of time that he has served the district. The district has to pay him that money, whether he comes back and works part time or not, so that money is not up for discussion. So let's say he didn't return. The district would have to hire a replacement and to get someone that could do Pete's job, they would have to hire someone full time at a cost of, probably, over $150 k per year with benefits. Instead, Pete returns, get's 50% of his salary and, from what I hear, he is working full time still. So the district is getting Pete with all of his knowledge and ability, he is charging the district 50% and he is working full time. How in the hell can you possibly complain about that deal, unless you truly do not understand the worth or Pete and you don't understand basic math?
Poseidon
I do not know Mr. Peterson. Can't speak to his expertise or veracity or anything else about him, but since I did get my complete education in a different state, I do feel relatively familiar with the English language. The official Voter's Pamphlet mentions leaking roofs, safety over and over, old doors and windows, and one quick/slick mention of "solar". In composing it Paul Strange also states very clearly "...and no money for administrator salaries". Then again in defense of the measure he states that "...that Bond proceeds will only be used for the purposes specified in the measure, and not for any other purpose."
ReplyDeleteThe district may not like it, but I think they need to oversee this project themselves, without hiring anyone. We have a legally bought-and-paid-for solar expert President of the Board; right? That way, they get what they asked for, and we save $11mil.
Poseidon Paul, you continue to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Yes, Pete is a great guy. But Measure C, as written, is emphatic -- no money for administrator salaries. That not only includes Pete's salary, but also any other construction management administrator. The Board Trustee's who voted to pay Pete out of Measure C funds should be personally held liable for violating Measure C. And I agree with G, Gary asked to go to solar school so he could oversee the project -- now he gets what he asked for -- he can supervise the project on his Trustee salary.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Dr. J,
ReplyDeleteSo your answer would be to do what many districts do, hire a company to provide construction management for the measure C projects at a cost of between 8 and 12% of the $348 million in construction expenditures? At the low end, the cost would be almost $28 million. I just want to make sure that we all understand what you are advocating. You want to spend $28 million instead of $11 million.
Losing!!!
Poseidon
Amen Dr. J.: Maybe Gary can even get his employer to "loan" him an assistant to get it done right. Or, maybe we can unite and get the whole solar scheme thrown out for flagrant misdirection of public funds.
ReplyDeletePoseidon Paul, your 3:32 comment ignored my 1:40 pm post that Gary should do it on his Trustee's salary. Remember that Gary said he got approval from both the Board President and the then Supt to take the solar management class at taxpayer expense. The problem that MDUSD has is that Measure C was written specifically to exclude using ANY funds for administrators. Don't blame me for the poor wording.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Marc Fabie is the Measure C coordinator? Another one who just retired and is coming back to double-dip.
ReplyDeleteI want the State to take over and get rid of this Old Boys network. Too many retirees are coming back on lucrative contracts and collecting pensions. This is ridiculous.
The difference here is the interpretation of the word "administrator." Whereas, an administrator is "somebody whose job is to administer the affairs of a business or organization," Measure C's administrator is a principal, super principal & super-super principal in SASS, VP's, or other Dent Center inhabitants. And yet, wasn't a new "administrator" just approved for SASS? Oh, but that wasn't with Measure C funds... how many pay cut days for MDUSD employees?
ReplyDeleteSo Poseidon Paul, your idea of quality "construction managment" is to hire a retired custodian supervisor who is not a licensed contractor to manage a $70 million complicated solar project spread over 35 sites with multiple design issues for each site ?
ReplyDeletePoseidon and Dr. J,
ReplyDeletePoseidon,
You are skirting the real issue. The real issue is that you promised the taxpayers that the money would not be spent on administrative salaries. Saving money is great, purposely lying to the taxpayer is unacceptable at any cost.
Dr. J
The ballot statement was not poorly worded. It was carefully crafted and reviewed. The language was tied directly to the polling data. Admistrator's salaries were discussed at numerous times. I can think of three different instances where Dick Nicol asked to have the language removed.
Dr. J,
ReplyDeleteDo you have a realistic suggestion on how the district should manage $348 million in construction projects? Do you really believe that a board member should do that work for $750 per month? That is not a realistic suggestion. As usual, you sling a bunch of mud to confuse people and you have no answers. I guess its fun for you to hurt the students of the mt diablo district. Pretty pathetic.
Poseidon (not paul)
Poseidon: EVERY penny coming out of the pockets of the Parents of the students, as well as the residents of the entire district, being spent for nonsensical, wasteful, soon to be outdated projects, instead of on and in the classrooms for Education, is in the long run hurting the students far more directly.
ReplyDeleteThe promotion of the Measure C lie, at this time of economical hardship being felt by all of us, was at best a farce, and the farce is starting to stink.
Poseidon Paul, What is it that you don't understand about "NO" ? Measure C said "NO". It is especially telling that Dick Nichol asked 3 times for the language to be removed. I am trying to protect the students. If the courts make the district pay back the $11 million in administrative salaries, you are the one that will be hurting the students. BTW, you didn't answer my question about whether you thought paying $80,000 to hire a retired custodian supervisor who is not a licensed contractor to manage a $70 million complicated solar project spread over 35 sites with multiple design issues for each site is "quality construction management"?
ReplyDeleteI am a parent, community member and voted yes on Measure C. I also respect and know that Mr. Pederson and his work. When he was employed by the MDUSD and handled the last Bond Measure, he had great accountability and did a fantastic job. I have every confidence in him and am very glad he is over-seeing the current Bond and the solar construction.
ReplyDeleteAs for the wording in Measure C, the way I see it is this. Mr. Pederson has been hired as an outside consultant to oversee Measure C and the construction. There is an oversight committee made up of community members and I have confidence in them as well. When I think of an Administrator, then that would be a current employee of the MDUSD who is being paid a salary, benefits, etc. as an employee of the MDUSD. Mr Pederson retired and is accepting pennies for his expertise.
Our District is stretched very thin in every aspect and we need someone with knowledge, expertise and past experience to handle Measure C, and that person in my mind is Mr. Pederson.
Why all this crap? What good is it doing? It seems to be just one person acting as several, Doctor J and g. I am in agreement with Poseidon and many others are too Doctor J. You are hurting our students and I beg of you, please resign from the MDUSD immediately and move on, you are obviously not happy here.
Anon 3:11, Pete is not an outside consultant -- he is a management employee -- an administrator. I have said many times he is a great guy -- but he shouldn't be paid with Measure C funds. And his high six figure salary, on top of his retirement, is a matter of public record. MDUSD doesn't have the right to change the bond terms that were presented to the voters.
ReplyDeleteDoctor J
Oh, no - please don't go Dr. J! We thrive on your witicisms and your devilish advocacy. This blog would be boring without you!
ReplyDelete