bbq

Comments by bbq

Sweetwater teachers await funding news

Anniej et. al. For me even though the Trustees are weak and seemingly sheep-like followers, not independent thinkers, or we would see more discussion of these ideas and changes in public. The issue is not completely about who is in power as much as what is the overall goal for the district. I have asked this before and will continue, where is the long-term plan that all of these short-sighted, ill-concieved schemes lead up to? Is everyone in the region so enamored with (Bullied by) Dr. Brand and his "Vision" of secondary education? Let's be frank most people in the district be they Teachers, Site Adminstration, or public get allong just fine with little or preferably no meaningful contact with him (or his cult following, "yes" persons). When do we get to see behind the curtain? Where is the opportunity to have meaningful dialog with the district? Who should be leading that dialog? When and where do we, the public go for other opinions to understand the needs and wants of our School Site Employees and students? I am asking about the bigger picture than the circus of Board meetings, Legal issues, and individuals. How/what is the best method to enact discussion and change? I feel that we must look farther forward and back, to right the ship and set a comprehensive path into the future. That plan cannot continue to be set without proper public dialog. Contrary to Mr. McCann's dialog, I've never heard anyone other than or Board and Dr. Brand ever say they wanted the district to take on 13 - 16 year college education (Sweetwater University, BTW not the same as Compact for success, another blog) or abandon ROP/CTE. Open up SUHSD, BBQ
— May 24, 2013 11:21 a.m.

Sweetwater school district board approves Alliant partnership

When is an MOU not an MOU? Looking at agenda items in the district archives then reading the text of these two items shows a distinct difference in the agreements and their intent. May 14, 2013 agenda item: F.8 Approve agreement between Alliant International University and SUHSD to participate in the establishment of Alliant International University at Sweetwater April 17, 2006 agenda Item: B-02.* Approve MOU between Alliant International University, Sweetwater Union High School District and Southwestern Community College. The May 14th agenda item is not nor should be considered an MOU. It does not lay down a "**Convergence of will"** between SUHSD and Alliant University to establish Sweetwater University, it **approves the establishment** of Sweetwater University. The use of the word "**participate**" is a redundant wiggle word and could easily be removed from the agenda item wording and not change the intent or outcome of the approval. Deliberate obfustication (sp) of the item is if not illegal at least contemptable. Mr Cartmill what have you to say? **Definition of MOU** *A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement. Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "**four corners**"). The required elements are: **offer, consideration, intention (consensus ad idem), and acceptance.** The specifics can differ slightly depending on whether the contract is for goods (falls under the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]) or services (falls under the common law of the state).* **Resulting call for action** I believe that we need to see the actual agreement with Alliant to establish if the "**Four Corners**" exist. If so the actions of Dr.Brand and the BoT exceeded the Brown act and acceptable actions of the Superintendant. Oh by the way in the April 2006 agenda item the agreement was pdf attached to the announcement, 10 days later I still don't see the paperwork for the Alliant/Sweetwater agreement. Hiding something? BBQ
— May 22, 2013 10:55 a.m.

Sweetwater school district board approves Alliant partnership

If you read the agenda item and go with the rest of what was said by Dr. Brand and Jim Cartmill, this is not an MOU or NDA. With firm committments as to what facility, start dates, costs or fee structures, the dance was not just beginning. I look at everything said at the board meeting as fiction if not bold faced lies. I accused our Board of Trustees of being Elitists, just because they and their kids went to University right out of High School does not mean that should be the only track for all kids. By eliminating most of our vocational training and our ROP, Adult school safety nets and setting up a four year degree program we eliminate options that many of us "Baby Boomers" had. Our Kids already have a college safety net at our excellent Community College System. As I have stated before does the Board really think that Engineers, Doctors and Surgeons were born able to Build, Diagnose and Fix things without the practical tools that were discovered in vocational classes like Wood, Metal, Cooking and Sewing? We had to take these as part of our Middle School requirements. Now our schools don't have the facilities or the Craftspeople to teach them and our Board of Trustees is so into the college track that they don't care or can't see it. I really have a hard time understanding the goal of the SUHSD, first they cannot take care of the Program Improvement issue, which appears to not be on anyone's radar screen and now they are empire building with our tax dollars for most likely their own profit. Please Board and Dr. Brand show us your overall academic plan for the average student in the district for grades 7-12, then show us the 13-16 planning of most of the students, Again as I have said before to Dr.Brand and others if you would allow some public discussion of these "Ideas" and "agreements" with the pros and Cons you might get some public support before you steamroller it through at a Board meeting. Always open for conversation, BBQ
— May 17, 2013 11:38 a.m.

Sweetwater school district to team with Alliant University?

Hey you know some names, can you remember mine? Not an old face, realitively new to the fight. Most likely not, since you never interact with anyone, that contradicts the status quo. People that might give you a different point of view than the myoptic "Amigos". Do you really believe all the stuff Dr. Brand is doing? If so, you should be standing up and defending it not putting down the opposition just because they oppose. If you have something to add to the debate that defends the Board I'd be happy to hear it, if you just want to sit and follow along without adding any worthwhile input you should not be part of the debate or discussion or bitch session whatever you want to call it. Again as I have said it before Steamrollering ideas through does not make for good relations or Politics, understanding and debate do, hence talking, blogging etc should be part of the process and encouraged not dismissed. Again I give credit to those who come at their own time, risk and reputation to stand up for their ideas, and speak, usually ignored as witnessed by card shuffling, blog writing etc by the Super and the board. I do not agree with everything they do but I will defend their right to do it. As for the Board and our employee Dr. Brand, if they are intimidated by their required role, they should resign. How about some intelligent discussion of the direction the District is going, before it becomes bankrupt? Again up for debate good thoughts, BBQ
— May 15, 2013 2:01 p.m.