Posted by Marie, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, 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 the Bridle Creek neighborhood, 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 js, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood 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 sj, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood 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 Steven, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, 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 sj, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood 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.