The Morgan Hill Unified School District Board of Trustees this week broke an impasse between district and charter school administrators, agreeing to report to the California State Finance Authority that Charter School of Morgan Hill is “in good standing” and “in compliance with its charter for purposes of the Prop. 51 funding.”
At the stroke of midnight, six hours into its Dec. 5 meeting, the school board voted unanimously to allow the charter school to apply for $11.5 million in state funds to renovate the old Encinal campus, where the school has been located for more than a decade.
A portion of the money from Proposition 51, approved by California voters last November, is reserved for California charter schools. Of the funds sought by the charter school, half would be considered a loan and would have to be paid back to the state.
The board action rejected its district staff contention that the local charter continued to be in violation of certain conditions attached to its charter renewal, including those surrounding its finances, lack of diversity in student population and failure to sign a Memorandum of Understanding.
“We did not ever declare the CSMH not in good standing. That was not our determination. That was the state fiscal agency,” said Morgan Hill Supt. Steve Betando, whose comments were scoffed at by the swarms of charter school parents in attendance.
Betando explained how the state agency came to its own conclusion on the charter’s standing with its authorizer. He said his staff, namely Assistant Supt. Kirsten Perez, had simply supplied the state with details about the conditions of the school’s petition and whether standards were met.
“We did not make that determination, and the next thing we know we’re being accused of claiming they are not in good standing,” added Betando. “Our simple determination was that there were unmet conditions of the resolution, including the MOU, which was very significant.”
Trustees David Gerard and Gino Borgioli did not buy Betando’s explanation, and instead said he was simply mincing words.
“They are trying to reframe what is a very simple issue, an issue directly related to the everyday health and safety of over 650 children who attend one of our public schools,” said Gerard. He asked the board to stand by its May 16 decision to support the charter’s application that would result in “clean classrooms and clean bathrooms” for those students.
Gerard called for an inquiry into what led to the superintendent and staff “to not only ignore but also subvert the governing board’s May 16 decision.” He also wanted some sort of accountability for those actions.
Charter leaders said they were blindsided by the district’s claims of noncompliance since those concerns were never brought up to them during their annual audit presentation, nor at any point before or during the application process. The charter’s renewal petition was unanimously approved by the board in Sept. 2015.
District officials are reluctant to support the charter school’s use of Prop. 51 funds for two reasons: MHUSD would be on the hook for the remaining balance if CSMH defaults on the loan; and only another charter school would be able to use the facilities funded by Prop. 51, if CSMH was to relocate for any reason.
Trustees offer different insights
Trustee Mary Patterson was not in agreement with Gerard or Borgioli. She said there were valid arguments for both sides and no purposeful wrongdoings.
“There are two completely divergent approaches to the decision we have before us,” Patterson said.
Borgioli, who read from the letter Perez penned to the CFSA that led to its decision to disqualify the local charter from state funds, said that the district supplied the state agency with all the ammunition it needed to derail the charter’s application.
“If I received a letter like that, I would think I’m not in good standing,” said Borgioli, who drew a loud applause when he pointed to other documents submitted by the district to the state that knocked the charter school for having a budget deficit. “Well, if good standing’s definition is that, then we’re not in good standing as a district, either.”
Morgan Hill, like other districts throughout the state, is in its second year of deficit spending. Its administrators announced at a previous meeting that they will look to shed $5.5 million from the budget next year as a corrective measure.
Borgioli, who was skeptical of the district’s resolution attached to the Dec. 5 agenda, also believed that many of the noncompliance issues brought up by the district were either petty or could be cleared up, including agreeing on an MOU. Borgioli also helped craft a separate resolution Tuesday night directing the district and charter school staffs to meet, resolve their issues and sign an MOU to be brought back within two months. That motion was passed by a 6-0 vote.
Trustee Teresa Murrillo left the meeting early and was not part of either vote.
While charter proponents immediately cleared the room after the decision was made in their favor, the school’s executive director, Paige Cisewski, was not 100 percent sure if the new board resolution crafted that night would satisfy the state finance authority’s requirements and keep them in the running for Prop 51 funds.
“This has been an incredibly difficult issue as a trustee,” said Trustee Tom Arnett, who hoped the district and charter officials could have worked things out before coming back to the board. “We don’t have that type of collaborative relationship between the school and district as it stands right now. I think that’s incredibly unfortunate, and I really think we need a reset.”
While the school board’s public session began a little after 6pm, discussion on the charter school item did not get started until after 9pm. Some of the charter proponents had been waiting three hours to be heard and learn the school’s fate, which resulted in many tense moments throughout the evening.
At one point, Trustee Ron Woolf scolded the crowd for their disregard of parliamentary procedure and for shouting out comments in reaction to what was being said by members of the district staff and school board.
