I have received your email and considered the points you raise very carefully.
With all due respect, David, the questions/issues and accusations you raised have all been asked and answered, not just once but literally over and over and over again.
It is not reasonable or fair to continue to claim facts not in evidence. You know that our board has considered and REJECTED all of the claims you are making about Bullis.
To continue to raise these opinions again is not helpful in trying to solve the problem that LASD and Bullis are currently having over facilities. It just creates chaos and stirs up anger.
Right now it is imperative that all parties keep focused on what the law requires -- reasonably equivalent facilities. I really thought that the Appellate Court ruling would settle the matter but as you know, they are back in court.
There is nothing we can do to "mitigate tension" because we cannot change the law or direct LASD to do anything. Prop 39 is the law of the state and we must let the legal process proceed.
There are 500 plus students, PUBLIC school students, attending Bullis. They deserve an equivalent facility. It does not matter if they are poor or rich or somewhere in between. Our laws serve all citizens in our state. Every child in this state is entitled to a fair and appropriate education.
Please David, you must not continue with the accusations. We need to let the legal process work -- not keep stirring up the anger. It just is not helpful.
Sent from my iPhone
Julia, thank you for your reply.
My request actually did not mention facilities at all. I understand that given the current law, facilities are the sole responsibility of LASD.
My concern is that BCS is suddenly proposing significant growth in a way that is not supported at all by their approved charter petition. In fact their petition specifically mentions their "small school community". If SCCOE chooses not to agendize and discuss this issue, it will only serve to perpetuate the widely-held belief that SCCOE simply rubber-stamps any charter school petition before them and then does little if any oversight and management of those charter schools. It sends the message that the charter petition is not a binding contract, and that a charter school can unilaterally change its mind at any time and diverge from their petition with no repercussions. I really hope that is not the case.
Although you state that the issue of growth is not about facilities, if the facilities issue were settled there would not be any anger around growth.
It is not growth per se that is causing increased anger -- it is growth driving a need for facilities.
We can mask the true issue by re-arguing all the things you raised in your email but that will still not flush out the elephant under the rug.
The courts will have to settle this difficult question.
I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, David.
Sent from my iPhone
It really amazes me how Julia refuses to take my words at face value and so actively fights against the duties required of the board to oversee their charter schools. I am glad that Dr. De La Torre does not subscribe to this point of view, and I can only hope that others on the board follow his lead.