Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [wccusdtalk] Length of Trustee's term in WCCUSD

Expand Messages
  • Charley Cowens
    Rebecca- We really have no idea how hands-on Fred Stewart was at any time, because so much of the activity of the trustee is behind the scenes. Since our
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 9 9:28 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Rebecca-

      We really have no idea how hands-on Fred Stewart was at any time, because so
      much of the activity of the trustee is behind the scenes. Since our District
      renegotiated the loan to have a lower interest rate but also a longer term,
      we will have a trustee till at least 2018. This has nothing to do with the
      IBM loan or the Federal payback. The best overview of the state of local
      school district peonage can be found on this CDE (CA Dept. of Ed.) page:

      http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fi/ir/loanlist.asp

      Charley Cowens

      On 7/6/07, Rebecca Hazlewood <hrebwrite@...> wrote:
      >
      > Just want to mention that our school district has had a State Trustee
      > longer than any other school district. Compton was out of trusteeship within
      > a couple of years.
      > The State is now negotiating with Oakland to turn over some local control
      > to the School Board and is asserting that its goal is to turn over complete
      > control asap. No mention is made that the $100 mil loan needs to be repaid
      > before local control is restored, at least not in the reports I have read.
      >
      > While circumstances are not the same between Oakland and the WCCUSD in the
      > sense that their Trustee has full control over program, curriculum,
      > finances, etc while our Trustee has always been limited to financial matters
      > it seems that ours school district is being kept in a kind of perpetual
      > trusteeship.
      >
      > For a number of years the Trustee was on semi-retirement leaving the big
      > decisions up to the Board, now we have a Trustee around 2 days a week. Is it
      > the intention of the Ca Dept of Education to keep this school district in a
      > permanent trusteeship?
      >
      > The claim was that when the loan was repaid they would let us out of
      > Trusteeship. But the original loan was for $19 million. They added in all
      > the other stuff to add up to $28 million. That includes the IBM debt and the
      > pay backs to the federal government of at least $4 million to Title 1 (?)
      > because the Feds claimed that the System of Choice was not a desegregation
      > program. The district was in the process of disputing that when the district
      > was taken over.
      >
      > It seems to me that the only area upon which the state can assert control
      > is the original $19 million loan. Does someone out there know how much has
      > been repaid to the State up to this point? Of course the state tacked on an
      > interest rate on the $19 mil which is most likely compounded so that would
      > need to be added to the $19 mil. But the Dept of Education always made it
      > clear that the first priority for repayment was its own loan. So we should
      > be able to assume that everything repaid to date has been applied to the
      > State bailout loan.
      >
      > Rebecca
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • rebecca494
      Thanks for the link Charley. That chart was very informative. Rebecca ... because so ... District ... longer term, ... with the ... trusteeship within ...
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 9 10:31 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for the link Charley. That chart was very informative.

        Rebecca





        --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Charley Cowens"
        <charley.cowens@...> wrote:
        >
        > Rebecca-
        >
        > We really have no idea how hands-on Fred Stewart was at any time,
        because so
        > much of the activity of the trustee is behind the scenes. Since our
        District
        > renegotiated the loan to have a lower interest rate but also a
        longer term,
        > we will have a trustee till at least 2018. This has nothing to do
        with the
        > IBM loan or the Federal payback. The best overview of the state of local
        > school district peonage can be found on this CDE (CA Dept. of Ed.) page:
        >
        > http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fi/ir/loanlist.asp
        >
        > Charley Cowens
        >
        > On 7/6/07, Rebecca Hazlewood <hrebwrite@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Just want to mention that our school district has had a State Trustee
        > > longer than any other school district. Compton was out of
        trusteeship within
        > > a couple of years.
        > > The State is now negotiating with Oakland to turn over some local
        control
        > > to the School Board and is asserting that its goal is to turn over
        complete
        > > control asap. No mention is made that the $100 mil loan needs to
        be repaid
        > > before local control is restored, at least not in the reports I
        have read.
        > >
        > > While circumstances are not the same between Oakland and the
        WCCUSD in the
        > > sense that their Trustee has full control over program, curriculum,
        > > finances, etc while our Trustee has always been limited to
        financial matters
        > > it seems that ours school district is being kept in a kind of
        perpetual
        > > trusteeship.
        > >
        > > For a number of years the Trustee was on semi-retirement leaving
        the big
        > > decisions up to the Board, now we have a Trustee around 2 days a
        week. Is it
        > > the intention of the Ca Dept of Education to keep this school
        district in a
        > > permanent trusteeship?
        > >
        > > The claim was that when the loan was repaid they would let us out of
        > > Trusteeship. But the original loan was for $19 million. They added
        in all
        > > the other stuff to add up to $28 million. That includes the IBM
        debt and the
        > > pay backs to the federal government of at least $4 million to
        Title 1 (?)
        > > because the Feds claimed that the System of Choice was not a
        desegregation
        > > program. The district was in the process of disputing that when
        the district
        > > was taken over.
        > >
        > > It seems to me that the only area upon which the state can assert
        control
        > > is the original $19 million loan. Does someone out there know how
        much has
        > > been repaid to the State up to this point? Of course the state
        tacked on an
        > > interest rate on the $19 mil which is most likely compounded so
        that would
        > > need to be added to the $19 mil. But the Dept of Education always
        made it
        > > clear that the first priority for repayment was its own loan. So
        we should
        > > be able to assume that everything repaid to date has been applied
        to the
        > > State bailout loan.
        > >
        > > Rebecca
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.