News

Editorial: PUSD must shine a little light, start rebuilding trust

Residents deserve to know more about why superintendent Rubino was fired

Transparency in government is celebrated across the country each March with "Sunshine Week," which emphasizes the importance of open government and touts the laws and ordinances that give the public access.

Ironically, Sunshine Week 2017 ended in Pleasanton last Friday with the school district seemingly doing its utmost to keep the public in the dark about the sudden and unexplained Jan. 6 firing of Rick Rubino, its superintendent of just over six months.

The California Public Records Request Act (CPRA) is a tool to access information from government agencies, and the act includes exemptions to ensure the individual right to privacy. How much and what is exempt is subjective in some cases, as it depends upon whether an individual's privacy outweighs the public's right to know.

But then there's use of the exemptions to withhold information, which we feel is the case with our January request for records in the Rubino termination.

We asked for correspondence related to the investigation and termination of Rubino, any complaints against Rubino or the district between Sept. 1, 2016, and Jan. 9, 2017, and an "exemption log," which is a list of responsive documents that weren't produced and the exemptions asserted.

Agencies are required by law to respond to a CPRA request in 10 business days; however, a response is not production of documents. In this case, the district's first response was that they needed more time. This was expected because there is a legal responsibility to notify Rubino of the release of these documents, and time must be allowed for him to file a court action to prevent the release.

After almost three months, and at 5 p.m. on a Friday, we received 20 pages of records from the district: a copy of Rubino's employment contract (which is accessible to anyone on the district website), a copy of the notice of termination (of which we already had most details) and four partially redacted emails (which are so vague that it's not clear if or how they are related).

None of the documents gave any indication of an act so egregious that it should lead to the termination of the district's leader.

The government codes and case law cited as reasons for why the district did not release other documents to us looked impressive in the response letter, but they don't hold water. For example, attorney-client privilege may be a reason to exempt documents that provide legal advice to the district, but that privilege does not cast a blanket over all documents in the possession of the district or its legal counsel.

We don't know how many documents were withheld. The district denied our request for an exemption log, citing a 2001 Superior Court decision that concluded public agencies are not required to provide such lists because, "to require each public agency to catalog the responsive documents for each of the requests it receives ... would be burdensome and of scant public benefit."

Keeping this information from the public is not a matter of protecting Rubino's privacy or out of fear of litigation. Rubino did not try to stop the production of documents and actually submitted a statement to us.

To add insult to injury (the injury being a near-three-month wait for very little in the way of an explanation), when we asked school board president Joan Laursen for a comment about the documents and Rubino's firing, she gave us the standard response -- it's a personnel matter so we can't discuss it.

About why the school board, as it stated in January, fired a new superintendent "without cause but not without concern"? We respectfully disagree.

Pleasanton's school district is one of the best in the state in regard to student achievement, which means that there are quality teachers, administrators and staff, involved parents and engaged children. The taxpayers showed their support by approving a $270 million facilities bond measure in November.

We are all stakeholders and everyone benefits from continuing to have an excellent school district. To do that we must trust that the board and district staff are doing what is best for all the stakeholders, and trust begins with transparency.

Our staff will continue to ask why Rubino was fired. However, the bigger question is why the district continues to keep everyone in the dark.

Comments

6 people like this
Posted by Parent
a resident of Country Fair
on Mar 24, 2017 at 9:32 am

This is history now. Let "one of the best school districts in the state in regard to student achievement" do what it does best, trust their judgment, and move on. Or, why don't you spend time looking into the series of accusations against PUSD management and staff by underperformers within the district; accusations used as a tool to protect underperformers from accountability. Maybe there would be less management turnover. Your reporting begins to look like a vendetta or muckraking when you constantly rail against the district as a way to gain readers.


24 people like this
Posted by spudly
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on Mar 24, 2017 at 9:34 am

Great summary. I hope the new person hired does not have to worry about how they "look" at their employees. The facilities bond is needed but other fund requests may fall on deaf ears if the unfunded and un-sustainable long term liabilities are not addressed. I cannot figure out why that is not news or a top priority?!


54 people like this
Posted by res2
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 24, 2017 at 10:25 am

res2 is a registered user.

One of the best articles in the Weekly and I hope they continue on this.

As for someone saying to "move on" as it is not affecting us, that is not true. The government/district works for us, not the other way around. We are paying for the agency and the board did a secret deal, giving away our tax money to an individual without reason. If the superintendent authorizes the release of information, it is not longer a privacy issue. Unless the privacy issue is the protecting of the board or others in inappropriate behavior/spending.

Staff/works for the Board and the Board works for the people. This is OUR district and not THEIR district. The seems to be collusion in the board right now on this issue. Don't know if they all are in the same opinion or if there is one or ore board members who disagree with what is going on but have been advised/threatened to have a single voice. This is no longer a privacy issue as the person affected has said it is not. Therefore, if a single board member feels what is going on is incorrect, they should make this public. They have the duty to do so. The only ones that can fire a board member are the voters of our area. Staff and other board members cannot do that.

The district keeps saying they do not have enough money and have asked multiple times for parcel taxes (which lost twice) and a bond (which did pass). However, they just spent this money without even a public hearing on "why". It is not just the one year salary but the recruiter for a new superintendent, staff time for the transition, and most likely medical benefits for some time.. Don't come back to us asking for more money for the schools as it seems you have plenty of money to do what you want, if you want to.

I though trust of the district as at an all-time low a few years ago but I was wrong. Trust is worse right now. The board must rectify this situation immediately.


34 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton parent and taxpayer
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 24, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Kudos to the PW for an excellent editorial on this matter.

Yes, indeed, as you state, residents deserve to know more about why superintendent Rubino was fired.

Yes, indeed, please continue to ask why Rubino was fired.

I posted this on Town Square separately (see 'Transparency and the Pleasanton Unified School District' post), but feel it's also appropriate to post here/in this string:

The continuing desire by many of us in Pleasanton for the Pleasanton Unified School District to be transparent continues to fall on deaf ears with the school board.

There is an inherent right for the public to know what’s going on within all taxpayer-supported agencies and municipal organizations that serve them.

In order to be transparent, this necessitates that PUSD provide as much information as possible, on a regular basis, to the public, and preferably proactively, i.e., without waiting first for the public to ask for it, demand it, or have the media like the Pleasanton Weekly and others feel compelled to file legal requests with the courts to get it for the public.

Whenever instances of not being able to disclose certain information arise, the specific information/details that can and cannot legally be disclosed should first be determined, and then the information that can be disclosed must be clearly and expeditiously communicated to the public to demonstrate transparency, and to avoid creating confusion, anger, misunderstandings, guessing, and accusations of impropriety/deliberate withholding of information.

Transparency demands that, in this case, PUSD should have shared/provided, and should be compelled to share/provide as much information to the public they could/can—with the key being to do so as quickly and as frequently as possible, without being prompted or ordered to do so beforehand or afterwards.

That’s transparency. Transparency can be achieved by establishing a clear, proactive communications policy within an organization such as PUSD, so that whatever the circumstances may be/whatever may happen, good or bad, there is always an ability to communicate as much information and details as possible, in a timely manner, to the public.

By contrast, any policy, especially within any public organization/entity such as PUSD, that refrains from communicating information unless and until forced to do so, demonstrates an utter and complete lack of transparency.

To the PUSD school board: You serve us, not the teachers, local teachers' union, the CTA, or the administration of PUSD.

Sadly, as evidenced by the latest information provided by the Pleasanton Weekly and other media outlets, when it comes to transparency, the Pleasanton Unified School District gets an 'F'.


39 people like this
Posted by LydiksenParent
a resident of Lydiksen Elementary School
on Mar 24, 2017 at 1:25 pm

So tired of how this district is run! The board needs to go and District Management needs to go.

Pleasanton schools and student achievement is so high because of all the MONEY parents spend on outside TUTORING!!!!! If your child isn't getting a subject, money is thrown at a tutor to help the problem.

Due to the lack of fiscal responsibility and lack of "parent/school partnership", not one more dime of my family's hard earned money is going to this district.

We have always participated in the PPIE run...NOT ANYMORE!


14 people like this
Posted by FrequentWalkerMiles
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 24, 2017 at 2:20 pm

"This is history now. Let "one of the best school districts in the state in regard to student achievement" do what it does best, trust their judgment, and move on. Or, why don't you spend time looking into the series of accusations against PUSD management and staff by underperformers within the district; accusations used as a tool to protect underperformers from accountability. Maybe there would be less management turnover. Your reporting begins to look like a vendetta or muckraking when you constantly rail against the district as a way to gain readers."

So in short, "look, a squirrel!"

Is that you, Ms Ochoa?


28 people like this
Posted by Legal mess
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 24, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Well, the Superintendent (Asst) of HR is resigning on Tuesday. Also the Title IX coordinator resigned a couple of weeks ago.

Having apparently been subjected to one of the Vranesh-like union's 'harassment' ouster attempts himself, some parents suspect the superintendent wanted to put a complete stop to the continued legal persecution of ex-principal Jon Vranesh and reach a settlement.

The board, not wanting to lose face with the union, then pushed Rubino out.

Also, the board apparently hid or not aware Ochoa had been removed/terminated from her previous district and paid nearly $300,000 as well and that she is currently suing for wrongful termination. And they did not ever expect the history with Ochoa, now interim superintendent, would be known to Pleasanton residents. The reason is that they probably don't think any of the 70,000 residents read the East Bay Times or Merc. Ochoa has a well-publicized payroll and IRS mess in her past.

Also, this time they had no idea the silly email containing an innocuous comment like 'oh, you can't be that old' they used as the 'excuse' trigger to hold a closed session to remove Rubino would ever be released.

They probably never though the Pleasanton Weekly and East Bay Times would ask for the records.

But they did. Thank goodness.

So now Rubino, like Ochoa is suing her prior District, and Vranesh is suing PUSD, will probably sue PUSD for wrongful termination and defamation.

And I'll bet the legal expenses for Kingsley Bogard LLP and Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost which have exceeded their budget limits on Tuesday's agenda by year end will soar into the millions.

In the meanwhile, parents will remove their children and place them in other area public and private schools or simply home school them. Who wants their children in the middle of such a dysfunctional mess? No one.


11 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 24, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Can we please take a step back for a moment?

Before I get to the rest, I agree the board is getting very bad advice about how to handle this situation. The best thing they could do is get a second opinion or at least revisit what can be said now that Rubino is talking.

The Assistant Superintendent of HR, Dianne Howell, came out of retirement to take the job and never intended to stay. Her resignation is a formality. Her contract runs through July, I believe, which gives the new Superintendent time to find a replacement, or at least have a say in who gets the job.

Has anyone taken the time to meet Ms. Ochoa? Have you looked at her work? She is a breath of fresh air to that position.

Did I miss some link to Rubino suing? His contract and the law says he will get 12 months for being let go without cause. I don't see where he has a case, and he acknowledged the board was within their right on without cause termination.

We have great schools because we have (a) great students, (b) supportive families, and (c) a majority of dedicated staff members -- and exactly in that order. If we begin with each site: students show up; teachers want to teach; principals and classified staff keep the educational environment running--even district staff has its purpose.

There are weekly non-confidential memos that should be posted online (promised to happen soon, to be fair). We should be reading them. These memos are telling the story of what staff will be presenting the board for action long before they vote (think split reading and calendars).

Do we have board members who need to be more responsive to taxpayers (exempting Mr. Maher)? Yup. Are there a couple of them who could be more responsive to the community, who need to act on our behalf, and who we should compel to increase their expectations of staff? Darn tootin'. That only happens when we show up--and it doesn't have to be at meetings, send emails. They count as input, and it certainly appears the board needs to hear from us.


30 people like this
Posted by Legal Mess
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 24, 2017 at 6:10 pm

The Pleasanton Weekly's editorial clearly states that much information was withheld by PUSD in the long delayed PRA release of records. I'm assuming that Ochoa had quite a hand in limiting what was released to the press. She should have provided the Weekly the privilege log they requested, but she failed to do so.

Ochoa is suing the District who previously employed her and fired her without cause and giving her a very large payoff Web Link I suggest that you use any search engine to find out absenteeism issues including chronic 'away from the office' issues at her prior employment. Issues include: 1) error-filled paychecks which cost taxpayers over $1 million to fix and 2) submitting IRS payroll taxes late, which triggered millions of dollars in penalties and blaming someone else. She claims in her lawsuit that contracts were initiated under her watch that were improper, but the Mercury News states that these contracts were mainly to clean up and investigate the mess on the payroll fiasco and contracts for someone who eventually replaced her. The sentence reads: "Most of the consultants that the lawsuit singles out for criticism were investigators sorting out and repairing the disarray in the payroll department."

Ochoa previously did not release her own calendar. Please read the following: "In 2014, when this newspaper submitted a Public Records Act request for Ochoa’s calendar — when she was out of the office as much as twice a week while working toward a graduate degree — she and legal adviser Maribel Medina refused to produce the document, arguing that releasing the calendar would undermine the office’s ability to perform its functions."

Ochoa appears to operate as if district's are secret clubs. Her calendar should have been released in her previous District. And all of the Weekly's requested records should have been released as well in a timely manner including the privilege log.

This is hardly a breath of fresh air, unless you count fresh air as air that you can't see through because it is so polluted in the middle of the night with no sun shining.


17 people like this
Posted by curious
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 24, 2017 at 6:48 pm

If I'm reading the agenda for the school board meeting Tuesday evening correctly, the legal budget is being recommended to increase a net of $110,000. From where is that money coming from? I would really like to see the board of trustees discuss a strategy of trying to lower the legal bills both by addressing why all the threat of litigation as well as evaluating if it be more cost effective to have attorneys on staff. With increases in STRS & PERS pension costs mandated by the state, every penny possible should be saved to put into the classroom.


Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 24, 2017 at 9:25 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Legal, I'm looking at the person I talk to across the table. I've seen all the articles; there is a lawsuit. I don't have every side of the issue and the lawsuit, to my knowledge, is not resolved. Also, "much of the information" is speculation and undefined. Yes, the district should provide a log. I sincerely doubt Ms. Ochoa is making those decisions; it is probably the law firm guiding this, and maybe the board based on legal advice. I do not like or trust Kingsley if that is where the district is getting their guidance.


9 people like this
Posted by Legal mess
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 24, 2017 at 9:51 pm

First, there is Ochoa's record and attendance record. State law says calendars are public records. Withholding a calendar from the past from the press in know way compromises an office's ability to function. It is laughable that they would use that as an excuse to refuse to release a calendar which would have clearly shown Ochoa's absenteeism. After all, how exactly would releasing a calendar from several months ago compromise anyone's ability to function? Are they meeting with people they have no business meeting with? A finance organization is not exactly related to national security, and I doubt the calendar is chocked full of meetings with the Navy Seals, national security advisers, CIA operative planning some sort of invasion like the next Bay of Pigs. So they used the excuse that it would compromise an office's ability to function as simply an excuse.

The Board works for the public, the Interim Superintendent works for the Board, and the law firms work for the Interim Superintendent. The law firms are not supposed to be in charge, are they?

And didn't the incumbents and Maher run on the platform of open accountability, transparency and communication?

Instead of pushing back on its lawyers and releasing the required public records with the exemption/privilege log as requested by the press, the Interim Superintendent and the Board has allowed the district's law firms to lead the district into another black hole, all in secret. Again.

What are they hiding from the press this time that would make all of them look sooooooooo bad? One can only imagine.


14 people like this
Posted by Alisha
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 24, 2017 at 9:52 pm

I am a former PUSD parent of 16 years as well as a current part time Classroom Aide in a Pleasanton elementary school. I was never a PTA member and never attended or paid attention to the School Board. Instead, I volunteered in my girl's classrooms and worked as a yard duty on the playground for 5 years. It has been my experience that PUSD has MANY, MANY EXCELLENT, DEDICATED teachers. My girls both went on to very good private colleges and we never used outside tutoring services. I think parents in this town are losing sight of the fact that we have TOP NOTCH schools because we have TOP NOTCH teachers. Of course there are some that may be less than perfect but it is unfair to judge the majority by a tiny minority. Afterall, teachers are human, not robits. Just wanted to give an educated opinion from someone who does not benefit from the union.


Like this comment
Posted by Alisha
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 24, 2017 at 9:56 pm

*robots


6 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 25, 2017 at 9:24 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Legal, let's say we got a calendar--any salaried person's calendar--it is going to show appointments, phone numbers, notes possibly, and so forth. Do the blank spaces mean the person was doing nothing or not there? No. Will the hours before or after "business hours" show the person was there. No. Will it show the person was there all day Saturday or Sunday. No. At board meetings until 11:00 p.m. and beyond? No. Ms. Ochoa met with one community member, not me, for three hours, on a Sunday. Get beyond what you read and talk to the person face to face.

The lawyers work for the board, not the interim, not the superintendent.

Yes, the board should push back on their advisers or talk to another firm. I recommend poking around on the Kingsley Bogard site. They have been the district's law firm on personnel matters for probably more than 30 years. Time for a change?

"Imagine" -- that's the problem in a nutshell, isn't it? Without credible information, we are left with only what we can imagine. There are about 413 million (total budget and bond) reasons we should expect more.


13 people like this
Posted by PUSD recycles controversies to remove administrators (again)
a resident of Danbury Park
on Mar 25, 2017 at 9:29 am

When I read the words "disrespectful stare" in the absurd email the Board received 5 hours before their announcement of a closed session that they used as an excuse to terminate Rubino, immediately I noticed this sounded exactly like almost the exact copy of some of the "disrespectful stare" circumstances regarding a Palo Alto principal removed from Web Link when Mary Frances Callan was superintendent in Palo Alto. Also, Rubino's surname indicates he is Italian and this of course sounds very similar to the Joe di Salvo 'staring' controversy in PAUSD, who also has an Italian surname.

I believe Rubino will definitely sue for wrongful termination, and PUSD once again will be tied up in litigation for the next decade.

After the Neal school lawsuits ended, I'm feeling that the men-bashing PUSD board just gets joy from flushing taxpayer money down the toilet in legal expenditures with misstep after misstep in its sick and twisted way it pushes staff out the door for no reason.

An email that certainly seems orchestrated, with reference to something regarding "our conversations" complaining about a perceived look/gaze as well as a compliment that Mr. Rubino made to someone about looking youthful contains no reasonable grounds to jettison Rubino from the District. The judge and jury will certainly not be amused when this goes to court.

Alas, do the union and board of education PUSD tactics to remove superintendents and administrators ever vary from events they seem to "borrow heavily" from something that is covered in the Palo Alto Weekly (Phil Winston, JLS Middle School principal Joe di Salvo, this list goes on and on, etc.), the Almanac, or the Mountain View Voice?

I think not.


19 people like this
Posted by Jtjh
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Mar 25, 2017 at 10:03 am

"Yes, the board should push back on their advisers or talk to another firm. I recommend poking around on the Kingsley Bogard site. They have been the district's law firm on personnel matters for probably more than 30 years. Time for a change?"

Definitely.

I was astonished that the district didn't fire Kingsley Bogard LLC as soon as its incompetent handling of the Vranesh investigation came to light.

A former Board member works for them (or was representing them as late as 2016, at least). Perhaps it is some sense of loyalty that has caused the district to continue to work with Kingsley Bogard LLC? But at this point, I think that other considerations are of far greater importance.


10 people like this
Posted by Libs
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 25, 2017 at 10:10 am

You can't possibly think the board will be honest. Every member is a liberal democrat and that is in conflict with honestly. There should be notes available for review of closed door meetings. Everything is subject to legal discovery.


13 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Mar 25, 2017 at 10:45 am

@Libs :"Every member is a liberal democrat and that is in conflict with honestly."

You guys vote for Trump and you think that it's "liberals" who have a problem with honesty. Cute and clueless.


6 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Mar 25, 2017 at 10:58 am

"Our staff will continue to ask why Rubino was fired. However, the bigger question is why the district continues to keep everyone in the dark."

Possibly to cover up any evidence of incompetence in the hiring of Rubino in the first place? Behavioral problems leading to sexual harassment don't just pop up suddenly. There should have been a trail of evidence that Rubino had problems in his previous position, and if he had been throughly vetted these problems would have been discovered before he was offered the PUSD job. People should demand answers about what went wrong with this hiring and how the school board will ensure that the same mistake will not be made next time. Instead, the school board is trying to tell us "Let's move on. Nothing to look at here. Things will be better next time. Trust us."


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 25, 2017 at 10:58 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Recycles, You would likely find similar stories in other districts; there is no Pleasanton/Palo Alto uniqueness. Would we find similar statistics in the corporate world? Would the language of the accused and accuser seem similar?

There is plenty of stupid out there: Web Link Web Link


14 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:02 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Sam, the biggest flaw I saw is that the board was advised NOT to visit Gridley. The best visits are unscripted so those visiting can stop and talk to anyone willing to provide insight. It can be expensive to do these visits, especially if the candidate if from out of state, but it is money well spent. A phone call or an agendized visit cannot make up for a little due diligence.


3 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:27 am

@Kathleen

Well, I wasn't thinking of the whole school board popping up at Rubino's former workplace and carrying out a background investigation. They aren't qualified to do that and besides that would have been as subtle as releasing a herd of elephants. No, I was thinking of something more along the lines of private investigator who would conduct a thorough background check and talk to acquaintances of Rubino to find out what kind of person he really is. In fact, I would have thought that such thorough background checks would be offered as a standard service with many executive talent headhunting firms.


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:42 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I haven't seen a contract that doesn't require the final candidate to notify his/her board that they are a finalist--so the cat is out of the bag and the visits are a good idea. I don't know if the prior firm did the kind of checks you suggest. HYA, however, does (trying to recall if it is done by their parent company).


19 people like this
Posted by Legal mess
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 25, 2017 at 7:19 pm

I don't see any reason for Rubino's termination, but I don't understand how in the world Ochoa was ever hired by Pleasanton Unified School District in the first place given her previous employment history.

Kathleen, regardless of Ochoa meeting with you for three hours one Sunday, the facts are:
1- Ochoa, the Chief Business Officer, and the attorney for Santa Clara County Office of Education/SCCOE failed to release her calendar

2- Ochoa was previously terminated from SCCOE in mid-2015 for multiple financial mishaps and several weeks after it was uncovered that an international child pornography ring was operating with one of the senders/recipients being an IP address located and managed at SCCOE

3- SCCOE was responsible for operating the Walden Woods outdoor education camp, but it failed to perform a simple background check to verify an applicant, not a U.S. Citizen, falsified info on his application. He is now serving 18 years in prison after it was discovered by ICE/DHS he was trading child porn at SCCOE and molesting children at the SCCOE operated facility Walden West. (Note: these are the same law enforcement officials PUSD just voted to ban without permission from PUSD campuses) - Please see the info regarding the sentencing that was in all the papers last month Web Link

4-This was all covered in the East Bay Times. See the editorial called "What Went Wrong?" which discusses the failure of SCCOE to have basic, operational checks and balances to protect children. And obviously it failed to monitor what was happening on its email system and computer system, because otherwise SCCOE would have discovered the child porn, not DHS/ICE Web Link

What went wrong in Ochoa's hiring? Did the PUSD board even know about the child molestation of students and child porn ring? Did they care? Apparently if they knew about it, they didn't care which speaks volumes about the PUSD Board's lack of concern for student safety.

But apparently PUSD Board does care about offhand comments about age and perceived location of gazes.

The PUSD Board just looks inept.


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 25, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Micaela did not meet with me for three hours. It was another community member.

No one calls out Ochoa in this case.


11 people like this
Posted by Legal mess
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:01 pm

My reading of the articles apparently differs from yours. Jon Gundry who a short time later terminated Ochoa's contract is quoted in many of the articles. This one is entitled "Did Budget Skimping and Lax Oversight Create Sexual Predator Playground?"

Web Link

Ochoa was the Chief Business Officer. Chief Business Officers are usually in charge of what is known as the Budget. Not only was she in charge of the Budget, but presumably would be in charge of the IT systems that would have monitored the IP addresses of servers to ensure no child porn images were transferred. Furthermore, presumably as Chief Business Officer, she would be in charge to make sure there was a database and records regarding attendees, employees and volunteers. This program and facility had little to no record keeping. Also, someone at SCCOE put a policy in place that cell phones were not allowed and children were forbidden to have visits from parents. Also SCCOE could not explain how the employee/criminal even was actually given permission to live at the facility.

The quote is: "But an investigation by this newspaper found that through budget-skimping, ill-advised practices and lax oversight, bucolic Walden West may have created the perfect playground for a sexual predator."

Apparently according to the lawsuit Ochoa has filed against SCCOE, to me in my opinion she seems to spend an extraordinary amount of her time focusing on taxable/non taxable status of Gundry's moving expenses rather than budgets and processes and oversight to protect children that she was supposed to protect at sites she was supposed to have management authority over, including this unaccredited Walden West facility.


8 people like this
Posted by Legal mess
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:16 pm

Web Link

The article on Ochoa's departure July 3, 2015 clearly states the following in part:

"....The county office of education has been assailed for its response to the arrest of one of its employees at Walden West environmental camp on charges of child molestation and child pornography. It also has been embroiled in a controversy over its payroll practices.

Ochoa oversaw the finance section that issued employees error-filled paychecks and that failed to file timely payroll taxes, incurring millions of dollars in penalties from the IRS. The county office of education got most of the claims knocked down to $6,400 and appealed the largest one, for $174,000. The office blamed the late payments on the Santa Clara County treasurer/controller — even though an investigation found that the education office itself was responsible for the late tax trasmittal....."


5 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 26, 2017 at 8:01 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Again, lawsuit unresolved. Walden West did not indicate what the guy's job was. Was HR involved in hiring? Ed Services usually oversees these programs. A lot going on and Gundry and others remain unscathed. You seem desperate to make this Ochoa's problem. So, which SCCOE employee are you?


2 people like this
Posted by Legal mess
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 26, 2017 at 8:53 am

I don't work for SCCOE and never have. Gundry did not terminate the head of Educational Services did he? He terminated the attorney and Micaela Ochoa.

I read the post above about "disrespectful glare" and Joe Di Salvo. It appears that Mary Frances Callan did not like him, said he was too "macho" or something like that, and used PAUSD's attorneys to remove him. Were you at PAUSD then?

But I also see that when Micaela Ochoa was terminated by Gundry at SCCOE, someone named Joseph DiSalvo was and is listed as a Board member. Is Joseph DiSalvo, writer for the San Jose Mercury News and various blogs, listed here who is a Board member of SCCOE Web Link the same Joe Di Salvo that was principal of JLS Middle School?

When I look at San Jose Inside articles Web Link I see postings from someone like "Ron" that details the fight between Micaela Ochoa and Gundry over his moving expenses over a year *before* Micaela Ochoa published these incidents in her lawsuit. Also, who would possibly know Gundry received $30,000 from the SCCOE Board other that the SCCOE Board or someone in finance at SCCOE? Here is a posting from "Ron" that seems to have been posted around the time Micaela Ochoa's contract was terminated with SCCOE:

RON May 31, 2015 @ 5:44 pm
Gundry retaliates in very ugly ways. Rumor has it that the SCCOE Board of Education Board President gave him $30,000 about a year ago in moving expenses to move from Southern California up north to San Jose – on top of all his other perks. Interesting factoid, he never really ‘moved’. He still enjoys his house down here in LA – next to Pasadena.
People are talking about how he couldn’t justify his bogus ‘$30 grand in moving expenses’ to the business staff to avoid paying taxes. Therefore, he had to pay taxes on it and went zany. I actually believe it because he regularly flipped out down here too. I’d hate to see how he’s retaliating against that staff for not letting him get away with that bogus move to avoid paying taxes.
CHRISTINE MICHAELS Jun 2, 2015 @ 9:40 pm
Listen to Ron — he knows what he’s talking about.

Kathleen, who do you think "Ron" could possibly be? And why does "Ron" seem to have exact information that is in Micaela Ochoa's lawsuit?

Kathleen, do you have a reasonable explanation why the "disrespectful stare" comments at PAUSD seem to show up at PUSD and both concern a board member of SCCOE, assuming Joe Di Salvo and Joseph DiSalvo are one and the same person?


4 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 26, 2017 at 10:21 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Legal, ANY money given to Gundry is public information, so everyone knew. Could be Gundry terminated people he wanted to get rid of to serve his purposes . . . he certainly had someone lined up to take the job immediately . . . but that's a wild a-- guess. I don't know who Ron is; clearly you have a suspicion. But anonymity poses that problem; could be anyone; could actually be someone named Ron. I haven't read Ochoa's lawsuit.

"disrespectful stare" explanation: common language of accusers and accused? Someone read it somewhere else. People think alike? What are you digging for here? If you want me to speculate, I think a thoughtful person wrote of her personal concern. I sincerely doubt she thought it would get Rubino fired. I actually don't believe that IS what got him fired.

I was in PAUSD then and knew Joe/Joseph; and he is the same person on SCCOE Board.


5 people like this
Posted by Legal mess
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 26, 2017 at 10:33 am

Web Link

The lawsuit is in a pdf if you click on the above link. Compare the posting from "Ron" to the details outlined in the lawsuit that was published for the first time a year after the postings by "Ron."

Also I find it ironic that Ochoa is stonewalling the newspapers the East Bay Times and the Pleasanton Weekly in not releasing the exemption/privilege log and releasing only a bare minimum of information from PUSD, yet in the lawsuit claims to be a proponent of the CPRA.

The contract for Rubino had a six-month stipulation that if the Board was unhappy with his performance, they were to provide him a list of corrective actions and a six-month time frame to correct.

Instead, they terminated him for reason(s) he does not even seem to know what they were.


7 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 26, 2017 at 11:41 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

From the contract: "No termination for cause based on unsatisfactory performance shall be pursued unless the Board has issued a less than satisfactory" evaluation in accordance with Paragraph 6, provided an improvement plan, and allowed six (6) months for Superintendent to improve his/her performance to a "satisfactory" rating as determined by the Board."

Rubino didn't receive an unsatisfactory review, so the six months doesn't apply; the board exercised the termination without cause clause. Rubino *absolutely* knows exactly why he was let go.

Within an organization, there is more than one person who has access to the truth. You seem to imply (or I infer you think) Ochoa is Ron. I find that very unlikely.

As to the PRA, Ochoa is not making those decisions. She is being guided by attorneys, likely Kingsley Bogard, and board members. Go meet Ms. Ochoa. Ask her your questions. I, for one, do not understand why you are trying to lay all these conspiracies at her doorstep.

It could I'm wrong about Micaela. I'll admit it if that comes to be. But I have spoken with her, worked on a committee with her, have made my own PRA requests--I just haven't seen what you are hoping to find.


10 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 26, 2017 at 4:14 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Anonymous posters have absolutely no credibility.
It may be that Ms. Ochoa is engaged in litigation because she is innocent.


11 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 26, 2017 at 5:04 pm

I just used Yahoo and found this. According to this Web Link Ochoa refused to cooperate with investigators. According to this article, they are still finding errors. The audit referenced is on-line.

Web Link says retirees were sworn to secrecy to come in to fix the mess.

Isn't government supposed to be transparent? I guess not.


9 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 26, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Anonymous poster; resident:

If you have an issue with Santa Clara County Government transparency.
Why haven't you taken it up with that jurisdiction? You can file a citizens complaint with the Santa Clara County Grand Jury. It is simple, it is free.
The thing is, you have to identify yourself.


29 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton parent and taxpayer
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 26, 2017 at 7:36 pm

I see PUSD has started promoting the annual "Run for Education," to benefit Pleasanton Partners in Education (PPIE).

I think this year, it should be renamed, "Run for Rubino," to benefit paying off the $300,000 we are forking over to him because the school board didn't like him.

As a sidebar, they can hold a 50/50 raffle, with a limit of $20,000, with $10,000 going to pay Ms. Ochoa's $10,000 additional stipend the school board is now proposing to pay her as interim superintendent, which we wouldn't be on the hook for had Rubino been retained.

As a poster earlier in this string declared, I also will not give a dime--not one dime, anymore to PPIE. Any money raised is going to pay off Rubino's severance, Ochoa's stipend, and, most likely, the additonal $110,000 in legal fees the school board is now proposing to pay to the district's lawyers.

As the saying goes, "a fool and his money are soon parted."

Not me. I hope that's transparent enough for PUSD, and PPIE.


18 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 26, 2017 at 9:09 pm

Good post, Pleasanton parent and taxpayer.

The entire miserable disaster in PUSD reminds me of the tragic resignation of one of the best superintendents to ever manage Bay Area schools - - - Arlene Ackerman of the SFUSD. Laursen's negative press release describing Rubino as not collegial enough reminds me of the infighting of the uber politically SFUSD board members that described Ackerman as "autocratic."

I now understand why some superintendents demand "compatibility clauses" in their contracts so they will get hundreds of thousands of dollars in severance. If anyone ever does ever by chance apply to be a superintendent at PUSD, I'm sure they will demand a "compatibility clause" and want a million dollar payout should the Board decide to boot him/her out the door.


21 people like this
Posted by Richard Bridges
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 27, 2017 at 10:25 am

I have been a Pleasanton property owner with public school age kids since 2001. I could not agree more with your 3/24/2017 editorial regarding Rick Rubino. Even before learning more details (about alleged "harrassment" of a female employee) I sensed there was a witchhunt here not unlike the McCarthy hearings in the 1950's.

What have we come to? One employee is "disappointed" and the PUSD hires a law firm to investigate, fires the superintendent, and then all the Pleasanton students have no superintendent for the entire school year! The Board ought to be ashamed of itself. It should also investigate whether employees who are "disappointed" not only over-react but whose reactions result in unlawful or just plain wrong outcomes -- like this one.

It's obvious, as Mr Rubino points that, that the PUSD paying Mr Rubino his whole year salary is proof of his innocence. In fact they probably had to do so very fast, because if they did not he would have grounds to sue the District and City for wrongful termination and for unfairly disparaging his reputation.

I don't know all the details and I don't know Mr Rubino but I know enough now to express solidarity with him, and criticize the Board. There are evidently some awful vindictive overly-judgmental staff people who work for the District that ought to be rooted out, fast. The Board trustees are just as bad. They are cowardly, lack leadership, and every one of them ought to be replaced.


4 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 27, 2017 at 11:02 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Richard, I hardly think the board took a protracted amount of time, spent money, and hired Rubino just so they could fire him. Something happened; we just don't know what it was--and I really don't think the email was the tipping point.

Ultimately, your school site, your teachers and principals and classified staff, are ensuring your students are getting the education you expect. Good people are in place at the district office with the same intention.

Again, Rubino knows why he was let go. He agreed to leave with his pockets full of money. That does not in any way make him innocent. I would not express solidarity with him.

However, taking exception with four board members and their attorneys . . . that is where one should put pressure for the truth.


6 people like this
Posted by PUSD recycles controversies to remove administrators (again)
a resident of Danbury Park
on Mar 27, 2017 at 11:25 am

I'm with Richard Bridges.

Unless you are a mind reader, Kathleen, you cannot say Rubino knows why he was let go. That is as bad of a presumption as knowing where his supposed eye gazes go.

But it doesn't take a pattern to recognize that the Board starting with Parvin Ahmadi has gone back to the Mary Frances Callan-method of using their law firms to get rid of people. Just like Callan used Lozano Smith as her 'investigator,' the Board uses another set of law firms, probably with a lot of former Lozano Smith employees.

Joan Laursen sent out a press / media announcement in Rubino's situation saying he was not collegial enough. That sounds like the Board is criticizing him for being too much a leader. The media announcement was laughable.

Joe Di Salvo was accused of being too much of a "top down" leader and apparently based on Callan's assessment too Italian (she used the words "too macho" supposedly) and apparently installed a sink in his Palo Alto school in some sort of technical classroom using grant money his school was given without doing some group grope to poll the teachers at his school where to spend the grant money (Oh Shock! Oh Horror!). Oh, and he used analogies related to the sport of football. He used a sport that is a male-dominated sport in conversations. Oh yes, he must be a monster.

Sounds like he is the same Joseph DiSalvo that writes for the San Jose Mercury News so he is opinionated, expresses his opinions well in written form, and whether you agree with what he says or not, he thoughtfully articulates his positions well. But PAUSD axed him.

This ridiculous set of reasons drawn up by Callan/Lozano Smith to remove Joe Di Salvo from his position is ludicrous. The underlying reason was Callan and DiSalvo disagreed on whether a teacher should be let go or retain his/her position, at least that is what DiSalvo says.

I would not be surprised if it all boils down to Rubino wanting to get rid of some non-performers. I'm sure the Pleasanton Weekly will keep digging.


Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 27, 2017 at 12:12 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Recycles,

There was a discussion in a closed session; Rubino knows. The press release was short on substance; the language was spin. We absolutely should expect more from the board, more push back on the lawyers, more willingness to speak now that Rubino is making statements. Had he wanted to get rid of a non-performer, the board would have concurred or not. It would not be a fireable offense. Law firms are always involved in personnel actions.

I have no interest in what DiSalvo has to say. This isn't really about Joe anyway; this is an attempt to link Callan and Ahmadi and law firms into a nonsensical conspiracy theory.


5 people like this
Posted by PUSD recycles controversies to remove administrators (again)
a resident of Danbury Park
on Mar 27, 2017 at 12:55 pm

Law firms are interested in 'culture' and 'climate' surveys at schools because of the law firms' nonsensical and extraordinary billing rates to get rid of the people the Board or superintendent don't want around, typically principals (or sometimess D.O. people) and the end result is to make sure the associates and partners of the law firms all get rich.

Di Salvo called the entire set of things that happened to him and the entire PAUSD setting "very sick." Pretty good description.

This type of behavior is what led the principals to form what I think was called PAMA at Palo Alto and demand Callan's resignation as I recall. You might recall this from your days at PAUSD (did you work there, yes?) when all the principals demanded Callan be fired or resign a few months after the DiSalvo situation.

Then the Board talks about "privacy" to cover up their stupidity. Remember this? Web Link

But then the truth eventually comes out. Like it did here:

Web Link

Anyway, I think the below quote summarizes it quite nicely from:

Web Link

"Let's take a page from the district's playbook for the Joe DiSalvo situation. DiSalvo asked MFC and Cook to investigate a particular teacher because of an incident which made him concerned for his own safety and that of other staff and students. Rather than seriously looking into those concerns, DiSalvo himself was investigated, and on the basis of some hearsay from staff meetings and statements about the perceived culture at JLS, DiSalvo was placed on paid administrative leave and replaced with an interim."

This tired and repeating set of mystery departures does sound very familiar to Pleasanton residents. The playbook is getting very old, and the taxpayers and parents are sick of this "very sick" set of circumstances happening again and again.


2 people like this
Posted by PUSD recycles controversies to remove administrators (again)
a resident of Danbury Park
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Kathleen, also forgot to add at the end, but it is about both because both Di Salvo and Rick Rubino have hired the same attorney, Gregory McCoy, correct? Or did you not know that? Unless there are two Gregory McCoys.


Like this comment
Posted by PUSD recycle controversies to remove administrators (again)
a resident of Danbury Park
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:23 pm

Web Link

From that article: "Many assert that underneath the legalese, an explosive situation between Di Salvo and a JLS teacher -- or teachers -- boiled over last May and ultimately led to his departure. When Di Salvo reportedly filed a complaint against one teacher in particular, parents say she threatened the district with a much larger lawsuit -- possibly involving sexual discrimination."

I'm sure that one of the reporters from the Palo Alto Online publication probably knows Gregory McCoy from the controversy in Palo Alto from this time and knows Gregory McCoy and both that publication or the Pleasanton Weekly could interview him to see if he has any comments regarding the similarities of both mystery departures. He might not be able to talk about the Rubino situation, but Gregory McCoy might have a few things to say about the Palo Alto situation and what happened.


Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 27, 2017 at 2:25 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

"the parties agree not to discuss" the agreement and to "comport themselves in a professional manner so as not to intentionally engage in behavior which is derogatory to the other." So Mr. DiSalvo talked anyway? And why did DiSalvo and McCoy sign? Those are rhetorical. It's 12 years ago.


16 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton parent and taxpayer
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2017 at 8:41 pm

Kathleen,

Re: your comment, "Ultimately, your school site, your teachers and principals and classified staff, are ensuring your students are getting the education you expect. Good people are in place at the district office with the same intention."

I would agree, in general, with that statement, and thank goodness the majority of the rank and file are good educators, as evidenced by the high rankings PUSD continues to receive statewide and nationally.

I've also met and spoken with teachers, principals, and vice-principals, and with Jim Hansen (wish he was our superintendent, frankly, but he's earned his retirement at this point). Yes, there are good people within PUSD.

However, I don't agree with your assessment of Mr. Rubino. I feel he was subjected to being railroaded out of PUSD because some long-term PUSD employees didn't like him, based on the information obtained and published by the PW and other media outlets--information which PUSD and its board only released when they were forced to. Something stinks here.

So, regarding your other comment, "..taking exception with four board members and their attorneys . . . that is where one should put pressure for the truth."

Absolutely. And I will not respect or trust this board, or PUSD's 'leadership' until they demonstrate transparency and the courage to stop sweeping unpleasant situations under the rug. The latter is not leadership. It's demonstrating they've got something to hide.

My greatest concern, as others have stated, is, who in their right mind would now want to take this job without some assurances that they won't suffer the same fate should they rub some long-term rank and file employee the wrong way?

The tail shouldn't be wagging the dog, and at PUSD, it is.


1 person likes this
Posted by PUSD recycle controversies to remove administrators (again)
a resident of Danbury Park
on Mar 27, 2017 at 9:33 pm

Here is the Superintendent application for employment that PUSD posted along with the Job Description and a link to an application. The deadline for applications to be submitted is April 17th. Web Link

Amazingly, there are not only NO education requirements, NO degrees required, NO teaching experience required, NO previous background experience required, and NO credentials required.

I'll bet hardly anyone applies.

JOB DESCRIPTION
TITLE: Superintendent of Schools
CLASSIFICATION: Certificated or Classified
REPORTS TO: Board of Trustees
DESCRIPTION:
To inspire, lead, guide, and direct every member of the administrative, instructional and supportive services team in setting and achieving the highest standards of excellence, so that each individual student enrolled in the district may be provided with a complete, valuable, meaningful and personally rewarding education. Further, to oversee and administer the use of all district facilities, property, and funds with a maximum of efficiency, a minimum of waste, and an ever-present, over-riding awareness of and concern for their impact upon each individual student's education.
PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES:
* Administering, developing, and maintaining, as chief school executive, a positive
educational program designed to meet the needs of the community and to carry out the policies of the Board.
* Conferring periodically with professional and lay groups concerning the school program,and transmitting to the Board suggestions gained from such conference.
* Conducting a continuous evaluation of the progress and needs of the schools and
keeping the public informed.
* Serving as secretary to the Board.
* Preparing and submitting to the Board recommendations relative to all matters
requiring Board action, placing before the Board such necessary and helpful facts,
information, and reports that will aid the Board as are needed to insure the making of informed decisions.
* Informing and advising the Board about the programs, practices, and problems of the schools, and keeping the Board informed of the activities operating under the Board's authority.
* Holding meetings with teachers and other employees to discuss matters concerning the improvement and welfare of the schools.
* Keeping the public informed about modern educational practices, educational trends, and the policies, practices, and problems in the district's schools.
* Delegating, when appropriate, responsibilities and duties of the position to other employees of the Board without relinquishing accountability for actions taken under such delegation.
* Keeping informed of modern educational thought and practices through advanced study, visiting school systems, attending educational conferences, and by other appropriate means.
* Maintaining personnel records, pupil accounting records, business, and other records which are required by law and Board policy.
* Representing the schools before the public, and maintains, through cooperative
leadership, both within and without the schools, such a program of publicity and public relations as may keep the public informed as to the activities, needs, and successes of the schools.
* Ensuring the compliance of all constitutional or statutory laws, state and charter regulations, and Board policies.
* Coordinating the work of administrative staff members, and providing counseling and motivation and fostering an esprit de corps.
* Representing the district in its dealings with other school systems, institutions and agencies, community organizations, and the general public.
* Directing and planning school organization, attendance area boundaries, and school plant requirements.
* Overseeing the processing and submission of required reports.
* Exercising leadership in the development and execution of the school-community
relations program.
* Assuming responsibility for the overall financial planning of the district and preparing the annual budgets for review and approval by the Board.
* Performing other tasks and duties as assigned by the Board.
TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT:
225 days of service. Salary to be negotiated with the Board.


1 person likes this
Posted by PUSD recycle controversies to remove administrators (again)
a resident of Danbury Park
on Mar 28, 2017 at 8:23 pm

I guess they will also be posting more open positions.

Two more men in a leadership position have just resigned including an elementary school principal and district office administrator/member of the senior management cabinet. They will stay through the end of the school year.

One is Kevin Johnston, Senior Director of Pupil Systems.

Also, Rafael Cruz, principal of Valley View ELementary school is leaving.


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 9:10 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Do you know anything about these people? They are simply retirements. Wish them well.


7 people like this
Posted by PUSD recycles controversies to remove administrators (again)
a resident of Danbury Park
on Mar 29, 2017 at 5:17 pm

Yes, I do.

The Board has become immersed and a part of a truly sick set of dysfunctional organizational dynamics, and it is affecting the students. I say all 5, because didn't all 5 of them vote to fire them (Motion made by Mark Miller and Second by Jamie Lee Hintzke)?

Kathleen, the bottom line is if you were a male, wouldn't you leave the PUSD after all of the nasty postings that it appears female staff seem to make about males at the Distict? Have you seen the stuff they say on line, for example on TOPIX about Rubino? Web Link

It is absolutely vile, nasty, spiteful, mean-spirited and is not about his capabilities or anything concrete that he has done, not done or any particular action or event, but about how he looks. Whenever a male at the District seems to know what they are doing, they are called "arrogant." Whenever males are less than 6 feet tall, they are called names. Calling someone a "banty rooster of his brood" is rude, insulting, and sick. Don't you remember they said similar things about Jon Vranesh?

And the "machismo personality trait" comment comes right out of the MFC comment concerning what Joe DiSalvo said Callan said to him in his review as quoted in the Palo Alto Online publication.


6 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 29, 2017 at 6:44 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Recycles, First, Maher was sworn in just days before this hit the fan. Boards like unanimous votes, so I can't place blame on him. If you know Johnson and Cruz, then you know neither of these men deciding to retire is a surprise.

I clicked your link; there were two comments. Not an overwhelming concern no matter what is said. As to the "machismo" comment and your links to Callan and DiSalvo, I just think that is a many years old stretch that doesn't connect back here. One question I do have: did you spend any time with Rubino? I'd just say that meeting a superintendent with a big ego really isn't a surprise, male/female, short/tall, etc. Think Ellison or Jobs - goes with the territory. When I asked my husband for other CEOs for examples; hIs answer: "all of them?"

I wouldn't leave PUSD because of perceived male bashing. I'm not the type to back down or to be cowed by others.


14 people like this
Posted by Marianne
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 29, 2017 at 7:50 pm

@PUSD recycles, You only have to look to San Lorenzo to see how recycling really works!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

A tale of two creeks
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 444 views

 

Send us your Santa photos

'Tis the season for sharing — so share your holiday snap shots of Santa with your kids, grandkids or fur-kids, and we'll enter you into our annual holiday prize drawing. Photos due Dec. 11.

Contest Details