Don't trust Stanford to do good by the city.

With their billions of assets, they should build their own school system and stop flooding PAUSD with students.

Joe Simitian is using the district and Palo Alto kids to get something for the county. He's the one who is not to be trusted. The rest of the county is not as nearly impacted by Stanford as Palo Alto and Palo Alto kids and the community deserve for these particular negotiations to faovr our town. This is not a county issue. It is a PAUSD/Stanford issue and Joe Simitian is holding our kids hostage.

Joe and his minions, PTAC, the District, the School Board members, and the Teacher's Union have been deceptive and deceitful from the beginning.

I see that Stanford has released their spin artists on this thread, too.

Whatever problems transpired between Stanford, PAUSD and the PTAs were not of Sup. Simitian's making. It was made crystal clear up front by the County Supervisors (collectively) that any agreement between PAUSD and Stanford would have to be unconditional and completely separate from negotiations related to the environmental review process (which relates to housing, transportation, and other impacts).

Stanford and PAUSD, in making their conditional agreement, failed to respect that one very clear condition. Sloppy work creates bad feelings. We can do better on all sides.

@PA Parent On Stanford Spin - "It was made crystal clear up front by the County Supervisors" - huh? Since neither Stanford, PAUSD's superintendent or board members, or the community got that memo, when do you think it as made so clear? In the other article, the school board president says the first she heard about it was when Simitian called her [portion removed] on Apr 12, after the deal had been negotiated.

When you think it is clear to you but it isn't to anybody else - it's not clear. And yes, that is definitely Joe Simitian's fault. Could he just admit he screwed up so we can move on with this thing?

Why are we making such a tsimmes over Joe Simitian?

[Portion removed .]

Obviously in a negotiation both parties try to use whatever leverage they have to gain what they want as an outcome.

Joe is using a draconian "terms of permit" from the GUP process to push Stanford to grant a generous Development Agreement.

Stanford is offering money for the schools, which the County cannot obtain through the permitting process, to entice the County to make a DA instead of impose the conditions it wants to avoid.

There is nothing untoward about any of that. That's what a negotiation is. Palo Alto is so incompetent at government that it is SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY that deals, the sort of which the residents of Palo Alto in their jobs in the private sector (try it some time Joe!) make all the time are sometimes hard bargains.

What is untoward is the childish and bullying way Joe Simitian has acted, and the totally inappropriate way the Weekly has carried his water as he (and the paper) have thrown around untrue allegations of wrongdoing by the School Board.

The real story is that Simitian is doing a lousy job. His petulance and narcissism are not good negotiating tactics, particularly against a powerful and patient foe like Stanford. No wonder he screwed the pooch in the last GUP. Stanford must be thrilled to see him on the other side of the table again.

Because there is so much housing that labor wants in the balance Cindy Chavez is going along. What does she care about the PAUSD anyway? Bunch of cake eaters to her. That's not her constituency to say the least. She's happy to forgo benefits for people she rightfully sees as greedy and well able to take care of themselves.

The mystery is why the Weekly is going along with Joe's mishandling of the situation, cheerleading for him as he bullies the Board president, and slamming the school board with fake allegations of misconduct to do Joe's bidding. Disappointing.

Posted by Simitian's Cat, a resident of Professorville

>> Obviously in a negotiation both parties try to use whatever leverage they have to gain what they want as an outcome.

>> There is nothing untoward about any of that. That's what a negotiation is. Palo Alto is so incompetent at government that it is SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY that deals, the sort of which the residents of Palo Alto in their jobs in the private sector (try it some time Joe!) make all the time are sometimes hard bargains.

You seem to be overlooking a couple of crucial points. In private industry, "serial meetings" are often the most efficient way to get a consensus. But, they are -illegal- for governing councils and boards in California. Instead, what has to happen, in a case like this, is that in a public session, school board members should state their goals and objectives for Stanford negotiations, the Superintendent should negotiate a proposed deal, and then the school board should openly discuss the proposed deal on its merits. IF Stanford has proprietary information that by law can be kept secret, that information can be discussed in a closed meeting. No serial meetings, no secret meetings to achieve a consensus before a pretend-meeting in public. That is the law. If that open, transparent process does not achieve as good a deal as a secret process would-- that is unfortunate, but, it is the price of transparency.

The other thing you are overlooking is that $138M may sound like a lot of money, but, that is over -40 years-. The -40 years- thing should immediately make people suspicious, frankly, because it is such a cliche' method to overstate the benefits of something. $3.45M/year, while not chump change, is also not nearly big enough to drive the entire $228M budget. In fact, it is small enough that it might just be cheaper to ignore Stanford-specific requirements and do what is in the best interest of the district as a whole.

Stanford is just doing what any big player does-- trying to negotiate a deal that it thinks is in its best interest. PAUSD should stop falling all over itself when dealing with Stanford and just negotiate the best deal that it can --transparently-- and move on.

Thanks @Simitians Cat for a sensible summary.

All the CPRA requests seem to show is a superintendent doing his job, keeping his board informed. No serial meetings, no sharing of views, no reaching of consensus. And despite the Weekly's (uncharacteristically) slanted coverage, the truth seems to be that there was one properly noticed and completely compliant closed session meeting, followed less than a week later by an open session meeting to sunshine the tentative agreement.

Thankfully, the "you violated the guidelines!" trope seems to have died, since everyone who has actually read them knows that they were carefully followed (looking at you, Joe S!).

As for the school district didn't get a good enough deal - wow. You realize that for the last GUP, they got a $10M one-time payment, right? And now they are getting $16.5M plus annual payments scaled to the number of kids who actually come? If you think you could do better, please go help Trump with North Korea.

The good news is that both Stanford and the County seem to be tripping over each other now to say how much they support the school deal and how they will honor it no matter what. Remember that when the horse-trading phase comes at the end!

So all you arm-chair Brown Act gurus can go back to - well, whatever it is you do. And maybe Joe can go back to doing his job instead of complaining about the School Board doing its.

Posted by Former Official, a resident of another community

>> As for the school district didn't get a good enough deal - wow. You realize that for the last GUP, they got a $10M one-time payment, right? And now they are getting $16.5M plus annual payments scaled to the number of kids who actually come? If you think you could do better, please go help Trump with North Korea.

"You do realize" that the direct yearly cost per student in certificated staff salaries and benefits per student, according to the 2017-2018 budget, is $10,800, right? So, if $5,800 is all we can get to offset that-- so be it. "You can't get blood out of a turnip." Add to that the way it was announced, and, the contingency clause, and the self-congratulations. Frankly, unprofessional.

BTW, I'm just not at all impressed with the ($16.5M) up front payment. The real cost to the district is the ongoing $130M/yr escalating cost of salaries and benefits for certificated teachers/staff. If I were negotiating a deal, I would want to recover as large a fraction of the actual $10,800 classroom cost per student per year that I could. (OBTW-- other costs, like janitors and groundskeepers, also go up with more students.) And no, $5,800 does not equal $10,800. As I said, if that is all that can be had, fine, but, it just isn't that good a deal. Is there some reason why we are supposed to pretend that it is? I guess realism just isn't in fashion.

Anon, according to the school district, they already have over 400 students coming from Stanford without almost zero contribution, and have for decades, starting in 1960 with the opening of Escondido Village.

So the Stanford contribution history seems to be - 1960 to 2000 - $0; 2001-2020 - $10M one time (EV expanded, Stanford West built); 2020-2040 - $16.5M one time plus an estimated $60M in annual payments, which will be higher if they build more than expected.
After 2040 it seems very likely this deal will be re-opened when a new GUP is needed.

Given that backdrop, and that Stanford's is required to pay only $4M in one-time developer fees, I'd say the situation has improved a fair bit and your public servants deserve your thanks more than the scorn you seem to give them.

Posted by Former Official, a resident of another community

>> Given that backdrop, and that Stanford's is required to pay only $4M in one-time developer fees, I'd say the situation has improved a fair bit and your public servants deserve your thanks more than the scorn you seem to give them.

"Scorn"? I think the PAUSD board messed up by not being "above suspicion" regarding open meetings, and, especially, with the [insert pejorative here] contingency clause. But, people make mistakes.

If I feel "scorn", it is for the people who keep falling all over themselves talking up what a great deal this was going to be for PAUSD. Stanford could reasonably have been expected to pay PAUSD $8M/year, but, if Stanford pays $2.3M/year plus a bonus, well, sure, that is better than -zero-/-zilch-/-nada-/whatever. In any case, top PAUSD administrator salaries appear to be getting out of hand, so, this probably isn't a good time for PAUSD to receive more money anyway. Maybe Stanford can cut a new deal that guarantees that whatever money it gives to PAUSD be spent on classroom teachers.

Totally crazy idea to trade $4 million cash for a $15 million “innovative space” aka a fancy room that teachers and students from Stanford and PAUSD can "collaborate" in. A space BTW that PAUSD must pay to staff returning multi-millions of taxpayers' dollars to Stanford’s d. and Education Schools charging when students and professors collaborate in it.

This is just a mini-me version of Jennifer DiBrienza and PAUSD’s defunct EMAC Committee’s innovative school for Cubberley a few years ago which the School Board nixed because it was expensive and not needed.

The Superintendent and DiBrienza and her friends were sharply criticized by the Weekly because of their secrecy when they tried to push it through that time.

Web Link "It's the secrecy, stupid / School superintendent works behind board's back to advance new 'innovative' high school”

Web Link “Inappropriate drive by a small cadre of community members toward opening a new school before the idea has even gone through the proper, democratic channels necessitated in a public school district"

Web Link “McGee 'urged' the [EMAC] subcommittee to work … with …Jo Boaler, a Stanford Graduate School of Education professor … along with education experts from the Stanford University Institute of Design, or d.school”

Rightly so, PAUSD is being sharply criticized because of its secrecy this time too.

Thank you Weekly for being the eyes and ears and voice for our school community all these years.

Palo Alto Weekly / July 2016

Web Link

DiBrienza's "advisor was Jo Boaler...DiBrienza worked as an elementary math specialist with Boaler's YouCubed at Stanford...

DiBrienza was involved in conversations among a group of Palo Alto parents who advocated strongly for the district to open a new, innovative secondary school, pointing to ...unmet desire in the community for a completely different kind of educational experience. Opening a new school site is less important to DiBrienza than finding a way to support more innovative programs, she said…

'We're in Silicon Valley. We innovate and create and invent for the world,' DiBrienza said. 'Our schools don't reflect that...our potential is so much greater than where we are' "

If Board President Jennifer DiBrienza

+ 2 other school board members

told Superintendent Austin in private, or in one of the text messages that Ken Dauber and Todd Collins haven't handed over, that it is OK to

trade away $4 million that the Board voted in public to keep

for

an "innovative space"

wouldn't that = a Brown Act violation?

Stanford Ed School Professor Jo Boaler must be thrilled that Jennifer DiBrienza, her advisee and promoter, is PAUSD's Board President the year Stanford needs to please the school district to get its development plans through.

Any chance that Boaler is one of the collaborators PAUSD plans to hire to work in this $15 million innovative space?

Any chance that DiBrienza, an education consultant too, still works for Boaler or the Stanford Ed School and hopes to be on Stanford's collaborators for hire list too?

Conflict.of.interest.

Yeah, about "innovative space" etc.

The reason we have -schools- in the first place is that most students need the adult interaction that schools provide. Otherwise, books. "Just read the textbook" does work for some students, especially in cases where there are very good books. The heart of the PAUSD budget is the yearly expenditure on classroom teachers. Adding students means adding teachers. Any deal with Stanford should be about paying the ongoing yearly expense for teachers.