Showing posts with label . Bresee (Mark Bresee school attorney). Show all posts
Showing posts with label . Bresee (Mark Bresee school attorney). Show all posts

Friday, June 07, 2013

Attorney Mark Bresee says no conflict for school board member Richard Barrera with job at Labor Council


Mark Bresee

The education elite--administrators and union officials and their respective lawyers--are already working together behind closed doors. They often oppose each other in public, but they're united in keeping the voters ignorant of how decisions are made in schools. Mark Bresee speaks from first-hand experience when he says, truthfully, that board member Richard Barrera's new job on the Labor Council isn't really a problem.

If anything, Barrera will probably be more likely to consider the wellbeing of students when deciding what demands he'll support for teachers.


Attorney: No Conflict for Labor Leader Trustee
By Wendy Fry
Jun 7, 2013
NBC 7 San Diego

An attorney for the San Diego school district has weighed-in on the controversy surrounding a trustee taking a job with the Labor Council.

Outside Counsel Mark Bresee says trustee Richard Barrera has no conflict-of-interest serving on both the school board, and as the chief of the Labor Council.

School trustee Barrera was recently elected as the leader of an umbrella organization that represents 135 unions, some of which are present in the San Diego schools.

"We are pretty much defined as a citizen's board," said Barrera about the school board. "So, obviously, people are going to have other jobs. If my compensation at the Labor Council was structured in a way that if a teacher's union gets a raise, then I get a raise, then I would be required to recuse myself but that's just not the case. My compensation has nothing to do with member union benefits."

The attorney, from the Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo firm hired by the district to do a legal analysis on the situation, agreed.

Barrera should refrain from participating in decisions on which the Labor Council has advocated a specific position, the lawyer also wrote.

In the meantime, an assistant to the board said Friday the board office has received more than 100 phone calls from the public expressing a negative opinion of the situation.

Tony Krvaric, chairman for the Republican party, said a robocall is going out to district parents informing them of Barrera's new job and connecting them to the district to complain.

"The board's own legal opinion urged caution when SDEA or CSEA issues are involved," Krvaric said. "What decisions on a school board don't affect the teachers unions, and who is going to pay for the legal analysis on each vote?"

To read the full legal opinon of the district's outside counsel, click here.

Source: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Attorney-No-Conflict-For-Labor-Leader-Trustee-210639971.html#ixzz2VbPQWeX9

Saturday, June 11, 2011

I'm shocked! Did attorney Mark Bresee give bad legal advice to the Rio School District board? The District Attorney seems to suspect so

DA says Rio board may have broken open-meetings law
By Cheri Carlson
June 10, 2011

The Rio School District board appears to have broken state law that prohibits trustees from discussing or taking action on issues outside of a meeting, the District Attorney's Office said this week.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Special Assistant District Attorney Michael Schwartz said his office received a complaint that the board held a serial meeting to hire its legal counsel. Such an action would violate the state's open-meetings law — called the Brown Act.

But in another letter this week, the DA's Office dismissed a list of other allegations against the Rio board. The allegations, which included charges of bribery and conflict of interest, were brought by two board members against the three-member board majority.

The violation appears to have taken place before the Rio board's Feb. 10 closed-session meeting, according to a letter Schwartz sent to trustees this week.

Attorney Mark Bresee appeared to have acted as an intermediary by getting a consensus from three trustees that he advise them about Superintendent Sherianne Cotterell's termination, the letter states. Bresee has since been hired as the board's general counsel.

"The District Attorney has the authority to bring a civil lawsuit to stop or prevent threatened violations of the Brown Act," Schwartz wrote. He asked the district to respond to the concerns, so the DA's Office can determine if it needs to bring such an action.

Board President Eleanor Torres said Friday that Bresee is expected to provide additional information to the DA's Office soon. She expects that information will clear up any concerns.

However, if it is determined that a violation occurred, the board will make sure the issue is properly addressed and remedied, Torres said.

Bresee declined to comment while the matter is still under review.

Under the Brown Act, a majority of a board members cannot discuss or take action on board business outside of a meeting. That's the case if trustees speak directly to each other or through an intermediary, the DA's Office said.

In this case, Torres had contacted Bresee to discuss issues regarding Cotterell and asked him to come to the Feb. 10 meeting, which he did. Bresee was not the board's attorney at the time, but another lawyer at his firm worked for the district on other issues and referred Torres to him.

Bresee appears to have then confirmed with Trustees Henrietta Macias and Ramon Rodriguez that they also wanted him at the Feb. 10 meeting to discuss the superintendent's contract, officials said.

The Rio board did not take action at a public meeting to hire Bresee as its general counsel until the end of March.

At a March 2 special meeting, Macias, Torres and Rodriguez voted to terminate Cotterell's contract without cause.

Trustee Tim Blaylock voted against the move. And Trustee Mike Barber, who also supported Cotterell, was unable to attend the meeting because of a prior commitment.

Blaylock and Barber brought their concerns to the DA's Office.

In the separate letter to trustees this week, Schwartz addressed eight other allegations the two trustees had brought forward, saying that "no violations have been established that would warrant action by the District Attorney's Office."

On Friday, Torres said that none of the allegations were warranted. "They (Blaylock and Barber) are wasting so much time and effort on a whole lot of different agencies' parts," she said.

Blaylock, who said he wants to make sure the board governs properly, said he appreciated that the DA's Office looked into the concerns. "I think he (Schwartz) took his time. He investigated, and he did a thorough job," Blaylock said.

Blaylock, however, said he continues to have concerns. Other cases could be reopened should more information become available, he said.

Torres said she hopes the board will be able to move forward and work together. "It just comes to a point when it has to stop," she said. "Let's go forward."

"It's quite clear that there are differing opinions of members of the board," Schwartz said Friday.

The DA's Office isn't taking any position on issues such as what trustees should vote for or vote against, who they should hire or fire, he said. "Our concern is that the process be done correctly, and the right for the public to participate be honored."

- vcstar.com

Here is a case in which Mark Bresee gave advice to Chula Vista Elementary School District.

Saturday, June 04, 2011

New employer of former SDUSD general counsel Mark Bresee is sued for Brown Act violations

Rio school board sued over alleged Brown Act violations
By Cheri Carlson
Ventura County Star
June 3, 2011

Attorney William Grimm has filed suit in Ventura County Superior Court, alleging the Rio School District board broke state law in several closed-door meetings leading up to Sherianne Cotterell's removal as superintendent.

Grimm, who is married to Cotterell, wants the court to order trustees to follow California's open meetings law — the Brown Act. He also wants the court to declare null and void the split board's March 2 action to terminate Cotterell's contract without cause.

Cotterell was given 60 days' notice of the termination following the board's 3-1 vote that night.

The board majority has demonstrated a complete disregard for laws and policies, Grimm said this week in an email response to questions.

"They have done so because no one stands up to them," he said. "It is time they are held accountable. The court needs to send a message to the board majority that they are not above the law."

Rio officials disagreed. "The district denies that any violations of the Brown Act occurred, and we intend to vigorously contest the lawsuit," said attorney Mark Bresee, who represents the Rio board.

Discussions the board had in closed session were consistent with what was listed on the agendas, he said. "I obviously can't and won't discuss what the board discussed in closed session, because I'm legally bound to maintain the confidentiality of that."

Regarding the March 2 action, Bresee said "public employee discipline, dismissal, release" was listed on the agenda. People commented on the issue, the board took action to dismiss and release the superintendent, and reported that action after the closed session ended, as required by law, he said.

Under the Brown Act, trustees are allowed to meet behind closed doors to discuss a limited number of issues, including personnel. They must, however, disclose on the agenda what they generally will consider in the meeting and allow the public to comment.

Grimm said that didn't happen.

Agendas for closed sessions from Feb. 10 to March 2 included items for the superintendent's evaluation and employee discipline, dismissal or release. But those descriptions were inadequate and misleading, according to the suit.

Trustees did not disclose that they were considering potential litigation and should not have discussed compensation behind closed doors, according to Grimm's complaint.

The day after the Feb. 10 meeting, the board's attorney contacted Cotterell's representative and proposed terms for her to resign in return for about 10 months of salary, about $137,500, the suit states.

Under her contract, the maximum cash settlement for the board to end Cotterell's employment without cause likely would equal 18 months of pay, or about $247,500.

On Feb. 14, Cotterell gave the district a counter-proposal, including an explanation of her position and four potential claims she was considering filing against the district. The complaint did not provide details of that counter-proposal.

The board then met in closed session Feb. 17. According to the suit, the board discussed and rejected Cotterell's settlement offer and proposed compensation package.

The district also made a counter-offer, including a waiver to any claims the superintendent might bring against the district, the complaint states.

Bresee said there were several inaccuracies in the suit. He also disagreed that the board wrongly discussed compensation in closed session. There are times when a board may consider financial settlements in a closed session, he said.

Cotterell's contract specifically addresses the issue of a settlement if her contract is terminated without cause, he said.

To label something as potential litigation, the Brown Act requires a legal opinion that significant exposure to litigation exists, he said. He did not believe that existed at the time.

Bresee said the district will file a response to Grimm's court complaint within 30 days.

Rio trustees met again Feb. 24 and March 2, when trustees announced they had voted 3-1 to exercise the "no-cause" termination clause of Cotterell's contract. Trustee Tim Blaylock voted against the move, and Trustee Mike Barber, who also supported Cotterell, was absent.

Board President Eleanor Torres and trustees Henrietta Macias and Ramon Rodriguez voted in favor of the move. The vote came about three months after four new trustees were sworn in after being elected to the five-member board.

At a meeting last week, Blaylock told other trustees that he plans to bring forward proposals to increase public access regarding board business.

He, too, thinks violations have occurred in open and closed sessions over the past several months, including trustees taking action on issues in closed session that aren't adequately described on agendas, he said. Other trustees have disputed those claims.

It's not the first time a Rio school board has faced a lawsuit over alleged Brown Act violations after firing a superintendent. In 2003, Yolanda Benitez was fired in a 3-2 decision, with Macias as one of the majority votes.

Benitez later sued and won a large settlement from the district after courts ruled the board had broken the Brown Act.

Friday, March 04, 2011

What happened to Mark Bresee, the recently-resigned general counsel for SDUSD?

He's up in Ventura, where the new school board is taking action against a superintendent popular with the old board.

Rio board moves to buy out superintendent's contract
By Cheri Carlson
Ventura County Star
March 2, 2011

Rio School District
trustees announced in a split decision Wednesday night that they will buy out schools chief Sherianne Cotterell's contract, which would make her the third consecutive Rio superintendent forced out by a board.

It was the fourth week in a row that trustees scheduled a closed-door discussion for a performance review of the superintendent. The discussions came just three months after four new trustees were sworn in after being elected to the five-member board.

Weeks before the new members took their seats, Cotterell had received excellent ratings in a performance review by the former board.

In a 3-1 vote Wednesday, newly elected board President Eleanor Torres and trustees Henrietta Macias and Ramon Rodriguez voted to exercise a provision of Cotterell's contract that allows the board to terminate the employment agreement without cause. They also announced that Cotterell will be put on paid administrative leave, effective at the end of business Friday.

The board will provide Cotterell with 60 days' written notice of its decision today, board attorney Mark Bresee said.
The contract requires written notice before a termination without cause.

Any discussion and the vote itself took place in closed session. Torres declined to comment about why the decision was made.

Trustee Mike Barber, who was absent Wednesday, said he had requested the meeting be held on a different day because of previously scheduled plans. A statement he wrote was read into the record before the closed session.

"I want to be clear and on the record that I am against the action that certain members of the board are taking," Barber wrote in the statement. "I support our current superintendent and the job she is doing for the district."

Trustee Tim Blaylock, the sole remaining member of the previous board, was the only vote against the move Wednesday...

The board's action came amid criticism of the superintendent's misdemeanor conviction on shoplifting charges last year, and a long-strained relationship between the teachers union and district administration.

Torres, Macias and Rodriguez were endorsed by the Rio Teachers Association.

Cotterell's contract was to expire at the end of this June, but the former board met in November and gave her positive performance ratings for the past two years, triggering a two-year contract extension.

A maximum cash settlement for the board to end Cotterell's employment without cause likely would equal 18 months of pay, or $247,500. Cotterell gets a base salary of $165,000 annually, according to her employment contract.In recent weeks, some have lauded her work in Rio. Others have criticized her, as well as former trustees, for extending her contract before the new board was seated...

Rio revolving door

March 2003: Superintendent Yolanda Benitez is suspended.

June 2003: The board fires Benitez and appoints Patrick Faverty as superintendent.

September 2003: Benitez files suit against the district and three board members, claiming wrongful termination, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

June 2005: Board decides not to extend Faverty's contract.

November 2005: Faverty says he will resign at end of the school year.

January 2006: State appellate court rules trustees violated state open-meetings law when they fired Benitez.

March 2006: Board settles with Benitez, paying her and her attorneys nearly $1.4 million.

July 2006: Board appoints Sherianne Cotterell as superintendent.

August 2006: Three board members are recalled.

Nov. 2, 2010: Four new trustees are elected to the board.

Nov. 4, 2010: Cotterell gets excellent performance review from board, before new trustees take office.

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

The interesting relationship between the ACLU and San Diego Unified School District

It's strange that the ACLU left SDUSD out of its lawsuit regarding school fees. I have often wondered if ACLU attorney David Blair-Loy has compromised the ACLU's basic principles in his eagerness to get along with school attorneys. I think Blair-Loy has worked harder to get his "civility" award from the San Diego Bar Association than to defend the Constitution of the United States.


See all posts re David Blair-Loy.

San Diego Unified Not a Defendant in School Fee Suit
September 10, 2010
by Emily Alpert
Voice of San Diego

While schools in San Diego Unified School District have repeatedly gotten in trouble for charging fees for school activities and supplies, the American Civil Liberties Union ultimately decided not to name the district in its lawsuit against the state of California.

The suit, which accuses the state of failing to protect the right to a free public education, mentions school districts across the state that charge for classes. David Blair-Loy, legal director for the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said unlike others, San Diego Unified has taken significant steps to solve the problem, such as posting information about the law on the school district website.

None of the districts cited in the lawsuit are actually defendants; the ACLU is suing California itself. Blair-Loy said that while schools should not charge illegal fees, the bigger problem is that California has failed to adequately fund schools.

"We know they're getting starved by the state. We sympathize with their dilemma," Blair-Loy said. "The problem would be unlikely to arise if districts were adequately funded to begin with."

Sally Smith, a mother who repeatedly raised the issue of school fees, charging that the practice was illegal, says despite its efforts, San Diego Unified has still failed to explain the law to all parents. Many families lack computer access and need explanations in languages other than English.

School district attorney Mark Bresee said while San Diego Unified is not planning to mail out information about school fees and the law to all parents, the district has provided sample language for schools to use in their own parent newsletters and other communications with families.

"We don't view not being named in the (ACLU) complaint as some sort of vindication," Bresee said. "We had issues in San Diego. We still have issues in San Diego. And we've been working harder than any school district I know of to remedy them."

Here's the letter the ACLU wrote to Bresee explaining why the school district was not named in the lawsuit.

Saturday, December 04, 2010

SDUSD General Counsel Mark Bresee made a habit of concealing documents

This story sounds extremely familiar to me. I have personal experience with Mark Bresee's failure to produce documents.

UPDATE:

We’d Never Stand in Auditors’ Way, Says Attorney

December 6, 2010
by Emily Alpert

Last week Andrea Niehaus, who heads up internal audits at San Diego Unified, told financial watchdogs that school district attorneys have hampered her independence, saying that in one instance, she had to wait for a school attorney's approval before examining payments to a school health trust.

Schools attorney Andra Donovan, who was at the same meeting where Niehaus aired her concerns, said she didn't believe lawyers had ever interfered with the auditors. Over the weekend, I also heard from Mark Bresee, the attorney who just left the school district for a new job.

Bresee wrote in an email:

I neither asked nor expected other departments to seek Legal office approval to give documents to auditors/investigators; and 2) in the circumstance Andrea mentioned, when I was asked (unsolicited) whether the documents should be given to the auditors, I told them to give the auditors what they ask for.

The Legal office has not ever, nor will it ever, stand in the way of getting auditors and the investigator information relevant to their work.

Yet that is exactly the complaint that Niehaus raised, saying she had trouble getting documents for the first time in her lengthy career at San Diego Unified. What's even more odd and interesting about this clash between San Diego Unified attorneys and auditors is that the audit department has long been managed by the legal department. So why are conflicts erupting now?...

COMMENT:

John De Beck posted at 10:09 am on Tue, Dec 7, 2010:

I disagree about the statement that the INDEPENDENT internal auditors have been managed by anyone in the district until recently when they were placed under the SUPERVISION of the school's legal department. Supervision implies evaluation and control of the operations. INDEPENDENCE is a requirement for an internal audit department, just like it should be for the school police. Imagine if the school police had to get permission to invenstigate a campus crime, or to follow up on a citizens complaint, or if they had to worry if they made an arrest because it involved a person with board of education influence. That restriction is clearly out of the realm of ANY other district employee, including LAWYERS and that freedom to operate should also be true for INTERNAL AUDITORS. They follow the leads they get from ANONYMOUS employee hot lines. ANY INFLUENCE or threat on their work could be characterised as based on political considerations. When compalints about the police or the internal auditors PROCESSES come up, the facts of the case should not be suppressed. I maintain that Bresee is wrong again. He was judged wrong at least twice before by reputable local attorneys. Being afraid of your supervisors is not INDEPENDENCE, and restrains honest investigation. The board should deal with this immediately. The fraudulent behavior discovered by the auditors is irrefutable, (and even arrogently admitted by the staff) but the behavior of the school system is deplorable.



'They Can't Tell Me What to Look At'

December 3, 2010
by Emily Alpert

Schools' internal auditor Andrea Niehaus said today that her independence has been hampered by San Diego Unified attorneys, airing the charge to a school committee that oversees audits.

"They don't seem to understand that they can't tell me what to look at," Niehaus said this morning. She added she had never had such problems getting documents before in her 31-year career at the district.

Niehaus told members of the school district audit committee, which serves as an outside financial watchdog for San Diego Unified, that in one instance, she had had to wait for a school attorney's approval before she could examine payments to a school health trust.

Chief schools attorney Andra Donovan, who recently stepped in to replace Mark Bresee on an interim basis after he took another job, said she didn't believe legal staffers had ever interfered with the auditors. Donovan stopped short of saying more, telling the committee, "It's not appropriately addressed here."

The allegation comes at the same time that Niehaus and her department are being investigated by outside attorneys. San Diego Unified started the investigation after school employees complained about an audit on grade changing at their alternative school, arguing that interviews with faculty and staff were "inconsistent and/or nonexistent."

The investigation has held up the grade-changing audit. It has also highlighted tensions between the school district auditors and its legal department, which manages the auditors.

Monday, October 25, 2010

SDUSD General Counsel Mark Bresee is out; Keenan and Associates

Insurance companies and brokers play a big role in schools. One insurance broker, Keenan and Associates, seems to have triggered recent problems in San Diego Unified School District. (See second story below.)

Schools' Top Attorney Is Out
Voice of San Diego
by Emily Alpert
October 25, 2010

School district attorney Mark Bresee is leaving San Diego Unified to join an education law firm. The school district announced his departure after a dispute over closed meeting rules that led one school board member to publicly criticize his judgment as an attorney and suggest Bresee should step down.

The school district said Breese told Superintendent Bill Kowba that he had decided to leave a week ago, and told the school board Thursday. The press release also stated:

"Mark has provided excellent counsel to the Board and excellent leadership for our legal services office. Through his efforts we realized significant savings in our overall legal expenses," said Richard Barrera, Board President. "Mark is as fine a public servant as I have ever encountered."

Bresee was recently criticized by school board member John de Beck for excluding him from a closed school board meeting over concerns that he had a conflict of interest. An outside attorney later determined that de Beck should not have been excluded from the meeting, de Beck and another school board member said.

Though the school board was informed by email on Thursday that Bresee was leaving, de Beck, who has been traveling in Turkey, issued an email announcement Friday saying he believed Bresee should consider stepping down.

Bresee said he had already decided to leave before de Beck sent his email. He is joining the firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo as a partner.



Dual Roles Put School Board Member in Bind
October 21, 2010
by Emily Alpert

School board member John de Beck was outraged.

Weeks ago, he was frozen out of a closed school board meeting. Nobody had told him the meeting was happening at all. And then the school district attorney said he'd been kept out of the loop because he had a potential conflict of interest.

The school board was talking about the co-op that provides its employees medical benefits, the Southern California Schools Voluntary Employees Benefits Association. For almost four years, de Beck has sat on the health trust board. At the same time, he has voted on and discussed issues relating to the health trust as a San Diego Unified school board member.

De Beck said the idea that he has a conflict is ridiculous. He gets no money for serving. The health trust board is supposed to include a school board member.

His role hasn't been publicly questioned before. But in the last few weeks, de Beck has been criticized for his dual roles. Other school board members and the school district attorney have questioned whether de Beck can be loyal to both boards at once. If something is good for the school district and not for the trust — or vice versa — they worry de Beck could be torn.

"I'm not sure how objective you could be," said school board member John Lee Evans.

The issue exploded after the school district started exploring whether it should split from the trust altogether. De Beck has been firmly opposed to leaving the trust.

He said excluding him from the meeting was illegal. And he argued that because the trust is a nonprofit cooperative, not a private company, it poses no conflict for him to serve on its board.

"I serve as a volunteer," de Beck said. "How can I have a conflict of interest?"

The health trust works with medical insurance carriers to provide benefits for employees in school districts across San Diego County and the state. By pooling the resources of dozens of school districts, it argues, it is able to get better deals than if districts go it alone. De Beck has touted those as reasons to stay with the trust.

Because it is a partnership between labor unions and school district management, its board includes labor leaders and school district superintendents. De Beck is one of two elected officials on the board, representing the County School Boards Association.

Although the group is a nonprofit, there is a lot of money involved. San Diego Unified is budgeted to pay the trust almost $157 million this year for health benefits and overhead. The trust spent more than $5.3 million on management and general expenses last year, according to its tax returns.

Scott Barnett, who is running against de Beck for school board, argues that sitting on the health trust board is no different than if de Beck sat on the board of a textbook publishing company.

"This is a major vendor of the school district," Barnett said. He believes de Beck should have recused himself from any talks about the health trust. "If it isn't illegal, it should be."

Health trust board members get iPads on loan to view meeting materials. Barnett argues they amount to a gift. As de Beck vies for re-election, he has also gotten $750 in campaign contributions from George McGregor, who administers the health trust.

The school board recently hired attorneys to analyze whether de Beck has a legal conflict of interest. School board members said they couldn't share the attorneys' conclusions because they met with them in closed session this week.

Ethics experts said the arrangement could pose ethical problems when disputes divide the district and the trust. For instance, San Diego Unified paid $2.6 million to the trust last year to settle a payment dispute.

De Beck was absent the day the school board approved the settlement. He said he stepped out of health trust meetings about the issue. But on the health trust board, de Beck ultimately made the motion to approve the settlement with the school district. And he readily says that he talked to the school board about the dispute in closed session before the settlement was struck.

He has also voted on health trust issues on the school board, albeit less sensitive ones, such as adding another health plan for retirees and automating billing.

That raises a red flag for Paul Root Wolpe, director of the Center for Ethics at Emory University. He said de Beck shouldn't vote on the health trust or participate actively in discussions about it because its interests could conflict with those of the school board.

The questions about de Beck's roles erupted after a private insurance company, Keenan & Associates, courted San Diego Unified this year. School board members say Keenan argued the district would save money if it separated from the health trust and bought benefits through them. The school board decided to let Keenan get information to evaluate whether it would save money.

Labor unions were wary. San Diego Unified had just signed union agreements for the next three years that included the health trust. Labor leaders were suspicious the district would try to duck those agreements.

De Beck alleged that the school district had improperly given Keenan sensitive information about employees' health. Keenan denies that; San Diego Unified says it is investigating whether or not that happened and issued an agreement to protect employees if it did.

De Beck also accused school board member Shelia Jackson, who raised the idea of separating from the trust, of trying to help Keenan and bypass the unions to do it. In an email to Keenan employees, Keenan consultant Jim Madaffer, a former city councilman, dubbed Jackson their "steadfast and staunch ally." He also said he'd told Jackson they should give the business directly to Keenan without bidding it out.

Jackson said she was just trying to explore their options and had not guaranteed Keenan business.

Nonetheless, the school board was upset by the emails and decided to stop sharing information with Keenan. That stopped Keenan from analyzing whether splitting away from the health trust would save money — but it didn't stop the debate over whether de Beck could keep juggling two boards.

Thursday, September 02, 2010

SDUSD and Mark Bresee tell parents that public school is free

September 1, 2010
District message to parents: Public school is free
KFMB

SAN DIEGO, Calif. (CBS 8) - Thousands of San Diego students head back to school next week, and getting a child ready can be expensive. But if your child attends public school, it's supposed to be free. It's a message that the San Diego Unified School District wants parents to know.

Physical Education uniforms are selling fast at De Portola Middle School in Tierrasanta one week before school begins, $22 for a pair of short and a t-shirt with the school's logo. The principal says uniforms are required.

"Having a PE uniform is very important because kids try to come on campus and blend in, so it's a safety issue," principal Elizabeth Gillingham said.

Paying a fee for a school uniform is voluntary under state law. If a parent can't afford to pay, De Portola Middle School will provide a slightly used uniform for free. That's because public school is supposed to be free.

"There are lot of families out there that are struggling. They don't have the money. You have three children that have to purchase these uniforms, that's a lot of money," parent Sally Smith said.

Smith got tired of paying for calculators, school supplies and gym uniforms for her kids.

"Parents need to know that they don't have to pay for school supplies, and they don't have to tell anybody that it's because they can't afford to pay for it. It's their right to send their child to school and get a free education," she said.

Under California law, school districts cannot charge fees for things like cheerleading or sports uniforms, school supplies or musical instruments. On the other hand, districts can charge for things like bus transportation, food, field trips or damaged books. And if you ever feel pressure to pay a school fee, district officials want to hear from you.

"If you are told that you have to pay a fee for your child to participate in something, or take a class, that should be brought to our attention because that's not right," San Diego Unified Attorney Mark Bresee said.

Of course, schools are still allowed to ask for donations, with is perfectly legal.

"We are asking if a parent wants to donate to the class for the entire class, we are welcoming that," Gillingham said.

The San Diego Unified School District has posted school fee guidelines and frequently asked questions on its web site.