On Friday, the Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees held a special board meeting to finalize dates to hear a Rocketship Antioch Elementary Charter petition.
The special meeting was called to establish the dates after Trustee Fernando Navarro tried to add the item to the Wednesday meeting, however, he was declined that opportunity because it did not meet an “urgency item”. Board President Diane Gibson-Gray and staff informed Mr. Navarro at the time of the Brown Act rules and that the public had to be notified.
Navarro believed the dates had been finalized to hear the petition (Nov. 2 & Nov. 28) as part of a motion at the October 12 meeting so the current board could both hear and vote on the petition before a new board (potentially) could be seated. On Wednesday, the board agreed to a special meeting to discuss the issue and confirm dates.
On Friday, Superintendent Stephanie Anello stated they were recommending the dates listed in the staff report (Nov. 9 and Dec. 7) to allow staff time to review the application of the petition.
“This would give us enough time to thoroughly review the petition,” said Anello. “If deficiencies are found in the petition, staff believes Rocketship should be given time to correct those deficiencies if possible.”
Navarro said he wanted clarification from the October 12 meeting, stating the motion was not clear enough.
“They had language in the motion that was not clear and ended up voting on the acceptance of the petition and had a lengthy conversation, all on audio, where we were in agreement of the dates for November 2 and November 28. So that was the main concern that we had. We want to make sure that continuity and transparency that the same board the reviews the information is the same board that do the vote,” said Navarro.
Anello stated that legal did feel that the same board that reviewed the petition will vote on it but that the county is certifying the election late this year so they will be the the board voting on the petition.
Navarro then asked Anello for the date of certification.
“The county is certifying results on the 13th of this year (December). As you know the ballot is much bigger than its ever been so it pushed the date back so this matter will come before this board on both of those dates,” said Anello.
Navarro stated he didn’t want to run it “that close” of a timeline and wanted the dates discussed to be Nov. 2 and Nov. 28.
Anello said there was no agreement of the board during the Oct. 12 meeting, but suggested dates which she called “tentative”. Legal confirmed her statement saying nothing was an “affirmative date.”
Legal further highlighted that they proposed Nov. 16th and December 14 but Rocketship declined.
Trustee Alonzo Terry asked where did the District drop the ball on the Nov. 2 and Nov. 28 dates.
Anello explained they did not drop the ball, but it had to do with the timeline.
“Our attorney thought it was a tight timeline to do a review with integrity which we feel we owe it to Rocketship and all our other constituents to thoroughly review the petition,” explained Anello. “When we looked at the timeline, we thought it was quite compressed and if we could still make it within the required 60-days, but yet again with what we thought was a deeper drive, that would be beneficial to the District and to Rocketship.”
Legal highlighted the petition is hundreds of pages with legal requirements calling it labor intensive. They also highlighted that the District has asked Rocketship for an extension, but it was declined.
Trustee Walter Ruehlig said the District staff could have done better communicating with the Board and the public.
“With perception being reality, I think we could have handled the situation better in terms of communicating with the board and the public to these moving dates,” said Ruehlig. “Needless to say these things can get messy. We don’t need more mess than we currently have so I want to keep this honest, fair dialogue with everyone concerned so it doesn’t go down that road. We have seen it too much.”
Diane Gibson-Gray stated it was the board chairs role to set the agenda and she previously noted her concerns on if the Board new term began on December 2. She said it is legals opinion that the same board who hear the petition doesn’t have to be the same board to vote on it.
“I feel differently, where I could not be in this seat in two weeks, my conversation was what we could do is have us hear the petition, then invite in all candidates telling them it could be the first thing they here. They could be prepared and that would be that. I don’t recall that motion to have any dates certain or any detail other than accepting the application,” said Gibson-Gray. “I know I am a single person up here, but that is my opinion.”
During public comments, members shared their concerns from timeline, process to unethical behavior.
Ken Kent, teacher spoke first:
“I am very concerned about the timing, the pace of this process. As counsel said this is a very labor intensive process. We owe it to our constituents, to our students and families, to go very deeply into this to make a considerate evaluation. I am concerned both with the timing of the petition in the middle of the election where things are tumultuous. Could it have been saved when there is less going on. Yes certainly, I believe that is a strategy meant to bring us to a hasty decision. Whatever you can do to avoid a hasty decision, I think will benefit the students of Antioch. I am also concerned with the 24-hour notice for this meeting, I don’t see this setting a meeting to hear a petition as an emergency meeting. I think it could have fit the 72-hour minimum notice for a standard board meeting. We could have had more significant public involvement. True public involvement if we are talking about open communications. That is something we need to do and take it very seriously. In just the last couple of minutes I have heard that Rocketship didn’t want to do it that way. That it was suggested that we meet on the December 14, our traditional meeting, but Rocketship didn’t want to do that even though that is within the 60-day time frame. Why is Rocketship dictating when meetings can or cannot happen? That does not make sense to me. The board should really consider if it fits our schedule, they are coming into our district to serve our students. They shouldn’t be able to say no that is not going to work for us. If you are a business owner, and someone is coming in to open a new school, you should make the time. As well as the extension, I would hope the Board knowing the amount of work that goes into this, vote for yourselves to bring yourself up to date, for the staff to make a thorough determination to ask Rocketship as a board for an extension. I think that is the only real way you can serve the students and families in Antioch.”
Robert Strickler, Antioch Education Association spoke next.
“Please allow the district to do its due diligence in looking through the petition. Aslo, letting the public already know its on the District website fro November 9 and December 7. To change that would be detrimental and most people would not be aware of it”
Martha Steele Spellman, an employee with the District was the final speaker.
“I am coming to you with an ethical dilemma. Not on my part, but on the part of the board who will be discussing the petition from Rocketship with a charter school. I would like to ask that any current board member, any prospective board member, if you have received campaign donations and contribution from Rocketship from a member of the board of directors from Rocketship, or from the California Charter Schools Association, to recuse yourselves from this entire process. Its your choice to accept these contributions. At the very least, its ethically questionable that you would fairly and impartially consider Rocket Ships petition when you have already taken money from them. I strongly encourage you to consider this and you recuse yourself from any discussion concerning Charter Schools in Antioch.”
Editors Note – Shortly after the meeting, Trustee Alonzo Terry returned money donated to his campaign by a Rocketship board member.
With no further comments, the Board finalized the dates.
Gibson-Gray highlighted the latest the District could hear the Petition is by November 11. She noted as a point of clarification, this board will hear the petition from Rocketship.
She suggested that if they do nothing, the dates would be Nov. 9 and December 7 per staff requests.
Navarro asked about staying with Nov. 9 but going with November 28.
Staff explained that they would lose time to thoroughly review the petition. Staff said going on the 28th presents a problem because it was not enough time to review.
Gibson-Gray noted that should the District identify issues with the application, it also allows them to work with Rocketship to correct those problems within the time-frame given.
Staff explained that the “9th is set in stone” and they can’t change it, but suggested they keep that meaning to either approve or deny the petition.
Navarro made a motion that they hold their first meeting on Nov. 9th at Lone Tree Elementary at 7:00 pm. (passed 5-0)
Vinson made a motion they hold another meeting on Dec. 7 at 7:00 pm at Lone Tree Elementary School for the action of approving or denying the petition of Rocketship (passed 4-1, Navarro nay)
To view the Rocketship Petition, click here.
5 comments
Nothing spells transparency more than a Friday afternoon special board meeting when no one is paying attention. This is criminal and no one on this current Board will get my vote.
I have now received two mailers paid for by charter schools. Happy to say I will not be supporting Fernando Navarro, Chrystal Sawyer-Wright or Alonzo Terry. I now have 4 choices I am comfortable with.
I hope the rest of Antioch does not allow the charter schools to buy this election.
I am happy to see another Charter option. With the scores our students are putting out being so poor this district cannot afford not to look at the option. Antioch will not attract the type of families it seems to want unless it does something about its schools and past boards seem to have been satisfied with mediocre at best.
Doesn’t matter what the board says, Rocketship will go to the state board, who are pro-charter and in the pocket of Rocketship. The school looses, as we see in Mt. Diablo
Just to let everyone know, Alonzo Terry gave me a cashier’s check on Friday so I could mail it. We had the discussion about returning the check earlier than that Friday. I had a discussion with him the week before about Rocketship and brought to his attention that a contribution he had received was from a member of the Rocketship Board. He told me at that time he would return the money.
Comments are closed.