Town Square

Post a New Topic

Editorial: Board has no issues with new superintendent

Original post made on May 17, 2011

The trustees of the Menlo Park City School District have apparently looked Maurice Ghysels in the eye and found everything they want in a superintendent.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 18, 2011, 12:00 AM

Comments (22)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by peter carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 17, 2011 at 4:57 pm

peter carpenter is a registered user.

There is no doubt that the Brown Act requires that each meeting AGENDA shall provide for public comment both before a Closed Session and before an elected body acts on any matter within its jurisdiction.

Here is the guidance on this issue from the California Attorney General:
Public Testimony
"Every agenda for a regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item under the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. With respect to any item which is already on the agenda, or in connection with any item which the body will consider pursuant to the exceptions
contained in section 54954.2(b), the public must be given the opportunity to comment before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item. (§ 54954.3(a)."

The phrase 'every AGENDA shall provide..." is unambiguous. Simply inviting public comment during the meeting does NOT meet this standard.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shameful
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on May 17, 2011 at 5:53 pm

Terry Thygesen, said that while conducting reference checks she had been impressed by the "breadth and depth of support (he) has" within the school community "at all levels."

I guess all levels doesn't include the opinion of Mountain View teachers. Here is their opinion by way of a vote:

"We are concerned with the way the Board of Trustees appears to have handled the breach of professional conduct by the superintendent," said Gloria Valdez, president of the local chapter of the California Teacher's Association, reading from a prepared statement.

She said the statement represented the "overwhelming majority" of teachers and that she had spoken with teachers at each of the district's nine schools.

The union's statement implored trustees to "immediately draft and implement a policy" in regards to the "professional working environment between a supervisor and the persons supervised."

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by peter carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 17, 2011 at 5:58 pm

peter carpenter is a registered user.


From: Peter Carpenter
Date: May 17, 2011 5:46:58 PM PDT
To: MPCSD BOARD BOARD
Subject: Cure and Correct demand regarding your agendas

Dear School Board,

Your meeting agenda for April 27, 2011 violated the Brown Act because it failed to provide opportunities for the public to speak to items that were on that agenda. Your consistent disregard for the Brown Act is an insult to the citizens whom you serve and is a violation of your Oath of Office to support the laws of the State of California.

Any actions taken on items where the public was not advised in advance in the published agenda of their right to comment on that specific item are therefore also null and void.

Here is the California Attorney General's guidance on this matter:


"Public Testimony
Every agenda for a regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item under the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. With respect to any item which is already on the agenda, or in connection with any item which the body will consider pursuant to the exceptions contained in section 54954.2(b), the public must be given the opportunity to comment before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item. (§ 54954.3(a)."

The phrase 'every AGENDA shall provide..." is unambiguous.

I recommend that the School Board follow the practice of other local governments and add a statement at the beginning of each Closed Session and Regular Agenda that states that public comment on each item on the agenda is permitted before the Board votes on that matter. I think you will appreciate that a citizen who is unfamiliar with the Board's practice regarding public comments would not be able to surmise from your agendas that public comment was permitted on each item on your agenda - as is required by the law.

Here is the way in which the Fire Board agenda complies with section 54954.3 (a):

PUBLIC COMMENT #1
Under Public Comment #1, the public may address the Board on any item on the Closed Session Agenda. Each speaker may address the Board once under Public Comment for a limit of three minutes. The filing of speaker cards is not mandatory, but is helpful in creating an accurate record.

PUBLIC COMMENT #2
Under Public Comment #2, the public may address the Board on any subject not listed on the Agenda. Each speaker may address the Board for a limit of three minutes. The filing of speaker cards is not mandatory, but is helpful in creating an accurate record. The Board can not act on items not on the agenda and therefore the Board cannot respond to non-agenda issues brought up under Public Comment other than to provide general information.

REGULAR AGENDA
The public may address the Board on any subject listed on the Regular Agenda. Each speaker may address the Board once for a limit of three minutes. The filing of speaker cards is not mandatory, but is helpful in creating an accurate record. Each speaker will be called upon to speak by the President when the item is heard.

PUBLIC COMMENT #3
If unable to address the Board under Public Comment #1 and 2, the public may address the Board on any subject. Each speaker may address the Board for a limit of three minutes. The filing of speaker cards is not mandatory, but is helpful in creating an accurate record. The Board cannot act on items not on the agenda and therefore the Board cannot respond to non-agenda issues brought up under Public Comment other than to provide general information.


The Board must therefore "Cure and Correct'' these violations within 30 days or it may be subject to legal action.

Respectfully,

Peter F. Carpenter


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on May 17, 2011 at 10:10 pm

It is obvious by the board's action the members hired who they wanted, and they all did it with one eye open and one eye closed. Only time will tell the outcome.

Regardless of Mr. Ghysels' possible attributes, his indiscretion and lack of professionalism should have been enough to create serious doubts for the board members. In some ways they are no better than he is in their judgment abilities. Despite the board's support of him, Mr. Ghysel starts his job with a cloud over his head and a reputation I doubt he will be able to dispel.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 18, 2011 at 7:57 am

Let's not lose sight of the issue.

The school board conducted its deliberations in secret, decided on their candidate and did it without ANY public input.

Yes, they went through the motions of a brief public input AFTER they decided on their new superintendent. It was a disingenuous and dishonest act and it was disrespectful to the public they are supposed to serve and represent.

If this appointment turns out to be flawed (and expensive), they have only themselves to blame.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Teacher's Opinion?
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 18, 2011 at 1:15 pm

Do we REALLY think ANY superintendent, in the entire state of California at this point in time, are going to to receive a unanimous endorsement by "the teachers" aka teacher's union? Give me a break. I would want my superintendent to be feared by teachers, fearful that their crazy tenures may be watered down, their huge potential benefits and pensions decreased, and God forbid be held accountable to do their job. It's a very tough job to be a superintendent these days, one of the toughest jobs out there. I have the utmost respect for a superintendent that is tough and can handle these issues, Mr.Ghysels seems to be one of those types. Furthermore, can we not trust our elected officials to do their jobs? Or, do we have to have Mr. Carpenter rant on and on about the Brown Act again? Obviously, it was SO important to make sure the public had a chance to voice their concerns, there were SO many people that showed up to voice them! Not! Let it go Peter, they made their decision, if they did not do a good job with it, they get voted out of office, that's how the system works. I know you like spending tax payers money (aka your pet Fire District), but this is a case where we shouldn't be spending extra money to defend this decision. Keep the lawyers out of it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm

"it was SO important to make sure the public had a chance to voice their concerns, there were SO many people that showed up to voice them!"

When the School Board illegally leaves the opportunity for public comment before their closed session off the agenda why would anybody show up?????

Guess why they left the public comment opportunity off that agenda.

And it worked.

And they then had an illegal secret ballot which ended up in their appointing a person about whom they had not given the public the opportunity to speak before they made their decision.

Why not just let the School Board do whatever it wants on every issue?

Why even have School Board meetings?

Why bother with a democracy anyway?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shameful
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on May 18, 2011 at 1:46 pm

Teacher's Opinion:

You totally missed the point. The MV union was speaking out against his conflict of interest and nothing else. I guess you think teachers are just plain idiots and superintendents that can't recognize a conflict of interest are a good thing for taxpayers and the voting public. Believe it or not, conflicts or interest (read corruption) have cost this city, state, and country billions if not trillions. It's money out of your pocket and lost opportunities for those not privy to the information or favors with a closed system protected by a conflict of interest. It's pretty simple. Public employees are expected to be held accountable when they avoid conflicts of interest. Get educated. Trying googling the issue if it helps you figure it out. And then take the valuable lesson in civic responsibility offered by Mr. Carpenter.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shameful
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on May 18, 2011 at 1:48 pm

should read, "when they DON'T avoid conflicts of interest."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lacy
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on May 18, 2011 at 4:50 pm

The board obviously did not do "due diligence" when researching Ghysels' past. The truth came out, and they're left looking like fools. I agree that the way they handled the entire affair is in violation of the Brown Act as well. Incompetence all around. This will prove to be a costly mistake. To quote a Mountain View poster's comment I feel is appropriate here:

"I used this article as a talking point for my middle school children regarding "character". I told them that Mr. Ghysels did NOT deserve another job paying nearly 1/4 of 1 million dollars (public money, folks, your tax dollars), with responsibility for thousands of innocent elementary school children, because he has shown he lacks character. He disappointed his family, his constituents, his wife, and the 4m400 kids and thousands of families of MVWhisman public elementary school district by lying about and covering up an affair WHILE MARRIED with a district employee ALSO MARRIED whom he oversaw. He did not admit to this affair until caught. Ms. Mizell was promoted to a higher performing school by her lover. This is a concrete and public display of lack of ethical judgement and an abuse of public responsibility. This guy should be running an adult ed program in the backwaters of Mississippi IF THAT making 30 grand and driving a beat-up Camaro. But hey, the MP board must have known all that, and not cared if their kids get ZEROS on their character exams when they graduate!!! "

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Teacher's Opinion?
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 18, 2011 at 10:40 pm

I think you are missing MY point. This constant battering ram of making sure everything is scrutinized 10 fold, and making sure the slightest little move is "transparent" is making the process extremely slow, sluggish and expensive. We elected School Board Members to do a job, let them do the job. No wonder it is very difficult to find people to run for these positions when you have constant banter about how they didn't let the negative bloggers know about their favorite little rule. It's an absolute time waster, if you don't want them, run yourself or vote them out of office. You are over exaggerating this issue, making too many dramatic statements and continuing to clog an agenda that is already too long because of your constant need to approve everything. Ludicrous. By the way, I love Shameful talking about wasting dollars over conflicts of interest, and in the same blog tells us about public employees are to be held accountable. Is he talking about his teacher's union that make deals behind closed doors, or public city employees that make deals behind closed doors? Talk about "wasting dollars"! Wow. This state is bleeding by the billions over these closed door meetings, primarily with these closed door union deals, and THIS issue to these bloggers isn't even given a mention. Talk about losing focus!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 19, 2011 at 7:40 am

Teacher's Opinion -

Yes, I also want my elected officials to "do the job" and if I don't like their performance, I don't have to vote for them. But part of their job is accepting public input in advance of decisions, conducting their deliberations in public and obeying laws.

These officials have not only taken Brown Act training, they have taken an oath to uphold the law. They know perfectly well that they are not allowed to have informal, unofficial agreements or understandings in advance of a public hearing.

While you may deride it as a "little rule," some of us believe that transparency is essential to good government.

As I've said, one day they may decide to build an apartment building next to your home or chop down a heritage tree in your neighborhood. Perhaps when you are on the receiving end of poor government, you'll think differently.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on May 19, 2011 at 10:55 am

@Teacher's Opinion -- could you enlighten us at what point are elected leaders expected to follow the rules?

Rules, like laws, are set to provide a standard of governance and/or because people at one time abused common decency, civility and common sense. You don't get to pick and choose which rules and laws you obey.

Your comment about getting people to run for these positions. It's no wonder the community has an often negative view of its leaders given some of their conduct. All one has to do is look at some of our local city councils. As POGO has indicated, all elected and senior staff leaders are required to take Brown Act and other compliance training.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Teachers Opinion?
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Guys, do what you must. Continue to waste valuable resources, energy, money and thought, over an issue that was voted on 5-0. That's how things get done in a timely manner, just keep arguing and arguing for more transparency (the definition of course is somewhat debatable) and let's continue to see nothing done on the council level, the school board level etc. Your example of heritage trees and apartment buildings are again taken out of context and exaggerated. What a time waster.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by peter carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 19, 2011 at 6:00 pm

peter carpenter is a registered user.

"over an issue that was voted on 5-0. That's how things get done in a timely manner,"

In secret and without public input - that is NOT how things should be done.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 19, 2011 at 6:56 pm

Teachers Opinion:

I suspect you will think this a "non-issue" until your particular ox is being gored in an illegal manner. Then I fully expext you to appear in this forum screaming your head off about how you were "wronged." The problem is that there are those that will take your attitude and say "screw you" it was a 5-0 vote and that's how things get done.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 19, 2011 at 8:50 pm

The most efficient form of government is a dictatorship.

It's easier to run the hotel without those pesky guests messing everything up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Let the Sun Shine
a resident of Atherton: other
on May 22, 2011 at 3:02 pm

Teacher's Opinion:

Get educated. The board acted in violation of the law. See the following link from the Los Angeles Times:

Web Link

Are there any red flags I can look out for?

The most ba­sic re­quire­ment is that the agency re­ports its closed ses­sions cor­rectly and cites the cor­rect gov­ern­ment code, the at­tor­neys said. "If you see a body go­ing in­to a closed ses­sion and there's no in­dic­a­tion as to why — that's an im­me­di­ate prob­lem," Jen­kins said. Moreover, mem­bers of the pub­lic must be giv­en an op­por­tun­ity to speak be­fore the closed ses­sion be­gins, New­ton said.

An­oth­er way for cit­izens to mon­it­or closed ses­sion meet­ings is to pay at­ten­tion to what a coun­cil re­ports after each ses­sion, New­ton said. "If there are a lot of closed ses­sions without any ac­tion re­por­ted out, that would be a red flag," he said.

Both at­tor­neys sug­ges­ted that cit­izens keep an eye out for per­son­nel eval­u­ations con­duc­ted in closed ses­sions. Jen­kins said fre­quent or on­go­ing eval­u­ation of a top staff mem­ber, such as a city man­ager, would be un­usu­al. New­ton said that any time a body moves to make an ap­point­ment or to hire a new em­ploy­ee, there must be a pub­lic dis­cus­sion of that per­son's com­pens­a­tion. "There has to be an open and pub­lic dis­cus­sion about com­pens­a­tion," he said.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 22, 2011 at 7:10 pm

Great post and excellent link from Let the Sun Shine.

As Mr. Carpenter has previously noted, just because a body CAN go into closed session, doesn't mean the SHOULD. There are many issues that are discussed in private that could just as easily be done in public.

As the previous post noted, let the sun shine. Transparent government is good government.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on May 31, 2011 at 9:55 pm

Interesting twist in events -- the Milpitas school board reprimanded its superintendent for having an affair with a principal. Given the superintendent was set to retire in June the board opted not to incur legal expenses and terminate him.

I'll bet he won't be able to get a job unless Menlo Park has one for him.....let's ask our school board.

Here's the link to the article -- Web Link.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Let the Sun Shine
a resident of Atherton: other
on Jun 2, 2011 at 1:06 pm

You know, something just doesn't square with this guy. The board must have been under some sort of pressure from some really twisted power and influence circles to have fallen for this guy.

For example, he moonlights as a consultant with a firm called Brandon Partners.

Web Link

His bio states this:

"In faster-paced, more demand-ing times with a bright spotlight on ethical behavior, Maurice teaches corporate and government leaders how to go beyond ideas to make a personal and organizational impact.

Maurice also worked as Chief Learning Officer with Groundswell, Inc. where he delivered training and executive coaching in leadership, relationship management"

So his specialty is on making a personal and organizational impact when there is a spotlight on ethical behavior? Relationship management? Where do you begin with that one given his display of ethics and relationship management when running Mountain View?

His bio also states he is the author of numerous articles published in various journals.

I checked through all the on-line catalogs available at Stanford, and those numerous articles published in various journals don't exist other that a few newsletter type essays, but definitely no refereed or serious scholarship. It's all flash-in-the-pan hype.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 2, 2011 at 2:05 pm

This is exactly what happens when citizens let their elected officials operate in secrecy - secret ballots, no public comment. We get what we deserve.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Grab a Bowl of Heaven soon in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,912 views

Don't fund the rape culture at my alma mater
By Jessica T | 36 comments | 2,549 views

Quick Check List for UC Applications
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,989 views

Palo Alto and Bay Area Election Facts and Thoughts on the Implications
By Steve Levy | 18 comments | 1,518 views

“I live near Sunset”
By Stuart Soffer | 5 comments | 749 views