Del Mar school board addresses concerns over cash incentives decision

Source: Del Mar Times

By Karen Billing
Staff Writer

In response to some e-mails from parents voicing concern, Del Mar Union School District Board President Comischell Rodriguez requested that the board discuss the allocation of Federal Education Job Funds, approved in December, at its Aug. 24 meeting.

The board voted to use its Federal Education Jobs Funds, which is federal money intended to save or create jobs, to give $1,000 in cash incentives to all employees, amounting to a total of about $500,000.

At the meeting, parent David Wojtkowski said he questioned the board’s rationale in approving the allotment. He said he is always very supportive of teachers but thought that the bonus was "irresponsible in these times."

On average, there was a 14 percent increase in health insurance costs and the board said money given helped to offset the rising costs.

"I know that you can slice up the dollars a lot of different ways and I looked at every aspect," Peabody said. "Every board can do it in a lot of different ways. I think what we did was a good thing for the families of the district’s staff to offset those increases in insurance because we have a lot of staff with growing families."

Peabody said there were 32 staff pregnancies in the district last year and it looks to be the same number this year.

Trustees Doug Perkins and Scott Wooden said their thinking in approving the allocation was that it was a one-time payment versus a payment that would compound year after year.

Perkins said he has pledged to be a "fiscal hawk" and in hard economic times they must look for ways to reduce ongoing expenses and this looked like a way to do that.

Perkins said he is still looking to implement one of the ideas that came out of the Financial Task Force, which is to allow employees to opt-out of insurance to save money—if 5 percent of employees opted out, it would save the district around $250,000.

"I’m very sensitive to the budget and where we’re headed," Perkins said. "I want to make sure we’re doing the right thing with your money."

The federal government allocated about $1.2 billion in Jobs Fund money to California school districts, the purpose of which, according to a fact sheet distributed by the California Department of Education, is "to save or create an estimated 16,500 kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) jobs."

The federal money was given to all school districts in the nation, and U.S. Department of Education guidelines offer a number of options for spending the money, which is to be used "only for compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services necessary to retain existing employees, to recall or rehire former employees, and to hire new employees, in order to provide early childhood, elementary or secondary educational and related services."

According to the Calif. Dept. of Education, "This includes salaries, performance bonuses, health insurance, retirement benefits, incentives for early retirement, pension fund contributions, tuition reimbursement, student loan repayment assistance, transportation subsidies, and reimbursement for child care expenses. Funds may be used to restore reductions in salaries and benefits or to implement increases. They may also be used to eliminate furlough days."

The funds may also be spent on employees other than teachers who provide support services at school sites. But the money cannot be used for "administrative expenditures related to the operation of the superintendent’s office," board members, fiscal services or human resources.

Del Mar Union School District sued to release documents

Source: Del Mar Times

By Marsha Sutton
Senior Education Writer

Del Mar parent and resident Michael Robertson filed a lawsuit against the Del Mar Union School District Aug. 8, charging the district with withholding public documents Robertson requested May 10 under the California Public Records Act.

Also named in the suit is DMUSD school board president Comischell Rodriguez, for allegedly not disclosing personal emails related to the CPRA request that were sent to and from Rodriguez’s private email accounts.

"Because Respondent Rodriguez possesses, maintains and controls records responsive to Petitioner’s requests that are not maintained in files located in Respondent District’s offices, Respondent Rodriguez is an indispensible part to this litigation and must be included as a respondent in order for Petitioner to obtain complete relief," reads the suit.

Robertson submitted a CPRA request on May 10 for access to files, documents and records relating to contact from March 1, 2011 between employees and representatives of the DMUSD and the California Teachers Association, a statewide teachers union of which the Del Mar California Teachers Association is a member.

This request was later expanded to include communication among and between Rodriguez, DMUSD superintendent Jim Peabody, the DMCTA and its representatives, the CTA, and the California School Boards Association (CSBA).

Robertson’s Public Records request was triggered by a CTA-organized "Week of Action" held May 9 to 13. A resolution to support the Week of Action was passed by the DMUSD school board at its April 27 meeting.

Robertson objected to Peabody’s recorded, automated telephone call to all Del Mar parents asking for their support of the week’s activities, and to flyers produced by the CTA that were distributed to parents by Del Mar schools’ PTAs. The flyers asked parents to call or email legislators to urge them to back more money for schools.

Saying this was "clearly calling for political action which is in violation of California law," Robertson criticized the flyers and the school district’s actions that he claims inappropriately supported the union’s mission.

A May 27 letter from the DMUSD in response to Robertson’s May 10 CPRA request provided three primary reasons for not fully complying, citing court cases to support each point.

First, the letter stated, "The district objects to the requests as they are vague, overbroad and burdensome."

"That is typical legal babble," Robertson said. "They pay an outside firm to just object on every possible grounds." He contends there is nothing vague about his requests. "It’s a shame that they’re spending money on attorneys to block perfectly legitimate requests."

The district’s letter also stated, "In addition, the district objects to your requests insofar as they seek any information unrelated to the conduct of the public’s business."

In a May 27 letter back to the district, Robertson wrote, "How DMUSD is run and who they communicate with, and this includes with outside agencies, is the public’s business. My request is completely within that scope."

The district, in its letter, offered a final objection: "The district further objects to your requests insofar as they seek records exempt from disclosure because the public interest in not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure."

Robertson responded to this by writing, "If you want to argue that pathetic excuse in court, I suppose it’s the district’s prerogative. But to spend money that should be used to educate children on attorneys to hide its interactions with the California Teachers Association seems like gross mismanagement to me."

Peabody wrote back to Robertson, in a June 1 letter, saying he was disturbed by the "accusatory tone" of Robertson’s last correspondence, and asked for courtesy.

"Your negative commentary which, amongst other things, charges that the district ‘is hid[ing] documents,’ likens the district’s response to your request as a ‘pathetic excuse,’ and threatens litigation, is inaccurate and mistaken," Peabody wrote.

Peabody said over 4,000 documents had to be reviewed, which he called a time-consuming process. "We have no interest in ‘hiding documents’ as you’ve charged, and no desire to engage in unnecessary litigation," he wrote.

In a same-day reply, Robertson wrote, "I’m sorry you are offended by my harsh words, but to be clear I am accusing the district of hiding communication documents between the CTA and district employees. … After initially being met with cooperation and promises to search email repositories, I have since been stonewalled. Yes, my words will grow harsher and my actions will too, because as [a] citizen this is my only recourse."

Patience worn thin

Pages of documents were then provided to Robertson, but they were unresponsive to his request, he said. A letter from the school district’s attorney on this case, Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, said the district has cooperated fully.

"If you know of communications that are responsive to your CPRA requests and that the district has not produced, kindly identify them and the district will gladly produce the documents if it is in possession of them," Shinoff wrote.

"This is not a game called ‘hide the document until a citizen knows it is in existence,’" Robertson replied. "The very purpose of the CPRA is to reveal documents that citizens do not have knowledge of."

"My patience has worn thin," Robertson wrote. "I have waited for many weeks and still get stonewalled by the district. It’s baffling behavior and it appears that the district is daring me to file a lawsuit to compel action."

Subsequently, over 100 pages of emails were sent to Robertson. Although many of the pages pertained to the lunch program and other unrelated topics, emails directly related to Robertson’s requests were provided.

Still dissatisfied with what he said was a "woefully inadequate" release of requested material, Robertson blasted the district for what it did provide, saying the documents clearly show that the Week of Action campaign originated from the CTA.

"The school board was told what resolution to pass and all the literature came from CTA," he said, adding that the all-call telephone script read by Peabody was also written by the CTA.

"When the administration and board simply become employees of the CTA who directs their actions, then the system becomes perverted and fails," Robertson said.

Rodriguez, in an email to Peabody regarding Robertson’s complaints, wrote, "Surprising. We are not endorsing a candidate nor a party. We are doing our job to defend and be a part of the greater educational conversation."

"My thoughts exactly," Peabody responded.

No monetary compensation

Peabody had no comment on the lawsuit, saying as of Monday the district had not been served. Rodriguez did not respond to phone calls or emails for a comment.

Robertson, a technology entrepreneur who is the founder and former chief executive officer of the digital music company MP3.com, said he’s not seeking monetary compensation and only wants the documents released.

"This isn’t about getting money," he said. "This is about making sure that the Del Mar school district is responsive to citizen requests, which it hasn’t been. I’ve wrestled with these guys for months."

His complaint states, "Unless Petitioner is allowed access to the information he seeks, the public will be denied information prepared at public expense by public officials pertaining to the conduct of the public’s business, access to which is essential to scrutinize government."

Robertson said the district has three weeks to respond to the lawsuit. "I’m puzzled why they haven’t turned over the documents already," he said. "It’s baffling. For some reason Del Mar thinks they are above the law."

Answering a query from this newspaper on this issue in May, Peabody said, "I don’t believe the district did anything wrong."

"Thanks for hanging in there on this," wrote Rodriguez to Peabody in an email obtained by Robertson. "You’re doing great. And you’re right. We did nothing wrong."

San Diego Unified to review public records policy following complaint

Source: San Diego Union Tribune

Parent was originally told she would be charged for staff time to make copies

Written by: Ashly McGlone

A parent-activist who was going to be charged for staff time so she could see San Diego Unified Superintendent Bill Kowba’s calendar won’t incur that cost, after her story was highlighted in The Watchdog.

The district ended up charging Sally Smith $2.70 — 10 cents a page — for the cost of duplicating the public record.

Smith had been told she would be charged 10 cents per page "plus clerical time for the actual duplication, at a rate of $20 to $28 per hour."

Typically, public agencies charge for the cost of making a copy, not for staff time to do so.

After The Watchdog highlighted the effort to charge Smith for staff time, the district backed away.

The district’s policy of charging for staff time in such cases previously caught the attention of the Sacramento-based open-government group Californians Aware. That fee contributed to the district earning an F in the group’s audit of public agency compliance with public records law, released earlier this year.

District officials said they will now review their copying rates.

"We are entitled to recover the costs to produce a record that is maintained in electronic form," said Andra Donovan, the district’s deputy general counsel. She added, "In light of the concerns raised by the U-T, we will review our copying charges to make sure they are an accurate reflection of the direct costs of duplication."

Additionally, The Watchdog compared the calendar provided to Smith with a calendar provided to Emily Alpert of the Voice of San Diego and found that Smith’s calendar was incomplete and the redacting was inconsistent.

Alpert’s version included auditor visits, as well as cabinet, area superintendent and principal meetings, charity meetings, chamber of commerce and city events, select employee travel, sexual harassment training for a staff member, and media interviews — all of which were left off Smith’s calendar.

Meanwhile, Smith’s calendar included a carpool meet-up with the dean of San Diego State University’s College of Education and other employee travel redacted from the calendar provided to Alpert.

By law, agencies may withhold documents related to pending litigation and personnel, medical or similar files if disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Told of the discrepancy, Donovan said the district will reproduce a more complete calendar and give it to Smith free of charge.

"We will also review our redaction policies to make sure we are consistently and appropriately redacting information," Donovan said.

Smith, who wished to compare Kowba’s appointments with those of former Superintendent Terry Grier, said she was concerned about the district’s handling of her request.

"Californians Aware graded school districts across the state and San Diego Unified got an F, and I can see why. It is intimidating to go in and ask for public records and have to encounter so much trouble getting them," Smith said. "San Diego Unified has to be more transparent and has to be open to requests and let the public see what it is doing."

In 2009, The San Diego Union-Tribune requested copies of the calendars for 55 local government leaders, including Grier. The requests were all fulfilled with no fees.

District officials said budget cuts no longer allow for such freebies.

• District form letter referencing charges for staff time for copying documents
• Superintendent calendar released to Sally Smith
• Superintendent calendar released to Voice of San Diego

MP3.com founder sues Del Mar school district

Source: San Diego Union Tribune

DEL MAR — Michael Robertson, the Internet entrepreneur who founded MP3.com in 1997, is suing the Del Mar Union School District for denying some of his recent requests under the California Public Records Act for internal emails.

Robertson, a Del Mar resident, filed the lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court on Aug. 8. Robertson’s two sons attended schools in the elementary school district, now with one in high school and the other finishing in June.

The lawsuit alleges that Del Mar Union wrongfully denied Robertson’s requests for all emails to and from Trustee Comischelle Rodriguez. According to court documents, the district has only released emails sent between Rodriguez and Superintendent James Peabody.

Robertson said he has made several request under the state’s open records law, which says any writing pertaining to the public’s business is public record, unless it is exempt, such as personnel evaluations.

Peabody, the district’s superintendent, said he could not comment on a pending lawsuit.

Robertson said he originally decided to pursue the emails to learn how the district spends taxpayer money. He said he became upset earlier this year when parents began receiving automated-phone calls with Peabody’s voice about a grass-roots campaign on the state budget crisis. Robertson said the call came at 7 p.m. on a Sunday to the emergency contact number he gave the district. He complained to the administration, and found out Peabody read a script written by the teacher’s union.

Robertson, a UCSD graduate, gained international fame when he founded MP3.com, a platform for music sharing that grew to more than 750,000 streaming and downloadable songs from 250,000 artists. The company went public in 1999, raising $344 million.

The Recording Industry of America successfully sued MP3.com for copyright infringement. Robertson paid $150 million to five recording labels as part of a settlement. Vivendi then bought MP3.com for $372 million in 2001.

District seeks fee for viewing of calendar

Source: San Diego Union Tribune

Written by: Ashly McGlone

The San Diego Unified School District is seeking to impose a fee on a parent requesting to review the superintendent’s calendar.

Public records law says such documents can be inspected during business hours and a state attorney general’s report says no fee should be charged.

Sally Smith, a parent and vocal critic of the district, is seeking to review Superintendent Bill Kowba’s calendar from January to July 2011 in order to determine whether she wants copies of any pages.

The California Public Records Act states that, "Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law."

Agencies are allowed to charge for copies of public records. But the open records law "contains no provision for a charge to be imposed in connection with the mere inspection of records," according to a report issued by the California Attorney General’s Office in 2004.

In the case of Kowba’s calendar, school district attorneys said that the calendar is only kept electronically and, in that form, portions can’t be redacted. They say printed copies must be made in order to strike out information exempted from the open records law in order for Smith to review the information.

Smith was told she would have to pay for printing costs "plus clerical time for the actual duplication, at a rate of $20 to $28 per hour," according to an Aug. 1 email from Adel Epley, assistant to the district’s deputy general counsel.

Smith, who contacted The Watchdog about the issue, wrote in response, "I just want to look at it. I can’t be charged for reviewing records."

The school district’s attorneys stand by the anticipated charge, though it was unclear what the total cost would be as of Friday.

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said, "The better argument under the law is they can’t charge for that."

In 2009, The San Diego Union-Tribune requested copies of the calendars for various local government leaders, including Terry Grier, then-superintendent of San Diego Unified. That request was fulfilled with no redaction and no fee was charged.

---

More information:

• Former Superintendent Terry Grier's calendar, released at no charge in 2009
• Compilation of calendars requested by the U-T in 2009, released without redactions and free of charge