Source: Carmel Valley News 3-13-08
By Ian S. Port
Assistant Editor
Two major personnel shifts have occurred in the wake of the Del Mar superintendent’s recent departure, extending what was already a major shake-up at the eight campus elementary district.
Trustee Linda Crawford, who served on the board of the Del Mar Union School District for 11 years, resigned March 11, citing “fundamental philosophical differences with the board majority.” [See companion story below right.]
Assistant Superintendent Janet Bernard was named interim superintendent of the Del Mar district Feb. 6, placing the nine-year DMUSD staffer at the helm of an organization still deeply unsettled by the sudden resignation of longtime head Thomas F. Bishop over two weeks ago.
Bishop’s 10-year turn as chief of the high-performing district essentially came to an end Feb. 29, after the board of trustees’ split vote three days earlier to buy out the two years remaining on his contract.
Long a lightning rod for controversy and impassioned support from teachers and parents, Bishop, 58, will use up nearly two months of paid vacation before his departure is formalized April 30.
But the weeks since his resignation have brought many signs that the fault lines that led to his departure remain as volatile as ever.
The Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports district curricula through parent donations, has experienced a significant lull in contributions — some parents’ way of voicing their objection to the buyout of Bishop’s contract, according to DMSEF President Bob Gans.
“We’re trying to quell a growing protest movement,” Gans said.
The receipt of empty contribution envelopes and angry phone calls and e-mails by Gans and some Foundation board members has raised serious concerns about the organization’s ability to raise the funds it promised the district to support this year’s curriculum, he said.
Gans has asked the board of trustees to change the arrangement between the district and the foundation so that all the funds it raises are applied to next year’s programs, not this year’s, which he believes will temper criticism and restore parent donations.
The move would require the district finding roughly $500,000 to cover the expected contribution from the DMSEF for this year’s extended studies curriculum — which may be difficult as the district prepares for what are likely to be major budget cuts from the state next year and pays the remainder of the departed superintendent’s contract.
But it would also move the two parties closer to an arrangement both have said would be beneficial: all parent donations would fund teaching for the following year, instead of the current system where parents are effectively being asked to pay for education their children have already received.
The full financial impacts of the agreement to buy out Bishop’s two remaining years are still unclear. He will be paid roughly 18 months’ salary, about $287,000, and continue to receive health benefits from the district.
But because the details of Bernard’s contract as interim superintendent have not yet been finalized, and any permanent replacement of Bishop is still likely months away, the final fiscal impact to the district is unknown.
Assistant superintendent Dena Whittington, who handles DMUSD finances, was not consulted by the board of trustees during their deliberations on Bishop’s contract. However, she is expected to present a financial analysis of the decision at the board’s March 26 meeting.
Her presentation will likely answer one big question lingering over the district — how much will the buyout really cost?
But answers to some of the biggest curiosities have yet to come.
Why Now?
Still unknown among everyone except the board of trustees and district counsel are the exact reasons the board pursued Bishop’s resignation at this time. Confidentiality rules and a non-disparagement clause in the resignation agreement prohibit them from discussing the circumstances of his departure.
The superintendent and the board majority of President Annette Easton and trustees Katherine White and Steven McDowell butted heads consistently on a number of issues since the three were elected in 2006, including the management of the Foundation, the sale of the Shores property in downtown Del Mar and the management the ill-fated district-wide Spanish immersion program.
At the meeting where the board voted to buyout Bishop’s contract, Easton said she “would only consider a decision like this if I really felt that it was in the best interest.”
“Not all of us have access to the same information,” she said Feb. 26.
The board has faced sharp criticism from supporters of Bishop for its silence on the question, who point to the promises of transparency on which the majority of members campaigned in 2006.
Indeed, criticism of the board rose to new heights in recent weeks, with the creation of an anonymous and now-defunct Web site, 86theboard.blogspot.com, which called for the recall of McDowell, Easton and White. Several speakers at the Feb. 26 advocated a recall as well.
Easton said last week that the board’s silence was forced, not voluntary, and that the exact circumstances of Bishop’s effort would likely never be publicly known.
“It’s not the position that I would have it be if we could do it any other way,” Easton said.
Gans, the DMSEF chief, said the organization had “absolutely no position whatsoever” on Bishop’s exit, but expressed concern over the state of the parent community in the wake of it.
“I urge them to go out to the various schools and talk to people and explain this,” Gans said. “We just need to get people to calm down right now.”
District officials said that nothing in recent months indicated Bishop’s worsening fortunes other than what occurred publicly.
“As a former superintendent, when your board starts meeting without you, that’s not a good sign,” said Rodger Smith, director of facilities and human resources for the district.
“From the time that our new majority was elected, it was apparent that the superintendent and the board didn’t exactly see things the same way on a number of occasions. You never know when those kinds of differences of perception or opinion get to a point where the parties feel like they’re not pulling in the same direction,” Smith, a longtime colleague and friend of Bishop, said.
Donations in Doubt
The board faces a major financial and philosophical decision in the request by the DMSEF request to alter the funding arrangement between itself and the school district — on that seems likely to be affected by lingering sentiments about the buyout of Bishop.
The change would be an accounting and financial issue, not a material one, according to Gans.
“Whatever happens we’re giving over money May 1, which is all the Foundation agreed to do,” he said.
The difference is what would be done with that money. Currently an item on the district’s expected annual revenue sheet calls for a $500,000 contribution from the DMSEF to cover the salaries of “extra” enrichment teachers for the current 2007-08 school year.
The district funded all of the “normal” enrichment teachingpositions — those called for by district-wide curricula, not ones “purchased” by individual school sites — for the current year on its own.
If the board accepts Gans’ recommendation, all Foundation fundraising would be for next year’s students — an arrangement both the district and the DMSEF have said they’d like to work toward.
But whether or not the district can find $500,000 to pay for this years “extra” enrichment teachers remains to be seen.
Gans said such a move would quell the protests parents angry over Bishop’s ouster, who he says are skeptical of giving money to a district that could afford to buyout the superintendent’s contract two years before it expires.
“The idea is that if people understand that their programs aren’t at risk for next year because of any economics associated with this, then the opposition will disappear,” Gans said. “It removes the Foundation from the politics of the moment.”
A year into his tenure at the head of the once-embattled organization, Gans said he had learned a few lessons about handling controversy, and hopes the board will grant is request if financially feasible.
He emphasized that his request in no way meant that the Foundation had a position on the buyout, and said he’s told protesting parents “the only people you’re risking harming are our children.”
“There’s a long history here of withholding donations because you’re not happy with certain things going on in the district,” Gans said. “And do I think yeah, you’re shooting yourself in the foot? Absolutely. Do I think politics should be out of this? Absolutely.”
The board looks likely to consider the Foundation’s proposal at its next meeting, when it will also vote on the contract to hire Janet Bernard as the interim superintendent.
Superintendent Search Likely
Bernard, who came to Del Mar nine years go to fill the newly created position of assistant superintendent of business services, says she’s thrilled to be able to help the district through a period of tough transition.
“With his departure it … sends a feeling that things might be unstable,” Bernard said, adding that her goal was “just to provide some stability for the district and to send a message to our staff and the community that the great programs that we have been implementing will continue to go forward.”
Bernard, who has turned down offers to head up other school districts in order to remain in her post in Del Mar, says she has not made up her mind whether or not to place herself in the running for the permanent superintendent position, though she was invited to do so by the board.
Right now, Bernard must juggle her duties as the district’s chief curriculum expert with those of the full-time leader of the organization, which has her bouncing between offices and delegating certain tasks, she said. She will be responsible for all the duties of the superintendent, including running board meetings.
No arrangements have begun so far, but both district staff and board members say they expect to conduct a candidate search for Bishop’s replacement.
“I know the board’s going to search for a new superintendent and that’s about it,” Rodger Smith said. “I haven’t really been apprised of any activity in that regard.”
Easton said she hoped the district will begin looking and find a candidate relatively soon in order to conduct the transition to a new leader over the summer of this year.
|