The ongoing LASD vs BCS litigation…
After waiting almost two weeks without a peep from Judge Lucas, much the less a “ruling to compel relief” by Judge Lucas on the case initiated in 2009 (BCS said its 2009 facilities were not reasonably equivalent), BCS decided to give LASD just what it had argued for during the hearing before Judge Lucas – a new lawsuit. The new BCS action was filed on Sept. 12 and alleges that LASD reneged on key points in its Final Offer of Facilities (FOF) 2012-13. Namely that LASD offered only half the indoor recreation space that was promised in the FOF and no space for childcare. See a post with fotos of the switcheroo here.
On Sept. 12 BCS decided to give LASD just what it had argued for before Judge Lucas Aug. 30 – a new lawsuit
“The fast summary of the [sic BCS ] brief is as follows:
- They recount the history of the relationship, albiet with substantial embelishment
- They add complaints about the MPR/ City Gym
- They complain about the furnishings at Blach (without acknowledging their failure to respond to requests from LASD)
- They then ask the judge to grant them a contiguous site, though they don’t specify which site.”
On Sept. 20 BCS Officially Loses Battle to Compel Relief regarding the Prop 39 2009 Facilities
Finally on Sept. 20 Judge Lucas did deny the motion to compel with Writ regarding the 2009 facility offer’s illegality. BCS did lose this round. The LASD marketroids will say the Appeals court win by BCS was an aberation, and now legal rulings will go in LASD’s favor.
The LASD marketroids will say the Appeals court win by BCS was an aberation, and now legal rulings will go in LASD’s favor.
The next hearing before Judge Lucas is scheduled for Oct. 30. BCS is asking her to award $1.3M in legal fees. LASD is asking her to compel “discovery” allowing LASD to sift through BCS finances allegedly to see if $1.3M is the right number. But also LASD seeks to prove that BCS is a “semi-private” school.
LALAHPOLITICO: I’m no lawyer, but under the current laws, BCS is a public school, so this line of argument, if it were allowed should not matter in Judge Lucas’ COURT OF LAW. However, this line of argument certainly does matter in the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINON — aka, among the amateur and now professional propagandists (oops, I meant marketers) in the LASD coterie. PUBLIC OPINION does not care so much about facts and law, as about feelings, as about finding victims and villians. And the propagandists certainly know how to dish those up.
Also on Oct. 30, Judge Lucas is scheduled to hear BCS’s new Prop 39 lawsuit about the shortcomings of LASD’s delivery on the current 2012-13 FOF. As parts of that hearing, LASD has filed a cross complaint that seeks to argue that LASD does not really owe BCS any Prop 39 facilities at all because “BCS is semi-private.”
LASD has filed a cross complaint that seeks to argue that LASD does not really owe BCS any Prop 39 facilities at all because “BCS is semi-private.”
LALAHPOLITICO: This is where the real entertainment begins. LASD lawyers are proposing that Judge Lucas order a “strip search” of every shread of paper and every hard drive on and off the BCS premises. More fun than a TSA pat down at the airport! Lalahpolitico can’t wait! Huttlinger.com associates – a non profit apparently formed to pay for PR and marketing of LASD stories — will be very busy writing exposes. Makes me glad I live in Los Altos, to have all this Truth, Beauty and Justice prevailing. Get a quick overview of the kinds of intrusion LASD lawyers are seeking on this page.
LASD propaganda creates distrust of the BCS lottery process, even though BCS student diversity is about the same as in other LASD and neighboring schools. See Diversity Page.
The LASD Lawyers’ Discovery List Includes…
The LASD lawyers’ wishlist includes
1. for each BCS parent household, their occupations, income, and net worth to check calculations of “averages”
2. for each student their zip code – but the County has already verified ~97% of BCS students are within the LASD boundaries…
3. donors and amounts of donation to BCS’s three fund-raising associations…
4. every shread of marketing material, private admissions correspondence, recruitment event lists and schedules…
5. every possbile detail about the lottery process since the dawn of time.
The proposed discovery is very onerous, violates student and parent privacy, and if it is allowed, amounts to harrassment
LALAHPOLITICO: See the web page with the onerous discovery requests here. Among lawyers doing litigation, a fair amount of sword rattling occurs. This is perfectly normal and to be expected. We don’t pay them to just play nice. But If BCS actually had to waste staff time to comply with this discovery nonsense, that would be extreme harassment and an impairment of its ability to deliver on its educational mission. Oh wait, I got it. That’s the whole point –to impair BCS. (Original July Discovery Requests File1, File 2_)
City-School Tension Easing
Meanwhile tensions between LASD and the City of Los Altos City council seem to have eased a bit. All five of the “new blood” council candidates say they are ready to cooperate with the LASD Citizens Advisory Task Force for facilities solutions, WITHOUT a LASD letter affirming not to use eminent domain to obtain city property. Incumbent Megan Satterlee seems to have softened her position too.
LASD Task Force Eligibility
Last month, the current council were very unhappy that LASD was “dictating” that nominated members of the Task Force could NOT be current or even former city council members. However, Val Carpenter has come around to seeing the wisdom of excluding city council members. However, she does wish the Task Force would be formed under the auspices of a broader entity than LASD. Something County? Something non-profit?
So what’s the new Task Force going to do that’s different from what the 2011 Study the sub-Committee for Facilities did?
Embrace and Extend the 2011 CACF Study?
So what’s the new Task Force going to do that’s different from what the 2009 Study the Citizens’ Advisory sub-Committee for Facilities did? Chaired by LASD board candidate 2012, Pablo Luther, the 20011 study delineated a comprehensive set of facilities solutions — “closing” schools, grade reconfiguation, sharing, etc. — and outlined their costs and benefits, winners and losers, impacts and disruptions. Other members were Curtis Cole, Kim Graham, Francis La Poll (of BCS), and Randy Kenyon (LASD Staff). The LASD board was supposed to decide which type of solution was preferred. Then the committee was supposed to move on to stage 2 and work out the details of implementing the chosen solution. Hearsay has it that Pablo Luther was disappointed by the lack of action by the board.
Chaired by LASD board candidate Pablo Luther, the 20011 study delineated a comprehensive set of facilities solutions — “closing” schools, grade reconfiguation, sharing, etc. — and outlined their costs and benefits, winners and losers, impacts and disruptions.
CACF_Presentation_10-24-11 The very recent study delineating a range of solutions for co-locating BCS is at that link.
Links (August 10, 2012) to additional and related documents in this matter:
Prop 39 Overview: http://www.bullischarterschool.com/prop39
Press Releases: http://www.bullischarterschool.com/pressreleases
Legal Filings: http://www.bullischarterschool.com/superiorcourtfilings