More on the school board: Foursome is scolded
More details have surfaced about last night's closed session maneuvering by the Woodland Joint Unified School District's board of trustees. In what was downplayed in today's Daily Democrat, the sole purpose of the meeting was to work around potential litigation to salvage the future purchase of the Blue Shield building.
Voting in favor of the lease-purchase plan was the steadfast foursome of Carol Souza Cole, Bill Beermann, Rosario Ruiz-Dark and Elaine Lytle. Those who opposed the plan were trustees Warren Berg and Rogelio Villagrana. Frank Glover, who voted against the purchase with Villagrana and Berg in December, was absent.
Upon emerging from the closed session, superintendent Jacki Cottingim commented on the sudden change of the purchase agreement. She indicated to the small crowd that the district is unable to get investors for the bonds (Certificates of Participation) because the current Yolo County Grand Jury investigation must be disclosed to potential investors.
The Grand Jury has responded to a complaint about alleged improprieties surrounding the purchase of the building. Cottingim suggested that she and the trustees do not know why, or what, the investigation is about. She also indicated that the Grand Jury has refused to tell her the purpose of the investigation.
Details of the lease-purchase agreement were not made public, and apparently, at least two of the trustees were not provided adequate information.
Rogelio Villagrana, with pragmatic sensibility, indicated that he could not vote on the new agreement without the information needed to make a decision.
The other opponent of the lease-purchase agreement, Warren Berg, reprimanded the four assenting trustees. Reportedly he stated, "I am disgusted and outraged at the process of this decision."
For the Daily Democrat's take on the meeting, click the title of this story.
44 comments:
When I was at a Key Communicators meeting about a year ago Jacki presented to everyone there her argument for moving to a new location. It does not make sense to lease...but now it is suddenly okay??? She obviously has every intention of getting her rubber stamping board of trustees to buy the Blue Shield building even to the dismay of the public.
I want to know how many parents have had the same experience as I have had at the district office where upper management treats you like garbage, talks down to you and basically do as they damn well please. This is just another example of them doing what they want and those that oppose just get ignored.
Wake up Carol Souza Cole, Bill Beermann, Rosario Ruiz-Dark and Elaine Lytle. Start listening to the voters. I truly hope all four of them are recalled and Jacki looses her job over this. It just sickens me to look at the five of them- they are so smug and as far as the board is concerned they are just flat out incompetent
This lease option sounds like another trick by the Sup's so she can get the fancy office suite she wants.
DO NOT take the bait, the terms of this deal are hidden right now. They need to admit it is wrong to spend money on a new office building no matter what the terms, when there are teacher "layoffs" in process.
How many district office staff member positions are being eliminated in the budget cuts? Reduced staff means less office space necessary now and in the future.
Anon. 9:09
The only argument they have against your logic is that the district will eventually own the building. That's the only way they can justify it.
The lease (for the Blue Shield building) certainly won't be cheaper than what they have now (at Cottonwood). If it is, why didn't they tell us?
And, after all this, they are still keeping things secret!
They have basically done themselves in. They had an opportunity to save a little face and they blew it. Now, the recall effort will move forward because their intent is clearly to own the building.
Hopefully the superintendent will resign before the new board is seated. Regardless, she will be gone with the rest of them.
I had hoped that just one of the four trustees would reconsider the deal to avoid a recall. The recall will cost taxpayers, but now I'm convinced it is needed. I'm sorry it had to come to this.
Exactly Dino, that was my point. Their intentions have not changed, they are just going about it in a different way and ignoring public opinion.
I too held out hope that just one of the four board members would come to their senses. A recall is obviously needed. It really is a shame it had to come to this.
DUDLEY SAYS..........
YES, THE RECALL WILL GO FORWARD.
NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT !!!
IF WE CAN NOT CHANGE THEIR MINDS,
WE CAN CHANGE THE BOARD MEMBERS.
This is why the recall will win!
"In a letter from Cottingim and Associate Superintendent of Business Services Kelly Morgan, they said the district will continue purchase discussions once the investigation is concluded.
When will people learn!
Where were all of you when they were looking for people to run for the school board? It sure is easy to toss stones when you may not know all the information! I have not heard of one teacher that could loose their job. Where did that rumor start. I forgot just how rumor oriented woodland was. There just might have been more disclosed in the closed meeting that the public hasn't heard yet. All you complainers get up and run for office!!!!
I have still yet to see a comment on this board actually defending the purchase of this building.
I see a lot of complaining from people being upset with their elected officials.
So the defense is," You didn't run for office, so don't be angry with the people who are there." ?
I want to see the defense of overspending for a building by nearly $1,000,000.
I want to see the defense for choosing a financing plan that costs the district another $3,000,000 dollars and passes the service debt to others to pay.
I want to see the defense of board members for not knowing what was written in the contract they approved.
I want to see the defense of board members that rubber stamp everything in front of them and never ask a question.
The complaints about those who choose to hold public officials accountable for the votes need to have more teeth behind their arguments.
I HAVE HEARD ENOUGH!!! Yes, the cost of the Blue Shield Building seems expensive, but the continued cost of leasing is throwing money away. It seems only logical that even if the cost is greater while buying the building, that the district would eventually end up with a valuable asset.
One of the anonymous writers commented that in a time of “budget cuts and lay offs”, I haven’t heard of any new cuts or lay offs, and am quite certain that even if that was the case money earmarked for buildings cannot be used for teachers, programs, or books. It’s a use it or loose it deal.
In conclusion, I think those of you who are posting should have the decency to put your name with your comments. It’s easy to speak as if you know something or make snide comments about others when there is no chance that you may have to take responsibility later. I agree that as long as things are being discussed behind closed doors, people may let their imaginations run wild. However, I would put my life and my money in the hands of Bill Beermann and know that all would be safe. You see, the man that you are so openly bad mouthing may not be very well known in our community, but was an outstanding police officer with Sacramento Police Department for 29years. He may not have played politics the way others in the department did, but always stood up for what he thought was right. Bill is not a follower but a leader and would never vote to buy this building unless he thought it was in the districts best interest.
12:19
WJUSD lays off many teachers every year. That's the way they do business. It's not every year, however, that a school board decides to blow a few million bucks.
As for my whereabouts during the election period, I posted a couple of stories about the campaign without any forethought of the school board purchasing an over-priced, over-sized building. Since all that was done in closed session, most everybody had no idea that would be an issue.
Now that it is an issue... we have to deal with it NOW, and not look back to ask ourselves if we should have run. I suppose it's satisfying to look back and know my vote was a good one (I voted for Blackwood). I'm also glad I ended up NOT voting for Souza-Cole (despite my initial endorsement on this blog)
Ms. Kiesz
You need to do more research before ranting. You are ill-informed.
Budget cuts are just beginning, and the board is taking money from the General Fund to pay for the building, so therefore, any further expense does impact spending on salaries, positions and other services for students.
Personal attacks on any public officials are unnecessary, and I do not support them.
Commenting on the job any public official does is fair game. You still have not provided a defense for the purchase.
And by the way- the board is now LEASING and not buying.
Susan,
The problem is that Bill (and the others) have not convinced anyone but themselves that purchasing this particular building, in this particular way, was a prudent decision. We can probably all agree that, generally speaking, purchasing is more-often better than leasing. But this is a clear-cut example of how purchasing is not better than leasing.
The letter to the editor that Souza-Cole authored made for a poor argument. If they were open about their decision-making, maybe some of their reasoning could be justified. It simply hasn't happened.
I'm sure your friend is a decent guy, but he has made critical mistakes behind closed doors throughout this whole "process." Obviously, we don't know what was said... we only see the results.
Dino,
Of course it should be noted that the purchase of the building was pushed beyond the election.
If you look at the time line.
Purchase Agreement finalized in early October.
Board meeting scheduled a week before election, but purchase not placed on the agenda.
Purchase brought to first meeting after election?
Coincidence?
Do you read the school minutes. They just announced last week that they would have to cut 8 teachers and also pay 240k out of a special reserve for the new buildings first year payment increase. It was in all of the newspapers and on the blog. That is not a rumor, but a fact.
I would also say, millions of Americans who are in forclosure right now would disagree with the notion that buying is better than leasing.
1. You have to be able to afford it. (Using special reserve money and Selpa funds does not sound like they can afford it)
2. It takes away all flexibility. You are stuck for 30 years, if you do not refinance to pay for other things along the way.
3. Most government agencies lease to be flexible for changing demands.
"In conclusion, I think those of you who are posting should have the decency to put your name with your comments."
I see this written alot. My question is what would you do with the information?
Dino, I am surprised that you voted for the person less qualified for the school board.
As to the recall, it will fail. It will not qualify since it will not garnish the required signatures. The recall proponents will not convince the community and will fail.
3:10
Blackwood was the only professional educator on the ballot... and you're saying he's the least qualified?
Wow.
Oh wait, I forgot... he's new to Woodland so, you're right, he's not a good match for the local circle-jerk.
That may hinge on the Grand Jury report. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.
Dear 3:10, I think you have read your crystal ball upside down. Mine says just the oposit. Guess we will just wait and see huh?
yes , he taught ESL to adults somewhere in Asia for a few months.
He never showed up to any of the forums nor did he campaigned. he was not serious about his candidacy. there is no qualifications that you must be an educator to run for the board. The reason we have lay boards is because there is a need to balance their control of the system. Look at the current issue. The educators control the board and at least one of them was a teacher (Board President). She taught adult ed in Woodland.
4:05
Whereabouts in Asia? In Beijing's Spanish Town?
No doubt he could have used you as his "campaigned" speech writer (also note your grammar "there IS no qualifications").
Michael Blackwood is a teacher - not an administrator - and yes, that gives him insight to keep people like Jacki Cottingim in check.
As a refresher for you, English Major, here's a blurb from the SacBee:
Blackwood, 38, is a newcomer to the area who believes he can provide the district a fresh perspective. He moved to Woodland with his wife this summer from Korea, where he taught English as a visiting professor at Korea University. He is originally from Parkersburg, W. Va.
Blackwood teaches Spanish and English in an extension program at UC Davis. He said he is eager to get involved in the community where he plans to raise a family.
"It is my goal to utilize my professional and educational background, along with my strong ethical standards and a genuine desire to serve the Woodland community," Blackwood said.
He said the most pressing problem facing schools is the achievement gap for students and English learners of low socioeconomic status. He plans to address the issue by using his professional experience and reaching out to parents, teachers and students, but not micromanaging, Blackwood said. Also important are safe learning environments and a budget based on the district's practical goals, he said.
###
Next time you decide to spout your wisdom on board qualifications, try some research first. Indeed, let's look at the current issue... is your rationale paying dividends to the community?
Go back to your nap.
Actually the only educator on the board is Frank Glover. He taught school for years and I believe he also has an administrative credential.
I am glad he is there, otherwise, I have no idea what might get past this board.
Adult ed is not the same as teaching in the public schools. Not even close.
I won't support the recall. I don't believe it is appropriate in this situation and I know the people behind it and don't trust them.
What IS appropriate for this situation? Go with the flow?
So how much money does a public official have to waste, before it is acceptable for their constituents to ask for their removal?
I agree with a earlier post- I never see anyone actually defending this groups ability to make decisions, nor its purchase of the building.
Nothing at least that holds up to a candle light's worth of scrutiny.
An argument for lease vs. buy gets exposed for the narrowness of its logic pretty fast to those who actually understand what has transpired.
Will a recall go through? A simple question.
Do you believe that people will sign a petition when it is explained to them that a group of public officials offered to pay nearly $1,000,000 more than the property was appraised for?
Do you believe they will not be upset or find it acceptable for trustees to not even know what is in the contract for the largest purchase of their term?
Two of the trustees were not even elected, two others were elected with barely 10% of the registered voters. If the signatures are gathered, they will have more signatures than all four trustees received votes.
First of all, it is far from clear that anything needs to be done. Many of the charges launched against the school board have turned out to be false. One of the reasons people don't ardently stand up and defend them is simply the degree to which the current Supt. and her aides are unpopular. They have bullied or tried to bully almost everyone and, as a result, no one feels much affection for them. Secondly, many people realize that we're in for a tough couple of fiscal years and wasting the money on a recall is simply something we cannot afford. We will not be able to recover the money spent on the bldg. Consequently, the adults among us realize that we're going to have to tough this one through without subjecting the community and our children to a bitter, divisive, and expensive battle simply to satisfy the egos of the perenially disenchanted.
What has been debunked?
Talk about making unfounded statements.
Check out the opinion of the Daily Demopalm's editor:
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/editorial/ci_8559741
School district opponents won't be satisfied
Article Created: 03/13/2008 09:38:47 AM PDT
At Issue: Woodland school district trustees decide to lease old Blue Shield building.
Our Opinion: Opponents of some school trustees as well as the Woodland district's decision to lease-purchase the old Blue Shield building will never be satisfied.
There's nothing worse then when opponents of a proposal sense blood. That's what's happening with the Woodland School District's decision to buy the former Blue Shield building in the city's downtown. Trustees voted - just barely - to back off an outright purchase and decide to go with a lease-purchase option on the structure.
Given the current economy locally and statewide, coupled with a call for a grand jury investigation, which made it impossible to sell certificates of participation, the district had to end any outright purchase of the building at 435 Sixth St.
But most likely the decision won't satisfy opponents, some of whom are proceeding with a recall drive. Dudley Holman, who long served as a city councilman and mayor but now heads up the Yolo County Taxpayers Association, seems to be the chief protagonist, although there are trustees just as opposed to the acquisition - now leasing - idea.
[Blah, blah, blah - go to Web site for this chunk of verbal guar]
The questions reasonable people should ask themselves are these: Is the school district better off with what it presently has? If not, then what are the options?
If Holman and others opposed to office relocation have ideas about how the district can provide for increased facilities as a result of growth we would like to hear them.
Dino, if your candidate was so highly qualified why didn't he participate in the public forums? Why was he afraid to face the voters? You are just making excuses for your bias.
The recall will fail.
1:42
Why would I make excuses? He's the one who lost, probably for a variety of reasons. And of course I'm biased when I vote for someone... what are you, some kind of idiot?
Nice of you to slip in your prognostication of the recall to stay on topic. Hey, are you up from your nap already?
Nice opinion in the Democrap. You can obviously tell they do not have the slightest clue about the situation. They even got the length of the financing wrong. Just another way to try to pipe in on a subject they know little about, or only one side. Their reporter does not even stay for the meetings. Probably just has Jacki call her afterwards to fill her in on what went on. At least the "Dr.'s" version of what went on.
2:29
I agree with you. And it's not limited to this situation. Whenever I see a D.D. opinion on anything related to education I just shake my head. No clue whatsoever.
Dino, I think you should start an editorial board, only one member needed... you. Then pick a subject like.... The local paper.
At issue: Local paper opponents will never be satisfied.
Opinion: Niether will their supporters due to lack of local stories and stories that change every day as they get correct information from local blogs and update as needed. You have better get use to it or they will raise their prices as well. The local papers board of trustees will - just barely
- vote to overturn the one local article they did have (Just barely with the same just barely votes they had in the first place to actuall purchase the story from AP)
Basically, when you sense blood it is a shark frenzy, mob mentality group of people who for some dumb reason like local information.
Get over it, it will not happen, just deal with it. I do not care if the paper costs $5 a day, buy it and be happy.
Grammer and spelling errors were not on purpose but fit story well.
Good one!
Does the D.D. have an advisory board? If so, I wonder who's on it?
It's obvious what the editor's position is on school the Blue Shield issue... but it would be interesting to learn the opinions of the advisory group (if they have one).
Thanks for laugh.
Dino, you must be the expert in educational issues. We need your expertize.
I can confidently say that my expertise in education exceeds that of the editorial staff of the Daily Democrat - which is why I can poke holes in their idiotic statements. Other than that, I'm not sure how much of an expert I am.
I have concluded from my experience in education, however, that the state system needs a complete overhaul at all levels. We desperately need massive reform at the federal level, too.
As I said before, it's a shame that there needs to be a recall to correct administrative failures. The distraction is counterproductive to educating our children, but apparently it is necessary.
Rogelio is attorney right? He has his juris doctorate degree, so is he not qualified to be on the board. I think he saw someting that was not right from the get go. Thats why he voted against it. Don't underestimate him, he made a sound decision based on what he was given and the laws that applied to such a purchase.
Papa Bear,
Not sure where you're headed with that... but I'll bite. Yes, I think having a background in law would be beneficial as a trustee. I also agree with Rogelio's position on the Blue Shield building issue, as do many others - that's why he won't be subject to the recall.
What recall? Does one exist? Are the proponents going to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of the election?
Here come the "wasting tax payer Money" arguments from the board members.
Don't defend their wasting of millions of dollars. Don't defend their rubber stamping.
The money this group of idiot will cost this district is all too great.
Anything less than a $1,000,000 recall is a net savings.
The recall is automatic. Once the signatures are collected, it is over. They would be better to resign.
The board members are foolish to think that this is only Dudley Holman facilitating this... very foolish and naive.
Oh please...I am not a board member nor am I an ardent defender of the board, quite to the contrary, but I believe that a recall is a waste of time, money and focus. We have more important issues to worry about.
I have also payed for far too many of Dudley's pet causes over the years, he and his ilk which apparently includes you. Nice threats. Let's hope you can back them up.
9:42
If you are so convinced that we have other issues that need "focus", then spell them out and step up. It would be great if these issues you speak of do not need money because the current FOUR "yes" members have already obligated the majority of any district money to have the Kingdom the Supt wants.
It is correct that the best process is that the four board members admit that it is wrong and financially irresponsible to involve the district in the Blue Shield Building. The only way they will be able to continue as trustees is if they spend wisely.
You seem so sure of yourself yet you have not provided a possible alternative to the decision that they have made. It is not a good thing to be obligated to a building that is too big no matter what the financial trick they try to pull. Fact is, the Woodland Joint Unified School District can not afford the building.
Post a Comment