Earlier reports quoted Doug Smith saying they wanted BCS to sign a confidentiality agreement. My understanding is that BCS didn't think that the agreement was necessary. How can you have an open meeting with a confidentiality agreement? That doesn't make sense. LASD seems to be twisting the truth here. No?

Hi Confused, 
Well no wonder we are all confused when what can be said is limited by the ongoing litigation. However, my understanding of this is that BOTH sides wanted some kind of confidentiality agreement so that they could avoid further litigation for just "brainstorming" in a joint meeting. However, BCS took it a step further and does not want the very fact that a meeting occurred to be made public. That seems to lack good faith on their part. What harm could come from it being on record that a meeting occurred to attempt to discuss the issues outside of a courtroom??? I'm confused too.

Recall the statement by Jeff B. when the talks were announced: he all but said that these talks are futile in the context of litigation.  
 
The BCS side has not only threatened our District with this lawsuit but has promised many future lawsuits as well.  
 
So BOTH sides are in a straight-jacket. The District does not want anything on the record that BCS may later use to bolster their current or future lawsuits, and BCS does not want to say anything publicly that might diminish their chances in court in their future cases.  
 
So here's the deal: 
 
1. BCS is going to sue and sue and sue and sue, forever. That's what they do. 
 
2. As parents our only chance to stop this mess is to stop BCS. We need to let prospective parents know what this school is all about. We need to reduce their applications and enrollment numbers to zero. 
 
Please read more at: 
 
http://bullisCharterScam.org/