Source: Carmel Valley News 3-27-08
By Ian S. Port
Assistant Editor
The Del Mar Union School District faces an evening of wrestling with tough and important questions at its March 26 meeting (a day after presstime for this newspaper).
Its trustees must decide how to replace a recently resigned board member, whether to make a major shift in the funding of enrichment classes, and if comments made in the press by a board member violated bylaws.
The school board will also hear a report on the financial impacts of a recent decision to buy out the remainder of Superintendent Thomas Bishop’s contract, vote on another contract making Assistant Superintendent Janet Bernard his interim replacement, and begin deciding how to find a permanent leader in the wake of Bishop’s resignation one month ago.
The packed agenda for the March regular meeting illustrates the continuing reverberations of the Feb. 26 decision. Several of the biggest issues to be decided are directly or indirectly related to the departure of the superintendent.
Since then, trustee Linda Crawford has resigned, a tenuous recall campaign has begun against the majority of the board, and donations to the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation have dropped off, according to its president.
In her letter of resignation, Crawford did not specify Bishop’s ouster as her reason for resigning. Rather, she cited “philosophical differences,” and said the board should exercise its “fiduciary responsibilities … particularly with reference to the sale of the Shores property in Del Mar.”
Crawford was part of a unanimous vote to sell the 5-acre property to the city of Del Mar, but, when reached by phone, would not comment further on that issue.
“I found it extremely difficult and was compromising my beliefs in just working with this board,” Crawford said.
It is all but certain that the remaining four board members will vote to appoint a temporary replacement for Crawford, who was up for re-election in November. The district would have to wait until Nov. 4 to hold an election for a temporary replacement, leaving it with only four members for more than seven months.
“If we were to have an election that would essentially leave the seat vacant,” Board President Annette Easton said.
She said the board will likely issue a questionnaire allowing community members to nominate themselves for the temporary seat, then interview the candidates at a special meeting and vote to choose one. The candidate would be free to run for the permanent seat in the fall.
Less certain is the process for finding a permanent superintendent, though trustees have said they hope to hire one over the summer. The March agenda includes information about three search firms the district could use to help find a replacement for Bishop, and the group may vote to choose one and begin the process.
The board will likely ratify a contract for Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum Janet Bernard to take on duties as Interim Superintendent, a post she took days after Bishop’s departure.
It will also consider a report documenting the financial impacts to the district of the decision to end Bishop’s tenure early. Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Dena Whittington calculated the net cost the decision to the district at $262,383 over three fiscal years.
Under the agreement, Bishop would receive salary and health benefits through October 2009, totaling over $287,000.
Staff recommends that the district use a one-time payout of $255,946 to cover the costs remaining in the resignation agreement. That money is from unexpected, excess equity in the district’s worker’s compensation fund and is currently held in a special reserve account.
One issue likely to stimulate debate is a proposal from Del Mar Schools Education Foundation Chairman Bob Gans to change the current fundraising system, where the Foundation’s contributions to the district pay for enrichment teachers in the current year, to a system where the funds go toward the costs of the following year. The Foundation is due to make a $500,000 payment to the district for the costs of the enrichment program in May.
The immediate impact of the proposed change would be a $500,000 hit to the district’s general fund. But the shifting of fundraising to one year ahead has been a long-time goal of many in the district and foundation.
Yet the reason for the change request is rife with controversy. Gans says the Foundation has been hurting for donations since Bishop resigned, and that shifting funding focus to the next year would help assuage those who’ve withheld contributions in protest.
What influence the district has on Foundation donations is somewhat murky. Trustee Katherine White said it has to accept donations with whatever terms come attached.
“However they give us the money is how we’re going to accept and use the money,” White said. “It’s a gift to us and whatever restrictions they place on the gift, we’ll abide by them.”
Bernard, the interim chief of the district, agreed, saying the district’s reserves could afford such an impact this year, but not sustained into the future.
“We can’t tell them how they are to use the money,” said Bernard, who did not make a recommendation on the issue in a staff report. “Our reserves are healthy, so it is something that the board could consider at this time.”
While the district may have to respect earmarks on donations, in order for Gans’ proposal to defuse protests against the district to work as planned, the district must plan an arrangement for next year similar to the current one, where schools may raise money for their own sites only, and it must maintain the same number of standard enrichment teachers allocated to each school. Those decisions are up to the school board.
The board may also discuss — though is unlikely to take any action on — a complaint by group calling itself the “Concerned Citizens of the Del Mar Union School District” that trustee Katherine White violated board bylaws in statements she made in an article on the news Web site Voiceofsandiego.org about goings-on in the district.
The complaint, voiced in a letter with dozens of signatures, says White violated board bylaws of governing standards and the disclosure of confidential and privileged information.
Bernard said that no evidence of any of the events White referred to could be found in district files, so there are no grounds for punishing her for having disclosed confidential or privileged information.
But whether the statement violated governance standards for school boards was a matter of interpretation, and would have to be discussed by the board, Bernard said.
White said that there was no way to censure a member in the board’s bylaws.
“I don’t think it violated any bylaws,” White said. “But if we do think they violated a bylaw, we have no mechanism to do anything about it.”
|