The Pleasanton school board is set Tuesday to consider an addendum to Micaela Ochoa's contract that would compensate her an extra $10,000 for serving as PUSD's interim superintendent.
The district's deputy superintendent of business services, Ochoa was appointed to the additional role of interim superintendent in January after the board fired Rick Rubino as superintendent, making her Pleasanton's fourth leader since June 2015.
With the board's approval Tuesday, Ochoa would be paid $10,000 for filling the interim superintendent position from Jan. 18 through June 30, on top of her annual base salary of $201,613 as deputy superintendent. All other terms of the employment agreement would remain the same, according to the addendum.
Either Ochoa or the board, by majority vote, could nullify the addendum without cause before June 30. If that were to happen, Ochoa would retain the right to return to her position as deputy superintendent of business services.
Hired by the district in August 2015, Ochoa's current employment agreement with PUSD runs through June 30, 2018.
The school board hopes to have a new permanent superintendent in place by July 1, the start of the 2017-18 school year.
The school board meeting will get underway at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the district office boardroom, 4665 Bernal Ave., following closed session at 5 p.m.
In other business
* Administrators will bring a modified proposal for new English language arts/English language development curriculum to the board for its final reading.
Ochoa pulled the recommended K-5 curriculum adoption from the March 14 meeting agenda after hearing concerns from several teachers during public comment. That proposal called for implementing Benchmark Advance curriculum integrated with Heinemann Units of Study across PUSD elementary schools for 2017-18 and beyond.
Board members expressed hesitance about voting on the item after hearing from several teachers who said they preferred the Units of Study curriculum and didn't want to have to use two programs. Teachers also pointed out that while the programs were piloted, they weren’t tried out together.
The new recommendation calls for a flexible combination of Benchmark Advance or Units of Study. Adopting the new curriculum would cost the district $2.7 million.
* The board will also be asked to approve additional instructional materials for elementary school music classes.
* The board will get an update on the district's use of Naviance, a college and career planning software program.
* Trustees will hear about and possibly approve one new course and nine revised courses for the 2017-18 school year.
The new course would be Spanish language arts immersion 9, while administrators recommend revisions to several AVID courses, academic support, creative living 6, food for life 7, consumer skills 8, and teens & families 8.
* Trustees will consider a five-year contract with AT&T for wide-area-network internet service.
AT&T is the district's existing service provider, but the recommendation from administrators is for a new contract for increased internet capacity at a cost increase of $33,000 per year. The current agreement costs PUSD $109,000 per year.
* The board will confer with union representatives and discuss litigation and a stipulated expulsion case in closed session beginning at 5 p.m.
Comments
Jensen Tract
on Mar 25, 2017 at 4:02 pm
on Mar 25, 2017 at 4:02 pm
I do not believe Micaela Ochoa should get any raise. I am also stunned by the recent "Safe Haven" resolution in Pleasanton given the history of Ochoa and the "Papa Bear" child pornography and molestation case when the Santa Clara Office of Education (SSCOE), who runs and is responsible for hiring the Walden West outdoor education center, was investigated for hiring an illegal alien named Covarrubias nicknamed "Papa Bear" who later molested students from Santa Clara County schools who were sent to the camp.
Ochoa was terminated by the Santa Clara Office of Education in mid 2015. She is suing the Santa Clara Office of Education to get her job back and for damages.
The Department of Homeland Security and ICE are the ones that uncovered that the employee of Santa Clara County Office of Education at Walden West, run by SSCOE, was involved in a child pornography ring in the first place. And now PUSD wants to bar the Department of Homeland Security and ICE for PUSD campuses?
How did the SSCOE manage to hire an illegal alien? This has been all over the local and national news including the issue with Santa Clara Office of Education as well as a U.S. Senate investigation- - -
Local level
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Federal level
Web Link
Why PUSD would want to give anyone a management job after what occurred at SSCOE in 2015 and earlier is beyond me. This absolutely stuns me. I do not believe Ochoa deserves a raise.
Bridle Creek
on Mar 25, 2017 at 9:14 pm
on Mar 25, 2017 at 9:14 pm
@Alarmed: Ochoa's position at SCCOE was in no way related to the Walden West case. Please don't try to smear her with an unrelated child porn bust.
However, there is ample reason to be concerned about Ochoa's ethical breaches and the professional errors that DID lead to millions in losses for her prior district. I would be shocked to learn that our school board wants to augment her role if I didn't already know them to be capable of grievously poor judgement.
Pleasanton Valley
on Mar 26, 2017 at 12:00 pm
on Mar 26, 2017 at 12:00 pm
Since Micaela Ochoa seems to be spending many days in court these days or in mediation according to Web Link why does she deserve any raise? Why and how was she hired? She is suing her former employer and her former superintendent individually.
Also, I have been reading the news that happened in the last 2 years. After a member of an international child porn trading ring was discovered by ICE/Department of Homeland Security to be operating at Santa Clara County of Ed. and a child was molested by someone who was hired in 2013, but his background and references were not checked, Superintendent Jon Gundry terminated or asked for the resignations of many staff involved. He also had to hire consultants to fix ongoing payroll problems at the county office. At least the following people (maybe more) according to the press reports were fired or resigned:
Micaela Ochoa - Chief Business Officer
Norma Gonzales — Director of Human Resources
Toni Cordova — Chief Strategy Officer
Lisa Kaufman — Director of Early Learning Services
Rachel Zlotziver — Communications/PR Specialist
Gloria Chou — Assistant Controller
Ted O — Director of Internal Business Services
Maribel Medina - General Counsel
A task force had to be convened to completely re-write audit processes and interaction protocols between staff and children (Rule of 3, no hugging or touching, just high 5s).
It baffles me why PUSD hired any of these people at all.
Can the PUSD be taken over by the City Council or State? Or by another surrounding district that is not in as much turmoil?
Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 27, 2017 at 9:10 am
on Mar 27, 2017 at 9:10 am
Can someone explain to me how Micaela O. was hired at ALL? I can't find a job posting on Edjoin that they ever posted the position of Pleasanton Unified's Assistant Superintendent for Business Services. How can any organization in the public sector not advertise an open position?
All I see is this one for Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources in 2015. Web Link Can anyone find the advertising for the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services posting?
I also don't understand the lawsuit. I read where in her termination, her entire salary for her entire remaining contract was paid to her, meaning she was paid for a full year for services that she never performed. Does that mean if PUSD pays her off to terminate her contract, she will also sue PUSD as well?
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 27, 2017 at 9:20 am
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 9:20 am
With Ochoa's legal and work-related baggage, it would not surprise me in the slightest if our incompetent board hires her for the full-time role of Superintendent.
You read it here first.
Dan
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 27, 2017 at 9:37 am
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 9:37 am
Question, I believe she came to PUSD as an interim while the prior CBO was out on leave. She was then offered the job permanently effective December 9, 2015. Didn't see anyone worried during all that time.
There are clauses in contracts for releasing a manager for and without cause. Web Link Why would Ochoa be terminated?
Dan, Nah.
Laguna Oaks
on Mar 27, 2017 at 10:39 am
on Mar 27, 2017 at 10:39 am
@Kathleen you question why no one was worried while also stating she slipped into PUSD under the radar? There is plenty to be worried about if our DepSup is only engaged 50% of the time. Her personal plate appears to be way too full to take on the important role of PUSD Sup. Pleasanton deserves better.
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 27, 2017 at 11:10 am
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 11:10 am
It is short term and not uncommon. As someone noted on another thread, Bob Kroetch was interim while assistant supt of HR, arguable just as busy, particularly during a second semester. No doubt Ochoa's plate is full, but much of it is the budget, a duty she would be performing anyway.
Teachers, principals, classified staff, good peeps at the DO, are still doing their jobs for your children.
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:24 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:24 pm
Kathleen,
"Didn't see anyone worried during all that time."
So this is your argument? That people weren't aware of all her misdeeds at the time so its our fault?
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:41 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:41 pm
Everything and everyone gets googled, but not this time? Why now? It feels like a vendetta coming out of SCCOE.
Maybe my experience over the last 18 months or so is unique, but I like Ms. Ochoa. I think I will not participate with the hanging committee based on anonymous posts.
In the meantime, maybe we should be aiming our disappointment at four board members. The rest just seems misplaced.
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 27, 2017 at 3:27 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 3:27 pm
Kathleen,
"Everything and everyone gets googled, but not this time? Why now? It feels like a vendetta coming out of SCCOE."
You have it EXACTLY backwards. Why didn't the district have the good sense to GOOGLE Micaela Ochoa?
Did the district even perform a background search?
Our local school district seems to be very incompetent.
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 27, 2017 at 3:38 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 3:38 pm
It was known.
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 27, 2017 at 6:05 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 6:05 pm
Kathleen,
"It was known".
Thank you for proving my point. They hired a person mired in controversy.
Incompetence from top to bottom.
Dan
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 27, 2017 at 6:50 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 6:50 pm
And if Ms. Ochoa wins the day? Will you and others publicly, in person, apologize? Especially when none of you have bothered to talk to her? Dan, weren't you railing at me about innocence at some point?
Take time to look beyond the black and white you think is right; there is a lot of gray in this world.
Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 27, 2017 at 8:03 pm
on Mar 27, 2017 at 8:03 pm
When I use Google with the string -
site:mercurynews.com micaela ochoa
site:eastbaytimes.com micaela ochoa
- each time 5 screens of various controversies come up detailing that her office could not even produce payroll checks accurately (what do they use paper and pencil in this day and age?) and failed to pay the IRS, then blamed another agency.
Next with Google -
"santa clara" "papa bear"
- 72,000, yes, 72,000 results come up
site:mercurynews.com "papa bear"
- more than 10 screens come up with that tragic situation. This involved a child porn ring operating trading child sex act videos on an IP address registered to the Santa Clara County Office of Education and child molestation of a student in a facility where for some reason someone was hired with no background reference checks, who wasn't even a U.S. citizen, who was actually living in the Santa Clara County Office of Education facility.
But in spite of any Google searches, I can find no evidence that the job that Micaela Ochoa was originally hired for at Pleasanton Unified School District was ever posted in any on-line publication, magazine or newspaper. This sounds to me like there was no background reference check and no actual hiring process. How can someone just beam into an organization from thin air with a position never being posted?
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 27, 2017 at 8:24 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2017 at 8:24 pm
Question:
Anonymous posters have absolutely no credibility.
Ms. Ochoa has an email address at PUSD.
Or, she receives and opens USPS mail she receives.
Why not direct your question, concerns directly to her?
The thing is, you will have to identify yourself!
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 1:21 am
on Mar 28, 2017 at 1:21 am
@Kathleen Ruegsegger
- Kathleen (if that's your real name) I hope you can see that a very large number of readers in this subject thread and others thinks you are just a shill for Micaela Ochoa. Why don't you advocate for the welfare of the students instead of feeling compelled to defend Ochoa and the Board????
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:07 am
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:07 am
Good morning Richard, I ran for school board this past fall, am a former school board member; our children graduated from PUSD, have a grandchild in the district; still volunteer and donate; and was an employee in school districts for 16 years. Real name, and one of the few, for years now.
I know Ms. Ochoa and her work in PUSD. I speak at meetings and email Ms. Ochoa and board members frequently . . . for students. For instance, I emailed about two items on the agenda tonight to extend additional funds to law firms. One of them, likely advising the board on Rubino, should be fired. The other is a solid firm, but we have settled for more than $340,000 in special ed cases since January. That doesn't include staff time or attorney fees. We aren't working with parents very well. That is a staff problem.
The anonymous posters, my guess, are SCCOE.
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:11 am
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:11 am
Kathleen,
"Dan, weren't you railing at me about innocence at some point?"
You forget that in Ochoa's case there is reams of documented EVIDENCE. In Rubino's case...an accusation from a woman that he...looked-at and flattered her.
I also "rail" at you because you tend to speak on both sides of every issue.
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:28 am
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:28 am
Morning Dan, there are no decisions yet. This may not go Ms. Ochoa's way. In the meantime, I see what she is doing here. Go talk to her.
Look closer at the Rubino case. The woman sent an email. She didn't file a complaint or it would have been produced. Something(s) else was going on. Rubino knows it; the board knows it; the attorneys know it. The public is being kept in the dark. I've heard rumors, but I can't verify them. Near as I can tell, everyone involved made mistakes.
I try to see all sides of every issue. There rarely is just one or two sides. In this case there are four board members, some attorneys, a superintendent, and at least one employee. No black and white; just a lot of gray.
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 28, 2017 at 12:09 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 12:09 pm
Kathleen,
"I try to see all sides of every issue. There rarely is just one or two sides."
Most of us just see two sides: Right or wrong.
We've grown to the point where experience allows us to see issues and make a judgement.
I notice a lot of politicians seem to think the way you do.
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 1:08 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 1:08 pm
Dan,
So which things are you absolutely, bet your life on it, certain were right or wrong? Ochoa was let go without cause, but is wrong? (No ruling here.) Rubino was let go without cause, but is right. (No real information here.) Do you know or have you spent time with either of them?
How I see it: Ochoa could lose her case with SCCOE. She is doing great work for us in the meantime. Rubino - lots of rumors; could go either way. The board should be held accountable for $300,000.
*Experience* tells us there can be many variables to the truth. And the truth can change as more facts are presented. It is dangerous to judge, especially when you know you don't have all the information. Otherwise you could believe the world is flat; the sun moves around the earth; he did not have relations with that woman; another one didn't authorize Watergate; Elvis is still alive . . .
Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 28, 2017 at 1:10 pm
on Mar 28, 2017 at 1:10 pm
I tried to look into old Santa Clara Cty Off of Ed web pages prior to the arrest of Edgar Covarrubias on the internet archive from 2013-2015 and it is interesting that searching under both E and C, his name is nowhere to be found in the staff listing. Can anyone find it? If you can, could you post the link because I cannot. It seems very strange to hide that an employee was hired unless they were trying to hide they were hired on purpose.
Here is more on the Santa Clara payroll mess. The former superintendent Ochoa worked for was named Xavier De La Torre with much coverage in the Mercury News as well because he was making $300,000 Web Link and the Mercury News states he walked out of a meeting 5 minutes during an interview with an investigator that the Board hired about the payroll crisis during his tenure saying he had no idea about it, and schools had to search elsewhere for budget help. Note a special education teacher is quoted as saying he was harassed into retiring.
Here are some quotes -
"And while the departure of Xavier De La Torre, after only 21 months as Santa Clara County’s top educator, comes as a relief to many, the office’s new leaders will have to grapple with his legacy, as some services eroded or disappeared entirely, leaving schools searching elsewhere for technical and budget help."
"Then he failed to tell the board how his own payroll department spiraled into chaos and issued at least dozens of incorrect checks. When months later the board responded to employee complaints and sent an investigator, De La Torre said he didn’t know anything about the debacle and walked out after five minutes."
Interesting other newspaper articles that are also in the Mercury News concerning his transition to Texas Web Link running up over $25,000 in expenses alone + other issues.
Would be interested to see what kind of references PUSD ever received from De La Torre or Gundry or the Board in S.C. Cty or whether PUSD ever bothered to contact anyone. Kathleen seems to say they "knew" so perhaps she knows all of the PUSD Board members personally and they tell her everything.
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Question,
I know three board members well enough, another pretty well, and one not so much. I worked with a lot of the people around the district. I know Jim Hansen; met with him as interim; met with Parvin on a couple of occasions; met with Rubino as well. I have stayed involved. If all of them told me everything, I would know why Rubino is gone.
Seems an unusual number of people bashing someone they don't know and never met. Why would that be?
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 28, 2017 at 2:29 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 2:29 pm
Kathleen,
"So which things are you absolutely, bet your life on it, certain were right or wrong, Ochoa was let go without cause, but is wrong? (No ruling here.) Rubino was let go without cause, but is right. (No real information here.)"
That's you defining the questions and answers, Kathleen. Life isn't quite like that.
Perhaps we can do this a little differently. How about I posit different questions that hopefully will help others (and myself) really pin down your philosophies:
Is Ochoa, given the documented circumstances of her employment history, an employment risk given the outcome of any investigation and trial? If not, why not?
Is Rubino, lacking any evidence to the contrary of what has been published, guilty of anything? If so, how?
Dan
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 3:19 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 3:19 pm
Dan,
1. There is no outcome yet; therefore, a yes/no answer is not possible.
2. An accusation was published; an investigation was started, but not completed. Absent additional information, no definitive conclusion is possible.
The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple. -Oscar Wilde
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 3:35 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 3:35 pm
Dan,
How about this:
1. Despite accusations and a pending lawsuit, is Ms. Ochoa serving PUSD well? Yes
2. Without definitive information of misdeeds, could Mr. Rubino have been wrongly relieved of duty? Yes
While I can respond to both these questions with a yes, clearly the missing information causes additional questions.
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 28, 2017 at 4:39 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 4:39 pm
Kathleen,
As usual, you didn't answer the questions as asked.
Let me try it this way:
1. Had you known about the accusations that Ochoa had before hiring, would YOU have hired her?
2. If you had the published record (like the rest of us) of Rubino, would you have fired him?
I will say this Kathleen, your continued "shades of grey" answers are only making you look indecisive and political.
Those of us in the real world, beyond politics, know this very well. Its seems that those in politics, and wanna-be politicians are not getting the message. We want leaders, not "shades of grey" finger in the wind decision makers.
Respectfully,
Dan
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 28, 2017 at 4:44 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 4:44 pm
Kathleen,
My apologies, I just read your second response to my first questions.
I'm glad that we agree on #2.
As for #1...you answer a question that wasn't asked.
Progress...
Dan
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 5:50 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 5:50 pm
Dan, I'll explain so you understand my thinking. Your initial questions asked for Yes/No answers. Look at how you set them up: "given the outcome" - there is no outcome. For the second question, "lacking any evidence" - but we aren't lacking *any* evidence. There's at least a bit of smoke that could be a fire.
Your new questions are clearer. For the first, it is difficult to ignore Ms. Ochoa was hired as an interim. I don't recall how big the need was at that point. But she performed remarkably well, so her permanent hiring was based on that performance. Coming in cold as a permanent hire, I probably would have reposted the job if no one else was qualified.
BUT the caveat is she has not been accused by her former employer (read here that she is just as innocent by this measure as you argue for Rubino's innocence), nor is her case settled. I can't unknow what I know; she has done an excellent job. And only a very narrow thinker would ignore that record.
There's a published record (what published record) for Rubino?--"If you had the published record (like the rest of us)" Did you spend any time with him, because I did. So my answer here is, I would have wanted a completed investigation if I'm spending $300,000 in taxpayer money. I would have preferred a probation and apologies and maybe some ethics training. Cheaper. Guess what, though, I don't think he wanted a probation--educated guess. Absent serious infractions, he stays; he improves or he's out.
I believe we deserve the answers for the board's action. But I don't think they made that decision in a vacuum.
So, we don't exactly agree on any of the questions or their answers.
You are hypothesizing that Ochoa is guilty and Rubino is innocent despite both being let go without cause. That doesn't then make me indecisive. Wanting all the information, all the possible facts, before making a thumbs up or down decision affecting the lives of individuals, their families, employees, and the community--you bet I'm going to be in the grays and very, very careful. There are worse things than being called a politician.
Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 28, 2017 at 6:49 pm
on Mar 28, 2017 at 6:49 pm
The SOAProjects payroll debacle audit report, fyi. The internal controls that were not in place is astounding:
Web Link
Yep, fine job.
Has anyone found Edgar Covarrubias listed on the SC website? I wonder if he was set up as a vendor and paid that way?
Has anyone used Ed-join to try to see the job posting for the Superintendent position open for Pleasanton? When I search for those level positions open in Alameda County, surprisingly nothing comes up. I wonder if this job opening was placed on Ed-join and not searchable by search criteria and location because it is wired for an internal candidate?
Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 28, 2017 at 6:59 pm
on Mar 28, 2017 at 6:59 pm
How come the PUSD Superintendent job posting is not coming up at all using the Job Search function in Ed-join?
When you use this feature to search for jobs using this Job Search feature Web Link and put the criteria to search for all Superintendent positions in Alameda County, California, nothing comes up except a Chief Academic Officer position in Oakland.
These are the criteria I used:
Search Type(s): all
Job Type(s): Certificated Management - Superintendent,
State(s): California
Region(s): Alameda
Why isn't the PUSD Superintendent job posting appearing? Was the job posting for Superintendent purposefully put in some odd category so it only shows up to internal employees that know it is out there? If the purpose is to limit the number of applicants to internal candidates only, the fact that it is seemingly not searchable by position and region will certainly limit the applicants.
Maybe the Search Committee directed someone to hide the job posting? Is that possible?
Why is not coming up as an open position?
Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:04 pm
on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:04 pm
In fact, the PUSD open superintendent position is not coming up even when you search the entire state of California on Ed-join. These are the ones that do show up and Pleasanton Unified is missing entirely. How very odd.
Did the Search Committee recommend that the position be listed in another state other than California?
Job Posting Online App Posted Deadline Location Salary Info
Superintendent - Rescue Union School District
Certificated Staff 3/28/2017 4/24/2017 11:55 pm Rescue Union School District,
Rescue
El Dorado County, CA Competitive
Executive Director
Certificated Staff 3/27/2017 4/14/2017 04:00 pm Ivy Academia Entrepreneurial Charter School,
West Hills
Los Angeles County, CA $135K Negotiable
Executive Director
Certificated Staff 3/27/2017 Until Filled Oxford Preparatory Academy - Chino Valley,
Chino
San Bernardino County, CA Competitive, based on education and experience, with excellent health benefits
Executive Director
Certificated Staff 3/27/2017 Until Filled Oxford Preparatory Academy - South Orange County,
Mission Viejo
Orange County, CA Competitive, based on education and experience, with excellent health benefits
Executive Director
Certificated Staff 3/27/2017 Until Filled Oxford Preparatory Academy - Saddleback Valley,
Lake Forest
Orange County, CA Competitive, based on education and experience, with excellent health benefits
Superintendent
Certificated Staff 3/23/2017 4/21/2017 05:00 pm Lakeport Unified School District,
Lakeport
Lake County, CA Outstanding Compensation Package
Windsor Unified School District Superintendent
Certificated Staff 3/22/2017 4/21/2017 04:30 pm Sonoma County Office Of Education,
Santa Rosa
Sonoma County, CA Competitive and Negotiable
Superintendent
Certificated Staff 3/13/2017 4/10/2017 04:00 pm Westminster School District,
Westminster
Orange County, CA Competitive and Negotiable
Assistant Superintendent of Certificated Human Resource
Certificated Staff 3/10/2017 4/17/2017 04:00 pm Pleasant Valley School District - Camarillo,
Camarillo
Ventura County, CA Compettive and negotiable
Oak Grove Union School District Superintendent
Certificated Staff 3/9/2017 3/31/2017 04:30 pm Sonoma County Office Of Education,
Santa Rosa
Sonoma County, CA Competitive and Negotiable
District Superintendent
Certificated Staff 3/8/2017 4/14/2017 05:00 pm Keyes Union School District,
Keyes
Stanislaus County, CA $145,139 Negotiable
Chief Academic Officer
Certificated Staff 3/7/2017 Until Filled Amethod Public Schools,
Oakland
Alameda County, CA Competitive plus benefits
District Superintendent
Certificated Staff 3/3/2017 4/7/2017 04:00 pm Northern Humboldt Union High School District,
Mc Kinleyville
Humboldt County, CA Competitive Multi-Year Contract
Superintendent- Soledad Unified School District, Soledad, CA
Certificated Staff 3/3/2017 4/6/2017 09:30 pm McPherson & Jacobson, L.L.C. - Monterey,
Monterey County, CA Competitive/ Negotiable
Superintendent/Principal- Johnstonville Elementary School District, Susanville, CA
Certificated Staff 3/3/2017 4/24/2017 09:30 pm McPherson & Jacobson, L.L.C. - Lassen County,
Lassen County, CA Competitive/ Negotiable
Superintendent - John Swett Unified School District
Certificated Staff 3/1/2017 3/31/2017 04:00 pm John Swett Unified,
Rodeo
Contra Costa County, CA Competitive and negotiable
Deputy Executive Director/Successor Position
Certificated Staff 1/18/2017 Until Filled Clayton Valley Charter High School,
Concord
Contra Costa County, CA Salary is negotiable and competitive based upon skills and experience. Benefit package up to $16,600.
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 8:14 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 8:14 pm
The search is being done by HYA and won't be listed on EdJoin. It is a nationwide search. Web Link
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 28, 2017 at 9:35 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 9:35 pm
Kathleen,
My question: Had you known about the accusations that Ochoa had before hiring, would YOU have hired her?
Your answer: "Coming in cold as a permanent hire, I probably would have reposted the job if no one else was qualified."
I read this as a yes. Even if someone brings questionable baggage to a district but is qualified, you would hire that person, even though you are uncertain of the outcome of that persons past deeds.
I understand, but vehemently disagree with your position, but I'm glad you have made it part of the record.
Dan
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 28, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Kathleen,
First you say: "2. Without definitive information of misdeeds, could Mr. Rubino have been wrongly relieved of duty? Yes"
Not a lot of gray there, Kathleen.
"There's a published record (what published record) for Rubino?"
Yes, the FOIA release that PW just received.
Most of us aren't privy to the "educated guesses", innuendo, and gossip that you hear. So for you to come to this board and tell us in typical political speak about all the "gray" in this case instead of sharing what you think you know is really just doing the same thing the school board is doing.
Dan
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 28, 2017 at 10:05 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2017 at 10:05 pm
Dan, you misread. Were Ms. Ochoa part of an applicant pool for a permanent position, I would likely not have chosen her, and if no other applicant was qualified, I would repost the job. It's pretty standard in school districts.
But this "decision" is not 'on record' because it's hypothetical. I wasn't there; I didn't hear the questions nor the explanations; and she has the job, and does it well. Nothing else matters.
You have not reconciled how one person released without cause is presumed innocent while the other is not. You pass judgment not knowing or not having interacted with either person. The whole premise is ludicrous; what is your purpose? I hope you never suffer at the hands of someone like yourself.
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Mar 29, 2017 at 8:47 am
Registered user
on Mar 29, 2017 at 8:47 am
Kathleen,
"...I would likely not have chosen her..."
"Likely".
Always with the shades of gray. Way to take a stand, Kathleen.
"You have not reconciled how one person released without cause is presumed innocent while the other is not."
Yes I have; evidence in the form of documentation of past deeds. One is reported in voluminous reports posted in local papers and the other...emails that are far less than persuasive.
As someone who has hired and fired many in my past, its all about risk.
Thanks.
Dan
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Mar 29, 2017 at 9:40 am
Registered user
on Mar 29, 2017 at 9:40 am
The confidential document Question posted yesterday pointed to a lot of HR problems, poorly worded language in personnel handbooks, former employees who wouldn't repay money not due them, and procedural problems in accounting. No names are noted. Do you let someone go without cause if you have cause; no.
Either accept this is at will employment and pay the price (here, contractual without cause clauses, big payouts, and possible lawsuits) or do the due diligence and fire with cause. In both these cases, corrective measures were possible. Instead, both SCCOE and PUSD are vulnerable.
As a decision maker with the power to hire and fire, one better be clear on the black, the white, and all the gray areas, because as we are seeing, those decisions can bite you in the backside.