Congratulations Mark! Remember..you were a parent first, before you became a school board member. You are there to do whats best for the kids & families in Pleasanton. I have full confidence you will do a great job! Congrats again!

After looking at the agenda for Tuesday's meeting, I am quite concerned. There is a closed session BEFORE Miller is sworn in. Will Bowser be at that closed session taking a vote, even though he has already been voted out of office by the voters? It appears to me that the current school board majority is trying to abuse their power by doing one last vote before the new school board member is sworn in. I hope the weekly checks into this.

On the closed session agenda prior to the swearing in of Miller is:
1. 2.1 Personnel Actions (Government Code 54957) - Limited to consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline/release, or dismissal of a public employee. (D) (V)

2. 2.1.1 Appointment: Middle School Vice Principal(s) (D) (V)

3. 2.2 Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code 54957.6 Agency Negotiator: Bill Faraghan Employee Organization: Association of Pleasanton Teachers (APT) California School Employees Association (CSEA) (D) (V)

4. 2.2.1 District Representative: Board Appointee to the Tri-Valley ROP Unrepresented Employee: TVROP Executive Director (D) (V)

5. 2.3 Parent Complaint Concerning Actions of District Employees (D) (V)

The old board should not be voting on this, or even discussing this! The new board should be seated BEFORE this closed session. According to the closed session agenda, all of those items are discussion AND VOTE. If there is a vote and it is 3-2, it should be invalidated with Bowser being there.

Mark- hold true to the parents who voted you in and change the school calendar back!
Joan- be the voice for children not Parvine
Mark and Joan- stand up for what is right protect the students listen to parents concerns be the change that is needed

Echoing Concerned's comment: the board's bylaws say that a member's term ends on the first Friday in December (in this case, last Friday). However, a member whose term has expired may continue to serve until his or her successor has taken the oath of office. I don't understand why the agenda puts the oath of office after the closed session. Formally, that would seem to allow Bowser to vote in the closed session. But there doesn't seem to be any reason why the oath should be delayed. If I were Mr. Miller, I'd simply take the oath prior to the closed session and inform the board that I was now qualified and expected to participate. The bylaws allow the oath to be "administered and certified by a Board member, secretary or assistant secretary to the Board, Superintendent, deputy or assistant superintendent, principal, or County Superintendent of Schools or any other person authorized in Education Code". Mr. Miller should just find one of these people and ask them to swear him in.

Web Link

Web Link

Mr Miller said he would listen to all people. Im for the new calendar and so are hundreds of other parents at various meetings Ive attended. So Mr. Miller, how will this address all of us. You campaigned that you would listen to all, right? I'll be waiting to see that happen, and maybe stop by the meetings to remind you.

I'm against the new calendar and so are hundreds of other people. I hope Mr. Miller stands by his word.

Concerned wrote:

>> It appears to me that the current school board majority is trying to abuse their power by doing one last vote before the new school board member is sworn in. <<

If the vote during the closed session is to be on any particularly controversial issue(s), then I agree that the Board - and thus the school district - will, at the very least, lay itself open to the above charge.

"Mr Miller said he would listen to all people. Im for the new calendar and so are hundreds of other parents at various meetings Ive attended. So Mr. Miller, how will this address all of us. You campaigned that you would listen to all, right? I'll be waiting to see that happen, and maybe stop by the meetings to remind you."

What Mark Miller has said is that he will listen to parents. However, listening is one thing, agreeing and voting are another. It is a little premature and unrealistic for parents to place the expectation that he is going to be the 'anti-vote' on every issue where the public has disagreements with the administration. The tough part of politics is that you are always going to pxxx-off some % of the voters on every issue and Representing all parents, some of the time it will be you.

I am against the new calendar and how it was passed. I voted for Miller because he said he would change it back and change the way the board works. A prime example of dirty board work is this private meeting first! I can't wait tell the next election so we can remove more of these board members so the children of Pleasanton and their needs can properly be meet! No more dirty back room deals!!!!

Mr. Miller, are you sure that Cindy McGovern has the authority to administer the oath? Does she currently serve in any official capacity that gives her the authority?

Legal Resources | Education Code | 60000 | EC 60

Article 6. Administration and Certification of Oaths

The Superintendent of Public Instruction, Deputy and Assistant Superintendents of Public Instruction, secretary of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, members of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, county superintendents of schools, school trustees, members of boards of education, secretaries and assistant secretaries of boards of education, city superintendents of schools, district superintendents of schools, assistant superintendents of schools, deputy superintendents of schools, principals of schools, and every other officer charged with the performance of duties under the provisions of this code may administer and certify oaths relating to officers or official matters concerning public schools.

Best of all we get rid of POOR and IRRESPONSIBLE leadership of Jeff Bowser.

Remember me Jeff? I lobbied hard with all of my neighbors and friends to have you voted out based on your fiscal irresponsibility and attempts to bury personnel issues. I gave each a flyer outlining your fundamentally poor choices (reinstating administration before reinstating teachers and special needs).

Good riddance!

Leslie

I voted for Mark Miller, but not because he would be my personal puppet and represent my every desire. I voted for him because i am AGAINST the PUPPETS that have been carrying the Superintendent's bag around for the past few years. Trustees Laursen and Grant were no better than Bowser. My hope, and the hope of many, is that the new board will finally represent the children, parents, and residents of our great community and not the Administration. When a "boss" (the board) allows insubordination and secrecy from their "subordinate" (the superintendent) there is always going to be a collapse of order and performance. This board must take control of our school district, and FAST.

I was FOR the new calendar, but strongly AGAINST the process. I can't believe Parvin Ahmadi's back-room union deal wasn't illegal. They polled parents and students on 5 options, mis-represented the survey results with flawed statistical "analysis", then at the last minute revealed there are only 2 options, not the 5 surveyed? Why only 2? because the Superintendent had already negotiated (in a back room somewhere?) a deal with the Associations (fancy word for Union reps) and they would only approve 2 calendar options. The process matters.

None of us will ever get everything we want from the Board of Trustees, no matter who we place in that seat. The best we can hope for is honesty, integrity, an open ear, and transparency. When you make a mistake, say "we made a mistake". When you aren't sure what to do, say so. When you disagree with Ms. Ahmadi, don't be afraid.

It's a hard job, and i thank you for all parents in Pleasanton.

"Transparency", you said it well.

The previous board majority puppets working along with the superintendent to do back-door deals and poor communication are a reason I voted for Miller and definitely to get rid of Bowser who was part of the problem.

I am hoping with a new majority that the parents and the community can take back control of the district. It does not mean that the board members will always vote my way but they will hear others out and tell the superintendent what to do (and not the other way). All I want is an open and fair process and to represent the residents who the district works for. Never going to make everybody happy but if you communicate well and actually listen to what people are saying, and vote honestly, they will get the respect of the community. And by the way, listening does not mean let somebody come up to the podium and speak for 3 minutes, say thank you, and then go on what what you already decided you were going to do. If you feel the public is a pain in the process, you are in the wrong position.

It's appalling that they wouldn't have the closed session at the end of the meeting with the new Board. It doesn't have to be at the beginning and they know that. Appalling.

This seems like something the superintendent and the old majority puppets have set up. If so, sounds like the first step to dismissal of the superintendent. As Clint Eastwood said "Go ahead, make my day!"

Concerned, now that you mention it, your "concerns" over this small imagined atrocity that the school board is committing at this meeting reminds me of Clint Eastwood. It's almost like you are speaking to an empty chair. Stop complaining and get over it. If you are this concerned then why aren't you at the meeting? Enough of the cowardly anonymous rants on here. Go to the meeting and use your real name.

I have been to many of the school board meetings. I have probably been to around 100-200 school board meetings plus committees while in residence in Pleasanton. I also communicate regularly with school board members (although this last batch had three that did not care to communicate). I would have been at the meeting today were I were not out of town on business. While my friends hear the same from me, the forums at the weekly I have found have people attacking the messenger and not the message.

Attacking the messenger rather than the message is frequently the resource of those with a weak argument.

In my opinion, Concerned's point about a closed session vote being taken before a newly elected board member had been given the opportunity to take his oath of office and participate was a very valid one.

Perhaps the closed session items were routine and relatively unimportant. But, if, by chance,the closed session items were connected with the highly controversial issues of the past year, then the timing problem was neither "small" nor "imaginary". For there is a strong possibility that the timing will, at the very least, raise questions. And it might well lay the district open to the charge that its goal was to ensure the majority vote it wanted on the issue(s) in question, before the change of Board members.

Do any of you even watch or attend the board meetings? Votes on closed session agenda items happen during the open part of the meeting. See item four on the agenda here:

Web Link

I wasn't at Tuesday's meeting and haven't watched it, but presumably the new board members attended the closed session for information/discussion, then voted on any action items after they were sworn in.

Never mind... I just read further down on the agenda and saw that the swearing in was item six. If they did vote before swearing in, that does seem wrong. It's also possible, however, that there were no action items on which anyone voted. Or that they moved agenda items around in order to get the swearing in done before voting.

Either way, it would be nice if someone actually at the meeting posted about it, instead of everyone speculating.

Holding closed session meetings immediately preceeding regular meetings has been a trick school boards have used for decades to discourage citizens from sticking around for the regular meetings. They also stretch out closed session meetings by shooting the bull, with the same intent.

Another thing they do is to put a bunch of low-priority items like recognizing employees, giving reports, reading minutes, and other real snoozer activities on the first part of the agenda. Again, the intent is to delay the opportunity for citizens to speak, and discussion of the meaty and controversial agenda items, to very late in the evening when most people have to leave, or have just said to hell with it and left the meeting in frustration.

Holding closed session meetings immediately preceeding regular meetings has been a trick school boards have used for decades to discourage citizens from sticking around for the regular meetings. They also stretch out closed session meetings by shooting the bull, with the same intent.

Another thing they do is to put a bunch of low-priority items like recognizing employees, giving reports, reading minutes, and other real snoozer activities on the first part of the agenda. Again, the intent is to delay the opportunity for citizens to speak, and discussion of the meaty and controversial agenda items, to very late in the evening when most people have to leave, or have just said to hell with it and left the meeting in frustration.