News

School board considers principal appointments for Amador, Harvest Park

ALSO: New employment contract for Haglund, budget, LCAP

The Pleasanton school board is set to consider a series of appointments at the Tuesday night meeting.

After the principal positions at Amador Valley High School and Harvest Park Middle School were recently left vacant, the district conducted family engagement sessions at the respective sites, which officials say informed their replacement searches.

The appointments will be discussed during a closed session and possibly announced during the subsequent open meeting.

The Amador principal vacancy was made public at the May 22 board meeting when trustees announced that Michael Williams, who held the role for the past two years, is headed to the district office next year to assume the post of director of human resources.

"It's bittersweet because I'll be missing my Amador community, but I'm hoping that I can help the greater good of Pleasanton, so I appreciate the opportunity," Williams said at the meeting.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

The Harvest Park position became available after Robin Munsell, the school's principal of just under two years, unexpectedly resigned in early May.

"This was not an easy decision to make," Munsell wrote in an email to families. "I have enjoyed my time here at Harvest Park and continue to be impressed by the dedication of the staff and the support of the parents and families."

Her email did not elaborate on why she was leaving Harvest Park, and she did not respond to the Weekly's requests for comment regarding her reasons for resigning.

The board will consider two additional employee appointments during closed session as well: a coordinator of Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS) and a project manager of facilities and construction.

The closed session meeting is scheduled to begin at 5 p.m., preceding the open session which is set to start at 7 p.m. and is held in the district board room, 4665 Bernal Ave.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

In other business

*The board will consider approving a new employment contract with Superintendent David Haglund, who is nearing his one-year anniversary with the Pleasanton Unified School District.

According to staff, the proposed contract "supersedes and completely replaces the prior employment agreement (and any amendments thereto) signed by parties on June 13, 2017." The previous agreement was set to last from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020.

The new contract would take effect July 1, 2018 and continue through June 30, 2022, extending the contract term from three to four years. It calls for a new salary schedule with a step increase of 4% per year, starting with the 2018-19 school year -- this would increase Haglund's base salary to $280,900, a base salary adjustment of $10,600.

The proposed agreement also "changes the amount payable to the superintendent for termination without cause to the remaining base salary as specified by the agreement up to a maximum of 12 months, instead of the current nine months."

"These changes reflect the governing board's desire to ensure longevity and stability in district leadership," staff wrote on this agenda item.

Haglund recently was awarded a standard, retroactive salary raise for 2017-18, along with an extra $10,000 bonus, "in recognition of an outstanding performance and service," officials said.

*Trustees will consider approving the District Technology Plan for 2018-21.

The plan outlines how technology should be implemented in the classrooms, along with determining the technology and infrastructure needed to serve student needs.

*The board will consider approving the 2018-21 Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) -- a three-year plan, updated annually, that is part of California's funding formula established in 2013. The plan identifies the school district's key goals for students, action steps that will be taken to achieve these goals (including expenditures), and how these goals will be assessed.

A first reading of this LCAP was held at the June 12 board meeting.

*The board will consider approving the proposed 2018-19 district budget, which also had a first reading at the June 12 meeting.

Per the proposed budget, the unrestricted revenue for the General Fund is expected to total $139,383,593, with unrestricted expenditures coming out to $119,341,123.

The only change made after the first reading was how funding is allocated to music and athletics programs -- the method was adjusted from a per site-based model to a per student-based model.

*Board members will consider approving the Measure I1 Facilities Master Plan, which details how the $270 million from the Measure I1 school facilities bond should be spent.

*The board will consider approving an exemption to the CalSTRS Retiree 180-day wait period, for one potential LEAD (Leadership Enhancement and Administrator Development) coach, who is retiring in August.

*Trustees will consider approving contracts with two legal firms for fiscal year 2018-19, both of which have previous agreements with the district set to expire June 30.

The first, with Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, is for an amount not to exceed $250,000, paid for from the General Fund.

The second is with Dannis, Woliver, Kelley for an amount not to exceed $75,000, also from the General Fund.

*The board will consider approving rates and a master contract for 2018-19 for the non-public schools (NPS) and non-public agencies (NPA) -- the district outsources services with these entities "in order to meet the needs of our diverse special education student population," staff wrote in a report.

Rates differ by NPA and NPA, and are set by the Bay Area SELPA Collaborative agreement.

*Trustees will consider approving updated board policies regarding student records, bullying and hate-motivated behavior.

*In closed session, the board will confer on negotiations with the APT and CSEA, and consider two compromise and release agreements regarding anticipated litigation.

Though these items will be discussed in private, community members are able to publicly comment on any closed session topics at the meeting's start at 5 p.m.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

School board considers principal appointments for Amador, Harvest Park

ALSO: New employment contract for Haglund, budget, LCAP

by Erika Alvero / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 6:51 pm

The Pleasanton school board is set to consider a series of appointments at the Tuesday night meeting.

After the principal positions at Amador Valley High School and Harvest Park Middle School were recently left vacant, the district conducted family engagement sessions at the respective sites, which officials say informed their replacement searches.

The appointments will be discussed during a closed session and possibly announced during the subsequent open meeting.

The Amador principal vacancy was made public at the May 22 board meeting when trustees announced that Michael Williams, who held the role for the past two years, is headed to the district office next year to assume the post of director of human resources.

"It's bittersweet because I'll be missing my Amador community, but I'm hoping that I can help the greater good of Pleasanton, so I appreciate the opportunity," Williams said at the meeting.

The Harvest Park position became available after Robin Munsell, the school's principal of just under two years, unexpectedly resigned in early May.

"This was not an easy decision to make," Munsell wrote in an email to families. "I have enjoyed my time here at Harvest Park and continue to be impressed by the dedication of the staff and the support of the parents and families."

Her email did not elaborate on why she was leaving Harvest Park, and she did not respond to the Weekly's requests for comment regarding her reasons for resigning.

The board will consider two additional employee appointments during closed session as well: a coordinator of Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS) and a project manager of facilities and construction.

The closed session meeting is scheduled to begin at 5 p.m., preceding the open session which is set to start at 7 p.m. and is held in the district board room, 4665 Bernal Ave.

In other business

*The board will consider approving a new employment contract with Superintendent David Haglund, who is nearing his one-year anniversary with the Pleasanton Unified School District.

According to staff, the proposed contract "supersedes and completely replaces the prior employment agreement (and any amendments thereto) signed by parties on June 13, 2017." The previous agreement was set to last from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020.

The new contract would take effect July 1, 2018 and continue through June 30, 2022, extending the contract term from three to four years. It calls for a new salary schedule with a step increase of 4% per year, starting with the 2018-19 school year -- this would increase Haglund's base salary to $280,900, a base salary adjustment of $10,600.

The proposed agreement also "changes the amount payable to the superintendent for termination without cause to the remaining base salary as specified by the agreement up to a maximum of 12 months, instead of the current nine months."

"These changes reflect the governing board's desire to ensure longevity and stability in district leadership," staff wrote on this agenda item.

Haglund recently was awarded a standard, retroactive salary raise for 2017-18, along with an extra $10,000 bonus, "in recognition of an outstanding performance and service," officials said.

*Trustees will consider approving the District Technology Plan for 2018-21.

The plan outlines how technology should be implemented in the classrooms, along with determining the technology and infrastructure needed to serve student needs.

*The board will consider approving the 2018-21 Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) -- a three-year plan, updated annually, that is part of California's funding formula established in 2013. The plan identifies the school district's key goals for students, action steps that will be taken to achieve these goals (including expenditures), and how these goals will be assessed.

A first reading of this LCAP was held at the June 12 board meeting.

*The board will consider approving the proposed 2018-19 district budget, which also had a first reading at the June 12 meeting.

Per the proposed budget, the unrestricted revenue for the General Fund is expected to total $139,383,593, with unrestricted expenditures coming out to $119,341,123.

The only change made after the first reading was how funding is allocated to music and athletics programs -- the method was adjusted from a per site-based model to a per student-based model.

*Board members will consider approving the Measure I1 Facilities Master Plan, which details how the $270 million from the Measure I1 school facilities bond should be spent.

*The board will consider approving an exemption to the CalSTRS Retiree 180-day wait period, for one potential LEAD (Leadership Enhancement and Administrator Development) coach, who is retiring in August.

*Trustees will consider approving contracts with two legal firms for fiscal year 2018-19, both of which have previous agreements with the district set to expire June 30.

The first, with Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, is for an amount not to exceed $250,000, paid for from the General Fund.

The second is with Dannis, Woliver, Kelley for an amount not to exceed $75,000, also from the General Fund.

*The board will consider approving rates and a master contract for 2018-19 for the non-public schools (NPS) and non-public agencies (NPA) -- the district outsources services with these entities "in order to meet the needs of our diverse special education student population," staff wrote in a report.

Rates differ by NPA and NPA, and are set by the Bay Area SELPA Collaborative agreement.

*Trustees will consider approving updated board policies regarding student records, bullying and hate-motivated behavior.

*In closed session, the board will confer on negotiations with the APT and CSEA, and consider two compromise and release agreements regarding anticipated litigation.

Though these items will be discussed in private, community members are able to publicly comment on any closed session topics at the meeting's start at 5 p.m.

Comments

Kathleen Ruegsegger
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Jun 25, 2018 at 11:18 am
Kathleen Ruegsegger, Vintage Hills
Registered user
on Jun 25, 2018 at 11:18 am

Some important pieces in the "In Other Business" part of this article (excerpted):

"The board will consider approving a new employment contract with Superintendent David Haglund, who is nearing his one-year anniversary with the Pleasanton Unified School District.

"According to staff, the proposed contract 'supersedes and completely replaces the prior employment agreement (and any amendments thereto) signed by parties on June 13, 2017.' The previous agreement was set to last from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020.

"The new contract would take effect July 1, 2018 and continue through June 30, 2022, extending the contract term from three to four years. It calls for a new salary schedule with a step increase of 4% per year, starting with the 2018-19 school year -- this would increase Haglund's base salary to $280,900, a base salary adjustment of $10,600.

"Haglund recently was awarded a standard, retroactive salary raise for 2017-18, along with an extra $10,000 bonus, 'in recognition of an outstanding performance and service,' officials said."

The superintendent received an unprecedented, not "standard", 2% retroactive raise, plus a 1% bonus, plus $10,000. I stated this before, if APT and CSEA have settled for a coming school year (settle June 30, 2017, for the 2017-18 school year), a first-year teacher or classified employee starting on July 1, 2017--no matter how stellar--will receive only what was on that contract for that year. The superintendent also cut his first-year deal for the 2017-18 school year.

And the math seems off here. The superintendent was hired at $265,000 for 2017-18. He was given a 2% retroactive raise or $5,300 = $270,300. Adding four percent to that new base is $10,812 (not $10,600) or $281,112 isn't it? But it appears what they did was give him a 6% raise, with 2% being retroactive (which pencils out to $280,902.12).

More alarming is this paragraph of the new contract: "In an effort to maintain equity with other certificated and administrative personnel, the Board shall consider a salary increase each year of this agreement equal to the same percentage increase given to the administrative unit following Board approval of the increase in a regularly called meeting as required by law. Any such increase shall be effective on the same dates as granted to the administrative unit." A so called "me too" clause.

We are sending a dangerous signal to our bargaining units that 4% is a good starting point in negotiations for the next four years and we are codifying "me too" clauses with administrators and the superintendent. Is the result that the superintendent would get his annual 4% increase **plus** a potential additional 4% increase if that settlement is made with the bargaining units?

At 4% a year, year 2 is $292,136; three is $303,821, and four is $315,974--without me too clauses. AND, he is eligible for bonuses. AND it is a typical perpetual contract: "Commencing with the evaluation for the 2018-2019 school year, if the evaluation performed in accordance with Section 7, below, is satisfactory, a recommendation shall be brought to the Board to reform the term of this Agreement by one (1) additional year; in no event, however, shall the term of this Agreement exceed four (4) years. The recommendation to extend the Agreement shall be considered by the Board and acted upon in an open public meeting of the Board on or before June 30."

This, of course, will be one more reason we will hear there is no money for operating a school.


Kathleen Ruegsegger
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Jun 25, 2018 at 11:27 am
Kathleen Ruegsegger, Vintage Hills
Registered user
on Jun 25, 2018 at 11:27 am

From the article: "*Board members will consider approving the Measure I1 Facilities Master Plan, which details how the $270 million from the Measure I1 school facilities bond should be spent." This is well beyond when it was promised, and two years after the passage of the bond. We are retrofitting projects into the money rather than identifying the needs and then passing a bond. It's worth scanning the plan where another $800MM of needs are listed.

Not listed in the article because it is on the consent calendar is to approve a contract with Kingsley Bogard (law firm). The board made an earlier commitment to end the contract with this firm.

These are the items that mysteriously wait for approval until school is out when many are busy with their summers.


Karl Aitken
Pleasanton Valley
on Jun 25, 2018 at 5:03 pm
Karl Aitken, Pleasanton Valley
on Jun 25, 2018 at 5:03 pm

Should have tried to keep my city job back in 1976 when I worked the summer in the city engineer's office.

Government workers: Guaranteed annual pay raises that aren't linked to performance each year, retroactive pay raises, cancellation of an agreed to employment contact to give more money that was originally agreed to, getting a pay raise just because other people in my office got one....WOW!


Financial shakedown
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2018 at 7:15 pm
Financial shakedown, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2018 at 7:15 pm

Kathleen, please run again for the school board. How does it end up that the superintendent gets 2 more years on this contract from 2020 to 2022?

And Kingsley Bogard? How can they possibly be rehired? I thought they fired them 2 years ago. I swear I saw a meeting where the school board said they would keep them on for a couple of months and transition an existing case to another law firm.

Meanwhile, with all the perks, trips, legal expenses, turnover, fiascoes, and not one shovel of dirt dug for a new school, the superintendent wants a brand new lucrative contract that extends out 2 more years? This is absurd.


Livermore Parent
Livermore
on Jun 26, 2018 at 10:04 am
Livermore Parent, Livermore
on Jun 26, 2018 at 10:04 am

Would it be possible for Livermore to trade Pleasanton Superintendent Kelly Bowers for Superintendent David Haglund? Maybe we can make it a package deal by throwing in all our overpaid staff including Assistant Superintendent Chris Van Schack, Chief Business Officer Susan Kinder, and Redundant ROP Superintendent Julie Duncan. Wait - did I say overpaid? Of course they aren't! Haha! Everyone knows government employees are paid in accordance to their ability and value to the community. In fact we in Livermore know that a top rated nationally recognized school system like ours requires exorbitant salaries for (our many) district staff and Grade A commercial administrator buildings on the hill for them to look down upon us. I bet Pleasanton wishes their schools were as good as ours! And Pleasanton's Schools can become like Livermore's if we make this trade!


Kathleen Ruegsegger
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Jun 26, 2018 at 11:08 am
Kathleen Ruegsegger, Vintage Hills
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2018 at 11:08 am

LP, :o) thanks just the same.

While frustrated by the KB contract renewal, and that it’s on consent, and with the timing—I should mention these renewals are annual. That said, they need to go; ongoing litigation or not. And maybe because it’s still ongoing?


Jtjh
Vintage Hills
on Jun 26, 2018 at 12:25 pm
Jtjh, Vintage Hills
on Jun 26, 2018 at 12:25 pm

I completely agree. I, too, am astounded that the district is continuing to use the legal services of Kingsley Bogard, who seem to have proved so thoroughly incompetent in past years.

The details are listed on the board meeting agenda, together with a link to the actual agreement, along with the same for a local legal firm. (Scroll right down beyond the end of the actual agenda.) The rates for the other firm are slightly higher. Though there appears to be a dramatic difference in the amounts paid to each firm. (Perhaps there are very good reasons for this : I don't know.) And what of the other companies briefly mentioned in the rationale?

To quote from the agenda:

>> Rationale:

On June 28, 2016, the Pleasanton Unified School District Board of Trustees (Board) awarded RFP 2015-16.12 for legal services to five firms and approved a contract with each of them for FY17. Kingsley Bogard was one of the five firms. The contract was for one year and terminated on June 30, 2017.

On June 27, 2017, the Board approved a new one-year agreement with Kingsley Bogard. This agreement will terminate on June 30, 2018.

The value of the agreement (Attachment A) is capped at $45K. If expenses exceed this amount, an amended agreement will be brought back to the Board for approval.

As of April 2018, the District had incurred $41K in legal services with Kingsley Bogard for FY 2017-18.

Recommended Motion:

The Administration recommends that the Board approve the agreement for legal services with Kingsley Bogard for FY 2018-19. <<

I am surprised that this significant decision should be listed under the Consent Calendar, which is allegedly for routine items requiring mere rubber-stamping. If a decision was indeed made not to continue to use Kingsley Bogard, when was the public announcement of the reversal of that decision? I seem to have missed it.

I agree with Kathleen Ruegsegger's comment about the "ongoing" justification, if such is the justification for the award. And whatever the justification, I do not believe that the award of yet another contract to Kingsley Bogard is in the district's best interest.


Jtjh
Vintage Hills
on Jun 26, 2018 at 12:32 pm
Jtjh, Vintage Hills
on Jun 26, 2018 at 12:32 pm

This, I hope, is a link to the online agenda for tonight's school board meeting (6/26/2018):

Web Link


Bay Area Native
Registered user
Pleasanton Valley
on Jun 26, 2018 at 6:37 pm
Bay Area Native, Pleasanton Valley
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2018 at 6:37 pm

How much do Superintendents in other Bay Area districts make? Give me five examples of comparable sized districts in affluent communities not just one. How much does it cost to hire a superintendent? Do we want to continue to have a revolving door or do we want to retain a strong leader?


Bay Area Native
Registered user
Pleasanton Valley
on Jun 26, 2018 at 7:20 pm
Bay Area Native, Pleasanton Valley
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2018 at 7:20 pm

It looks like we are getting a bargain compared to some other districts. Kathleen, do the numbers you state for Dr. Haglund include healthcare and retirement or is this total compensation? I didn't think PUSD paid healthcare.

Livermore: $318,932 wages + $59,733 health and retirement; Fremont: $285,650 + $18,555; Antioch: $271,944 + $40,321; Mt. Diablo: $257,960 + $51,782. You can propose an argument that Superintendents as a whole are overpaid but compared to other Districts it doesn't appear that we are overpaying our Superintendent.

Web Link


Kathleen Ruegsegger
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Jun 26, 2018 at 7:24 pm
Kathleen Ruegsegger, Vintage Hills
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2018 at 7:24 pm

I think you can look for the contracts as you are raising the question. My issues are the retro pay and me too clause. Yes, retention is a good goal, but I don’t think we have to give everything away. I believe this will cost us with the bargaining units.


Kathleen Ruegsegger
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Jun 26, 2018 at 8:00 pm
Kathleen Ruegsegger, Vintage Hills
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2018 at 8:00 pm

Ok, here is the link. Web Link

Most listings are for 2016. A couple 2014, which means they aren’t reporting. You also need to consider experience as a superintendent. Ours just finished his first year ever in that role.

A base salary is provided with other stipends and benefits listed separately.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

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