Letter From Del Mar Schools Foundation: Are We Necessary?

Source: Carmel Valley News, April 24, 2008

By Ian S. Port
Assistant Editor

The president of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation questioned the viability and necessity of the fundraising organization in an April 2 letter to the Del Mar Union School District, saying that the district had not done enough help to ensure parent support of the organization in the wake of its controversial decision to buy out Superintendent Tom Bishop’s contract.

The letter from DMSEF President Bob Gans further underscored the tensions in a tumultuous period for the district, which in just over a month has seen the departure of Bishop and longtime school board member Linda Crawford, as well as noisy debate between factions torn over those and other decisions.

Gans said the DMSEF, which raises funds from parents to support the district’s enrichment curriculum, has suffered from a drop off of parent contributions in the wake of Bishop’s departure as parents who disagreed with the decision withhold funds in protest. He now sees that evaporation of support, along with the district’s reaction to an earlier request for help, as potential signs that the Foundation isn’t viable in its current form.

“[District] comments raise doubt regarding the necessity and desirability of maintaining a district-wide fundraising organization such as the Foundation,” Gans wrote. “Therefore the principal agenda item at our May 6, 2008 Board meeting will be to determine the feasibility of accomplishing our mission under the current environment, and whether it would be preferable to suspend our operations at the present time.”

This latest statement follows district trustees’ decision not to grant an earlier request from the Foundation that the school district apply its annual contribution of parent funds to the 2008-09 school year rather than the current year. (Under the current system, some funds go to toward the current year and some toward the next year.)

Gans said that change in policy would ease the ire of donors who disagreed with the decision to seek Bishop’s resignation by assuring them of the district’s financial viability in the current year. It would also create a fundraising system he said was simpler and which many have long desired.

But at its March 26 meeting, the DMUSD Board of Trustees reasoned that it wasn’t their place to tell the Foundation — a legally separate entity — how to allocate its donations. Calling the move to funding the future year “a smart decision,” trustee Katherine White said the Foundation could do it, but that the board should not require it.

“I have a problem as a board voting on constraints that we are giving to another organization,” White said.

Other board members and staff also said such a move would make them uncomfortable for legal reasons.

“To say that the only way that we could accept this would be with these conditions — I would just caution the board against doing that,” Interim Superintendent Janet Bernard said, adding, “I don’t think that what the Foundation is asking is unreasonable.”

The district was made more uncomfortable by the requirement included in the Foundation’s March 6 proposal that it fund enrichment staff at the same level for 2008-09 as it did in the current year. While the formula has not changed, trustees said, the number of students might, thus necessitating a change in the level of enrichment funding.

Gans said the district misunderstood his request, and sees their decision not to act on his proposal as a denial of support for the Foundation’s mission at a crucial time.

“We were never asking the district for permission to donate money for next year,” Gans said. “What we were saying is, we’re donating this money but we suggest you apply it all next year. And what I heard was them say well, that’s a great idea but we don’t really want to take responsibility for doing that.”

As a result, Gans said, the DMSEF continues to suffer from a falloff in contributions from angry parents. He also believes the district hurt the DMSEF’s goal of getting all schools to meet their base fundraising levels by telling one parent March 26 that a school could fund additional enrichment teachers even if it didn’t meet its base target. (Schools are allowed to fund two additional enrichment positions in addition to those allocated by the standard curriculum. The base goal includes funding only for standard enrichment staffing.)

“The last thing that you wanted to happen was for a school to be able to opt out of the baseline and then come in with extra money at the end and, unfortunately, I’m afraid that that’s the direction we’re headed in right now,” Gans said. “If there’s such a strong preference in this community for exclusively site-specific funding, then the question is why do you need a district-wide foundation?”

But the district has never answered the question of what happens if a school site fails to meet its Foundation fundraising goals and thus could not financially support either the enrichment staff normally allocated to it or any additional staff it may have purchased in past years. The deadline to issue pink slips to staff for next year — March 15 — has long passed, meaning the district is set with the current level of permanent teachers for next year, no matter what funds come in.

School Board President Annette Easton insisted that the district could not tell the foundation how to designate its donations to the district.

“Bob [Gans] wants us to tell him what we’re going to do, or how to have him give us the money,” Easton said. “But we can’t do that so that puts him in a quandary about how to give it to us.”

Part of the problem seems to be that the current situation is completely new to both entities. After legal worries led to a massive shakedown last year of the relationship between the district and the foundation, new steps were taken to ensure their separation. Thus, donations this year — the first new of the new relationship — may be designated differently than those in the past.

Dena Whittington, assistant superintendent of business services for the district, said that in the past Foundation checks have always included specific instructions on how the money is used — including for which school year.

“They’ve always told us what year in the past,” Whittington said. “What year, and what school … and for what part of their program.”

Gans said that would not be the case with this year’s check, which the Foundation plans to hand over April 15. The money will only be allocated for enrichment at specific sites, as laid out by donors.

“The foundation could certainly do that [designate the funds for a particular school year], however the Foundation never told anyone this year that we were restricting our contributions to a particular year,” Gans said. “We certainly would not take it on ourselves to allocate money for [the district].”

The school board put some of the district’s other divisive concerns to rest at its March 26 meeting, where trustee Katherine White apologized for statements she made in public that led some parents and staff to call for her resignation. The board decided then that White’s comments did not constitute a leak of confidential information and did not warrant a censure. But that didn’t keep White from facing more public criticism.

“I would like to ask you Katherine please, in the future, to think before you speak,” trustee Janet Lamborghini said. “I’m given to hyperbole in a lot of other methods of communication, but I think as board members we have to be very careful what we say. I’m just asking you personally to please do a little bit more editing as you speak.”

The March 26 meeting saw the district decide to seek a greater number of search firms before deciding on one to find a permanent replacement for Tom Bishop.

The school board also ratified a contract making Janet Bernard the interim superintendent, and agreed to appoint a temporary member to take Linda Crawford’s seat until a permanent trustee is elected in November.

The district has released an application packet for those who wish to be considered for the temporary post. The application is available on the district’s Web site [www.dmusd.org] and must be returned by 3 p.m. April 25. Candidates will be interviewed by the school board at an upcoming special meeting.

The district is legally required to fill the seat by May 12.

Marsha Sutton - Shutting down the Del Mar Schools Foundation

By Marsha Sutton

Source: April 24, 2008 Carmel Valley News

Like a moth drawn to a flame, I keep coming back to the Del Mar Union School District and its mounting challenges.

Seeing the glass as half-full rather than half-empty, I find the problems facing the district to be opportunities for much-needed improvement rather than symptoms of an irreversible slide into educational despair, as the doom-and-gloom naysayers are predicting.

Critics of the current school board have suggested that the loss of former DMUSD superintendent Tom Bishop, whose contract was bought out in February, is ruinous for the district. But in fact, the release of Bishop offers a unique chance to modify the way the district previously conducted its business, which has been characterized as secretive, autocratic, divisive, and in some aspects ultimately unworkable.

Built upon shaky foundations, the enrichment program, tied as it is to the district’s labor contract, is perhaps one of the district’s biggest challenges. The principle of the program is phenomenal; the implementation under Bishop’s tenure was not.

It all started about six years ago, with preparation time for teachers.

According to Rodger Smith, DMUSD director of human resources and facilities planning, “Classroom teacher prep time is guaranteed in the collective bargaining contract.”

A juicy perk, that time to prepare for lessons – 120 minutes each week for teachers of grades 1-3 and 180 minutes per week for grades 4-6 teachers – is provided within the school day, not before or after school.

Calling it “a significant benefit,” Smith said he didn’t know of any other district that offers such a prep-time guarantee.

To accommodate this lovely bonus, something needed to be done with students while their classroom teachers were otherwise occupied.

Voila! Enrichment teachers could step into the breach and take the students while classroom teachers engage in prep time.

Snag. According to Smith, all teachers must be certificated. “If enrichment teachers are teaching, they must have a valid California teaching credential authorizing them to teach the subject(s) for which they are providing instruction,” he said in an email.

So rather than hire excellent, available, highly qualified artists, musicians, scientists or technology experts who have subject knowledge in abundance but lack a teaching certificate, the district must find instructors in these subjects who are full-fledged teachers, entitled to all the rights of other teachers on staff, including job security through tenure and pay according to the certificated teachers’ salary schedule.

The more students, the more costly enrichment teachers to cover for the classroom teachers during prep time. This means money to pay the salaries of all those enrichment teachers who don’t come cheap when they all must be certificated.

Smith called the prep-time guarantee “pretty expensive.” Others have called it fiscally irresponsible. With the district’s projected need for 31 enrichment teachers this coming school year, at an estimated $75,000 each, that little prep-time perk is expected to cost the district a whopping $2,325,000 this coming year.

The Solana Beach School District requires that only one of its five enrichment programs – music – have credentialed instructors. The other four – computer lab, science, art, and P.E. – are taught by instructional aides who are classified rather than certificated employees, according to Bill Banning, SBSD’s assistant superintendent of administrative services and human resources.

Banning said the salaries for instructional aides are generally less than those of credentialed teachers, but their tenure rights are similar.

Although Banning said it is “ingrained in the culture” that teachers use the time students are in enrichment classes to prepare for lessons, there is no prep-time guarantee in Solana Beach’s labor contract. This gives Solana Beach greater flexibility, more financial stability in lean times, and fewer staffing headaches.

Curious that Del Mar would enforce such costly, rigorous standards when Solana Beach offers quality enrichment taught by teachers who need not be credentialed.

But Smith indicated there was no way to skirt around the issue, stating, “If other districts are assigning non-certificated staff to ‘tech,’ they may be violating the law as I understand it.”

He elaborated, “It should be noted, however, that the term ‘teach’ is often applied incorrectly when interactions between adults and students at a public school are described. If an individual is independently planning instruction, carrying out instruction, and evaluating student progress relative to that instruction, then they must have a valid California teaching credential that authorizes them to do so.”

“If an individual is conducting these activities and they do not possess the required credential, the certificated administrator who is responsible for directing that individual to do so may experience adverse actions up to and including revocation of their credential by the state of California.”

Smith added that “there are regular situations in public schools, however, where non-certificated individuals are assigned to ‘review and/or reinforce’ previously taught concepts and/or skills with students under the general direction of a certificated teacher; this type of activity is not regarded as ‘teaching’ and therefore does not require that the individual conducting the activity possess a teaching credential.”

Even “monitored” instruction, where a certificated employee is in the room with a non-credentialed instructor during lessons is not considered acceptable by Smith.

“Students have to be under the supervision of credentialed teachers,” Banning agreed, but he did not believe a credentialed teacher actually needed to be present in the room during the lesson. He said having credentialed employees nearby, on the campus and in the vicinity, sufficed.

So is Solana Beach in violation of state law? Doubtful, with experienced leader Leslie Fausset in charge. Or is Del Mar over-the-top in its strict application of California’s Education Code?

Del Mar’s pickle

The way out of Del Mar’s pickle – being forced, through contractual obligations, to fund salaries for teachers the district cannot afford to pay – was to place the burden on the parents.

Enter the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation.

“The Foundation was founded to raise the necessary funds to provide Del Mar Union School District students with enrichment programs such as science, music, art, technology and physical education,” states the DMSEF Web site.

Having parents pay for a contractual requirement made by the district to the teachers is perfect – and outrageous – illustration of what’s gone wrong in Del Mar under the former superintendent and his previous rubber-stamp school board.

Bishop’s threats that schools would lose enrichment teachers if parents didn’t pony up more money fast, turned out to be empty. The district’s grossly inappropriate strong-arm tactics appear to be nothing more than a shake-down to squeeze more bucks out of parents, when the district was on the hook all along.

If parents didn’t raise the money, the district was still required to do something with the kids during teacher prep time. And according to the district, whatever it was had to be with a certificated teacher.

So the arrangement between the school district and the foundation from the beginning was solidly linked to the funding of the enrichment program – which was needed to relieve the district of its contractual obligation to fund salaries it couldn’t afford.

Did no one consider what might happen if parent donations fell off? The whole house of cards was destined to collapse if one piece became unstable.

When Bob Gans took over as president of the foundation last year, a few months after the new DMUSD school board was seated, a spirit of openness and cooperation seemed to replace mistrust and conflict. After allegations surfaced against prior leaders of the foundation of mismanaging funds, undue secrecy, and an all-too-cozy relationship with the school district, Gans’ appointment was welcome relief.

The hard-working foundation board members (and there are few others more hard-working than these dedicated individuals) tackled their volunteer efforts with renewed vitality.

The change won over many critics and infused the community with a sense that the housecleaning would bring greater stability to the district’s educational programs through increased charitable donations.

But success turned out to be elusive, and initial confidence may have been premature.

Like a child on the playground who takes his marbles and goes home if he can’t get his way, Gans recently threatened to suspend the foundation’s operations unless the school board gives him what he wants.

In an April 2 letter to trustees, Gans objected to the district’s reluctance to promise to assign all of this year’s donations to next year’s programs – a move that would have betrayed the promise given to this year’s donors who thought that at least a portion of their donations would be applied to this year’s programs.

Apparently accustomed to operating under the old rules – which allowed Bishop to dictate to the foundation how much money he needed, from which communities, and by when – the foundation now seems at a loss as to how to function independently without explicit direction from the school board.

The school board, under advice from legal counsel last year, rightfully declined to overstep its authority by inserting itself into foundation business. No more telling the foundation how much to raise, how to raise it, how to donate, or when.

On April 15, the foundation presented the school district with a check for $522,920.20 which Gans said represents the gross amount of money raise from this year’s Annual appeal. The foundation gave the money to the school district to be disbursed according to the donors’ wishes, which were as follows:

Ashley Falls
Carmel Del Mar
Del Mar Heights
Del Mar Hills
Ocean Air
Sage Canyon
Sycamore Ridge
Torrey Hills

$62,877.80
$45,187.00
$78,875.00
$63,550.00
$68,005.00
$90,659.26
$52,925.00
$60,841.14

This averages about $65,365 per school.

In March, the Solana Beach Foundation for Learning donated $409,602.40 to the Solana Beach School District. Divided among its six schools, this averages about $68,267 per school.

If Solana Beach can raise more money per school using their friendly, site-driven approach, then why can’t Del Mar? Certainly Solana Beach’s fundraising style generates significantly less animosity and dissension.

Further complicating the issue are Gans’ repeated public comments that donations are down because some parents question why money for enrichment programs is needed when the district had enough to buy out Bishop’s contract. Flawed logic, of course, which Gans does little to dispel.

First, Bishop’s $300,000 buyout will take place over three fiscal years, not all at once. Second, withholding money from children’s educational programming to protest the departure of Bishop punishes no one but the kids. Third, people who haven’t donated by now, so late in the year, are unlikely to donate anyway. Fourth, the only plausible reason to continue to talk about Bishop in this context is to inflame the public.

In his April 2 letter, Gans suggests the foundation may be unable to accomplish its mission “under the current environment. Perhaps its easier to find scapegoats to blame than to admit some fundamental flaw in management style or fundraising ability.

Whether it’s negotiating in public, making demands, or outright blackmail, it stinks. And the school board should call his bluff. Let the foundation shut down; it’s gone sour anyway.

The DMSEF desperately needs brand new leadership, a complete overhaul to harness the energy and enthusiasm of devoted board members and volunteers who truly want to help Del Mar’s kids without the burden of political gotcha games and historical baggage undermining their efforts.

The Del Mar Schools Education Foundation will consider suspending operations at its May 6 meeting. Perhaps this can be viewed as an opportunity to wipe the slate clean and begin anew, like a phoenix rising from the ashes – because at some point, trying to fix a botched mess is harder than trashing the whole thing and rebuilding it from scratch the right way.

This may mean going back to the negotiating table with Del Mar’s teachers to re-open the issue of prep time.

It may mean clarifying what can be done with students during prep time, and developing options that give the district more latitude regarding the certificated teacher issue for enrichment programs.

It may mean a site-based, bottom-up restructuring of a new Del Mar schools foundation, like the Solana Beach model, that upends the previous top-down demands given to each school’s community during Bishop’s era.

Or it may even mean a re-evaluation of the enrichment program altogether, perhaps giving each school the leeway to decide for itself which programs it needs, wants and can afford.

Dissolving the current Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, with its blemished history and myopic vision, would be a drastic measure that carries with it a number of benefits. Let them take their marbles and go home. It’s time to stop the threats. This school district deserves better.

Many reasons why Del Mar Schools Education Foundation should not call it quits

Source: Carmel Valley News, April 24, 2008, Letters to the Editor

I am very saddened to see what has become of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation. I know firsthand how difficult it is to volunteer for an organization in terms of fundraising, attending meetings and dealing with the community. I sat on the foundation board for nearly two years and silent auction committee that following year. I know that this current foundation has worked very hard and I commend all for that. I also think that there is a level of frustration out there right now that is being targeted toward the wrong group of people, the Del Mar Union School District Board of Trustees. This board did not create this difficult current situation. In fact, this problem of funding the foundation in a concurrent year began back in 2001-2002 when the past administration and Tom Bishop made a contract with the teachers union to supply the upper grade teachers with 180 min/week and the lower grade teachers 120min/week for on site school prep time.

When Tom realized this contract was to require that certificated teachers be in the classrooms and that teacher aides could no longer fill in for the certificated teachers for the allowed prep time, he was in a quandary as to how to fund this situation. Since the contract being signed had been agreed upon by Tom Bishop, the past board trustees and the Del Mar Union Teachers Union, the district had to find a way to fund these additional certificated teachers that were not budgeted for the coming year. The foundation was in the process of being formed with the idea of bringing in art, science and technology teachers district-wide. Instead of waiting for the following year to implement the foundation, Tom said it would be best to start the foundation for this current year. That is why the foundation has always run its fundraising for the same year. As for the funding issue it needs to be clear that this is not the fault of this current board.

As for the comments made in Bob Gans’ most recent letter stating that the donations have dropped off significantly since Tom’s resignation, has anyone looked to see just how in past years the months of February and March donations compare to this current year? Are they the same, more or less? I think it is very subjective to claim that they have dropped significantly since Tom resigned—significantly to what?

I know that the foundation refuses to say this is not apolitical move and it is acting in a non-biased way in its decision to request that the school boar accept the promised foundation decision for this current year, but then hold it until next year expecting the district to fund the entire ESC program for this year. When asked why did you do this now instead of waiting for the following September when everyone can be made aware of the new plan, you claim that people are angry and felt the foundation needed to do “something.” Being neutral and continuing down the path of fundraising without acknowledgement of these angry people is what this foundation should do. That would be doing something.

The decision that the board made regarding if a school meets its goal or not and can they hire a teacher if the goal is not met was not undermining the foundation. Any independent donation that is directed toward the district for a designated purpose needs to be utilized in the manner in which it was donated for. Since the PTA’s technically cannot legally donate money to a foundation as a pass-through, it or any Joe Blow can donate to the district for a specific purpose. That is just how it is and always has been. The board did not undermine the foundation; it just confirmed that is what has been done in the past.

I think this community just needs to take a deep breath and figure out how to get along and stop blaming each other. Maybe instead of calling it “quits,” the foundation should proceed with a low-key ask for next year. Once more positive information gets out into the community regarding the district and foundation the community will be more willing to donate. The foundation is now an integral part of this district. It would be shame to shut it down now. With the state of the economy and cutbacks staring at us in the face we may find this foundation can help the district get through this. It would take a lot of manpower in terms of time and money to reinstate this should the foundation decided to close. I guess we will find out at the May 6 board meeting.

- Corinne Hackbart

DMSEF Letter to the Superintendent

Source: http://delmarkids.org/docs/pdfs/DMSEF_Donation_Letter.pdf

Del Mar Schools Education Foundation

April 15, 2008

BY HAND
Ms. Janet Bernard
Interim Superintendent
Del Mar Union School District
225 9th Street
Del Mar, California 92014

Dear Janet:

On behalf of the Board of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, it is my pleasure to present you with the enclosed check for $522,920.20, which represents the gross amount raised, without deduction for any expenses, through our Annual Appeal to date. These funds are offered as restricted contributions, to be used for enrichment programs at the following schools, in the amounts indicated below:

Ashley Falls
Carmel Del Mar
Del Mar Heights
Del Mar Hills
Ocean Air
Sage Canyon
Sycamore Ridge
Torrey Hills

$62,877.80
$45,187.00
$78,875.00
$63,550.00
$68,005.00
$90,659.26
$52,925.00
$60,841.14

As noted in my April 2 letter to the Board of Trustees, the Foundation will turn over any additional funds raised through our Annual Appeal between now and the end of this month on May 1, and will contribute any additional surplus generated by our fundraising activities as soon as our budgeting process is complete.

I wish to thank our entire Board for their tireless work this year, as well as the hundreds of donors who made the presentation of this check possible. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,
/s/
Bob Gans
DMSEF President

Cc:

DMUSD Board of Trustees
DMUSD PTA Presidents
DMUSD School Principals
DMSEF Board Members

Del Mar Shores Property - Meeting Minutes

Source: http://delmar.ca.us/City/Meetings/CityCouncil/20080414.htm

Del Mar City Council Follow-Up
April 14, 2008
Del Mar Communications Center
240 Tenth Street, Del Mar, California

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL - 6:05 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Councilmember Hilliard led the Pledge of Allegiance.

COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Non-Action Item) - None.

OLD BUSINESS

1. Shores Property – 215/225 Ninth Street (Crawford/Hilliard).

   Action Taken: Council solicited public input and approved committing City resources to assist in the purchase of the Shores property to provide the fundraisers with additional time for their campaign. Council directed the Council subcommittee to continue to negotiate with the School District regarding their proposal.

   Deputy Mayor Crawford/Councilmember Hilliard: Continue to negotiate with the School District to close escrow of the Shores property by May 15, 2008.

   City Manager: Secure short term interim financing to provide the fundraisers with additional time for their campaign to purchase the property.

   Reference: Clerk’s File No. 702-1

ADJOURNMENT - 9:00 p.m.

Del Mar Shores Property - Special Meeting

The City of Del Mar will be holding a special meeting to discuss possible revision of the terms of the purchase price of the DMUSD Shores property.

DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:
 

Monday April 14, 2008
6:00 pm
Del Mar Communications Center
240 Tenth Street, Del Mar, CA

More information:

• Del Mar City Council Special Meeting Documents
• Agenda Item 1 information

City of Del Mar
Memorandum

TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:

Members of the City Council
Deputy Mayor Crawford and Councilmember Carl Hilliard
April 14, 2008
Shores Property 215/225 Ninth Street

ISSUE:

Whether (1) to approve new terms for the purchase of the Del Mar Union School District (DMUSD) property (Shores), and (2) to use City resources, including borrowed funds or the sale of property, to assist in fundraising efforts.

RECQMMENDATION:

The City Council should consider the options presented here and, following public input and discussion, determine a) whether City resources should be used to assist in the fundraising efforts to purchase the Shores property, and b) whether the City should tentatively accept the School District's proposal to amend the terms of the Purchase Agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unless the purchase money for the Shores property is raised privately by community funds, the City could find its general fund and budget at risk.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

CEQA review for the purchase of the Shores property was done previously. Various categorical exemptions apply. No review is required for the City's financing decision.

BACKGROUND:

On July 30, 2007, the City entered into an agreement with the Del Mar Union School District for the purchase of the Shores property. Among other things, the Purchase Agreement called for deposit into escrow the full purchase price of $8.5 million by February 28, 2008.

On August 6, 2007, by Resolution 2007-35, the City Council announced the acquisition of the Shores property and set forth the purpose of the acquisition and its intentions regarding the use of the Shores property. Resolution 2007-35 cited the City's inability to finance the acquisition and the Council's support for the joint fundraising efforts by the community and the Winston School, which fundraising efforts would make the purchase possible.

The first three benchmark payments required by the purchase agreement were made; however, fundraising efforts have fallen approximately $3.5 million short of the goal for the February 28 deadline. By letter dated February 19, the Campaign for Del Mar Shores presented a direct proposal to the School District to extend the deadline for escrow. Specifically, the Fundraisers sought additional 12-months to complete the fundraising effort. That proposal was not acceptable to the School District. The City and the District have since negotiated to extend the deadline and amend the terms of the Purchase Agreement.

Two extensions of the closing date have been granted by the School District, during which time the City and the District have discussed various options for amending the terms and conditions in the Purchase Agreement. The District's final extension of time to reach a tentative agreement on the amendment expires on April 15, 2008.

Recently, the District conveyed a proposal to the City that requires the City to close escrow not later than May 15, 2008. Upon the close of escrow, the City will deliver $5 million together with its promissory note for $3.5 million secured by the property, with monthly interest payments, and with periodic principal payments. The payment schedule would be as follows: $250,000 on August 15; $1.5 million on November 14; $250,000 on February 13, 2009 and the balance of $1.5 million and all accrued but unpaid interest on May 15, 2009. The District's proposal also requires the City to reimburse the District's legal and consultant costs relating to the amendment in an amount not to exceed $10,000 and to complete the execution of the Lease Agreement for the District's lease back of its administrative office space no later than May 9, 2008. The District's representatives have made it clear that no further extensions of the closing date (past May 15, 2008) will be granted.

Representatives from the fundraising committee, The Campaign for Del Mar Shores, and from the Winston School will provide the Council and the community with an update regarding the current status of the campaign and the total funds received and pledged at tonight's special meeting.

DISCUSSION:

As noted above, efforts to raise community funds for the_purchase of the Shores property have resulted in deposits to the escrow account totaling approximately $4.8 million. There remains, however, a shortfall of approximately $3.7 million required to fully fund the purchase price. Furthermore, additional funds must be raised to cover the loans made to the fundraising campaign as well as the costs of fundraising.

Given the May 15, 2008, deadline for closing escrow, the purchase of the Shores property can only be accomplished with assistance from the City. Such assistance might include short term financing secured by the City, which arrangement would give the Fundraisers additional time to raise the balance of the funds required. However, municipalities may not acquire real property by entering into installment sales contracts or mortgage agreements unless the total amount of the purchase price is paid in the year the property is acquired. The use of City-backed "bridge" financing, therefore, obligates the City's resources and could put the City's AA credit rating at risk. This risk must be carefully considered. Tonight's special meeting should include a discussion of the options available to the City in the event the fundraising efforts fall short of the funds necessary to satisfy the promissory note that would become due and payable in 12-months.

Options for consideration and discussion include the following:

• sale of a portion of the Shores property
• use of the City's open space funds - one time money (approximately $400,000)
• use of interim financing (bank loan, commercial paper program, shortterm notes)
• exchanging the Balboa lot for an equivalent portion of the Shores
• property and liquidating the Balboa lot to help retire the City's indebtedness for the Shores purchase relocating City Hall to the School District administrative office site on the Shores property

Del Mar school district faces several big decisions

Source: Carmel Valley News, April 10, 2008.

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.”

DMUSD Timeline For Board Appointment

Del Mar Union School District

TIMELINE FOR BOARD APPOINTMENT

2008

* updated

March 26	Board adopts timeline and application document for filling the vacancy on the Del Mar Union School District Governing Board
April 1	Application packet available to the public online (www.dmusd.org) or pick-up at the Del Mar Union School District, 225 9th Street, Del Mar.
April 1-15	District advertises vacancy in local newspapers
April 25	Deadline at 3:00 p.m. for all applications. They may be mailed, faxed or hand delivered to the District Office.
April 29	Copies of all applications mailed to Board members for review.
May 7	Special Board meeting at Ocean Air School to review applications and applicants in public and make the appointment. Each candidate will have five minutes to address the Board individually commencing at 3:15 p.m.

Related Documents:

• Click here to download a Board Appointment Application that can be filled out and saved on your computer with the free Adobe Reader.

DMSEF Letter to the Trustees

Source: http://delmarkids.org/docs/pdfs/DMSEF_Letter_DMUSD_040208.pdf

Del Mar Schools Education Foundation

April 2, 2008

BY EMAIL
Dr. Annette Easton, President
Ms. Katherine White, Clerk
Dr. Janet Lamborghini
Mr. Steven McDowell
Board of Trustees
Del Mar Union School District
225 Ninth Street
Del Mar, California 92014

Dear Trustees:

On behalf of the entire board of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, I would like to thank the hundreds of donors who have supported our mission to support and enhance educational programs, and specifically enrichment programs, by contributing so generously to our annual appeal. Although our appeal will not end until the end of this month, we are mindful of the District’s May 1 deadline for accepting donations toward funding additional enrichment staffing positions for the 2008-09 school year, which you approved unanimously at your July 2007 meeting, and we are committed to helping each school secure its goal in the little time remaining.

Therefore, on April 15, 2008, the Foundation will deliver a check to the District for the gross amount raised and received to date through our annual appeal, without any deductions for any expenses associated with raising these funds (including credit card fees). The check, which will exceed $510,000, will be designated for “Enrichment Programs” at each individual school, in the amount raised on behalf of each school. This fulfills the promises that the Foundation has made throughout its current fundraising campaign that: (i) we would turn over all money raised through the annual appeal in advance of the May 1 deadline set by the DMUSD Board of Trustees; (ii) any dollars raised would be donated, without regard to the expenses associated with our fundraising efforts; and (iii) any donations designated for a particular school would stay at that school. Of course, we will continue to accept donations to our annual appeal through the end of the month, and we will turn over any additional amounts received, with the same designations as our April 15 contribution, as soon as possible. As soon as the Foundation completes its budgeting process for next year, we will also donate any available surplus as an additional sum, which also will be designated for “Enrichment Programs”, to be divided evenly amongst the individual schools.

We are pleased to be able to contribute these funds to benefit our children. Nevertheless, for all of the reasons stated in our March 6 letter (available on our website at www.delmarkids.org), and further stated at your March 26 meeting, we believe that our fundraising efforts have been hampered by the failure of the Board of Trustees to act upon the enrichment funding proposal submitted by the DMSEF. Further, the assurances given by a majority of individual trustees at the meeting that the District will accept donations for additional staffing positions at school sites beyond those allocated by the District, without regard to whether the particular site meets its fundraising goal, has further undermined our efforts by creating a disincentive to support these goals. These comments raise doubt regarding the necessity and desirability of maintaining a district-wide fundraising organization such as the Foundation. Therefore, the principal agenda item at our May 6, 2008 Board meeting will be to determine the feasibility of accomplishing our mission under the current environment, and whether it would be preferable to suspend our operations at the present time.

Very truly yours,
/s/
Bob Gans
DMSEF President

cc: Ms. Janet Bernard
Interim Superintendent

A Blast From The Past

Newly added: U-T articles from 1997 and 1998 relating to the departure of Tom Bishop's predecessor, Robert Harriman.

• http://dmusdnews.blogspot.com/search/label/Harriman