“On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, the Piedmont Unified School District Board of Education unanimously approved the appointment of Mr. Michael Corritone as the new Principal for Egbert W. Beach Elementary School, effective July 1, 2014.
The selection process included input gathering from the Beach Elementary School staff and parent/community members, and an extensive interview with representative stakeholders.
Mr. Corritone’s professional experiences as a school psychologist, assistant principal, and elementary school principal personify the requisite qualities of a principal for Beach Elementary Mr. Corritone holds a Pupil Personnel Services Credential and a Professional Administrative Services Credential. Additionally, Mr. Corritone is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara, with a B.S. in Sociology and a M.S. in Education.
Mr. Corritone’s professional background includes three years as principal at Corte Madera School in the Portola Valley School District and five years as an assistant principal at Windemere Ranch Middle School in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. He also served as a school psychologist for nine years at elementary and middle school sites in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District.
Mr. Corritone’s position officially begins on July 1, 2014 PUSD is delighted to welcome Mr. Michael Corritone to our community of learners.
Egbert W. Beach Elementary School
The Beach Elementary School community is located in Piedmont, a city of about 10,000 residents nestled in the hills above the San Francisco Bay Area. With approximately 365 students and 30 teachers, Beach has a high academic performance record. The outstanding staff provides a remarkable education and learning environment for all students. The 2013 API was 965, meeting all of its growth targets and APR criteria.
The residents of Piedmont demonstrate a strong sense of community and are committed to maintaining and enhancing educational programs, services and school facilities. Parent participation in school activities is extensive; parents and community members have developed a variety of support organizations that work collaboratively with staff to support the needs of the school system.”
Press Release – Piedmont Unified School District, June 25, 2014
The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Unified School District Superintendent by a Piedmont resident involved in the Measure H discussion:
I reviewed the results of the analysis done by the structural engineer on Havens posted on page 19 of the web document at http://pusdbond.org/documents/Havens_Final_Report.pdf. I note the report of the engineer on the danger of collapse for two classrooms: “The most seriously deficient structural elements are the rod bracing located on both sides of the corridor of each classroom wing. These are greatly over stressed and would very likely fail in a major earthquake, leaving the classroom wings vulnerable to collapse.”
The calculations themselves are not included in the report, but the word of a professional structural engineer is good enough for me. In the end it is a matter of judgment made by people with experience as clearly stated in the professional literature. As an example, refer to the Purdue University article: ‘ASCE-31 and ASCE-41: What Good Are They?’ at http://tinyurl.com/nhtanmm – “The Universal building code uses an R factor as a demand reduction coefficient (divisor, ranging from 2.2 to 8.5) and the new ASCE-31 uses an m factor (ranging from 1.2 to 12) as as capacity increase coefficient (multiplier). These factors are rather arbitrary and the civil engineer selects them based on guidelines and experience.”
In the heat of the Measure H campaign, I somewhat overreacted in my response to your “opinion” published in the Piedmont Civic (http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2014/05/29/opinion-havens-faced-a-catastrophe/), and I can understand your reaction to the E Boyer satire, given your responsibility toward parents as a superintendent. So I offer you my apologies. But I do think that E Boyer has a point: Why sell a project on fear? Why use a alumnus withLou Gehrig’sdisease as the poster student for a campaign?
My disappointment with the Piedmont Parents leadership is their use of mainly negative arguments to justify projects rather than first focusing on the incremental educational value that a given project brings to our students. In the future, given the age of the High School, any building can be found not to be up to code and therefore be the basis for some group’s narrow agenda. The community should be sold on “hope” rather than “fear”, on clearly stated and measurable incremental educational value rather than playing with parents emotions.
Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
At an open and broadcast meeting on Wednesday, June 25, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, the School Board will consider the following items:
- CONDUCT SECOND PUBLIC HEARING to ADOPT 2014-15 DISTRICT GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ALL BUDGETS OPERATED BY THE DISTRICT; AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 13-2013-14
- “AUTHORIZING YEAR-END BUDGET TRANSFERS”
Parcel Tax support has been an essential component of the District’s revenue for the maintenance of programs for students. It has grown from being approximately 11% of the District’s total revenue in 1985 to 31% in 2013-14 from Measure A as approved by voters in March, 2013 for eight years (expires June 30, 2021). Since it represents such a substantial portion of the District’s operating expenses, it is recommended that the renewal request to the community is early enough (no later than Spring 2019) to incorporate the outcomes in the multi-year budget projections.
Funds raised by Parent/Support Groups to support programs remain an integral part of the District’s budget, representing over $1.55M per year.
The Piedmont Educational Foundation Endowment Fund support is provided at $250,000/year.
District enrollment has been increasing slightly.
The District will present a revision to this Adopted Budget (called the Revised Budget) within 45 days that will provide a clearer picture.
The State has provided Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) for 2014-15 in the amount of 0.85%. COLAs for 2015-16 (2.19%) and 2016-17 (2.14%) are incorporated as part of the District’s multi-year projections.
-
APPROVE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR ALL UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICT (ASSOCIATION OF PIEDMONT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND SUPERINTENDENT) CONSISTENT WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING GROUPS
It is requested that the Board approve the one-time payment for a furlough day in 2013-14; an increase to the salary schedules of 3%; and the increase in the District contribution to medical benefits – as agreed to for APT – for unrepresented employees. The costs associated with the increase have been incorporated into the 2014-15 Adopted Budget as presented this evening.
Pension Costs are projected to rise dramatically.
STRS (State Teachers Retirement System) Employer Rates were proposed from the current 8.25% to 9.50% (in 2014-15), 11.10% (in 2015-16), and 12.70% (in 2016-17), increasing incrementally thereafter to 19.1% by 2020. These rates have been modified somewhat, with employers taking a proposed smaller step in the first year, but continuing to increase until the 19.1% rate is reached in 2020-21. As specified in Assembly Bill 1469, employer contribution rates would be as follows: from 8.25%to 8.88% (in 2014-15) to 10.73% (in 2015-16), and 12.58% (in 2016-17). As of this writing, the rates have not been finalized, so they are not included as part of the 2014-15 Adopted Budget.
The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) for classified employees is also projected to increase incrementally from 11.7% in 2014-15 to 20.4% by 2020. Before the implementation of LCFF, CalPERS adjustments were made to school district revenue limits. Now any increases in CalPERS contribution rates will have a direct impact on the budget.
The effect of increasing employer contributions for both CalSTRS and CALPERS (without additional State funding to support these increases) will be most profound in the District’s multi-year projections.
Governor’s Budget:
The 2014-15 State Budget contains a number of controversial provisions, specifically a requirement that districts “substantiate” the need for an “unassigned or assigned ending fund balance” above the required minimum reserve (beginning with budgets adopted for the 2015-16 fiscal year). At the public hearing for budget adoption or revision (as described above), districts would need to substantiate the reasons for any “excess,” and the Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) would be required to determine whether the District complied with these requirements.
If the Governor’s “Rainy Day Fund” is approved by voters in November, in the year following a deposit into the Proposition 98 portion of the “Rainy Day Fund,” districts would not be able to have reserves more than twice the minimum required by state regulation, which for the Piedmont Unified School District would amount to 6 percent (twice the 3% minimum). ACOE could provide PUSD an exemption under “extraordinary fiscal circumstances,” but only for up to two consecutive fiscal years within a three-year period; in the third year, or in any year a district does not receive an exemption, a district would need to spend down its reserves to the new maximum or below. The language was amended between its drafting and its adoption to clarify that the reserve cap is only active in the year immediately after a fiscal year in which the state makes a deposit into the Proposition 98 reserve.
– The Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s sunshine law, was strengthened by the June 3, 2014 voter approval of Proposition 42. –
California voters in an overwhelming victory for open and transparent government approved a Constitutional amendment requiring public meetings and records to be open and available without State reimbursement of costs.
Many public entities, including the City of Piedmont, had regularly submitted claims to the State for reimbursement of costs associated with notifying the public of public meetings. During the recent deep recession, Governor Jerry Brown suspended the State’s reimbursement of the costs. Piedmont officials agreed to continue compliance with the Brown Act; however, some jurisdictions decided not to comply when funding was terminated.
The voter approval of Proposition 42 by 2,399,314 /61.9% Yes secures and further embeds the Brown Act into the California Constitution while no longer requiring State reimbursement of costs.
The measure requires all local governments and agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and with any subsequent changes to the acts, thus guaranteeing a person’s right to inspect public records and attend public meetings. Proposition 42 also made these laws core government responsibilities, ensuring taxpayers are not paying for items local governments have a duty to provide on their own.
The California Public Records Act (CPRA) provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of state or local agencies that retain those records and that every person has a right to inspect any public record. The act also requires agencies to establish written guidelines for public access to documents and to post these guidelines at their offices.
The California Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) requires local legislative bodies to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public. The act also permits all persons to attend any meeting of the local legislative body, unless a closed session is authorized.
The measure was sponsored in the California Legislature by State Senator Mark Leno (D-11) as Senate Constitutional Amendment 3.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/california-voters-check-yes-42
– Public access is limited when some School and City meetings on finances, budgets, zoning, planning, education, and others are held away from cameras and recording devices leaving only hearty individuals viewing important civic matters. –
Citizens, who want to know first hand how and why some civic decisions are formulated, will need to personally go to the many unrecorded, out of the way meetings. Some are noted below.
Transparency has been a great interest in Piedmont.
From the undergrounding of utilities, Blair Park development, sewer costs, Alan Harvey Theater design, parcel taxes, and so on, Piedmonters have expressed concern over the lack of access and transparency of underlying pivotal civic decisions.
During a recent Council Budget session, it was noted that hundreds of viewers have gone to the City’s website to view live streamed and prerecorded meetings on their home computers. Home viewers can also watch broadcasted meetings on their televisions via Comcast Channel 27. The City does not know how many home viewers use the service and, according to Comcast, data is not collected. Piedmont’s public broadcasting station, KCOM, generally reruns recorded meetings on Channel 27 and makes them available through the City website.
Despite the availability of space and broadcasting equipment, meetings are often scheduled where public access is difficult and home viewing is impossible.
Frequent locations of the less accessible meetings are: Piedmont Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in the Police Department, the Council Conference Room in City Hall and the School District Executive Offices below Millennium High School. These locations do not have broadcast equipment.
Noted below are some of the City and School meetings that are only available to those present at the meetings, not home viewers.
Examples of non-broadcasted meetings are:
– Piedmont Unified School District-
Budget Advisory Committee: The committee, under the direction of the School Superintendent and officially designated in the recent parcel tax ballot measure, makes recommendations through the Piedmont Unified School District Superintendent to the School Board on budgets and taxation. The committee is an amorphous group ranging from teachers, school staff, parents, Board members, community members, and others who attend the publicly announced meetings. School District staff members present to the committee information on the fiscal condition of the District and educational programs. A member of the Board of Education is typically present at the Budget Advisory Committee meetings. The meetings are open to the public and are usually held in the School District Executive Offices. There are no electronic recordings or broadcasts of the meetings.
Measure A School Support Tax Subcommittee: The members of the subcommittee are selected from the Budget Advisory Committee attendees. Three residents are selected for the Subcommittee. The voter approved Measure A parcel tax requires the Subcommittee to review the fiscal condition of the School District and advise the School Board annually on the need and range of the Measure A parcel tax levy having a base of $2,406 per parcel. This year the Subcommittee recommended that the Board levy the maximum tax, a 2% increase on the base. The Subcommittee provides the School Board with a written report on their recommendations. The Subcommittee meetings are not publicly noticed and are not open to the public. There are no recordings or broadcast of their meetings.
– City of Piedmont –
Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee: The committee members are appointed by the City Council and make recommendations to the City Council. Staff presents the fiscal condition of the City and the committee makes wide ranging recommendations to the Council on pensions, bond measures, budgeting, employee compensation, capital expenditures, fund reserves, taxes, and maintenance. The committee has recently suggested a tax increase for sewers. Meetings are publicly noticed and open to the public. At the City’s recent Brown Act training seminar, the Acting City attorney instructed attendees that the Committee is a Brown Act body requiring notice and minutes. The meetings are generally held in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC) with no broadcasts or recordings.
City Council Budget Work Sessions: The City Council annually meets to hear presentations from City staff on the upcoming fiscal year budget. The meetings are publicly announced and open to the public. The meetings are held in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center using a round table format. The sessions are pivotal to budget decisions. No video recordings or broadcast of the meetings are produced.
Piedmont Planning Commission: The Planning Commission will hold a “Community Meeting on the Housing Element” in a location known for close quarters and no cameras, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in the Police Department. The Planning Director and planning consultant announced that an “opportunity” for the community to voice their opinions on Piedmont’s proposed Housing Element was set for June 26 in the EOC. The Housing Element could be controversial as it presents new regulations regarding increasing second units, adding affordable housing, building apartments on top of commercial buildings, assessing multiple unit zoning, and reducing taxes on affordable units. There will be no broadcast or recordings of this meeting.
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Review Committee: The CIP committee provides advice on how to spend millions of capital dollars. The City Council appoints five members of the committee. The other three members are: one, selected by and from the Piedmont Garden Club’s Piedmont Beautification Foundation; one, from the Recreation Commission; and one, from the Park Commission. Money reserved by the City in the CIP fund has been used for numerous purposes including beautification projects, street and sidewalk improvements, recreational facilities, landscaping, and $2 million for underground utility problems. The meetings are publicly noticed. An upcoming meeting on how to allocate $500,000 of WW Bond funds is to be held in the Council Conference Room. There will be no broadcast of the meetings.
City Council Interviews of Applicants for Appointed City Positions, such as Commissions and Committees: Annually, the City Council makes appointments to fill open positions on commissions and committees. Although not specifically designated as financial positions, many of the members of the City’s various appointed committees and commissions routinely make recommendations with financial implications. The sessions are publicly noticed and open to the public. The meetings have been held in the small City Council Conference Room. Public records do not include the names of applicants, and only those applicants who are appointed are publicly announced. The Council’s interviews are not broadcast or otherwise recorded.
City Seminars on the Brown Act and Rules of Procedure: Two meetings in May to “train” elected and appointed officials on factors governing Piedmont meetings were held. Notice was not provided of the meetings, and the meetings were not open to the public. Councilmembers, commissioners, and appointed committee members were invited to the meetings held in the Council Chambers. During one of the meetings, a video was produced by the City and is available here. No live broadcasts of the meetings were produced.
Meetings that can regularly be viewed by Comcast subscribers on Channel 27 and on home computers via live streaming are: City Council, Park, Planning, and Recreation Commissions, School Board, and from time to time various ad hoc committees.
To view live and previously broadcast meetings, go to the City website at:
– Resident Bernard Pech calls attention to a June 10, 2014 Tentative Opinion on dismissal, seniority-based layoffs and “permanent employment”. –
With the help of ‘Students Matter’, nine California public school students filed a lawsuit against the state of California in May 2012. They argued that several state laws related to teacher staffing and employment blocked schools from prioritizing student interests — and thus violated their right to equal educational opportunity. The plaintiffs in Vergara focused on three primary areas of California law in their case: the “permanent employment” statute; various dismissal statutes; and the requirement of seniority-based layoffs or “last-in, first-out” (LIFO) for teacher layoffs.
Finally a path has been found to change the California Education Code: declare specific sections unconstitutional!
Refer to Tentative Decision “Vergara versus California”: http://studentsmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tenative-Decision.pdf(link is external)
Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
School Theater Bonds Fail –
Measure H would have allowed the Piedmont Unified School District to issue school bonds valued at $13,500,000 plus interest for remodeling and improving Piedmont High School’s Alan Harvey Theater. New classrooms, refurbished seating, accessibility, and other improvements were the basis of the plan.
Concern had been expressed over the reduction in seating capacity and inefficient use of taxpayer money. Opponents argued for an improved plan, use of resources on academic subjects including science, technology, and math, and increased community input into the design. Others warned against borrowing the maximum amount allowed under State law, as Piedmont was already heavily in debt for school bonds.
At 8:06 p.m. election night, June 3, with only absentee votes counted, the results were:
NO = 745 50.13%
YES = 741 49.87%
“So goes the absentee vote, so goes the election,” has been a tradition in Piedmont for decades. The end results proved the old saying to be true.
Although the final vote count will not be certified for days, with all Piedmont precincts counted the unofficial results as of 11:09 p.m., June 3, were:
NO = 1317 51.41%
YES = 1245 48.59%
School bonds require 55% voter approval by those voting on the measure.
Mail in ballots left at polling places will be added to the count. These are not expected to change the results.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As of June 7, the updated unofficial final results were:
NO = 1683 52.40%
YES = 1529 47.60%
School finances and programs will be discussed.
Open to the public:
“The Program/ Budget Advisory Committee is a standing committee with representatives from all stakeholders in the District. Its purpose is to review the District’s Budget, share the information with constituent groups and generate recommendations for Board consideration in the Budget development process. Members will be asked to serve in rotation for a one to two year cycle. Responsibilities will include attendance at meetings and sharing of information with their representative group and to represent the interests of all programs and services for the District as a whole. The Budget is fluid and therefore under constant “revision” as revenues and expenditures are clarified. The Program/Budget Advisory Committee is a vehicle to disseminate information to as many parents, students, staff and community members as possible. The Committee is advisory in nature and will not have decision-making responsibilities.”
Piedmont Unified School District
This informative meeting will be held:
Thursday, June 4, 2014
3:30 – 5:00 p.m.
District Office Board Room,
760 Magnolia Ave., Piedmont, CA
No broadcast of the meeting will be available.
Interested individuals may attend the meeting.
The Subcommittee, composed of three members of the Budget Advisory Committee, are chosen to advise the Board of Education on the annual parcel tax levy, currently over $2,400 per year.
AGENDA
1. Welcome
2. May Revise (PERS/STRS)
3. 2014-15 Budget – Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
4. Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP)
At the June 2 City Council meeting, the Council is expected to place on the November 2014 ballot a City Charter change to require Piedmont’s General Election to be concurrent with the State’s General Election in November of even number years and also to change School Board reorganization dates.
A question on the proposed Charter language has arisen.
The questionable language was added to facilitate the extension of terms, but possibly could have other implications. The language states:
“They shall hold office for four (4) years or until their successor is sworn into office.”
There is the possibility that an elected candidate, prior to being sworn into office, could not serve because of death, disqualification or withdrawal. The proposed language could extend the term of a termed-out Councilmember until a successor is chosen. If there is more than one termed-out Councilmember, which one would remain on the Council “until a successor is sworn into office?”
The language “or until their successor is sworn into office” appears to presume there is a designated seat for each elected member of the Council. In Piedmont, individuals on the Council are elected at-large by all voters. There are no designated seats to be filled “until their successor is sworn into office.”
Current office holders on the Council and School Board will have their terms extended from March to November of their term, an approximate 8 month extension.
The changes are being made to gain greater participation in Piedmont elections, remedy School Board reorganization dates, and reduce the cost of Piedmont elections.
The City and School appointed liaisons, two representatives from the City Council and two from the School Board, will confer on issues of joint interest on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue.
The meeting is open to the public, but is not expected to be broadcast or recorded.
Listed on the agenda are:
1. Discussion of Litter Issues in Piedmont Park
2. Review of Crossing Guard Program
3. Discussion of Safety Training Coordination between Schooolmates and PUSD staff
4. Discussion of Joint Efforts to Increase Participation in the City’s Emergency Notification System
5. Discussion of School District Landscaping Needs
6. Discussion of Enforcement of Use Restrictions on School Property
7. Update on Results of the June 2, 2014 Election
8. Schedule of Future Meetings – Agenda Topics
No meeting materials have been made available.
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane