I’m writing to encourage my fellow Piedmont citizens to vote for Amal Smith for School Board. I believe that having Amal on the School Board for a second term would benefit our community because Amal is a thoughtful listener who makes wise decisions. She considers all viewpoints and always aims for the best possible outcomes for our students and teachers.
Amal cares deeply about Piedmont students and education in general. Amal has spent her career working in higher education, and her values strongly align with the Piedmont school district’s goals of creating a safe and inclusive learning environment, and providing a rigorous, relevant, and differentiated education for all students. Amal is truly an advocate for the “whole student,” promoting programs that our community values, including the arts, athletics, and wellness.
I first met Amal when I started volunteering for the Piedmont schools about 10 year ago. I was immediately impressed by her organizational skills, leadership abilities, and understanding of the issues facing our schools. Amal’s warm personality brings out the best in those around her. We are lucky to have Amal Smith on the School Board and I hope you will join me in voting for her again.
Sincerely,
Christine Wente von Metzsch, Piedmont Resident
Proponents of Measure CC overstate the ambiguity of the City Charter.
First, the Charter defines two job categories: officers (department heads) and employees (everyone else). The current Charter is clear that Council hires/fires and provides direction to officers. The Charter does not say that Council will “manage” departments.
For the City Administrator, the Charter states:
“The City Administrator shall be the chief administrative officer of the city and shall be responsible to the City Council for the administration of all City affairs placed in his/her charge by or under this Charter.
The administrator shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) Shall appoint, discipline, and, when deemed necessary for the good of the City, suspend or remove City employees except as otherwise provided by law, this Charter or personnel rules adopted pursuant to this Charter.
(2) Shall supervise the administration of all departments, offices and agencies of the City, except as otherwise provided by this Charter or by law and except further that the internal administration of each department shall remain with each department head.”Two points. Google “chief administrative officer” – by definition it says this position does not have the authority to dismiss department heads. All other authority is clearly defined in the Charter – the City Administrator supervises all departments and can fire employees while department heads administer their departments.
So drafters of the Charter crafted a very specific management structure for the city, yet proponents claim this is not how City Hall is run. If so, is the question really that of an ambiguous Charter or City Council and City Administrator who aren’t following the Charter?
Department heads have been disciplined by Council and Council implemented a performance appraisal program to evaluate department heads. Specific examples of problems with the management structure would help voters understand why they need change it.
And judging by the satisfaction most Piedmonters state with city services, they don’t want a change.
Vote NO on CC.
Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member
Mr. Titan’s Claim That the School Board “Lost” $18.8 Million Is Baseless –
In his October 20, 2018 Opinion posted on PCA, Mr. Titan responded to my October 17, 2018 Opinion posted on PCA. It is unfortunate that Mr. Titan continues to try to bolster his campaign by unfounded attacks on the successful Piedmont seismic bond program and by claiming credit for a bond refinancing for which he is not responsible.
Mr. Titan’s response does not support his past claims (that he saved Piedmont over $26 million) or his new claim that a past School Board “lost” $18.8 million. The District’s intent to refinance the 2013 Series E Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) was stated in 2013 when the Board directed their sale, so Mr. Titan did not initiate this commonsense idea (which reduced total interest payments by $26.1 million when approved in 2017). Mr. Titan’s idea that the Board “lost” $18.8 million is based on his suggestion that voters could have approved an additional bond measure to double the authorized tax rate and significantly increased their tax burden to pay off bonds more quickly. This is not “something for nothing” financial wizardry, but a legally uncertain policy proposal that would have imposed greater burdens on current taxpayers for the benefit of future taxpayers that Piedmont voters never approved.
It is worth noting that none of the current School Board candidates served on the Board from 2006 to 2013 when the seismic bond program was approved by voters and implemented by the School District. Indeed, the 2006 Measure E, authorizing the sale of $56 million in bonds to ensure the seismic safety of our schools, and the resulting school construction, occurred before some Piedmont residents moved here. Mr. Titan has chosen to attack these past School Board bond authorizations, and to claim credit for past School Board decisions, in an effort to establish his claim of financial expertise.
As an initial matter, Mr. Titan’s effort to claim credit for the refinancing of the 2013 Series E CABs remains unconvincing. (Mr. Titan makes this assertion in his October 18 campaign email). First, the Board in 2013 clearly expected to refinance the CABs in the future—Mr. Titan did not originate the idea and thus save Piedmont taxpayers $26.1 million. At the May 8, 2013 Board meeting, KNN explained the District’s ability and expectation of refunding the CABs early. http://piedmont.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=916 at 46:00-46:50. The Minutes also so state. http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2011_12/052213packet.pdf. Second, as discussed in my October 17, 2018 Opinion, Mr. Titan originally opposed the CAB refinancing during the Nov. 8, 2017 Board meeting. Mr. Titan helpfully pointed out that he reversed his position later in the meeting, after hearing KNN’s professional advice (My apologies for missing his change of view). However, changing his view to support KNN’s recommendation and the Board’s position does not mean Mr. Titan is responsible for the Board’s refinancing of the CABs.
Next, as I previously noted, Mr. Titan did not educate the School Board about CABs or other financial instruments, all of which were discussed in public meetings from 2006 to 2013. Mr. Titan now asserts that he educated the public about such terms as “compound interest,” etc. I suspect that most Piedmonters were aware of such terms. Mr. Titan does not mention other key terms, such as tax rate, tax impact, and taxpayer cash flow, which a School Board member must consider in assessing bond structure.
The basis for Mr. Titan’s claim that the Board “lost” $18.6 million is as follows: “My proposal was not to defer the work and financing in 2013, but to use CIBs by getting a new voter authorization.” (Titan Opinion). Mr. Titan does not explain how he calculated $18.8 million and whether he took the CAB refinancing into account. Nonetheless, an important part of a School Board member’s job is to be transparent, carefully and publicly analyze potentially feasible options, and make a prudent decision that balances many competing interests. So, let’s unpack Mr. Titan’s proposal and claim.
Mr. Titan’s idea was that the Board should have asked voters to approve a new bond measure, so that bonds under that measure would be subject to a second $60/$100,000 assessed valuation (AV) anticipated tax rate limit in addition to the $60/$100,000 AV anticipated tax rate limitation on the 2006 Measure E bonds. In other words, to repay seismic bonds, Piedmonters could have been taxed up to $120/$100K AV rather than up to $60/$100K AV. As anyone with a home mortgage knows, if you pay down debt more quickly, your total interest payments over the term of the loan go down. But you must pay more in the short term.
What would the tax impact of Mr. Titan’s proposal, if approved, have been on Piedmont taxpayers? We do not have a 2013 KNN analysis of CIB interest rates, likely term, and the tax rate necessary to make payments on such bonds. For illustrative purposes, let’s consider an additional $30/$100K AV. Added to the $60/$100K AV already assessed for outstanding seismic bonds, the total tax rate for seismic bonds would be $90/$100K AV, or $900 per year for a home assessed at $1 million (this would have been added to tax payments on older bonds). But the tax impact would vary among homeowners. Young families, which may have stretched to buy a Piedmont home and have high assessed valuations, might owe much more and have trouble paying it. Seniors might be on a fixed income and have trouble paying the tax bill.
Moreover, the new school buildings are expected to serve children for at least 50 years. While some families plan to live in Piedmont for many decades, others may stay only while their children attend school. They may be more concerned about short-term cash flow than total interest payments as they would not make many of those future interest payments. If Mr. Titan wrestled with any of these concerns, he did not explain his position.
Mr. Titan’s claim has two other defects. First, Mr. Titan has not shown whether such a bond authorization would be legal. The 2013 Series E CABs refinanced existing Bond Appreciation Notes. Proposition 39 (Article XIII-A, Section 1(b)(3) authorizes school bonds for “the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities,” but does not mention re-financing other debt. KNN did not answer this question at the May 8, 2013 meeting, but rather responded to my question about a potential theater bond measure. Nor did KNN state at the October 11, 2017 meeting that the BANs could have been refinanced by CIBs without a new bond measure.
Second, Mr. Titan’s claim rests on voter approval, which is entirely speculative. Measure E itself was narrowly approved, with campaign materials indicating the sponsors’ hope that the tax rate to repay the bonds would be no greater than $20/$100K (which contemplated the use of CABs). The recession and the opportunity to obtain near-zero interest Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs) required exceeding $20/$100K AV, which the Board approved after numerous meetings seeking public input. But tax rate and tax impact was a key consideration throughout the seismic bond program. Neither Mr. Titan nor any other citizen proposed Mr. Titan’s idea in 2013 in lieu of CABs. Mr. Titan did not volunteer, or identify anyone else, to run a 2013 campaign seeking voter approval of higher taxes to reduce total interest payments. Nor does Mr. Titan discuss the timing of such a campaign or election, followed by bond authorization and sale, and how it would have meshed with the need to repay the BANs.
In short, Mr. Titan’s claim that the Board “lost” $18.8 million rests on (a) his policy preference to pay higher taxes now to reduce total interest payments, without consideration of tax burden and cash flow impacts on PIedmont voters as a whole, and (b) speculation that Piedmont voters would have approved a second bond authorization, though its legality is uncertain, and no one in 2013 proposed it, no one ran a campaign to endorse it, and Piedmont voters never approved it.
Finally, Mr. Titan’s discussion of the Board’s consideration of CABs under Measure H misunderstands the fundamental responsibility of School Board members. The Board has a responsibility to identify potentially feasible options, allow public comment, evaluate feasible alternatives and make prudent decisions that it believes are in the best interests of the community. Mr. Titan asserts that having KNN present options that included CABs somehow means that the Board would have approved CABs but for Mr. Titan’s opposition. That was not the case, as Board members made clear in several public meetings.
I encourage Mr. Titan to present his views on critical issues facing the District today rather than misrepresenting what happened in the past.
Rick Raushenbush, Former Member Piedmont School Board
The current election cycle for Piedmont School Board has past and current Board members publicly criticizing Board candidate Hari Titan. The critiques are both highly unusual in Piedmont and frankly unwarranted. Hari has given great service to both the School Board and residents by uncovering the unnecessarily high taxpayer burden of Capital Appreciation Bonds (“CABs”) and the high cost of the failed Allen Harvey rehabilitation as compared to other new School theaters. The careful analysis by Hari unearthed the grossly excessive CAB debt costs and saved Piedmont taxpayers literally many millions. Instead of denunciations there should be public thanks from School Board members.
Beyond the School Board Establishment questioning Hari’s financial analysis, the bottom line takeaway is that Hari will shake things up in a manner neither welcome nor comfortable by the School Board; and yet this is exactly what we need. Hari has the expertise, determination and courage to drill down information put before the School Board by Staff and Consultants. As the Piedmont School Tax is literally double to 100 times any other School Tax in the state, and more money will be asked for soon, Hari Titan is critically needed on the School Board now. On November 6, Hari Titan has my vote.
By Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
|
|
In addition to her 18 years of volunteer service to our District, and her commitment to serving all of our students, stakeholder engagement, and balancing academic rigor and wellness, Amal is the only candidate with relevant financial skills. In her 18-year tenure at the University of California, she has been responsible for financial management, reporting, and operations. In her current role as Associate Dean for Financial Affairs at the UCSF School of Medicine, she leads a team responsible for budgeting, reporting, and planning for a $2+ Billion enterprise. She understands state funding for education, accounting reporting requirements, compliance and controls issues, and the realities of balancing competing needs with limited resources.
In 2017, the opportunity to refund the Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) was presented to the board by the District’s financial advisors, KNN, and not at the urging or advice of anyone in this community. Amal, along with the rest of the board, voted to refund these bonds prior to January 1, 2018, saving taxpayers $26.1 million. Amal and the board chose to act because advice from KNN indicated that there was pending national legislation that would remove the District’s ability to refund the CABs (which did, in fact, pass) and that the likelihood of rising interest rates would impact potential savings.
We support Amal because of her strong financial skills, as well as her practical wisdom and reasoned approach to all issues that are brought before the board. Please join us in voting to re-elect Amal to our school board. She’s already demonstrated that she has what it takes to serve our community.
By Dana & Mike Serleth, Piedmont Residents
On October 15, 2018, I attended the Piedmont City Council’s bi monthly meeting. The meeting started with concerned citizens voicing their opinions on recent crime occurring on Trestle Glen Road and then focused on the Piedmont Recreation Department’s (PRD) plan for renovations on the Piedmont Community Pool.
A number of Piedmont residents who live on or near Trestle Glen spoke about a large increase in crime in the area. They cited a number of stolen license plates, armed robberies, and speeding cars that have led to the residents feeling unsafe. One resident, Reed Jiang, spoke about his experience a few months ago. He said he was outside his house playing with his three year old son when a car pulled up to them. A man exited the car and pulled a gun on Mr. Jiang, demanding everything he had or else he would hurt Mr. Jiang’s son. Mr. Jiang gave the man his wallet, with the gun still pointed at him and his son.
This was just one story of a number that were brought in front of the councilmembers calling for increased police involvement in the neighborhood. They mentioned a lack of police accountability in the area, and stated that they did not feel like they were treated as Piedmont citizens.
The next topic was a plan to increase and replace existing license plate scanners on the borders of Piedmont. Police Chief Jeremy Bowers explained plans to install better sensors and clarified to the councilmembers the criteria that the Piedmont Police Department uses when looking at the data recorded by the License Plate Readers. I voiced my opinion on this issue, asking about how these license plate readers could be used to help prevent other types of crimes to protect citizens like the ones on Trestle Glen. I also mentioned that License Plate Readers had helped police officers find and return my family’s car that was stolen a few years ago.
After this, the conversation shifted to the main topic of the meeting: the pool renovation plans. Recreation Department Director Sara Lillevand introduced the plan and proposed a bond measure to fund the project, citing the push from the community and the long overdue fixes the pool needs.
Next, Rich Young, who was commissioned by Piedmont Recreation Department (PRD) to inspect the pool in order to give them a detailed report on all the necessary renovations, highlighted that many of the features of the pool and surrounding areas did not meet city, state, or federal codes and that the pool would likely not last more than a few more years in its current condition. He stated that the total cost for all the renovations and steps to bring the pool up to code would be around $244,000.
Following his presentation, more citizens spoke out on the issue, all of whom were in support of the renovations. Each person had their own story of how the pool positively impacted their lives, but at the center of each of their arguments, was that the pool had great community value. They said the pool is a place that brings people together, and that the city government should do everything possible to maintain it.
Following the meeting, I interviewed Piedmont resident Vince Saunders, who attended to support the proposed pool improvements. He has two sons who play on both the water polo and swimming teams for Piedmont High School (PHS), and hopes the community can realize the positive impact the pool has on the City of Piedmont. He said the next step is to continue to raise awareness that the pool is an important issue and gain support for the proposed bond measure.
There was only one citizen who disagreed with the proposed plan. Gary Fanger, a former contractor who designed over 100 swimming pools, said he believed that Mr. Young’s proposed plan was excessive and many of his estimates and suggestions were not needed. He also made a suggestion that along with some renovations to the current medium and large pools, the wading pool and parking lot to the south of the main area could be replaced with a full eight lane pool. He said this would be less disruptive and destructive to the community and surrounding area.
by Owen Levinson, Piedmont High School Senior
The two most critical issues facing our school district are managing the budget, and teacher recruitment and retention. Two candidates have the professional expertise and personal experience to address these issues:
As Associate Dean of Financial Affairs for the UCSF medical school, Amal Smith has extensive experience managing budgets in a complex educational environment with government regulations and many stakeholders. With her tenure at the Piedmont Education Foundation including as President, Amal has a strong record of working with multiple parent constituencies to balance, fund and support the wide range of Piedmont student interests and needs from kindergarten through 12th grade.
Megan Pillsbury, a long-time educator and PUSD teacher, has the training, classroom experience, and credibility to address teacher recruitment and retention given budget limitations. Megan knows the intangibles that influence whether a teacher loves their job or leaves: a supportive teaching environment, professional development and belonging to a community of valued teaching professionals. Megan also knows first-hand the importance of partnering with parents to create the best learning environment for their students.
Please join us in voting for Amal Smith and Megan Pillsbury for School Board.
Sincerely,
Chris & Katy Ford, Piedmont Residents
The historical record demonstrates that Hari Titan is not spreading falsehoods (nor widely). While I’ll refuse to respond tit-for-tat to the semantical hair-splitting to which this debate has descended (and the careful use of ellipses to cloud the discussion), I firmly and confidently state that Hari’s positive influence on improving PUSD’s financial decision-making when it comes to bond financing, is neither a myth, nor false, nor exaggerated, nor can it be overstated.
The School Board may have fully understood that the financial impact of 2013’s Series E CAB sale was expected to be an incremental $18.8M in interest payments for Piedmont taxpayers and rationalized those excess costs as a ‘necessary evil’. However, denying responsibility for that decision by declaring that there was no opposition to it at the time is tantamount to deflecting culpability on the public (which was, indeed, ignorant about the significant trade-offs CABs entail, even if the School Board was not).
It is abundantly clear, and is supported by the historical record, that Hari Titan single-handedly (and unpopularly) discovered the use of CABs, dug in and did his homework to understand the long-term financial ramifications, and explained the issue clearly to the voting public. It is also clear that once the public was aware of the use of this ‘creative’ financing mechanism, public opposition to the continuing or future use of CABs was broad-based, vocal, and vehement. I admire Hari’s courage in vigorously waving the cautionary flag to prevent further sale of CABs*.
It is also obvious from the historical record that the School Board was open to considering continuing use of CABs in spite of this opposition. CAB’s were presented as a financing option to refurbish the Alan Harvey theatre (the topic became moot when the bond proposition was not passed by voters**).
CABs remained in the School Board’s consideration set for use in the most recent $60M bond approval. Board members rationalized keeping CABs ‘on the table’ as a financing vehicle because CABs provide the District ‘flexibility’ to continue spending on construction projects while delaying payments on them (no downpayment! 0% financing!). The fact that current and recent School Board members claim victory for deciding NOT to continue using CABs after 2013 belies the fact that the School Board may very well have utilized CABs as a financing instrument if it were not for the fierce opposition raised by Hari Titan’s public education on the subject and the consistent and vocal preference declared by many, many Piedmont parents, taxpayers and voters for the use of more classical, steady-handed, disciplined financing methods.
Hari will also receive my vote for PUSD’s School Board.
*It is germane to this point that shortly after the 2013 sale of CABs by PUSD, the CA legislature outlawed the sale of those same CABs to CA School Districts because the usurious rates charged on them had nearly, or actually, bankrupted many school districts state-wide who were similarly ham-strung by the Recession’s impact on school district finances.
**It is worth noting, for those unfamiliar with Measure H history, that Measure H, a $13-15M bond placement to refurbish Alan Harvey Theatre, was rejected by Piedmont voters, primarily due to the courageous communication and diligent research supplied by Hari Titan and Alicia Kalamas, which credibly questioned the District’s plan to renovate, rather than demolish and rebuild, PHS’s existing theatre. Their time-consuming, competitive research provided local case-study evidence inferring that the proposed Alan Harvey Theatre project was projected to be excessively costly yet yield a facility with inferior amenities compared to the recent construction costs and designs of other Bay Area high school theaters.
Hope Salzer, Piedmont Resident
In Rick’s [Raushenbush] Piedmont Civic Association Oct 17, 2018 article he makes the following statements that I challenge or refute below. I copied and pasted his comments and have my own numbering. See his original opinion article for additional context.
- First, the District and the School Board clearly understood the difference between Current Interest Bonds (CIBs) and Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs), as well as Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs) and Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs). These financing mechanisms, their pros and cons, were discussed in public meetings back to 2006.
Very roughly speaking, CIBs reduce total interest payments by levying taxes at a higher rate to pay down the debt starting immediately, while CABs reduce the immediate tax rate at the cost of greater total interest payments by deferring repayment of the debt. — Rick Raushenbush 2018
- Pursuant to statute, anticipated tax rates to repay bonds issued under Measure E were limited to $60 per $100,000 in assessed value. The District could not have sold CIBs to fund this work as the tax rate to repay the bonds would have exceeded the limit.
- I do not recall anyone, including current School Board candidates, appearing before the School Board at the time to argue that Wildwood and Beach work should be deferred for years to reduce total interest payments.
- Third, refinancing bonds to save money is not a new concept. Even before the CABs were sold, the Board and District anticipated re-financing them as soon as it was possible to do so (call dates were set as soon as feasible given market requirements)
- Fourth, the School Board, well aware that CABs keep current tax rates lower only by increasing total interest payments, has chosen CIBs over CABs when available. In 2014, when proposing a bond measure to fix Alan Harvey Theater, the Board ruled out using CABs as the feasible tax rate supported the CIB option. No one on the Board was advocating CABs.
- According to Minutes of the Nov. 8, 2017 meeting, however, “Hari Titan encouraged the Board to wait for at least a year on CAB refinancing.”
Rick Raushenbush never contacted me about his beliefs but my responses are below.
Hari Titan’s Responses
- Rick did not produce any links to public discussions back in 2006. Although technically these discussions are open to the public most of the public is unaware of what they are about. His 2018 “roughly speaking” description is to this day overly simplified and misses key financial concepts, the absence of which mislead the public regarding the negative side of CABs. For example Rick does not mention any of the following: compound interest, negative amortization, balloon payments, above market interest rates, increasing debt, non-productive debt. I have been educating the public about these aspects which led to the vast majority of the public not wanting CABs.
- In the October 11, 2017 meeting to refinance the 2013 CAB at H:M:S 1:35:16 – onwards, it is revealed that as long as there are savings to the public from a refinance, the new refinance can go over the prior $60/$100k AV limits. This was new information from district bond counsel that was not discussed (and likely not known) at the May 8, 2013 board meeting prior to issuing the 2013 CAB.
- My proposal was not to defer the work and financing in 2013 but to use CIBs by getting a new voter authorization, see my article here. In the May 2013 board meeting, KNN Public Finance confirms that a new voter authorization would provide a new $60/$100k AV limit, see:http://piedmont.granicus.
com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3& clip_id=916 Minute 1:06 - Maintaining the no-refinance clause to 10-years per market demands for CABs is not the same thing as planning to do a refinance of the CABs. There is no record of board members actually stating their wish for refinancing the upcoming August 2013 CAB in their May 2013 board meeting:http://piedmont.
granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php? view_id=3&clip_id=916 Check Minutes 0:44 – 1:07 . In fact, we did the 2017 refinance of the 2013 CAB before the 10-year no-refinance clause expired. Board members at the time did not balk at or comment on the high repayment multipliers from 4:1 to 5.6:1 and only CABs were on the table at that time. - Measure H had CABs as Option 1 even though there was no existing $60/$100k AV limitation. The board voluntarily put CABs on the table and then removed it in favor of CIBs. It shows that the board was not just putting CABs on the table because they thought they were forced to by Prop 39 but instead that they were relying on what I would say is a faulty presentation of present value arguments that don’t apply to taxpayers but apply to bond investors. Andrea Swenson invited KNN Public Finance and another community member to do the advocating for CABs. I was the only community member to oppose CABs at this meeting and a few earlier meetings. Here is the video to follow along with the proponents of CABs:http://piedmont.granicus.
com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3& clip_id=1042 see Minutes 2:00 – 2:41 - The minutes of the meeting ignores that I changed my opinion in that meeting based on new information from KNN Public Finance. Here is a link to the actual video of the meeting: http://piedmont.
granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php? view_id=3&clip_id=1688 Initially at minute 54 second 47 I say: “Even if the Fed dot plot is correct and the interest rates will go up 75 basis points next year, it may be well worth just waiting to see if that is really going to happen. We have a new Fed chairman who has made verbal statements to not increase rates…. we could wait and monitor interest rates.” However at minute 1:25, based on the new information provided by KNN I switch my recommendation to: “I’m with Cory given this new information… maybe the best thing for the community is to take action now and go with Option B… I would give a thumbs up if the board took action now.” In summary, the Board in 2013 missed 2 approaches to avoiding the 2013 CAB. One approach was to get a new voter authorization and another approach was to consult with bond counsel and find out if a new voter authorization was even required.
Furthermore and consistent with the above video evidence, KNN Public Finance told me that they were not asked to run numbers for a CIB option in 2013 because the board was not interested in CIBs at that time.
The actual moment the $18.8 million was lost was at 1 hour and 6 minutes into the May 8, 2013 board meeting when KNN points out (in response to Tolles) that a new voter authorization would grant a new $60/$100k AV limitation. Nobody on the board asked if such a new voter authorization would allow CIBs back on the to table and what those savings would be.
Hari Titan, Candidate for Piedmont School Board
I’m excited to add my endorsement of Megan Pillsbury to the long list of deeply committed community volunteers and education experts who have already attested to her extensive qualifications for the position.
I have known and admired Megan for many years and believe she is an excellent choice for Piedmont’s School Board. But besides liking her a great deal and knowing her to be a deep thinker and a coalition builder, I have a few specific reasons for choosing her over a slate of dedicated and well-intentioned candidates.
#1: Megan has recently retired from a long career in teaching and curriculum development. Beyond the extremely relevant experience, the Board will benefit from Megan viewing a position on our School Board as her next full time job. She’s committed to working long hours to ensure our schools provide the best possible experience for students and their families.
#2: While Megan and her husband raised three children who all attended Piedmont schools, she is not currently a Piedmont parent. She has vast experience both educating and parenting Piedmont students, but right now she doesn’t have a horse in the race. She won’t be unduly influenced by the real-time experiences of her own children and their friends; rather, she will have a broad and objective perspective and a commitment to ensuring all students develop into responsible, healthy and well-educated adults.
#3: One of the key issues our district is dealing with is attracting and retaining talented teachers. We need Megan’s years of in-district teaching experience to provide the Board with direct insight into what motivates teachers.
#4: I’ve had specific discussions with Megan about the financing that PUSD has obtained over the past two decades and have been impressed by her full understanding of the strategies and implementation of our very successful campaigns. This is in direct contrast to other candidates, who seem unable to grasp the complexity and have in one case even created a misleading and erroneous narrative about how the board was somehow led astray and chose a sub-optimal bond strategy.
Megan Pillsbury is the real deal, and I’m thrilled she’s willing to work on behalf of my kids and all the students of Piedmont to ensure our district thrives in the coming years. I hope you’ll join me in voting for her!
Laura Pochop, Piedmont Resident
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane