Town Square

Post a New Topic

Critical clause strangely missing from document package e-mailed to charter school

Original post made on Apr 2, 2010

A cover letter e-mailed from the high school district to Everest charter high school, for unknown reasons, did not include a board-approved clause offering to discuss alternatives to moving Everest's 200 freshmen and sophomores to classrooms on the campus of Woodside High School for the 2010-11 school year.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, April 2, 2010, 10:44 AM

Comments (7)

Like this comment
Posted by Simple Simon
a resident of Oak Knoll School
on Apr 2, 2010 at 11:48 am

Is this not surprising at all that the key clause was omitted from the document? What kind of leadership do we have here -- dirty and conniving . SUHSD, you are beyond words. This is shameful.

Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 2, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The taxpayers and citizens will simply have to revolt before this arrogant Board changes its ways and starts to serve the community rather than serving its own narrow self interests.

Like this comment
Posted by lse
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 2, 2010 at 12:54 pm

I'm sure it was a simple clerical error. It's not like the board could hide or deny the fact that they agreed to the inclusion of the clause - Everest representatives were at the board meeting on the 31st, as were several reporters.

Like this comment
Posted by Simple Simon
a resident of Oak Knoll School
on Apr 2, 2010 at 2:01 pm

resident of Menlo Park, you may be correct, if it is not deception, then it must be ineptitude.

I've been along for the ride since the first Everest proposal before the Board. I've come to question everything I read and hear from District.

All I see the move to Woodside do for Everest is thrust the kids and faculty into turmoil for a year, then dangle their future in front of them.

Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 2, 2010 at 2:44 pm

I don't think it's ineptitude or a clerical error. This was apparently a hotly debated point and the author of the letter knew what he was doing. This is just another example of the Superintendent doing something other than what the Trustees approved.

Trustees: Who's running this show, anyway - you or your staff? One of you with courage should call out the Superintendent (or whoever authored the letter) for not reflecting your decision. This is the kind of thing that gets you in trouble and costs LOTS of money in litigation.

Like this comment
Posted by WhoRUpeople
a resident of another community
on Apr 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm

POGO, while I respect your opinions enough to believe your question to be retorical, I'll answer it because Gemma's puppets won't. Gemma is running that show; no one else, period! And he will continue to run that show after he retires because his puppets put his replacement of choice in office at his direction. The scarey part to me is what is going on within the District that we don't see or hear about.

Like this comment
Posted by David Boyce
Almanac staff writer
on Apr 5, 2010 at 2:32 pm

David Boyce is a registered user.

This is an edited excerpt from a story from this week's Almanac:

(Assistant Superintendent James) Lianides told The Almanac that he sent this (alternative discussion) proposal to Everest via U.S. mail as a cover letter with a package made up of another letter and the offer itself. They were expected to arrive on April 2 or 5.
This package, without the alternatives-discussion language but with other board-proposed edits, was e-mailed to Everest chief negotiator Diane Tavenner on March 31. The "alternatives" language was unavailable in electronic form, Mr. Lianides said.
Sequoia attorney David Levy said in an interview that the first letter was more of a formal document, and that a second letter was "a cleaner way of doing it."
Ms. Tavenner would likely hear about it anyway because Everest Executive Director Jon Deane attended the board meeting, Mr. Lianides and board President Olivia Martinez told The Almanac.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 18 comments | 4,968 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 1,201 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 720 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 552 views