Cottingim quits, leaves WJUSD amidst turmoil
True to form, WJUSD superintendent Jacki Cottingim will leave her third district during some sort of dispute. The Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District has announced Cottingim's appointment as their new superintendent during tonight's special board meeting.
The Daily Republic posted the story earlier this evening. Here are some excerpts from the article written by Nika Megino:
Fairfield-Suisun names new school superintendent
FAIRFIELD - Former Travis Unified Superintendent Jacki Cottingim will make her way back to Fairfield in July. This time as the new superintendent of the Fairfield-Suisun School District.
Cottingim's appointment was announced at a brief special board meeting Thursday night after the seven-member School Board voted unanimously to hire the Woodland official.
The board hired Cottingim on a three-year contract. Her salary will be $225,000 per year, with an increase of 3.25 percent each year upon satisfactory evaluation by the board, according to the contract.
'It's been quite a process,' Board President Chuck Wood said. 'She's very well qualified.'
[Click the title of this story to access the Daily Republic piece. You must complete the online form.]
Posts
57 comments:
I wonder if she will bring Kathleen Bond along with her as "Her GIFT to that district" too.
She doesn't seem to be a very loyal person to leave yet another school board during a recall. Owell, glad to be rid of her!
What will Carol Souza-Cole due now? Who will tell her what to think?
Mean spirited, is the best term I can use to describe many but not all of the comments I have read about schools in the past few months.
You got your wish and Jackie is gone. Show everyone you are not a petty bunch and wish her well, then move on.
John F. Kennedy said, “So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.”
Civility goes both ways. Where did the break-down begin? Secret dealings and exclusion of public input is not civil. Neither is ignoring citizens. Your request for well-wishes is asking for insincere expressions.
So we hired Jackie as she ran out of an Oregon community left in turmoil by her and we wonder why this happened?
Where's she going next? They need a head's up. She's not capable of being a Kindergarten room mom
Correction: She was forced out of Oregon, then landed a job in Travis. She then split from there during a threat of a teacher strike for failed labor negotiations lasting 3 yrs.
Thank goodness she is gone!!!
I thought the Fairfield-Suisun would NOT accept her. I can now breathe a sigh of relief that they did. I was afraid they would do too much home-work on her, that they would check her references, and her past. What a relief.
Now lets hope the board does a MUCH better job in hiring her replacement. Or is that too much to ask of our current board? Should we wait till after the recall to fill her spot? After all we do want the right people making that choice.
7:35 - Mean spirited comments is what this site is all about. Negativity is encouraged by the moderators.
Here is the reason people like Jackie get hired when there is a great deal of criticism from people in the community about them.
In almost every instance the individual has a great deal of talent and the people they work directly for know that and report those talents to the future employers.
The critics of the person however, are believed by the reviewers to suffer from group hysteria. Not unlike the situation where one person gets sick and for some unknown reason dozens of other people near them get sick.
In other words you lose your credibility once the pileing on starts.
In this instance some people disagreed with the purchase of the Blue Cross Building and then everything was bad. I suspect if this were the 1800's we may have seen bodies hanging in the town square. That is the level of hate that has been displayed.
There is no hate. We just want some leadership. Some people who do not rubberstamp everything. Jacki brings a bunch on herself. Have you ever heard of another supe who has a weekly rumor control meeting??
9:49, Not "hate".
I am extremely dissapointed in her lack of fiscal responsibility. The fact that she got the majority of the board to go along with her amazes me. The Blue shield purchase should have NEVER gone through. Dr. C should have nipped the Leanna graduation situation in the bud long ago. She is definately wrong for Woodland Schools.
PS I saw on the news this morning the teachers down south protesting the cuts in education for the State. The supt. is getting 225K. per year at her new post, that is just one salary. Get the money out of the pockets of the money wasters and get it into the actual educators!
The level of dishonesty and arrogance coming from the district office has never been this bad from the time I have lived here.
To say all things that happened under her reign were bad is ridiculous. Even her supporters must admit that a pattern has developed in her employment. Mistrust by the community and then leaves.
From my perspective, she has a character flaw that gets in the way of her other talents.
We will have to see what the Grand Jury found out in their investigation. It may give us some glimpse into how she worked and the four trustees took everything she had to say as gospel.
9:30
Try another blog. Opinions opposite of yours do not mean this is a negative site. I will agree there are frank and childish statements here... along with outright lies... but the stories (although admittedly the "alternative" view) have been pretty much right on.
Opposed to PBID. Voted down by majority.
Opposed to Storm Drain fees. Voted down by majority.
Opposed Blue Shield deal. Superintendent quit, recall coming.
Opposed to district's position on Leanna. They reversed their decision.
Opposed to city processes. City Manager proposes reform.
You need to open your eyes. Quit preaching how other people should express their opinions and start your own blog.
The Recall will fail. They will not be able to gather the required signatures for the four board members.
It is a small group of discontents that are pushing the recall. The community at large will not support it.
1:26
It's always a small group who organizes things. Look at all the non-profits in town that have only a handful of people doing most of the work.
Fact is, the recall process has started, the superintendent quit and the Grand Jury will come out with a report next month after months of investigation. It will be a monumental fete to get the required signatures, but not as difficult has it was to get just one of the four trustees to recognize a bad real estate deal.
I also agree that most of the community does not know about the secret meetings and mismanagement of money - this was due to the superintendent and four trustees making sure the public didn't know about the deal and the Daily Democrat poor job of reporting.
To Anonymous...6/6/08...1:26 PM
The Recall will fail, HUH???
Wait for the Grand Jury Report to be released about July l.
It could be a "Bombshell" for a cluster of Smug "Trustees,"..... left to Face the Music.
You will soon find out that the Grand Jury Report will not have damaging information. most reports are wrong or exaggerate the facts as has been the case for many years in Yolo County.
So if the report does not have damaging information, it will be wrong?
I am concerned with how we are moving forward. I will wait to see the report to comment on its contents. Who will our new superintendent be? I heard a rumor Kathleen Bond may try and step into the position.
I wish her OH-WELL. I feel somewhat sorry for the Board Members about to face a re-call on their own. They will remember her but she will gratefully be fogotten.
We'd be lucky to get a runner up for a job in Arkansas in the position. Seriously. It would be a step up.
Why should it surprise anyone Jackie left? Obviously, she is getting a substantial pay raise and is in control of a much larger district. Why stay in Woodland where people seem ready to lynch her? I would leave too.
The building lease/purchase will turn out to be great in the long run. She will end up being praised 10 years from now when the district ends up owning a great asset. People need to have some vision.
As far as the recall, it has no traction and will undoubtedly fail.
There is no way the district will own the blue shield building in ten years.
She did not just mess up here in Woodland, her past is very checkered.
Wish-full thinking on the recall. Are you one of the in-famous four???
Dino, you and others seemed to be waiting for damaging information from the Grand Jury Report. There will be none since no laws were broken. You guys need stronger arguments to sell the recall. It will not happen as the community will not support it. Wait till you see the organized opposition. It will not come from the district but from members of the community that are tired of the childish games played by a small number of discontents. Some might have been fired by Jackie in her previous or current district.
I called the school district main office on Thurs. 6/5/08 asked if there was a special board meeting that day & was told no. Hopefully she will take everyone she brought to WJUSD with her to Fairfield. One has to ask what will happen to Mike Stevens a past teacher that Esparto got rid of, then he came here to teach & became principal of Lee & now head of HR. Also, Kelly Morgan associate superintendent of business doesn't have a college degree, maybe Jacki will take them away too if we are lucky.
The recall is going to go through, you can bet your life on it.
You are foolishly naive to believe that only a few rag-tag individuals are going to make this happen. Just plain naive.
This latest student incident will just cement the communities' emotions needed to get the arcane aspects of the recall moving.
Wow, what a great way to make headlines in the world. We have been in national and international news 3 times this last year.
Dentist likes boobs
County Osbudsman likes bombs
School Board denies cancer survivor, but quickly changes their mind 3 times the day before the walk.
Nice.
GOOD POINT 11:35 PM!
NOW LETS DO SOMETHING RIGHT FOR ONCE AND VOTE THE RIGHT WAY!
VOTE YES ON THE RECALL.
LETS JUST HOPE THEY DON'T MAKE MCNICHOLAS THE NEW SUPT. REMEMBER, HE WAS ALSO RAN OUT OF ESPARTO LIKE MIKE.
Dentist likes boobs
County Osbudsman likes bombs
We do live in interesting times
Woodland like many small communities have wonderful people and sense of community. Unfortunatly, as I read through many of the comments on this blog, there are a few malcontents bent on smearing and damaging people and their reputations. So, continue wallowing around in your own mess. Those of you that take offense to this message so sorry. There is something seriously wrong when others try to make themselves feel better by tearing down others. Try something positive and constructive.
I really believe the BS debacle is over. I think the upper administration and the school board has seen the light. After the good doctor steps down everything is going to change.
I predict in the year 2010 the WJUSD will be in the same location they are today, 630 Cottonwood St.
I agree with anonym 11:03.
Great comment.
11:03
Unfortunately, this is a story about a quitter. The quitter surrounded herself with a team responsible for spending $7.6 million for a $3.6 million building - that's the positive side. If the district opts to lease the building for 30 years, taxpayers will spend $21 million on the building and not own it.
That's just one of many actions taken by the quitter's group that some people have issues with. The reaction, reflected by many of the negative comments here, is the fallout of poor governance.
What opportunities were there for malcontents to offer constructive criticism or positive solutions? The quitter made sure the public was kept out of the loop during the Blue Shied deal for almost a year. When solutions were presented once the public found out about the deal... like continuing the current rent of district offices at half the price, or not even purchasing the overpriced, oversized building... they were smugly ignored.
I'm sorry the comments under this story are not constructive, but the messy wallowing is nowhere near the amount of garbage left by the quitter.
Perhaps you can try to say something positive about the Blue Shield lease-purchase agreement. I'd like to hear it.
Dino you just don't get it. You want something positive? OK, the school district should own their own building as most all other school districts do. This is a way to save money in the long run, not waste it. The only reason the school district leased the building was due to the grand jury investigation brought on by the current building's landlord as a way to queer the deal. All it did was cost the school district more money by having to lease the building. The price they paid was fair and was probably 1/2 of what they would have paid to build a new building. Also, where else could they have gone? I have just heard criticism about the building purchase, but no constructive suggestions about alternatives. I personally know of no other buildings that size in town that would meet their needs, unless they go out to the industrial area of town. They cannot stay where they are.
The best thing the district could have done was to buy. You cannot attract quality personnel when you are in a toxic building (air and groundwater contamination) buried in the back of a 40+ year old shopping center. They will now have a great building in the heart of Woodland and morale of the employees will soar.
Jackie and the so-called "fab 4" did the right thing by sticking to their guns, despite the public pressure.
Well Anonymous. Thank you for your replay, and you have proven yourself to be ignorant on the issue.
Let us correct your inaccuracies one by one:
1. "Most all other district's own their buildings."
What is "most". 51%? their are many, MANY districts throughout the state that rent their district offices because lack of facilities, or because the operating cost (rent/ upkeep) is lower than possible cost to own (bonds/COP's etc)
2."This is to save money in the long run and not waste it."
This statement is problematic on two fronts. A district has an operating budget from year to year. Any excess operating costs come directly out of money that can be spent on the students. The current deal LEASES a building at incremental payments that are significantly above the current rent (operating cost) of having a central office. Therefore, there is no "savings".
The current lease is a triple net lease. Not only do they have to pay the high rent charges, they are responsible for every expense of owning that building. They get all the troubles of ownership, and none of the value of it.
Now if the "savings" your are describing is equity, then we have an issue there as well. The Blue Shield Building has a life-span of 40 years before major structural up keeping must take place according to the appraisal obtained by the district. The building will be 17 years old by the time they move in.
OF course the land is worht something, but the market has already tanked, even on the commercial side. They paid nearly $1,000,000 more than the best appraisal they could get. That appraisal actual used the Comp of the Blue Shielded building purchase of $5.7 million to help get to that $4.8 number. All other appraisals on that building has it around $4.6 million at the most.
So, your assertion that there was a "savings" is preposterous.
The district will be paying more than the building is worth in the best of all possible scenarios.
3. "The only reason the school district leased the building was due to the grand jury investigation brought on by the current building's landlord as a way to queer the deal."
Again not factual and inaccurate on it assertions.
Woodland citizens came forward on stated in public that they submitted a request to the grand jury, not the landlord.
The reason that the district did not purchase is because the bond ratings went up at the time of the purchase. The market was in flux at the time.
In financial underwriting you must fill out supplemental applications and state the there are no legal ramifications from the entity. THis is part of the due dilligence.
The key point to note here is that the grand jury in this case is not "investigating". The district was never formally notified that they were under "investigation." to my knowledge, and my knowledge of a grad jury proceeding.
IF this was the case, then any citizen, anywhere could hold up a financial transaction of a public entity by simply filling out a grand jury form. At that point, under your notion, there is an investigation.
This simply is just not true.
4. "The price they paid was fair and was probably 1/2 of what they would have paid to build a new building."
I already covered the "fair price issue" which is ridiculous.
The districts consultant put a new building and land at about $21,000,000. Bu that includes really starting everything from scratch. Something . by the way, that district rarely EVER do because it is an asset not considered part of growth.
The district could have built it on the site where the current transportation area is. They could have sold that piece of property and bought a less expensive building.
5. " Where else could they have gone?"
There are multiple options open to them if they wanted to think outside the box of that they needed to be downtown. Actually many district are located in areas outside of their downtowns, while other are more centrally located. There is no common finding here.
The old YCOE building was available for $2 Million and has plenty of space.
There were other spaces where they could have placed the district office and had areas for transportation and the warehouse. They could have purchase those buildings at a premium and sold the transportation property to subsidize the cost. This would have significantly lowered the price. Frank Glover brought this up at a meeting.
They could close down a school on the west side of town where enrollment is down... such as Whitehead.
One of the concerns was bus routes, but the district never investigated whether they could have a bus route added to their new location.
The next question was size needed. IT has been discussed here on this blog many times that the district is heavy on administration by a around nearly 40 people. If you take the at number down, and considered the projections the district used (which are flawed) a 30,000 square foot building would last them to 2020.
5."You cannot attract quality personnel when you are in a toxic building (air and groundwater contamination) buried in the back of a 40+ year old shopping center."
Even the report just ordered by the district does not show the building to be at a level of air quality the posses any significant health dangers. Local health officials confirmed this in the DD article.
The other assertions in your statement are based on nothing but your opinion, which has already been proven to be based on flawed information.
And if the morale of employeesis dependent on the district buying this building, then we need new employees. Where they are was a "must have " 10 years ago.
In the meantime our schools have gotten in worse shape, and our teachers are struggling financially.
The Grand Jury will be coming out with a finding. They are a third party that collected information provided in documents and testimony of the parties involved.
We should get a very clear picture of who is correct here.
Let us see what they say happened and whether this deal was on the up and up.
As far as the FAB 4, they had no clue as to what was going on. None of them even knew what was in the contract they approved. They did not even understand the financing details.
My guess is that they are going to be shown to be what I suspect. A group of individuals who fail to possess the leadership to think independently. They were lead to the trough and drank all of the Kool-Aid.
To "Anonymous" 6/8/08...7:47 AM
One Simple Question....
Identify the Income Stream from which the building payments will be made..... HMMMMM ???
THE PUBLIC is waiting for an answer to that crucial "Mystery".
OR, are you leaving that PROBLEM to future School Board Members to cope with ???
Sounds to me like Jackie has been planning this fiasco for a while, whether someone whizzed in her corn flakes and now she is getting back by pushing this deal with her "useful" idiots (Flub 4). Sound like she has a penchant for "soiling" her nest before she moves on.....boy is Woodland and her students getting hosed!
Hey 6/8/08 8:43 AM,
You didn't convince me....sorry!!
You say "The reason that the district did not purchase is because the bond ratings went up at the time of the purchase. The market was in flux at the time". This is ridiculous and only proves your ignorance. There could not have been a better time to purchase the building. In case you didn't know, interest rates were at their lowest levels in years (they have since moved up slightly).
The reason they didn't purchase was there was an investigation by the grand jury which precluded them from obtaining financing. It has been widely reported that Dudley Holman and Frank Seiferman contacted the Grand Jury and instigated the investigation, not the so called "public" as you claim.
As far as your alternative purchase scenarios, do you know what it costs to convert an old school building into an office building? Let me tell you, it would cost WAY more than buying Blue Shield. Yes, the real estate market is down now, but that is EXACTLY when you want to buy. In a "good" real estate market, the building would have cost $10 million. Again, you demonstrate your ignorance.
11:13, go to school. The bond rates have nothing to do with the fed int rate. The bond market went completly sideways when they were trying to purchase that building. Bond rates had doubled. COP were unobtainable when they tried. They tried to blame it on the Grnad Jury so they could slither out of their dumb move and save some face with the public.
Anon:
You were the one that claims it was the "The only reason the school district leased the building was due to the grand jury investigation brought on by the current building's landlord as a way to queer the deal. All it did was cost the school district more money by having to lease the building."
Now you say it was Dudley Holman (that was who I was referencing)
Get your story straight. It was the landlord or Dudley Holman!
You have no clue of which you speak.. None.
You still have not defended paying $1,000,000 more than it was worth.
How about giving the seller and the supt. consultant commission on a lease transaction?
That money comes right out of the districts pocket, not the seller.
They over payed... period.
How do you know what the cost to convert the school was... it was never looked into, nor were any cost projections done.
If you think there have been, produce them. Go request the documents and have Dino post them on his site.
They do not exist by the boards own admission.
Thanks Anon 11:13.
Some people are trying to defend the indefensible.
They have been lied to and they are defending people based on false information.
If all you had to do to stop a public works project were financing was involved was to turn a grand jury form, no government entity would ever be able to get fianacing.
The district could barely afford the cost with a low bond rate. Even a few tenths of a point would totally blow their projections. They are already robbing other finds to make the new lease payments.
Asit was the first near decade, they were not even making the interest payment and adding it on to the principle. They were going to borrow 11 million dollars at a hopeful 4.97% and were only going to be paying 445,000 a year increasing by 3%.
The graduated payment plan (by which they are now leasing) would not start paying on principle until the eighth year.
What typically would have cost $16 million, was going to cost them $19 million.
I know this is plagiarism but this might better describe why the School District had a problem floating COP’s .
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- UBS is closing its municipal bond business after failing to find a buyer for what was the third- largest underwriter of U.S. state and local government debt last year.
UBS will fire about 280 people, said Doug Morris, a spokesman. Zurich-based UBS, Switzerland's largest bank, said in May it would shutter its municipal bond division if it couldn't find a buyer.
``UBS explored a number of alternatives to exit the institutional municipals business and determined that because of the complexities of selling the business in the current market and limited market capacity for a business of this size, a sale of the business was unlikely in the near term,'' the company said in a statement.
UBS has said it plans to eliminate 7,000 jobs following $38 billion of fixed-income asset markdowns. Investment banks and securities firms in the past 10 months have cut 83,000 jobs amid losses and writedowns of $383 billion.
The company's action also follows the collapse earlier this year of the $330 billion auction-rate bond market, leaving investors with securities that they couldn't sell. UBS cut the value of its customers' auction-rate holdings, which were sometimes regarded as cash-equivalents, by about 5 percent in March.
Auction-Rate Share
Municipal debt made up about half of the auction-rate market at the end of 2007, according to a Feb. 13 report from Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp.
UBS will move some of its municipal bond personnel to its wealth management operations, the company's statement said. The division will be closed ``through an orderly wind-down,'' which the company expects will last over ``the next few months.''
UBS's share of the municipal bond business has been declining, and it now trails Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. after ranking first in 2004, according to data compiled by Thomson Reuters.
``It's not the end of the industry, it's a reshuffling of the deck chairs,'' said Tom Doe, president and founder of the Concord, Massachusetts-based Municipal Market Advisors, a research firm. ``It's a realignment of the industry.''
Municipal issuance is expected to reach $400 billion this year, Doe said, predicting that ``a new firm will emerge.''
The company's acquisition of PaineWebber Group Inc. in 2000 helped it secure the top spot. PaineWebber ranked second among municipal market underwriters when it was acquired. The decision by the firm to put more bankers in offices outside of New York helped contribute to its success, Terry L. Atkinson, the director of UBS's municipal securities group, said in December 2004 interview.
Toll-Road Plan
UBS bankers helped New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine develop a plan earlier this year to borrow against the state's toll-road revenue to retire state debt and fund transportation capital projects. Corzine later dropped his proposal following legislative opposition.
Management changes have coincided with UBS's difficulties. Chairman Marcel Ospel resigned at the annual meeting in April amid losses arising from the subprime mortgage market collapse. He was replaced by the bank's general counsel, Peter Kurer.
Ospel's move followed departures of investment banking chief Huw Jenkins and former chief financial officer Clive Standish. Peter Wuffli was forced out as chief executive office by the bank's board of directors in July 2007 after the closing of a hedge fund that lost money on subprime holdings.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., the third biggest U.S. bank, will cut its municipal bond department by about 15 percent, a person familiar with the company's decision said this week. The group has about 170 people. The move follows the company's purchase of Bear Stearns Cos.
To contact the reporter on this story: Adam L. Cataldo in New York at acataldo@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: June 5, 2008 16:56 EDT
In a good market that building would be worth $10,000,000?... where did you come up with that figure.
Two appraisals has if for significantly less than $5 Million.
What an absurd comment.
11:03/7:48
I do think I get what you said... and I apologized for some of the negative comments made, and left, on, this thread. As I've said many times on this blog there is a gray line I face in keeping the blog informative, yet entertaining. Sometimes the "entertainment" is more Jerry Springer-like than I would want.
What I tried to convey is that the story itself is about an issue that is not pleasant to begin with (negative). My opinion is that the superintendent really never was part of this community and did little for it. If she were part of it, she would have been more inclusive of public opinion. She also brought in many of her own people who were mentioned in the thread. Yes, there are negative comments about her people... and comments like "whizzed in her corn flakes" (what was that yolocalvet?)... but the story is a reflection of poor management and leadership. I didn't expect too many good things to be said about it.
Regarding the one major problem the superintendent brought on - the Blue Shield building - if you have been reading my coverage from the beginning you would know that I was on the fence about the purchase. I was told that the sq. ft. price was reasonable... but then I learned that the building is bigger than necessary and the appraisal was way below the district's offer. Then I learned of the flawed process and the secret deals and the other opportunities for locations - that were never considered.
I agree with you that in most cases it's better to own property than rent. With everything considered in this deal, I think it would be better for the district to stay where they are. I am one of those people who believe the building is safe to work in - apparently CalOsha and the county feel the same as the building was never condemned.
I do find interesting your last sentence: "Jackie and the so-called 'fab 4' did the right thing by sticking to their guns, despite the public pressure." Who does Jacki work for? Who does the Fab 4 represent? Even you admit there was public pressure... do you think that would be a clue to reconsider and maybe include the public more in finding the right location?
And the Blue Shield deal is just one of many negative things the superintendent has done. Just as she was giving up on the messes she created, she caused even more turmoil with her feeble attempt at fixing the Leanna situation.
I know I use this word a lot, but her performance was pathetic. My stories exposed the truth.
PS: Don't forget that the COP deal put two of our schools up as collateral. As someone else mentioned, there is no evidence that the rumor of a Grand Jury investigation killed that deal. That was make-believe. Guess who made it up?
GRAND JURY COMPLAINT.....
Let's clear this up here and now, and END these silly speculations.
At the School Board meeting of Jan. 24, it was PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED that DUDLEY HOLMAN AND FRANK SIEFERMAN, SR. had filed a complaint with the Grand Jury of Yolo County.
We took this action because our attempts--AT SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS-- to learn reasons and rationale from FOUR Board members who were NOT forthcoming in explaining / justifying their approval of a purchase contract for the Blue Shield Building at $5.6 Million, (for which the Blue Ice Group paid $4.3 million, only a matter of weeks BEFORE the contract was prepared) for the School District's approval.
To us, the Situation CRIED OUT for an IMPARTIAL and THOUROUGH review
......THE GRAND JURY.
The Owners of the Cottonwood property WERE NOT INVOLVED, and had NOTHING whatever TO DO WITH THE COMMPLAINT filed with the Grand Jury.
It was simply an action on the part of two (representing many) CONCERNED citizens, uneasy about the District having approved an agreement to purchase a USED building at an EXHORBITANT price (in a FALLING market) and with severe budget cuts CLEARLY AHEAD for all school districts, INCLUDING WOODLAND.
WELL PUT DUDLEY...WEL PUT.
MIKE,
WOODLAND, CA 95695
Grand Jury Impartial. Dudley, what are you smoking? Most reports are very partial and wrong. Over the years, these reports have been proven to be wrong.
The complaints to the Grand Jury did however stopped the purchase of the building using bonds.
2:01
Are you expecting certain results from the report? It seems like you think the report will contain damaging information. Why do you think that?
Or given your evaluation of Grand Jury reports... if there is no damaging information, will the report be wrong? Looks like you've worded your way into a Catch 22.
Also... Jacki Cottingim stopped the COP process, not complaints to the Grand Jury.
Most reports?
Seems to be a bit of hyperbole.
Please name the long list of reports that were "wrong" and please cite their factual inaccuracies.
Let's NOT prejudge the Grand Jury Report. There might be a germ of WISDOM in waiting until the Report is available.....July 1st, I believe.
None of us can say, ahead of time, whether School Board Members & Staff will be criticized .... or praised for their "Stellar Performance."
Based upon this comment "Most reports are very partial and wrong. Over the years, these reports have been proven to be wrong."
I would seem someone is trying to their best to discredit the grand jury report even before it is out.
I am anxiously awaiting that report. I would bet many people are waiting for that report as well.
In recent years, Yolo County has taken on the Grand Jury reports and has demonstrated how wrong they were.
It is the proponents of the recall that are waiting for the G J Reports because it might make their case for the RECALL.
Nothing illegal was done by the school board and administration when they purchased the building.
The timing, process and the price was wrong, but no illegalities.
They don't need to have done something illegal to to be removed from office.
I just got Rick Rolled.
The Grand Jury Report is out early! This blog post has the link.
http://politiclast.com/?p=355
9:47, please don't waste our time with these FAKE links. All I can say is, it's a good thing I did not get a computer virus with your little prank.
I told you I got Rick Rolled. It looks like you got Rick Rolled too. HA
You can have her back. She has done nothing but create problems in the FSUSD.
Post a Comment