Thank you, and the fact that you provided emails means I will actually do this.

I watched the board meeting. My understanding is that the budget was approved, with those admin positions in it.

Casey then said that if the board voted NO to those positions next week, the budget would be re-adjusted....it is a strange way of doing things. In my opinion, Casey is counting on the board voting yes.

It is very sad to see this. I actually donated to the fundraising effort and then I found this out. Granted, the fundraising will go to programs, but the fact is that there is enough money for 6 administrators to be hired back, so that money could be used instead for teachers, a program, etc.

Why would the board members go along with Casey on this one? I am hoping they come back with a loud NO to Casey's proposal to re-hire, among others, the PIO.

I emailed the board members and heard back from Valerie Arkin so far (I just sent the email yesterday to be fair to the others). They all need to hear from more of us, no matter where you stand on the issues, and that includes staff members (who certainly can ask to have their comments remain confidential). As long as they reduce the election to "we almost had it," rather than seeing that many verbally supported the measure and then either didn't vote or voted no, there is little chance for them to balance what they are being told and what the community wants. A lot of time and money was wasted on this election, which has set the fundraising effort up to be run over the summer and with an August deadline when people's minds are focused elsewhere.

This is the joke of a board that makes these sorts of decisions. Putting their administrative staff before teaching staff is deplorable. Now does anyone see why G failed?! This is a major no confidence issue and Casey and his board just proved themselves.

I'm sickened.

The administrators gave back money last year and this year so they can choose to use it for the programs they choose to support. The parcel tax clearly stated that the funds would not be used for that purpose but that didn't pass. Now it appears that the teachers need to get their union to budge as they have refused to give up anything. Each for their own? The current fundraising is NOT going to administrative positions- lets make sure we all have our facts right please.

I remember John Casey saying, "the people that provide the service should not have to contribute to the shortfall". He is also the one negotiating with the Union. That was an irresponsible thing to say and I am sure it set the tone for the unions unwillingness to be reasonable, is it any wonder that they have not given any concessions? The board of trustees has been told they are not a part of the negotiations.
It appears to me that the problem is weak leadership and incompetence. The board needs to take an active role with the negotiations. The union needs to come to the table, and John Casey deserves an F on his review.

Linda,

You should watch the meeting from the 22nd. It is archived on the PUSD web site.

There was a labor negotiator/attorney that made a presentation about negotiations at the meeting. When asked if a board member should be part of the negotiations, she strongly recommend not.

Mac and Resident
please keep in mind - there needs to be a certain amount distict staff. They support the sites, which in turn supports the kids. The question is, which ones can we do without?
I don't think the board is going along with Casey. Why do you think there is a special meeting being held on Monday the 29th? Have you looked at the board packet? It is usually posted onthe web site.

"I emailed the board members and heard back from Valerie Arkin so far (I just sent the email yesterday to be fair to the others). They all need to hear from more of us, no matter where you stand on the issues, and that includes staff members (who certainly can ask to have their comments remain confidential)."

Kathleen, I oppose what is being done by Dr. Casey (proposal to re-hire administrators), but I will not email the board. I can't go against the superintendent, I have children in the schools.

I can only hope that the board members will do the job they were elected to do and instruct Dr. Casey to find something else to do with the money - such as hiring teachers back, or reading specialists for example.

The board is made up of people with children in the schools. They should do what is right, whether they hear from us or not. Their children's programs are at stake too, and if they think that going along with Dr. Casey's proposal is the right thing, then I think we will need a new board.

However, I have a lot of confidence on our board of trustees. I am sure they will not go along with the hiring back of administrators.

"The administrators gave back money last year and this year so they can choose to use it for the programs they choose to support"

Correct, PROGRAMS, but instead they are choosing ADMIN positions to support, and that is wrong!

The reason people are getting laid off, cuts being made, is to free up money for what is important: programs for the STUDENTS, not so the administrators can protect their retirement or more administrators!

"the people that provide the service should not have to contribute to the shortfall"?????
Anyone that would make a public statement like that has no business negotiating on the districts behalf!

Concerned, "I oppose what is being done by Dr. Casey (proposal to re-hire administrators), but I will not email the board. I can't go against the superintendent, I have children in the schools."

I will, I have already emailed the board. I plan to ask questions of Dr. Casey tomorrow. I have confidence that these folks are professionals, and their won't be any retaliation against students for their parents' opinions.

I hope others will also attend the board meeting -- Monday night, 7 pm, in the PUSD district office.

Concerned, "I oppose what is being done by Dr. Casey (proposal to re-hire administrators), but I will not email the board. I can't go against the superintendent, I have children in the schools."

I will, I have already emailed the board. I plan to ask questions of Dr. Casey tomorrow. I have confidence that these folks are professionals, and their won't be any retaliation against students for their parents' opinions.

I hope others will also attend the board meeting -- Monday night, 7 pm, in the PUSD district office.

Sorry for the double post, there.

Kathleen, will you be able to attend the meeting tomorrow? If not, could you please email me? I'd like to get a chance to talk with you informally, now that the parcel tax election has passed. My email is my last name, at mac dot com.

Where is the district office? I'd like to attend.

Sandy and others who are concerned,

The board packet is posted here Web Link

It has detailed information about the issues posted above.

On another note, for those wondering what will be different in the schools with the massive budget cuts from the state- it would be good for many to read the Single Plan For Student Achievement posted for each school site. This is a good insight to what planning and training occurs on top of the daily classroom instruction. These plans were created by School site councils, comprised of teachers, administrators, and parents elected to the position. Each site relies on a budget to enact some of the plans. Next year, that budget will be reduced by 50%, the following year it could be cut completely. This is a part of school financing that is crucial to sites, yet not always understood by the community.

I am shocked!

We are trying to raise funds that the district doesn't have, and yet they can afford these positions? (taken from the board packet listed above).

6.0 ITEMS FOR REPORT, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
6.1 Report, Discussion and Possible Action to Approve Modifications 15 Min.
to Action the Board Took on February 24, 2009, when It Adopted
the Cabinet List of Possible Reductions – Report by John Casey
6.1.1 Hire back 1.5 FTE of Middle School Vice Principals
6.1.2 Rescind the elimination of two administrative positions
6.1.2.1 Coordinator 1, Information Services
6.1.2.2 Coordinator, Career and Technical Education
6.1.3 Modify the release date of three administrative positions
6.1.3.1 Coordinator 2, Child Nutrition
6.1.3.2 Director, Architectural Planning and Management
6.1.3.3 Coordinator 2, Transportation
6.1.4 Create a combined position of Management Assistant/Coordinator 2,
Technology


WOW. I am totally shocked. Is this a game to them? Is this what they do when they think no one is watching? I am totally against this. If there is ANY money AT ALL, it needs to go to CSR which includes the staff that is needed.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that the district motto has changed from "PUSD...Kids Come First", to "PUSD...Building on the past . . .Planning for the future."

I am disgusted. I have a pretty good idea of showing up tomorrow night to sit in the gallery with signs that in reference to the agenda items say, "Hire back my kids' teacher" or "Rescind the elimination of my children's programs",or "Modify the release date of my children's support staff".

"Hire back my kids' teacher" or "Rescind the elimination of my children's programs",or "Modify the release date of my children's support staff".
Good one: )

Yo -- the district offices are at the corner of Bernal and First Street downtown. The entrance is off of Bernal. Once you are in the parking lot, enter the closest building and turn left inside to get to the meeting room.

4661 Bernal, if you want to plug it into Google maps: Web Link

While I have not yet educated myself on the issue at hand, it does sound dubious. For those afraid to email thier board members, you are implying that the teachers and administrators would collude to single out your children. Did you think Mark Fuhrman planted the glove? Was OJ framed? Really a far fetched conspiracy theory in both cases.

Note that those "rehired" or had their job titles modified are not the working class - aides, custodians, office staff but rather the district management. Keep reading that board packet and see how many people who really are in the trenches with our kids were laid off or had their hours reduced. Same old story line Casey's cronies, its probably a good thing that G didn't pass!

When are the taechers and classified going to give back something. The administrators have so they can make decisions about what /who needs to be saved.

"Same old story line Casey's cronies, its probably a good thing that G didn't pass!"

How did that help? Where was the benefit to education. All I see is programs cut.

Sue - While I realize there must be 'some' administrative staff to support the structure for the teaching system, it is time (in this economic climate) to go brass tacks and skeleton staff, not unlike so many private industry companies must do in order to survive. No only is it necessary, it is a matter of showing some degree of responsibility.

The admin staff is rather large, if you've ever been over there, and surely they can cut corners in order to save teacher's jobs.

They need to show some hootzpah and do what's right.

On another post, someone said it is a done deal: the board voted to bring back administrators. Arkin and Hintzke voted no but it passed anyway.

The PLeasanton Weekly needs to report on this so the community can be aware. Why donate money when they are not doing the right thing with the money they do have? Re-hiring administrators is simply irresponsible, they have plenty of staff on board to take over the duties of, among others, the PIO - who just got re-hired. Unbelievable!

"While I have not yet educated myself on the issue at hand, it does sound dubious. For those afraid to email thier board members, you are implying that the teachers and administrators would collude to single out your children. Did you think Mark Fuhrman planted the glove? Was OJ framed? Really a far fetched conspiracy theory in both cases."

Retaliation against children is subtle and hard to prove. As a parent, I will not put my children in that position. Nothing will come out of me emailing the board anyway. The board approved the re-hiring of management, and that was even with two board members (Arkin and Hintzke) voting no. Why would Grant, Ott listen to me if they don't listen to their fellow board members?

Maybe they need to bring back administrators. Maybe they are making good decisions. Could it be that they are too stretched as it is. You seem to be an armchair quarterback, or worse someone who is just so greedy that you want to take it out on children.

Disgusting.

Look, wouldn't you be happier in another community with like minded people?

And maybe they don't really need those positions. It's mind boggling to the public why they would put those positions on the cut list then rehire them, part time or not. It sends the wrong message and that certainly isn't making good decisions.

Plus, as I understood from earlier reports, some of the people are being rehired back for a few months just to "match retirement", whatever that is supposed to mean. That doesn't sound like some sort of rehiring based on need to me. The average public wouldn't really know what kind of impact "matching retirement" has and there's certainly been nothing reported on it. The public really needs to know what "matching retirement" means and does it increase future expenditure?

They did cut 15 of the 60-or-so management positions district wide. And they had already brought back 33 teaching positions a few weeks ago.

I shared the concerns of many here about bringing back administrative positions, and at the beginning of the meeting, I spoke about my concerns with bringing back administrators instead of teachers or counselors or intervention specialists.

It was definitely worth my time to attend the meeting and hear the other points of view expressed. After listening, I changed my point of view about some of the positions that were reinstated.

I think the hiring back of 1.5 middle school vice principals will definitely make it easier for teachers to focus on teaching. They will have more backup with discipline issues, and the vice principals play a role in keeping a variety of different after-school activities going.

There are two coordinator positions that were reinstated that bring in more revenue to the district than they cost in salary and benefits to hire. It's as if the district gets the services of those coordinators for free, because other districts also pay to receive the same services. (One is career/technical ed, and one is IT support of some kind, I think. Don't have the board packet in front of me.)

The retirement date for the transportation coordinator was extended because 1) this is the person who sets up all the bus routes every summer, and makes sure that special ed students in particular are taken care of when they are going to school and going home, and 2) there's a contract being negotiated right now that could save the district money every year over the next 5 years, and this person has experience with negotiating these contracts in the past.

The retirement date for the nutrition coordinator was only extended till Sept. 1, instead of Oct. 30, after the board listened to feedback from those attending the meeting.

The elimination of the public information officer position entirely would have meant that no one person at the district office would be focused on addressing questions from the public, and would slow down every other administrator's ability to do their job in a timely manner. Reassigning that person some responsibilities for coordinating Zangle, the new software that lets kids and parents keep track of their homework assignments and grades, helps to ensure that software can continue to be used this year. Students, teachers, and parents all benefit directly from that.

So, although I was initially opposed to all of the items on the agenda, some of them now make sense to me. And I was heartened that for others, some of the trustees (Arkin and Hintzke) voted against. I felt that my concerns were given serious consideration, and that there were board members who shared my concerns.

If the first explanation for bringing back three administrators is to 'match retirement' and the second explanation a week later at a special board meeting is 'lots of work to do', I would bet that the first explanation is the right one. And the second explanation was proffered since the first one didn't fly.

This decision will be remembered until Grant, Ott and Kernan are off the Board.

Sandy or others,
What can you report about the Dir. of Architectural Planning? That was the third of the retirement positions and the explanation in the board packet that time was needed to transfer projects was weak. They have had since March already to plan for this.
And what's with the Vocational Ed position when there is no cost to the district? Makes it look like it was a game to put it on in the cut list in the first place.
It is probably a good thing to bring back the middle school VPs partially but I am disappointed by the creation of new titles and the retirement extensions on others. Not so sure we will be making that donation now when the decisions of staff and trustees continue to erode our confidence.

'...had since March to plan for this...'?
That assumes PUSD administration understood the depth of the CA budget fiasco, and did not believe Measure G would pass. Then they would have been planning for this eventuality. I believe they thought Measure G would pass, and that the state would somehow come through with more funds. As it is, neither came to be.

Good thorough work, as usual. I'm glad someone has the time to really probe into a lot of the details and post her findings here. It is also good to hear that some of these decisions aren't so simple and obvious when you see some of the details.

To others, please give what you can. I personally intend to give a follow up donation, even if the goal is reached.

Also, consider volunteering in the classrooms. Personal involvement can be very valuable, and can change your perspective.

Yoyo,

You state your opinion and then expect others that state their's to "move elsewhere". Is that what we should say to you as well? I personally appreciate ALL the differing views in our community. It seems they are all contributing to the ideas and suggestions that will improve this community for all of us.

My comment above "...had since March to plan for this" was specifically concerning the elimination of the Dir. of Architectural Planning.
The board packet indicated that additional time was needed to offload projects and that was justification to keep the person in the role until retirement. What I meant with my remark was that this person has had since first week of March to know that their position was being eliminated---almost 4 months to wrap up or transfer work. Again that is much more time than is normally given in the business world for resignations or terminations. Yet another 3 months should not be necessary and I just think this was a sham reason to justify maximizing someone's retirement.
But since I wasn't able to view the meeting, I do not know what was said concerning the position. I was hoping someone could shed light.

I think what is less clear is that a couple of these changes are on the backs of the classified staff--people bumped out of management back into the classified ranks with subsequent cuts to other classified members because the positions filled or used were actually vacant (not a current expense).

I'm much in favor of the VPs being saved at the middle schools, but contrary to what is affirmed above, the district can make it without the staff they kept at the DO. Most districts cut PIOs long ago; contracts can be negotiated and other business handed of to others like the CBO. That is what happens when cuts occur, those who remain must take up the duties. Most importantly, with the exception of the VPs, the benefit to students is remote at best and not a priority for the community at its worst. How many counselors or resource specialists or elementary VPs or remaining middle school VPs could have been saved instead?

Unfortunately, the shell game continues--the public is being handed a 1,000 piece puzzle, but only a few inside the district having access to the whole picture from the lid on the box.

Kathleen,

I have really appreciated the input you have offered as well as the perspective of someone with much vested in this district (past and current) to not want to see it fail.

Aside from Arkin and Hintzke who seem to finally be getting an ear for the concerned people in the community, what can we do?

The teachers left seem convinced all will work out and we will pass another parcel tax. Others are completely in the dark about the going ons at the district office.

Aside from these fundraising drives, what recourse as a community do we have to get things right over at the district? Must we wait for a total collision before the next election?

Any direction would be appreciated!

So what DO we Do . . . excellent question. The best hope for a solution will come with two events, (1) the announcement of the retirement of the superintendent, and (2) the November 2010 election.

In the case of the first point, rumors have that occurring in the fall. IF that comes to pass, it will be imperative for the community to demand a voice in the interview process . . . something that is not often done. It is certain that superintendents or those who hope to be a superintendent for the first time and who would like to work in Pleasanton are watching for that announcement. It's a longer conversation, but the Board will choose an organization to do the "search," but most have a stable of candidates already so it ends up not being a real search. If the community isn't actively involved, you could have a board that looks for a carbon copy of what they already find acceptable.

November 2010 is a long way off in terms of solving this problem, but at least two board members have been unresponsive to the concerns of taxpayers. I'm strongly in favor of the unwritten agreement that a board member will serve no more than two terms (eight years), which gives those with fresh perspectives an opportunity to run without having to unseat an incumbent.

As long as the union leadership (I don't like saying teachers here) believes the community will bail them out (segue to the national picture), they aren't likely to even poll their membership about what they are willing to do. Their answer could be nothing; it could be much more.

I think the district administration, at least a majority of the board members, and union leadership are gambling (again) and they need to lose the bet. Then maybe individual teachers will collectively stand up to their leadership and the board and administration will see that business as usual isn't going to cut it.

In the meantime, the majority of those individual teachers will do their jobs and parents and community members will step up in the classrooms and schools to fill in gaps. I think this path was chosen with the parcel tax election and was compounded on Monday night with the smoke and mirrors about keeping the district office staff. The majority of board members are choosing to stand with administration and to ignore their customers (all of us, not just parents). They've forgotten about students, our children and grandchildren.

I'd like to see everyone write to board members; two need our support and three need to hear from more than just a few of us that this is not acceptable. As long as there is a belief that they almost won the election, they will likely focus on running another one and not on the systemic change needed nor on the fact that many people chose not to vote or actually voted no . . . the dearth of donations should be a hint . . . I don't think they see it that way.

This is a first blush ramble. I'll think about what else we can do. I'm wondering what was done with the superintendent's contract in closed session.

I've got to get some work done this AM but I will try to answer some of the questions asked here from my point of view later today or tonight, when I can pull out the notes I took at the board meeting.

Beth --

sadly, my meeting notes include nothing specific about extending the retirement date for the director of architectural planning and management, other than the fact that the vote passed 3-2 (Grant, Kernan, and Ott in favor; Arkin and Hintzke against).

The board packet has this to say: "The extension for the Director of Architectural Planning and Management will allow time to close out projects to allow for a successful transition once capital funds become available. This is critical as the Director of Facilities position may also be terminated. In addition, the Director [of APM] is processing CTE project plans for DSA approval to secure the state funding."

I don't know what those last two acronyms are.

The director of facilities position was terminated later in the meeting. I do not recall any discussion of this at all, and the vote was 5-0.

Dark Corners of Town --

To be fair to Chris Grant, I think it's important to note that he voted with Arkin and Hintzke not to extend the retirement date for the coordinator of child nutrition position. After that agenda item failed, Grant offered a motion to extend the retirement date to Sept. 1 (instead of the Oct. 30 date that was in the previous motion and failed). That motion passed (though I can't remember if it was unanimous or not.)

Also, I believe that Pat Kernan abstained once. I'm not certain, though. It was one of the very early agenda items.

Sandy - I think Trustee Grant may be starting to see the light. He allowed Trustees Arkin and Hintzke to stick their necks out first regarding all the administration position saves. He is only now hedging his bets.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?