The following resident letter questions why Piedmont’s garbage rates are 62% higher than some surrounding cities.

Jan. 29, 2015

Piedmont City Council

Re: Feb. 2 2015 Billing & Performance Audit of Republic Service Inc.

Honorable Council,

My sister lives in Alameda and her 3 full size bin weekly service through Alameda County Industries is $108.21 for 3 months or $36.07 monthly. Alameda is not topographically comparable to Piedmont but significant parts of Oakland and Berkeley are similar with narrow, winding and hilly streets. Berkeley 32 gallon 3 can service weekly is $36.93 monthly. The Chronicle reports the 3 can weekly service in Oakland as $36.82 monthly. but a current Oakland bill shows the rate at $22.36 per month.  A friend in the narrow, steep streets of Montclair states their rate at $30.

In Piedmont my last 3 month bill for 3 full size cans is $176.47 or $58.82 monthly.

As part of the City audit of RSI, I ask that a survey be done of surrounding city rates. RSI should provide justification for charging a rate in Piedmont that is minimally 62% higher than surrounding cities.

Generally, I find RSI service reliable and the company responsive.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

How should the new Superintendent be evaluated?

The District Superintendent is the Chief Executive of the District reporting to the School Board.  Any school is as good as the quality and dedication of its teachers and principals, and the Superintendent commands these resources, hiring teachers and principals, giving or denying tenure, and making assignments within the constraints set by the California Education Code. The position commands a substantial compensation package.

The hiring and management of the superintendent and the setting of education vision are the prerogative of the Board. The public has every right and responsibility to hold the School Board accountable for hiring specific public employees and producing appropriate results. It is clear that the selection of the new superintendent is the most important decision that the Board has to make: it will have a direct impact on the quality of education for years to come.

The District web site home page publishes a set of score cards under the banner “educational success and student outcomes”. The cards currently cover academic performance, finance, student community service, and student participation in extracurricular activities. We can only encourage the District to expand the set to include adult education, special education, counseling, and any other area where the District delivers services to our community.

In the private sector, it is common for enterprises to assign yearly goals to the corporate score cards and to tie these goals to the parts of the business each executive controls. For example, a Vice President of Engineering in a High Tech company may have reliability, availability, and a measure of customer satisfaction assigned to each new products. He/she typically parcels the score cards and goals to his/her direct reports, and ties their bonuses to them. It is an effective process to ensure accountability. The goals are often overambitious, and failure is viewed as an opportunity to learn and improve. These score cards and goals are public to all employees to ensure that everybody is on the same page.

It is my understanding that district and assistant superintendents are employed at will by the School Board, typically in increments of four years. Why not have the Board assign goals to the score cards so that the community, administrative staff, and teachers are clear on the Board’s impetus and can all pull in the same direction? The superintendent could then parcels these goals among its assistants, ideally all the way down to principals and heads of departments. In addition, the Board could survey School Alumni every year to give a solid basis on its continuous improvement policy. Clearly the implementation of such a system would have to stay within the law, as California public employees have a right to non-public evaluations of their performances.

The superintendent candidates’ interviews could be focused on whether such a system would work in a public education environment and what rewards compatible with the California Education Code should be considered to entice and further motivate staff and teachers.

Thank you for serving our community as Board Members,

Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association. 

 

It was an extremely active and productive week in the superintendent search. HYA partners, Bill Levinson and Barbara Young conducted interviews and hosted over 40 meetings with various school and community groups exploring key characteristics for the new superintendent as well as gathering input on the perceived qualities and challenges of the district. Thanks to them and all of you who participated.

There is still time to contribute opinions and suggestions to the consulting team as it was decided to extend the survey period. Originally scheduled to close today, the deadline was extended to this Sunday Jan. 25 in recognition of busy post-holiday schedules and the long Martin Luther King holiday and semester break. Access can be found below or on the district website and the Piedmont Portal.  Click link below to participate in the survey.

www.ecrasurvey.com/piedmont

Piedmont Resident Bernard Pech noticed the Piedmont Schools statement on the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) home page that Piedmont schools rank first in Northern California and fourth in the state, but to him the scores were not the highest if all public schools are considered. Pech explains in his opinion below:

I was pleasantly surprised to see the ranking of PUSD advertised on the District’s home page. It is true that the District is ranked number one in Northern California as a Unified School District among other Unified School Districts, and number four in the State, based on the Academic Performance Index (API) as advertised on the District’s home page. But there are in California twice as many non-unified Districts (Elementary districts and High School districts) as there are unified.

Three types of school districts:

Unified Districts cover grades K-12.

Elementary School Districts cover K-8 or K-6.

High School Districts cover grades 8-12.

There are 5998 elementary schools, 1441 middle schools, and 2493 high schools in the State.

On a school by school basis across all district types, the data shows that, for example, Beach Elementary ranks 37th among Northern California elementary schools and 73 among all elementary schools in the State. The Piedmont High School ranks 19th against all other high schools in Northern California, and 44 against all the high schools in the State, whether in Unified or non-Unified Districts.The fact is that Piedmont High is ranked 44 in the State among other high schools, and 19 in Northern California. Havens Elementary is ranked 203 in the State among elementary schools, and 97 in Northern California.

Given the maximum score is 1000, one could consider that the middle and the elementary schools are ranked number 1, rather than 11, 37, 70, and 97 in the Northern California. But the high school is 10% below the best high school and ranked 19 within Northern California behind: San Francisco Lowell High, Santa Clara Lynbrook High,  Oakland Charter High, Saratoga High, Miramonte High, Owens Gilroy, … and 13 other bay area schools.

The District focuses on marketing itself the best way possible, which is understandable.

	API	State Ranking	Northern Cal Ranking
Beach Elementary	966	73	37
Piedmont Middle	964	17	11
Wildwood Elementary	956	136	70
Havens Elementary	948	203	97
Piedmont High	908	44	19

 2013 Academic Performance Index (API).  A 2014 API report will not be prepared by the State.

PUSD Homepage

< Information from PUSD website

Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident 

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association. 

For reader clarity and continuity, School Board Member Rick Raushenbush’s comment to the recently published opinion of William Blackwell on the voter defeated changes to the high school auditorium are re-published here, along with Blackwell’s response.

__________________________

Blackwell’s original opinion article:

Six months ago, Piedmont voters defeated the $13.5 bond measure (Measure H) to rejuvenate the school district’s Alan Harvey Theater, a major disappointment to its ardent supporters. In hindsight, the results might have been different if the school district had been more forthright in its communications and thorough in its planning. There was no lack of public outreach. But information and advice provided to the Board and public by the district’s staff, committees, and consultants all too often was incomplete or misleading, resulting in flawed decisions. Among other items, the Board was persuaded to authorize $360,000 for the preparation of design development drawings without waiting for the outcome of the election, a high-risk decision with marginal benefit.

What began in 2005 as a $5.4 million renovation was changed in 2012 into a $9.8 million theater remodel plus a whole new wing, based on a plan volunteered by designer Mark Becker. A 17-member committee supported the expanded program and declared that “Piedmont High School should be thought of as a performing arts high school”, meaning that performing arts would become the academic focus.

The new wing included a corridor with wheel-chair access to the auditorium, an elaborate instructional classroom, and improved backstage facilities. The balance of the project consisted of remodeling the existing theater. In all of the district communications, there is not a single meeting note, resolution, letter, or ballot measure statement that informed anyone that seating capacity would be reduced from 500 to 320 seats, a loss of 180 seats. This meant three school assemblies instead of two would be required for student body presentations and a smaller audience capacity for theatrical productions.

About 50 good seats were necessarily lost in providing a cross-aisle for wheel-chair access, but over 100 were lost in changing from “continental” (no center aisles) to conventional seating and in moving the control room into the auditorium instead of in a loft above the lobby. Forty-five temporary seats would have been above the orchestra pit with very poor sight lines. A smaller audience capacity would have resulted in loss in rental revenue, which partially offsets the cost of theater management and other operating expenses.

Curiously, the program committee did not mention improvement in acoustics (nor did the ballot measure), but the theater consultant in an appendix suggested adjustable acoustic draperies for the glass windows. The consultant did not, however, recommend the installation of plastic “clouds” in the ceiling as shown in the architect’s illustrations. No concern was expressed for the destruction of architectural symmetry in the auditorium or in the 50% loss in the windows that provide daylight when the curtains are open.

The district implied that the theater could not continue in use if the bond measure failed. Although it is not wheel chair accessible, the theater can legally continue in use as long as the community is willing to tolerate its various deficiencies, many of which are matters of deferred maintenance, such as the leaking roof. If the theater were unsafe, it would have been shut down.

Many voters were concerned about the cost of the project. District staff, aided by consultants, added essential items such as fees and contingencies to the original estimate of $9.8 million ($560 per square foot) and arrived at a total budget of $14.5 million. When the cost of debt service is added, the total project cost came to over $20 million —about $1,200 per square foot. Cost comparisons made with three other school theater “renovation” projects were virtually meaningless because the other theaters had twice the seating capacity and very different scopes of work.

Vila Construction’s construction cost estimate, incidentally, was 15% lower than the architect’s estimate. Had the Vila estimate been used, the bond measure would have been $11.5 million rather than $13.5 million. The “hybrid” bond option chosen by the Board deferred payment on the principal for six years in order to reduce the immediate impact on taxpayers, but added over one million dollars to the debt service.

It would have behooved the district at the outset to establish a project schedule that started construction promptly at the end of a school year, rather than in the middle. This would have allowed two full summer months for site preparation and demolition in good weather with minimum disruption to campus activity. Rental of interim theater and classroom facilities would then have been during one school year rather than portions of two years.

There is no pleasure in calling attention to these missteps. However, the needless loss in time, money and human energy over a two-year period cannot be ignored. The next election in November 2016 gives the district ample time to review its internal procedures and take corrective steps. The district has everything to be gained by thorough planning and full disclosure of issues to a generous, involved, and supportive parent community.

William Blackwell – Piedmont Resident and Retired Architect

_______________________

Comment by School Board Member Rick Raushenbush in response to Blackwell’s opinion:

While the Alan Harvey bond measure failed to garner sufficient support, it is past time for those who attacked it to stop making inaccurate attacks. The School Board has embarked on a year-long effort to ascertain what the community wants and is willing to support in the Piedmont schools. There will be plent of opportunity for everyone to provide their thoughts.

Mr. Blackwell’s opinion is inaccurate (or, in his terms, fails to provide “full disclosure”) in the following respects, among others:

(1) The Board authorized spending $360,000 on design drawings only after having guarantees of more than that in donations for Alan Harvey. The District ultimately received $560,000 in donations, which are and will be used to make interim repairs in Alan Harvey to extend its life a bit longer. Not only did the District gain in donations more than it spent (no loss at all), if the bond had been approved, the design drawings would have expedited completion of the work significantly (the hoped for benefit). This issue has been discussed and disclosed repeatedly–including before and after the decision to proceed with design drawings.

(2) Mr. Blackwell contends the plan included a “whole new wing” and a plan to make performing arts “the academic focus.” The plan included one performing arts classroom, which would have been the ONLY performing arts classroom, which otherwise must use the theater itself, adding to its wear and tear. Further, “the academic focus” of PHS is education–having a performing arts program does not detract from any other academic efforts.

(3) Mr. Blackwell expresses concern about the reduction in seating capacity and implies some would have been unnecessary. Yes, seating would have been reduced, which the District and performing arts staff considered relatively low impact compared to the gains from renovation. Having a center aisle enhanced safety by providing faster exit during a fire or other emergency, and the control room would have been at level to allow required ADA access and provide more room in the lobby. QKA was asked to work primarily within the existing space. An entirely new structure could provide more seating, but will cost more.

(4) Mr. Blackwell asserts that the District “implied that the theater could not continue in use if the bond measure failed.” That is not true. The District pointed out that the structure is not in compliance with the ADA and a lawsuit could force its closure. That remains true today. This was fully disclosed and discussed in an FAQ on the District’s website, as well as public meetings.

(5) Mr. Blackwell asserts that a Vila Construction construction cost estimate was lower than QKA’s estimate. This is not accurate, as shown in the District’s FAQ on its website. Moreover, Mr. Blackwell then suggests the amount of the bond could have been $11.5M rather than $13.5M. Mr. Blackwell ignores the need to include soft costs (architect’s fees, permit fees, etc.) and contigency funds in the budget, and hence in the bond amount. The District cannot make up cost overruns from its General Fund, which is devoted to running the schools, and thus must have an adequate contingency.

Frankly, now is not the time for further debate about the QKA plan. The community needs to express its views on whether Alan Harvey is an appropriate venue for the PHS performing arts program and community events, and, if not, what should be done. But repeated attacks that are inconsistent with the facts are corrosive to constructive community discussion, and should stop.

Rick Raushenbush, Member of the Piedmont School Board 

____________________

Blackwell Rebuttal to Raushenbush Comment of January 16:

No one is infallible but the information in my report came almost verbatim from the School Districts own records as noted below.

(1)  Mary Ireland said her fundraising group “has been clear with potential donors that if the bond does not pass, their donation will go toward HVAC, seating, and roof work on AHT” (10/23/13 Minutes). She did not say their donation could be used to repay the district the $360,000 paid to QKA for the 127 sheets of design documents (at $560 per square foot of drawing) that may or may not be partially salvageable. There were also other fees and expenses the district may need to absorb.

(2)  The plan did include a whole new wing with an area of “about” 3,500 square feet (Mark Becker 5/23/12) and a cost of nearly $800 per sq. ft. (FAQ 3/28/14). The project cost as a whole was $560 per sq. ft. The Programming Manual (2/11/13) states “Piedmont High School should be thought of as a performing arts high school,” which is not the same as saying the performing arts department needed another classroom in order to be on a par with the eight other high school departments.

(3)  Assistant Superintendent Booker told the board “that there would be slightly fewer seats in the new theater” (12/11/13 Minutes). However, the end result was a loss of 180 seats — from 500 to 320 — although the Programming Manual had said the remodeled theater should have at least 400 to accommodate two assemblies. Rearrangement of the seating in fact added to the travel distance to an exit, and the relocated control room was lowered 35 inches, which resulted in vision windows easily obscured by anyone standing or walking in the back rows. In short, the theater could have been easily remodeled within the existing space without the loss of 180 seats.

(4)  Superintendent Hubbard implied in her letter of March 28, 2014 that the theater could not continue in use because of non-compliance with ADA and current codes. This was clearly a misrepresentation because these codes do not require upgrade until other major changes are made. Neither Hubbard’s letter or any other school record mentioned a possible lawsuit.

5)  Assistant Superintendent Brady told me in e-mail (July 16, 2014) “the variation between hard construction cost estimate was $9.77 million from QKA, and $9.64 million from Vila Construction.” However FAQ (March 28, 2014) said Vila’s analysis included cost escalation and contingencies that were not in the QKA estimate, and its cost of construction was only $8.4 million. District staff aided by Villa added 48% in additional contingencies, escalation, FF&E, etc. to the QKA estimate and arrived at a project budget of $14.5 million. Had the staff added the same 48% to the lower Vila estimate, the project budget would have been $12.5, and, because $1 million was available from other sources, the bond measure would have been $11.5 million instead of $13.5million.

There are other items that Mr. Raushenbush ignored in his response. My purpose was not to attack but rather to point out a rather casual attitude toward facts and figures by the district that led to misunderstandings and faulty decisions. As Mr. Raushenbush pointed out, there is time now to make internal improvements so the next time around the same errors will not be repeated. On a larger issue, if integrity is a virtue, the district in this case has set a poor example for its students to follow.

William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident and Retired Architect

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Paul Benoit, Piedmont’s City Administrator since March of 2014, praises the Mayor and City Council.

The PCA article titled “City Administrator Benoit Brought Change to Piedmont in 2014” did a very nice job of highlighting some of the change and accomplishments that happened in 2014. However, it implied, perhaps more by the headline, that I was responsible for them. Under the “City Manager/ Administrator – Council” form of government it is truly a team that is responsible for progress.

The Brown Act training for staff, elected and appointed officials that we instituted was done at the suggestion and urging of Mayor Fujioka. For my part, I and staff implemented her suggestion. Similarly, it was Margaret, with full Council support, that urged careful drafting and scrutiny of all City contracts. Such care and scrutiny is the right thing to do and is something I take very seriously, but, in the present case, it is an initiative that the Mayor and Council deserve all the credit for. The list goes on.

Council Member Wieler championed the change in Piedmont’s election dates and it was the Mayor and Council, together, who deserve all the credit for devising a creative solution to sewer financing that did not burden or tax Piedmont residents.

A lot was accomplished in the last year. Over my career I have worked with many Mayors and many, many Councils. Given that experience I can say without reservation that Piedmont’s Mayor and Council Members are a strong and talented team and are particularly engaged, informed and creative. Having that kind of talent setting policy and directives, combined with a solid and professional staff, is what has and will continue to move Piedmont forward.

It is always nice to be recognized for good work and, in the case of 2014, credit for that work needs to go to Mayor Margaret Fujioka, Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler, Councilmember Bob McBain, Councilmember Teddy King and Councilmember Tim Rood. With that team in place I am excited for 2015!

Paul Benoit, Piedmont City Administrator

Click here to read prior PCA article.

Ballot measure failure was largely a result of seating loss, unnecessary costs and flawed information and decisions. There are ways for an improved 2016 ballot measure.

Six months ago, Piedmont voters defeated the $13.5 bond measure (Measure H) to rejuvenate the school district’s Alan Harvey Theater, a major disappointment to its ardent supporters. In hindsight, the results might have been different if the school district had been more forthright in its communications and thorough in its planning. There was no lack of public outreach. But information and advice provided to the Board and public by the district’s staff, committees, and consultants all too often was incomplete or misleading, resulting in flawed decisions. Among other items, the Board was persuaded to authorize $360,000 for the preparation of design development drawings without waiting for the outcome of the election, a high-risk decision with marginal benefit.

What began in 2005 as a $5.4 million renovation was changed in 2012 into a $9.8 million theater remodel plus a whole new wing, based on a plan volunteered by designer Mark Becker. A 17-member committee supported the expanded program and declared that “Piedmont High School should be thought of as a performing arts high school”, meaning that performing arts would become the academic focus.

The new wing included a corridor with wheel-chair access to the auditorium, an elaborate instructional classroom, and improved backstage facilities. The balance of the project consisted of remodeling the existing theater. In all of the district communications, there is not a single meeting note, resolution, letter, or ballot measure statement that informed anyone that seating capacity would be reduced from 500 to 320 seats, a loss of 180 seats. This meant three school assemblies instead of two would be required for student body presentations and a smaller audience capacity for theatrical productions.

About 50 good seats were necessarily lost in providing a cross-aisle for wheel-chair access, but over 100 were lost in changing from “continental” (no center aisles) to conventional seating and in moving the control room into the auditorium instead of in a loft above the lobby. Forty-five temporary seats would have been above the orchestra pit with very poor sight lines. A smaller audience capacity would have resulted in loss in rental revenue, which partially offsets the cost of theater management and other operating expenses.

Curiously, the program committee did not mention improvement in acoustics (nor did the ballot measure), but the theater consultant in an appendix suggested adjustable acoustic draperies for the glass windows. The consultant did not, however, recommend the installation of plastic “clouds” in the ceiling as shown in the architect’s illustrations. No concern was expressed for the destruction of architectural symmetry in the auditorium or in the 50% loss in the windows that provide daylight when the curtains are open.

The district implied that the theater could not continue in use if the bond measure failed. Although it is not wheel chair accessible, the theater can legally continue in use as long as the community is willing to tolerate its various deficiencies, many of which are matters of deferred maintenance, such as the leaking roof. If the theater were unsafe, it would have been shut down.

Many voters were concerned about the cost of the project. District staff, aided by consultants, added essential items such as fees and contingencies to the original estimate of $9.8 million ($560 per square foot) and arrived at a total budget of $14.5 million. When the cost of debt service is added, the total project cost came to over $20 million —about $1,200 per square foot. Cost comparisons made with three other school theater “renovation” projects were virtually meaningless because the other theaters had twice the seating capacity and very different scopes of work.

Vila Construction’s construction cost estimate, incidentally, was 15% lower than the architect’s estimate. Had the Vila estimate been used, the bond measure would have been $11.5 million rather than $13.5 million. The “hybrid” bond option chosen by the Board deferred payment on the principal for six years in order to reduce the immediate impact on taxpayers, but added over one million dollars to the debt service.

It would have behooved the district at the outset to establish a project schedule that started construction promptly at the end of a school year, rather than in the middle. This would have allowed two full summer months for site preparation and demolition in good weather with minimum disruption to campus activity. Rental of interim theater and classroom facilities would then have been during one school year rather than portions of two years.

There is no pleasure in calling attention to these missteps. However, the needless loss in time, money and human energy over a two-year period cannot be ignored. The next election in November 2016 gives the district ample time to review its internal procedures and take corrective steps. The district has everything to be gained by thorough planning and full disclosure of issues to a generous, involved, and supportive parent community.

William Blackwell – Piedmont Resident and Retired Architect

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

You are asked to indicate on a survey which superintendent characteristics are “most important” for the Piedmont Unified School District?

Dear Members of the Piedmont Unified School District & Piedmont Community,

The Board of Education of the Piedmont Unified School District is beginning the process of searching for a new superintendent, and has engaged the consulting firm of Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates (HYA) to help with the process.

As one of the initial steps in the process the Board would like to seek your input on the desired characteristics and skills that you would like to see in the next superintendent.

Please share your thoughts by responding to the survey linked below.

As you respond, please remember that all characteristics listed on the survey are desirable, but we are interested in knowing your perceptions about which characteristics are “most important” for Piedmont Unified School District.

To access the survey please click on the link below and respond by January 23, 2015:

https://survey.ecragroup.com/index.php/325593/lang-en

On behalf of the entire Board of Education, thank you for taking the time to respond. We appreciate your willingness to participate and look forward to learning your perspective.

In addition please calendar Wednesday, January 21 for a community forum that HYA will facilitate at 7:00 PM in the Piedmont High School Student Center. We will also welcome input at the February 11 School Board meeting when HYA presents their leadership profile report to the Board.

Sincerely,

Andrea Swenson, President

Board of Education

– Rain issues, food drive, lap tops, and censorship –

Piedmont High School student Alexandra Darwish reported on the Piedmont Unified School District Board of Directors meeting of December 10, 2014.

The Piedmont Unified School District Board of Education met on December 10, 2014 in order to discuss scholastic affairs. This particular meeting focused on budgets and financial reports for school affairs and approval of certain agreements. This School Board meets twice a month, on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month.

The beginning of the meeting addressed minor affairs, including some public comments, a review of upcoming events at the school by Claire O’Connor, the Youth Representative, and an emphasis on a school book drive.

Once these were discussed, representatives of the group that was searching for a new superintendent spoke to the board and explained their process. Some questions were asked regarding the  interviews of the candidates and the board concluded that the methods were satisfactory.

Brent Daniels spoke about current administrative decisions at Piedmont High School and a Millenium High School representative did the same. The goals for each of the schools were discussed at length and compared to last year’s goals. The theme of technology was introduced and prompted several questions by student attendees. The last portion of the meeting was filled by the discussion of Interim Reports and their certification.

When discussing the process for finding a new superintendent, Doug Ireland asked many questions. In particular, Ireland asked about confidentiality for the candidates and disapproved slightly of the process. After clarification, however, the process was deemed fit. Most of the contracts and reports that were addressed were unanimously agreed upon by the School Board.

Additionally, when Mr. Daniels spoke of the decision to give laptops to a select number of students, Elizabeth Sweeney questioned why those students were privileged enough to receive laptops while sophomores and seniors were not. I agreed with Elizabeth in that it does not seem justified to only give certain grades the access to their own personal computer. Mr. Daniels acknowledged this concern and gave a satisfactory response, which made their decision seem more reasonable.

I filled out a speaker card and was prepared to discuss the rain advisory, however, the School Board immediately addressed the situation. I intended to discuss their decision to leave schools open while many other schools within our vicinity had closed their doors for that day while also addressing the negative consequences of cancelling classes for a day. I wanted to bring to their attention the students who don’t live close enough to walk or drive on safe streets, including those who don’t live in the district and some who live in San Francisco or across other freeways. I also wanted to bring up the teachers’ safety because many of the staff members at Piedmont High School live at least thirty minutes away. I was willing to suggest a compromise that would enable students who didn’t feel comfortable or safe on their travels to school to be permitted to stay home without consequences on their attendance. Unfortunately, the School Board did not want to discuss this further and put the issue to rest before I could make a comment about the subject.

Interview with Claire O’Connor – Youth Representative to the Board of Education

1. Why are you here? What difficulties and problems brought you here?

“Constitutionally, the ASB vice president’s mandatory duty is to be the youth representative on the school board, according to their list of duties. Since I am the vice president, I am required to be here. My responsibilities are to inform the board and audience about occurrences at Piedmont High School. Although there were no particular problems that brought me there, the disappointing outcome of the school wide food drive has prompted me to discuss actions, advertising techniques and parental involvement to encourage food donations. I wanted to bring up the rain issue and the school’s decision to keep school open but the school board told me there were too many political implications in this issue so I wasn’t allowed to. I always have to give advanced notice because of the formality of the event and for censorship reasons.”

    2. What next step will you take to get their particular concern addressed?

“I plan to keep bringing attention to the food drive. ASB and the school will hopefully send out emails to encourage outside donations. We will get the administration involved and I think we will get the food drive back up to par.”

Alexandra Darwish

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

 

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont Focus on State and Local Issues at their Wednesday, January 21, meeting.

“Hot Topics and Hot Soup” are on the agenda of the Piedmont League of Women Voters on Wednesday, January 21, 2015.

The annual program will be held at 325 Ramona Ave., Piedmont, from 10:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., to decide where and how the League should focus state and local resources (member time, money and reputation) over the next two years. A soup and salad lunch will be provided by Piedmont League members. The meeting is free and open to the public.

Statewide League issues include campaign financing, air quality, water, energy use, transportation, juvenile justice, and more. Locally, the Piedmont League has positions on the City’s housing needs, planning process, open space, education and other issues. The League plans to study how the President of the Piedmont School Board is selected by the Board and how Piedmont’s Mayor is selected by the City Council.

Members will propose whether League positions should be retained, dropped or updated and determine which positions should be recommended for concerted study, education and action.

For more information contact League member:

Marj Blackwell (marjb@sbcglobal.net)