XYZ co-founder sentenced for misusing public funds

Funny, how just a few substitutions of XYZ, ABC, and DEF makes this article very relevant, and eerily familiar, especially the part highlighted at the bottom.  I wonder if they pondered giving out a $250k loan?!?

The founders of a XYZ charter school were sentenced Friday for the misappropriation of more than $200,000 in public funds in a case that could affect charter schools statewide.

ABC, the co-founder of XYZ, faces 4 years and 8 months in state prison.

His wife, DEF, who had a lesser role in managing school finances, must serve 45 days in County Jail. She also will serve five years' probation and perform 320 hours of community service.

Charter advocates followed the case closely. They said it could expose other operators to prosecution and could undermine the flexibility of California campuses that now enroll more than 410,000 students.

The California Charter Schools Assn. filed a brief with the court seeking a new trial, contending that "there was no crime here."

For charter critics, however, the result is a long-overdue rebuke of what they say is an anything-goes mentality that sometimes abuses the public trust and drains resources from students.

Charters are independently managed, publicly funded and exempt from some rules that apply to traditional schools.

"The operators of charter schools cannot use public funds for their own personal use or else they will be prosecuted," said Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Dana Aratani.

Defense attorneys argued that charter schools -- California has about 1,000 -- should be treated as nonprofits, which have flexibility in spending money, provided they are furthering the mission of the organization. The couple insisted that much of their questioned spending was for such activities as "teacher appreciation," either group events or individual gestures, to build morale.

But there also were such issues as whether the couple structured their lease to siphon money from the school -- which ABC, 41, and DEF, 36, denied.

Improper jury instructions or other issues led to the dismissal of seven counts, which especially helped DEF, who faced one remaining charge. Some of the dismissed counts could be retried or prosecutors could seek to get them reinstated on appeal. 

ABC will appeal his sentence, said his attorney, Jeffrey H. Rutherford.

"We maintain that this prosecution is driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of charter schools and how they operate," Rutherford said.

The state asserts that the couple should pay more than $200,000 in restitution. A hearing on that issue is set for Nov. 15. 

ABC and DEF started XYZ, a charter school of 1,100 students that operates on three campuses, in 2004 and remained in charge until their arrests in 2010. The school had strong test scores, financial stability and a waiting list of applicants.

Witnesses at the sentencing hearing lauded the two for their talent and dedication as educators.

Nothing to see here...

When I'm looking for inspiration from a movie quote, this gem from Leslie Nielson never lets me down. I remember laughing at the ridiculousness of this scene when I was young, but I had no idea how amazing prescient and relevant I would find this in my life.

As a follow-up to my last post, here is the amicus brief filed by the charter school association:
http://laschoolreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/13-09-30-CCSA-Amicus-brief-Final.pdf
Some interesting tidbits from it:
- The Nonprofit Corporations Operating Charter Schools Are Deemed to be Private 

 Entities under the law of California

- Charter schools argue that they deserve the same public funds as public schools

So, for those of you keeping score, they are "public" schools for 'governmental fundraising purposes', "private" schools for 'accessibility of information and accountability to the public' purposes.  Seems like they should just pick a "side".  

And lastly, here is an assessment of the impact of this verdict:

http://media.scpr.org/audio/features/20131004_features2239.mp3

Another LASD board meeting, and more BCS parents complaining about being treated unfairly...

So, I had the opportunity to attend another LASD board meeting tonight, and boy did this one have a lot of parent input.  On the LASD side, there was a bit of a division of parents/teachers regarding the value (and relative priority of full-day kinder), but to be honest, if that were the extent of our conversations/discussions, I would be VERY HAPPY.  These are real community issues where parents may not necessarily agree, but we can come together peacefully and discuss options which will hopefully result in the greater good.  I LOVE the fact that we have a district with so many educated, informed, and involved parents, and would love to continue working with them on any topics like this.

Unfortunately, the rest of the meeting was again discouraging because of the redundant (and seemingly intractable - largely because BCS' board won't work with LASD) issue of BCS' facilities.  I heard parent after parent complain that their BCS students were playing on pavement at Blach, and not the nearby grass field.  Some parents said that their 1st graders have been to BCI, while others said that their 3rd graders have not (given the fact that they agreement that BCS signed was that it would be 6-8 grade, it seems like not all of the parents "got the memo", or their stories straight).

After the seemingly common theme of BCS parents complaining that they are being treated unfairly, the LASD board had a chance to speak, and brought up a few interesting points:

• From Mark - Let's reach a high level agreement for the future, rather than continuing to complain about 20 more minutes of recess time on the grass at Blach for younger students
• From Pablo/Mark/Steve - we need a board (i.e. ANYONE FROM BCS who will actually work with us) - it takes two to tango
• As reported from the principal at Blach, BCS has not been following the agreed upon schedule.  In an ideal world, this would not be a rigid/fixed thing, and could be collaboratively worked upon by Sandra and Wanny, but given BCS lack of collaboration/discussion/helpfulness/etc this may not be possible
• BCS is not responding to the short term team (Steve and Mark) regarding the next meeting, or even responding to their requests for information or proposals.  
• In the short term meeting, LASD presented a draft proposal, and asked for help with CEQA questions and the bond - crickets...
• In the long term meeting, LASD put together a proposal (AT THE REQUEST OF THE MEDIATOR), and BCS had neither responded, nor agreed to meet again - more crickets...
• And, last but not least, after everything that has been discussed, and all of the hours being spent on both sides, the extent of the communication emanating from BCS was the following letter:

Not only does this not address the outstanding, blocking issues, but it doesn't agree to any timelines to resume discussions.  Basically, it's a non-sequitur...  I have no idea where things are going now, but I am MUCH LESS optimistic about a mutually beneficial due to the BCS board's apparent unwillingness to continue to engage/discuss.  They just seem to want to take their toys and go home...

The judge, the jury, and the executioner?

I'm a fan of what Roger Goodell has been able to accomplish with the NFL over the years, but many have complained that he is an example of the old saying "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" which stands for a lack of the separation/balance of power that underlies the basic tenets of our civic philosophy. 

I was reminded of this saying this past weekend when I attended the SCCBOE Charter School "Workshop" on Saturday morning. Let me first say - "Thank You Very Much" to the members of the board for giving up their Saturday morning with their families in order to spend it with the community.  Additionally, the openness of the meeting, interchanging public comments and board comments was a welcome change. Their dedication should certainly be commended, but...

How do you have a workshop with no facilitator, no public note taking, no clear follow-up action plan?  Unfortunately, I needed to leave before the end because large gatherings are still difficult for me, so perhaps everything "came together" after I left, but given the general meandering nature of the meeting, I would be surprised. 

A couple of things did jump out at me from the meeting:

1. Mr Di Salvo asked Ms Cordova, who I understand to me the chief strategy officer for the Santa Clara office of education, ie the very person who had the most interest and to gain in the meeting being successful, as well as responsibility for charter school oversight, a seemingly simple question - "which of our districts has the most charters?"  After a few seconds of silence, she said that she didn't know. WHAT?!?  The whole point of this meeting was to discuss charters. She is responsible for charters. And she can't answer this basic question?!?  Who's driving this ship into the iceberg?

2. There was quite a bit of discussion about the responsibilities of the board with helping "charters" be successful. They actually said that they coach and mentor prospective charters to "get through" the approval process?!?  They actually spent almost a year with one of them to accomplish this. 

Now, some may argue that I am presenting biased opinions in my writings, but I challenge anyone to listen to this meeting, or read these two items above, and come away NOT thinking that something is rotten in Denmark...

A day of mixed emotions..

I had the opportunity to attend the BCS board meeting tonight, and I would say that the information that superseded everything was the announced departure from the board of Joe Hurd. Although I'm happy for his family and him, I am disappointed in the loss of a seemingly reasonable and nice person from the BCS board.  Good luck to Joe in his next endeavor.

Myth Debunking, Part 1

So, I often hear that the BCS "tuition ask" is forced upon them to make up for the shortfall in govt funding that they receive relative to LASD.  In case you might think that this is a " Facebook rumor " or something, you can scroll to the bottom of http://www.bullischarterschool.com//site/Default.aspx?PageID=13, and you will see BCS' own marketing of the situation:

• Why does The Foundation ask for donations?

   LASD Trustees choose not to share all public funds received with BCS, so LASD students at BCS receive dramatically less public funding ($4,200 less) than LASD students enrolled in its traditional schools. BCS nevertheless offers a full range of enrichment programs at nearly the same cost per student as LASD traditional schools.

  Or, you can check their funding request levels for their foundation:

  
  

  

  
  

  So, I thought to myself, "I wonder why LASD is choosing to not share this money", and I found the real numbers from the LASD 2013 -2014 budget:

  Total excess property tax/student - $1,155 (what LASD gets to keep because they generate more than the revenue limit, aka "basic aid" dollars)

  Total parcel tax/student - $2,197

  Total state/lottery/federal per student - $791

  Total LAEF/student - $584 

  Total PTA/rental income/interest/other misc per student - $448

  
  

   Okay, so  truth be told, these numbers do actually add up to 5k, but let's take a look at them a little bit more closely (from the bottom). 

  - the last $448 is PTA, of which there is one per LASD school, and BCS has their own, so we can subtract this.

  - LAEF $584 is the Los Altos Education Foundation, and I believe that BCS has their own education foundation too, which is presumably not being commingled for LASD students.

  So now, we're down to less than a 4k difference

  - state/lottery/fed $791 - Charter schools gets a smaller amount of the state/lottery/federal per student than regular schools, typically about 1/2 as much as regular districts. These funds can also be "categorical funds" and may have specific purposes.

  Also the charter school law only provides that they are entitled to the revenue limit, not the extra "basic aid" excess property taxes.

  - $1155 of excess property taxes per student (me thinks that an LASD charter, or maybe even a friendly one, might receive this). Probably not a "frienemy". 

  - parcel taxes of $2,197 per student. I agree that for everyone who lives in los altos, this should qualify for every public school student, but this is where things get a little dicey. BCS is chartered by the county, not LASD, and these parcel taxes were on behalf of LASD. For LASD to indescrimanently share these with another entity (a competitor, if you ask BCS) seems that it would be misleading to the tax payer. Here are the exact measures (courtesy of the LASD website):

  
  

  Original 1989 Ballot Measure
  
  The text of the original (1989) ballot measure is as follows – "Shall the Los Altos School District be authorized to implement a special tax and increase its Gann Appropriations Limit by the amount of revenue generated by that special tax?

  The rate for the first four years of the special tax shall be $168 per parcel per year, beginning July 1, 1989. In accordance with State law, the voters shall have the opportunity to approve the continuation of the increase in the Gann Appropriations Limit at least every four years. Such approval is required for the District to use the revenues generated by the tax. No later than two weeks after a Gann election, the Board shall reset the parcel tax rate, but may not set a rate higher than $168 per parcel per year.

  The purpose of the special tax is to:

  a) Repair buildings deteriorating because the District has lacked funds for regular preventive maintenance. These repairs include replacement of malfunctioning heating systems, replacement of roofs, painting and repaving;

  b) Avoid further cuts in the basic educational program;

  c) Reinstate some program cuts made in prior years, including restoration of library services, previous levels of supervision of students on school campuses, reinstatement of six classroom teaching positions, and basic textbook budgets.

  A parcel is defined as any parcel of land as shown on the then current assessment roll prepared by the Santa Clara County Assessor. The special tax shall be collected and enforced in the same manner prescribed by law for the collection of other taxes on the assessment role. All property that is exempt from the property tax will be exempt from this special tax.

  Senior Exemption: An exemption from the special tax shall be granted annually by the school district on any parcel owned by one or more persons 65 years of age or over who occupy said parcel as a principal residence, upon annual application for exemption.

  
  1997 Ballot Measure
  
  The text of the 1997 ballot measure is as follows – "Shall the Los Altos School District be authorized to increase their existing special tax and the Gann Appropriations Limit by the amount of revenue generated by that special tax?

  A rate of $96 per parcel shall be added to the existing rate of $168 per parcel beginning July 1, 1997. In accordance with State law, the voters shall have the opportunity to approve the continuation of the increase in the Gann Appropriations Limit at least every four years. No later than two weeks after a Gann Appropriations Limit election, the District Governing Board shall reset the parcel tax rate, but may not set a rate higher than $264 per parcel per year.

  The addition to the special tax is necessary to maintain programs at the same level as originally approved by voters eight years ago. The purpose of the special tax is to:

  • Provide basic educational program without cuts
  • Support class size reduction program
  • Preserve restored programs such as basic textbook budgets and libraries
  • Repair and maintain aging buildings

  A parcel is defined as any parcel of land as shown on the current assessment roll prepared by the Santa Clara County Assessor. The special tax shall be collected and enforced in the same manner prescribed by law for the collection of other taxes on the assessment role. All property that is exempt from the property tax will be exempt from this special tax.

  Senior Exemption: An exemption from the special tax shall be granted annually by the school district on any parcel owned by one or more persons 65 years of age or over who occupy said parcel as a principal residence, upon annual application for exemption."

  
  2002 Ballot Measure
  
  The text of the 2002 ballot measure is as follows - "To hire, train, retain teachers, provide competitive teacher salaries, fund school libraries, purchase textbooks, preserve science classes/modern labs, maintain neighborhood schools and small class size, protect junior high electives like music, foreign language, computer classes, and balance the educational program, shall Los Altos School District increase its existing parcel tax and annual appropriations limit by $333/parcel beginning July 1, 2003, with independent citizens' oversight of expenditures and exemptions for parcels owned/occupied by persons 65 years/older?

  In accordance with the State law, the voters shall have the opportunity to authorize district expenditures of revenue generated by this special tax every four years.

  A parcel is defined as any parcel of land as shown on the current assessment roll prepared by the Santa Clara County Assessor. The special tax shall be collected and enforced in the same manner prescribed by law for the collection of other taxes on the assessment roll. All property that is exempt from the property tax will be exempt from this special tax.

  An exemption from the special tax shall continue to be granted annually by the school district on any parcel owned by one or more persons 65 years of age or over who occupy said parcel as a principal residence, upon annual application for exemption."

  
  2006 Ballot Measure
  
  The text of the 2006 ballot measure is as follows - "Without changing the existing amount of the Los Altos School District's current parcel tax, and to allow the District to spend the money raised to fulfill the voter-approved purposes, including to hire and retain teachers, maintain small class sizes and protect junior high electives, shall the District's annual appropriations limit be extended for a period of four years beginning July 1, 2007, in the amount of the funds raised by this tax?"

  
  

  2nd Parcel Tax (2011)

  2011 Ballot Measure

  Voters approved a second parcel tax in 2011 that has a 6 year lifespan.  This tax is set at $193 per parcel and expires June 30, 2017.

  
  

  So, my biggest takeaway from doing this exercise is that "it's complicated".  For example, one could ask: "If LAEF/PTA donations and parcel taxes are used to fund additional facilities and/or  teacher/student ratio reductions AND then BCS receives their percentage allotment, isn't BCS, in fact, benefitting from these funding sources?!?"  

  I didn't find any obvious smoking guns to defend the argument that LASD is withholding money from BCS that is rightfully theirs.  I did find some grey areas of where LASD could be more generous, but the big question in my mind is "what would the taxpayer think", since LASD has to listen to ALL taxpayers, not just their parents. 

  I think that we all know the answer to this...

  
  

  
  

Not too much to report from the LASD Board meeting tonight

A hybrid (meaning that there should be options for people who don't want full-day) full-day kinder program was approved by the board.  This was a great example of how LASD listens to its constituents.  They had a plan to proceed last meeting, and decided to solicit more data and feedback before deciding how to proceed.

Regarding BCS, not too much was discussed (which was nice).  Basically, the long term facilities discussion will again resume on 10/30 in Los Altos Hills Town Hall - be there, or be square.  This is a good step that at least the two sides are once again talking.  In addition to the resumption of the Long Term Facilities discussion, the 2014/2015 facilities process is supposed to commence in a week, although Mark Goines brought up the good point of "how can we discuss the '14/'15 plan in good faith when BCS is not responding to our requests for data, and is ignoring aspects of the FUA (i.e. age restrictions on Blach) that they signed?"

Although this meeting was not earth-shattering, at least the two sides are back at the table - for at least one more discussion...

YAL - Yet Another Lawsuit (YAL can become our newest, hottest, three letter acronym)

So, I was able to attend the LASD/BCS mediated session last night in Los Altos Hills.  Firstly, let me say thank you very much to each of the participants: Tammy (from LASD) and Peter and Francis (from BCS), and especially Mayor Waldeck from Los Altos Hills.  Unfortunately, Doug (from LASD) was not able to attend due to a work emergency, but I really appreciated the diligence and openness displayed by all participants, as well as the Mayor's deft maneuvering when things became "touchy".

All of that being said, unfortunately, the meeting was cast under the shadow of yet another lawsuit that brought about by BCS, and of which LASD was notified, right before the meeting.  This lawsuit was a bit of the elephant in the room, because the tenor of the conversation revolved around how the two sides could work together more harmoniously and for the benefit of all of the kids, all the while, the participants were well aware of another brewing Lawsuit

Anyway, let's focus on the positives - open dialogue, a plan to get together again next week, and a plan for BCS to come to the table with an explanation of their ask (vs just tearing apart LASD's proposals).  Hopefully, we'll get to hear this proposal next week.  Baby steps...

Let the lies and distortions begin... Now

BCS' latest facilities request (for this upcoming school year) has been submitted, and can be accessed here:

http://www.lasdschools.org/files/user/1/file/2014-15%20Prop_%2039%20Facilities%20Request.pdf

One of they're favorite BCS-isms (or BS, for short) is "we're not really trying to 'take a school from other kids', but we are 'forced to request one' by 'the process'". I'm sure that you've all heard that one. Guess what, it's Covington again, and here is their exact request:

Facility Location Preference 

Title 5 CCR Section 11969.9 (c)(1)(E) requires the facilities request to provide information regarding the district school site and/or geographic area where BCS wishes to be located, and Education Code Section 47614(b) requires the District to “make reasonable efforts” to  accommodate the charter school’s location preferences. BCS’s preference is to be relocated to the Covington site, with exclusive use of approximately 14 acres of said site during the entire BCS school day, as BCS will be the largest school in the district. BCS is entitled, under Prop39, its implementing regulations and the  standards set forth by the Court of Appeal, which is stare decisis, to a campus totaling over 15.07 acres (the precise amount depends on the projected District enrollment for next year) with sufficient room to accommodate the required classrooms, specialized teaching space, and non teaching space, for which Covington is best suited"

So, the quote from Title 5 CCR Section 11969.9(c)(1)(E) says " and/or ", and somehow BCS' cadre of lawyers, marketeers, etc can't figure out the "or" means that they do NOT need to request a specific school?!?  Interesting. 

Looks like they may need to find some higher priced help...

Another one bites the dust...

Closely following the announcement of Joe Hurd's departure from the BCS Board, Ken Moore announced in their board meeting today that he would be stepping down this year.  Echoing much of the same sentiment that I did with Joe's announcement, I am saddened to see someone who appears pensive and thoughtful to be leaving the board.  As Jack could portray better than anyone else, I fear that we're heading in the wrong direction...