Setting the record straight By Peter Hanley (Daily Journal)
Bill Silverfarb's April 13 column, in which he asserted that I just recently seemed to realize? that I am a trustee of the San Mateo Union High School District, is not supported by the facts. Instead of actually looking in depth at my record or the issues surrounding either the district's general budget or construction budget, he apparently just scribbled off a column condemning me and others based on untrue allegations. Certainly columnists are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.
Here are just a few facts about me Mr. Silverfarb forgot to tell readers:
I am the only trustee that has consistently attended the Citizens' Oversight Committee meetings as it tracked our progress on the previous Measure D bond over the last 5 years. This is a major reason I was able to bring to the attention of my fellow board members the absence of some key industry best practices in our Measure M bond implementation.
I consistently asked at public board meetings and in private, as did other board members, and was reassured by the administration that our construction budget was adequate until April 20, 2006. That was the first time the board was ever informed of cost overruns sufficiently large as to require additional borrowing. Since that time, I have with others been diligently working to understand where mistakes were made and how we could avoid them in the future. This extensive research was the foundation for my April 3 report to the Board.
I did not participate in the negotiations or lack thereof of the fees for either our architects or construction management firm. Along with Trustee Linda Lees Dwyer, I was able to recognize that District administrators had not followed appropriate contract negotiation and board approval processes and bring that to the public's attention.
Moreover, I was the only trustee to vote against the current budget last June because I recognized it was woefully inadequate and reduced our reserves to dangerous levels.
In addition, I was also the first board member to call for raising the level of our curriculum requirements and opening Advanced Placement and Honors courses to any students wishing to commit themselves to do the work. While slamming both the board and administration on finance, Mr. Silverfarb would have been more accurate and balanced to note that the District is also now realizing the highest academic performance in its history thanks to the steps the board, administration, teachers, and staff have taken to implement changes.
The Board took positive steps on April 19 to realign Measure M implementation with industry best practices. I will serve on a subcommittee with Trustee Dwyer to oversee the completion of the summer construction projects, assess along with the District Chief Budget Officer Elizabeth McManus, what internal construction expertise will be needed to manage Measure M, and to reissue a call for construction management services this summer. Citizens should note that these corrective actions have been taken before Measure M money was spent inappropriately. In addition, the board will be considering formal requirements that all contracts be reviewed by counsel and by the Chief Budget Officer before presentation to the board for approval. This has long been the practice, but was not followed in the recent instances.
I will be the first to recognize that my record, should I choose to stand for reelection in 2009, is not perfect. But to suggest that I have been sleeping or rubber stamping my way through my term and a half is not justified. Mr. Silverfarb could have easily reviewed my record with about 15 minutes of effort searching the Daily Journal's archives or doing a Google search. It's regrettable that he didn't.
Peter H. Hanley is a member of the San Mateo Union High School District Board of Trustees.
Bill Silverfarb's April 13 column, in which he asserted that I just recently seemed to realize? that I am a trustee of the San Mateo Union High School District, is not supported by the facts. Instead of actually looking in depth at my record or the issues surrounding either the district's general budget or construction budget, he apparently just scribbled off a column condemning me and others based on untrue allegations. Certainly columnists are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.
Here are just a few facts about me Mr. Silverfarb forgot to tell readers:
I am the only trustee that has consistently attended the Citizens' Oversight Committee meetings as it tracked our progress on the previous Measure D bond over the last 5 years. This is a major reason I was able to bring to the attention of my fellow board members the absence of some key industry best practices in our Measure M bond implementation.
I consistently asked at public board meetings and in private, as did other board members, and was reassured by the administration that our construction budget was adequate until April 20, 2006. That was the first time the board was ever informed of cost overruns sufficiently large as to require additional borrowing. Since that time, I have with others been diligently working to understand where mistakes were made and how we could avoid them in the future. This extensive research was the foundation for my April 3 report to the Board.
I did not participate in the negotiations or lack thereof of the fees for either our architects or construction management firm. Along with Trustee Linda Lees Dwyer, I was able to recognize that District administrators had not followed appropriate contract negotiation and board approval processes and bring that to the public's attention.
Moreover, I was the only trustee to vote against the current budget last June because I recognized it was woefully inadequate and reduced our reserves to dangerous levels.
In addition, I was also the first board member to call for raising the level of our curriculum requirements and opening Advanced Placement and Honors courses to any students wishing to commit themselves to do the work. While slamming both the board and administration on finance, Mr. Silverfarb would have been more accurate and balanced to note that the District is also now realizing the highest academic performance in its history thanks to the steps the board, administration, teachers, and staff have taken to implement changes.
The Board took positive steps on April 19 to realign Measure M implementation with industry best practices. I will serve on a subcommittee with Trustee Dwyer to oversee the completion of the summer construction projects, assess along with the District Chief Budget Officer Elizabeth McManus, what internal construction expertise will be needed to manage Measure M, and to reissue a call for construction management services this summer. Citizens should note that these corrective actions have been taken before Measure M money was spent inappropriately. In addition, the board will be considering formal requirements that all contracts be reviewed by counsel and by the Chief Budget Officer before presentation to the board for approval. This has long been the practice, but was not followed in the recent instances.
I will be the first to recognize that my record, should I choose to stand for reelection in 2009, is not perfect. But to suggest that I have been sleeping or rubber stamping my way through my term and a half is not justified. Mr. Silverfarb could have easily reviewed my record with about 15 minutes of effort searching the Daily Journal's archives or doing a Google search. It's regrettable that he didn't.
Peter H. Hanley is a member of the San Mateo Union High School District Board of Trustees.
- Written by Fiona
But many of us have seen Mr. Hanley NOT listening to the public, and NOT listening to hundreds of parents, teachers and kids, all who questioned the legitimacy, ,costs and effectiveness of implementing a 7th period, while going into reserves. This attitude of the Board in general, did nothing to encourage further participation of any sort. It just alienated people.
I recall how he arrogantly chastised concerned people for even questioning the Board, the Superintendent and Associates, and accused them of being disrespectful to them (which could not have been further from the truth).
Sure, who wouldn't want all kinds of great electives for the kids and remedial periods for those with difficulties--BUT that was never the issue of contention for most. The issue was whether the district could afford the luxury, and that's what it is, in the absence of a parcel tax. Look at the electives and course choices in the Palo Alto Schools. Why did we think we could emulate them, without the funds?
I appreciate that Hanley and Dwyer have started to pay attention to these problems,(the construction and bond issues)--but it's on the late side. This group decided long ago, to forge ahead blindly, and continued to paint a very optimistic picture.
And finally, to the best of my knowledge, Hanley most often, if not always, voted with the others on these issues, even when he did initially express concern. I would have had more respect for him had he voted his conscience. June is a little late to cast the first "no" vote.
Posted by: | April 24, 2007 at 05:57 PM
Apparently, some on the board would like to be re-elected. The fingers are starting to point...
Posted by: Mac | April 24, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Hmmm, I'm confused. I thought Mr. Hanley was part of the "team of six" who was "ignoring" the concerns of the teachers. Is he trying to say that now he's not?
Posted by: guest teacher | April 29, 2007 at 05:53 PM