Announcement: Thanksgiving Vanguard Schedule

For the first time in a year, the Vanguard will not publish from Thursday-Saturday. We'll be back on Sunday morning for the latest news and commentary from Davis. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Op-Ed Opens a Can of Worms

One of the aspects of this blog that has always fascinated me is how much of a deliberative process it is. How much I learn and can uncover about something just from an initial story that only really scratches the surface of an issue.

Yesterday's article is unusual however in terms of just how much I learned from a simple critique of an Op-ed.

The main purpose of the article was really to question some of the claims made by Joan Sallee and Marty West in Sunday's Davis Enterprise. Frankly, I saw no reason to write the article to begin with. The Op-Ed that they responded to was an October Op-Ed by sitting school board members Jim Provenza and Tim Taylor. That article was an assessment of the current budget status and the steps taken by the current board to improve the budget process. It was not a criticism of either the past board or even former Superintendent David Murphy.

The most troubling aspect of the recent Op-ed by Sallee and West however at this point seems to be the relationship between Marty West, a former school board member, and Tahir Ahad, former Deputy Superintendent who while working for the school district, on the side was running his own consulting business.

It was Tahir Ahad who missed a crucial deadline that cost the school board roughly $4.5 million with Montgomery Elementary school.

Salle and West in fact defend this action arguing that the problem was not the missed deadline but rather the confusing and complex law:

"Much has been made of the district's ultimate success in August 2007 in obtaining $4.5 million from the state for the 2001-02 construction costs of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School. We are also delighted at this successful result of many years of work by many people. When we learned in 2003 that a new regulation jeopardized our application for state construction funds, we supported the superintendent in his immediate efforts to secure the funds. More than 70 other school districts had run afoul of the same obscure regulation.

Eventually, the state allowed Davis and the 70 other districts to reapply, but the state then denied Davis' application because student enrollment had declined during the intervening period. Davis appealed this decision over the state staff's objection. It was only with the strong and effective intervention of Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, Supervisor Helen Thomson and state Sen. Mike Machado that the political members of the State Allocation Board overruled its staff and granted Davis' appeal on its merits."

As one person familiar with the situation told me, what does the state's obscure regulations have to do with missing a deadline?

To make matters worse, the school board and Tahir Ahad compounded that mistake by attempting to sell the Grande Property for $5.5 million. Sallee and West defend this decision:

"Any financial mismanagement that has occurred has been on the 2006 and 2007 school board's watch. In early 2006, the board majority rescinded the $5.5 million contract we had signed to sell the Grande Avenue site, thus jeopardizing funding for building a student commons at the high school and modernizing Emerson Junior High School."

As several people indicated to me, the modernization of Emerson would be twice that price. What the Grande sale was about was covering themselves on the loss of $4.5 for Montgomery. The problem with Grande is that they sold it for at least one and possibly two million below market value. Moreover they did not open it up to competitive bidding and therefore it had to be parceled into a land swap rather than an outright sale.

This was also the decision of Tahir Ahad. With a small amount of digging, the Vanguard quickly learned yesterday that in fact, Marty West is a senior consultant to Tahir Ahad's educational consulting company, Total School Solutions. Of course, this fact was never disclosed in the Davis Enterprise article nor did the writers of the article mention Tahir Ahad by name even though it was several of his policies that they defended.

It was Tahir Ahad's work on the side with Total School Solutions that diverted much of his attention and eventually led to tough new conflict of interest policies.

In early 2007, the school board discovered that they lacked the policy to enforce California conflict of interest laws:

"California law prohibits school employees from receiving compensation for outside employment that is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to an employee 's duties, or to the duties, functions, or responsibilities of their District. However, we have been advised by counsel that this law cannot be enforced in absence of a board policy."

Tahir Ahad's consulting company represented a large problem to the district. One thing that the Vanguard will look further into is the charge that the school district did business with Total School Solutions.

On the surface, dealings with Henry Petrino raise red flags. Mr. Petrino was the facilities director for the district. He would retire but then came back as an independent contractor to do further work on district facilities. However, at the same time he did contracted work on school facilities, he was also employed by Total School Solutions. It was Mr. Petrino who had the responsibility of preparing the application for the Montgomery School Funds.

The Vanguard will further examine this story. It seems very curious as to why Marty West and Joan Sallee would want to revisit these issues, unless they were counting on the fact that no one would do any sort of digging into their assertions. This was best ignored by the two distinguished former school board members. The district has immense challenges facing it in the coming months, it does not need to rehash past mistakes and dealings. That said, we see no need to allow two former school board members to whitewash the past either.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Former Board Members Dredge Up Past and Stir Up Controversy

Former School Board Members Joan Sallee and Marty West wrote an Op-Ed in the Davis Enterprise this Sunday largely it seems in response to an October 7, 2007 Op-Ed by current school board members Jim Provenza and Tim Taylor.

The Op-Ed by Jim Provenza and Tim Taylor largely focused on the positive steps that the current school board has enacted in Davis to put the district on sound financial footing.

Their article focused on the hiring of Bruce Colby as their deputy superintendent for business services, more transparency; realistic and understandable budgets, prioritizing critical needs and requirements.

One of the key indicators of success they show was the ability to recoup the $4.5 million for the construction of Montgomery Elementary School:

"We believe the changes we are putting in place are already showing results. In August, the State Allocation Board awarded the district $4.5 million in matching funds for construction of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School — funds denied to the district in prior years. In making its decision, the State Allocation Board members noted that changes in management practices were a key factor in its decision."

At the time, this seemed like a relatively non-controversial column, designed most likely to create the perception in the community of fiscal responsibility ahead of a key vote in the community on Measure Q.

However, former school board members Marty West and Joan Sallee, apparently are digging up past grievances that divided them on the past board.

They write:

"Now that renewal of the parcel tax is behind us, however, we would like to respond to the many accusations the 2006 and 2007 school board majority has made about financial mismanagement of the Davis Joint Unified School District. We are responding specifically to the op-ed article Jim Provenza and Tim Taylor published on Oct. 7 in The Davis Enterprise.

We did not reply at the time because we did not want to generate more negative publicity about the schools while Measure Q was pending. The board majority's false allegations and insinuations of past financial mismanagement have become so numerous and frequent, however, that the community is in danger of actually believing them. It is time to set the record straight."

While one can respect the fact that they did not want to cause a stir during the election, the question does arise why that article necessitated any kind of response at any point in time. There is no election at this time. Why dig up the past? Was there really a compelling need to respond at all?

West and Sallee make several charges of mismanagement aimed at the current school board:

"Any financial mismanagement that has occurred has been on the 2006 and 2007 school board's watch. In early 2006, the board majority rescinded the $5.5 million contract we had signed to sell the Grande Avenue site, thus jeopardizing funding for building a student commons at the high school and modernizing Emerson Junior High School."

At the time the new board was elected there were a number of concerns about the property, the sale price, the openness of the previous process, and the exchange property. Of course, at this point in time, one could argue that the $5.5 million contract does not look so bad. In fact, even at the time, Keltie Jones the holdover from the majority on the Sallee and West board, disagreed that the board could get more money for the property. Nevertheless, the Grande Property issue figures to be one of the big controversies for the new board and indeed the city of Davis itself as it lies at the very core of development policies and disputes over growth.

There are two key points of contention that I believe need to be addressed although speaking to some of the board members they pretty much disagreed with the entire editorial.

Marty West and Joan Sallee write:

"Much has been made of the district's ultimate success in August 2007 in obtaining $4.5 million from the state for the 2001-02 construction costs of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School. We are also delighted at this successful result of many years of work by many people. When we learned in 2003 that a new regulation jeopardized our application for state construction funds, we supported the superintendent in his immediate efforts to secure the funds. More than 70 other school districts had run afoul of the same obscure regulation.

Eventually, the state allowed Davis and the 70 other districts to reapply, but the state then denied Davis' application because student enrollment had declined during the intervening period. Davis appealed this decision over the state staff's objection. It was only with the strong and effective intervention of Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, Supervisor Helen Thomson and state Sen. Mike Machado that the political members of the State Allocation Board overruled its staff and granted Davis' appeal on its merits."

In August of 2007, the district was able to recoup the $4.5 million from Montgomery Elementary.

At the time Assemblywoman Lois Wolk argued before the State Allocation Board citing fiscal responsibility and acknowledging mistakes in the past:

"Wolk told the State Allocation Board that since January, "the district has a new superintendent, and a new business officer. ... Heads have rolled, indeed."

"I ask you not to penalize the children who are not responsible for the mistakes" made by the district in the past, Wolk said, describing the $4.5 million sought by the district as "critical" to the district's future construction plans.

Thomson likewise mentioned that "many changes had been made" in the district. She apologized for "the high-handed and arrogant manner" in which earlier appeals had been argued.

The bottom line, Thomson said, is "the school district does need money for this school.""

West and Sallee are correct that other districts ran afoul with the regulations. However, that does not put the district beyond blame here.

"State Sen. Bob Margett, R-Altadena, expressed less sympathy. " 'Intent' language doesn't cut it with me ...," he said. "I'm concerned there was not attention paid to the regulations that were in place" at the time Montgomery Elementary was built."

According to a 2007 Davis Enterprise article something along the lines of 60 school districts did not meet the state's paperwork requirements, however the school district missed a deadline for even applying for the matching funds. Some have charged that this deadline was missed due to Deputy Superintendent Tahir Ahad and his involvement with the Fairfield-based educational consulting company, Total School Solutions.

Of course, Joan Sallee was a strong supporter of Ahad praising him as she left office as "the best school district business officer in California." According to Jeff Hudson's 2006 article, Marty West also heavily praised him.

The other point of contention that Joan Sallee and Marty West raise involves the termination of Superintendent David Murphy.

"They ended Superintendent Murphy's contract prematurely, costing the district another $200,000."

Both Sallee and West were strong supporters of Superintendent Murphy during his tenure, they were part of a 4-1 vote to extend his contract another three years.

It was Joan Sallee who largely let the cat out of the bag back in April that David Murphy was not merely retiring, but rather being fired.

She told Jeff Hudson of the Davis Enterprise at the time:

"I was deeply saddened to hear of Murphy's retirement. ... I am very sorry that the current school board did not see fit to retain his services. The district has suffered a grievous loss, at a time when we can least afford it."

Again the severance package makes for an inviting target for critics of the school district, but the bottom line is that first it is one-time money. And second, the school board felt impelled to put the district on more sound financial ground. To the district, the severance package must have seemed like chump change compared to the amount of money that the fiscal mismanagement by the former Superintendent cost.

Apparently the feuds of the past are not over. Neither Joan Sallee nor Marty West seem content to let this go.

However it is interesting to note the second sentence from their Op-Ed:

"We congratulate Susan Lovenburg and Richard Harris on joining the school board and look forward to working with them on the difficult issues facing the district."

The suggestion here is that Sallee and West are supporters of the new board members, which means nothing in and of itself. However, one wonders how many of these issues we might see revisited in the coming months.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Tough Challenges Still Ahead for the Valley Oak

The folks at Valley Oak likely left the meeting on Thursday evening feeling uneasy about their status. About the only thing that they probably have going at this point is state law is on their side and the school board has very limited opportunity to actually deny their charter petition.

Nevertheless, at the meeting there was anguish over the board's response to their charter. And an even wider-spread belief that there were no strong allies on the board. Perhaps adding to that anxiety is the fact that joining the board shortly will be two new members, one closely tied with members of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force that recommending closing Valley Oak and the other expressing outright opposition to charter.

Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners, with only limited opportunities for the board to deny the application:

The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter: (1) the charter school presents an unsound educational program for the students to be enrolled in the charter school; (2) the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition; (3) the petition does not contain the number of signatures required; (4) the petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions prescribed by law; and/or (5) the petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the sixteen charter elements in prescribed by law.

The next step will be the analysis by Associate superintendents Ginni Davis and Bruce Colby. That analysis will likely map out the district's response to the charter petition. President of the board, Jim Provenza, stated at the outset that the board would be waiting until the staff report to offer their own comments.

This stance drew criticism from many supporters of the charter school, fearful that the board may use the staff report as political cover to make unpopular decisions.

The board spoke loudly however through a series of tough questions. I don't mind the tough questions. But there were at times almost veiled threats as well, for instance Keltie Jones verbally wondering if Valley Oak's charter will lead to another school closing. There seemed to be little point to making that statement other than perhaps causing fear and panic in the rest of the school district by throwing that out as a possibility out of shear speculation.

The bottom line there and she acknowledged it, the point that she made could not be used as reason to deny the petition. That being the case, why bring it up? What purpose does it serve?

And that's the problem I had with the entire question and answer process.

Questions centered on the number of students that they would be likely to draw from. That is an important question no doubt, but it is not a question that can be considered by the board in approving or denying the petition. The question that is considered--do they have enough signatures? Yes they do. Then end of story.

Next they asked a series of questions about budgetary impact and whether the school would draw from outside the district or draw ADA money from inside. Nothing wrong with the question except, cannot be considered in the decision to approve the charter.

I am not sure of rules here, but frankly it would seem to me that these questions are almost out of order since they do not bear on the charter question. And yet round after round of tough questions came down on the petitioners and not one was a question that could be considered in the final decision.

The final piece of concern comes from the decision by the district to post the list of names, which was in apparent violation of the law. Most likely this was inadvertent and as soon as complaints were made and it was recognized, they pulled it down. However, we cannot help but note it fits the general tenor demonstrated on Thursday, which despite all indication from before was greeted with hostility and skepticism rather than appreciation and support.

The drafters of the charter have been extremely diligent and thorough. They have generated tremendous support both within the teaching staff as well as their community. And they deserve praise and congratulations rather than criticism and skepticism.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Gang-Injunction Once Again Grinds To a Halt

Yolo County prosecutors have to go back to the drawing board yet again after another state appeals court struck down very similar language.

Jay-Allen Eisen who is one of several defense attorneys representing some of those named as alleged Broderick Boys said:

"These (gang injunction) cases seem to be coordinated. The complaints look pretty much the same around the state... "They all ask for the same thing, so as the court rules one part of one of these injunctions is okay or is bad, that affects the other cases... They don't tell you what 'outside' means. In your own front yard, in your own backyard? The curfew language is so vague that nobody can understand it."

As I have suggested for sometime on this blog, the West Sacramento Gang Injunction pushes up against constitutionality by its very nature. Instead of trying people for what they have done and can be proven to have done, it attempts to somehow distinguish people in advance and then permanently enjoin them for participating in activities that are permissible to all other citizens.

The problem now is that in order to cover a broad range of activities, the laws have had to be very vague. This had led to legal challenges and portions of laws being thrown out.

For instance, the last gang-injunction was so broad that it only named one individual by name and that individual did not even live in West Sacramento. So the individuals affected eventually by the injunction had no opportunity to challenge it in a court of law.

They also used a portion of the law known as unincorporated association in order to tie gang members together in some sort of common bond, again as a means to make their very association illegal and thus enjoin them from specific activities.

The tragedy of all of this is that there are enough laws on the books already that make gang activities illegal. The difficulty apparently with following those laws is that they have to actually wait for a crime to be committed and then to convict an individual in a court of law.

It would seem to me that if you want to use the law as a preventative rather than reactive measure here, then you simply need to prove with the burden of proof on the prosecution that the individual is an actual and current gang member and if you can prove that, then you have a good chance of having the law upheld.

There seems to be resistance for that. Proponents of this and other gang injunctions have argued that the law has worked and reduced crime. I would counter that the law does not work when it gets repeatedly thrown out by various courts.

And having laws that are written vary similarly are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there is clearly a joint and collective understanding of how laws need to be written in order to pass constitutional muster.

On the other hand, what we see here is that a law that is thrown out in one location, affects many other locations. When the West Sacramento law got thrown out last summer primarily due to a failure to properly notice defendants, another clause--the unincorporated association clause--got thrown out as well which caused a number of jurisdictions to face either similar challenges or to hastily re-write their laws.

In the end, attempts to skirt constitutional protections put both law breakers and law abiders in peril.

Critics have argued that some of those specifically named are not involved in criminal activity or gangs. Some have turned their lives around. Others are already in prison.

So while there are many who swear by it, one has to wonder if they have actually achieved what they have hoped to achieve and in the meantime, they have to re-write the law yet again--probably not for the last time.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting