@Mountain View Voice - Did the public school board vote on Thursday to start revocation process? Did any BMV "official" -whatever that means- show up or did BMV continue ghosting the publicly elected school board?

The Board did vote the start the revocation process. Public Hearing on May 30. Bullis was a no show...again,

Won’t they just go to the county like BCS Los Altos did?

@Question - my understanding is that a revocation can be appealed to the county. If decision is reversed, ghostly BMV would remain chartered by MVWSD. If decision is confirmed, Bullis could re-apply with MVWSD for a new charter as it did last Fall (with one difference the Bullis organization would have one revocation on its record).

This story indicates some more ugly issues.

First, there were formal violations filed according to the report.

Second, the BMV representatives did not perform any actions to correct the violations.

Third, in fact the BMV representatives simply do not participate in any meetings.

WHY?

First, because they have a reported influence over the Mountain View City Council. There is an outstanding investigation going on regarding John McAllister and Bullis school.

Second, because they feel they can use the courts to attempt to override them.

But given that the committee requested corrections, documents, and personal appearances that went ignored, I do not think this will be overturned.

What student ever got accepted to Bullis Mountain View? What classes were held? What funding was received?

All 3 of these things are prerequisite to having any evidence that can apply to revocation of a Charter School's Charter to operate.

It's that simple. You can't revoke that which never existed. The charter school's position was that the charter contained illegal requirements which they never accepted. The fact that they tried to negotiate to clarify the law and resolve the intent of the requirements is not an acceptance of the illegal conditions. It's really quite a show that this Rudolph guy is putting on. This is basic contract law. There was no meeting of the minds of the plan for granting a charter, let alone the plan for operating the school. That means there was never any contract. This is a complete waste of the taxpayers' money at this point.

You must have missed the fact that Bullis never did try to resolve the issues. Their charter was approved by MVWSD. Bullis then decided they didn’t want to open with the restrictions that they themselves had placed on enrollment, They picked up their ball and stomped home.

Exactly. No charter ever granted due to disagreement on intent. Nothing to revoke.

Seems fitting that BMV's ghostly board would be defended by .... anonymous trolls from an alternate community.

re: their comments on revocation.

Even if a marriage is not consumed, there needs to be an official divorce proceeding to dissolve it. And even if you are married as Catholic, you'd still need to go through an annulment process to claim the marriage never existed.

The well known prominent citizen SRB gives an excellent example. What is needed is an annulment, as opposed to divorce. Legally, they are different. Same situation as Rudolph finds for Bullis Mountain View.

Or maybe not. Maybe he granted them a marriage license, but never completed the ceremony or recorded the marriage. Go figure.

Main thing is, Bullis never got any state funding, and never had a single student. Hard to see how to violate ed laws in that case.

This is no defense of Bullis. They didn't even do anything. The problem is with this Rudolph fellow and the way he wastes public money.

The school board says they did approve the charter, albeit with conditions. The school then decided not to open, so the district has an approved charter, without a school. They want to close this out by revoking the charter, which all parties agree will not be used as it was initially intended. Seems clean enough and simple enough to me. BMV can always reapply for a future year.

It sounds like BMV might sue because they think their charter was unfairly denied (the lawsuit would hinge on whether "approved with conditions" is actually a denial), but in the meantime, MVWSD just wants to close things out and move on. Hear hear.

In all of this posturing, what is going unaddressed is the tremendous program that the charter school would have offered for the lower income kids. It was truly inspired, and it would be wonderful to see how it worked out. The best part of this was that it was designed to serve a school with a representative demographic compared to the district. It wouldn't be all low income kids. It would be roughly the same proportion of low income kids as found throughout the district.

One reason that MVWSD resisted this is that their schools are very discriminatory. Some of them have way more than 50% low income kids and then some have way fewer than 50%. Their schools do very bad in the case of the predominantly low income kids, and they offer them almost nothing to address their disadvantaged status. It's a shame.

As for this Mickey Mouse issue of revoking a charter which never operated, that's theater. It subjects the district to vulnerability in a lawsuit. Denying the charter does not do this, but placing the illegal conditions on the approval and then conducting a sham disciplinary revocation surely invites a legal challenge.

The district has the authority to merely rescind approval of a conditional approval if the conditions are not met. For example, that's what Sunnyvale did in this case: Web Link

So, two tragedies. Overlooking the benefits for the low income kids in the charter program, and then abusing the public trust by a feigned disciplinary action in a case where no action was taken to be judged for revocation purposes. The charter has never operated.