Patch Letter: Board President Punches Back

For the last two years the district administration and the school board have stood by and taken one sucker punch after another in the local newspapers, on one ex-board member’s blog and now, in election campaign literature. It’s time to start punching back.

In a recent column, this former school board member accused our board of not following his strong recommendation to obtain competitive survey bids. The board explained at the time of his statement that only three years earlier they had gone through an extensive interview process of the top five parcel tax consulting companies and chose a firm based upon the consultant’s experience, knowledge and track record. The board then negotiated a cost just above the lowest bidder because the board did not consider the lowest bidder as well qualified. Based upon:

1.) that recent competitive process

2.) the fact that a parcel tax was passed with this consultant's assistance, in his first attempt after four prior failures

3.) that this consultant is very knowledgeable as to the characteristics and issues unique to La Canada and that

4.) they agreed to the same low contract price from three years ago, the board felt it unnecessary to spend the time and staff resources necessary to go through that process again. Of course that wasn’t reported in his column.

He accused the board of not sharing a draft of the parcel tax survey although it was presented at a public meeting. First, no community-wide survey has ever been presented at a public meeting. Secondly, what he doesn’t report, is that the board president had started the discussion regarding the contract with a request that board members keep their comments to the contract only, which was the actual agenda item, and not discuss the survey itself, explaining that the survey development company had cautioned that revealing the details of the survey prior to actually conducting it could, and probably would, skew or taint the results making them unreliable.

He accused the board of giving away thousands of district dollars by making the consultant contract retroactive to July 12th. He doesn’t report, however, that the consultant and survey company had been working in good faith, with no contract, since that date, based upon the board’s 5-0 decision to contract with them and trusting that the district was simply working out the details of the contract. Does this former board member believe the district should have taken the position that it wasn’t going to stand by its agreement and simply refuse to pay the consultants for the work they had already done?

He stated that out-of-district students have risen to 15% and there is no cap on this number. As this former board member knows, and as has always been the case, based upon information and recommendations from staff, the school board makes the decision annually as to what the maximum percentage of out-of-district students will be. Not coincidentally, the current cap, as established by the board, is 15%. Without the out-of-district students, LCUSD’s financial situation would be much more dire than is currently projected and, ultimately, the richness and diversity of the programs in our schools, which help our students get into and be successful at the highest level of post secondary schools, would have to be cut significantly, thereby hurting all of our students and undermining our property values.

 This former board member makes many broad stroke criticisms and accusations, about the board consideration of an extension or increase to the parcel tax, the majority of which are based upon his personal opinion and not fact. His claim that the district should have already done something with the old district office property, when he knows that the district’s consideration to sell the property four years ago resulted in an outcry from the community, is just one more example of his half truths to justify his personal opinion regarding parcel taxes. A survey would do nothing but measure the community’s support of one possible funding source. The governing board would be financially remiss in not pursuing every avenue possible to maintain the quality of the educational program our students currently enjoy.

Lastly, if he had bothered to ask, he would know that 1)our employees agreed last year to pay a greater percentage of their employee benefits, 2)the district is currently pursuing possible lease income arrangements for the old district office, 3)President Obama’s job proposal is just that, a proposal, and 4)the district does not control what is or is not said at the PTA, LCFEF or civic meetings regarding parcel taxes or any other subject.

I would also like to point out that despite mass e-mailing, blogs, phone calls and letters to the editor, that less than 70 out of approximately 2500 school families responded to his one sided non-scientific survey regarding the teacher collaboration days.  Yet, based upon these results, he and his followers represented that 95% of La Canada residents were against the board’s decision to add those days to the school calendar. Such misrepresentation is underhanded and this great community deserves to know the truth.

It is time for this former board member to stop twisting the facts and presenting a one-sided negative view of the district and its educational program, the second highest ranked K-12 school district in California.

Susan Boyd, President

La Cañada Unified School District