Posted by Too little, too late, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 6:36 pm

Almost anything Ken Dauber does so soon after he lost the election will look suspicious, like sour grapes. Personally, I voted for him and I think it was a grievous error that he lost. He is just going to have to sit things out for awhile.

Posted by This must be a joke!, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 7:41 pm

"It takes a village" subculture does not exist in Silicon Valley. Perhaps it exists in some small, mini towns in America.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Those who dislike PAUSD are free to leave the system. There is no perfect public school district, but overall, we have been happy with the PAUSD teachers and administration. The critics need to try other school districts to appreciate what they've got here.

Posted by Marjorie Cranston, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 8:26 pm

Mr Dauber's is a strong honest voice. I appreciate his effort and involvement and I hope he keeps it up for a good long time to come. Thank you.

Posted by village fool, a resident of another community, on Mar 21, 2013 at 10:42 pm

@editor - While I totally agree that any comments about kid's/families personal affairs should be removed, and I wish those comments were never posted - May I ask not to remove comments portraying commenter's opinion of my post? of "me"?

And - the following, definition of Shadow Cabinet, is copied from - Web Link

"..The Shadow Cabinet is a feature of the Westminster system of government. It comprises a senior group of opposition spokespeople who, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, form an alternative cabinet to that of the government, and whose members shadow or mark each individual member of the Cabinet.[1] Members of a shadow cabinet are often but not always appointed to a Cabinet post if and when their party gets into government. It is the Shadow Cabinet's responsibility to criticise the policies and actions of the government, as well as offering an alternative program...specifically its shadow cabinet is called His or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.[2] The adjective "loyal" is used because, while the role of the opposition is to oppose Her Majesty's Government, it does not dispute the sovereign's right to the throne and therefore the legitimacy of the government... In other parliamentary parties, the membership and composition of the Shadow Cabinet is generally determined solely by the Leader of the Opposition..."

Posted by former Paly parent, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Mar 22, 2013 at 9:22 am

I don't know about the practicality of the OP's suggestion, but it would be an improvement to have some additional perspectives - intelligent ones like Mr. Dauber's - on a regular basis. Shine more of the light of day on what is going on. I voted for him, though I have not met him. I was impressed with most of the points he has made...and dissatisfied with many of the current Board members. I dislike insider's club-by stuff...

Posted by villager, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 9:44 am

Village Fool:

This is an interesting suggestion. It would, however, be quite difficult to get to the bottom of this matter without access to current employees. One reason for that is access to current district employees. The second reason is that the district does not comply with the California Public Records Act and delays unreasonably in filling requests making it very difficult to discover information in any kind of timely way. The district also has engaged and will certainly engage again in a deliberate effort to smear any citizens making Public Records Act requests to try to discover information. Ken Dauber discovered that Dr. Skelly was disobeying the school board on Gunn counseling by using the Public Records Act and both Dr. Skelly and board members publicly attacked him for making those requests. It is hard to get information from the district through the PRA, even though the entire point of the PRA is to allow the public to find out things exactly of this nature -- whether our district is following federal civil rights and state civil rights laws.

Sadly, they will delay in filling those requests, and then force any citizen trying to discover information to sue them to get it all the while having their reputations destroyed in the community while the board looks on happily. Information is hard, if not impossible to get. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The right answer is the appointment of a fact-finding commission that can access employees and records without any restriction or resistance. The longer the district does not do that, the more likely a lawsuit, with subpoena power and full discovery becomes. Ironically, this team of dysfunctional non-managers are bringing on the very result they fear.

Posted by Let's do it, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 12:24 pm

The public deserves the truth. If the school district isn't going to give it to us, why not do it ourselves? Might be enough to scare the school board into action.

Posted by hahaha, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 3:34 pm

" I wish I could have Edmund Burke "

I would love this as well, it would be sooooo amusing!

Posted by T. Babcock, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 5:01 pm

I think our current school board is already a shadow school board, isn't it?

Posted by village fool, a resident of another community, on Mar 22, 2013 at 10:32 pm
village fool is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

@villager - I totally agree about your: "The right answer is the appointment of a fact-finding commission..." It is my understanding that Ken Dauber suggested that, and others. Initially, I thought that there is no way to underestimate the importance of the independence/lack of conflict of interest of the members of such committee. As time pass, this initial sense just intensifies.

At this point - may I ask who would you trust to appoint the committee you suggested? Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am curious as to the portion removed from your post.

@former Paly parent - I totally agree with your: "Shine more of the light of day on what is going on". Could you please elaborate, without personal details, as to the insider's club you did not like? I'm asking since many postings following the news about the OCR findings mentioned atmosphere in schools - in one way or another. If you think that your disliking is relevant - will you please share?

@editor - I totally agree with your: "No well-functioning organization develops tactics, programs or products without having first determined strategies and goals..." you published today in the Editorial about High School counseling. Seems to me that it correlates nicely with the short term goal #3 I listed above. This short term goal can easily be re-written as:

3. Find out where and why the previous Strategic Plan failed to outline the process flows indicated by the recent OCR investigation/High School Counseling/any other systemic issue. The excellent editorial initiating this discussion mentioned systemic issues. Such issues should have been noted by the previous Strategic Plan.

I think this goal/question is extremely important. That was the reason that had me post this open address initially under the thread dealing with the Strategic Plan, even though it was clearly a "dead thread".

I think that checking this question may provide some clues as to the roots of the systemic issues, at least roots of some of these issues. Some answers, or at least some pointers to the whereabouts of possible answers may be within reach. May I ask if you are interested in this question/goal?

Posted by villager, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 11:28 pm

You raise excellent questions and points. You are very thoughtful about these issues. One at a time:

1. Yes Ken has called for this, along with the Weekly (although the Weekly called for a committee of board members which is a fox/henhouse problem as you point out. In my opinion (and I believe Ken and also Andrea Wolf called for variants of this at the last meeting) there should be a Blue-Ribbon panel, modeled on the Christopher Commission following the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles. It was chaired by Warren Christopher, and appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley. The commission was composed of professors, lawyers, community leaders, university presidents, and judges. Obviously it was investigating a much bigger problem involving a greater scope of inquiry, but the model is a good one. They had a staff, interviewed witnesses, consulted experts, and developed many proposals for reformed practices and greater accountability. It is a good model and one we can emulate, albeit on a smaller scale.

I would suggest someone like Julie Lythcott-Haims, the former Freshman Dean at Stanford and a lawyer by education. She is generally respected in the community and an involved parent. I would also suggest Stanford Law Professor Marcus Cole, and many good Ed School faculty familiar with issues of school accountability. There are doubtless other similarly well-respected members of the community, but I would shy away from "insiders" as chairs of the commission who are former school board members as they generally lack the independence necessary, or at least the appearance of that independence. It would probably be well to

have someone like Susie Richardson on the committee, and she would be an ideal candidate as she is smart, independent, and has spent years as a leader of Facing History so she understands the problem of bullying and intolerance in a serious way. Most other former school board members are probably insufficiently independent and would tend to be seen (whether accurately or not) as whitewashing the situation.

Because of the legal aspects of this matter that would be hard for a non-legally trained person to understand the committee should either have lawyers on it or have the ability to retain its own counsel to advise it. Given the expense of hiring counsel I would think selecting individuals who are themselves lawyers or law professors would suffice.

Finally, I would suggest teachers and admins who are trusted and considered to be master teachers with good reputations among parents and educators in the district. Sandra Pearson springs easily to mind but I have no doubt that there are other good candidates.

Such a committee should have the broad charge of fact gathering and also of developing process improvement recommendations and of issuing a full report and a redacted version (that omits names of students and personnel as appropriate in accordance with privacy laws). This report would have the effect of restoring confidence among the public that we have gotten to the bottom of what went wrong and made the necessary course and personnel corrections to ensure it does not happen again.

Without such a report, as in the case of the LAPD, it will be very hard to restore that trust. You can see that in the editorials of the Weekly and in the comments in TS. The public has lost confidence on the Superintendent and his staff and the board has become open figures of fun. The way to change that runs through an independent commission process and the sooner the better.

Scandals like this one have a rhythm. Typically there is the revelation, the outrage, the demands for dismissals. If there is a prompt fact-finding, it can defuse community suspicion and anger. Delay creates the appearance of cover-up whether it is the reality or not. The delay in just telling the truth here makes it appear much that Kevin and the board are hiding something and the lawyer's conduct and memo did not help this any.

Board: appoint an independent panel of esteemed citizens -- people respected as independent by all sides. Then tell the whole truth to the public and make course corrections to restore public trust. Take charge. Stop deferring to Kevin while he cuckolds and misleads you in public. Every day you delay is another day that you are trusted and respected less.

Posted by former Paly parent, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Mar 23, 2013 at 8:55 am

@village fool

I am a former district parent, so not privy to any current insider info...I write now from a general perspective, believing that an open system with an open process is best when we are discussing public matters like the public school system.

This means being thankful that here we have the news media thoroughly following and reporting on the district's actions, for example. I can't understand some posts on this forum wherein someone decries the news media for reporting something unfavorable (about PAUSD, the superintendent, whatever). While I don't welcome such reports, I think we need to know what is going on.

I think local government and school officials can get too cozy - and operating without a lot of oversight may lead to secret situations that we have a right to know (like this recent OCR deal, which shocked me, though as I state I no longer have kids in school).

I think wealthy and/or connected and/or politicially savvy parents/individuals that do exist here may come to dominate public systems unless there is a lot of oversight. Important decisions are made and a lot of money is spent, too. I am a taxpayer and I care how my money is spent. Meantime, a lot of the public are super busy with their own lives, but we should remind ourselves to not let public employees get too cozy within their secure world.

Furthermore, I find the superintendent to be extremely well-compensated, and this person should be fully capable of interacting with the news media and the public as head official of the district, without padding the payroll by adding a 150K/year public relations "official."

Posted by village fool, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Mar 23, 2013 at 10:10 pm

@villager -Thank you. At this point I think an External Audit is needed. I think that by nature, the LA committee you mentioned was an external audit. Given LA size and the subject of investigation - most likely quite remote from many there - makes that committee external audit. Easy to find committee members who are independent and lack conflict of interest. More than that - I think that most likely, any Black Man who is first college graduate in his family had experienced, in one stage of his life, or another, some kind of discrimination. The type of discrimination causing these riots. I'm sure that the LA committee had at least one member who can relate to that type of discrimination - personally,and yet remotely. All the above contributed to the fact that the LA committee was, most likely - by definition, independent and lacking conflict of interest.

A committee formed along your suggestions can not be independent, here. In no way I'm undervaluing, or criticizing, any of the citizens you mentioned, or others. It is a small community.

I would define - The King Test. King, last name - after Rodney king. An imaginary family. I would ask myself - would the King family think that the kids of the members you suggested, above, would have been treated the same way as the kids of the King family? They could attend the same school, here (most likely not in LA). Many questions. Again - in no way I'm undervaluing the reputation of any of the citizens you named, I just think that LA model does not apply here. Not after time passing.

Having written all the above - I would have totally supported your suggested committee should it been formed within reasonable time after first time being called for. One point/issue at a time, you wrote. There may be other possibilities out there - I picked the open address, above, hoping to have this type of discussion. And - I do hope that Mr. Dauber will consider my appeal.

@former Pay parent - Thank you.

Yes - even ignoring the kids - this is an extremely serious matter. It is about our tax $. All of us. Palo Alto, California and beyond. You mentioned the "coziness" etc. Another reason I find the goal #3 above is so crucial. It is nice to note that in this case, trying to the right thing seems to be serving both the kids and the tax payers.

Posted by villager, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 23, 2013 at 10:23 pm

you're probably right. The time may well have passed for relative insiders to have credibility. I do think that the committee needs to include members who have uncompromising civil rights values and who are not trying to curry favor with the current board. That probably excludes anyone with children currently in the district. You're probably right about the optics of having waited and having to be dragged to it as well. The longer they wait the more important it is the that the auditors have credibility. But I don't think it's too late yet. Just that it is getting there. It's almost getting hard to watch. Melissa Caswell for example -- I think she wants to do the right thing but it's very hard to manage someone like Kevin who rejects being managed. He should probably be dismissed but if she calls for his dismissal and doesn't get other votes (and who would that be? None of them I can think of) then she marginalized herself. She looks very unhappy and very frustrated. Or the Weekly publisher basically throwing up his hands in his own editorial and saying "best we can hope for." What does that mean? Why? Well because the board won't do its job and until it does, he's right.

I think you have very thoughtful things to say but it would be very hard to do what you suggest. Without the cooperation of the district, it would be very hard to get at the truth just using the California Public Records Act. You could probably get some things but it will be weeks from now and it won't be the whole story. I suppose it would be better than nothing. How much better remains to be seen.

Posted by Ken Dauber, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Mar 23, 2013 at 10:41 pm

I'm puzzled and disappointed that the school board hasn't put in motion a public accounting for the issues raised by the Office for Civil Rights investigation and finding. Our elected officials owe the community an honest, transparent and independent appraisal of what happened, what went wrong, and how to fix it. I and many others, including other members of We Can Do Better Palo Alto, the Weekly, and other parents and community members, have urged the board to take this step.

I don't think we should give up on that expectation, despite the lack of response from board members to this point. After all, all board members except Camille Townsend told the Weekly several weeks ago that they support a full fact-finding. We will shortly bring to the school board a resolution under California Ed. Code section 35145.5 for a fully public and transparent investigation to give board members a vehicle for fulfilling that commitment.

California law gives citizens the right to request public documents from public agencies. We used that right a year ago when it was apparent that the school district and the school board were not being transparent with the public about counseling at Gunn. I think such a course is a poor second to full transparency and accountability, and I'm hopeful that the board will choose to act soon to make it unnecessary.

Posted by pimping your own posts, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 24, 2013 at 8:51 am

"California law gives citizens the right to request public documents from public agencies. We used that right a year ago..."

How much money has the district spent on these requests? Do you really think it is right for the district to be spending so much money on trivial requests such as this: Web Link

"I have gathered in conversations with some of you, heard a hint from Kevin Skelly yesterday, and then confirmed in a conversation with Charles Young today that district staff have sent you communications that essentially argue that I, at least, and perhaps others in We Can Do Better have have directed inappropriate comments to staff."

Seriously, with each passing post you make, I give thanks for the results in the last election.

Posted by Duveneck dad, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 24, 2013 at 10:06 am

Pimp wants to change the subject from this case of our district's failure to protect the civil rights of a disabled child, to the point of failing to respond to physical assault. If I were a district staff member who failed to follow procedure and then covered it up I would do the same thing. I want something simple: a school district run by people who follow the law and tell the truth and don't need document requests to have it extracted from them. And oh if they would focus on the public's business rather than petty resentments that would be a nice bonus.

Posted by Villager, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 am

Today's mercury news insider column wonders why the PAUSD board hasn't fired Skelly yet in light of his bungling of 2 civil rights cases and concealing them. As I wrote above the longer the delay the worse this will get. Eventually it could become a national story. The board is now tarnishing the PAUSD brand they have have to act

Web Link

Posted by former Paly parent, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Mar 24, 2013 at 11:03 am

Thanks, Villager, for that web link. I recommend everyone check it out - San Jose Mercury News

Posted by Thx, Villager, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 24, 2013 at 1:09 pm

It is true that almost everywhere in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, people are talking about the Kevin Skelly fiasco. Apparently in other communities, such a grand screw-up would not be tolerated, and the supe would have been gone months ago. This man is really making Palo Alto, and Palo Altans, look bad for tolerating him so long. he apologizes, but his eyes show no remorse. No court would ever give him the mercy the Board has shown him, and shame on THEM, he does not deserve it! He truly seems to think this is no big deal!

Well, it is a big deal, and the fact that it happened in PAUSD magnifies it to the outer communities, and deeply tarnishes the Palo Alto name, the PAUSD name, and the Scool Board members names.

Since the Council is so big on polls, they ought to take a poll on this one: should Kevin Skelly lose his job over bullying issues and the resulting coverups? The answer is obvious to everyone BUT the Board and the Council, who are in such denial they probably would not believe the results of the poll and claim it to be rigged.

Protecting Skelly makes the Board members accessories to his actions and inactions, therefore they are culpable as well. It isn't much different than harboring a criminal, if only they would open their eyes and see that. How can the district go forward and reclaim what is left of its reputation without terminating Kevin Skelly?

Posted by people have spoken, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Mar 24, 2013 at 2:30 pm

and I hate to wake everyone up, but this ship has sailed. WCDB lost the election. Skelly has apologized. I trust our school board. Time to find a new cause.

Posted by Eileen 1, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 24, 2013 at 5:30 pm

@people have spoken

"this ship has sailed" Are you saying that no matter what the school board does or does not do we cannot have any input since the election has been held and they are our elected representatives? I disagree with this. Whether I voted for them or not, they represent me and the rest of the community. If I am not satisfied with what they are doing I believe I have the right to comment in real time. I do not believe my only opportunity to participate in the process is at the ballot box.

I would like to know on what basis you say "you trust our school board," because I find it very difficult to assess what they do since they do not seem to do much in the public board meetings. Since I can't see them "doing" much I am left to judge them based on what they are NOT doing. The things they are not doing alarm me. They are not appointing an independent commission to look into the facts of the case brought to the OCR - an independent panel that would explain how PAUCD came to be one of 14 school districts in the nation found out of compliance with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. They do not appear to be irritated that Gunn has been working on getting a comparable counseling program to Paly's for a few years, and now they say they will need a few more before they achieve something as strong as Paly's program since first Dr. Skelly needs to determine what "comparable" means.

I want to trust them, but in the absence of their appointing an independent commission to evaluate and report back to the community with an evaluation of what happened in this case, and what can be done in the future to prevent it happening anywhere else in the district, I do not trust them. How can I trust when they behave as though they are hiding something?

Posted by Eileen 1, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 24, 2013 at 5:34 pm

I also think that Susie Richardson would be an excellent person to serve on the independent panel that several people have mentioned on this thread.

Posted by village fool, a resident of another community, on Mar 24, 2013 at 8:36 pm

@villager, past Paly parent - Thank you for joining this ride early on, helping keeping this thread alive. villager - thank you for the Mercury link.

I do want to think that this ship have sailed-ship being independent investigation.

villager and I seem to agree - time have passed. I urge you to consider the imaginary King family I listed above. Their trust needs to be gained as well. All, here, seem to know the candidates for such committee. I am sure the King family do not. I do not. villager agreed that those who had/have kids in PAUSD need to be excluded. What about those who know the schools investigated? Jordan middle (mentioned in another thread discussing child molesters), those who have spouses working in PAUSD, family members? Gaining the King's family trust will take serious effort. This effort should include a committee without any shread of conflict of interest, even seemingly.

@Ken Dauber - Thank you for responding. Several weeks have passed, you mentioned, most board members agreed to such committee. Several weeks is a long time. Longer than the time given to Gunn, letting them know of the counseling presentation. Time passed does not give any confidence that PAUSD Board is eager to figure out what went wrong, and how to fix it.

Again- in no way I'm undervaluing any citizen mentioned. I just think this model is not applicable to PAUSD anymore. Several weeks. I would have totally supported this suggested committee should it been formed early on.

Civil Grand Jury? - I am not familiar with the procedures/processes of having such. The following is a link to one, Santa Clara county, looking into education $ in 2009: Web Link

Posted by village fool, a resident of another community, on Mar 25, 2013 at 4:26 pm

@Ken Dauber - The latest, this morning, shadows everything.

My apologies for my apparent rude response, above. I'm wanting to extend my open address - I addressed you above, listing the reasons I thought you are qualified to lead a Shadow Board.

Following villager input above (observing the board), I'm adding now- seems that you are not impacted by the concern of being marginalized. Initially, I did not list that - the integrity umbrella. Rereading villager post had me specify. Thank you.

@villager - Thank you.

Posted by Midtown parent, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 25, 2013 at 8:41 pm

A community as smart and affluent as ours is should be able to pull off some simple fact-finding. The school board ought to make it happen but if they are too beholden to the bureaucrats then Mr. Dauber is fine with me. I voted for him, by the way, in case anyone wonders.

Posted by Clean house, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 26, 2013 at 11:32 pm

I had to laugh at the comment about trusting the school board. I am jealous of the poster's ability to ignore that they have fiddled and supported Kevin Skelly's apologetic buffoonery suicides to the withholding of information that would have affected his employment and the November election. It is sad that the Weekly, not even a daily, and the Daubers had to work to give the public a small taste of the truth. That should have been Kevin Skelly or his lieutenant, Charles Young. Again, I envy those of you, my fellow voters, who are satisfied with our leadership. I am not satisfied with their performance and each day of silence and inaction makes it worse. I vote to clean house. Fire Skelly, even though it will reveal how badly the board performed in granting him four years of employment. It may reveal more. Fire Young. I've met him a few times and was terribly unimpressed, but this fiasco of not managing the complaint process effectively is unforgivable. We pay these two well to manage at a high level and to let them go when they don't. Do more administrators need to go, as in Holly Wade and Michael Milliken? Probably, but who on the board would have the necessary moral and professional credentials to do it? Thank you for starting this thread. That there have been posters to this thread despite being hidden way back here says a lot about the level of dissatisfaction with Kevin Skelly and the rest.

Posted by your own posts, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 27, 2013 at 8:20 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by your own posts, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 29, 2013 at 9:31 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by village fool, a resident of another community, on Mar 30, 2013 at 1:53 am
village fool is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

@editor - may I ask why my previous comment- asking you what it takes to have a posting removed, was removed? I asked about other comments. Why my comment, asking, was-removed completely, without even a trace/trail that I commented?

Posted by village fool, a resident of another community, on May 2, 2013 at 10:16 pm
village fool is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Ken Dauber -

Time have passed since I first addressed you. Time has many perspectives here. By the end of the day - it is about kids, and their families. The excellent editorial accompanying the news of the first OCR investigation mentioned systemic issues. Kids and families who are impacted by the systemic issues do not have time. I thought, then, that an immediate symbolic action, and clear statement is called for. The reasons of my initial address, above. The tip of the iceberg was mentioned many times. Pandora boxes, maybe? Also - info as to systemic issues may be impacted by potential quiet settlements. Time may be a factor here, as well. Shadow Board was my "solution" - quite possibly there are other ways.

@editor - Fear of retaliation was mentioned many times.That might be a systemic issue. It just makes sense that transparent atmosphere is less likely to trigger such fear.

I happen to agree with another posting stating that this is your board, you pay the bills and have the saying. Having said that, may I ask to open this thread and others dealing with these issues, make them open to all again? without needing to log in?