News


School board-City Council joint meeting canceled

The meeting of the Pleasanton City Council and Pleasanton school board scheduled for last night was canceled just 3-1/2 hours before the public meeting was to start.

Although the notice of the City Council meeting and agenda was posted to the public in time for the meeting, it was not also posted by the school district as required by law. Realizing that at 3:30 p.m.Monday, school Supt Parvin Ahmadi canceled the meeting and said it would be re-scheduled for a later date.

Roseanne Pryor, administrative assistant to the superintendent, said there was a change in the law at the beginning of the year (AB 1344,

effective Jan. 1, 2012) which requires a legislative body of a local agency to post on its website notices of regular and special meetings.

"While the agenda notice was posted in hard copy at the district office, it was not posted to the PUSD (school district) website," Pryor explained. "In light of this, the meeting has been canceled and will be rescheduled for a future date."

Pleasanton Weekly staff.

Comments

Posted by P-town Parent, a resident of Del Prado
on Apr 24, 2012 at 11:25 am

Will this be a public meeting for anyone to attend?


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 pm

Once the meeting is rescheduled, unless there are agenda items requiring a closed session, the meeting would be open to the public.


Posted by Nomad, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 24, 2012 at 3:54 pm

There is no reason to mention a 'new law' at the beginning of this year. PUSD has for years been posting meeting notices to its website.
A simple "I made a mistake." is not only accurate, but honest. And the whole story, which has been lacking these last few years.


Posted by Marie, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 24, 2012 at 4:46 pm

Totally agree with you Nomad. In fact, the district has posted the joint meeting agendas for prior years on their website for as long as I can remember. The problem was not a new law, it was a mistake by the district. I would suspect that legal counsel gave them this wording (so as to not look stupid) and advised them to cancel so they wouldn't violate the Brown Act. I bet the Board members and the City council were more than a little perturbed with the superintendent and staff.


Posted by Not Surprised, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Apr 24, 2012 at 6:44 pm

When you live in a union infiltrated town like this has become, where unions in quid pro quo get city council and school board elected, why should we be surprised at the astonishing ineptitude of those who messed up in such a nefarious way. The real question is whether Pleasanton and its citizens will ever be able to dig themselves out of the monstrous hole this scandalous affair has brought about. Where is the shame? Where is the outrage?


Posted by Mittens, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 24, 2012 at 7:22 pm

Not surprised....where's your brain? Not being used for clever sarcasm, no doubt.


Posted by js, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2012 at 10:16 am

Not surprised in this. Just more incompetence at the district. Their mistake probably cost a lot of time for many people, especially the city which, contrary to the district, is a professional entity that takes their reports and information seriously. This meeting was already the result of a previous reschedule by the district because the district was not ready for the original meeting.


Posted by Couldn't agree more, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2012 at 10:40 am

Having dealt with the city and the school district many times, I can say that definitely comparisons are:

City: responsive to phone calls, customer-service oriented, provides timely responses to emails, friendly, professional, follows up to what was said in meetings with follow-up communications

School District: incompetent, disrespectful, chaotic, unanswered inquiries go into a 'black hole,' left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, says one thing then does something else


Posted by sj, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm

You are right. Trying to get information from the school district is an exercise in futility. It is impossible to get information from them. The stonewall or do not give you the information at all. I am not sure if it is pure incompetence at the district or if they just disrespect the public and feel the public should not have the information. The city has the right attitude and customer support focus. The city acts like they are a service to the public, which they are. The district acts as though we are just an unavoidable nuisance. The district did not always have this issue. They used to be good with information. It is a prob


Posted by sj, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm

Sorry but the last posting got cut off at my end. Last sentence should be:

It is a problem that has started in the last couple of years.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Apr 26, 2012 at 5:43 pm

More than a couple by my count--probably majority of the years of the previous governance team.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Apr 26, 2012 at 5:45 pm

I should add, I always start my requests with the law covering public information requests. To date, staff responds, and often very quickly.


Posted by Steven, a resident of Stoneridge
on Apr 26, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Is it shear incompetance, they just don't care, or is it that they're all communist union loons who are trying to bring this country down to hell in a handbasket? We never had this kind of difficulty back in Nebrasky.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Apr 26, 2012 at 9:43 pm

This is not a union issue. Not everything is a union issue.


Posted by sj, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2012 at 9:48 pm

Kathleen, you have obviously had more luck than me recently. Asking for information under the public information request law has not worked for me. Compare this with the city where most information is online and searchable and if you cannot find it, you can email the city and they respond immediately with the information, and you don't even have to cite the law for public information requests. They answer questions because it is the right thing for a governmental agency to do, not because it is the law.

And the other thing, when you ask the city, they provide the information typically in electronic form if requested so there is no copying charge. In fact, they regularly will make copies of things if requested without charge. The district refuses to supply information in electronic form and they always charge because they make the copies of the info first, usually the wrong info, and make you pay for it before you even have a chance to review it.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

A Norman Rockwell Town
By Roz Rogoff | 7 comments | 1,404 views

David Brooks at his Best and Worst
By Tom Cushing | 11 comments | 941 views

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 32 comments | 847 views