|
 Smith Bullis Charter School and Los Altos School District attorneys appeared in court again last week, with the charter school legal team urging the judge to dismiss the district’s cross-complaint. The charter school argues that the district’s 2012-2013 facilities offer failed to meet the threshold of “reasonably equivalent,” as mandated by Proposition 39, approved by California voters in 2000.
The district filed a cross-complaint requesting the court to rule on whether it is required to provide Bullis Charter School with any facilities – or fewer of them – based on the charter school’s practices, which they claim are not in line with the intent of Proposition 39. In arguments heard last week, charter school lawyer Arturo Gonzales claimed that the court should not have jurisdiction in the cross-complaint because the school district did not “exhaust administrative remedies.” The charter school contends that district officials should pursue their objections with the cross-complaint through the school’s chartering agency, the Santa Clara County Board of Education. School district officials counter that they are not required to present a case involving a facilities dispute to the county board. “It’s a facilities issue, not a request to change their practices,” wrote district board President Doug Smith in an email to the Town Crier. “Bullis Charter School doesn’t file their first facilities complaint with the county. They go to the courts because the county has no jurisdiction over a facilities dispute. Same is true for us.” In a tentative ruling published March 4, Judge Carol Overton, the Santa Clara County Superior Court judge recently assigned to the case, denied the charter school’s motions and the school district’s request for monetary sanctions regarding the motions. “(The cross-motion) calls on the court to interpret the law as it relates to the Los Altos School District, not to determine whether Bullis has violated its charter,” said Overton in her tentative ruling. Overton does not have a deadline set for the final ruling.
4 Comments
1Comment
at Thursday, 14 March 2013 20:17
Mr. Smith has once again made a misleading statement to the press.
The District's counter-suit specifically asks the court for a "judicial declaration that BCS's practices and related conduct violate or have violated the law, and thus LASD is not required to furnish BCS with any facilities under Proposition 39...until BCS has taken steps that permanently eradicate any impact from prior inequitable or unlawful acts...", among others.
It certainly sounds like a "request to change their practices." And it certainly sounds like they are asking the court's permission to close BCS by way of depriving them of their rightful public facilities.
This tax payer for one, is very disappointed at such display of dishonesty by an elected board member.
2"BCS Lies, Part XXXVI"
at Friday, 15 March 2013 23:12
Once again we hear bald-faced lies from a BCS supporter.
First, like most BCS supporters here, they attempt to camouflage themselves as "just a taxpayer" or some such. Using a pseudonym is just fine with me of course, but these people are not proud of WHO they are. I am an LASD parent and I'm proud of that. Why so many BCS parents not proud of their school? Makes you wonder.
Next, neither Doug Smith, nor Jerry Brown nor Barack Obama can shut down BCS. BCS is a private corporation controlled, apparently, by a single family. They have by last accounting over $7 million in the bank, and the controlling family gave Caltech $600 million just for fun.
This lawsuit could, conceivably, cause the owners of BCS to incur a bit more costs--but there is no chance they will be shut down by anybody except for the BCS owners themselves. Maybe when their own kids graduate in a few more years?
3"Is this about facilities"
at Tuesday, 19 March 2013 11:38
That we're still here, today, talking about facilities is just unbelievable. It is the height of incompetence that LASD boards past and present have been "trying" to find a solution to the mess they made since 2005 and they STILL haven't found one. Instead they're resorting to gimmicks like this cross complaint, and then their plan to spend 10s of millions of taxpayer dollars in Sunnyvale for non-solutions is just plain irresponsible. Find a real solution Mr. Smith. Stop stalling and making excuses and talk to the BCS board and find a real solution.
4Comment
at Thursday, 21 March 2013 13:52
I agree this has gone on far too long. Now we Mr. Smith sending the problem to other side of the district. Could it be that Mr. Smith is for sharing as long as it isn't at his own kids junior high? I hope everyone can see that certain members of the LASD Board are using distraction and delay to try and place the blame elsewhere. Now they are trying to cause a HUGE problem at Blach. Stop getting mad at BCS, they would rather stay together at Egan. Start treating the kids with respect. Ms. Logan is just as bad. Watch the video of the district meeting and see if you don't agree. We have two or three members who are not professional and are making the situation in our wonderful community that much worse. BCS is an asset. LASD Board members, protecting their own special interest are the problem. It is there job to provide, safe and equal facilities to all public school children. They are opening themselves up to lawsuits from parents.
Post Comment
We reserve the right to use comments submitted on our site in whole or in part. We will not publish comments that contain inappropriate content, advertising or website links to inappropriate content.
|
