The Vanguard has a new home, please update your bookmarks to davisvanguard.org
Showing posts with label Richard Whitmore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Whitmore. Show all posts

Sunday, February 24, 2008

VANGUARD INVESTIGATION Uncovers Evidence of Wrongdoing and Corruption in DJUSD Business Office Under Tahir Ahad

Yolo County District Attorney's Office Looks into Allegations

Background:

On November 18, 2007 two former Davis Joint Unified School Board Members Joan Sallee and Marty West published on op-ed in the Davis Enterprise to purportedly respond “to the many accusations the 2006 and 2007 school board majority has made about financial mismanagement of the Davis Joint Unified School District.” For reasons not completely clear, they decided to air a large amount of “dirty laundry” in public.

The Joan Sallee/Marty West article purportedly responds to an earlier article from October 7, 2007 authored by then-current board members Jim Provenza and Tim Taylor. The Jim Provenza/ Tim Taylor article focused on the hiring of Bruce Colby as their Deputy Superintendent for Business Services, more transparency, realistic and understandable budgets, and prioritizing critical needs and requirements. It is not clear from reading that article of the perceived need by Ms. Sallee and Ms. West to respond.

They waited until the parcel tax was safely passed by the voters and then proceeded to open a can of worms. The Vanguard responded with an article on November 20, 2007. A quick perusal of the facts revealed that the op-ed by Marty West and Joan Sallee was fraught with misrepresentations and inaccuracies. During the course of the Vanguard’s evaluation it became clear that this was more of an effort to vindicate the reputations of former Superintendent David Murphy and former Chief Business Officer (CBO) Tahir Ahad. Adding fuel to the fire was the revelation that Marty West had become an employee of Tahir Ahad at his education consultancy business, known as, Total School Solutions, as a senior consultant in employment law. This and other new revelations spawned a follow-up article on November 21, 2007, “Op-Ed Opens a Can of Worms.”.

While many in the community have knowledge about what happened under Tahir Ahad regarding his business, Total School Solutions, and the fact he hired many DJUSD employees to work for him, some even while they also worked for him at DJUSD, the fact remains that there was never any sort of comprehensive reporting about just what occurred and whether any laws were broken.

These revelations that were uncovered on November 20 and November 21, 2007 led to a large number of members of the public to come forward with further information. The Vanguard was approached by numerous community members, employees of DJUSD, and spoke with dozens of individuals in the course of what has become a three month investigation. The Vanguard also sought out to speak with several key players including Board President Sheila Allen, Board Vice President Gina Daleiden, former school board members Keltie Jones and Jim Provenza, and former Superintendent David Murphy. Superintendent Murphy spoke with the Vanguard at length off the record. Board members Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden spoke to the Vanguard on the record.

The findings that we shall report in a three-part series are staggering and troubling. In short, even members on the board and in the school district during these times were not fully aware of what went on and depths of the operations.

The first part of this series will look at the conflict of interest inherent in any situation where a public official is using his public position to further his private business interests. The second part will look at the ramifications of that arrangement for the district. Finally, the third part will examine efforts by the district. Successful efforts I will add, to make changes and ensure that the district is on much more sound footing in terms of its fiscal policy, even as it struggles with declining enrollment and state budget cuts.

Part I—Conflict of Interest

On June 17, 1999 the Davis Joint Unified School Board voted 4-1 to hire Tahir Ahad as the Deputy Superintendent for Business Services. Joan Sallee and Marty West were joined by John Munn and Ruth Asmundson in supporting the hiring of Mr. Ahad. Tahir Ahad was leaving a similar position with the Vallejo School District.

Those four members spoke of Tahir Ahad in glowing terms. The Davis Enterprise quotes Ruth Asmundson as saying “We raided Vallejo to get him. Vallejo is a bigger district… we need to provide compensation that is attractive.” Joan Sallee and Marty West both spoke in glowing terms of the hire of Tahir Ahad.

However, there was one member of the school board that voted against the hiring of Tahir Ahad and that was Don Saylor. What Don Saylor noted in his dissent were the seeds for what would happen under Tahir Ahad over the next seven years as CBO of Davis Joint Unified. None of what happened was an accident. Instead, it was all laid out in Tahir’s initial contract.

It was a highly unusual contract that contained several factors that would enable and permit Tahir Ahad to set up his own side business.

First, the standard contract called for 224 work days; however, Tahir Ahad was only required to work for 205 work days and he did so receiving substantially more money per day than his predecessor Tim Larin.

Board member Don Saylor pointed this out during the proceedings.

As reported by the Enterprise:
“I can’t support lessening the work year for a senior position… At the same time, the compensation package is being raised.”
The Enterprise continued:
“When Ahad’s package of $104,210 a year is calculated over 205 workdays instead of 224, his compensation will go from $440 per day to $508 per day.”
Or as Saylor pointed out the reduction in work days along with the size of the contract resulted in “an increase of 15 percent over the rate that was advertised.”

This would be the highest base daily rate in the district of any employee. This was arranged by Superintendent David Murphy. Concurrently, Murphy’s salary quickly increased greatly over the next few years.

This lessened workload would enable Tahir Ahad to spend more time building up his privately owned company. As one former employee told me, he would have all Mondays off from district work and part of Tuesdays as well, suggesting that the amount of time he actually worked for the district may have been considerably less than the reported 205.

Specifically written into Mr. Ahad’s contract was a provision that enabled him to seek outside professional activities. “This Agreement shall not be construed to preclude the Deputy Superintendent-Business Services from undertaking outside professional activities for compensation, including consulting, speaking, and writing…”

Again, this was not accidental and it marks a clear departure from the contract of his successor, Tim Larin. Mr. Larin’s contract required prior approval by the Superintendent and it expressly stated that other activities could not “conflict” with the performance of his duties under this agreement.

This was noted at the time by Board Member Saylor who said that he was troubled that Ahad was “intending to supply some of his time as a consultant” for other districts.

Mr. Ahad’s contract also allowed for him to have full authority to organize, reorganize, and arrange “any of the Business Office’s administrative, management, and supervisory staff.” This will become important as we discuss some of the management methods that Tahir Ahad exhibited as he often organized and hired those loyal to him while pushing away those who were more skeptical of his activities.

One final point that arose at the time was the existence of a pending sexual harassment suit from Vallejo where Tahir Ahad was working as their CBO. Two employees alleged wrongful termination by Ahad and one alleged that he had sexual relations with her and then offered her preferential treatment to keep quiet. This woman was in her mid 20s at the time.

Eventually Tahir Ahad would prevail by a 9-3 decision in a jury trial. However, it is somewhat surprising that some of the members of the board were not more concerned about this case at the time. Moreover, as we shall see, the case and verdict were not entirely insubstantial for the district, despite the ultimate verdict in favor of Mr. Ahad.

Tahir Ahad was hired by Davis Joint Unified School District to begin in July of 1999. According to his “Statement of Economic Interests” filed in early 2000, on October 3, 1999 (just over three months after being hired by DJUSD) he would form what was then known as Total Business Solutions (TSS), at his residence in Fairfield, CA. Mr. Ahad’s business was eventually renamed Total School Solutions.

For most of the next three years, few knew about this business arrangement; however, he did disclose its existence in his Form 700 Disclosures in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Word finally began to trickle through to the community and some on the board that this company was not only in existence, but that Tahir Ahad was working at a business on the side, and he was hiring district employees who were also working at both the district and for Total School Solutions (TSS).

As current Board Member Gina Daleiden told me in response to a more general question about conflicts of interest, one of the cores of conflict of interest policy is that “you should not use your public position for private gain.” While Ms. Daleien was not specifically speaking about Tahir Ahad, this is precisely what happened during his tenure as CBO of Davis Joint Unified. What we see during the course of Tahir Ahad’s tenure as CBO at Davis Joint Unified is that in effect he used the district to start up his business. In so doing, he began to blur the lines between his own private business and the school district which operates on public money.

It was school board election time in 2003. Keltie Jones had been appointed to fill a vacancy left by John Poulos’ exit. Now she was running for re-election. Running in the Davis Enterprise on September 28, 2003 was a disclosure that she had accepted money from Tahir Ahad, and the wife of Tahir Ahad as well as Total Business Solutions. There was a brief outcry over the prospect of a conflict in receiving money from a school administrator. Keltie Jones returned the donation from Tahir Ahad, but kept the other two donations. It was at this point, that Total Business Solutions had become identified publicly in Davis for the first time and people inside the educational community began to connect it to Tahir Ahad.

Total School Solutions grew slowly over time. By July of 2005, there were six directors listed on the Total School Solutions website. All of them were DJUSD employees. The Vice President was Susan Lendway who worked as a secretary to the associate superintendent for DJUSD. Director of Business Development, Aaron Shonk had risen from a secretary to the superintendent to the new Director of Business Development. Henry Petrino was a facilities director for the district and was Director of Operations for TSS. Vern Weber was actually not a direct DJUSD employee; instead he was a longtime consultant who did enrollment projects. And the general counsel of TSS was Maggie Harmon who worked as a budget officer for DJUSD.

By December of 2005, TSS added Nancy Walker who had been a business director at DJUSD and two long time consultants to the DJUSD Lonnie Poindexter and Ajay Mohindra. In April of 2006, Steve Horowitz had been added to the staff of TSS. And right now, there are well over 20 employees at TSS, over half previously worked at DJUSD in some capacity or another. Most recent additions include Solveig Monson, Tina Burkhart, Marty West, and Laurel Clumpner who still works for DJUSD as Principal for the Adult School.

Tahir Ahad would eventually hire four of his former employees from Vallejo Joint Unified to work at Davis Joint Unified. All four of them eventually ended up working for Total Schools Solutions: Tina Burkhardt, Rey Reyes, Nancy Walker and Susan Lendway.

Of those employees who worked for both DJUSD and TSS at the same time, this report specifically examines three of them: Susan Lendway, Aaron Shonk, and Henry Petrino.

Susan Lendway was Tahir Ahad’s secretary at the Vallejo School District. According to her bio on the TSS webpage, she has been Vice President of the company almost from the start in 1999. Ms. Lendway was hired to the position of Division Assistant, a clerical position in 2001.

Susan Lendway was hired as the confidential secretary for the educational services associate superintendent. Mr. Ahad hired Ms. Lendway over a number of longtime employees who had also applied for the job. More startling is the fact that the position was advertised as having a salary range of $2,497 to $3,187 per month. Ms. Lendway was hired at a rate that was almost $700 higher than the top end of that pay schedule at $3,874 per month.

More serious still are implications that come out of Tahir Ahad’s sexual harassment trial. Recall that Davis Joint Unified hired Mr. Ahad knowing that he faced litigation from two of his employees at the Vallejo School District. In November of 2002, Jurors voted by 9-3 in favor of Mr. Ahad. Key to that verdict was testimony by other Valley School District employees that Mr. Ahad was elsewhere on the dates that he was purported to have had some of the encounters. One of those who testified on his behalf was Susan Lendway. Lendway according to court documents delivered some of the key testimony that eventually got Mr. Ahad acquitted. Just before the trial Susan Lendway had been given a district job paying about $8000 per year more than the job was advertised for.

Regardless of these implications, the hiring of Susan Lendway demonstrates the pitfalls of a conflict of interest. Total Business Solutions does not report making a tremendous amount of money in those first three or four years—in the range of $10,000 to $100,000 according to Mr. Ahad’s 700 Disclosures. It would be difficult to hire and maintain a staff with the amount of expertise and skill as the one that Tahir Ahad was able to hire in the formative years of his business.

By hiring TSS employees to DJUSD as he did with Susan Lendway, he was able to provide them with a stable salary and more importantly use the district to provide them with health and retirement benefits. In essence, Tahir Ahad was in fact using DJUSD personnel with their district salaries and benefits as a foundation and start up for his company, a company that would eventually earn him a substantial income.

Aaron Shonk is another of the early members of TSS. When Tahir Ahad was hired, Aaron Shonk was working for the district as an executive secretary to the superintendent. He was hired in January of 1996, but in November of 2000 he became Resource Enhancement Manager. Then in November of 2003 he was named Interim Director of Maintenance and Operations and finally for his last year, Director of Maintenance and Operations. At the same time, he was working for TSS as their Director of Business Development.

This arrangement illustrates yet another pitfall of a conflict of interest. When employees are being hired to work for an individual at two different places, lines get blurred. First, as explained earlier Tahir Ahad had in his contract a unique signature authority to be able to hire and move employees as he saw fit. That gave him the power to promote those employees that were favored. Some of that promotion may not be based on work done for the school district, but rather work done for Tahir Ahad himself at TSS. That creates an inherent conflict of interest where you can no longer assume that employees are being rewarded for the job done on behalf of the school district. Moreover, the employees are no longer loyal to the school district itself, but rather to their boss, Tahir Ahad.

The case of Henry Petrino leads us to another problem. Mr. Petrino was another of the early employees at TSS. As Director of Facilities Planning, it was Henry Petrino who filed for the state’s matching grants on the Montgomery Schools Project. We will talk more about this issue in the next installment, but for now, we need to note that Henry Petrino submitted two defective applications for state matching funds. He was the one who missed the 180-day deadline not once, but twice. The first application was dismissed out of hand because it did not include required information; the second was dismissed due to missing the 180-day deadline—by five months. That missed deadline cost the district roughly $4.5 million in matching funds and set off a whole chain of events. It took an extraordinary effort and staff time last summer to recoup that lost money.

Was Mr. Petrino working on a project for Total Schools Solutions when he was supposed to be working on grant applications? We don’t know, but that lack of knowledge is part of the problem.

The other part of the problem was that during the course of Tahir Ahad’s tenure, many of his TSS employees would leave the district to work full-time for TSS. However, some of them were actually brought back as paid consultants for DJUSD.

One example is a contract signed by Henry Petrino on October 14, 2004. He had retired from the school district on October 1, 2004, and was brought back less than two weeks later as a consultant making $58.71 per hour. He was designated as a facilities consultant. The initiating administrator on that contract was Tahir Ahad who signed off on the contract. This in itself appears to be a clear conflict of interest but the looming question is unanswered—did any of this money go to TSS or was this merely a personal contract as it appears on paper. I do not know the answer to that either way, but it is just one of a number of looming questions that occur when lines such as these get blurred.

Vern Weber was never an actual employee of Davis Joint Unified; however, he was a hired consultant who did projected enrollments. He in fact did the original projections for enrollments for the Best Uses of Schools Task Force that would eventually recommend closing Valley Oak. But due to problems with those projections, he was replaced by Davis Demographics whose projections according to the Davis Enterprise were considerably less gloomy in terms of future enrollment.

Vern Weber demonstrates another pitfall with this arrangement. Tahir Ahad is given wide berth in terms of who he can hire. So Tahir Ahad employs Vern Weber as a TSS consultant at the same time Mr. Weber is consulting for Davis Joint Unified.

Total School Solutions was at the same time competing for qualifying bids in other school districts around the state. One example was the Acton Agua Dulce School District in August of 2005. Vern Weber’s resume is listed in their bid. The fact that he worked for Davis Joint Unified from 1998 until the present (at that point) was cited among a list of qualifying previous consulting jobs. At the same time you see in October 12, 2005, David Murphy, Tahir Ahad and Vern Weber attending the first Best Uses of Schools Task Force Meeting as district staff.

This provides another example of Tahir Ahad using the positions that he has hired his employees in the district as a means to improve the marketability of his own company. We also see around the same time, his promotion of his company over the district at a California Schools Boards Association Meeting.

On December 1, 2005, Tahir Ahad sat on a panel discussing Fiscal and Facilities Planning. “Hear a discussion of the impacts on fiscal planning and the type of facilities planning that must occur to meet the demands and effects of changing enrollment.” He is then listed as Tahir Ahad. His title is not CBO of Davis Joint Unified, but rather “President, Total School Solutions.” One can ask whether this trip was taken at taxpayer expense, but even if it was not, here he was at a CSBA meeting promoting not the school district, but his own company.

Meanwhile in an April 11, 2006 press release, the CSBA announced a new partnership with TSS.
“The California School Boards Association last month signed an agreement with Total School Solutions of Fairfield, CA to offer Proposition 39 performance audits to school districts.”
The release goes on to quote Tahir Ahad:
“Unlike our competitors, our firm is comprised of active and retired school facilities and financial management professionals who understand school management and the pressures and challenges faced by a district’s governance team.”
Once again, the marketing of Davis Joint Unified’s employees was used by Mr. Ahad to help produce a potentially very lucrative partnership with the California School Boards Association.
In November of 2005, Sheila Allen, Gina Daleiden, and Tim Taylor were elected to the school board. Soon after their election, Tahir Ahad realized that he no longer had his three votes to remain as CBO. Jim Provenza and B.J. Klein had often been on the short end of 3-2 votes in an effort to make changes to district practices. Marty West, Joan Sallee, and Keltie Jones were a reliable voting bloc in support of both Tahir Ahad and David Murphy. They had been joined by BJ Klein to extend Murphy’s contract as their terms expired prior to the new school board trustees being sworn in December 2005.

Realizing that he no longer had the majority of the school board support, Tahir Ahad announced he would leave at the end of his contract which expired in June of 2006. He had promised to continue working for the district up until that point, but apparently he had not kept that promise. In fact page 81 of the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistant Team (FCMAT) report makes note of this.
“The Chief Business Official position became vacant in February 2006. An interim CBO was hired but was told not to work on facilities accounting and funding, because the former CBO [Tahir Ahad] would do that. That apparently did not occur, and thus the area of facilities needs immediate attention.”
One of the first tasks that the new board turned to was creating a new and stronger conflict of interest policy.

According to Board Member Gina Daleiden California Education Code already prohibits some of the practices that the Vanguard has found to have occurred under Tahir Ahad.
“My understanding of the government code is that employees should not employ other district employees in outside businesses.”
California Government Code Section 1126 (a) reads:
“The officer or employee shall not perform any work, service, or counsel for compensation outside of his or her local agency employment where any part of his or her efforts will be subject to approval by any other officer, employee, board, or commission of his or her employing body.”
Unfortunately weaknesses in the district’s previous conflict of interest policy prevented the district from taking action. “Our understanding from our attorney is that the district could not enforce that government code without our own district conflict policy. So we enacted the policy and then we were able to enforce government code.”

The existing conflict of interest policy prior to 2006 merely required “designated employees shall file statements of economic interests with the Davis Joint Unified School District.” These statements were the FPPC Form 700. As weak as that was only the board members and superintendent were assigned level 1 disclosure. Those associate superintendents, director of fiscal services and high school principal were only required level 2 disclosures while consultants were not required disclosure at all.

Board President Sheila Allen told the Vanguard, “There was nothing illegal about our conflict of interest policy. But it wasn’t as strong as it could be.”

So the three new board members along with Jim Provenza moved to strengthen it. Ms. Allen said, “In particular, we were interested in the question about outside work for our current employees and what our legal abilities were to know about and to restrict them to our ability.”

It was this point that drew division with fellow board member Keltie Jones. In the Davis Enterprise article from October 15, 2006, Jones was quoted as saying that this policy “put the superintendent in the untenable situation of not having clear direction as to whether the board does not want people brought forward who work for Total School Solutions.” Keltie Jones argued that this policy was really aimed at TSS. “If this means ‘Don’t hire anyone who works for Tahir’s company,’ I want that out there.”

Keltie Jones was the lone no vote on the consultant conflict of interest policy when the policy came up for a vote. She argued that it put consultants potentially at a disadvantage to have to disclose their clients publicly.

Gina Daleiden on the other hand was forceful on this issue during a board meeting in May of 2006 when she addressed the issue of employee conflict of interest policy, she told the public that the legal requirement was the minimum not the limit of conflict policy.
“I am interested in establishing a policy for this Board that defines and clearly restricts conflicts of interests and commitment and builds the public trust. Conflict of interest is an emerging area of the law. What is defined as “legal” now is the minimum, it is the floor, and I want us to reach higher, closer to the ceiling. I want the public to be comfortable with our practices and those of our employees. I do not want the public to question relationships, motives, connections, and decisions. I DO want the public to be able to trust the people who serve their schools. We will need this as we address difficult situations facing our district. I want us to be more transparent and go beyond the minimum, much as we tell the children in our classrooms.”
She would tell the Vanguard in an interview last month, “I think the rule that we should all follow as public servants whether we are elected as public servants or whether you serve in a public position, is that you should not use your public position for private gain.”

The new conflict of interest policy drafted by Jim Provenza and Tim Taylor specifically addresses the issue of outside employment. First, it acknowledges that “executive-level positions involve time and energy beyond a normal position of employment.” Furthermore it states that “outside paid activities are incompatible with District employment if they require time periods that interfere with the proper, efficient discharge of the executive-level employee’s duties, if they entail compensation from an outside source for activities that are part of the executive-level employee’s regular duties, or if they involve using for private gain the District’s name, prestige, time, facilities, equipment or supplies.”

It is clear from this language that the activities that occurred under Tahir Ahad will not be allowable under the new policies of conflict of interest. It is clear that the new board has significantly strengthened the language of the conflict of interest code to prevent a recurrence of the problem and to enable the district to take clear and decisive action should a situation occur in the future.

However, it is not without irony that the previous conflict of interest policy may have still have performed a significant function. Earlier in this article the Form 700 was mentioned as filed by Tahir Ahad. During the course of investigating this, the Vanguard made numerous public records requests. One of the documents that were requested was all of Tahir Ahad’s annually filed “Statement of Economic Interest” forms, the Form 700.

What was discovered was surprising. The first three forms were filled out with schedule A-2 checked, denoting “attached investments” and disclosing Total Business Solutions as a business entity or trust. The forms were filled out that way in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

However in 2003, 2004, and 2005 there was no such disclosure. Those years he checked “no reportable interests on any schedule.” However a quick Google search will show plenty of expanding business activity during that time. I have documents from each of those years showing Tahir Ahad as President of Total School Solutions. And yet he filled out no disclosure. In his final year of 2006, once again, he disclosed the existence of his business.

Upon discovering this, the Vanguard forwarded the documents to the new DJUSD Superintendent James Hammond and the district’s counsel Eve Fitchner. Since that point, the Vanguard was informed that those documents were forwarded to the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office and that there is an investigation underway. The Fair Political Practices Commission is also investigating the matter and will issue a report to the District Attorney’s office. It would be ironic if even the weak policy was strong enough to put Tahir Ahad in legal jeopardy.

This story was interesting in that each time it appeared that the investigation would end, more information came out, and further leads developed. There are a few areas that still need to be examined.

First, is that former employees complained about the treatment of classified employees at the time. Complaints ranged from employment practices, disciplinary practices, preferential treatment of those loyal to Tahir Ahad and the forcing of those not loyal to Tahir Ahad, to limited positions until they invariably left the district for other employment. Some of these complaints are quite serious but not confirmed.

Second, the Vanguard was told that the standard practice was that Tahir Ahad and the TSS employees would work until 5 pm. At which point they would shift gears and begin working on TSS business from district offices using district equipment. The Vanguard has made additional records requests to verify this, however, at this time; the district is still sorting through those records.

Board President Sheila Allen spoke with the Vanguard. While she was willing to come forth with information she did want to emphasize that it was a new day and that practices have changed.
“I’m totally fine with people knowing what happened that’s fine with me, but I want the headline and I want the last part of it to be here’s how it’s changed. It’s a new day. We have a new superintendent; we have an all-new budget office.”
It is clear that the most recent board made critical changes to their conflict of interest policy to avoid a repeat of what happened in the past. In addition they have hired new personnel.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

This is the first in a three-part series. Next Sunday, we will have the second installment where we examine problems with the facilities funding that emerged as a result of the practices under Tahir Ahad and David Murphy.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We continue with the 2nd biggest story: The Closure of Valley Oak.

The issue of closing a school is always very controversial. However, the issue of Valley Oak was more than just a simple decision on whether or not to close a school. There was a whole range of socioeconomic and even racial issues here. Valley Oak is a school that is the only majority-minority school in the district. When the District made the decision to open Korematsu in the more affluent Mace Ranch, the fate of Valley Oak was likely sealed. Nevertheless, the school district commissioned the Best Uses of Schools Task Force to make the tough decision of whether and which school to close.

The key issue was projections that predicted declining enrollment.

In early January, the projections looked bleak:
"Thursday's school board meeting brought a heated discussed as the District unveiled new projections. The projections show around a 400 student drop from 2006 to 2016 with around 200 of those being in elementary school enrollment."
However, these projections are subject to interpretation, and many challenged their veracity.
"Fred Buderi, a Valley Oak neighbor, raised a very important point about the potential residential development of the PG&E site that could bring many additional students to Valley Oak. But this development is not factored into the future enrollment projections prepared by the Davis Demographics & Planning. His remarks were dismissed by the board saying that they should not take into account plans that are not yet approved. On the other hand, Baki Tezcan points out it is "ironic that after counting for Covell Village in building Korematsu, now they say they cannot count for something that does not exist even though it will not require a city-wide vote and will probably happen in due course and produce new students in need of a school to go."
By late February, the Task Force recommended closing Valley Oak.
"The Best Use of Schools Advisory Task Force has voted by a 6-1 margin to recommend the closure of Valley Oak Elementary. A full report will be drafted and presented to the Davis School Board at the March 1, 2007 meeting."
On March 2, 2007, Chair of the BUSATF, Krik Trost presented to the school board his case for closing Valley Oak.
"Chair Kirk Trost presented the Task Force’s methodology and findings for nearly an hour and a half Thursday night. He expressed deep sorrow to have to report their recommendation for closing Valley Oak Elementary School.

The Davis Joint Unified School District contracted with Davis Demographics and Planning, Inc. (DDP) to update and analyze demographic data and make projections as to future population. The assumptions and methodology were sources of great controversy within the community—especially those in relation to scope and magnitude of future development. However, their findings suggested that over the course of the next 10-15 years, the district enrollment would fall by 400 students and that nearly 250 of those would be in elementary schools.

That would leave the optimal number of elementary schools at around 7 to 7.5. They quickly settled on the eight schools as the optimal strategy.

One of the key issues that they addressed was transportation and how far students would have to walk to school. Their statistics and projections suggested that closing down Valley Oak Elementary school would have virtually no impact on the number of Valley Oak students who would be within one mile walking distance and the number of students within one and a half mile walking distance from their school. That means that for current Valley Oak Students, on average, the walking distance using those two metrics would be virtually unchanged.

Board President Jim Provenza asked about looking at half a mile distance, and Trost suggested that they had not looked at that and suggested that this was a distance standard used by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, the Center for Disease Control, and various walk-to-school organizations. He also pointed out that if they used a tougher standard it would not be uniform throughout the district.

The Task Force also strongly suggested the need for schools in the 420 range in order to have full facilities and program options that they considered optimal.

Finally, they made the argument that if Valley Oak remained open a very large percentage of students attending Valley Oak would be Title I students—between 60 and 70 percent. Whereas the Valley Oak Closed Option would result in the greatest amount of socioeconomic diversity and balance across the District with only around 30 percent of any school being Title I."
On March 5, 2007 the Vanguard ran a full criticism of the BUSTF report.

One of the big criticisms is that the report read like a lawyer's brief, arguing one side rather than presenting an array of options to the school board.
"While the group spent an admirable amount of time and energy working on its report over the last two years, the group has nevertheless produced a product that in the end falls well short of what both the school board and the district needed. The chief complaint is that this report reads like a lawyer's brief arguing for one viewpoint rather than presenting the school board with an array of options and evidence on which they could make an informed decision.

One of the first things that struck me about the presentation last week and the report as a whole was its format. The report and the presentation made an argument. Those things that fit into that argument were presented. Those things that did not fit into that argument were not presented. That may be helpful for a lawyer's brief, however, the purpose of this task force should have been to provide the school board itself with options, not to advocate one position or another. As such, the best format may have been to present fully all reasonable alternatives and then perhaps make a recommendation based on those alternatives. However, that is not what this report did.

That is not what the school board wanted. The school board is now stuck in a very difficult position of either accepting findings that they may or may not agree with, or going against the work of a volunteer group that has spent two years working on this. If they choose the latter, they fall prey to the question--why did they create the task force in the first place if they were merely to do what they wanted to do anyway."
On March 15, 2007, the school board heard a lengthy response from the Davis OPEN group, who were the activists dedicated to keeping all nine schools in the district open.

One of the big issues here was demonstrating that walking distances would increase if Valley Oak closed. The BUSTF report showed that if you use a one-mile distance, the students would be largely unaffected by the school closure. But most young children do not walk a full mile. By looking at a smaller radius, the data would have shown us that in fact, closing the school has a negative impact on walking distances.
"First of all, this data conclusively demonstrates that closing the school would have a negative impact on the specific students that attend Valley Oak regardless of the standards for the rest of the district. Second, many students at Valley Oak have transportation issues since they are Title 1 students and this close would be a larger burden on them than on students in other attendance areas going to other schools."
Doubt was also cast on the methodology for projecting future declining enrollment.
"Baki Tezcan presented evidence that cast some doubt on the methodology used to come up with the projections. His presentation was impressive enough to prompt Task Force Chair Kirk Trost to come back up to clarify their findings with numbers that did not seem to match the numbers used by Tezcan.

Baki Tezcan pointed out as we did the change in the projections from December 2006 to January 2007. The key difference was the use of Mobility #3 in December to using Mobility #2 in December and that shifted the finding from a stable +/- 186 K-12 students to an approximate decline of 400.

Tezcan said that method #2 compared all students in each attendance area from year to year while method #3 had a sampling of students. He suggested that sampling was the more preferred method for projecting and that it was the Task Force rather than DDP that made that call to switch to Method #2.

Tezcan then presented three sets of projections, the third one being "October projections" based on 2005 student data. These data show an actual small increase in enrollment. Tezcan demonstrated that the projections using this methodology more closely were demonstrated by actual numbers than the preferred methodology of the Task Force. When he averaged those three studies, he found a slight increase rather than decrease in enrollment over the next few years."
In the end, the school board by a 3-2 vote accepted the findings of the BUSTF.
"One exchange in particular kind of summed up how this evening would go--Board Member Tim Taylor would mention that there were differing interpretations of the enrollment projections and he asked Mr. Whitmore which he should believe. Mr. Whitmore pointedly said that none of the staff were demographers, but that the Task Force had worked long and hard with the demographic data and he would tend to take their findings strongly into account."
It was a long evening that began with a young protest march (click above to see pictures).
"The day began with a show of force--the force of dozens of small school children laughing and screaming in the hopes of saving their school as they slowly marched from Valley Oak Elementary School to Council Chambers. It was a distance of nearly a mile and remarkably it seemed to take 45 to 50 minutes for their small legs to cross the distance."
The school board then would vote to close the school with stipulations.
"In the end though, it seemed that the board, or at least Tim Taylor, while believing nine schools was unfair to the other eight, fiscally irresponsible, and unsupported by the demographic data, could not deliver the final death knell. He offered a massive motion which would do the following:

1. Open Korematsu as a K-2 school for 07-08.
2. Keep Valley Oak open in 07-08
3. Open Korematsu as a K-6 school in fall of '08
4. Close Valley Oak in fall of '08
5. Place on the ballot a second parcel tax to fund Valley Oak in November of 2007 provided that the first parcel tax passed.
This was too much for Keltie Jones who pushed hard and was very fearful a second tax bill would doom their first. She got Taylor to water down even the compromise language so that a poll would be taken and the second parcel tax would be put on the ballot only if it wasn't going to doom the first. Now perhaps what Jones was forgetting is that by putting them both on there and tying the fate of Valley Oak to the first parcel tax, they are in essence recruiting 50 to 100 dedicated parents who have a vested interest in doing the grass roots work to get them both passed. If only the first parcel tax were on the ballot--none of those folks would work to get it placed on the ballot. So in actuality it might be more likely to pass because it is tied to Valley Oak than if it were not."
It was clear from the start that the second parcel tax would not be viable. Indeed later polling showed that there just was not community support to pass th additional tax and keep Valley Oak open. The strategy shifted to charter school.

In late September, the structure and basics of the Charter School were laid out in front of 60 people at the Valley Oak Elementary School multipurpose room.

The Valley Oak Mission statement:

"Valley Oak Charter School is a learning community of students, staff, families and the larger community that challenges each member to reach full potential. We draw upon a rich history as a neighborhood school that recognizes the strengths of a diverse population, welcoming all into a culturally-rich environment with high expectations for all students. We believe community-based cooperative governance makes for optimally responsive and innovative education."

They presented four key focal points:

* "Coordinated school-wide schedule of flexible small-group instruction to address individual needs.

* Participation of the greater school community in pursuing the educational mission of the school.

* Integration of arts, technology and community service tools into all aspects of learning

* Bridge the digital divide through utilization of educational technology by the larger VOCS community, both on campus and at home."
In early November, the Charter passed the signature requirement threshold.
The Valley Oak Charter School has now passed the signature threshold for both teachers and parents. According to the charter school law, a charter needs to demonstrate sufficient interest by obtaining signatures from half of the number of teachers that are projected and half of the number of students that are projected to enroll in the school.

The Valley Oak Charter has been keeping a running tally on their website. As of last night, they had crossed both thresholds.

The Charter projects 13 teachers, so they are required to obtain the signature of 7 teachers. To date, 19 teachers have signed to teach at Valley Oak.

They also project 305 students, which means they need the signature of 153 parents who have an interest in their child attending the Valley Oak Charter school. They just passed that threshold last night with 169 signatures.

The Valley Oak charter has now demonstrated more than sufficient interest required by law to go forward and be submitted.

On Monday the Valley Oak charter will be submitted to the District Office.
By law there are only a few reasons by which the charter can be denied by the school district, budgetary concerns are not among those.

* Charter school presents an unsound educational program
* Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described
* Petition does not have the required number of signatures
* Petition does not include required affirmations
* Petition does not include comprehensive description of 16 required elements

However, this did not stop the district from attempting to torpedo the proposed charter.

On November 15, 2007, the school board got to hear the presenters presentation and subjected them to a series of tough questions on a variety of concerns.

"There were many tough questions that were asked by the school board during this process--rightly so as this will have a dramatic impact on their budget and their planning. This was not their formal response to the charter, only a questions at a public hearing.

What is important to understand despite their tough questions was that according to the education code, there are only a few reasons by which the board could deny the charter."

...

"Concerns from the board appeared primarily centered on admission policies, enrollment numbers and overall concerns that if Valley Oak either failed to attract enough students or failed to attract students from outside of the district, that the district would have other problems with which they needed to deal with."
Board President Jim Provenza directed board members to wait until the staff report came before making comments.

This came in early December.

In harsh terms, the district staff drafted a resolution--not just a staff report but an actual resolution--that would deny the Valley Oak charter based on three of the criteria for denial fleshed out into nineteen separate points. Most of these points could have been resolved by a simple negotiation and a quick edit. Nevertheless the report was placed into resolution form.

The petition drafters responded to these criticisms in a firm manner than attempted to hold back obvious frustration at the tone of the response.

Bill Storm, science teacher and proponent of Valley Oak Charter School said:
"The draft resolution severely distorts both our proposal and the requirements of the Charter Schools Act and makes serious errors of fact in denying the petition... We continue to be willing to work with the district in resolving any legitimate issues. Such work would require that all parties act swiftly and in good faith... f the Davis school board acts to deny the charter, we are confident that the charter will be authorized through the appeal process outlined in the Charter Schools Act... We have made presentations, provided drafts of the educational plan, governance design and budget presentations (to the district), and have repeatedly requested meaningful dialogue and feedback. Instead, last Friday (the district) posted a draft resolution to deny the petition for the Valley Oak Charter School."
On December 6, 2007, a big battle was brewing and it appeared that confrontation that would be lengthy and heated was inevitable.

Several board members were alarmed at the tone of the report. However, once the meeting came forward, cooler heads prevailed and newly hired Superintendent James Hammond struck the necessary tone of moderation.
"New Superintendent James Hammond was first to speak. All week long we had read in the papers the staff report, the lawyer's report, and we were prepared for the worst. But James Hammond took control of this meeting. Instead of having staff present their report, instead of allowing them to set the tone for the meeting, something very different happened.

James Hammond spoke in very general terms and then suggested that they had options, that they did not have to make a decision this evening. And that gave Board President Jim Provenza, in his last meeting, the opening that he needed. And he suggested that if it were possible that the district could meet with the petitioners and that they could hash out their differences.

So instead of conflict from the start, the tone was set that compromise and reconciliation was a possibility and the rest of the board to their credit followed this lead."
Concerns by board members were laid out however the agreement was to come to a resolution and compromise rather than seek confrontation. So as 2008 arrives, the process still looms however with hope.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Monday, December 31, 2007

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We continue with the 3rd biggest story: Superintendent David Murphy gets fired.

On March 1, 2007, the Community Chambers was packed in anticipation of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force Report which was expected to recommend the closing of Valley Oak Elementary School. However, before this would happen, the very foundations of the community would be rocked by a very surprising announcement, with just a year to go on his contract Superintendent David Murphy announced he would be stepping down effective July and retiring.

In part of a statement to the board, he read:
“Since February 1, when I turned 60, my wife Robbie and I have been discussing what would be best for our family and with our life... It is now an appropriate time for me to conclude a wonderful era of 35 years of public service and spend more time with my family while we are all healthy and happy.”
At the time we would write:
"Longtime Superintendent David Murphy of the Davis Joint Unified School District stole the show last night with a surprise announcement that he was stepping down effective July. Citing family needs and personal changes, Superintendent Murphy said that the District would immediately appoint an acting Superintendent to aid in the transition and he would work with that individual as the Board sought a new full-time Superintendent.

While Murphy was heavily praised at this meeting, he has long been a source of great controversy both within the school district and in the community as a whole. It is no secret that the majority of school board members were not happy with his performance, however their hands were largely tied by an extension granted by a previous board on their way out."
Quickly it would become clear that this was no voluntary retirement. Voluntary retirements do not have large severance pay associated.

It was really former school board member Joan Sallee who spilled the beans when she told the Davis Enterprise:
“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.”
As the Vanguard speculated at the time:
"This has been a tumultuous year for the school district with a number of different financial scandals. In November of 2006, the board halted construction on a new King High School building. Allegations were made at that time by Board Member Jim Provenza that "shoddy practices in the business office have cost us" money on the project. He further said, "I'm happy we have a new chief budget officer (Colby) and (we're) cleaning up the mess we've had in the past.

Earlier this month the project was re-approved with money from redevelopment funds. Board member Tim Taylor cast the lone, "no" vote and he too made allegations about irregularities in board money use. "For me, the issue is some financially funky stuff that's gone on to get us to this point. It has absolutely nothing to do with King High."

Another scandal in the last year was the Total School Solutions scandal which led to the resignation of a number of administrators. Total Schools Solutions is a Fairfield-based firm run by Tahir Ahad, who served as deputy superintendent for business services for the Davis School District from 1999 through May. Employees who worked at Total School Solutions while at the same time working for the school district were perceived to have a conflict of interest and this led to new conflict of interest regulations within the school district requiring disclosure of other employers that school district employees work for. At one point, the employees at Total School Solutions were largely made up of administrators from Davis Joint Unified who were simultaneously on the both payrolls."
This is but the tip of the iceberg as we shall find out this coming year. However it was clear at the time that the current board was angry having been saddled with a three year last second contract extension by the previous board.
"The previous board was fiercely loyal to Superintendent Murphy and his staff. In fact, on their way out, one of their last actions before new members Gina Daleiden, Tim Taylor, and Sheila Allen took over was to extend Murphy's contract until July 31, 2008, which had for all intents and purposes tied the hands of the new school board. Something that deeply upset several of the members of the current board."
Within a week, the board would announce their interim replacement, Richard Whitmore. Controversy would arise due to the fact that David Murphy would be receiving severance pay at the same time the board was paying a new superintendent.
"The Davis Enterprise reported last night that "recently resigned" Superintendent David Murphy will continue to receive his salary until mid 2008 (when his contract would have expired). The district would pay Murphy approximately $225,000.

A week ago, Superintendent David Murphy surprised many in the community by announcing his retirement. Already the Davis Enterprise is calling it a "resignation."

This represents mounting evidence however that Murphy was in fact involuntarily terminated. One would not receive a settlement package for merely retiring or even resigning. This arrangement pretty much confirms our suggestion last Sunday that Murphy was in fact fired.

According to the Davis Enterprise:
"Over the coming three months, ending May 31, Murphy will “focus his efforts on mutually agreed-upon duties,” including completion of a reference manual outlining the superintendent’s duties and responsibilties (sic). Murphy also will use accrued vacation time."
A couple of points that need to clarified. First, the District is paying David Murphy $225,000 of taxpayer money not to work. That is a pretty strong statement there.

Second, we need to remind the public that it was the outgoing school board with BJ Kline, Joan Sallee, and Marty West that as one of their last acts, decided to extend the contract of David Murphy and made it extremely difficult for the incoming school board to terminate an employee that they believed was doing a poor job. Those members cost the Davis taxpayers and perhaps the students a tremendous amount."
This of course, in a city like Davis spawned controversy and letters to the editor.

George Warner writes:
Let's see if I have this straight. We're paying one school superintendent $168,000 for an $80,000 job and another $235,000 for sitting on his hands for a year or so.
Barbara Wochok writes:
Under a "complex settlement," nearly $300,000 in taxpayer dollars will support two superintendents during one year. One will be housed at the district office, one not.

Obviously, administrators matter more than students at Valley Oak. Taxpayer dollars are taxpayer dollars. Once again the money goes to the top, not to the classroom. How sad!
My perspective at time is that the school district had little choice but to do this, even if it meant biting a small financial bullet with a one-time severance payment.

As I wrote at the time:
What would be nice is if the local paper instead of writing editorials about how much we will miss David Murphy, actually reported the truth about what Murphy did and why he was likely fired. We have talked about the King High debacle here several times, but do these people understand that the district lost nearly $5 million in matching funds because it failed to meet deadlines? A fact that was buried in a paragraph near the end of the editorial on Sunday. Let's see five million versus $200,000. Hmmm.... Someone want to do the math here.
Mr. Whitmore earned high praise from Board President Jim Provenza and Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Delaine Eastin.
Board President Jim Provenza called Whitmore, “a leader who excels in managing both the education of children and business and financial operations that are so crucial to school districts.”

Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin speaks very highly of Mr. Whitmore. According to The Davis Enterprise:

During his years with the state, Whitmore worked closely with then-Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, a Davis resident who attended Monday night’s meeting of the Davis school board. Eastin called Whitmore “an inspired choice for interim superintendent” in Davis, and added, “I can think of no finer education leader.”

“His extraordinary intelligence, integrity and administrative skills will serve this great district very well indeed,” Eastin said. “Richard will work closely with his board and his staff, keeping them engaged and well-informed.”
Meanwhile the Davis Enterprise did not hesitate to lavish praise on the departed Superintendent.

Columnist Bob Dunning wrote that the "town owes Murphy a standing ovation."
"Like most superintendents, David Murphy had his supporters and his detractors … it comes with the territory … it would be impossible to be a superintendent of schools in Davis and make hard decisions without someone taking a shot at you, including the local daily columnist …"

"Yes, I've had a few disagreements with David Murphy during his tenure here, but none that made me question his integrity, his dedication or his desire to make the Davis district the best it could be "
Richard Whitmore would oversee a tumultuous time for the school board, one of his first meetings in fact was the decision to close Valley Oak.

On August 22, 2007, the school board announced the hiring of a new superintendent, James Hammond.

Board President Jim Provenza:
"The Board is pleased that Dr. Hammond has accepted the offer to lead our oustanding schools to new levels of excellence and achievement... Throughout his career as a teacher, coach, principal and superintendent Dr. Hammond has demonstrated intelligent and inspiring leadership, and a deep passion for well being and academic achievement of all students, including those who are struggling to succeed. He is a rising star in public school administration. We are lucky to have him."
This was one decision where all five members of the board enthusiastically backed:
"Davis Board member Gina Daleiden expressed confidence that Dr. Hammond is the right leader for the Davis schools.

"Our extensive conversations with Tukwila school, parent, and community leaders revealed that Dr. Hammond is widely regarded as an extraordinary leader. Colleagues describe him as courageous in his decisions, and have enormous respect for his superb communications and managerial skills.”
Board Member Sheila Allen, who later was downright giddy added:

“The Tukwila staff emphasized that Dr Hammond fosters a culture of collaboration and teamwork that brings out the best in people. His enthusiasm and energy are contagious!”

Board Member Tim Taylor:

“Dr. Hammond has the extensive experience and proven leadership qualities our board desired in a new superintendent. He also has a genuine affection for students, and in return has their trust and admiration. It’s a pleasure to welcome him to the Davis Joint Unified School District.”

Board Member Keltie Jones:

“I am delighted with Dr. Hammond’s appointment. He brings a fresh level of energy and creativity to our district.” "
The Vanguard caught up with the new superintendent that evening:
For his part, the new superintendent seems excited but a bit overwhelmed.

"Just a little sense of being overwhelmed but at the same time very excited. From my initial interactions, just an exciting dynamic community. People value the schools. People value the kids. The quality of education, so it's just an exciting time for me personally."
Overall, it was an extremely eventful year for the school district. For good measure, Dr. Hammond already had to step in defuse a brewing battle between the district and the supporters of the Valley Oak Charter School.

Furthermore it seems that supporters of David Murphy, particularly former board members Joan Sallee and Marty West went out of their way to dredge up past controversies. In an op-ed, they accused the current board of fiscal mismanagement. As most will see in the coming weeks, the problem rests not with the current board but with the past board and the superintendent. (See the Vanguard's follow up as well).

For all of this, the firing of David Murphy is the third biggest Vanguard story of 2007.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Friday, December 28, 2007

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We continue with the 6th biggest story: Measure P and Measure Q.

Two of the most important items on this past November's ballot was the renewal of the school district's parcel tax Measure Q and the library parcel tax Measure P.

Both of these measures funded vital services for their respective districts (the school district and the library district).

The parcel tax for the school district funds roughly 5 to 10 percent of the district's budget--$16 million.

The Vanguard sat down in August with Davis School Board Member Gina Daleiden and Interim Superintendent Richard Whitmore:

According to Board member Gina Daleiden:
"If we were going to have to cut 16 million dollars over four years out of our budget that would obviously be a huge and very painful change. I think it would lead to the elimination of a lot of the programs that make Davis Schools, Davis Schools."
The stakes for such an election were therefore very high. The district relies on the parcel tax to fund a large number of programs.
"A lot of the districts eliminated things that Davis kept because we have the parcel tax... And so things like the music program and its foreign language offerings, the extensive art offerings, those are made possible by the seventh period in the junior highs and the high school. If you go to [other] schools around the area they don't have seven period's offered, they have six, and so if your student wants to take orchestra and a foreign language or art and a foreign language, those opportunities are more available here. Class size reduction, that takes a lot of funding beyond what's offered around the state, and many districts they've eliminated that."
According to Interim Superintendent Richard Whitmore, without the parcel tax you would see a number of layoffs as the district would have to cut both regular and specialist teachers. We would have larger class sizes across the board and fewer elective offerings in the junior and senior high schools.

The parcel tax will go up during the four year period 34 dollars per year over the parcel tax in the previous four year period.

Board Member Gina Daleiden said the increases are there primarily to cover inflation, however there are two new programs funded as well.
"It mostly is to cover the cost of inflation—programs cost more, people cost more. It mostly covers that. There are two new components that are relatively small percentage-wise out of the parcel tax. One is to increase the offering of fresh fruits and vegetables in the school lunches and the other is for math support for students who need it. And that would be elementary school, 4th through 6th grades for the math support to help kids be ready to take algebra."
In late September, the Vanguard sat down with Yolo County Supervisor Helen Thomson, retired librarian Mary Stephen Stephens and Measure P Campaign director Rich Peterson.

Back in 1989, the city of Davis passed a $42 per parcel library tax to help fund the library. In 2007, Davis residents still pay the exact same amount despite the fact that inflation has greatly reduced the purchase power of that tax. Measure P proposes to increase that parcel tax to $88 which still would not equal the amount of the tax from 1989, however it would enable the library to maintain its current level of service, to refurbish some of the library building, and to restore some programs that have been cut over the years due to lack of funding.

According to Mary Stephens,
"For me the most important thing is to sustain at a minimum sustain the current level of service including hours. The library has been using reserves since about ’92 off and on depending on how the funding came through to make up for the shift of local property taxes by the state. The reserves are running out, so if there isn’t an increase in the funding, there will be a significant reduction in the hours, materials, and programs."
Measure P will also allow the library to hire additional staff--positions that have been eliminated over the years due to having effectively less money over time.
"It will also allow us to add some additional staff, I think there are two positions to work with kids after school which have been eliminated over the years due to the tightening of the budget."
Over 1000 people use the library per week and the library has a high volume of book circulation--over one million dollars worth of books are circulated.

For both of these measures, the stakes were high. The school district faced a big cut back in programs and the library a big cut back in hours should they not pass.

Amidst low turnout on election day, Measures P and Q pulled away as the night went on to easily pass both pulling in well over 70 percent of the vote in an election that required a two-thirds vote. Davis renewed its commitment to schools and libraries on election day despite an overall lack of interest in the off-year election.

We caught up with the some of the principals after the election.

The Vanguard spoke to Board Members Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden who were the coordinators for Measure Q.

Sheila Allen told us:
"I am extremely pleased that the community of Davis has once again come together to support our schools and children. When the task of the Parcel Tax renewal was given to Gina and I we decided to take a very different tact than previous campaigns. The prior strategy has always been a "stealth" campaign: keeping below the radar, talking only to parents and supports, no lawn signs or public campaign, etc. This is not the way Gina and I and the current board do business. We wanted to communicate to the community what it is they pay for with their parcel tax dollars and what they get in return. We were very pleased that an informed (although low turn out) agreed that Davis students need to continue to have the programs that Measure Q pays for in the classroom."
Gina Daleiden said:
"I am heartened by the confirmation that the vast majority of people in Davis hold children and education as a top priority.

From the very beginning of the campaign, our biggest concerns were the economy and complacency. When headlines screamed of a weak economy, higher fuel prices, foreclosures, we knew we had to work harder. And we had to get the word out about what the tax actually funds---many of the critical programs that we all have come to expect as Davis Joint Unified. We had an amazing all-volunteer effort on this campaign---a broad coalition of people united in support of our schools.

We did have a little drama as we watched the early returns. While polling and phone banking and walking can show 78 or 80% support, that only translates into real votes if people turn out at the polls. In a very low turnout election like the one last night, the "no" votes will show up and the "yes" votes you need to dilute those don't materialize to the extent you would like in a tax election. All that said, nearly 73% is a reminder that education is a priority in Davis, even for those without students in the schools. In the end, this is about our kids and our classroom programs across the entire District. Our kids are the winner in this election."
We also spoke with campaign manager of the Measure P effort, Rich Peterson:
"We are absolutely delighted at the outcome of the election. Once again, Davis has shown itself to be a truly giving and caring community. On behalf of Supervisors Thomson and Yamada, I would like to thank everyone who worked so hard to help Measure P pass, in particular Jay Johnstone, the Friends of the Davis Library led by Erik Vink, and Sandy Briggs - who walked precincts with a broken collar bone!! We truly are indebted to the hard work of countless dedicated individuals, named and unnamed. Above all else, we would like to thank the Davis voters."
As I mentioned previously, without a doubt these were the two most important items on the ballot and also for the most part two of the least controversial. For that Measure P and Measure Q are the 6th biggest Vanguard story for 2007.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Friday, December 07, 2007

On the Brink of Battle Over Valley Oak A New Hope For Reconciliation Emerges

I think everyone in the room was anticipating a big showdown, perhaps something ugly, certainly something heated.

In fact, I flash back to the original Valley Oak meeting, when the decision was made to close the school, because it sheds light on the contrast of styles. At that time it was Interim Superintendent Richard Whitmore's first meeting and he sat back and allowed his staff to make their presentations, to set the tone for the meeting, and then he made some comments.

Flash forward to last night, new Superintendent James Hammond was first to speak. All week long we had read in the papers the staff report, the lawyer's report, and we were prepared for the worst. But James Hammond took control of this meeting. Instead of having staff present their report, instead of allowing them to set the tone for the meeting, something very different happened.

James Hammond spoke in very general terms and then suggested that they had options, that they did not have to make a decision this evening. And that gave Board President Jim Provenza, in his last meeting, the opening that he needed. And he suggested that if it were possible that the district could meet with the petitioners and that they could hash out their differences.

So instead of conflict from the start, the tone was set that compromise and reconciliation was a possibility and the rest of the board to their credit followed this lead.

Outgoing member Keltie Jones said that if we were going to do this, the best opportunity to succeed would be to work out the differences together. And she acknowledge that many of the issues were small things, although some were large things.

Mike Egan, one of the drafters of the petition, was asked his feelings and he said from the start that they had wanted to sit down and talk through the differences.

According to law, they have 60 from the date they submitted the petition to make a decision on the petition. That would put the 60th day at January 4. However, by mutual consent they can extend that another 30 days. Mr. Egan was not unwilling to extend that deadline but suggested he would also like to see progress.

Should the school board reject the charter proposal there is ample recourse for the petitioners. First, it would go to the county board of education and then the state.

Gina Daleiden also made a good suggestion that each of the board members express their concerns to the district and the petitioners so that these issues can ultimately be addressed.

Tim Taylor was very agreeable to that suggestion and also agreeable to the idea of working out the differences because a rush decision would leave a lot of unhappy people and probably a number of unresolved questions.

For Tim Taylor as for Gina Daleiden the number of students who would attend and if few attended, the viability of the program given the size was the biggest concern.

Julie Cuetara, a parent, PTA president, and school mascot, addressed this point very well later on. First of all, this was not a reason that they could deny the charter. She also pointed out that the state law only required them to gather half the petitions for the projected students. The general belief was that students would come eventually, however, Ms. Cuetara also suggested that they gathered those petitions in a short period of time and she felt that she could collect 400 or 500 if needed.

Sheila Allen wanted to see some of the details such as special education and fiscal services fleshed out. She wanted to see MOU's (Memorandum of Understanding) not necessarily signed, but at least general points spelled out.

Jim Provenza spoke last. He was appreciative of the work of James Hammond and suggested that he will work in good faith. He thanked the Charter School Proponents for their good and hard work and then spoke in general terms about some of the key programs at Valley Oak. He wanted to preserve the uniqueness of the school, he talked about how special and effective the EL program is, and he urged creativity and cooperation on both sides and suggested that this flexibility can keep this unique school open. He said this is not about lawyers or administrators or even board members, but rather about kids in a school.

James Hammond really took the lead here and suggested good faith efforts to come to an agreement. Such efforts that did not seem possible this week given the tone of the reports coming from staff.

Fred Buderi, one of the leaders from the Davis OPEN group spoke during public comment about his concern about the tone of the staff report but also emphatically said he was very encouraged by comments from the board and superintendent, particularly about having good faith discussions.

Freddie Oakley, the Yolo County Clerk/ Recorder, also spoke during public comment, she gave an impassioned speech about duty, morality, and values. She emphatically told the board and the district to do the right thing (keep Valley Oak open and approve the petition) but also to do it with due diligence.

However, I come back to Superintendent James Hammond now. Because during the course of this week, really just since Sunday, the rhetoric was increasing and Fred Buderi was exactly right, the tone of the staff reports were very negative and divisive.

People on the blog even suggested that the Superintendent had not said anything. They suggested that this was very telling. It is actually fairly typical that his staff draft staff reports, not the Superintendent himself. However, once James Hammond came forward and took the lead on this issue, the tone and rhetoric changed.

There was no doubt during this meeting who was in control, who had set the tone, and who was not very happy about it. A number of people remarked to me about Associate Superintendent Ginni Davis, the author of the resolution. Her body language was atrocious. To the point where people who did not know who she was, were very angry at her and asked me who that was. She was literally writhing in her seat during the time in which James Hammond spoke and difused the situation. She was clearly not happy. Frankly her body language, probably off-camera from those at home, bordered on insubordination.

Staff was used to running the show under previous administrations, but there was no doubt who ran this show. The entire course of this debate changed in the first five minutes, when James Hammond instead allowing the staff report to be presented per the usual, instead, talked about options that the board had to either approve, reject, take no action, or allow staff and charter petitioners to work it out.

Now that the tone has been set and the gauntlet thrown down by the Dr. Hammond that these will occur in good faith, we can sit back and watch to see it unfold. However, one thing I take away from this is how important a strong and confident leader is to this entire process. It was a subtle manner in which Dr. Hammond seized control of this but it is a model that all Superintendents, Chiefs of Staff, City Managers, etc. should look at when their boards are on the brink of a divisive and heated discussion. For the first time, I see why the board decided that James Hammond was the guy for this job, and for the first time, I hope that maybe, just maybe, things are going to get better.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Disjointed Thoughts on Election Morning

Today is Election Day. The projections for voter turnout according to Clerk and Recorder Freddie Oakley are rather bleak. Frankly that's not all that surprising, but it is disappointing. We have four elections in the next 365 or so days, each of them has its own inherent importance.

I know many in Davis live for the city council elections--and I agree that those are extremely important. But the school board elections and parcel tax elections are of the utmost importance as well. At times on this blog, we have spent as much time discussing school board issues as we have City Council issues. To the point that there has been a running joke between the two as to which one can stay off the Vanguard. Then acting police chief Steve Pierce was going to send Interim Superintendent Richard Whitmore a fruitcake for helping to keep the police off the Vanguard and focus the attention on the school district (I'm not making that up).

My point here is that school issues at times have dominated the scene in Davis over the first year and a quarter of the Vanguard's existence.

For those with little interest in the school board, we can skip ahead a bit. I noticed that the Final EIR has come down on the Hunt-Boyer Mansion Tank House restoration and relocation project. The city staff is going to recommend the pursuit of Alternative 3--disassembling, reassembling, and then rehabilitating the Tank House while at the same time constructing a new two-story building between the Mansion and the Varsity Theatre.

Guinness will then be called in to assess whether this new building qualifies as the thinnest building in the world. I jest, but that is not a large space between the two.

This issue will be the on the city council agenda at the end of the month. It figures to be a long and heated discussion on the historic nature of the tank house and the site versus the potential for commercial usage there.

However, tonight, the issue is on children and who is best to lead our school district for the next four years in helping to determine policy direction. Honestly, we all have our favorites perhaps. But I am far from certain that we can go wrong no matter who is elected. I have covered numerous events and all the candidates seemed committed to improving the educational prospects of Davis students. That's not to say we agree with everything everyone is proposing, it is only to say there is not a single candidate who lacks the commitment to this school district.

Perhaps as important, we have two ballot measures that would fund a good percentage of our school's budget (Measure Q) and help maintain the library (Measure P).

One point of interest, a lot has been made of Richard Harris and the amount of money he has raised--I'm kind of wondering exactly what he spent it on. There were no ads that we saw in Sunday's Davis Enterprise. We got a mailer or two but certainly nothing massive. So far all the fuss about influence peddling, I just do not see it.

Valley Oak Charter will go forward with more than enough signatures to qualify it for consideration As I said last week, I think the Best Uses of Schools Task Force missed the boat here, focused too early on closing a school and not hard enough on alternatives to closing a school. Now the district will likely have to go back to the drawing board. Did the task force really serve the school district well?

Finally, a hearty farewell to Interim Superintendent Richard Whitmore. Did I agree with everything he did? No. But he was thrust into a difficult situation, his first meeting as Interim Superintendent was when they voted to close Valley Oak. He faced tough challenges in his brief time here. But he was always available to me to answer questions and he was a person who understood the importance of high tech and tried to get many others (at times unsuccessfully) to read the Vanguard as a means to better understand the community. So we will certainly miss him and wish him well on his future endeavors while at the same time looking forward to the new leadership under James Hammond.

So there is much to do and think about in the coming days, but once again today is about the children and who we believe is best to lead them into the future. Stay tuned this evening for live blogging election coverage. We'll have roaming bands of reporters from around the town and I will be blogging live at the Yolo County Election Office.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Monday, November 05, 2007

Editorial: Vanguard Election Choices

The Vanguard is not making formal endorsements for the school board race. However, it is supporting the Yes Position on Both Measure P and Measure Q. We do not think it is our place to tell voters which candidate to vote for. Instead what we have done for our election coverage is we have allowed each of the school board candidates to have 250 words. In those 250 words the candidate can make their own pitch and tell the citizens of Davis why they are the best candidate and deserving of the public's vote.

Measure Q and Measure P have both opted to stand by their previous commentaries and articles which will be linked at the end of the article.

Individuals are encouraged to make brief endorsements of the candidates in the comment section. Ordinary rules of conduct apply however to be honest, anonymous endorsements will not be taken seriously.

Stayed tuned to our election coverage, we'll have a special noon story on the campaign and then tomorrow night will be our live coverage from the County Elections Office.

School Board Endorsements

Susan Lovenburg
By now, most are familiar with my background and experience. If not, please visit my website at www.SusanLovenburg.org. In addition to descriptions of both, you will find my written replies to the many questions posed at forums, and letters from others written in support of my candidacy.

Our District is facing major challenges in the immediate future. The budget is not in balance, with ongoing income not sufficient to cover ongoing expenses. This, combined with the decline in enrollment we’re experiencing, will necessitate budget cuts in the coming months. Negotiations with the Davis Teachers’ Association are ongoing.

Into this mix, we must factor closing Valley Oak as a K-6 campus, with the subsequent relocation of GATE classes and redrawing of District boundaries that requires, as well as consideration of the petition for a Valley Oak Charter School. All this, as we welcome a new Superintendent.

It is imperative that new Board members get up to speed quickly. As a fully engaged parent volunteer with ten years of service in Davis schools, I have the relevant experience. As a candidate, I have increased my knowledge through dialogue with administrators, teachers, classified staff, students, parents, and community leaders. I have considered how we meet the challenges ahead together.

I have a vision for this District that includes sound financial management and student-centered decision making. I have demonstrated my willingness to devote the time and focus it takes to do this job well.

I offer these qualities in service to the community.
Bob Schelen
I bring to the School Board the following:
  • Budget Experience for tough times
  • A pro-active K-12 mental health program.
  • Closing the Ethnic Achievement Gap
I have hands-on budget experience at City, County and State levels, including education budgets for the State of California. We face daunting financial times, that’s why I’d like to see the district use zero-based budgeting (yearly justification for programs).

There is state funding for a pro-active K-12 mental health program that has mental health oversight, while keeping local control. The program should reach students at all levels including over-achievers, at risk individuals, special education students, and kids who are caught in the middle. If kids have less stress in school, they stay in school, learn more, and can get better jobs.

I’d like to see Davis take a national lead in reducing the Ethnic Achievement Gap. Overall, Asian and Caucasian students grade-out better than African-American and Latino students. We should bring the success of our GATE and Spanish Immersion programs to our “forgotten students.” We need to immediately implement the Achievement Gap Task Force Recommendations. We need to hire more diverse faculty and staff, and give parity to Career Technical Education.

In that light, I fully and enthusiastically support the Valley Oak Charter.

Regarding Planned Parenthood’s questionnaire – voters have a right to know where I stand on issues.
  • Protecting rights starts at the school board.
  • Age –Appropriate comprehensive sex education works.
I hope I’ve earned your vote.
Joe Spector
Of the many forums that I have spoken at during the last few months, the Diversity Forum stands out in my mind. I say this, because I spent more time thinking about the forum afterwards, than before. The forum really pressed us to think about what we, as a city and school district, stand for. I left, reflecting on how far we are from giving all students access to education and opportunity.

I support the expansion of magnet schools, k-12, with emphasis on career/technology. This would give access to ALL students. I recommend a plan of intensive language development instruction, mentoring, and expanded summer school, to help address the achievement gap.

I've worked in education for over 25 years.I've advocated for students and teachers throughout that time, as a teacher and special education/school psychologist. In this campaign, I've pressed to bring ideas about students and teachers into the public forums. I've achieved moderate success on this count (but, take a look at the frequency of the words "students" and "teachers" in the the forums and other public discussions....)

Which, brings me to the issue of the Valley Oak Charter. I have expressed support for the Charter, from the start. As the process has evolved, it has grown from quiet discussions among a small group of teachers and parents, to the biggest campaign issue. Having spoken to dozens of folks about this, I have come to believe that the Valley Oak Charter represents what we stand for in Davis, and who we will stand up for.

My thanks to the Vanguard, to the Valley Oak teachers, parents, and students, and to other Valley Oak Charter supporters, who have guided us on this path............Joe Spector
Richard Harris
With many tough decisions ahead, the Davis School Board needs proven leadership. I’ll bring a parent’s perspective and 30 years of government experience to the challenge. I’d appreciate your vote.

I’m a parent representative on the School Site Council at Pioneer Elementary where our two children attend fifth grade. I’ve written a column for the Davis Enterprise the past two years, speaking my mind about community issues but taking the time to listen too.

We need a school board that’s fiscally responsible and a school district that’s managed professionally. I’ll make those my priorities because I want every child to have the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. Through sound fiscal management, innovation and community partnerships we can achieve great things for our children and our schools.

I’ve also proposed a Green Schools Initiative to save energy, save money and show leadership on climate change. I support Measure Q to fund vital education programs and Measure P to preserve library services.

I’m proud to be endorsed by hundreds of Davis parents, many local leaders and top state educators, Delaine Eastin and Jack O’Connell, the former and present State Superintendents of Public Instruction.

I'm pro-choice and once served on the Board of Directors of the Yolo County Planned Parenthood affiliate.

Thank you for your consideration.
Library and School Parcel Taxes

Measure P


Vanguard Editorial on Measure P from August

Vanguard Interview with Helen Thomson and Mary Stephens

Measure Q


Guest Commentary by School Board Members Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden

Vanguard Interview with Gina Daleiden and Interim Superintendent Richard Whitmore

Stay tuned to the Vanguard for continuing election coverage.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Friday, September 07, 2007

First School Board Debate Draws Sharp Contrasts on Valley Oak and Truancy Policies

The first school board candidates debate of the 2007 Election cycle took place at Davis High School. It was organized by the Davis High Democrats and Students for Freedom. The debate was moderated by a representative from each of the sponsoring clubs. There were about 25 students in attendance, a very good showing for just the second non-full week of classes. Not only was it heavily attended by students, but the questions, for the most part written down on placards were also submitted by students.

So you might think there would be odd-ball questions under this format, but judging from the questions that the moderators asked, the questions were fairly standard and in fact not completely different from those asked by someone like myself.

Frankly there were some issues that all of the candidates brought up on a continual basis. For example, all the candidates want to forge a consensus and work at collaboration. They want to bring all sides together and talk. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but given the fact that all sides want to do it, it does not seem to draw much distinction between the candidates.

The general consensus among several of the candidates was that these were all committed individuals running for the school board who wanted to improve and serve our schools. There seemed to be mutual respect within the group of candidates. Will this feeling of good will continue or will tensions rise at some point, hard to know.

All of the candidates also spoke to the issue of the achievement gap in general and non-specific terms, to the point where one of the follow up questions finally asked what specifically they would do about it. Even here, the answers did not diverge greatly. Joe Spector talked about this as an issue "about helping those who don’t have access to education not about skin or minority status." The key to him was early intervention, broadening access to programs for all students and a mentoring program.



Bob Schelen probably gave the most divergent answer using some of the studies to argue that the achievement gap is not about economics but rather it is about race. He said no one knows just why this is the case but his goal is to follow through on the achievement gap task force's recommendations particularly in looking to hire people of color and from diverse ethnicities. And if they find that people of color do not want to come to Davis and teach, then it is the board's responsibility to change that.

Susan Lovenburg argued that the achievement gap exists before students even start school, therefore early intervention is a key. She mentioned the need to continue community discussions now to empower teachers and administrators to work together collaboratively to find out what is working well and what isn't working well.

Finally, Richard Harris talked about the unconscious bias training and also the Japanese Lesson Study training. He liked the Japanese model because he felt it got teachers out of teaching in "silos" and into the community. The idea here is to bring in parents and having them watch the teachers teach. (Here's probably a better explanation of Japanese Lesson Study than I can provide).

The two strongest areas of disagreement occurred during discussions of the closing of Valley Oak and the relationship between the High School and Davis Police, particularly the new practice of truancy sweeps that is about to become the biggest issue in this entire community.

On Valley Oak, if that is your main issue, there is a clear choice. If you believe that Valley Oak needed to be closed Susan Lovenburg and Richard Harris believe as you do. If you were opposed to the closing, the Bob Schelen and Joe Spector are on your side.

Susan Lovenburg spoke about the process of the Best Uses of School Task Force and how she went from supporting the nine campus option to supporting the closure of Valley Oak. According to her it was not for financial reasons but rather because it was the “educationally best decision for those students at valley oak.” Leaving Valley Oak open would have created a school that was over 50 percent title one and she did not think this was the way to support the students remaining at Valley Oak.

For Richard Harris, it "really came down to money." He supports the decision based on declining enrollment. He said "it's done, that's the decision and we're moving forward."

Joe Spector on the other hand, “feels really lousy about it.” He said he had worked in and around Valley Oak for a number of years, felt it was extremely effective school. He used numbers on the chalk board to suggest that declining enrollment is a more tenuous assumption by demonstrating the increase in students in 06-07 compared to 05-06. He also strongly supports the charter and believes it is a way that the district can bring in students.

Bob Schelen pointedly called “closing of valley oak a mistake.” He said it is the only majority-minority school in our district. He said, this “sends the wrong message to close only school with majority-minority school in district.” He disagreed with Susan Lovenburg that having a majority title one school was a bad thing. He believes this is the only school in the core area and therefore with talk about infill development, this could actually be an area of growth. With the school closed he believes a Charter School is a great opportunity to keep Valley Oak open and he is looking at alternative types of programs to be housed there as a result.

The other major issue of concern for the students that brought about sharp differences is the newly emerging issue of the increased use of police presence to insure that kids are attending school. The students believed that they are being pulled over if it looks like they are out of class even if they have a legitimate reason to be out of class. There was much discussion about this last night at the school board meeting and this will be a major story that we will be covering heavily in the next several days.

In the meantime, the school board candidates spoke on the issue. Richard Harris admitted that he did not know a lot about it but said that the law is the law and he did not think that police were doing this as a punitive matter. He also suggested that he is in favor of a lot of responsiblity until you prove you cannot handle it.

Joe Spector has talked recently with the police chief and assistant police chief about it in trying to understand their perspective on this issue. He said that the School Resource Officer (who some of the students spoke very highly of) was here not for enforcement but for support and he would rather someone like the School Resource Officer than a uniformed officer play a large part in this.

According to Bob Schelen there needs to be good relationships between the school district and the police department. He thinks there are better uses of human resources officer than have truancy sweep. ADA is reason for truancy sweep as way to get money for ADA program. But a truancy sweep can harm relationship between student and police department and make it a combative relationship (something echoes by the student representative on the board last night). Truancy sweep breaks down trust and relations. Apprehensive about truancy sweeps and city police presence on campus.

Finally Susan Lovenburg said this is a new topic for our community. And pointed out this would be discussed at the board meeting last night. This part of planning for declining enrollment, dollar to support educational programs and close achievement gap. She pointed out that there was nearly $500,000 lost to missed classes at the high school alone last year. That said, what was demonstrated last night at the high school PTA meeting, only school administrators would have access to the new information provided in the truancy sweeps. Parent concerns expressed was that this was too punitive. Need to have that discussion about this policy if this is what we want to do. Said "there is a lot of rumor about this, let’s see what happens."

Two other questions that I will briefly mention here, there was a question about support for a confidential teen clinic on class. Bob Schelen was the only one really supportive of this. Both Joe Spector and Susan Lovenburg suggested this was outside of the mandate of schools. Richard Harris said he was in favor of information but not services on the campus and felt there were plenty of off-campus resources.

Then Richard Harris was pointedly asked whether he would run for higher office and how he would fund his green school plan which he again laid out in some detail. Mr. Harris told people that he is not planning to run for higher office and was forceful about it. He felt there were a number of ways to fund the green school plan which he ultimately thinks will save a large amount of money. Specifically he suggested capital facility money to purchase solar panels that will eventually save the district money.

Joe Spector said he had no plans to run for other officer. Bob Schelen said it would be disingenous to say, if the opportunity presented itself, that he wouldn't consider running for other offices. He did not plan to at this time. That said, you never know what is going to happen. He never knew he would run for school board either. Susan Lovenburg said six months ago she had no plans to run for school board. However, as she got involved in volunteer activities she developed a passion. Things change and she wanted people on the school board who reflected her values. She said she has no plans to do more than that, but also that she had not had plans to do this.

Overall a good debate and good questions from the students who were very attentive. As I suggest, the truancy issue is going to be a huge one coming in the next few days. In fairness, no one knew a lot about this issue even at the current school board level, however it is informative to see the initial reactions of the candidates involved.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting