Del Mar Union School District attorney preparing response to public-records lawsuit

Source: Del Mar Times

By Marsha Sutton
Senior Education Writer

Del Mar parent Michael Robertson, who sued the Del Mar Union School District on Aug. 8 to compel the release of specific email documents, said he and his attorney received a letter last week from DMUSD attorney Dan Shinoff, of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, saying Robertson can soon expect a legal response from the district.

"We were served with the lawsuit, and now we’re filing a response to the lawsuit," Shinoff said. "We’re going to ask for a hearing on it on an expedited basis."

"I’m fascinated to hear what they’re going to say on why they shouldn’t have to give us this," Robertson said. "I don’t know what reasonable explanation these guys could have."

Robertson submitted a California Public Records Act request May 10, asking the district for all communications related to the California Teachers Association’s Week of Action held May 9 to 13. The state’s largest teachers’ union promoted the Week of Action as a way to raise awareness and encourage parents and the public to support increased funding for education.

Robertson filed his CPRA request to review correspondence among district employees, school board members and CTA organizers because he suspected that the district was working with the CTA to coordinate political action, which he said is inappropriate.

Also named in the suit is DMUSD school board president Comischell Rodriguez, for access to her personal emails related to the CPRA request.

Because she "possesses, maintains and controls records responsive to Petitioner’s requests that are not maintained in files" at the district’s offices, "Rodriguez is an indispensible part to this litigation," reads the suit.

Robertson said the chances of settling the case out of court are low. "The odds of them saying, ‘Okay, you win’ is zero," Robertson said, vowing to continue litigation to its final conclusion.

Robertson said he was "astonished" that the district would proceed with the litigation. "This will be a giant case, blowing through tens of thousands of dollars, when they should just turn over the damn documents," he said. "This is money that should be going toward pure educational needs. It should not be going to Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz."

In a May 27 letter to Robertson, the district said the request was "vague, overbroad and burdensome," that it was "unrelated to the conduct of the public’s business," and that the records are "exempt from disclosure because the public interest in not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure."

Robertson was critical of the district’s objections. "The outside law firm is happy to burn up DMUSD tax dollars dreaming up creative arguments about why they shouldn’t have to abide by the California Public Records Act like every other government organization," he said. "Their attitude is, they don’t work for us [and] they should get to decide what information we get. We should just be content with whatever they decide."

When asked why the district did not release all the emails, Shinoff said there are no more documents to be released. "We’ve provided him every public record that he’s asked for," Shinoff said.

Robertson said he has received some emails from the district, but the documents released are incomplete and not fully responsive to his CPRA request. [see below]

Regarding the personal Rodriguez emails sent to and from her private accounts, Shinoff said those are protected by law. "The United States Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue," he said.

A public record, Shinoff said, is defined as "something that is maintained and controlled by the governmental agency," not by private individuals. He said the Supreme Court decided this issue under the Freedom of Information Act, which is the model for the Calif. Public Records Act.

"If Mr. Robertson wants to have a different position in the state of California, he gets to make new law," Shinoff said.

But Robertson said this is uncharted, potentially precedent-setting territory and that the personal emails are public documents. "Our contention is if it was used to do district business, it shouldn’t be protected," he said.

Shinoff said the district has complied with the CPRA request and there are no more documents to release.

---

Emails released by DMUSD

By Marsha Sutton
Senior Education Writer

Emails released by the Del Mar Union School District to Del Mar parent Michael Robertson, in response to his California Public Records Act request for communication between the state California Teachers’ Association and representatives of the DMUSD, show that the district used CTA guidelines and recommendations to plan and coordinate events and activities for last May’s Week of Action.

Robertson asked for all emails related to the Week of Action, which was organized by the CTA and many local school districts to increase awareness and support for increased education funding.

Although Robertson said the district has more undisclosed documents, he said those he was given show a clear link between the district and the state teachers’ union.

David Skinner – former president of the Del Mar California Teachers Association, a member of the statewide CTA – wrote to DMUSD superintendent Jim Peabody April 21 asking to meet.

"We (DMCTA) are planning some activities to increase awareness of the state budget situation among our teachers and parents," Skinner said in the email. "I would like to see if we can coordinate our energies with any district initiatives. Perhaps we can plan some things to show a unified front."

DMUSD Trustee Kristin Gibson wrote to Peabody on April 22 that she and fellow trustee Scott Wooden "attended a DMCTA PAC meeting and we discussed the California State of Emergency Week of Action that CTA and CSBA [California School Boards Association] are promoting."

"Our PAC wants to be involved, and would like the support of the board," Gibson wrote.

Amy Hunter, political organizer for Region IV of the CTA, wrote to Skinner and Ocean Air teacher Carol Sharpe April 22 and provided a number of documents for them, including telephone scripts ("one for a board member or superintendent"), a sample resolution for the school board ("this needs to go to Kristin Gibson"), and a link to the State of Emergency Web site which offered talking points, flyers, sample letters to the editor and other information.

"Let me know what else I can help with," Hunter wrote. "You guys are going to rock this out!!!"

Sycamore Ridge teacher Debbie Hanna, who identified herself as a member of the DMCTA PAC, sent Peabody an email April 28 with an attached script for an all-call recorded telephone message to parents in support of the Week of Action. "If you would be so kind as to make this all-call," she wrote.

On May 4, Del Mar Hills teacher Eric Bienke wrote to Hills PTA president Mara Bickett, asking her to sign the Week of Action letter instead of him. "I was kind of envisioning that the email would be coming from the PTA, urging its members to get involved, and not coming from me personally," Bienke wrote. "I think parents are going to be confused as to why I am sending this email out to the entire parent community."

Skinner wrote to Peabody May 4 with a draft letter that he asked Peabody to review and sign, to send to parents and the media highlighting the Week of Action’s activities. "Thanks for helping; it’s turning into a true ‘saturation campaign!’" Skinner wrote.

"It is a wonderful letter," Peabody replied.

Gibson suggested adding a sentence to the letter about the loss of some of the district’s temporary teachers. The sentence read in part: "We were forced to release 25 of our temporary teachers … this is a tremendous loss."

"It works well for me," Peabody replied, of the letter. "Besides principals, district office, board members, and PTA folks, who do you want me to track down to sign?"

Union involvement

Robertson said the emails "clearly show that the CTA directs the DMUSD school board, school administration and teachers to engage in an overt political campaign."

He said the DMCTA PAC "directed the superintendent to place all calls" and told the schools to host meetings. "The school board was told what resolution to pass and all the literature came from the CTA," he said.

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

School board president Comischell Rodriguez reacted with surprise to Robertson’s charges. "We are not endorsing a candidate nor a party," she wrote in a May 6 email to Peabody. "We are doing our job to defend and be a part of the greater educational conversation."

"My thoughts exactly!" Peabody responded.

Del Mar Union’s legal battles

Source: Del Mar Times

By Marsha Sutton
Senior Education Writer

Bowing to the Great Bureaucracy, I reluctantly paid the San Diego County Office of Education $1.52 to receive a piece of paper listing all the legal fees incurred from December 3, 2010 to August 2, 2011 for the Sharon McClain vs. Del Mar Union School District litigation.

Although this information should be made available to the public without having to jump through so many hoops, particularly considering that it was a single, readily accessible page, sometimes it’s easier to give in than stand and fight on principle, when the amount of money is so minimal.

So that’s how we know the cost of this lawsuit is approaching $90,000 so far, excluding the hearings that took place last month and all the hearings and court actions yet to come.

McClain, the former DMUSD superintendent, sued the district last October after she was released in March 2010. In 2010, before the suit was filed, DMUSD superintendent Jim Peabody said the legal fees incurred by the district were $12,762.

Once the suit was filed, the district’s litigation insurance carrier, the San Diego County Schools Risk Management Joint Powers Authority, took over. At that point, all legal fees were covered by the JPA, less a $1,000 deductible and the district’s annual premium of $21,808, Peabody said.

According to information provided by SDCOE on that piece of paper, the insurance carrier paid $74,896.45 — all of it, except about $3,600 — to the district’s law firm on the case, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz. With the district’s $12,762, this brings the total to about $87,600, to date.

Back in May, I attempted to learn the costs without having to comply with SDCOE’s ridiculous demand for $1.52 to receive the information. But Diane Crosier, SDCOE’s executive director of the San Diego and Imperial County schools JPA, refused to comment, referring me instead to DMUSD attorney, Dan Shinoff.

Shinoff did not reveal specifics but suggested that McClain’s attorney, Dale Gronemeier, was "trying to make it as expensive as possible."

Gronemeier, last week, objected to this comment, saying that Shinoff’s firm was the one employing delaying tactics and driving up costs.

In Sept. 14 and Sept. 15 emails, Gronemeier wrote, "The Shinoff firm has stonewalled on discovery since last December by filing evasive responses and baseless objections to interrogatories and document demands and by refusing to allow Board of Education members to be deposed."

He said Shinoff and his team "would not legitimately respond to the most obvious and simple discovery requests" and unnecessarily increased billing hours.

Gronemeier said Shinoff’s firm is paid an hourly rate, while his firm "is a hybrid partial hourly, partial contingent fee arrangement."

He said his fee structure pays most but not all of his firm’s overhead costs. To be paid personally, Gronemeier said he has to win the case. So billing extra hours, he said, "decrease[s] my firm’s profits from which I get paid rather than increasing them." He said his firm’s payment structure "disincentivizes me from milking a case."

The courts validated Gronemeier’s complaints, he said, at a hearing Aug. 19 when the judge ruled that the school district needed to provide documents requested months ago and allow the depositions of specific board members.

Regarding a possible settlement, DMUSD trustee Doug Rafner, in an email to Peabody dated May 17, 2011, wrote, "I personally would like to discuss resolving this case in some way that does not involve running the district through the mud. Would the ‘insurance’ pay for a settlement of a case, or only for judgments?"

Peabody responded to Rafner, writing, "We will get this on the agenda for the next meeting."

As this case churns through the courts, talk of a settlement seems to have dissipated.

CPRA lawsuit

These McClain-related emails were among those released by the district to Del Mar parent Michael Robertson after he filed a California Public Records Act request May 10 on an unrelated topic: the Week of Action last spring sponsored by the California Teachers’ Association, which was organized to rally parents and teachers to support more funding for education.

Robertson said the material he received was incomplete, and that the district and its lawyers (Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz) were unresponsive to repeated attempts to obtain all requested documents related to the Week of Action.

On Aug. 8 he filed a lawsuit against the DMUSD to force the district to comply with the CPRA request. To date, the district has not responded to the suit, he said.

A letter supporting Robertson from former Del Mar parents John and Susan Miller was entered into the public record at the school board’s July 27 meeting. The letter expressed "concern and disappointment with the district’s apparent reluctance to respond" to Robertson’s CPRA request.

"The community expects our elected and appointed leaders to fully embrace and promote the concept of complete transparency," the Millers wrote, asking the district to stop "delaying requests for information that belongs to the public."

Of all the excuses the district gave for denying Robertson’s request (a letter dated May 27, 2011 from DMUSD assistant superintendent of human resources, Tim Asfazadour, offers a number of reasons), none was more outrageous than this one: that the records sought are exempt from disclosure "because the public interest in not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure."

It’s hard to believe a public employee would actually put a provocative statement like that in print. Makes you wonder what they’re hiding.

Unless the documents contain national security or nuclear secrets, no public interest can be served by suppressing this material. To claim the district can withhold what’s clearly public information to "safeguard the public interest" is patronizing, officious and insults our intelligence.

Meanwhile, taxpayer money is being spent to fight Robertson in court. Don’t expect Robertson to cave. This will drag on until the DMUSD releases those documents.

Marsha Sutton can be reached at SuttComm@san.rr.com.

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."

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.

The education funding battle: The right fight for the wrong reasons

Source: Del Mar Times

Marsha Sutton
By Marsha Sutton

As teachers’ unions across the state geared up for the "State of Emergency Week of Action" May 9 to 13 to protest state cuts in education funding, local parent Michael Robertson was fighting a different sort of battle.

Robertson charged that the Del Mar Union School District misused public resources – including telecommunications equipment, computer servers, school property, supplies, copiers and school databases – to improperly advocate for political positions.

"DMUSD is using school resources in an attempt to influence politics which is wrong," he said in an email, citing a robo-call from the district’s superintendent "pleading that I join a protest to ‘protect our kids.’"

In addition to the automated phone call, he offered as further evidence an email addressed to "Del Mar Hills families" from the Del Mar Hills Elementary School PTA president which read in part: "During the week of May 9 through May 13, the teachers, administrators, school board and parents of the DMUSD will jointly participate in activities to focus attention on California’s ‘State of Emergency.’ The purpose is to raise awareness of the serious cuts facing education and to pressure California legislators to return funding priority to our schools."

The email asked parents to meet in the teachers’ lounge on May 9 and make calls during lunchtime to legislators, "urging them to support tax extensions, preventing deeper cuts to California public schools." Lunch, she wrote, will be served.

Fuming, Robertson claims the DMUSD is violating the law, citing California Education Code section 7054 which prohibits school districts from engaging in political advocacy using public resources.

Section 7054(a) reads that no school district funds, services, supplies or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate.

However, 7054 goes on to say that nothing shall prohibit the use of public resources as long as the activities are authorized by the Constitution or California law and "the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure."

Section 7054(c) states that any violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor or felony punishable by imprisonment or a fine, or both.

Whether or not Del Mar (or any other California school district for that matter, as many of them engaged in similar actions) violated 7054 of the Calif. Education Code is debatable.

Technically, the district’s efforts did not urge the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, as prohibited in 7054, but it may have advocated for a particular political position. Here is the full text of the automated call:

"Hi, this is Superintendent Jim Peabody calling with an important message about budget issues facing the Del Mar Union School District and ALL California schools. School districts throughout California are suffering while we continue to wait for a state budget. Our schools and communities cannot tolerate any more budget cuts nor can we afford to continuing [sic] waiting for a state budget.

"During the week of May 9-13, all educators, parents and students in the state are fighting back with a grassroots campaign calling on lawmakers to resolve the state budget crisis now. Look for our Del Mar teachers, administrators, parents and board members at your children’s school – they will have important messages about what YOU can do to help."

Peabody responded to Robertson’s complaint in a May 9 email, saying the district’s intent was "to provide fair and impartial information to parents about the budget, not to take political action." But he also agreed not to send any more messages asking for action, writing, "I can see that asking the legislature to pass a budget on time may be considered a political action."

"I saw zero fair or impartial information going to parents," wrote Robertson to Peabody, about the week-long campaign. "What I saw was very biased screams of ‘No more cuts’ and ‘Protect our kids.’ How is that distributing facts? The intent was to push for higher taxes."

Threatening litigation, Robertson wrote, "It is a serious breach of the public trust when government officials spend public funds to create an advantage for one side of a political campaign." He demanded that the district "immediately cease using its funds, school property, personnel, supplies or equipment to influence the political process."

In addition, Robertson asked the district, through a Public Records Act request, to provide all communications since March 1 between the California Teachers Association, which sponsored the week-long "State of Emergency" effort, and the district and all its employees. And he promises to release the information publicly on his Web site (www.michaelrobertson.com).

When asked for reaction to Robertson’s charges of illegal activity, Peabody wrote in an email, "After some thought, I have no response to Mr. Robertson’s comments" – although he did add the following: "I don’t believe the district did anything wrong."

The union agenda

The initiatives at individual schools and school districts during the week of May 9-13 clearly pushed for parents to support the CTA union agenda and lobby lawmakers for more funding for education. But does the CTA’s agenda always coincide with what’s best for kids?

As Robertson said, "It’s not about protecting our kids but about protecting employee salaries and benefits."

He claims that DMUSD employee salaries make up about 85 percent of the entire budget for this year and that the district "now spends more than $10,000 per student – a number that has grown every year for the last six years."

Not that long ago, school employee salaries and benefits in the county were about 80 percent of a district’s budget, but that percentage has consistently grown. At the San Diego Unified School District, the largest in the county, employee wages and benefits are said to be a staggering 93 percent of the district’s operating budget.

Clearly, funding to schools has risen over the years, but the money spent on increased compensation packages has not correlated to improved student achievement.

CTA flyers handed out at schools propagate the false impression that the union represents student interests, and parents are being hoodwinked by deceptive rhetoric. We need more money for education, yes, but we don’t need more money for education so teachers can receive higher salaries and benefits.

Robertson said the CTA "is a union whose sole purpose is to get as much money for their members for as little work as possible. I don’t fault them for their efforts, that’s what they are paid to do; but the school district should not be their mouthpiece." The CTA he says, does not represent kids or parents, "regardless of what their literature claims."

The union fights for the rights of its members, and students are not members. Neither are parents.

This doesn’t mean the state should not allocate more funding for education. It should, and legislators need to make public K-12 education a priority. But the money must be funneled directly to programs that benefit students, because ever-higher compensation has not proven to address the chronic problems in our schools.

Attacking seniority rights

The CTA recently sent a notice to its union members, including local teachers, alerting them to three proposed bills that "attack teachers directly," with tips on how to present the bills to their communities to fight passage.

One bill, SB-355, takes on seniority rights by allowing districts the needed flexibility to consider other factors besides years of service when deciding who shall be terminated, including performance evaluations.

But the CTA says SB-355 "would allow administrators to practice favoritism under the guise of ‘keeping the best.’ It would gut one of the most important protections that helps ensure academic freedom and allows students to learn from experienced teachers."

Then there’s SB-871 which would prohibit salary increases for employees in a school district that reduces its instructional minutes or shortens its school year, which the state has shamefully now allowed districts to do to save money.

The CTA describes this bill as "a full-on attack on collective bargaining and local control." Even as teachers work fewer days, they still deserve increased teacher compensation? But the union does not object to fewer school days, knowing full well that the amount of time students spend in school is directly related to improved learning.

"The real problem in our schools," the CTA claims, "is not seniority protections or teacher pay. It’s the chronic underfunding that has provoked a fiscal crisis and is threatening our students’ education."

"It is vital that the cuts are stopped ...," the CTA notice states. "Reducing teacher protections in the guise of ‘cutting costs’ will make things even worse."

The CTA says these bills "would foster discrimination and favoritism" and "would move California in the opposite direction of proven reforms that are helping our students and schools." Proven reforms that are working? Really?

But, as one teacher recently wrote in an email to Robertson, "I think if I do my job as I would have to at any other business, I don’t need this protection or seniority to save me. My work as a teacher should speak for itself." Amen to that.

Whether Del Mar has overstepped its bounds in its enthusiastic embrace of the CTA agenda may be under scrutiny, but the important question is why so many parents continue to support the CTA agenda.

Just because the teachers’ union wants something doesn’t mean parents should. Fight for more money definitely, but let’s first make sure that money gets where it needs to go.

Marsha Sutton can be reached at: SuttComm@san.rr.com.

Opinion: Del Mar Union School District should stop using taxpayer-funded resources for politics

Source: Letter to the Del Mar Times

Del Mar Union School District is provided funds by taxpayers to teach our children, but they are breaking the law by expending those resources in an attempt to influence the political process. Last week a database of emergency telephone numbers provided by parents were used with the school district’s automated calling system to deliver a political message recorded by district superintendent James Peabody. This is not an isolated incident. School facilities, equipment, personnel and resources are being illegally used in a lobbying effort.

Examples include:

• School property being used to hold organizational meetings
• Photocopying and resources being used to produce biased literature
• Computer servers used for electronic communications to organize lobbying efforts
• Teacher time during the contracted work hours of 7:45-2:45 have been utilized
• School databases have been used to generate mailing and calling lists

Under California law, including Education Code 7054, school districts are strictly prohibited from engaging in political advocacy using public resources. No use may be made of school property, funds, personnel, supplies or equipment to influence politics. Violation of this provision can either be a misdemeanor or felony and is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. 7054(c).

Of course citizens, including teachers and administrators, are free to communicate their desires to the government, but they must use their own resources. It is also permissible for people to distribute facts, but that is not happening.

In this case, the union is using school district resources to embark on a propaganda campaign where kids are used as human shields behind which they yell No More Cuts! and Protect Our Kids. The facts are DMUSD spending has increased 46 percent over the last eight years and in only one of those years did the budget decline. DMUSD now spends more than $10,000 per student — a number that has GROWN every year for the last six years. Eighty-seven percent of school district monies are spent on teachers’ and administrators’ salaries and benefits. Any calls to protect kids are more accurately efforts to protect salaries.

It is a serious breach of the public trust when government officials spend public funds to create an advantage for one side of a political campaign. It’s even more egregious when they intentionally mislead caring parents with claims of false cuts. I call on the DMUSD school board to immediately cease using taxpayer-funded resources for political purposes.

- Michael Robertson

Teacher's Union Deception - Propaganda to Get More Money

Source: Michael Robertson's Blog

At 7:30 pm my home phone rang. It was one of those irritating robot calling machines that plays a recorded message. This one was from my kids government school and the Superintendent was telling me to ask California politicians to not make cuts in K-12 schools. I was shocked that the school was using the contact number I had provided to locate me in the event of an emergency with my child to push a political position. At the same time I see email from the PTA who is working with teachers begging parents to engage in an "Emergency Campaign" to "Save California" by passing out flyers the school would produce and joining protests. It became clear that there was an organized political campaign underway and school resources were being used.

Citizens give money to schools to educate children NOT to lobby politicians. Under California law, including Education Code 7054, school districts are strictly prohibited from engaging in political advocacy using public resources. School districts cannot use school computers, telecommunication services, offices and personnel for political purposes. Yet that is what was happening.

I decided to get involved. Under the rights afforded by the California constitution, I submitted a CPRA (California Public Records Act) request for documents related to the robo-calls they made and contacts with the CTA.

They quickly sent me a couple of documents. I learned that more than 5,000 parents had been bombarded with the political message. I also got the script of the robo-call demanding no more budget cuts. I sent a follow up letter to the board and Superintendant showing that our school district has seen a major INCREASE in our budget.

Additionally, I sent another letter demanding they immediately cease political lobbying activities. James Peabody, the Superintendent, responded that they "will not send out any more messages from the district that asks for action." He also said his intent was to provide "fair and impartial information to parents about the budget."

At my kids school well meaning parents were passing out a deceptive flyer authored by the CTA (California Teachers Association which is the teacher's union). The flyer screamed that $20 billion has been cut from schools and 30,000 teachers have been lost. It also called for politicians to extend expiring tax hikes so schools would get more money. I researched the facts and the data used in the flyer is completely deceptive designed to mislead people into thinking that schools have been ravaged by cuts.

Everything I have seen or heard from the district has been wholly deceptive designed to perpetuate the myth that school budgets have been ravaged and teachers sent to unemployment lines. I followed up with Peabody and the school board providing FACTS that showed the Del Mar school budget has grown 46% during the time my children have been in attendance and per student spending has grown EVERY year from $8,000 to $10,000. (I got most of the data from the district's own web site.)

The number of credentialed teachers in CA has NOT changed over the last 3 years. It's true about 15,000 teachers a year retire because teachers have a luxurious retirement program which pays 5-10 times what citizens get with Social Security and Medicare. But new teachers have been hired to replace them. There have been about 300,000 credentialed teachers working for government K-12 schools over the last 3 years.

K-12 school budgets have also NOT been cut $20 Billion over the last 3 years. When you include retirement money promised to teachers and administrators, the money spent on schools over that time period has gone up. There have been cuts of 5.6% or about $4 billion in the operating budget over this time period, but total money citizens are paying to educate their children has gone up not down by $20 billion.

I scanned in the teacher's union flyer and made corrections to their document with data from publicly available reputable web sites. You can see the flyer here:

I don't fault the teacher's union for trying to get more money for teachers - that's what they're paid to do however they should not resort to deception to achieve this goal. It's important to note that the teacher's union doesn't represent the interest of the children in spite of their "Protect our children" campaigns. They are pushing for even shorter school days when every research report has shown that longer school days benefit kids.

The School Board is supposed to protect the interests of parents and kids but too often they do not because they are heavily influenced, if not outright bought, by the political campaign donations of the CTA which get them elected. I informed our local school board of the illegal actions of school district employees using school resources to lobby politicians. I received a non-sensical response from the school board President which looks like a form letter. Another board member sent a more engaged response asked for more background data on my numbers which I provided her. But I was left wondering if the board asked the CTA to back up their outrageous numbers? Why are they not policing the situation? Don't they understand their job is to look out for the interest of parents and kids and not get hoodwinked by the teacher's union?

I have yet to get an official response of documents about the district's interactions with the teacher's union but I have seen some documents provided by some teachers who are disgusted with how their own Union is perverting the situation and putting teacher's interests ahead of kids. I will report more once I get documents from the CPRA request I submitted.

--MR
michael@michaelrobertson.com

P.S. Chris Reed, a radio talk show host on KOGO talks about this situation. Download the audio file and fast forward to 11:37 to hear what he had to say.

Chris Reed on KOGO speaking on the issues raised in this article.

---

• Transcript of Peabody's phone message
• Public Records Request for Automated Calls May 2-6 2010
• Log for Peabody's All-Call Message showing the number of recipients
• Public Records Request for communications between DMUSD employees and CTA officers March 1-May 5, 2011>
• Demand to District to Halt Political Activities
• Peabody's Response to the Demand Letter
• Michael Robertson's response to Peabody showing that school budgets have increased
• Comischell Rodriguez's response to Michael Robertson

Del Mar School District Delays Salary Information

Source: CalAware Today

By Anne Lowe

The Del Mar Union School District refused to release salary information for all its employees in response to a Public Records Act request for weeks, the Del Mar Times reportsuntil repeatedly threatened with litigation.

NakedGovernment.org co-founder Michael Robertson requested names, titles and salaries for employees of 50 school districts across the nation. The Del Mar district refused to cooperate fully with the request, stating that it would not disclose salary information for employees making less than $100,000 per yearto protect their privacy rights.

Del Mar finally complied with the request this week when threatened with legal action, after three weeks of resistance.

Scott Mann, DMUSDs assistant superintendent for business services, initially provided only the names, titles and salaries of all employees earning more than $100,000 annually, along with the certificated and classified salary schedules.

Parres objected and wrote to Mann, saying, The documents you provided are general in nature. Other school districts I have contacted provided specific listings as requested with no hesitation. He provided the response from the Boulder Valley School District in Colorado as an example.

Mann wrote back, saying, First of all, lets be clear. I am not rejecting your request as I have fully complied with it. Case law from the courts has held that total compensation under $100,000 for employees shall not be released because of privacy rights of the individual employee. I have complied with your request under the PRA.

Mann said in a follow-up email, The Del Mar USD considers your request fulfilled.

Saying the Del Mar Union School District does not have the right to decide what requests to honor and to what extent, Robertson wrote to DMUSD superintendent Jim Peabody, explaining the impasse and promising to escalate the situation if DMUSD does not fully respond to the multiple Public Records Act requests which have been submitted to Mr. Mann.

After investigating the matter, Peabody wrote back to Robertson, saying, I have asked Scott Mann to produce the title and salary of all employees for you.

This time the DMUSD sent the titles and salaries of each employee, but with the names redacted. Robertson criticized Del Mars reluctance to provide the complete data. He said the Los Angeles Unified School District and the San Diego Unified School District were both asked for the same information, and both cooperated fully with the request, as did most of the 50 school districts that were also asked.

Our request to you was straightforward and unquestionably allowed by law, wrote Robertson to Peabody. I am quite puzzled at the delays and nonresponsiveness by your DMUSD staff to this request.

Robertson told Peabody that he will not stand by and let DMUSD ignore the law and will file a lawsuit to force DMUSD to comply with the laws of our state.

The initial request was made to Del Mar on Oct. 8. On Oct. 28, Robertson received an email letter from attorney Susan Gilmor, of the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, writing on behalf of the DMUSD. Gilmor defended the districts decision to withhold the information.

We have reviewed the recent cases regarding public disclosure of public employee salaries, which are specific to employees earning $100,000 a year or more, Gilmor wrote. You have asserted your position that you are entitled to all employee names and salaries. Please tell us what case you are relying upon that specifies that employees earning less than $100,000 a year are not exempt from public disclosure by name.

She said the districts position is not to engage in a fight with you. We have a constitutional duty [to] ensure that we do not invade privacy rights. While we understand that the public has a strong interest in monitoring public expenditures, it [is] our duty to follow the law. It is our position that the courts have not ruled that the names and salaries of public employees earning less than $100,000 a year would be subject to disclosure.

Robertson challenged Gilmors interpretation of the $100,000 threshold. Theres no exclusion for [an] employees salary under $100,000, he wrote to her. Citizens do not have a duty to justify why a request is warranted. Rather DMUSD is obligated to follow the law and provide public records. The party seeking to withhold public records bears the burden of demonstrating that an exception applies.

There is nothing in the law or ruling to suggest government employees with $99,999.99 salaries are entitled to a different or greater right of privacy than someone making $100,000 per year or more, he added.

Robertson again threatened legal action if the request was not honored. If DMUSD[s] intention is to use the same privacy excuse to shirk their legally required duties which the courts at the highest level in our state have rejected then they will lose that case and squander taxpayers money, he wrote. DMUSD does not get to decide what is good for people to know.

Robertson said schools commonly complain about not having enough money, but when a citizen places a request to see where the money is going they are stonewalled.

Terry Francke, First Amendment rights attorney and founder of Californians Aware, said Robertsons legal case was strong.

The California Supreme Court decision concluding that public employees salaries are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act stemmed from a request for the salaries of Oakland city employees earning $100,000 or more, he said in an email. But the court neither expressly nor impliedly limited its public disclosure ruling to salaries in that amount, and almost no public agencies are interpreting it that way.

If sued, Im confident this district would lose, and have to pay the requesters attorney fees.

CalAware is a nonprofit organization specializing in helping the public understand Californias open-meeting Ralph M. Brown Act, the Public Records Act, First Amendment rights and open-access government issues.

Robertson had his attorney contact Gilmor directly and asked him to explain to her that I understand the law and Im intent on making this happen and theres just better things for the school district to worry about.

After speaking with Robertsons attorney, Gilmor wrote the following email to Robertson: Thank you for your response and patience. As I mentioned, my concern was to ensure that a release of names would not subject the district to claims of violating personal privacy rights. I appreciate your input and the time you allowed so that I could make certain that the statutes and laws were interpreted correctly.

Gilmor said the district has been instructed to provide the requested information, all of which was sent to Robertson by Mann on Nov. 1 with the following note: By direction of the Governing Board, the attached PDF file was prepared for your use under the CPRA and contains all information you previously requested. Peabody later clarified that only board president Steven McDowell rather than the full Board of Education met to discuss this issue.

Del Mar school district’s delays frustrate businessman

Source: Del Mar Times

By Marsha Sutton
Contributor

An online open government project co-founded by Del Mar Internet entrepreneur Michael Robertson hit a speed bump along the information superhighway, when the Del Mar Union School District delayed releasing data requested by Robertson through a formal California Public Records Act request.

Robertson’s NakedGovernment.org site, to be launched later this month, will allow users free access to a wide range of governmental documents, initially beginning with the names, titles and salaries of school district employees from school districts throughout the country.

Robertson and his partner John Parres submitted PRA requests asking 50 school districts to provide this information. Only Del Mar refused to comply fully based on privacy rights, claiming the district was legally obligated to protect the privacy of individual employees earning less than $100,000 annually.

"I find this outrageous and appalling behavior," Robertson said. "There is no right to privacy which allows DMUSD to not respond to our request with the names, titles and salaries of all employees."

Del Mar finally complied with the request this week when threatened with legal action, after three weeks of resistance.

Scott Mann, DMUSD’s assistant superintendent for business services, initially provided only the names, titles and salaries of all employees earning more than $100,000 annually, along with the certificated and classified salary schedules.

Parres objected and wrote to Mann, saying, "The documents you provided are general in nature. Other school districts I have contacted provided specific listings as requested with no hesitation." He provided the response from the Boulder Valley School District in Colorado as an example.

Mann wrote back, saying, "First of all, let’s be clear. I am not ‘rejecting’ your request as I have fully complied with it. Case law from the courts has held that total compensation under $100,000 for employees shall not be released because of privacy rights of the individual employee. I have complied with your request under the PRA."

Mann said in a follow-up email, "The Del Mar USD considers your request fulfilled."

Saying the Del Mar Union School District does not "have the right to decide what requests to honor and to what extent," Robertson wrote to DMUSD superintendent Jim Peabody, explaining the impasse and promising to "escalate the situation if DMUSD does not fully respond to the multiple Public Records Act requests which have been submitted to Mr. Mann."

After investigating the matter, Peabody wrote back to Robertson, saying, "I have asked Scott Mann to produce the title and salary of all employees for you."

This time the DMUSD sent the titles and salaries of each employee, but with the names redacted. Robertson criticized Del Mar’s reluctance to provide the complete data. He said the Los Angeles Unified School District and the San Diego Unified School District were both asked for the same information, and both cooperated fully with the request, as did most of the 50 school districts that were also asked.

"Our request to you was straightforward and unquestionably allowed by law," wrote Robertson to Peabody. "I am quite puzzled at the delays and nonresponsiveness by your DMUSD staff to this request."

Robertson told Peabody that he will not "stand by and let DMUSD ignore the law" and will "file a lawsuit to force DMUSD to comply with the laws of our state."

The initial request was made to Del Mar on Oct. 8. On Oct. 28, Robertson received an email letter from attorney Susan Gilmor, of the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, writing on behalf of the DMUSD. Gilmor defended the district’s decision to withhold the information.

"We have reviewed the recent cases regarding public disclosure of public employee salaries, which are specific to employees earning $100,000 a year or more," Gilmor wrote. "You have asserted your position that you are entitled to all employee names and salaries. Please tell us what case you are relying upon that specifies that employees earning less than $100,000 a year are not exempt from public disclosure by name."

She said the district’s position is "not to engage in a fight with you. We have a constitutional duty [to] ensure that we do not invade privacy rights. While we understand that the public has a strong interest in monitoring public expenditures, it [is] our duty to follow the law. It is our position that the courts have not ruled that the names and salaries of public employees earning less than $100,000 a year would be subject to disclosure."

Robertson challenged Gilmor’s interpretation of the $100,000 threshold. "There’s no exclusion for [an] employee’s salary under $100,000," he wrote to her. "Citizens do not have a duty to justify why a request is warranted. Rather DMUSD is obligated to follow the law and provide public records. The party seeking to withhold public records bears the burden of demonstrating that an exception applies."

"There is nothing in the law or ruling to suggest government employees with $99,999.99 salaries are entitled to a different or greater right of privacy than someone making $100,000 per year or more," he added.

Robertson again threatened legal action if the request was not honored. "If DMUSD[’s] intention is to use the same privacy excuse to shirk their legally required duties which the courts at the highest level in our state have rejected then they will lose that case and squander taxpayers money," he wrote. "DMUSD does not get to decide what is good for people to know."

Robertson said schools "commonly complain about not having enough money, but when a citizen places a request to see where the money is going they are stonewalled."

Terry Francke, First Amendment rights attorney and founder of Californians Aware, said Robertson’s legal case was strong.

"The California Supreme Court decision concluding that public employees’ salaries are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act stemmed from a request for the salaries of Oakland city employees earning $100,000 or more," he said in an email. "But the court neither expressly nor impliedly limited its public disclosure ruling to salaries in that amount, and almost no public agencies are interpreting it that way.

"If sued, I’m confident this district would lose, and have to pay the requester’s attorney fees."

CalAware is a nonprofit organization specializing in helping the public understand California’s open-meeting Ralph M. Brown Act, the Public Records Act, First Amendment rights and open-access government issues.

Robertson had his attorney contact Gilmor directly and asked him to explain to her "that I understand the law and I’m intent on making this happen and there’s just better things for the school district to worry about."

After speaking with Robertson’s attorney, Gilmor wrote the following email to Robertson: "Thank you for your response and patience. As I mentioned, my concern was to ensure that a release of names would not subject the district to claims of violating personal privacy rights. I appreciate your input and the time you allowed so that I could make certain that the statutes and laws were interpreted correctly."

Gilmor said the district has been instructed to provide the requested information, all of which was sent to Robertson by Mann on Nov. 1 with the following note: "By direction of the Governing Board, the attached PDF file was prepared for your use under the CPRA and contains all information you previously requested." Peabody later clarified that only board president Steven McDowell rather than the full Board of Education met to discuss this issue.

Peabody said he referred the matter to the district’s attorneys, who initially told him that the names of employees earning less than $100,000 per year should not be disclosed.

In agreeing to release the information, he said, "If it’s going to get into a legal squabble, it’s just going to eat up some district resources."

Peabody said he was concerned about the reaction of teachers and was informing union leadership that the names of every employee, their titles and salaries was about to be made public. "I worry that they’ll be upset, but I think they will understand," he said.

---

More information:

• John Parre's Public Record Request and DMUSD's Response

Del Mar man helps to launch The Naked Government project

Source: Del Mar Times

By Marsha Sutton
Contributor

NakedGovernment.org is a new project co-founded by Del Mar Internet entrepreneur Michael Robertson that is intended to make government more transparent. In addition to actual documents from governmental agencies, the site will also contain names of individuals and organizations that have made Public Records Act requests for specific documents.

"Every day, there are thousands of public document requests … across the United States," he said. "My belief is all those should be public. For example, who is asking what of the water companies? In a lot of respects, I think that is more interesting than the actual documents. That’s the kind of information that will help citizens better manage, or police if you will, the government that runs their lives."

The concept stems from Robertson’s belief that, once an agency or news organization makes a PRA request and gains access to information, that information should be made available to the public in its raw, unfiltered form.

The site will be Wiki-driven, he said, much like Wikipedia, where users he called "information envoys" will find those document requests and contribute documents and information directly to the site.

"I’m creating a Wiki-powered service where all public records will be searchable by who has made the request [and] what they requested, and you can view the actual documents," he said.

Robertson said he and his partner John Parres didn’t want to launch the site empty, so they requested payroll information of 50 school districts from across the country chosen at random, although the Los Angeles Unified School District and the San Diego Unified School District – as well as Robertson’s hometown Del Mar Union School District – were specifically selected.

"We’re collecting some documents now so there will be some critical mass in the system, so hopefully others will get the vision and help with the task," he said.

Robertson said the DMUSD was not the only district to refuse their request, but was the only district to refuse based on privacy rights.

"I understand where they’re coming from," he said. "They don’t want to get sued by the teachers’ union. That’s the interest they’re trying to balance."

But he believes the law is on his side and governmental organizations "need to understand that it’s the citizens’ money here." Some do, he said, and some don’t.

"We have had a couple people say no," he said. "We’ve had a couple of school districts say, astonishingly, we don’t have that information. It’s preposterous. … Others have said you’ll have to pay to get that information."

Robertson said reasonable costs associated with Public Records requests are fair but that some districts are suggesting that assembling the requested data will require many hours of programming time, adding up to expenses that Robertson called "outrageous."

"So we are putting pressure on them to comply," he said. "When we get pushed back, we’re trying to be polite but firm and encourage the organization to do the right thing."

He said the reason NakedGovernment.org is needed is because not everyone is forthcoming. "There’s some people involved in this process that think the government doesn’t work for its citizens," he said.

Del Mar’s initial noncompliance particularly frustrated Robertson.

"I’m a taxpayer in Del Mar; I’ve got two kids in the Del Mar schools," he said. "That’s why it was so amazing. …The last thing the school district should be spending money on is hiding public information from concerned citizens."

Most districts have been fully cooperative and compliant, he said, including LA Unified which was one of a handful of governmental bodies that was given a more expansive list of information requested for the site.

"We should have hundreds of document requests from LA Unified in the system," he said.

Initially, the site will launch with extensive information from half a dozen institutions including LA Unified, the Port Authority in San Diego and the Dept. of Water in Los Angeles.

"So for a handful of organizations you’re actually going to see what kind of requests they get [and] who is making that request," Robertson said. "And it’s amazingly revealing to see. You see people asking about pension data – these are reporters … Then you’ll see unions coming in and making their own requests. … It’s quite fascinating what is happening, and that’s the kind of information I want to make public."

In addition, there will also be the school district payroll information from almost every state in the union.

Robertson, a Del Mar resident with children attending Del Mar schools, has founded, grown and sold several Internet companies, one of which was MP3.com which was the first company to popularize digital music.

NakedGovernment.org is set to launch later this month.