Comischell Rodriguez, President, Board of Trustees
Through:
Dr. Sharon McClain, Superintendent
Subject:
Agenda Item 10: Board Discussion/Approval, Contract between Sharon L. McClain, Ed.D and the DMUSD Board of Trustees
It has come to the Board's attention that district staff have been unable to implement a provision in Superintendent McClain's contract reported revised on June 17, 2009. The Board firmly believes that all District employees should receive prompt payment of all benefits.
To determine what the issues are, and what Board action may be necessary, the Board has placed a discussion of Superintendent McClain's current contract on the agenda. By law, any discussion about the contract must occur in open session. Through this discussion the Board hopes to clear up any issues related to implementing all provisions of the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Cost - Dena Whittington will be available to calculate the fiscal impact based on revisions to the original contract. Program or Department - Unrestricted General Fund Is this a Restricted Program? No Was this expenditure anticipated in the adopted budget? Yes, budget for superintendent's total compensation based on original contract. Will this Program or Department be over budget after this expenditure? No, if changes are within total compensation oforiginal contract.
RECOMMENDED:
The Superintendent recommends the Board discuss and take any necessary action.
Below is audio from the February 24 public meeting. This is the full unedited audio from the DMUSD website in its entirety, the player resides on this site but the audio is being streamed from DMUSD's site. Alternately you can download the audio from the DMUSD site and listen to it in the player of your choice.
(3:32:42) Full unedited board meeting audio from dmusd.org
This is the exact wording of the contract amendment requested by Sharon McClain, as read by Katherine White at the Board meeting.
(01:21) Contract amendment read by Katherine White
This is Katherine White reading the letter Sharon McClain wrote to request the contract amendment.
(00:56) Request language
These are Dena Whittington's comments from the meeting where she discusses sending the amendment to CalSTRS and CalSTRS' response.
(01:34) Dena Whittington's comments
This is a compilation of Sharon McClain's comments during the discussion of her contract amendment.
(05:16)Sharon McClain's comments
This is a compilation of Board member comments regarding the reasons that they hadn't yet implemented the changes to Sharon McClain's contract.
(05:13) Board members explaining the delay in implementing the contract amendment
This is the public comment portion of the contract discussion segment.
(01:47) Public comment
This is an edited clip of the entire portion of the meeting where McClain's contract was discussed, edited only to remove long pauses, any other deletions, if any, are unintentional.
Regular Board Meeting
Del Mar Hills Academy – Multi-Purpose Room
14085 Mango Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 5:45 pm (Click here for map)
CALL TO ORDER - OPEN SESSION – 4:00 pm
Board president calls for blue speaker slips
Public input concerning items on the closed session agenda
Adjourn to Closed Session (In the Del Mar Hills Academy - Administration Office Conference Room, 14085 Mango Drive, Del Mar, CA 92014)
CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session Agenda:
Public Employee Appointment/Employment: Title: School Principal (G.C. 54957)
Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release pursuant to (Government Code 54957)
Conference with Labor Negotiator (G.C. 54957.6)
Agency Designated Representatives: Sharon McClain, Superintendent and Rodger Smith, Director of Human Resources & Facilities Planning; Employee Organization: Del Mar California Teachers Association
Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a); Name of Case: DMUSD v. Challenger Sheet Metal, Inc.
Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(b); Name of Case: Significant Exposure to Litigation: One case
Public Employee Performance Evaluation: Title: Superintendent (G.C. 54957)
Adjournment of Closed Session:
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION:
CALL TO ORDER, REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES - 5:45 P.M.
PERSONNEL
Board Approval, .5 Full Time Equivalent Expansion Position for Spanish Instruction at Del Mar Heights School
Regular Board Meeting
Del Mar Hills Academy – Multi-Purpose Room
14085 Mango Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 5:45 pm (Click here for map)
CALL TO ORDER - OPEN SESSION – 4:00 pm
Board president calls for blue speaker slips
Public input concerning items on the closed session agenda
Adjourn to Closed Session (In the Del Mar Hills Academy - Administration Office Conference Room, 14085 Mango Drive, Del Mar, CA 92014)
CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session Agenda:
1.1 Conference with Labor Negotiator – (Government Code 54957.6) Agency Designated Representative: Ricardo J. Soto, Best Best & Krieger, Unrepresented Employee: Superintendent (Permanent)
1.2 Conference with Labor Negotiator (G.C. 54957.6)
Agency Designated Representatives: Janet Bernard, Interim Superintendent and Rodger Smith, Director of Personnel and Facilities; Employee Organization: Del Mar California Teachers Association
1.3 Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a); One Case
Adjournment of Closed Session:
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION:
CALL TO ORDER, REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES - 5:45 P.M.
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
Preliminary Report, 2008 STAR Testing Results
BUSINESS AND FINANCE
Board Approval, Contract Between Del Mar Union School District and Sharon McClain
Regular Board Meeting
Del Mar Hills Academy – Multi-Purpose Room
14085 Mango Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 5:45 pm (Click here for map)
CALL TO ORDER - OPEN SESSION – 3:30 pm
Board president calls for blue speaker slips
Public input concerning items on the closed session agenda
Adjourn to Closed Session (In the Del Mar Hills Academy - Administration Office Conference Room, 14085 Mango Drive, Del Mar, CA 92014)
CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session Agenda:
1.1 Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a); One Case
1.2 Public Employment Appointment/Employment Title: Director of Technology (G.C. 54957)
1.3 Conference with Labor Negotiator (G.C. 54957.6) Agency Designated Representatives: Janet Bernard, Interim Superintendent and Rodger Smith, Director of Personnel and Facilities; Employee Organization: Del Mar California Teachers Association
Adjournment of Closed Session:
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION:
CALL TO ORDER, REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES - 5:45 P.M.
A full house packed the room at the May 28 Del Mar Union School District board meeting, the majority of the audience coming to hear the board discuss the Spanish language program slated for Del Mar Heights School this fall.
They also came to speak – 45 of them, to be exact.
But by the time the board reached the Spanish program agenda item, the time was 9:50 p.m., and 13 speakers had left.
Of the remaining 32, some speakers were from Carmel Valley, but most were parents and staff members from the Heights and neighboring school, Del Mar Hills Academy. Both schools share a common attendance area and compete for students.
The bulk of the controversy over the Heights Spanish program, which was approved in January by the school board, centers around its need for four kindergarten and four first-grade classes – with two classes at each grade level participating in the more comprehensive Spanish Discovery program (see related story, page one).
Those opposed to the program had concerns about its effect on enrollment at the Hills, the cost, and the wisdom of adding what they essentially view as another enrichment program, foreign language, when the district’s established enrichment program faces an uncertain future.
Arguments in favor of the program included the educational value of second language instruction, the years of work leading up to the development of the program, the virtually unanimous support among Heights parents and teachers for the program, and the sensitivity supporters say was paid to cost and enrollment issues.
The tension leading up to the board meeting had escalated in days prior, reaching a fevered pitch by the time trustees took their seats on the stage. With Heights supporters fighting to “Save Our Spanish” and Hills supporters wanting to “Save Our School,” both sides were seeing red and impasse seemed inevitable.
Prefacing the discussion with an impassioned speech for tolerance and understanding was board president Annette Easton, who implored the audience to “please put aside your agenda and please try to hear the other side.” For nearly 10 minutes, she spoke to a filled auditorium that was quiet as a church, constituents listening to every word.
She asked individuals to control their emotions and reach across the aisle to see how others might view the situation. She promised to do likewise, and suggested that her support for the Heights program did not mean she disagreed with the Hills’ position. If a byproduct of the program meant a yearly pattern of declining Hills enrollment, she indicated that would be unacceptable.
Easton acknowledged the validity of both sides of the debate, and eloquently asked others to do the same.
Hoping to calm the crowd, Easton said trustees had received over 130 emails and other communication on the issue and had read every one. “We have been trying to listen to all sides,” she said.
She said an intelligent community like Del Mar’s expects planning perfection. “We are data junkies,” she said. “We analyze everything. We want well-thought-out plans. But sometimes we get into an analysis paralysis that makes it impossible to move forward.”
Easton said the model for education is not the same as the business world and urged people to learn the facts, keep an open mind, and understand that the Spanish program is a trial program that is likely to be modified after implementation.
Hoping to soften any comments that might fan the flames, she asked the audience to consider all sides before speaking and, in the interest of time, to limit the length of speeches.
Before public comment, trustee Janet Lamborghini asked that fellow board member Katherine White, who has a son in kindergarten at Del Mar Heights, be exempt from discussion of the Spanish program. Because White’s son will enter first grade in the fall and could potentially benefit from the Spanish program, Lamborghini alluded to a potential conflict of interest.
Interim superintendent Janet Bernard said she had discussed the matter with attorneys and learned that there is no legal reason why White should not participate in the discussion or a vote. But she did note that there may be “a perceived appearance of impropriety.”
Concerned about setting a precedent that would prohibit board members from participating in a wide range of issues, Easton said that any trustee with children in the district could personally gain from voting on a number of matters. She cited as an example the explosive Ashley Falls/Sage Canyon school boundary issue that fiercely divided the Carmel Valley community a number of years ago, noting that certain board members participated in that vote even though they, and their children, directly benefited.
Ultimately the decision was left to White, who said that few people serve on school boards who do not have children in their school district. She noted that many school board members’ children reap the benefits of decisions their parents make while serving, calling it a fine line determining which votes are acceptable for individuals to participate in and which are not.
After thanking Lamborghini, with the slightest hint of sarcasm, “for looking out for my best interests,” White asked that the board allow the item to be separated into two parts: one for the kindergarten portion of the program and one for the first-grade portion.
Since her son will be promoted from kindergarten to first grade this fall, White said she will fully engage in the kindergarten discussion and any vote on the matter. But she agreed to refrain from participating in the first-grade Spanish program discussion because of the appearance of a conflict of interest.
“It’s sad that I feel political pressure to recuse myself, but I do,” she said.
Public Comment
After some debate about how much time to allow the speakers, given the late hour, the board settled on two minutes each, and public comment began.
Of the 32 speakers, 23 spoke in favor of the Heights Spanish program, citing a variety of reasons for their support.
Praise for Del Mar Heights principal Wendy Wardlow was offered by a number of speakers, one of whom was Elizabeth Folkerth, a Carmel Valley resident, who attended Del Mar Heights 35 years ago as a student. “Wendy’s love of education is infectious,” said Folkerth, whose son has applied for the kindergarten Spanish Discovery class reserved for students living east of I-5. She said Wardlow “is creating programs today that will help our children tomorrow.” Others called Wardlow a visionary.
Elizabeth Silverman, a Heights parents whose son was not picked to participate in the Spanish Discovery program, said she was proud of the work done with foreign language at the Heights and condemned the dissension. “People are only interested in what they can get for themselves,” she said. “This is about foreign language in our school district.”
Heights parent Kathy Nahum suggested that other schools “learn from this implementation” and replicate it at their sites.
“Every district has to start somewhere,” said Cheryl Ward, a Carmel Valley resident whose daughter has applied for the kindergarten Spanish class this fall. “I ask that we all unite and move forward with this program.”
Camilla Rang, a Heights parent originally from Europe, said the U.S. is the only country that doesn’t offer a second language in the early grades. “You can all learn from our mistakes because surely we will make them,” she added, addressing parents from other Del Mar schools.
Parent Bruce Smith drew gasps when he said his impression after touring both the Heights and the Hills was that the Heights’ presentation was “100 percent superior.”
Anthony Loeppert has a son in kindergarten at the Hills and plans to move him to the Heights this fall for first grade. “It’s good to have two options,” he said. He criticized the Hills community for making demands after the school board decision to proceed with the Spanish program had already been made.
Many speakers, including University of California San Diego medical school professor Tamar Gollan, cited research showing that second language instruction is valuable for young children, who have a particular ability to learn foreign languages faster and better in the early grades. “The benefits of bilingualism are underestimated,” she said.
Robbie Elliott, an English Language Learner instructor at Del Mar Heights, said she has personally observed how easily young people can learn a new language.
The value of teaching a second language to young children was emphasized by a number of speakers, even though this point was never disputed by those opposed to the Heights’ Spanish program.
Mary Taylor, outgoing PTA president from Torrey Hills School, said, “We get caught up in the wrong arguments.” She said the problem is not about the value of Spanish language instruction; everyone agrees it’s beneficial. “It’s about implementing programs the right way,” she said.
There were nine speakers opposed to the program, six from Del Mar Hills and three from schools east of I-5.
Greg Kostello, a Hills parent, said the board “created a situation where people are fighting with one another.” He asked the board to be more transparent and not “take away teachers from our school.”
Hills parent Beth Westburg disagreed with the cost estimates and objected to the program based on its negative effect on Hills enrollment. “Is it right to harm one school’s enrollment to make this program work?” she asked. The Heights, she said, should not have “a sense of entitlement.” In an earlier statement to the board, she referred to the Heights as the school “where most of the board members attend.”
Janet Pecsar, Hills PTA president, reiterated that the Hills community is not opposed to a Spanish program. But she said that Wardlow “has been unwilling to tweak her program” to allow the Hills to have three kindergarten classes. “She won’t do it until you make her,” she told the board.
Hills parent Marybeth Norgren choked back tears as she told the board, “I want our school to be looked out for. You can’t guarantee it’s only going to affect us for one year. It’s not fair that some other school’s program is going to impact my school. It’s simply not fair.”
The school board will resume discussion of the issue at its next board meeting scheduled for June 11.
The following audio clips are from community members who spoke for and against the proposed Spanish Discovery program to be implemented in the fall at Del Mar Heights Elementary School.
DMUSD Regular Board Meeting
Del Mar Hills Academy – Multi-Purpose Room
14085 Mango Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 5:45 pm (Click here for map)
CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNCIATIONS This section of the agenda is provided for the public to address any item which lies within the governing board’s jurisdiction that is not on the agenda. State law prohibits the Board of Trustees from discussing any item not on the agenda.
Correspondence: None
Public Comments: Corinne Hackbart submitted a speaker slip to the Board, which was read aloud by President Easton.
Public Input: None
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Text of speech read by Annette Easton:
We have one speaker slip for public comment... submitted by Corinne Hackbart who asked to register her position and she turned in an item to read.
Dear Editor,
This is in response to the December 6 column that was written by Marsha Sutton.
I have nothing more to say than that I am apalled. I was feeling as if this new board was beginning to work in a collaborative effort, to make positive decisions that would be benefiting the Del Mar Union School District and the community.
Now I see through the paper that not only have a couple of board members, one being Linda Crawford and our superintendent Tom Bishop, been lying to all of the PTA presidents, staff and school board members, but Linda Crawford intended to spin this scenario of ill will displayed by the parents toward Tom Bishop because of his attempts to manipulate the immersion program to a school that clearly does not want it, and make the blame appear to be the board's fault.
This clearly indicates that something very wrong is going on in the district level including our superintendent Tom Bishop and board trustee Linda Crawford.
Honestly I feel this whole thing has come about because Tom and a few staff members, along with Linda, realized that there is a possibility that the district offices may be housed at Sycamore Ridge for a temporary timeframe.
Is the thought of the possibility of placing the district office at Sycamore Ridge for a temporary basis that bad? Is the thought of the district not building the Tom Mahal, aka the new district office, so upsetting to some of the board members, staff and Tom, that they will stop at nothing to get the district office built, even if it means lying to the parents and the people of this community?
This group appears so desperate to get this district office built that they are willing to attempt to ramrod this immersion program through without a budget.
That in itself is fiscally irresponsible, and those responsible should be reprimanded.
I am asking for the immediate resignation of Linda Crawford and Tom Bishop.
At its meeting on lanuary 23, the Board of Trustees asked to have a future discussion regarding written statements presented to the Board on a Blue Speaker Slip by a member of the public who opt not to speak.
Attached is a copy of Board Bylaw 9323 that governs public participation as school board meetings. Under "Public Participation" in Section 3 of Board Bylaw 9323 states, "A person wishing to be heard by the Board shall first be recognized by the President. He/she shall then identify himself/herself and proceed to comment as briefly as the subject permits."
Section 3 under "Public Participation" of Board Bylaw 9323 requires that the person be recognized by the President and that the person identify himself/herself and proceed to comment. Current Board Bylaw 9323 requires that the actual person be recognized by the President and also requires that the actual person proceed with comments.
If the Board wants to modify Board Bylaw 9323 to allow persons to submit written statements and have the Board President read the statement at a public meeting, then the Board will need to modify Board Bylaw 9323.
In January, Board Member Lamborghini pointed out several risks that may be associated with allowing persons not in attendance to submit written statements and to have the Board President read the statement of the "absent" person. Board Member Lamborghini may wish to elaborate on her concern over having statements from "absent" individuals being read during the Board meeting by the Board President.
The Board may wish to consider a revision to Board Bylaw 9323 that specifically requires any person who wishes to address the board during a board meeting to be present to make his/her comments.
Board Bylaw 9323 might be revised as follows:
#8. Any person who wishes to address the board during a board meeting is required to be present to make his/her comments, and all speakers must follow Board Bylaw 9323 in order to participate.
This possible revision is noted in bold italics in Board Bylaw 9323 included herein.
The superintendent is seeking board guidance on this possible revision.
Subject: 2nd Reading and Approval, Board Bylaw 9323, Meeting Conduct
Board Bylaw 9323 on Meeting Conduct is being presented to the Board this evening for a second reading and approval. No additional changes have been added since the first reading.
The administration conferred with legal counsel regarding public interaction with the Board. Specific guidance was requested on the registering of opinion and the reading of letters into the public record without the author of the letter being present.
Counsel affirmed that the law is clear that a member of the public has the right to directly address the Board. However, there is no provision for entitling a member of the public to have a written statement made part of the Board meeting's public record without addressing the Board. Additionally, there is not a provision entitling a member of the public to complete a speaker slip to register a preference or position on an agenda topic. Counsel also stated that he is unaware of any governing board that allows members of the public to enter written testimony into the record without being present nor allows expressions of support or opposition on a particular issue.
Therefore, the administration does not recommend adding additional language to the policy that would support the registering of an opinion without addressing the Board. The administration also recommends that the speaker slip be modified to reflect the public comment form used in the Solana Beach, Cardiff and Encinitas School Districts included herein.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDED: The Interim Superintendent recommends approval of Board Bylaw 9323, Meeting Conduct.
DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Bylaws/Administrative Regulations of the Board
Board Bylaw 9323: MEETING CONDUCT
The Governing Board desires to conduct its meetings effectively and efficiently. All Board meetings shall begin on time and shall be guided by an agenda prepared and delivered in advance to all Board members and other designated people.
Board meetings shall be conducted by the President in a manner consistent with adopted Board bylaws and parliamentary procedure.
Meeting agenda items that are discussion items, that is, not part of the approved consent calendar or a report, will follow this presentation format:
The Board President calls for the item on the agenda.
The District Superintendent or designee presents the item in a manner that allows for concise, accurate understanding of the item or issue.
Board members may then ask clarifying questions of the District Superintendent or his designee.
The Board President then calls for Public Input on the agenda item.
At the conclusion of Public Input, the Board President calls for Board discussion of the item.
At the conclusion of Board discussion. the Board President calls for a motion, which may then be seconded, followed by a vote or more discussion.
Action on motions shall follow" established parliamentary procedure until the vote is cast and the item concluded.
Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum (Education Code 5095, 35165).
Unless otherwise provided by law, affirmative votes by a majority of the Board's membership are required to approve any action under consideration, regardless of the number of members present (Education Code 35164).
Public Participation
Because the Board has a responsibility to conduct district business in an orderly and efficient manner, the following procedures shall regulate public presentations to the Board.
The Board shall give members of the public an opportunity to address the Board either before or during the Board's consideration of each agenda item (Education Code 35145.5, Government Code 54954.3).
At a time so designated on the agenda, members of the public also may bring before the Board matters that are not listed on the agenda of a regular meeting.
The Board may refer such a matter to the Superintendent or designee or take it under advisement, but shall not take action at that time. The matter may be placed on the agenda of a subsequent meeting for action or discussion by the Board (Education Code 35145.5, Government Code 54954.3).
A person wishing to be heard by the Board shall first be recognized by the President. He/she shall then identify himself/herself and proceed to comment as briefly as the subject permits.
Individual speakers shall be allowed up to three minutes to address the Board on each agenda or non-agenda item during "public comments." A speaker's allotted time may not be increased by a donation of time from members of the Public in attendance. The Board shall limit the total time for public input on each item to 20 minutes. With Board consent, the President may increase or decrease the time allowed for individual public presentation, depending on the topic and the number of persons wishing to be heard. The president may take a poll of speakers for or against a particular issue and may ask that additional persons speak only if they have something new to add.
With Board consent. the President may modifY the time allowed for public presentation.
The Board President may rule on the appropriateness of a topic. If the topic would be more suitably addressed at a later time, the President may indicate the time and place when it should be presented.
The Board shall not prohibit public criticism of its policies, procedures, programs, services, acts or omissions.
Whenever a member of the public initiates specific complaints or charges against an employee, the Board president shall inform the complainant that in order to protect the employee's right to adequate notice before hearing of such complaints and charges, and also to preserve the ability of the Board to legally consider the complaints or charges in any subsequent evaluation of the employee, it is the policy of the Board to hear such complaints or charges in closed session unless otherwise requested by the employee pursuant to Government Code 54957.
In the event of willful interruption by individuals or groups so as to render the orderly conduct of any open meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of the individuals or groups who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the Board may order the meeting room cleared and continue the session.
Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Representatives of the media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend such session.
After the room is cleared, the Board shall determine on either an individual or group basis whether the individual or group shall be readmitted to the meeting. Individuals or groups not responsible for the interruption or who did not participate in the interruption shall be readmitted.
Regular Board meetings shall be adjourned no later than 10:30 p.m. unless extended to a time certain by a majority of the Board. The meeting shall be extended no more than once for a maximum of 30 minutes and may be adjourned to a later time.
Any person who wishes to address the board during a board meeting is required to be present to make his/her comments, and all speakers must follow Board Bylaw 9323 in order to participate.
The resignation Feb. 26 of former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Tom Bishop elicited the expected outcry from loyal supporters, but it should have come as no surprise to anyone paying close attention this past year.
When a board majority of devoted Bishop followers was replaced in November 2006 by three Bishop critics who ran as a slate, the die was cast. These three individuals — returning board member Annette Easton and newcomers Steven McDowell and Katherine White — were quite open about their agenda.
The prior board was weak and provided little oversight, they said repeatedly, resulting in a superintendent with too much unchecked power. They contended that bad decisions had been made, an alienating, autocratic management style was intimidating those who dared to question, unhealthy backroom political alliances were undermining effective collaboration, and factions were splintering a suspicious community.
The three trustees never ran for school board to fire Bishop, but they were completely transparent about their concerns over Del Mar's administrative chief. The slate's campaign was an open appeal to voters to return power to the school board. They effectively tapped into pockets of quiet resistance in the community, where dissenters had been silenced for too long.
When all three were elected, defeating a two-term incumbent board president in the process, it was a clear signal that parents and voters had had enough and fully supported the slate's campaign platform to rein in the superintendent. Anything less than a full accounting of his behavior and limitations on his excessive exercise of power would have been a betrayal to those citizens who voted into office this new board majority to do exactly what they promised to do.
So the only surprise is that Bishop was unable to adapt to increased oversight in the year the board majority gave him to improve communication, embrace collaboration, reduce secrecy and eliminate heavy-handed decision-making. To blow a dream gig like he had in Del Mar reflected either an unwillingness to abide by the new rules or a bewildering lack of awareness of new expectations, which were clearly delineated during a rather heated fall 2006 campaign.
If there is another surprise, it is that this resignation took as long as it did to come about, given Bishop's apparent disregard for the board's new performance standards.
Ten years ago, Bishop was hired to replace another long-time Del Mar superintendent, Robert Harriman, whose iron rule and controlling presence during his 13 years at the helm became particularly apparent at the end of his tenure — before the board finally stepped in, placed him on paid administrative leave, and then settled with the standard 18-month buyout.
Seems there is a long tradition in Del Mar of over-eager superintendents ready to fill the power void emanating from decades of weak school boards — and a precedent of costly superintendent buyouts, the reasons for which remain largely unexplained.
Transcripts of a school board meeting held Sept. 10, 1997 show Harriman in full battlefield mode. The issue was overcrowding — primarily at one school, Del Mar Heights, which seems to have a long and colorful history of boisterous civil disobedience when parents feel threatened and bullied.
“I would suggest you take your child out of the school if there are too many, and place them in a private school or somewhere else,” an enraged Harriman told protesting parents in the packed auditorium that night.
In response to one parent in particular, who had been raising concerns about the overcrowding for months, Harriman singled her out by name and said to the crowd, “We don't deserve that. We're not going to take it from any human being on this earth. We have first amendment rights just as any other people. We are not going to work 14 hours a day to have a mouth like that.”
Oddly, Harriman's buyout came just months after the board gave him a glowing performance review in May 1997, complete with a raise and an extension of his contract to four full years. You didn't see that with Bishop.
Similarities between then and now include the fact that no formal explanation was ever given to the public for Harriman's 18-month buyout, no one besides lawyers and board members were involved, informed in advance, or consulted in the decision, and it was a time of great financial hardship for education at the state and local levels.
Harriman's “Voluntary Resignation Agreement,” signed Dec. 4, 1997 and effective Dec. 31, 1997, awarded him 18 months' salary totaling $166,421.46, health benefits for 18 months, and unused vacation days.
Besides board president Jeanne Waite, two of the other four board members back then were Linda Crawford and Janet Lamborghini, both of whom still serve today.
The signed agreement between Harriman and the DMUSD also included the following two delusional clauses that succeeded in fooling no one:
“The employee and the district agree that the employee successfully served the district as its superintendent for thirteen years, and that the employee was a dedicated, hard-working and competent superintendent. The employee always received good evaluations.”
“The employee and the district wish each other well and sincerely hope that each will be successful in the future.”
Bishop's settlement agreement also includes 18 months' pay, health benefits and vacation time. But noticeably missing is any language similar to the above.
The only comparable statement in Bishop's agreement is the “non-disparagement” clause that states: “The members of the board of trustees agree not to publicly disparage employee or this agreement, and employee agrees not to publicly disparage the district.”
Tying the board's hands both times was the absence of any clauses for termination in either contract. Unusual by almost every standard, this omission seriously impairs a board's ability to dismiss an employee “for cause” or “at will.”
Because the two contracts were so similar in format and language, one might imagine that the board that dismissed Harriman and was forced to pay him 18 months' salary would have learned a lesson and framed its next superintendent's contract to include those vital missing pieces. But trustees did not.
Ricardo Soto, attorney with Best Best & Krieger, represented the school board in its negotiations with Bishop and said “it's unusual” to have a contract written with no termination clauses, either for cause or at will.
When asked if board members had grievances that were of a nature that would normally be covered by a “for cause” clause, Soto hesitated for several moments before replying succinctly, “There were concerns raised by the board about the superintendent.”
Without termination clauses in a contract, a school board can still find its superintendent in breach of contract and fire him without the standard 18 months' pay. But Soto explained that this too often results in litigation that can end up costing far more than 18 months' worth of salary and can drag on for years without resolution.
The 18-month buyout, he said, is “very common,” and differences are “typically resolved in that manner.”
At the Feb. 26 board meeting when Bishop's resignation was approved, several speakers denounced the “secrecy,” demanding to be told why he was leaving. One speaker even suggested there was precedent for this disclosure with Harriman's settlement.
I covered every bit of the Harriman exit as a reporter, trying desperately to uncover the reasons for his dismissal. Although obvious that his unacceptable public behavior had to be a factor, people wanted to know what the actual grievances were. But to this day, those who sat on the board at the time are faithfully refusing to disclose details and will most likely carry their secret to the grave.
I worship at the altar of Ralph M. Brown, whose open-meeting Brown Act broke new ground in California for the people's right to know. Enacted in 1953, the Brown Act severely limits a public agency's ability to meet in closed session and withhold information from the public.
But in personnel cases, even the Brown Act requires that public agencies, including school boards, protect the privacy of employees by prohibiting closed session personnel matters from being divulged.
So the charge that this current school board is choosing to keep secrets is a manipulative strategy by critics who know full well this information cannot be publicly discussed.
It sounds good to accuse trustees of withholding information — it serves a political purpose, to make them look bad. But imagine if they were to violate confidentiality laws, exposing the district and themselves to punitive legal action by revealing private details.
Although we'll never know all the facts, anyone who's paid the slightest bit of attention to the issues can make a pretty good guess, just like we did with Harriman.
Bishop stumbled mightily on a number of issues: boundaries, busing, hot lunch money, the Torrey Hills biotech issue, the Ashley Falls laptop controversy, funding for enrichment teachers, the sale of the Shores property which cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation fees to fight two lawsuits, the mess with the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, the intra-district transfer policy and, most recently, the lack of communication over the Sycamore Ridge Spanish language immersion program.
Bishop did many things right, of course, and probably could have been a fine superintendent with a secure place in this district for years to come had there been better oversight and occasional course corrections by a more engaged, involved, former board.
As it is, he exceeded by a long shot the average superintendent tenure of three to four years in one place.
Bishop's contract had more than two years left to run, through June 30, 2010. With the settlement, he will be paid $15,991.77 per month, beginning May 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009. The total buyout will take place over three fiscal years and amounts to less than 1 percent of the district's total $37 million budget.
No dollars will be sacrificed in the classroom, and kids won't feel a pinch in any way, board president Easton said.
Bishop, of course, could have chosen to settle for less than 18 months' pay. Better yet, he could have chosen to work with the new board and alter his management style. But it was not to be.
Those feigning shock over Bishop's departure either weren't paying attention to the obvious or were being deliberately disingenuous. There were many surprising things said at the board meeting that night, but accepting Bishop's resignation was not one of them.
… and the Sideshow
By Marsha Sutton
Life would be so simple if everything were black and white. Issues would be clear, not muddied by nuances and degrees. People could be sorted neatly into two polarized groups.
Unfortunately, life is not like that, and neither are people. Very few are pure evil, or entirely angelic. We are all a complicated mixture of black-and-white — a palate of shades of gray.
When passionate about an issue, it is tempting to push opponents into a villainous corner — a place where there are no redeeming qualities, where individuals can be demonized and vilified. Taking a stand becomes so much clearer when people question the character of their opponents by deflecting focus from the issue to the person's moral fiber.
At the Del Mar Union School District's board meeting on Feb. 26, when the board voted 3-2 to accept Superintendent Tom Bishop's resignation, the temptation to portray three members of the school board as the embodiment of diabolical malfeasance was too great for many to resist.
With a ferocity normally reserved for the despots and tyrants of the world, speakers gave the board an earful. In defense of Bishop, many comments were blistering character assassinations that seemed to gain momentum as the night wore on.
Emboldened by each speech and the tumultuous applause, speakers delivered hurtful words that seemed to spiral out of control, culminating in a diatribe by the former co-president of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, Debra McGinty-Poteet, who unleashed a vicious condemnation of trustees Annette Easton, Steven McDowell and Katherine White that many believe distorted facts, misrepresented events, turned false rumors into “truths,” and incited the crowd to a near-fevered pitch.
Exceeding the limits of acceptable civil discourse, her dramatic tirade ended with great flourish, when she proffered her written speech, the entire appalling screed, to the board secretary to be entered into the minutes. Her invective vividly demonstrated why so many people recoiled under her leadership.
McGinty-Poteet's torrent of pent-up hostility maligned not just the three-member board majority but also anyone else who may have crossed her over the years. Her targets included:
former Del Mar mayor Carl Hilliard, whom she implied conspired with McDowell, his neighbor, to negotiate a realistic purchase price of DMUSD's Del Mar Shores property for the city, a price that was actually based on current market appraisals rather than her inflated, pie-in-the-sky numbers
tireless fundraiser and DMUSD parent and volunteer Laura DeMarco, whom she suggested had a role in “stealing the Shores property from the students of this district”
Del Mar Heights School principal Wendy Wardlow, who was accused of withholding information about a school theft when it was widely reported that it was Bishop himself who issued the gag order
Katherine White, criticized for generously donating scads of money over the years to Del Mar's schools (this was a truly bewildering charge: to be ruthlessly hammered for being too charitable)
the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, for not disclosing information on its Web site
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
There were many others who chose to engage in denigrating attacks. Even the usually classy Jeanne Waite, former DMUSD board member, began her three minutes at the podium by slinging some below-the-belt mud at Easton's husband, prompting George Easton to shout, “That's a lie!” from the back of the room.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Board members sat quietly, listening to speakers respectfully, giving each of them their three minutes in the spotlight and the courtesy they themselves were frequently denied.
There were moments of decency. Dignified Martha Cox, Bishop's former executive assistant, praised Bishop and spoke eloquently about his contributions to the school district.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Not all, but most teachers were equally respectful, expressing remorse over the loss of their champion and the end of an era. “We will dearly miss our leader,” one said softly.
Yes, he was good to teachers. But Bishop does not walk on water, contrary to what observers might have been led to believe from the adoration he received that night. Nor, because they have been frustrated by some of Bishop's very real leadership flaws, are Easton, McDowell and White the Devil incarnate.
Portraying any of these individuals as anything less than a complex blend of human qualities is a simplistic attempt to bolster shaky positions by advancing divisive and extremist value judgments.
People don't neatly fall into two clearly defined categories. The two-valued orientation system — that everything and everyone is either good or bad, black or white, pure or evil — is a false dichotomy, one that ignores conflicting evidence that makes clear-cut choices not quite so neat and easy.
It is this two-valued orientation that has made the centrist an endangered species these days. Someone who sees both sides is viewed as untrustworthy, spineless or deeply misguided.
Just as Easton, McDowell and White are not malevolent beings, neither should Bishop, or trustees Linda Crawford and Janet Lamborghini, be assigned the blame for every problem in the district. We dishonor these individuals when we categorically dismiss all the good that each of them has done.
At the Feb. 26 board meeting, the 20th speaker of 33 was second-grade teacher Cindy Ralston who, sadly, received only a smattering of applause after speaking shyly about her personal experience with three of the board members.
Ralston spoke about McDowell whom she said spent many a volunteer hour in her classroom, engaging kids in educational discussions that were entertaining and meaningful. White, she said, never failed to support her with a kind word when she thought she might lose her job due to state budget cuts several years ago. And Lamborghini was also praised by Ralston, who said she always offered her a warm, friendly smile when she visited the school.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Unfortunately, this crowd was in no mood to consider the possibility that White and McDowell might actually be compassionate, caring individuals. Humanizing the enemy was not the message these folks wanted to hear.
I now understand how lynchings can occur. A mob mentality can suppress thoughtful dissent and reasoned statements. It took a brave soul, and there were a few, to stand before this angry multitude and express support for the board's actions.
It's hard to say whether the saddest moment of the night was when Ralston's attempt to humanize board members was greeted with stony silence or when McGinty-Poteet's bitter rant elicited wild cheers.
When elected officials are doing the right thing, there's no need to show up at public meetings, as speaker Mary Farrell stated. But those who support the board majority, those residents who voted into office these three trustees 16 months ago, may have been showing confidence in them and their actions by staying home, blissfully unaware of the emotional carnage that took place that night.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
So the evening belonged to the dissenters, those loyal Bishop supporters who expressed staged shock over the resignation and wanted a reckoning, a public hanging of sorts.
Will this be Bishop's legacy? A district torn apart by several dozen vocal board opponents whose unbridled fury over his departure is sure to leave scars for years to come? Is this the behavior that defines our community?
The unrestrained force of the words uttered that night was so unsettling that I felt the urge to shower when I returned home, to remove the stink.
The former superintendent started out great, back in 1998. I was a true believer those first few years. He had to work hard to make me a critic; it did not come easy.
But eventually, he over-reached, and made some bad decisions that have had lasting negative effects. The public finally came to see that and elected a new board in 2006 for a change in direction.
Comments suggesting that the stellar reputation of the Del Mar Union School District is due entirely to Bishop, and that his departure means the imminent demise of the district's renowned academic record, are nonsense.
“I don't believe for one minute that the reputation of this district … will diminish one bit,” said parent Catherine Weselak, to the board that night. “Our school district is bigger than one man, one woman and one issue.”
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
No one starring in this little small-town drama deserved the kind of vitriolic assault witnessed that night - whether pro- or anti-Bishop. We are supposed to be the grown-ups.
As we take tentative steps to heal these raw wounds and look for ways to forgive, we should heed the wise advice of Weselak when she said to the crowd, “Let's watch how our children all get along with each other, and let's learn from our children.”
Moving forward under the wise and steady hand of newly appointed interim superintendent Janet Bernard, who was endorsed by the school board unanimously to guide the district during this transitional phase, may be just the salve needed to soothe an aching community.
As we support Bernard in her efforts to build bridges, let's take a collective deep breath and try to resist the urge to categorize people as either virtuous or abominable. We are all a unique fusion of traits, a canvas of qualities, a balance of idiosyncratic attributes — in other words, only human. And let's save the bad stuff for the truly wicked.
