From: Dave Cortright <davecortright@yahoo.com>
To: Julia <juliaghs@aol.com>
Cc: Joseph Di Salvo <josephsds1@aol.com>; Michael Chang <michael_chang@sccoe.org>; Anna Song <anna_song@sccoe.org>; Grace Mah <grace_mah@sccoe.org>; Julia Hover-Smoot <julia_hover-smoot@sccoe.org>; Leon Beauchman <leon_beauchman@sccoe.org>; Craig Mann <craig_mann@sccoe.org>; SCCOE Staff Charles Weis <Charles_Weis@sccoe.org>; Cary Dritz <Cary_Dritz@sccoe.org>; Lucretia Peebles <Lucretia_Peebles@sccoe.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: The problem is simple: communications are deficient among BCS, SCCOE, and the LASD community
Julia,
Thank you very much for writing me back. I know you must be overwhelmed with community feedback on this issue by now, and I appreciate you taking the time out to have this conversation with me.
The thing that most disappoints me about your responses thus far is quite simply I do not feel heard. I am ok if you consider the points I make, then disagree by refuting them with points of your own. But when I write to you with an assertion and a clear reason why I believe it to be true—and you make no effort to even acknowledge what I said—I feel unheard, marginalized and dismissed. I would appreciate it if you could brush up on your active listening skills. That would make the communications between us work a lot better.
I hear you that you are struggling with the appropriate role the appointed board member would have. Perhaps I am being facile, but I just don't share your consternation. That person would have the duty—as do ALL board members of any school—to make decisions that are in the best interests of the school and especially the students. That includes ensuring that the school is properly following all aspects of the law, ensuring the school is maintaining the best possible relations with its school district, and ensuring its vision and actions are know by and aligned with its chartering authority. Yes, they will need to comply with the Brown act and all other requirements that any public school board member would. That is a good thing, and I don't see why you even raise it as a concern.
Your claim that any information this new board member communicates back "will be the things we can already get from the Bullis board meetings". I agree. But I assert that while SCCOE CAN get this information, I do not believe you ARE currently getting this information. When was the last time you or any of SCCOE staff attended a BCS board meeting? Or read the minutes of one of their meetings? How often does that happen? In a recent letter I passed along this quote: "In discussing these action plans, two of the BCS board members expressed a preference that BCS 'stick it its knitting' rather than making 'external' efforts; one of the BCS board members summed up these concerns as 'what's in it for us?'" Are you saying that SCCOE had already heard that? If so, then I missed it because I've seen no response to it. And it is the sort of statement that requires a response.
I do appreciate that you want this to be a template for all of your charters and thus need to take the time to think it through, as long as you do indeed follow through on implementing it. I hope you can understand after the discussion and straw vote at last week's meeting how I fear that you will choose the expedient path here and do nothing. Even if you choose not to appoint a board member, I assert that you must do something.
I commend you for your dedication to the other families and students that desperately need your attention. But I hope you can see from the recent and rising responses you are receiving from our community that we desperately need your attention too. I am heartened that you are responding to it. Thanks for all that you do.
Best regards,
·Dave Cortright
From: Julia <juliaghs@aol.com>
To: Dave Cortright <davecortright@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: The problem is simple: communications are deficient among BCS, SCCOE, and the LASD community
Dear David,
Thanks for fixing my name mis-spelling. I appreciate your quick response.
So, let's get back to the issues. I stand by my comments in my email yesterday. I do not believe that we have clarified exactly what the appointed board member will actually do. You would like to impose your opinion on the matter but I don't think it is as simple as you have stated. However, I do think it is worth discussing so here are my thoughts.
Under our by-laws the appointed board member will have "all the rights and responsibilities" of a board member. I believe that will mean that the appointed board member will be bound by the Brown Act and also all the laws regarding confidentiality and closed session confidentiality.
They will also hold a sort of weird fiduciary responsibility to the whole thing -- they are public board representatives on one hand but are "responsible" (bylaw word) as any other board member is responsible.
Maybe it's my lawyer brain churning here but I think you can see how i worry that this person will have split loyalties and even split responsibilities if WE ( my board) are not clear about what they are supposed to do.
The things they CAN report back to us will be the things we can already get from the Bullis board meetings because those are already public and governed by the Brown Act. The information they glean from closed session will be confidential and will not be reportable to us.
They will be able to, as you say, represent our interests, but we have already communicated our interests and that communication is ongoing as you know. And, how will we work with this individual as we go forward and interests change? Will we have regular meetings with them and with Bullis? Will these be public and agendized or will they be able to take a less formal structure? The Brown Act might dictate this but I haven't thought it through completely and we have not discussed it at OUR board yet.
Secondly, please do me the favor of not "reading into" my emails and assuming facts not in evidence. I used quotes on the word "hear" in my last response because you used it over and over in your email to me. But you are using the word "hear" to mean "agree" and I don't agree with all of your assertions. You think that if I "hear" you I will agree with your point of view. I do hear (and read) and I have a different point of view than you do -- which point of view I have endeavored to communicate clearly to all who have written or spoken to me.
And finally, to respond to your comments about my "obligations", I still assert that there are other students and families that desperately need our attention and we have been giving them short-shrift as the Los Altos matter has expanded to fill almost every minute.
I suppose the real problem here is that age old conundrum-- not enough time-- but I suppose I will not solve that problem! However, my obligations to other students and families remain and I will continue to serve them, as well as you, to the best of my abilities, however limited those may be.
Well, thanks for the conversation.
Sincerely,
Julia
Sent from my iPhone
Comments