Del Mar Union School District News

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Regular Board Meeting • April 14, 2010

Board of Trustees
Regular Board Meeting
REVISED

April 14, 2010
Closed Session: 3:30 p.m.
Open Session: 5:45 p.m.

Del Mar Hills Academy
14085 Mango Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
(map)

ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS

CALL TO ORDER

PUBLIC INPUT CONCERNING ITEMS ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA

Adjournment into Closed Session Motion

CLOSED SESSION – 3:30 P.M.

Conference with Labor Negotiator (G.C. 54957.6)
Agency Designated Representatives: James Peabody,Interim Superintendent;
Employee Organization: Del Mar California Teachers Association
Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(c);
Name of Case: Two cases
Conference with Real Property Negotiator (G.C. 54956.8)-
11189 and 11199 Sorrento Valley Road, San Diego, CA 92121;
4106, 4110, 4116 & 4122 Sorrento Valley Blvd., San Diego, CA 92122;
Jimmy Durante Blvd. & San Dieguito Rd., Del Mar, CA 92014;—
Under Discussion: Purchase of Property; 225 9th Street, Del Mar, CA, 92014 —
Under Discussion: Sale/Lease Terms Between the City of Del Mar and the DMUSD; —
Agency Negotiator: James Peabody, Interim Superintendent

Adjournment of Closed Session Motion

RECONVENE OPEN SESSION – 5:45 P.M.

REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION

FLAG SALUTE
STUDENT RECOGNITION – To be presented at the April 28, 2010 Board meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS
1. Correspondence:
2. Public Input:
REPORTS, RECOGNITIONS AND HEARINGS
1. Report
  PTA Report: Vanessa Black, Del Mar Hills Academy PTA President
2. Report
  Board Report/Comments
3. Report
  Superintendent’s Report

BOARD PRESIDENT CALLS FOR BLUE SPEAKER SLIPS

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes of Regular Board Meeting of March 10, 2010
Minutes of Regular Board Meeting of March 24 2010

6.1 CONSENT ITEMS

Approval of Consent Items
Agenda items preceded by an asterisk (*) compose the Consent Agenda, and unless removed at the request of a board member, will be approved by the Board as a group

*11.1 Board Approval of Recommended Personnel Actions: Employment, Resignations, Retirements, Dismissals, Leaves of Absence, and Change of Status
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Summer Programs 2-3

ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY
1. CSBA Delegate Assembly Election Results 4-7
2. Reminder of Upcoming Events 8-9
OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES
1. Update, School Sites Security Fencing 10-19
2. Comparison of Lunch Areas, Lighting & Sound Systems at School Sites 20-23
BUSINESS AND FINANCE
1. Board Approval, Attendance at CASBO 2010 Annual Conference
PERSONNEL
1. Board Approval, Revised Certificated Management Salary Schedule
ARTICLES OF INTEREST
ITEMS FOR APRIL 28, 2010 BOARD MEETING
- Board Approval, Del Mar Union School District’s Uniform Complaint Quarterly
- Report for January 1 – March 31, 2010
- School Enrollment Caps, Demographics, 2010/2011
- Governance Calendar
- Donations from Groups Outside the DMUSD
- Update, Race to the Top
- Update, Romero Bill
- Official Agenda, Regular Board Meeting of April 14, 2010
- Third Reading and Approval, Revised Administrative Regulation 3580: District Records
- Acceptance DMSEF Donation
- Recommendation for Strategic Planning
- Appointment of Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources
- Other items requested by the Board

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

At 5:30 pm prior to the meeting, a rally will be held for interested parents.

Related Parent Groups:

More information:

Board Meeting Agenda

Monday, April 12, 2010

A Material Breach of Contract in Capistrano

While there are many differences, this is the experience of a nearby school district who fired their superintendent last year for material breach of contract.

In March of 2009, the Board of Trustees of the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) voted to fire A. Woodrow Carter for material breach of contract after 18 months tenure as the superintendent of Orange County's largest school district.

CUSD counsel produced a 54-page termination report detailing the reasons for the board's decision.

The fired superintendent asked for $487,00 in pay and benefits and was turned down by the board.

He subsequently sued CUSD in court, where the judge dismissed the claim.

Earlier this year Carter again sued CUSD, this time for $5.5 million, and the second case was also thrown out.

Most recently an Orange County judge ruled that the CUSD board violated the Brown Act when it conducted an evaluation of Carter in closed session for the purpose of deciding whether or not to place him on leave without properly informing the public of the intent of the meeting.

The Orange County Register ran a series of articles on the firing and subsequent events.

Sutton: Can we withhold judgment on Del Mar?

Source: San Diego News Network

It was during my just concluded 10-day vacation in Washington, D.C., visiting all the historic sites and the exquisite cherry blossom trees (by chance, we caught them blooming during the three days each year when their breathtaking floral beauty is at its peak), that the Del Mar Union School District exploded into the news. But unlike the blossoms, this explosion is hardly of the beauteous kind.

For months I’ve been asking and waiting and asking again, to see when and if the deed will get done, only to learn that the board took action and released former superintendent Sharon McClain while I was away.

I’ve covered the Del Mar Union School District closely for the past 15 years, and have witnessed the rise, and fall, of former superintendents Rob Harriman and Tom Bishop. Both men reigned supreme until they were both dismissed by their school boards under clouds of suspicion, the reasons for which were never formally revealed. And now we have the demise of a third.

The reports so far on this latest firing have offered readers an infuriatingly limited presentation of the problems confronting the DM district.

I would ask all those who are following this drawn-out saga to suspend judgment until all the facts, those facts that professional journalists should have reported but failed to extract, can be revealed.

Depressingly, the reports to date reflect a hell-bent, torches and pitchforks mission that does little to provide people with accuracy and balance. I plead for patience because everything I’ve read so far has served only to increase hysteria.

During these last few days of spring break, can we have patience? Can folks hold off on condemning this board until more facts have been exposed?

Can we use common sense and ask ourselves why the board would proceed with firing McClain if it were not evident – not unanimously evident – that there have been legal violations?

Can we ask ourselves why board president Comischell Rodriguez, after months of apparent agreement, would suddenly decide at the last board meeting to switch her position and vote against the board majority? Is this an act of integrity, to suddenly flip-flop and play to the political arena? Or was there some new evidence revealed that only she was privy to?

Can we ask why Steven McDowell inexplicably abstained? What’s up with that? Cowardly? Or something borne of conviction?

Do Rodriguez’s and McDowell’s actions now put the board at greater risk for litigation? A unanimous decision to vote her out is quite different than a 3-1-1 vote. By flopping and flipping and crumbling to please the crowd, without regard to the law, is McClain’s case strengthened?

Can we ask why one of the most highly regarded education attorneys in San Diego, Dan Shinoff, feels confident that McClain violated her contract, and perhaps the Brown Act and other breaches as well? Does it make sense that the board would, on a whim, do this without solid legal grounds?

And why is one speaker’s offhand comment that this action could cost the district $500,000 repeated in the press as if it were an accepted fact? How often, if ever, was it pointed out that not a dime would be spent if McClain was released for cause? Five will get you ten that that $500,000 pulled-from-the-air figure will grow to $800,000 or even $1 million before the month is out.

Questions to ponder.

Meanwhile, I’m going to reflect on the memory of that one last look at the carpet of cherry blossoms falling off the trees like so much drifting, snowy confetti – grateful for the few days of respite, ironically taken in our nation’s capital, from the political turmoil of a tiny school district three thousand miles away.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

CV News Letters to the Editor

Source: Carmel Valley News

Children will be impacted the most by the school district’s mess

Dear Del Mar Union School District board members,

I was at the Del Mar Union School District board meeting March 31, but decided not to speak. There were so many people that shared my feelings I figured I would let them speak for me. Now I regret not speaking because there is so much I have to say.

First of all, I would like to put it simply to the board members: garbage rolls down hill. You – yes, you and your personal vendettas, political ambitions, and inability to work effectively as a team are up there at the top. You have made a decision and just sent the garbage rolling downhill to:

The Teachers
The PTA’s
The Foundation
The Parents
The Principals

And, most importantly, to our children! Our children are the ones who will be impacted the most by this mess that you have created. And that is so sad and so unfair to them.

I can only hope that now that you have decided to let Dr. McClain go, you will put every effort into moving on and seriously improving our district. The morale out there is so bad, you have a lot of work to do. Good luck with that.

Michele Lesher
Carmel Del Mar Parent and PTA Board Member

DM school board creates problems rather than solve them

The Del Mar Union School District had the opportunity last week to right a wrong, and sadly they continued on their path deferring to “not enough information” and “premature decision making.” Could one of the trustees please tell me why, 10 months later, you still do not have the facts to make a decision? This board has spent valuable employee time and community time on a vicious circle to nowhere. A wild goose chase (aka 7-11 Committee) now deferred to “wait and see what the strategic budget task force” can come up with. Having been at a majority of these meetings, I was beginning to think this board was incapable of making one solid decision. However, now that I look at it, perhaps they are even more crafty and their long-term strategy has been continued deferment until even us die-hard attendees get tired of coming and there are no voices left to stand up against them.

What is even more frightening is that this board should have been expediting a budget process, but instead they have created an even bigger one. By tearing apart our community over possible school closures and co-location, they have turned neighbor against neighbor, child against child, they have created such uncertainty and animosity that our ESC programs are crippled, teachers will be laid-off, and our class sizes will be increased.

Those at the highest level of employment are afraid to speak out lest their jobs go the way of our former superintendent or beloved principals. Or, they put themselves at risk for an embarrassing public flogging to determine if the contracts had enough dotted “I”s and crossed “Ts.”

This board was elected as community representatives, to encapsulate the community voice, and enact what is for the greater good of the whole. Yet, so far all I have seen is four ineffective leaders trying to be corralled by one brave soul encouraging the board to take action and move forward. It is like trying to round up a group of schoolmates who would rather focus on petty grievances or old grudges, when they should be standing up as leaders and saying, “I take responsibility for our failures and suggest that we [fill in the blank with something that looks like progress].

Unfortunately, it is too late to recall this group and we are now forced to continue to watch this pathetic excuse for leadership take its course. However, I urge all of our community to be aware, for the 20 of us who stuck our heads out of the hole at the Feb. 24 meeting have seen our shadows and it looks like nine more months of upheaval.

Heidi Niehart

P.S. The board still has a chance to leave a legacy of progress if they would listen to the realtors and the attorneys and buy a building while it is buyer-friendly.

The board’s vision of the DMUSD community is flawed

By Suzanne Hall
Parent, Torrey Hills Elementary School

After rejecting Superintendent Sharon McClain’s design for the composition of the Financial Planning Task Force (FTF) in favor of emphasizing community input, the DMUSD board created an unbalanced FTF that poorly represents the DMUSD community as a whole. This inequitable composition threatens the validity of any recommendations made by this task force.

The FTF is, in part, comprised of 13 parents. Logic would dictate that these 13 parents be spread as equitably as possible across the eight DMUSD schools, with no school receiving more than two parent representatives. However, two of the smallest schools in the district — Del Mar Hills and Ashley Falls — each have three parent representatives.

Conversely, the three largest schools in the district — Torrey Hills, Ocean Air and Sage Canyon — have between them a sum total of four representatives.

As a result, four FTF members represent 51 percent of the student population while 19.6 percent of the students have six representatives. Does this seem fair to the board? To parents of underrepresented schools, it falls far short of equity.

In addition, the board itself chose to appoint to the FTF two of the Del Mar Hills parents and two of the Ashley Falls parents. This, beyond the mandated appointment of a representative by the PTA at each school. The board knew that each of these schools already had one representative, and they chose to seat two more. Thus, the board is directly responsible for the inequity in the composition of the FTF.

Does the board truly believe that the voices of the parents of the other district schools matters less than that of parents at these smaller schools?

This board faces a number of challenging issues, including an increasingly divided community of parents. The composition of the FTF does little to improve the latter, and a concern is that it may do little to improve the budget crisis. The other members of the task force, staff and volunteers representing various aspects of the district, will be met with a skewed perspective on what the parents of the DMUSD want to see in dealing with the district budget crunch. How can these parents represent the well-being of the district as a whole when so many of them represent only one point of view?

The board has made a grave error. There is so very little time before they must make significant decisions for the potential benefit of the district, and yet they have set themselves up for failure by not developing an FTF of the composition they so strongly professed they wanted. This FTF does not represent the community of DMUSD. It represents only a small proportion of the community. And the message sent by the board is: it is the only part of the community that matters to them.

In response, I would remind the board: the larger community will be voting, come November.

Superintendent’s actions cause for concern

I am a fairly new parent to the Del Mar school district, but I have been watching what has been going on during that time. One of the issues raised at the recent school board meeting has caused me enough concern that I am writing to you.

At this last school board meeting, I was watching a parent accuse trustee White of using the DMUSD legal services for her private use. How did this parent get information on district legal bills? I understand this parent made a request to the district for bills, but I have enough experience in my business life to know legal bills are always provided redacted, so that attorney-client privileged information is protected. In all the bills I have seen, the text describing the service is whited out. I am not necessarily concerned with the ignorance of this parent although her behavior was disrespectful and poor role modeling for the children in the audience. I am concerned that a superintendent would potentially put our district at risk for divulging attorney-client information to the public through these legal bills and documents.

I understood when Ms. White explained that her role as board president last year made her point person for legal issues and I understood this role now falls to Ms. Rodriguez. I saw the board explain this and concur this is how they work. But I don’t understand how a superintendent who was involved in an employee complaint which required the district to hire an attorney for this complaint should ethically be looking at these bills and how legally she can provide confidential information to someone. This is wrong.

Ms McClain, when hired for this district, was hired because she claimed to be a team player and a community builder, something this district really needed. Since her arrival, she has been divisive and has pitted school against school. I am now convinced, especially after this very concerning action, that she should be let go. She is damaging this district.

Hanna Morgan

DMUSD school board tries to terminate second superintendent

By Kate Takahashi, DMUSD parent

How would you feel if your child forfeited his birthday presents to make a school donation only to find that three grown adults snatched it from her and threw it in the Pacific Ocean? If the three-person majority of Del Mar Union School Board succeeds in their agenda of firing Superintendent Sharon McClain, they would do just that, but on a much larger scale. Please read on.

The economic reality

During these tough economic times, we DMUSD parents are scrambling to save the cherished ESC programs that our district can’t afford. Honestly, it’s exhausting, but we do it for our children. And the children themselves are working hard to keep their teachers. I have stories of Girl Scout Troops donating, pancake breakfasts, garage sales... We’re all doing our best to scrape together every penny we can.

The economic crisis is not just affecting ESC. DMUSD’s reserves are millions of dollars below the recommended level for a Basic Aid district. If our reserves dip below 3 percent of expenditures, the state could be required to balance our budget in any way it sees fit — larger classroom sizes, teacher lay-offs – without community input.

The board’s actions

And what is our school board doing about the budget? They are calling their attorneys – daily at times – at the rate of $160/hour. From July through December of 2009, they racked up $21,339 in legal fees. What could be so important? The school board is searching for ways to fire Dr. Sharon McClain, the supremely qualified leader they chose in September 2008 to replace Tom Bishop, the last guy they fired that same year.

Disaster either way

If the board fires Dr. McClain for cause, she could sue for the length of her contract, plus benefits, plus attorneys’ fees. That could amount to as much as half a million dollars. If they buy out her contract for one year, that could approximate a quarter million dollars. Either way, that money comes from the district coffers to educate your child.

Incidentally, this board, in pursuing this wasteful litigation, is choosing to triple-pay a superintendent’s salary. Remember Tom Bishop? He’s Superintendent 1, and we are still paying his buyout. If they fire Dr. McClain – or Superintendent 2 – then the district would pay her while paying an interim superintendent, or Superintendent 3 (if they could find anyone willing to work here). So DMUSD would be paying Baby Superintendent, Mama Superintendent, and Papa Superintendent all at the same time, for a grand total that could approach a million dollars. Now I’m asking, Are you outraged yet?

Did I mention Dr. McClain doesn’t deserve this?

At the hard-to-believe age of 65, she is at the top of her professional game, having won Pepperdine University’s Superintendent of the Year Award, and having taught school governance at seven different universities. She has worked with and for children her whole life, having been an elementary teacher, university instructor, principal, assistant superintendent, superintendent (three times), mother, and foster mother. At this stage of her life, she has chosen her most challenging job yet as superintendent of DMUSD, and she has thus far guided us through this financial crisis with optimism and smart ideas.

And, gratefully, she’s still here. Let’s be there for her.

What we can do:

Talk: Tell people what you have learned about this board. If you are unsure about any facts or figures in this editorial, ask DMUSD about what public records you have a right to see, including their attorney bills. Research past articles from local papers.
Make it a daily task to log on to dmusd.org in order to know if a board meeting is taking place. If it is, go to “view agenda.” Be on the lookout for “Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release.” If that is there, there could be a closed meeting to terminate Dr. McClain. The board must hear public input before they go into closed session. Fill out a speaker slip, wait for your name to be called, and you will have three minutes to tell the board how you feel. If you are uncomfortable speaking, write a letter to the board and have a friend read it and/or send a letter to the board.
Vote: Cast your ballot this November. Tell your friends to vote, as well.

Solution to the problem is obvious

Sometimes there is an obvious solution to the problem. Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Sharon McClain came with previously used and not the best idea of changing school boundaries again to fill low enrollment schools. Superintendent Bishop tried just that. He wanted to force parents of children living next to Torrey Hills and Sage Canyon schools to drive their children to and from Del Mar Heights and Hills schools every school day. Those parents were paying Mello-Roos tax to be able to send their children to neighborhood schools. It took a lot of time and energy to convince him to instead let Sage Canyon accept more children. Do you want to repeat the past?

Why would anyone even suggest adding offices to Torrey Hills school knowing that there is a plan to built a condominium complex just across from this school and the enrollment will increase again.

From Google maps, one can see that the distance between Del Mar Hills and Del Mar Heights schools is 0.8 mile, it takes 3 minutes by car, or 14 minutes by walking. Are there any other schools in the district so close to each other? You have a half empty school, space for additional kids in nearby schools, you need space for the office, what do you do?

Grazyna Krajewska
Torrey Hills

Leave district boundaries intact, don’t hire vice principals

I wanted to comment on Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Sharon McClain's comment in the Jan. 29 article titled “DM superintendent recommends district buy property for headquarters” which stated "McClain mentioned making boundary changes east of Interstate 5 as a possible cost-saving option. As Sage Canyon and Ocean Air each have around 700 students and Torrey Hills nears that size, the schools will need vice principals. She said the district could save $850,000 by reducing the enrollment size of the three schools through boundary changes (students would be moved to other schools in the district). The enrollment changes would eliminate the need for the three vice principal positions. The re-boundary could also help boost enrollment numbers at Ashley Falls.”

Homes in the boundaries of these three schools are south of the 56 freeway, many have been paying a special Mello Roos tax for a "neighborhood school" for years, and all are several miles away from Ashley Falls (and require crossing a major freeway), making that far from being a "neighborhood school." Before any consideration is given to changing boundaries for these three schools, I sure hope they will eliminate the policy that has grandfathered in many kids outside of these school boundaries.

I used to watch every morning the many dozens of cars from north of the 56 that would cross the freeway bringing their kids over to our area schools. Does it make any sense to have kids driven from homes north of the 56 to school south of the 56, and drive kids from homes south of the 56 to school north of the 56? It wastes fuel, and it breaks up the integrity of having kids who live near one another go to school together, which would facilitate friendships and neighborhood cohesiveness. Another suggestion would be to leave the census and boundaries as is and just not hire the vice principals, if their cost is the issue. I wanted to bring this suggestion to light to the community before it gets much traction.

Kathy Rowe

School bored, school daze, school wars

By Gordon Clanton

School board politics is the most local politics of all. This may explain the intensity, nay, the rancor that often characterizes school board meetings and school board elections. Until recently, the Del Mar Union School District was spared such struggles. But no more.

In 2006, dissident board member Annette Easton recruited Katherine White and Steven McDowell to help her take over the board. The new majority fired the superintendent. Now the board is feuding with the new superintendent they hired.

Full disclosure: I opposed the insurgent slate in 2006, supporting Barbara Myers and Martha Murphy. I was not persuaded that the incumbent board should be turned out, and I found the strident and expensive insurgent campaign off-putting.

I re-joined the fray when I learned that the board was considering closing the Del Mar Hills Academy. I live three blocks from the Hills school. Although I have no children, I consider the school an important part of my community.

My neighbors with children in the Hills school are upset to learn the school may close. They like the fact that their kids can now walk to school without crossing Del Mar Heights Road. They are alarmed that some parents in the district support closing the Hills school as a likely way of preserving their own neighborhood schools.

By the way, I’m suspicious of estimates that purport to show ever-decreasing enrollments for the Hills school and Del Mar Heights school. What’s happening in my neighborhood is that elderly residents are dying, and young couples with school-age children are purchasing their houses.

So, having sold the Shores school site, the school district needs to find a new home for its administrative offices, thus stirring fears of school closings.

Meanwhile, the Del Mar campaign to pay for the Shores property has come up short, with more than $3.5 million owed.

Nobody asked me but: If the school district were to buy back or lease back the portion of the Shores site it currently occupies, then it would have no need to find a new location. Simultaneously, the debt owed by the city of Del Mar would be substantially reduced. The district could gain flexibility by moving more administrative functions to available space at schools that are under-enrolled.

I hope the board will find a way to keep all the schools open, thus reducing the prevailing anxiety and distrust.

The neighborhood school is part of a social fabric that ought not be casually rent asunder.

Gordon Clanton teaches sociology at San Diego State University. He welcomes comments at gclanton@mail.sdsu.edu.

Killing two birds with one stone: Resolving multiple issues within the DMUSD

Now that the 7/11 committee has issued its final report, the DMUSD Board of Trustees is tasked with resolving the movement of the district offices. In addition, it has directed that a financial task force begin working on options for cutting expenses within the district. It is imperative that the board considers the financial health of the DMUSD as it makes its determination as to where to place the district offices and maintenance operations.

Superintendent McClain has made a recommendation that the board use the money from the sale of the Shores property to purchase a site for the district offices. The superintendent stated that a decision needs to be made expeditiously. Dragging this process out can cost the district money, as property values of lots for sale will eventually escalate, and interim leasing of a temporary space would bleed badly needed funds from the DMUSD budget. The board is urged to make a decision soon.

One of the superintendent's alternate recommendations is to house the district offices on a school site. This is a bad idea, unless that school site was designated solely for the purpose of district offices and maintenance operations. District offices should be housed separately from students. Joint use endangers children and degrades the atmosphere of the school, which in turn reduces the quality of the educational experience for the children at that site. Further, joint use options at school sites provide no significant cost savings to the district. Resolving the move of district offices without an eye to the financial crisis the DMUSD is experiencing is imprudent.

Closure of a school would allow for the offices to be unified at one site, while providing cost savings needed by the district. The 7/11 committee determined that the DMUSD would save at least $450,000 annually if a school were closed. This could protect the job of one teacher at each of the remaining school sites, year after year.

Closing a school does not completely cover the projected gap in the DMUSD budget for the next two years. However, in combination with other proposed money saving options, such as installing solar panels, school closure can provide more than an estimated $1,000,000 per annum. How many teachers' jobs could be saved with that figure? It is too significant to be ignored.

In summary, the board is urged to keep the district's financial situation in the forefront of their minds during deliberations regarding the move of district offices. It is a certainty that the DMUSD will need to be making cuts to the budget in the near term to make ends meet. Let's hope the board of trustees does not exacerbate the need for cuts by disregarding cost savings measures available to them in making this decision.

Suzanne Hall
Torrey Hills mom

Del Mar school board has taken district in a new direction — south

Given the realization of the mess their micro-management has created in the last three years, the majority slate of three orchestrated the election of first-year board member Comischell Rodriguez as president of the board at the organizational meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2009.

While there was understandable elation in the audience at President Rodriguez’s election, the community needs to be reminded that she continues to remain only one vote out of five on the school board. If President Rodriguez is able to restore protocol and time-efficiency to the conduct of public meetings, that alone would be a significant contribution to the community.

Meetings have become nitpicking marathons of minutiae and seemingly endless time-wasting discussion, with the audience wandering and chatting and eating throughout the entire proceedings. The retreating board members vowed sincerely to support President Rodriguez throughout what will soon become a very challenging year for her. And, we can hold them to their word, can’t we? After all, when the majority slate of three fired the superintendent in February 2008, they indicated that they wanted to take the district in a new direction. Well, they surely did. We just didn’t know that direction was south.

Martha Cox

Del Mar board usually good for parting "gifts"

By Logan Jenkins
Source: Union-Tribune

Before flying off to Hawaii, Sharon McClain swore she’d sue.

See you in court, the fired superintendent of Del Mar Union School District said to her old bosses.

Given the school district’s gold-plated history, you can understand why the 65-year-old educator would feel poorly treated.

In 1998, Del Mar Superintendent Robert Harriman got sideways with his school board. He was summarily placed on administrative leave, a dramatic and mysterious move. A couple of months later, he was let go and rewarded with a going-away package worth $166,000.

Tellingly, no one, neither Harriman nor the board, fully revealed why he had been relieved of his duties and then forced out.

Silence, as everyone knows, is golden. And it usually costs some gold to secure it from fired employees with scores to settle.

Ten years later, Tom Bishop, Harriman’s successor, lost his normally sure footing. After ushering in a period of intense growth, Bishop made some archenemies over boundary changes and the controversial sale of school land in downtown Del Mar.

In 2006, a new wave of trustees telegraphed that they were going to take the imperious Bishop down a notch.

After an emotionally charged 2008 meeting in which Bishop loyalists vented their grief, the board forked over $300,000 in walking-away hush money.

In the termination chess game, the Bishop had not been rooked. He was a rich king headed into deluxe exile.

But as in Harriman’s case, the gentleman’s agreement, typically codified as a “nondisparagement clause,” ensured that none of the principals would say anything nasty about the other.

Having performed its bloody — and costly — work, the new board was free to hire the ideal superintendent, a custom fit for Del Mar’s new direction.

Oh, happy days!

---

After a professional head hunt, the board hired McClain in the summer of 2008, an Escondido music teacher who had worked her way up through the ranks to public education’s pinnacle — superintendent.

"She is a great match for this district because of her interests, because of her energy, because of her consensus building," board member Janet Lamborghini gushed. “I could go on and on.”

Sweet music to Del Mar’s freshly singed ears.

Fast forward to March 31, 2010. Eight days ago.

The board hurriedly called a daytime meeting to announce that McClain, as many had predicted for months, was getting the sack. The shocker was that McClain was being fired for cause, meaning that instead of a year’s salary, the amount she would receive if terminated without cause, she would get not one dime to hit the bricks.

The number of people who stood up to speak in opposition to the board and in favor of McClain? Roughly 30.

The number of people who stood up to speak in support of the board’s decision? A smooth zero.

By my unscientific polling, this board’s approval ratings have dropped below those enjoyed by Congress.

One of the witnesses at the packed auditorium at Del Mar Hills Academy was Peter Kaye, a seasoned journalist who lives in Del Mar.

“In 50 plus years as a reporter and editor,” Kaye e-mailed me, “I’ve covered everything from SDS to White Citizens’ Council meetings, but I’ve never seen such a sustained level of anger as I did last Wednesday. They made the Tea Party movement look like a tea party.”

---

So what happens now?

After her sojourn in Hawaii, McClain will have to take stock of her position on the legal chessboard.

Compared to McClain, the district has bottomless pockets, thanks to taxpayers. The board can afford to drag out litigation long beyond November, when a new board will likely take control of a public school system with an incredibly rich academic gene pool.

Presumably, the newly constituted board will have a very different view of McClain’s deficiencies, real or alleged.

If McClain files a lawsuit, one that probably will claim chronic mistreatment from a board majority for whom many believe the word micromanagement was coined, she might have to devote a couple years of her life to the crusade. In the end, attorney fees could swallow up any judgment.

On the other hand, McClain may find in the next board (if not the current one) willing negotiators in a quiet, reasonable settlement, say a third of her annual salary and a statement that she served the district capably under unusually trying circumstances. She gets her good name back — and some green hush money.

If she chooses, McClain can go public and sing a compelling blues number about how her bosses, they done her wrong.

But it’s unlikely that song will go gold in a courtroom.

Leader fired in spite of protests

Source: The Coast News
by Bianca Kaplanek

After learning she would no longer be serving as Del Mar’s superintendent of schools, Sharon McClain receives a good-bye hug from David Jones, principal at Carmel Del Mar School. Emily Morris, Sycamore Ridge principal, waits to hug her outgoing boss.

DEL MAR — Less than halfway through her four-year contract, Superintendent Sharon McClain was fired by the board of trustees on March 31, a move that could potentially cost the Del Mar Union School District more than $400,000.

The decision comes almost exactly two years after three of the current board members voted to spend approximately $300,000 to buy out the contract of the previous superintendent.

After more than an hour of public comment supporting McClain and nearly two hours of closed-session deliberations, Trustee Annette Easton made a motion to terminate McClain’s contract. Doug Perkins said he spent the past few months analyzing and agonizing over the issue, but he felt it was “in the best interest” of the district to second the motion.

With Katherine White supporting, board President Comischell Rodriguez opposing and Steven McDowell abstaining, McClain was released “with cause,” meaning all pay and benefits would cease immediately. Other than saying McClain had committed a “material breach of contract,” Rodriguez said trustees couldn’t discuss details because it is a personnel matter and there is a threat of litigation.

McClain said she plans to file a lawsuit against the district to recover, at minimum, the remaining two-plus years on her contract and attorney fees. Her salary for school years 2010 through 2012 was $371,000.

“What I’m fighting for right now is my reputation,” McClain said. “I don’t feel like I’ve done anything wrong. I haven’t done anything I should be fired for.”

Although the meeting was scheduled when most parents would be picking up their children from school, it was standing room only in the meeting room at Del Mar Hills Academy. One parent had a stack of e-mails from more than 100 parents opposing McClain’s release. At least one speaker from each of the district’s eight schools tried to save McClain’s job.

“Budget issues have divided this community,” parent Cynthia Rajsbaum said. “You’ve finally managed to unite all of us.”

Of the nearly 30 people who chose to speak, only one supported the decision to terminate McClain’s contract. That was her husband, Joe Condon, who retired last summer after serving 17 years as superintendent for the Lawndale School District.

Condon said at one point he advised McClain not to take the job. He said he made some inquiries about school boards and didn’t hear many positive things about Del Mar. In fact, he said, some rated Compton and Del Mar among the most troubled in the state.

Other speakers described the move to release McClain as “appalling,” “outrageous,” “unwarranted,” “disgusting,” “disappointing” and “a waste of money.”

“It’s a half-a-million-dollar hissy fit,” said Kate Takahashi, whose children attend Carmel Del Mar School.

“It sure doesn’t seem like a financially prudent move,” said Doug Rafner, a member of a recently convened task force charged with finding ways to save the district money.

McClain said she was “heartened” by the public response. “It really made me feel wonderful,” she said. “I’ve given my heart and soul to working in this district. It is facing some big problems and challenges and I threw myself into trying to help.”

McClain said she believes a main source of the problem is a difference in opinion about her job description.

“There was always a difficulty in understanding the role of a superintendent,” she said. “I saw my job differently than they saw it. My job is to run the district day to day. The board’s job is policy making.

“I think we had eight or nine closed-session meetings discussing job descriptions,” she said, adding that there was no clarity about what she would be evaluated on.

McClain said the situation began getting difficult shortly after she provided a 54-page response to an eight-page evaluation document she received from the board.

In early fall, McClain said she was asked to resign. She said she told board members she would if they would honor her contract, which required a 12-month salary buyout of approximately $180,000. The state education code mandates an 18-month severance, which is what her predecessor Tom Bishop received, but McClain said she agreed to a 12-month buyout. She said didn’t get a response.

McClain was notified about the March 31 vote two days before the meeting. She said board members had apparently already made up their minds because a meeting to appoint an interim superintendent was scheduled before the vote on her contract took place. The agenda for an April 1 meeting to name her replacement was posted at 9 a.m. on March 31. At that meeting, trustees appointed James Peabody, superintendent for Julian Union High School District, as the interim schools chief.

Rodriguez, the board president and only trustee to vote against firing McClain, said logistics dictated the scheduling of the April 1 meeting. She said it’s difficult to find meeting space within the district. “I was planning for the worst and hoping for the best,” she said.

“They didn’t have to schedule it for the next day,” McClain said, noting the district was going into spring break the following week. “It doesn’t make any sense to me.”

She also wondered when the board met to discuss hiring her replacement. “It certainly didn’t happen at a board meeting,” she said. “When did they determine that was the best person for the job?”

Despite unanimous public input in her favor, McClain said she had “absolutely no hope” her job would be saved. “To me, that’s wrong,” she said. “They got public input but their minds were already made up.”

Echoing comments from several speakers, parent Victor Legner said board members who voted to remove McClain should reconsider running for re-election.

“Don’t even bother,” Legner said. “You will be out.” Easton, White and McDowell, who in a 3-2 vote supported the Bishop buyout in February 2008, all face re-election in November.

“This is a sad way to end my career,” McClain said. “I really love the district. I would love to have stayed and helped, but I’m not going to have that opportunity. I wish them all well.”

Saturday, April 3, 2010

In brief ... / Both dumb and indefensible

Source: Union Tribune

So the Del Mar school board has burned through another superintendent, at a likely cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sharon McClain’s judgment is open to question, given her apparent attempts to rewrite her contract to spike her pension. But evidence suggests this is one more example of muscle-flexing in a small district by a bullying, micromanaging school board. Now this board is trying to use one of the tiredest tricks around to avoid explaining why it dumped McClain: claiming its hands are tied because of legal threats and state personnel privacy laws. Bunk. There is no law that says a school board can’t give its reasoning when making important personnel changes. Nor is this risky – at some point in legal proceedings, the board is going to have to explain its decision anyway. To refuse to do so now is both indefensibly secretive and dumb.

Note: Counsel for the Capistrano school board released a 54-page document detailing the reasons for termination of their superintendent at the same time he was fired.

More information:

A Material Breach of Contract in Capistrano

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Julian chief selected as interim superintendent for Del Mar school district

Source: Del Mar Times

The Del Mar Union School District named James D. Peabody as interim superintendent in a special Board of Trustees meeting Thursday night at Del Mar Hills Academy.

For the second time in approximately two years, the DMUSD is now on a quest to replace a sacked superintendent after the board of trustees voted 3-1 to fire Superintendent Sharon McClain on March 31 at a special meeting.

Peabody has more than 40 years of experience working in education. He is current superintendent of the the Julian Union High School District. He served as assistant superintendent for the Grossmont Union High School District for 34 years and spent 10 years as a board member of the Alpine Union School District.

He also worked for 10 years in the San Diego County Office of Education as regional director of school support services.

"He brings a lot of valuable experience that will be very beneficial to our district," said board president Comishell Rodiguez.

Peabody will split his time between Julian and Del Mar districts, focusing more on DMUSD, until the board finds a permanent superintendent to replace McClain.

More information:

Del Mar schools chief out; legal war expected

Source: Union Tribune

DEL MAR — A divided Del Mar school board yesterday fired its district superintendent, Sharon McClain, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle that could cost the school district hundreds of thousands of dollars.

McClain, terminated by some of the same board members who hired her less than two years ago, vowed that she would fight her ouster in court. Because the board voted to fire her “with cause,” all pay and benefits cease immediately. The board said McClain had committed a “material breach” of her contract, but the trustees refused to say publicly what those violations were. They would not comment further, citing the threat of a lawsuit.

Trustee Katherine White, who for months had tried to build a case for firing McClain, has said the superintendent fell short on several performance measures, chief among them that she failed to keep the board informed on numerous matters. They included hot-button issues such as potentially closing a school and finding space for a new district office, White has said.

But McClain always countered those claims, and at Wednesday’s meeting she reiterated previous statements that detailed the lengths to which she kept trustees up to date on school affairs.

“I’m going to leave, but they will hear from me,” McClain said moments after the vote. “I felt like I did a good job. … I don’t feel like I did anything I should be fired for.”

Yesterday morning before the meeting, McClain was more blunt. “I will sue them because this is not right,” she said.

White and trustees Annette Easton and Doug Perkins voted to fire McClain. Trustee Steven McDowell, who has typically sided with his three colleagues on most board matters, abstained. Board President Comischell Rodriguez voted against the dismissal.

In a brief statement, Rodriguez said, “After many months of trying to work with Superintendent McClain to resolve a number of serious and material performance violations of her contract, the board of trustees voted to terminate the district’s contract.” Rodriguez said the board wants to move in a “new direction” with a “renewed sense of focus.”

But more than 30 people who addressed the board before the vote said firing McClain was a reckless power play that will waste precious dollars at a time when the district is laying off dozens of teachers and cutting back programs.

Board critics have argued for years that White, Easton and McDowell — who formed a voting bloc after the school board election in November 2006 — have sincessantly micromanaged school district affairs and turned board meetings into marathon sessions that nitpick over minutiae.

White, Easton and McDowell all supported hiring McClain in the summer of 2008. The three trustees had ousted former Superintendent Tom Bishop that year in a settlement that has cost the district more than $300,000.

By firing McClain, the district could be liable for at least $500,000 in eventual payments to her, some speakers said at yesterday’s board meeting.

“I really think this is a matter of you not liking Dr. McClain for whatever reason — jealousy, a power struggle,” said Kate Takahashi, a district parent. “It’s a half-million-dollar hissy fit.”

The board has scheduled a meeting for 5 p.m. today to appoint an interim superintendent.

Reader comments:

gdeal 03/31/2010 05:07 PM

not cool.

Cydjim 03/31/2010 05:17 PM

If I lived in Del Mar, I would pay attention at next school board vote: last superintendent cost a half mil and so will this firing..a million bucks sure goes a long ways if spent right

DMUSDparent 03/31/2010 09:07 PM in reply to Cydjim

precisely our point. our board should be spending this money on programs and staff in a way that benefits the children that the district educates.

sdnative10 03/31/2010 05:37 PM

These school board members don't understand they should have spent their time establishing clear, consistent and practical policies for the superintendent to then implement and stayed out her way so she could do her job. Instead, the boardmembers seem to want to run the district themselves and usurp the superintendent.

If the boardmembers couldn't get along with either the previous superintendent or the one they hired themselves it should be obvious to everyone that the real problem has been with the board and not the superintendents. This firing is unjustified and could cost the district far more than the $300,000+ the district had to pay the last time.

encinitasresident2 03/31/2010 06:08 PM

Sounds like some key detials are missing. How do you get fired from a job now adays with out several written warnings and councelings? Was she on notice for violating any rules, laws, regulations, or agreements? Not liking somebody is not a good enough reason. Poor performance means what?..doesn't that require documentation. Hopefully the details will be made public sooner than later.

DMUSDparent 03/31/2010 09:08 PM in reply to encinitasresident2

there have been secret meetings to this effect for months, beginning in sept. but the community still cant get a straight answer as to "why?"

TomTheSeal 04/01/2010 09:30 AM in reply to DMUSDparent

That would be a great question for your school board members, but, you are not likely to get an answer and the reasons could be any number of things from pending litigation, it is a confidential personnel matter, to, quite simply, we do not have to answer that question.

It is far past the time when the school board system in America should be ditched and replaced with something that requires demonstrated competence, knowledge, experience, and PRIOR CERTIFICATION before someone can be a member of a team that leads and guides the education of our children.

Why require PRIOR CERTIFICATION for teachers and not for school board members ?

Doesn't make sense, and, obviously, school boards in CA, and nationwide actually, are demonstrating their incompetence, ineptness, and disastrous and costly malfeasance of duty.

Time to ditch the school board dinosaur.

windansea 03/31/2010 06:23 PM

In America when this happens, you receive millions of dollars in settlement. Even if you did a poor job, the vulture slime scum extortionist lawyers find a way to make them and you very wealthy. Sweeeeeeeeet !!!!!!

TomTheSeal 03/31/2010 08:16 PM in reply to windansea

Did she do a poor job ? Or has the school board done a poor job ?

We'll see, but, only thanks to some good lawyering. Reading your comment I sort of think that one day maybe you yourself might need a good lawyer to rescue you from your comments.

Be careful where you make them. Some do not take kindly to being smeared.

Even here, where you have SOME annonymity, you can be called to account in a court of law.

Regards,
Tom

windansea 04/01/2010 04:52 AM in reply to TomTheSeal

Hey Tom, why didn't the lawyer get eaten by sharks when he fell off the boat ?

Professional courtesy.

TomTheSeal 04/01/2010 08:20 AM in reply to windansea

Great joke ! A classic. Been around for awhile and, unlike Del Mar superintendents, has a great shelf life.

Why DIDN'T the CLIENT get eaten by sharks when HE fell off the boat ?

His lawyer was the best shark in the water and saved him.

Regards,
Tom

sandiegorain 04/01/2010 05:50 AM in reply to TomTheSeal

Groan

skeptic6 04/01/2010 11:04 AM in reply to TomTheSeal

Tom, sometimes you make me like lawyers again. ; )

FailObamaFail 03/31/2010 06:42 PM

They make HOW MUCH?!?!

Butkus 03/31/2010 06:58 PM in reply to FailObamaFail

That information is in the article.

writenow 03/31/2010 07:38 PM

Del Mar Superintendent's have long had a short, shelf life. But they do keep attorneys employed.

ImJustABill 03/31/2010 07:39 PM

"The school board’s vote followed a lengthy closed session, and trustees refused to talk about their decision, citing pending litigation."

This is a public school district spending public money. Litigation or not, the public has a right to know the reasons for this action.

ImJustABill 03/31/2010 07:41 PM

"McClain said she would fight the decision in court."

Translation: I want to squeeze every dime out of the taxpayers that I can.

TomTheSeal 03/31/2010 08:11 PM in reply to ImJustABill

Translation: Everyone is entitled to their day in court.

Translation: This particular school board has displayed a pattern of mismanagement and incompetence.

ImJustABill 04/01/2010 07:18 AM in reply to TomTheSeal

Sorry I disagree with the implication of the first comment.

Although, certainly you are correct that everyone does have a right to their day in court that doesn't mean I have to approve of their decision to use that right.

In my opinion, an employer has a right to fire an employee.

Unless there was something grossly wrong going on (e.g. sexual harrassment, physical threats, theft) an employee who sues their employer just because they were fired is a pathetic greedy whiner.

Cydjim 04/01/2010 08:08 AM in reply to ImJustABill

Luckily the majority and the law doesn't agree with your belief; if you make a contract with an employee that you pay for x and they do x then you pay for it. An employee forgoes other opportunities to work for that employer.

Another analogy, you agree to pay for a car. You decide you don't like it...in real world you still pay for it. In Del Mar case, they are looking hard for a reason to blame the other guy and if they can easily demonstrate it to 12 people then they are off the hook

Del mar is trying to void the deal the made, she is not suing for her. She is suing to make sure they give her what they promised, unless Del Mar board can find a valid reason which seems this case doesn't exist....so good luck

TomTheSeal 04/01/2010 08:12 AM in reply to ImJustABill

Bill, I agree ( "...an employee who sues their employer just because they were fired is a pathetic greedy whiner..."). However, the first comment remains valid because it is that day in court that sorts out the details and keeps us from settling our differences on our own, which can get pretty darned ugly.

As for an employer's RIGHT to fire an employee, I agree in principle, but that right is now bridled with some legally defined responsibilities ( You cant fire someone because they are Latino ).

Employers sometimes do egregious things and MOST of the time they get away with it. But every now and then they have to answer for something egregious that they have done.

It will be enlightening, to say the very least, as to what emerges at trial. We have a school board that has a responsibility to use taxpayer money wisely and the former superintendent had certain contractual, legal, and moral responsibilities herself. A trial, unless it becomes a sealed lawsuit, will hopefully reveal some behaviour that perhaps up until now has been kept from the taxpaying and parental public.

Have a good one Bill, as I know we are not going to agree on this. But that's ok.

Regards,
Tom

skeptic6 04/01/2010 10:49 AM in reply to ImJustABill

"In my opinion, an employer has a right to fire an employee."

I would agree with you, IF this were a company owned by the board. But it isn't. It's just school district, "owned" by the taxpayers, and the board should be representing their interest.

olc 04/01/2010 10:10 AM in reply to ImJustABill

"Translation: I want to squeeze every dime out of the taxpayers that I can."

Because these clowns have overstepped their authority and violated our contract. As for whose money it is, who elected them?

gkhi 04/01/2010 10:16 AM in reply to ImJustABill

The Board was fully aware that she would sue. It is her right; she is near retirement. She has children, grandchildren, foster children. Plus, it's her reputation. No one in their right mind would begrudge her for suing. And I'm sure she doesn't relish the thought of a lawsuit at this point in her life.

skeptic6 04/01/2010 10:47 AM in reply to ImJustABill

I don't blame her one bit, they didn't give a reason, well, not a valid reason, and they are sullying her reputation.

AhSo 03/31/2010 07:53 PM

can't wait for this to hit the court and I can read all the dirty laundry about the kooks running this school board. Hip, hip del mar.

SanDiego92129 03/31/2010 08:05 PM

"...McClain was fired for material breach of her contract..."

What does that mean? Hey UT -- start digging and try to become a respectable rag again.

TomTheSeal 03/31/2010 08:07 PM

The performance of CA school boards is, quite simply, abysmal.

The school board system should be ditched and replaced with something that requires knowledge, competence, experience, and PRIOR CERTIFICATION through rigorous testing.

With the school board system you need not know ANYTHING to guide our schools.

The ONLY THING being on the school board means is that you ran a successful campaign.

BFD

la_mesan8ive 03/31/2010 08:26 PM in reply to TomTheSeal

You're right Tom (you're not Tom Bishop, are you??)

School boards are a joke. They are filled with wanna be politicians and religious nut jobs with strong personal agendas that have absolutely nothing to do with providing children with the best education possible.

They are a place for self-employed people to get full medical and dental insurance for their families while only "working" a couple of hours a month.

TomTheSeal 03/31/2010 08:43 PM in reply to la_mesan8ive

If you are referring to the former Superintendant of the Del Mar Union School District who ostensibly was forced to step down and did so onn April 30, 2008, no I am not that Tom Bishop.

Bishop by majority opinion did a stellar job, but he developed a rocky relationship with the school board since late 2006, when trustees Katherine White and Steven McDowell joined Annette Easton to form a board majority.

DMUSDparent 03/31/2010 09:10 PM in reply to la_mesan8ive

if the DMUSD board gets medical and dental benefits, that would be news to me. as far as i am aware, they get a small annual stipend to cover the cost of insurance to protect them from lawsuits.

which they will now be grateful they have.

skeptic6 04/01/2010 10:45 AM in reply to la_mesan8ive

Oh, now you did it. : ) You dragged in the Grossmont School Board into this. But it's unlikely they will quarrel with their Superintendent, right?

dmsoccerfan 03/31/2010 08:33 PM

Even though the school board claims they FIRED MCLAIN FOR CAUSE, just wait a few months.

The school board will approve a six figure payout, using the justification that "it's cheaper to settle than to spend money on attorneys fighting the lawsuit".

As part of the settlement, there will be clauses of SILENCE on both sides, so the public will NEVER KNOW the reasons the school board used to justify the firing, and whether or not they were valid...........sort of like the Tom Bishop firing -- he got a payout, and no one knew if his firing was valid or not.

ImJustABill 04/01/2010 07:13 AM in reply to dmsoccerfan

I think the public's right to know what happened trumps any argument for staying quiet due to ongoing litigation.

The litigation could take years.

dmsoccerfan 03/31/2010 08:35 PM

......and what's up with McDowell "abstaining" from the vote? Could there be a conflict of interest coming along? This just doesn't make sense. Please, if anyone understands the McDowell action, please clarify?

DMUSDparent 03/31/2010 09:11 PM in reply to dmsoccerfan

... he has no spine.

sandiegovoice 04/01/2010 12:24 PM in reply to dmsoccerfan

I agree with the spineless comment....just like Bob McClellan on the El Cajon City Council. He is worthless. Sits on the council and abstains from every vote that is controversial. He always uses his ownership of his car dealership as an excuse that it could be conflict of interest.

DoneAgain 03/31/2010 08:51 PM

She was my music teacher in the 80s. I think there is real value in having an actual educator and especially one that educated in what is currently an "endangered" field in public education in charge. I will be interested to see how this plays out.

theryanexpress 03/31/2010 09:38 PM

Hey !! Wadya know. A job opening for Alan Bersin!

MMIKEY 04/01/2010 08:10 AM in reply to theryanexpress

he already screwed up the similar job a few years ago, and moved on to more incompetence in job performance

92106Native 03/31/2010 10:27 PM

So, how long before the citizens of the Del Mar Union School District fire the Board?

sd68native 04/01/2010 03:49 PM in reply to 92106Native

November....

Augustus 04/01/2010 07:37 AM

Don't you love it when these public employees hire each other, fire each other, then sue each other ... and the taxpayers get to pick up the dime?

MyView 04/01/2010 07:43 AM

And who would want to step up to take this position now after seeing the temperment of this board? Maybe Katherine White should try it for awhile....

MMIKEY 04/01/2010 08:11 AM

any of the board members have their kids in school now?

DMUSDparent 04/01/2010 12:59 PM in reply to MMIKEY

i think katherine white might have one left in elem school (interestingly, the school that McClain just recommended be reconfigured.... hmmmm)

GeraldR5 04/01/2010 08:21 AM

One of the biggest problems in education today is school boards. These people are elected to oversee a district, but they envision themselves superintendents or assistant superintedets who delve into every aspect of school district operations annd meddle in daily minutia. They end up harming the district far more than just "oversight." A dear friend of mine who was once superintendent of the largest district in the South Bay told me in private, "If it weren't for unfunded state mandates and pet programs of board members, I could reduce the district budget by 40 percent without losing a teacher or classroom and give each teacher a reasonable raise." Moreover, school boards are increasingly elected primarily by special interest groups who they bow to from the first to the last day of their terms! No wonder we have so much trouble retaining decent superintendents,.

TomTheSeal 04/01/2010 09:04 AM in reply to GeraldR5

GeraldR5, you wrote, "...school boards are increasingly elected primarily by special interest groups who they bow to from the first to the last day of their terms! No wonder we have so much trouble retaining decent superintendents...

" MY COMMENT: Amen, brother ! Amen. School board members are bought and paid for and push agendas that have absoulutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with the effective and efficient OVERSIGHT ( not management, please ) of the school system. School board members often know NOTHING about school systems or how they should work, not to mention having no knowledge, experience, or competence in the educational process.

THE *** ONE *** COMMONALITY FOR *** ALL *** SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ? They ran a successful campaign for the position, and that's not saying much, is it ?

Time to free our schools of this anchor around both the necks of taxpayers, children, parents, teachers, administrators, and support staff. Time to ditch the school board system in America.

zeke199 04/01/2010 01:15 PM in reply to GeraldR5

Judging from the numbers I'd say your friend was spot on. "Fair Share" is one state mandate killing DMUSD and other districts which were in good shape before this socialist legislation was thrust upon us.

A voucher initiative is the best thing that could happen for our kids and our future! Let underperforming districts feel the pain so they must adapt or die. It works for colleges and universities so it will work for primary/secondary schools too. It may hurt in the short term but will make everyone stronger in the long term! How else can private schools continue to attract kids during this economic downturn?

Until the people wisen up and demand vouchers happen we're wasting time polishing chairs as they slide down the deck of the Titanic.

DMUSDparent 04/01/2010 03:27 PM in reply to GeraldR5

""If it weren't for unfunded state mandates and pet programs of board members, I could reduce the district budget by 40 percent without losing a teacher or classroom and give each teacher a reasonable raise."

oh, how i wish your dear friend was our districts superintendent!

kennywilson 04/01/2010 09:31 AM

Perhaps since the board members seem to take actions that cost the district so much money, they should be required to fill the gap the superintendent position leaves open.....then maybe they would think twice about acting like school children.

DMUSDparent 04/01/2010 01:00 PM in reply to kennywilson

good gracious, do you hate us? please dont wish that upon us!

zeke199 04/01/2010 01:08 PM in reply to kennywilson

NO!! We'd go from real bad to really worse!!

dmsoccerfan 04/01/2010 09:39 AM

This comment was flagged for review.

olc 04/01/2010 10:05 AM in reply to dmsoccerfan

That's not the issue. The question is what did she not do that she was supposed to to. How did she not perform her duties under the contract? Unless they can show that she somehow failed to do something substantial that was contractually obligated, it's going to cost them a bundle, just like the last time they had one of their power plays.

dmsoccerfan 04/01/2010 11:38 AM in reply to olc

Personally I agree with you -- the board needs to be able to justify, in court, that they had a solid reason for firing McClain -- otherwise, it will cost the district hundreds of thousands.

I'm asking another question -- which is "What has McClain accomplished during her tenure". No one has really answered that question......it's just emotion and anger and the financial implications of a firing that may not stand up to a court challenge.

Again, I ask, Did McClain do anything to justify her nearly $200000 salary for the past year and a half? Please be specific.

olc 04/01/2010 02:06 PM in reply to dmsoccerfan

She doesn't need to justify what she did as long as it doesn't violate the contract. If they didn't think she was accomplishing enough beyond that, they can wait out the contract or negotiate ending the contract. That's how it's done.

zeke199 04/01/2010 12:36 PM in reply to dmsoccerfan

I've been to more board meetings than I cared to attend. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion, the sad fact is my kids and I are on the train as it crashes. The three-member voting block don't care if they derail the train, as long as they hold the power to do it.

Anyone who has spent time at these meetings KNOWS the majority of the board has tried to fire McClain for much of her two-year tenure. She was inundated with busywork which detracted from her time to do what she was hired to do. The board sat back, spun her around, criticized her when she couldn't keep all their plates spinning, and spat her out like grissle.

Now we taxpayers must cover the costs of their recklessness. I hope the board finds a way to do it without sticking it to us. Maybe they should pay for it since they had the problem working with McClain!

zeke199 04/01/2010 12:55 PM in reply to dmsoccerfan

Most of the DMUSD board is in over their heads and ill-equipped to manage the district, yet won't acknowledge it. It appears most (not all) of the members lack the basic people skills to properly manage talented professionals (note two Superintendents were fired in two years).

By firing McClain yesterday the board obliterated $500K + from an already troubled financial situation (per board member White's recent statement).

The only people who will benefit are the lawyers who will descend like vultures into DMUSD's coffers. The children will lose out big time! DMUSD's mission has been failed by the board so THEY should be fired for breach of fiduciary duty!

McClain brought what the district needed - a hands-on leader who invested in the teachers and students. The board should have realized this and adjusted for whatever logistics and operations skills they thought she lacked.

DMUSDparent 04/01/2010 01:04 PM in reply to dmsoccerfan

what exactly are you looking for?

the superintendents job, plain and simple, is to run the school district. she makes sure that the district strives for excellence. period. and under her leadership the district continued to be excellent. the API scores are phenomenal. despite cutbacks, kids had access to a stellar education.

Its not the role of the superintendent to go out there and make reforms or set policy. setting policy IS THE JOB OF THE BOARD. it was mcclain's job to ensure it was carried out.

sdnatv 04/01/2010 11:08 AM

November can't come soon enough. The sooner the Carmel Valley/Del Mar community can exercise a right/civic duty many forgot or simply neglected to use in 2006, the sooner this district can begin to actually move forward...something it hasn't done in a very long time.

sandiegovoice 04/01/2010 12:20 PM

Sound like the real housecleaning job here is to get rid of these three board members. Boardmembers, if you are reading this, I suggest you start looking for another job.

Statistic 04/01/2010 02:45 PM

She must be the only public employee fired since... since... time began.

DMUSDparent 04/01/2010 03:26 PM in reply to Statistic

no, no... that would be Tom Bishop. Our OTHER superintendent.

say what? 04/01/2010 02:57 PM

The sad thing is, this Board has been such a joke that even if she has been rightfully fired no one trusts this to be so. They have lost respectability in our district.

cv33 04/01/2010 04:51 PM

It's interesting to compare the Solana Beach and Del Mar school districts. Both have a similar demographic make-up and are side by side geographically. Solana Beach is actually run very smoothly and efficiently. Del Mar seems to be run by a bunch of clowns. This firing is only one of several major self-inflicted problems they have. They have too many schools (some half empty), the union is too strong and overpaid, the foundation seems in place only to provide a job for the fundraiser, etc.

What's interesting is that they are essentially equal in terms of student performance. To me this says that the most important element in student performance is the quality and engagement of the parents, which is very high in both of these districts.

DMUSDparent 04/01/2010 09:21 PM in reply to cv33

i dont think our teachers are overpaid. their salary and benefits package ranks only 19th of the 39 county districts, behind solana beach and even chula vista. and yet our APIs are top notch, even a bit higher than SB (which isnt saying much, since both districts are stellar from the school report card standpoint).

cant disagree with your point about the quality of the board, however.

Superintendent Sharon McClain Fired by Del Mar Union School Board

Monday, March 22, 2010

Capo district violates open-meeting laws for 5th time

Source: Orange County Register

Capistrano Unified School District Superintendent A. Woodrow Carter addresses the school board on March 9, 2009, the day he was fired. An Orange County judge has ruled that one of the discussions leading up to Carter's termination violated the state's Brown Act open-meeting laws.

SANTA ANA – An Orange County judge has ruled that Capistrano Unified's school board violated the state's open-meeting laws in August 2008 when it held a closed-door evaluation of its then-superintendent, the fifth time the governing body had been reprimanded in the past three years for Brown Act violations.

Superior Court Judge David McEachen in Santa Ana said last week that Capistrano Unified School District did not properly prepare the agenda for the closed-door meeting and thus failed to inform the public that it was holding a discussion about whether to put then-Superintendent A. Woodrow Carter on paid administrative leave. The agenda referred only to a "performance evaluation," not disciplinary action.

The school board's decision to suspend Carter five months later, in January 2009, was met with fierce opposition from parents, teachers and other employees.

McEachen also ruled that trustees should have provided notice they were bringing in a non-district employee for the evaluation session – school-law attorney Spencer Covert – who served as a one-time, pro-bono consultant during the meeting.

"Covert's attendance either should have been on the agenda, or constituted the improper inclusion of a member of the public in the session," McEachen said in a March 16 ruling. "... The agenda did not adequately set forth closed-session topics and is in violation of the Brown Act (open-meeting laws) as to the unnoticed attendance of attorney Covert and the proposed disciplinary action against Superintendent Carter."

The judge's ruling does not impose any sanctions on Capistrano Unified, which has been ordered not to violate the Brown Act again.

Repeated violations

Capistrano Unified's school board has been sternly reprimanded five times for repeated Brown Act violations, the first four by the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

The board was reconstituted entirely between the first four violations and the most recent one, with the new "reform" trustees pledging a new era of accountability and transparency.

"This entire ("reform") school board ran on a campaign dedicated to restoring honesty, integrity, and accountability to public education," Vicki Soderberg, president of the Capistrano Unified Education Association union, said in a statement. "But if their action in this case is their definition of these qualities, I want no part of it, and thankfully, neither do the courts."

The teachers union, which was deeply critical of the school board's decision to fire Carter, initiated the lawsuit alleging the Brown Act violation in November 2008.

Trustee Mike Winsten, who was elected three months after the August 2008 violation, said he felt the judge erred in his ruling. And regardless, Winsten stressed, the violation was not of the same magnitude as in the past, when the D.A.’s office issued four consecutive stinging reports, the last of which said some former trustees had exhibited "disturbing disdain, if not outright contempt" for constituents when meeting behind closed doors.

“This was one incident 19 months ago, and there’s no hint or evidence it ever happened again,” Winsten said. “The Brown Act is so vague and ambiguous. Everyone is doing their best to comply with it.”

D.A.'s advice ignored

The D.A.'s office has said that ignorance of the Brown Act is not a valid excuse for elected officials, and has strongly urged Capistrano's school board to hire a full-time, in-house attorney who can provide consistency and expert advice.

But the 52,000-student district – Orange County's second largest – has yet to hire a full-time attorney, and as the district works to close an anticipated $34 million budget deficit, trustees have emphasized how much money they are saving by contracting out various jobs in the district office to part-time employees.

The school board employs about a dozen law firms that represent the district on a variety of specialized issues, from land acquisition to election law.

In its original lawsuit against the school board, Capistrano's teachers union also argued that trustees created an illegal quorum during a September 2008 school board facilities subcommittee meeting, when two trustees who were not members of the committee "began asking questions and/or making statements" at the meeting, thereby ceasing to be "mere observers."

The judge ruled there was no Brown Act violation in that instance, noting the two trustees did not engage in "substantive discussion or inquiry" at the meeting.

"The evidence submitted supports a finding that (trustee Ellen) Addonizio did not participate in the subcommittee meeting," McEachen said. "She asked the speaker to raise his voice so that she could hear and inquired as to when a topic might be discussed."

Friday, March 19, 2010

Judge dismisses ex-Capo chief's $5.5 million lawsuit

Source: Orange County Register

Capistrano Unified School District Superintendent A. Woodrow Carter addresses the school board on March 9, 2009, the day he was fired.

SANTA ANA – An Orange County judge has dismissed a $5.5 million breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by fired schools chief A. Woodrow Carter against the Capistrano Unified School District, his second such ruling since Carter's termination more than a year ago.

Superior Court Judge Steven Perk in Santa Ana said Friday that Carter had "no facts" to support the argument that he was wrongfully terminated under state labor laws, and no right to have been notified of performance-related issues before he was fired.

"Paragraph 10 (of Carter's employment contract) does not state termination would occur only after notice of complaints or criticism of performance, and does not provide any pre-discipline rights," Perk said in a tentative ruling he made final Friday. "Plaintiff was an at-will employee."

Capistrano Unified's attorney, Phillip Kossy, said he was pleased with the judge's decision

"The court's ruling validates that the Board of Trustees was legally able to terminate Mr. Carter and did not need to have any specified good cause, even though it specified many good causes for it," Kossy said.

Carter hung up on a reporter seeking comment Friday and did not immediately return a subsequent phone call.

Reasons for dismissal

Carter, a retired Army colonel, was fired March 9, 2009, after a tumultuous, 18-month tenure at the helm of Orange County's second-largest school district.

Capistrano's school board released a scathing, 54-page termination report that painted Carter as an insubordinate, scheming administrator who tried to sway school board elections and double bill the district for travel expenses.

In the termination report, Carter also was accused of showing "disturbing disregard" for student confidentiality matters, violating school board policies and state laws, and deliberately working to undermine and embarrass the school board.

Carter refuted the allegations in a 23-page rebuttal.

First lawsuit

Carter sued the school district in May 2009, asking for 18 months' severance pay that he said he was legally entitled to receive under the terms of his contract.

After the judge tossed out the lawsuit in December, Carter re-filed his lawsuit, this time seeking $5.5 million for future lost pay and benefits, including vacation pay, sick leave, health insurance and retirement pay.

The judge's ruling Friday was his final ruling on the matter, meaning that if Carter is still not satisfied with the verdict, he would need to appeal his case.

Most of the damages Carter was seeking in his wrongful-termination lawsuit stemmed from the future earnings he purports to have lost, although he also demanded to be compensated for lost pay and benefits under his contract.

$4 million in future lost salary, fringe benefits and annuity payments
$887,250 in lost salary under his contract, which was terminated prematurely
$250,000 in lost fringe benefits
$125,000 in annuity payments
$107,000 in lost vacation and sick leave
$4,700 in moving costs to relocate to Orange County
$1,400 to seek comparable employment elsewhere

Carter also is seeking 10 percent interest on the $5.5 million, plus attorney fees.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Del Mar school district power play in progress

Source: Union Tribune
Chris Reed
Monday, March 15, 2010

I've been forwarded materials in recent weeks that suggest that Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Sharon McClain is pressuring her school board members to go along with a huge spike in her pension by reclassifying the $16k she gets annually for retirement contributions as pay.

The California State Teachers Retirement System frowns on this sort of late-career shenanigans and has apparently told the district its decision to provide the spike last June was not OK -- but McClain keeps pushing the board to pursue the matter.

My e-mails to board President Comischell Rodriguez have yielded bland or misleading responses. Is she going to go along with McClain's wish that the district push to get CalSTRS to change its mind? Or will she try to defy CalSTRS and deem McClain's pension to be much higher?

Will she OK using school district-paid attorneys to try to get CalSTRS to change its mind?

Keep in mind that McClain's pension is already going to be well north of six figures. And CalSTRS is woefully underfunded with about $40 billion less in its portfolio then what it is obligated to pay out. This looks like an ugly, inappropriate, costly power play to me.

So what will Rodriguez and the rest of the board do?

We'll see.

But remember what happened in San Ysidro. This is from the April 27, 2006, U-T:

Judge rejects higher pensions for 2 former school officials

SAN YSIDRO -- The $15,000 raises two San Ysidro school administrators got just weeks before their retirement in 2002 do not qualify them for higher publicly funded pensions, an administrative law judge has ruled.

The judge agreed with retirement system auditors who found that the San Ysidro school board gave the raises to boost the pensions of former assistant superintendents Christine Aranda and Alice De La Torre. That is an illegal practice known as spiking.

Aranda and De La Torre requested a hearing, which was in September, to challenge the audit by the California State Teachers' Retirement System. ...

In 2004, CalSTRS put a stop to the higher retirement payments and put Aranda and De La Torre on installment plans to repay the surplus pension money they had received. Neither they nor the San Ysidro School District face additional sanctions. ...

CalSTRS did not dispute the legality of the raises. It found only that those raises should not be used in calculating retirement benefits. ...

The case began in June 2002. It was then that the board increased the salaries of Aranda and De La Torre from $104,494 to $120,000 a year, retroactive to the previous July. ...

The current San Ysidro board spent $72,000 in legal fees on the case before dropping its opposition to the CalSTRS findings. Aranda and De La Torre then hired their own attorney to represent them in a hearing in September.

If McClain wants to pursue this with CalSTRS, she shoud do it on her own dime.

As for Del Mar school board members, it's time they grew spines.

More information:

California State Teachers' Retirement System

Thursday, March 4, 2010

McClain asks board to make promised changes to contract

Source: Del Mar Times

The Del Mar Union School District Board of Trustees directed Superintendent Sharon McClain to submit new language for a proposed amendment to the retirement benefits included in her contract at its Feb. 24 meeting.

The contract negotiated in September 2008 provides for an annual fixed retirement contribution of $16,000. The superintendent can use that amount to offset her contribution to the California State Teachers' Retirement System or fund a tax-sheltered annuity, similar to a 401(k). But it allows an employee to set aside their own pre-tax dollars into an investment account that reduces his or her taxable gross income by the amount they contribute.

It was McClain's request that her contract language be changed from tax-sheltered annuity to compensation. This would allow her to receive the money as part of her salary.

The board voted unanimously on June 17 to approve the amendment, but McClain said seven months later that the change has yet to be implemented. She said her attorney has sent nine letters since December to the board's attorney asking why the change had not been made and why the board had not signed the amendment document.

"I ask you, I beg you, to be honorable and act on the changes," McClain said. "The board made a commitment to me, voted on it and then refused to act on it."

McClain said the board was "grandstanding" for the public, asking the same questions it has asked several times in closed session.

Trustee Katherine White said the only reason the change has not been implemented is because it did not meet California State Teachers' Retirement System guidelines.

White said McClain must come back to the board with language that it would accept. McClain said she would provide it with another proposed language change at the March 10 board meeting.

"The board will see what language is acceptable by STRS as a way to make the change happen," board President Comischell Rodriguez said.

Parent Melanie Carmosino criticized the board for discussing McClain's contract publicly.

"I feel for you, Sharon, that you have to go through this in a public hearing," Carmosino said.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Special Board Meeting 02-24-10

DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

February 24, 2010
3:00 pm

Del Mar Hills Academy
14085 Mango Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014

Full Agenda

Excerpted from the agenda:

February 24, 2010

To:	Board Members
From:	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.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Public pension plan targets ‘spiking,’ double-dipping

Source: Capitol Weekly

With the state’s finances in a shambles, an issue that is drawing increasing scrutiny is the abuse of public pension systems, including double-dipping and pension "spiking."

A plan by the Assembly’s ranking member on pension and retirement issues would bar boosting a favored worker’s pay solely in order to inflate retirement benefits – an action known as "bumping" or "spiking" -- and place local public pension systems under tighter state control.

It would apply to all public pension systems in the state, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the State Teachers Retirement System and the pension systems in 20 counties that were setup by a 1937 public retirement law. The latter, which have their own boards and administration, include Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, Alameda, Mendocino, San Diego, Ventura and others. The full list of the county retirement systems is available here.

It would limit a worker’s final compensation to the average increase of other employees in the same or related work group, a move intended to limit spiking. To limit double-dipping, it would require retirees to wait at least six months before working for any other public entity. Currently, there are cases in which a public employee will retiree on a Friday and come back to work Monday as a contract employee or retired annuitant while collecting retirement benefits.

The legislation, AB 1987, is authored by Assemblyman Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, and is partly in response to media reports of six-figure pensions for public workers. One pension reform group, at CaliforniaPensionReform.com, lists more than 9,000 retired government employees with pensions of $100,000 or greater. The group includes a former city manager with a half-million-dollar annual pension. At least two ballot initiatives also have been proposed to curb pension benefits.

The legislation by Hernandez, the chair of the Assembly Committee on Public Employment, Retirement and Social Security, also would set up an auditing system to catch violations. In part, it is patterned after a 1993 Senate bill, SB 53 sponsored by CalPERS, that curbed pension spiking. The Hernandez bill takes the rules in the earlier bill and applies them to all public pensions systems, including local systems in cities, one expert said.

In a written statement, Hernandez said "teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers deserve an adequate and secure retirement that is not threatened by a few unscrupulous individuals trying to fatten their own benefits."

Under his bill, retirement boards would block intentionally spiked or manipulated pension payments and require that the employer and employee prove that the increase was justified. The bill would also prevent against accrued vacation, severance or settlement pay from counting towards an individual’s retirement benefits.

More information:

Text of AB 1987

Subscribe to: Comment Feed (RSS)

Del Mar Union School District News

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Regular Board Meeting • April 14, 2010

Monday, April 12, 2010

A Material Breach of Contract in Capistrano

Friday, April 9, 2010

Sutton: Can we withhold judgment on Del Mar?

Thursday, April 8, 2010

CV News Letters to the Editor

Del Mar board usually good for parting "gifts"

Leader fired in spite of protests

Saturday, April 3, 2010

In brief ... / Both dumb and indefensible

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Julian chief selected as interim superintendent for Del Mar school district

Del Mar schools chief out; legal war expected

Superintendent Sharon McClain Fired by Del Mar Union School Board

Monday, March 22, 2010

Capo district violates open-meeting laws for 5th time

Friday, March 19, 2010

Judge dismisses ex-Capo chief's $5.5 million lawsuit

Monday, March 15, 2010

Del Mar school district power play in progress

Thursday, March 4, 2010

McClain asks board to make promised changes to contract

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Special Board Meeting 02-24-10

DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Friday, February 19, 2010

Public pension plan targets ‘spiking,’ double-dipping

Subscribe

About

DMUSD Closed Session Meetings

DMUSD Regular Meetings

From the CV News

From the Voice of San Diego

From the U-T

From the Del Mar Times

Blog Archive

Links

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Monday, April 12, 2010

Friday, April 9, 2010

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Monday, March 22, 2010

Friday, March 19, 2010

Monday, March 15, 2010

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICTNOTICE OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETINGBY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Friday, February 19, 2010

Subscribe

About

Blog Archive

Links

DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES