December 14, 2007

Evergreen District/parent task force still at odds

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

Although it appeared in November that the two sides in the Evergreen District / Evergreen Parents Task Force debate over redistricting school boundaries was nearing a solution, a flier distributed by the task force drove another wedge into the process.

Earlier that month, Superintendent Clif Black sent a letter to task force leaders stating that “the district is committed to working with the community ‘to reach a solution that best serves all students in the district’ with regard to proof of resident and realignment of school boundaries.”

The letter also said that even though it could not “agree” to all of the EPTF demands, the district was willing to delay boundary realignment to allow time for implementation of a stricter proof of resident practice to be implemented at Matsumoto and Clark Schools.

According to Black, the district received a response from Anil Chandrupala, spokesperson for the task force, on Nov. 28 saying the task force was “glad to note that ‘the district remains committed to working with the EPTF and that they would like to meet…to discuss matters further.’”

That meeting was scheduled for Dec. 6. Black cancelled the meeting after receiving a flier EPTF handed out on Dec. 4.
Entitled “Defend Your Rights Now,” the flier stated that despite “repeated efforts by the EPTF to reason with the Evergreen Elementary (sic) School District (EESD), the school district has indicated neither a sincere intent to implement a strict annual proof of residence nor the intent to collaborate with the community to find workable solutions...

“Because the district refuses to discuss the matter with us, and sincere letters and e-mails from parents receive only form responses without any concrete information, we are left with no choice but to seek legal counsel to understand and defend our rights.”

The flier suggested that the legal counsel may begin pursuing a list of alleged misdeeds such as;
Misappropriation of funds by the district through fraudulently enrolled students to obtain state money;

Determine the ability of residents “to force the district” to implement strict proof of residence;

Review district documents and communications “to determine if the district’s stated goals for boundary realignment are in fact the real goals”;

Determine new development factors while clarifying existing resident rights; the legality of the current realignment process, “which is based on inaccurate data”;

To make sure Measure I funds are used to ease overcrowding in impacted schools.

This must happen, the flier said, before the board ratifies the alignment, otherwise the district “is likely to continue making similar decisions with complete disregard for our community.” It also asked for financial contributions.

“In light of the EPTF’s election to elevate the level of animosity with unfounded allegations of misconduct, I cancelled the Dec. 6 meeting to allow the district to reconsider the manner in which it interacts with the EPTF on this important issue,” Black stated in a letter to Jim Zito, president of the District 8 Roundtable.

He told Zito and the EPTF that the chosen counsel for EPTF should sit down with the district’s attorney to discuss resolution of these issues.

One community source, who asked not to be named, said the group had no idea why the meeting was cancelled. “I think EPTF knows that it is provoking the community, but doesn’t understand why people are reacting negatively to what they are doing,” said the source. “Now both sides are too entrenched in their positions, and both need to find a way to reopen communications.”

A trio of EPTF members explained the flier through an e-mail from member Shirley Miao.

“We did the legal counsel flier because…we assumed the district closed their door to us back in November. We did not do it AFTER Clif Black arranged the meeting with Anil [Chandrupatla]. It is a fact that the district did not respond to us for almost a month.

“We do NOT have a legal counsel and we are just in the preparation stage of seeking legal counsel. These are different. If the district again opens their doors fully, of course there is no need for legal counsel. It is their [the district’s] interpretation that we are insinuating some wrongdoing. The fact is we have reasonable doubts, and we need legal counsel to help us to understand the situation. Unless the district has some policy that they can no longer talk to us, otherwise they can have public meetings or meet with us to explain.

In addition, “with the situation as is, we are still willing to sit down and communicate. We never say we cannot or refuse to talk. But we do hope the district can be more open and prompt in response. After all, cooperation is better than confrontation.” the task force officials told the Times.

Mark Mao, another EPTF officer reiterated that the flier was a misunderstanding. “It was not intended for the district. We just gave it to families that don’t know about EPTF or don’t care. In some cases we just put it on the door.”

He too said that the EPTF was frustrated in its efforts to talk with district officials and board members and that letters and e-mails received no responses. “We want to avoid legal action, if possible. We are seeking legal counsel, not for a lawsuit, but because we don’t understand [some things] and we don’t have an expert in the group that knows the law,” he said.

Finally, Mao admitted that sometimes members of the EPTF can be a little too strong. “A few EPTF coordinators are quite aggressive and their way of communication leaves people uncomfortable. But we just want a forum that is open to the public and public discussion,” he added.

EPTF has come up with a number of proposed alternatives they would like to see openly discussed between the board, district officials and members of the community. For example, Mao suggested an under-enrolled school, such as Cadwallader and Laurelwood be closed putting students from both schools into the one.

He also suggested that instead of keeping sixth graders at the middle schools, all three should be open to sixth through eighth grade students, thus eliminating overcrowding in schools like Matsumoto.

Finally, Mao asked board members, at the Dec. 13 meeting, to describe the community forum and perhaps make it into a workshop where the public and board members can question each other and receive answers. In addition, he suggested that all board members be present at the forum in order to allow for a two-way discussion.

He also asked if the district could explain during the forum the number of alternative solutions considered and why these won’t work. His last point asked if it is possible to offer multiple proposals for board members to vote on instead of just realignment. “Then for each proposal, you will roughly know the percentage of community support, the district’s take on it and the overall effort to implement such proposals.”