From: Dave Cortright <davecortright@yahoo.com>
To: 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>; Carmen Aminzadeh <Carmen_Aminzadeh@sccoe.org>; Xavier De La Torre <Xavier_DeLaTorre@sccoe.org>; Cary Dritz <Cary_Dritz@sccoe.org>; Lucretia Peebles <Lucretia_Peebles@sccoe.org>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:01 AM
Subject: Bullis Charter School continues to widen the chasm between itself and the community it allegedly supports
Los Altos School District board member Doug Smith just posted this to his blog (the full text is attached to the bottom of this message). As overseers of Bullis Charter School, it is imperative that you read it and understand how BCS' actions continue to undermine the ability for them to to be accepted into our community. If anyone is manufacturing outrage here, it is BCS continuing to do ill-advised things like this, and your own board for doing nothing to prevent it.
For what it's worth, it was my hope that an SCCOE-appointed BCS board member would keep you better informed of such things, and could temper these sorts of actions. However after listening to your discussions on the matter and reading the requirements for the position, I am not hopeful. You are looking for someone who thinks and acts just like the current board. If that's all you're going for, you shouldn't even bother.
Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright
http://lasdobserver.blogspot.com/2012/08/bullis-demands-even-more.html
On Friday, Bullis attorneys file motions with the court seeking attorney fees from the 2019-10 lawsuit. The basis of their motion is the "Private Attorney General Doctrine". As I understand it, that law allows parties to a lawsuit to recover their costs in certain circumstances.
I'm not going to debate the merits of the suit here—again, I prefer that those arguments be made in front of a judge. However, I will point out the foolishness of bringing such a motion.
Throughout the past several years, BCS has asserted that they want to be "accepted as part of the community". I'm not sure how the BCS Board believes that demanding $1.3M from a public school district will endear them to our community. To put this in perspective, $1.3M would pay for about a dozen teachers. If BCS prevails in this effort, we'll be laying off a lot of teachers to pay for their demands.
BCS speaks proudly of their "values curriculum".* I wonder what values this teaches their students? One of their parents famously told the SCCBOE that they were "educating the future leaders". What set of values is this instilling in them?
Beyond the question of values, there's just good old common sense. When I've spoken to their board about this in the past, they've simply asserted "well, it is our legal right." Given that BCS spends more on their professional PR firm each year than we do in a whole decade, I can't imagine what they were thinking. Demanding $1.3M from LASD might sit within the bounds of the law, but if you expect that the people of our community will "accept and welcome" you, well, you are not very good judges of human nature.
* I'm always somewhat annoyed when BCS hypes parts of their program that have existed within the LASD program for years, or even decades. It's one thing to mimic our program and call it "new". It is hypocritical to mimic us, call it unique, and then tell your kids what great values you're teaching them.