For hiring an inexperienced Superintendent who has squandered resources throughout his tenure. It has been clear for years that the spend-down of reserves could not continue indefinitely, but he continued to spend like there was no tomorrow. And the Board went along.

Now Rudolph seeks to use BMV as the scapegoat.

What about bloated spending on consultants and district staff? getting rid of experience administrators who questioned his actions, add in failed programs like Teach to One and questionable funding mechanisms for the new Slater/Vargas school and you have a recipe for disaster.

No big surprise. Ever since the shenanigans of past Superintendent Ghysels to the present, with still another Ghysels calling shots in the district office, the school district has always been more a place where toxic leadership has reigned and emphasis has been placed on flavor of the week strategies that pop, whiz and bang then on putting money where it is needed in basic education practice. The bloated district office pushes down on sites rather than supporting them. Last year's nonsense with wiping out years of experienced front line principals was the straw that broke the camel's back. It's no surprise if you are plugged into any of the back channels that Superintendent Rudolph is not liked for his glib and arrogant style of top down leadership which assumes he knows everything all the time in every situation. He has lost the respect of most of the staff. He has failed to build a team. The Board has tied their and the district's fate to their refusal to recognize that he is just too inexperienced. And the Board is no better in terms of qualifications. Only Wheeler has long term experience albeit one of years of district failures. Past Presidents Gutierrez and Blakley can take the rest of the credit for leaving the barn door open. The real problem now is how the district will ever pull itself out of such a compromised position. It will take years, but the first thing that is required is a complete purge of the district office administration and school board. If not, be prepared for Bullis to take over in the next decade.

I second Shame on The Board (above). The heat for this belongs on the superintendent and the board for reckless spending that got the district into this mess.

The superintendent and his whole senior cabinet voted to give themselves large raises a few months ago, even though they knew these budget cuts were coming. These budget issues existed long before Bullis came into the picture so to blame them is outright misrepresentation. The public is smarter than you think Rudolph...our eyes are on you.

Couldn’t care less for community facilitators, people need to make an effort and learn English, and no matter facilitators, Latino community keeps to themselves anyway.
Cutting librarians’ positions is a shame however.
I wonder if an individual school can collect money to preserve a dedicated librarian. Best use of PTA money.

Rotating librarians is one of the most ill-conceived ideas I have heard. The libraries are more than a room with books and the librarian is a life -line to many students. Libraries are often a place for kids to go to feel safe and valued. The connections made between the librarian, students, parents, and teachers cannot be maintained with a rotating model. I feel sad that every school in the district is being compromised with this choice but mostly I feel sad that Vargas will not be starting as a complete school.

I feel sorry for all of you. You have so much hate and false information. Spreading it around like sour grapes. Same ol same ol writing style of a few trying to stir the pot. You dont seem to understand the cuts were already planned, but what wasnt taken account was the extra 1.8, 2.3 and 2.8 million the next three years Bullis is taking out from what already was planned. The reporter should have written that in. If the old man can understand that because i watched the meeting, so should you before complaining. Lol. Misinformation may be your training, but to do this towards a school community is just plain cold hearted.

Wait a minute, i just read the presentation from the board website and they have about a 15 percent reserve at the end of the three years. I have to agree that you are trying to stir things up. Shame on you.

Wait, so Mountain View has money to fund a technology academy at MVHS, where students and teachers have access to resources that would make other schools vomit with rage ... but it doesn't have enough money for basics for needy schools?

Yeah let's give the spoiled rich children of MVHS more money to learn how to program in high school while denying money to the schools that literally have "need" in their name.

Disgusting.

Well everyone needs libraries and librarians not just the needy kids.
I think it’s more important than programming.

First of all, this is incredible! Didn’t the district just spend a bond to build all those new libraries in the district (among other buildings on campuses)?? NOW the district determines they can’t afford to staff them??

Secondly, I remember voting for the Parcel Tax B that stated it would protect such things as smaller class sizes, keeping libraries operating, etc. Why can’t the district afford to staff those libraries (including Vargas)? The Parcel Tax passed - I know, I helped to promote it.

Lastly, the Voice covered a story last school year stating that the district “discovered” a huge mistake and found an extra million or so that they didn’t know about! That wasn't that long ago. What happened to that?

I think the Voice needs to do some more research. Where is the accountability here? I refuse to vote for anymore bonds or parcel taxes for this district. The buck stops here in my pocket. Maybe the buck should stop with the Superintendent??

@Jeremy, not sure if you know this, but Mountain View High is in a different school district than the elementary and middle schools.

Mountain View-Los Altos High School District operates under a completely separate budget from Mountain View Whisman. Money spent for a high school tech center could not be reallocated to pay for the needs of elementary or middle schools.

Whoa! I thought everything was going great in the district!?! What the hec is going on?

Doesn't the State give every district adoption funds for new curriculum? It doesn't come out of the general fund. Sounds like we aren't getting the full truth on why the science curriculum is so out of date. The adoption process work just needs to be done to apply for new science curriculums. The district office just needs to manage and go through the steps to apply for it. The cost does not come out of the general fund so stop spinning it that way. This is School Administration 101!

Weren't the at-risk counselors just added as a nod and a throwing a bone to former Board President Gutierrez for at risk mainly Hispanic students? Weren't the community school engagement coordinators just added as well? Both would help close the achievement gap?!? Has the need all of a sudden disappeared? Sounds like the district two-step dance has started up again. Scream about a need for community engagement to close the achievement gap one year and then de-fund the program the next year. Yeah, right. Pure genius moves by the superintendent and the School Board.

And why build libraries without librarians? Again, who are the geniuses who make these decisions? The school district is an embarrassment to the community.

This is the cost of opening an extra school. An extra principal and administrative staff. More buildings to maintain. Much paid for by COPs that have to be repaid.
No free lunch. This was easy to foresee.
Choices have consequences.

*Let us speak English

Deleted stuff I'd rather not address, but this...

"Cutting librarians’ positions is a shame however.
I wonder if an individual school can collect money to preserve a dedicated librarian. Best use of PTA money."

I agree that each school should have a full-time librarian, but I know this has not always been the case in some of the schools I attended as a kid. There are ways to fill that function in a pinch, like rotating in librarians from each of the other schools, not ideal of course, but better than nothing.

I would also point to the example of the Stevenson school where, for some years, we had NO paid librarian and it was only due to one of our fellow Stevenson parents who stepped up to VOLUNTEER her time (as much as she could spare) to be our school librarian. She provided regular and reliable hours at the very least.

Only after some years had passed did the district finally decide to hire her as our official paid librarian.

Of course, for 9+ years the Stevenson library was nothing but a small portable classroom crammed with bookcases, so an unpaid librarian was about par for our course.

Yes Stevenson has been sooo neglected that it is essential that everyone understand how poorly you were treated. So please right another few dozen lengthy posts! Because we are all ignorant and juts love to be enlightened by you, the source of all knowledge in Mountain View.

No matter what the topic you manage to blather on. please it is really not necessary!

*concerned for kids

"Rotating librarians is one of the most ill-conceived ideas I have heard."

Suck, yes, but, it's better than having no librarian at all and relying on volunteers or over burdening teachers to serve that function.

"but mostly I feel sad that Vargas will not be starting as a complete school."

Stevenson has been waiting over 9 years to become a "complete school" and we still don't know when we will be.

We are still waiting for an MUR after over 9-1/2 years, we didn't have a paid librarian for some years, we waited for over 9 years for an actual library building, etc...

I agree it sucks when any school is incomplete, but rotating a librarian at Vargas will not even be close to the worst-case this district has seen. I would hope that the Vargas MUR and library building will be open for business by the time Vargas opens for kids, at Stevenson we are still waiting for our MUR to open.

(Spelling correction below)
Yes Stevenson has been sooo neglected that it is essential that everyone understand how poorly you were treated. So please (oops) write another few dozen lengthy posts! Because we are all ignorant and juts love to be enlightened by you, the source of all knowledge in Mountain View.

No matter what the topic you manage to blather on. please it is really not necessary!

Such a good community member...<spit>

So I dont have any children but i do own a home in MV. Its distressing to see the level of incompetence by the school board and the superintendent. Part of the problem is the lack of talent in candidates to vote for. Who wants to lead an organization where there is little money and parents seem to complain about every little detail.Im not sure higher pay would draw better candidates. It appears that the current elected board cannot find a competent superintendent or control him from silly decisions. If so, all of them should leave when their terms expire. I would only support candidates that actually have managerial experience of running large budgets and have strong decision skills. Other wise this this city will continue to elect neighborhood organizers who lack the skills to run a board.

Well, the article is vague about these library positions. They aren't credentialed librarians, but are library clerks or technicians. The salary for one is only $35K per year. However, with benefits, there is an extra $30K per year cost, so the total rises to $65K per year. There 11 in the payroll for 2017, but 6 of them received less than $6K in benefits with salaries ranging from $6K to $40K that year.

It's not going to go very far to eliminate positions like this. There's just under $500K per year in cost involved, for the 11 people in that job in 2017. With the change to only cutting on position, it saves between $30K and $65K per year, depending on how many hours that position would have worked and if benefits were available.

I gather they were going to divert hours from the school secretary positions which would have had some costs too.

Looks like axing the Gorman contract would pay for a librarian. No need for Vargas to go without!

"Axe Gorman Contract"

What is the Gorman contract? Could you elaborate on that?

thank you!

The board has paid Peter Gorman (Rudolph's former boss) ~$60,000 per year to provide "Executive Coaching".

Thanks for the explanation. I wish I could have a coach to help me with my job! I'm also wondering why MVWSD had to hire and pay the future principal of Vargas School this school year when Vargas doesn't even open until next school year.

It seems there are a lot of areas of expense that could have been examined by the Trustees.

All these nasty commenters need to start saying something good about these schools or this voter won't support any future funding at all. I'm finally convinced that they are all so poorly managed and such horrible places that they all should go. Normally I completely support public education for all, but you have all convinced me that it's a total failure and we're throwing good money after bad.

There is not a single example of any school district where denying public schools local funding has ever made that district perform any better.

To deny support to parcel taxes and bonds will only make it harder to retain and recruit talent, creating a spiral of further disengagement and degradation. The one true correlation is that the poorest funded school districts experience higher rates of mistakes and inefficiencies. Adjusted for per each $100,000 of relative house value, MVWSD already receives less local support (parcel, bonds, and community foundation donations) than Los Altos, Palo Alto and Menlo Park schools, and less than MV's own high school district.

The only ballot where discontent can directly be converted to change is through who one elects. Elected board members not dollars set policies and leadership. Dollars pay for teachers and facilities, to deny funding, just hurts the teachers and kids, all the while, does nothing to change policy or leadership.

Christopher Chiang is correct. Mountain View schools benefit the least from parcel taxes suggesting that residents here are cheap and don't value education. The rate should at least be $1,000 per parcel with parcels with large dilapidated apartments paying a per apartment rate to make up for the drain on resources caused by low income residents renting them.

However... increase tax funds must come with a complete overhaul of the dinosaurs in the bloated district office that have led the district to this current state. And, yes, throw out the incumbents on the school board as well and elect a far more qualified board set with real management and decision making and financial oversight experience. Thankfully, Mr. Chiang led by example and resigned mid-term. Rightfully so since he was instrumental in creating the dysfunction pushing for the hiring of the current superintendent Rudolph and at the same time creating a vacuum for Board Member Gutierrez, MVWSD's own AOC, to be appointed rather than getting elected the first time on his own qualifications and merits.

Just realize that none of this will happen, however, so I agree that not one more tax dollar should go to this failed system.

Maybe what we need to take away from this is that the community needs to stay more involved in what is happening in the district. Maybe form groups of parents at each school and rotate taking turns to attend every board meeting. Or watch the board meetings at home via the video option. Share your opinions with the board via letters or speaking to them. Make sure that the members of “oversight committees” really are asking tough questions and not just accepting what they are told. (Parcel Taxes? Bond Measures?) The point is to stay involved. I know that is difficult these days with everyone working and so many activities going on with children. But figure it is an investment in our children’s education. There are bound to be many more questionable cutbacks surfacing as MVWSD prepares for Bullis. There are areas that can and should be cutback. Make sure all the cutbacks don’t just come from the bottom with the folks that actually do the work and interface with your children.

Dear MV Renter,

Our schools are places of growth, learning, acceptance, and community. We work hard to make sure that all students are getting what they need (with or despite district programs). We come in early, stay late, open our rooms at lunch, and love our students. Students come in early, stay late, come to our open rooms to learn and be safe, and love their community. There is a lot of good happening inside the schools. There is much to be hopeful for. Please continue to fund us. We are building the future, and it is a kind, innovative, inclusive, hopeful one.

Love, a 13-year MVWSD teacher

scapegoat, bloated spending, toxic leadership, reckless spending, large raises/budget cuts, cold hearted, misinformation, $60,000 per year to provide "Executive Coaching"...

These are your words from these comments, people!. You can have all these feelings for half the funding, Well, maybe not the raises and reckless spending and "coaching".

Thank you, MV Teacher, for giving a significantly different picture (and maybe some hope).

Pointing out bloated spending by the district and shameful behavior by the Board does not mean that we do not see the good work done by teachers every day in the classroom.

It's been clear for a long time that the district would run into a funding crisis.

Why not point out that eliminating bloated top administrative staff earning $200,000 does a lot more to save the district money than getting rid of librarians?

Per the 2nd Interim Budget just released, see Web Link (page 11), expenditures for the "Office of the Superintendent" went from

$493K Budget Adoption in 2016/17 ($583K Actual in that year) to
$796K in the 2nd Interim 2018/19 (down somewhat from $844K in 1st Interim, but still up from the original Budget Adoption of $765K).

"Public Relations" is at $375K!

Looks to me like there's still a lot of fat to trim right there!

Even worse:

Hidden in the SACS version of the budget, projected year totals for "Professional/Consulting Services and Operating Expenditures" (see Web Link

$1,814,653.80 in 2018/19

How much was this in 2014/15?

$13,711.28

see Web Link

So $14K has grown to over $1.8 MILLION! (Ironically, the amount over $1.8M is more than the enire amount spent in 2014/15!)

Thanks @SotB. Occasionally the SACS's line items can 'move around' more than we would like, to different lines. But any 100X change should immediately ring bells, send up 'red flags' and come with a 'completely public' explanation. Occasionally I have seen this response in QUESTIONs from the Bd. which are published (now) with most Board Agendas.

BUT the SARC's lines are the places to look for the details in budgeting anomalies. SACS means Standardized Account Code Structure. It is the line by line, fund by fund, and site by site accounting data system used by all public school districts.

Here is an excellent (IMO) introduction that all Board members and education policy wonks should know:

Ed-Data.org
Web Link

My, my. The district is making cuts claiming there is a shortage of funds while Board Member Gutierrez stays in four star hotels reimbursed by the district. One would think he could commute back and forth like tens of thousands of us do every day and save us all some money. What a hypocrite.

Web Link