For reader clarity and continuity, School Board Member Rick Raushenbush’s comment to the recently published opinion of William Blackwell on the voter defeated changes to the high school auditorium are re-published here, along with Blackwell’s response.

__________________________

Blackwell’s original opinion article:

Six months ago, Piedmont voters defeated the $13.5 bond measure (Measure H) to rejuvenate the school district’s Alan Harvey Theater, a major disappointment to its ardent supporters. In hindsight, the results might have been different if the school district had been more forthright in its communications and thorough in its planning. There was no lack of public outreach. But information and advice provided to the Board and public by the district’s staff, committees, and consultants all too often was incomplete or misleading, resulting in flawed decisions. Among other items, the Board was persuaded to authorize $360,000 for the preparation of design development drawings without waiting for the outcome of the election, a high-risk decision with marginal benefit.

What began in 2005 as a $5.4 million renovation was changed in 2012 into a $9.8 million theater remodel plus a whole new wing, based on a plan volunteered by designer Mark Becker. A 17-member committee supported the expanded program and declared that “Piedmont High School should be thought of as a performing arts high school”, meaning that performing arts would become the academic focus.

The new wing included a corridor with wheel-chair access to the auditorium, an elaborate instructional classroom, and improved backstage facilities. The balance of the project consisted of remodeling the existing theater. In all of the district communications, there is not a single meeting note, resolution, letter, or ballot measure statement that informed anyone that seating capacity would be reduced from 500 to 320 seats, a loss of 180 seats. This meant three school assemblies instead of two would be required for student body presentations and a smaller audience capacity for theatrical productions.

About 50 good seats were necessarily lost in providing a cross-aisle for wheel-chair access, but over 100 were lost in changing from “continental” (no center aisles) to conventional seating and in moving the control room into the auditorium instead of in a loft above the lobby. Forty-five temporary seats would have been above the orchestra pit with very poor sight lines. A smaller audience capacity would have resulted in loss in rental revenue, which partially offsets the cost of theater management and other operating expenses.

Curiously, the program committee did not mention improvement in acoustics (nor did the ballot measure), but the theater consultant in an appendix suggested adjustable acoustic draperies for the glass windows. The consultant did not, however, recommend the installation of plastic “clouds” in the ceiling as shown in the architect’s illustrations. No concern was expressed for the destruction of architectural symmetry in the auditorium or in the 50% loss in the windows that provide daylight when the curtains are open.

The district implied that the theater could not continue in use if the bond measure failed. Although it is not wheel chair accessible, the theater can legally continue in use as long as the community is willing to tolerate its various deficiencies, many of which are matters of deferred maintenance, such as the leaking roof. If the theater were unsafe, it would have been shut down.

Many voters were concerned about the cost of the project. District staff, aided by consultants, added essential items such as fees and contingencies to the original estimate of $9.8 million ($560 per square foot) and arrived at a total budget of $14.5 million. When the cost of debt service is added, the total project cost came to over $20 million —about $1,200 per square foot. Cost comparisons made with three other school theater “renovation” projects were virtually meaningless because the other theaters had twice the seating capacity and very different scopes of work.

Vila Construction’s construction cost estimate, incidentally, was 15% lower than the architect’s estimate. Had the Vila estimate been used, the bond measure would have been $11.5 million rather than $13.5 million. The “hybrid” bond option chosen by the Board deferred payment on the principal for six years in order to reduce the immediate impact on taxpayers, but added over one million dollars to the debt service.

It would have behooved the district at the outset to establish a project schedule that started construction promptly at the end of a school year, rather than in the middle. This would have allowed two full summer months for site preparation and demolition in good weather with minimum disruption to campus activity. Rental of interim theater and classroom facilities would then have been during one school year rather than portions of two years.

There is no pleasure in calling attention to these missteps. However, the needless loss in time, money and human energy over a two-year period cannot be ignored. The next election in November 2016 gives the district ample time to review its internal procedures and take corrective steps. The district has everything to be gained by thorough planning and full disclosure of issues to a generous, involved, and supportive parent community.

William Blackwell – Piedmont Resident and Retired Architect

_______________________

Comment by School Board Member Rick Raushenbush in response to Blackwell’s opinion:

While the Alan Harvey bond measure failed to garner sufficient support, it is past time for those who attacked it to stop making inaccurate attacks. The School Board has embarked on a year-long effort to ascertain what the community wants and is willing to support in the Piedmont schools. There will be plent of opportunity for everyone to provide their thoughts.

Mr. Blackwell’s opinion is inaccurate (or, in his terms, fails to provide “full disclosure”) in the following respects, among others:

(1) The Board authorized spending $360,000 on design drawings only after having guarantees of more than that in donations for Alan Harvey. The District ultimately received $560,000 in donations, which are and will be used to make interim repairs in Alan Harvey to extend its life a bit longer. Not only did the District gain in donations more than it spent (no loss at all), if the bond had been approved, the design drawings would have expedited completion of the work significantly (the hoped for benefit). This issue has been discussed and disclosed repeatedly–including before and after the decision to proceed with design drawings.

(2) Mr. Blackwell contends the plan included a “whole new wing” and a plan to make performing arts “the academic focus.” The plan included one performing arts classroom, which would have been the ONLY performing arts classroom, which otherwise must use the theater itself, adding to its wear and tear. Further, “the academic focus” of PHS is education–having a performing arts program does not detract from any other academic efforts.

(3) Mr. Blackwell expresses concern about the reduction in seating capacity and implies some would have been unnecessary. Yes, seating would have been reduced, which the District and performing arts staff considered relatively low impact compared to the gains from renovation. Having a center aisle enhanced safety by providing faster exit during a fire or other emergency, and the control room would have been at level to allow required ADA access and provide more room in the lobby. QKA was asked to work primarily within the existing space. An entirely new structure could provide more seating, but will cost more.

(4) Mr. Blackwell asserts that the District “implied that the theater could not continue in use if the bond measure failed.” That is not true. The District pointed out that the structure is not in compliance with the ADA and a lawsuit could force its closure. That remains true today. This was fully disclosed and discussed in an FAQ on the District’s website, as well as public meetings.

(5) Mr. Blackwell asserts that a Vila Construction construction cost estimate was lower than QKA’s estimate. This is not accurate, as shown in the District’s FAQ on its website. Moreover, Mr. Blackwell then suggests the amount of the bond could have been $11.5M rather than $13.5M. Mr. Blackwell ignores the need to include soft costs (architect’s fees, permit fees, etc.) and contigency funds in the budget, and hence in the bond amount. The District cannot make up cost overruns from its General Fund, which is devoted to running the schools, and thus must have an adequate contingency.

Frankly, now is not the time for further debate about the QKA plan. The community needs to express its views on whether Alan Harvey is an appropriate venue for the PHS performing arts program and community events, and, if not, what should be done. But repeated attacks that are inconsistent with the facts are corrosive to constructive community discussion, and should stop.

Rick Raushenbush, Member of the Piedmont School Board 

____________________

Blackwell Rebuttal to Raushenbush Comment of January 16:

No one is infallible but the information in my report came almost verbatim from the School Districts own records as noted below.

(1)  Mary Ireland said her fundraising group “has been clear with potential donors that if the bond does not pass, their donation will go toward HVAC, seating, and roof work on AHT” (10/23/13 Minutes). She did not say their donation could be used to repay the district the $360,000 paid to QKA for the 127 sheets of design documents (at $560 per square foot of drawing) that may or may not be partially salvageable. There were also other fees and expenses the district may need to absorb.

(2)  The plan did include a whole new wing with an area of “about” 3,500 square feet (Mark Becker 5/23/12) and a cost of nearly $800 per sq. ft. (FAQ 3/28/14). The project cost as a whole was $560 per sq. ft. The Programming Manual (2/11/13) states “Piedmont High School should be thought of as a performing arts high school,” which is not the same as saying the performing arts department needed another classroom in order to be on a par with the eight other high school departments.

(3)  Assistant Superintendent Booker told the board “that there would be slightly fewer seats in the new theater” (12/11/13 Minutes). However, the end result was a loss of 180 seats — from 500 to 320 — although the Programming Manual had said the remodeled theater should have at least 400 to accommodate two assemblies. Rearrangement of the seating in fact added to the travel distance to an exit, and the relocated control room was lowered 35 inches, which resulted in vision windows easily obscured by anyone standing or walking in the back rows. In short, the theater could have been easily remodeled within the existing space without the loss of 180 seats.

(4)  Superintendent Hubbard implied in her letter of March 28, 2014 that the theater could not continue in use because of non-compliance with ADA and current codes. This was clearly a misrepresentation because these codes do not require upgrade until other major changes are made. Neither Hubbard’s letter or any other school record mentioned a possible lawsuit.

5)  Assistant Superintendent Brady told me in e-mail (July 16, 2014) “the variation between hard construction cost estimate was $9.77 million from QKA, and $9.64 million from Vila Construction.” However FAQ (March 28, 2014) said Vila’s analysis included cost escalation and contingencies that were not in the QKA estimate, and its cost of construction was only $8.4 million. District staff aided by Villa added 48% in additional contingencies, escalation, FF&E, etc. to the QKA estimate and arrived at a project budget of $14.5 million. Had the staff added the same 48% to the lower Vila estimate, the project budget would have been $12.5, and, because $1 million was available from other sources, the bond measure would have been $11.5 million instead of $13.5million.

There are other items that Mr. Raushenbush ignored in his response. My purpose was not to attack but rather to point out a rather casual attitude toward facts and figures by the district that led to misunderstandings and faulty decisions. As Mr. Raushenbush pointed out, there is time now to make internal improvements so the next time around the same errors will not be repeated. On a larger issue, if integrity is a virtue, the district in this case has set a poor example for its students to follow.

William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident and Retired Architect

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

– Rain issues, food drive, lap tops, and censorship –

Piedmont High School student Alexandra Darwish reported on the Piedmont Unified School District Board of Directors meeting of December 10, 2014.

The Piedmont Unified School District Board of Education met on December 10, 2014 in order to discuss scholastic affairs. This particular meeting focused on budgets and financial reports for school affairs and approval of certain agreements. This School Board meets twice a month, on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month.

The beginning of the meeting addressed minor affairs, including some public comments, a review of upcoming events at the school by Claire O’Connor, the Youth Representative, and an emphasis on a school book drive.

Once these were discussed, representatives of the group that was searching for a new superintendent spoke to the board and explained their process. Some questions were asked regarding the  interviews of the candidates and the board concluded that the methods were satisfactory.

Brent Daniels spoke about current administrative decisions at Piedmont High School and a Millenium High School representative did the same. The goals for each of the schools were discussed at length and compared to last year’s goals. The theme of technology was introduced and prompted several questions by student attendees. The last portion of the meeting was filled by the discussion of Interim Reports and their certification.

When discussing the process for finding a new superintendent, Doug Ireland asked many questions. In particular, Ireland asked about confidentiality for the candidates and disapproved slightly of the process. After clarification, however, the process was deemed fit. Most of the contracts and reports that were addressed were unanimously agreed upon by the School Board.

Additionally, when Mr. Daniels spoke of the decision to give laptops to a select number of students, Elizabeth Sweeney questioned why those students were privileged enough to receive laptops while sophomores and seniors were not. I agreed with Elizabeth in that it does not seem justified to only give certain grades the access to their own personal computer. Mr. Daniels acknowledged this concern and gave a satisfactory response, which made their decision seem more reasonable.

I filled out a speaker card and was prepared to discuss the rain advisory, however, the School Board immediately addressed the situation. I intended to discuss their decision to leave schools open while many other schools within our vicinity had closed their doors for that day while also addressing the negative consequences of cancelling classes for a day. I wanted to bring to their attention the students who don’t live close enough to walk or drive on safe streets, including those who don’t live in the district and some who live in San Francisco or across other freeways. I also wanted to bring up the teachers’ safety because many of the staff members at Piedmont High School live at least thirty minutes away. I was willing to suggest a compromise that would enable students who didn’t feel comfortable or safe on their travels to school to be permitted to stay home without consequences on their attendance. Unfortunately, the School Board did not want to discuss this further and put the issue to rest before I could make a comment about the subject.

Interview with Claire O’Connor – Youth Representative to the Board of Education

1. Why are you here? What difficulties and problems brought you here?

“Constitutionally, the ASB vice president’s mandatory duty is to be the youth representative on the school board, according to their list of duties. Since I am the vice president, I am required to be here. My responsibilities are to inform the board and audience about occurrences at Piedmont High School. Although there were no particular problems that brought me there, the disappointing outcome of the school wide food drive has prompted me to discuss actions, advertising techniques and parental involvement to encourage food donations. I wanted to bring up the rain issue and the school’s decision to keep school open but the school board told me there were too many political implications in this issue so I wasn’t allowed to. I always have to give advanced notice because of the formality of the event and for censorship reasons.”

    2. What next step will you take to get their particular concern addressed?

“I plan to keep bringing attention to the food drive. ASB and the school will hopefully send out emails to encourage outside donations. We will get the administration involved and I think we will get the food drive back up to par.”

Alexandra Darwish

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

 

The following is a Piedmont Unified School District student report on the City Council Meeting of November 17, 2014, written by Julia Ormond.

On Monday the 17th of November, the five city council members took their seats at exactly 7:30 pm and began their meeting with a discussion of the previous meeting’s minutes. As this conversation swiftly carried out, the minutes were approved and a couple more Piedmont citizens filed in to find their seats.

Once everyone was seated, Mayor Fujioka opened the floor for citizens to speak out on issues they felt needed to be heard. The first who stepped up to the podium was a man who introduced himself as Mr. Maggonas. Throughout his couple of minutes on the stand, Mr. Maggonas urged for a better relationship between Piedmont and Oakland, describing how we as a small town depend on Oakland, and thus need stronger ties with the large city. Mayor Fujioka thanked Mr. Maggonas for his contribution while other city council members nodded their heads in agreement.

Next to speak to the room was Claire Wong, a senior at Piedmont High School like myself. She explained a scenario that repeatedly occurrs on her walk home from school involving an unsafe crosswalk, and asked for the city council to consider a stop light on the street. The mayor scribbled some notes onto her paper and thanked Claire for bringing the problem to the council’s attention.

Next was my turn to speak out, and I explained a similar problem to Claire’s. I described the speeding on my street and asked for a stop sign somewhere along the long hill. The city council members encouraged me with smiles, once again taking notes on my ideas and thanking me for sharing when I was finished. The interaction between average citizen and city council member was not an intimidating one; the light atmosphere in the room allowed for an easy communication between the government and its citizens, which I appreciated.

When no other Piedmonters preferred to speak, the city council members moved on to their next topic of conversation, which was the Toys For Tots campaign. The Chief of the Fire Department, gentleman dressed in an official uniform, explained the importance of giving back to those less fortunate than those living in Piedmont. When he finished, a large bin was passed around and each city council member happily placed a fun toy or two into the bin to kick off the drive. A photographer took a couple photos, the city council members joyfully acknowledged the cute toys they each brought in, and the Chief thanked them all for participating.

Next to be invited to talk was a man named Tom Guarino, a PG&E representative traveling to cities of the Bay Area to talk about “Digging Month”. When I spoke to this man before the meeting started, he explained how he loved the job he did. With a smile on his face, Mr. Guarino described how interesting it was to travel to the different cities surrounding the Bay. Even though he was only there to speak to the city council, it was an enjoyable trip for him because he helped the people of each city become more conscientious.

Mr. Guarino’s job was to talk to the government of every city and explain the importance of calling PG&E before digging anywhere on one’s property. He stressed how digging without the knowledge of what’s underneath the surface can affect people throughout a district. A water pipe could be hit, and it could take days to fix the issue. Luckily, he said, Piedmont had not caused any digging problems in the past couple years, an accomplishment not many other towns could claim.

After his presentation to the city council members, Mayor Fujioka signed a document recognizing the requests of PG&E and officially named the month of November “Digging Month”. When I asked Mr. Guarino what he would be doing next, he said he would continue his travels until the end of the month, then return to his regular job of fixing downed power lines and broken water heaters throughout the Bay Area. As he left, he thanked Piedmont as a whole for its eager support.

Continuing the meeting, the city council members discussed an issue about a “conflict interest code” that concerned adding government workers and helpers onto a list that required these men and women to officially file the jobs they do for the city of Piedmont. While discussing the details of this code, Councilmember Rood chimed in with an idea to add the city engineer to that list. Although he did not officially work for the government, the engineer has advised the city of Piedmont consistently on multiple occasions. Luckily, the engineer already volunteers to file these papers when he does work for the government; in Rood’s mind it was a simple next step in the connection between the Piedmont government and the engineer himself.

Councilmember Wieler completely disagreed, arguing that putting the advising engineer, somebody who is part of a private business, on this list would be an invasion of privacy. Rood and Wieler continued to state their opinions, but in the end Rood convinced me when he said that there is nothing to hide between the engineer and the government; since he already files his government actions, why not make it official? I think that even just advising the government is important; it is not unnecessary to ask someone officially file the interactions. When put to vote, all agreed with Rood’s point of view, even Wieler, albeit reluctantly.

Once this discussion came to an end, the council members relaxed more and began discussing interesting things they had done in the past two weeks. Councilmember Rood told how he was interviewed by a few Boy Scouts on their way to gaining more badges. Mayor Fujioka explained her latest neighborhood safety meeting, stressing the importance of fostering a tight-knit and smart group of neighbors. Lastly, Councilmember Wieler advocated for an interesting art exhibition he saw in Oakland. As the lightweight conversation came to an end, the mayor once again thanked everyone who voiced their opinions during the meeting and officially ended the city council meeting with a strike of her gavel.

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

A subcommittee of the Board of Education and select community members will interview search firms to assist the Board of Education in their selection of a new Superintendent of the Piedmont Unified School District. The public is welcome to attend the  10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Friday, November 21 meeting held in the District Offices at 760 Magnolia Avenue.   This meeting will not be broadcast or recorded.

“While the interview and final selection of a Superintendent will rest with the five Board members, the Board asked to establish a small subcommittee to select which firm to use. The following people will serve on the committee to review and interview the search firms: Paul Benoit, City Administrator; Ray Gadbois, former member of the Board of Education; Katie Korotzer, President of the Associated Parent Clubs of Piedmont; Carol Cramer, Principal of Wildwood Elementary School.”  Board Vice President Sarah Pearson and Board member Doug Ireland will also serve on the committee.

The committee will hear presentations from the following firms:

1. HYA Executive Search

2. Leadership Associates

3. McPherson-Jacobson Executive Recruiting

4. Ray & Associates

5. Proact Search

After all presentations are completed, members of the public may speak to provide feedback to the committee prior to their deliberations.

“Although the subcommittee does not need to conduct the interviews in public, we are choosing to post this as a “Special Board Meeting” to invite the public to listen and give input. There will be time for public comment after all of the firms have presented and before the committee deliberates in private. Later, the chosen search firm will seek input from students, parents, community members and staff in a variety of forums regarding the qualities most valued in a candidate for the Superintendent position. Input from across the community will be essential. At this early stage we were looking for a small group people who represent parents, staff, and community and/or who have had experience working with search firms.”

 CONFIDENTIAL DELIBERATIONS

“The committee will adjourn to deliberate on the selection of the firm for the search process. The Board Vice-President will coordinate the negotiation of a contract with the selected firm for Board ratification on December 10, 2014. It is anticipated that representatives from the firm selected will provide details of the next steps in the search process to begin in January 2015.

It is anticipated that a Superintendent will be selected by the beginning of April 2015.”

Read the staff report.

Meeting agenda.

 

The following is an article written by Piedmont High School student observer Minhong Yang. 

On Monday, November 3, 2014, the Piedmont City Council met in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:30 sharp that evening for its semi-monthly meeting. Acting as the legislative branch of the city government, the council reviewed various proposals on issues that ranged from the street use permit for the annual Turkey Trot Race to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, most of which welcomed the members of the public to participate in the decision making process before the votes were casted by council members.

The major issue discussed at the meeting was the consideration of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (PBMP) as recommended by the Planning Commission. As one of Piedmont’s most comprehensive community based planning projects, PBMP’s goal is to promote safer and more convenient walking and bicycling in the city while paying special attention to the needs of school children. Since the summer of 2013, the City’s planning staffs, particularly Kate Black and Janet Chan, had been preparing this extensive plan based upon inputs received at 9 commission public hearings, 2 special sessions at community workshops, 2 online community surveys, several Piedmont Unified District Board meetings, and a number of other community outreach.

The final draft plan was introduced by Mr. Niko Letunic, the City’s transportation and planning consultant, through a detailed powerpoint presentation. According to Mr. Letunic, PBMP has received a $1.6 million fund from the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Covering a 10-year period, the plan contains a series of projects to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists throughout the city. Those that are the most important and promising physical improvements for improving conditions, such as bikeway network and enhanced street crossings at busy locations, are given high-priority; those that may be implemented if the city obtains additional funding, such as curb ramps and bollard lighting, are given low-priority. Most of these projects target the Civic Center, arterials, and routes to school.

Public testimony for PBMP was received from Sue Herrick, Park Commission Chair, and Nick Levinson, Recreation Commission Chair, who praised the plan for providing an excellent template for clear and consistent safety measures, as well as regulations for both pedestrians and school children with bicycles. They emphasized that the compelling concern is safety, particularly for school areas and major intersections, and voiced strong support for slowing traffic speeds. Tracey Woodruff, a resident of Piedmont, also showed strong support for PBMP, noting specifically how the road diet for Grand Avenue would help to protect school children when they cross this heavily-traveled area. Her opinion was concurred by Margaret Ovenden and Susy Struble, who also noted the need to reduce traffic congestion at school sites and the need to improve pedestrian and bike safety along areas not directly mentioned in PBMP, respectively. Finally, members of the council, including Tim Rood, Jeffrey Wieler and Robert McBain, all complimented the plan, and requested the City to work with the City of Oakland in implementing the Grand Avenue road diet, to pay more attention to sidewalk maintenance, and to work with community organizations in raising more money for improving pedestrian and bicycle pathways within the community. PBMP was then passed unanimously.

I personally support PBMP, mostly for its overall detailed layouts and efforts to improve students’ safety around school areas. In fact, this was the topic that I spoke about during the meeting. I voiced my hope to see street guards at both the middle school and high school to ensure students’ safety as well as to reduce traffic congestion. My concern was well-received by the council members, particularly the mayor, Margaret Fujioka. I was initially a little nervous about speaking in a city council meeting, but afterwards I felt that this experience was not scary but was rather pleasant and refreshing.

In an interview with Ms. Fujioka, she said the council is currently trying to reach out to the community by making announcement during the meetings, regularly putting up posts on the city’s website, and having more articles about city projects on The Piedmont Post in order to encourage more people to participate in the projects that the city is working on. She noted PBMP as an example of great public participation, and expressed her hope to see more of it in the future.

Minhong Yang

The Annual Piedmont Turkey Trot will continue.

Following a November 4, 2014 Closed Session to discuss litigation issues regarding the newly formed Turkey Trot organization, the School Board approved in the regular meeting an agreement with the organization by three affirmative votes. School Board member Doug Ireland made the motion, seconded by Board President Andrea Swenson and joined by Amal Smith in approving the action.  Vice President Sarah Pearson abstained because of her perception of a conflict as her daughter participates on an impacted athletic team.  Board member Rick Raushenbush voted no and read the following statement into the meeting record.

“Although I understand the desire to resolve the dispute with the individuals who created the Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation, I voted against the District entering into this Agreement. I did so because the PHS athletic community has never had any opportunity to provide their thoughts on who should run the Turkey Trot in the future and how its proceeds should be allocated.

Since 2003, the Turkey Trot has been run and supported by volunteers from the PHS running teams. A small number of volunteers were entrusted with the honor of organizing the race, and many student and parent volunteers made it happen. In 2013, the leadership volunteers again collected funds from the District to finance the race, and students and parents again volunteered on race day. But after the race, with no notice to the District, parents or student athletes, a few individuals formed Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation and kept the race proceeds.

When the District realized that none of the race proceeds had come to the District, the District found out about the formation of Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation and began efforts to obtain the funds to benefit Piedmont student athletes. At a February meeting, the District encouraged the organizers of the Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation to meet with stakeholders–student athletes and their parents to discuss how to run the race in the future, as well as provide the 2013 race proceeds to the teams. The organizers did not agree to meet with stakeholders and did not return the race proceeds.

From February to the present day, the District has asked the Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation organizers to meet with student athletes and parents to discuss who should run the Turkey Trot.

They never have. In mid-summer, over half a year after the 2013 Turkey Trot, the organizers finally repaid some of the money advanced by the District for the 2013 race. But still student athletes and parents have not been consulted.

The Agreement states that the District agrees that the Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation will now solely manage, organize and run the Turkey Trot in Piedmont. In short, the Agreement asks the District, without consultation with student athletes or parents, to agree to a significant change in how the Piedmont Turkey Trot is run and who benefits from the funds it raises.

In my view, the cardinal sin committed by the Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation organizers is that they unilaterally, without notice to anyone, asserted that they controlled the Turkey Trot and would decide who benefits from the funds it raises. Perhaps student athletes and parents would agree–perhaps they would not. We don’t know because the stakeholders have never had a chance to be heard. The Agreement asks the District to join the Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation organizers in making the same mistake. I vote no.”

Rick Raushenbush, Member of the Board of Education

Draft minutes of the November 4 meeting state:

“Board Member Smith agreed with his statement and expressed concern over a very difficult situation. She commended the Board President and Superintendent on their efforts to get this matter resolved.  President Swenson expressed the hope that the Turkey Trot Corporation will reach out to parents with current runners on the PHS Cross Country and Track Teams.

“Board Member Pearson agreed with the statements of other Board members and encouraged the Turkey Trot Corporation to amend its bylaws so that the intent to support the PHS Cross Country and Track teams is more explicit.

“The agreement is available upon request to the Office of the Superintendent.

“It was moved by Mr. Ireland and seconded by Ms. Swenson to authorize the Superintendent to signed the proposed agreement as presented.

The motion passed as follows:

AYES: Swenson, Smith, Ireland

NOES: Raushenbush

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: Pearson (her daughter is on the teams involved)”

No members of the public spoke to the matter.  The Turkey Trot issue was not named on the agenda.

A Report on the Special Piedmont Planning Commission Meeting

– by Jordan Wong, a Piedmont Resident and PHS Student

The City of Piedmont Planning Commission met  on Thursday, October 30, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers for a special session.  This meeting’s purpose was to provide an update on the progress  on the state-mandated Draft Housing Element that all cities in California are required to comply with and submit.The Housing Element document’s purpose is to spell out the housing policies for all California cities from 2015-2022.

The City of Piedmont is small and has no land to further develop for any new housing. With the help of a private consultant, Barry Miller, the Planning Commission is able to include the addition of second units as a way to comply with the Housing Element. Part of the draft process is to allow residents to have the opportunity to provide comments or suggestions. There was no opposition from the Commission or audience about the progress and content of the draft at that meeting.

Barry Miller, a consultant  for  the City of  Piedmont, presented a detailed explanation of the draft and the Commission concurred with his findings and recommendations. Director of Planning, Kate Black, reported that she was happy with the working draft with Barry Miller’s work thus far in finding a way to comply with the State and preserving the landscape of Piedmont. Piedmont resident, Dimitri Magganas, from the audience, commended the Commission for their work on the Housing Element draft and wanted to bring to their attention that there was a lot of unused public space. It is unclear if this comment meant public space could be considered to add more housing or if there was a way to open up some of these public spaces for development.

In an interview with the Director of Planning, Kate Black, she said it was important for the public to be informed about the Housing Element’s progress. The special meeting was an update on the progress of the draft and if the public wanted to make any suggestions on what had been presented, that evening was a good time to do it. The next action of the Planning Commission is to present the Housing Element to the City Council for further action.

The topic I presented was on security cameras and the need for guidelines and/or regulations for their placement and installation. This is an ongoing issue in my neighborhood and I really feel that there is a privacy issue that should be addressed by the Planning Commission.  Director of Planning, Kate Black, acknowledged my concern and said that they will be reviewing and updating the Code soon and will add my request to their agenda. I was a little nervous about speaking in public, but the Commission members were very nice and appeared to pay attention to what I had to say about the security cameras. Personally, I think they were surprised that I was there and had an issue to present.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following is the text of Mr. Wong’s comments to the Planning Commission.

“Hello, my name is Jordan Wong, I am a senior at Piedmont High. This is an item that is not on your agenda this evening. I observed the Planning Commission uses design review for home remodeling and fences. Do you foresee adding design review for home security cameras in the future? There is a proliferation of security cameras on so many homes in Piedmont. I suggest there should be some guidelines for placement. They are not only unattractive but they stick out like a sore thumb which some may find interesting because there is so much input needed for a fence but nothing for a camera.  I bring this up particularly as I feel there is an invasion of privacy in my own backyard. A home for sale behind my house, currently unoccupied, had security cameras installed. One in particular looks down into our backyard. As you can understand, I feel it is an invasion of privacy and I would like a review of security camera placement requirements of either a permit or a design review. Thank you.”

The following is an announcement from the League of Women Voters of Piedmont (LWVP):

~~~~ Deconstructing the Mid-terms ~~~~

LWVP Election Debrief

Piedmont Community Center

711 Highland Avenue 

Monday, November 17

7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Please join the League of Women Voters of Piedmont  for a lively discussion of the mid-term election and the impact it has on our state and country.

Our guest speakers include three respected political insiders: former White House correspondent and KRON 4 reporter, Terisa Estacio; veteran political reporter and KQED senior editor, John Myers; and Josh Richman, political reporter for the Bay Area News Group.

Join us for an insightful evening of conversion and analysis.

This event is free and open to the public.

Terisa Estacio John Myers Josh Richman

In addition to Piedmont School District athletic programs, the City of Piedmont’s Athletic Preservation Fund is designated as a potential recipient of funds.  

The Piedmont City Council will consider the allocation of $5,305 to support the newly organized  2014 Annual Piedmont Turkey Trot and approval of this years race at their November 3, 2014 meeting starting at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall.

There is an ongoing issue regarding the proceeds from the Annual Piedmont Turkey Trot and who should control the Piedmont Turkey Trot?

Until recently, Turkey Trot volunteers and runners were under the impression that money raised by the Annual Piedmont Turkey Trot held on Thanksgiving Day morning would benefit Piedmont High School athletic programs, including track and cross country.  

Turkey Trot organizer, resident Marilyn Weber has far exceeded revenue expectations by gaining community sponsors and increasing participation through area publicity. Approximately half of  the runners come from outside of Piedmont. The widely popular event had over 2,300 runners in 2013, raising more than $50,000.

According to available information, the Piedmont Unified School District historically provided seed money to allow purchase of the shirts and other materials necessary for the race.  Since shirt purchases and other actions need to occur well in advance of Thanksgiving Day, funds need to be readily available for organizers.  The School District evidently delayed providing the necessary seed money in 2013, hence the organizers moved ahead by soliciting donations. Later, the School District supplemented funding for the event.

Following the 2013 race, the School District asked to be reimbursed for their seed money and requested race proceeds plus accounting information related to the Turkey Trot. Reimbursement was made to the School District for the seed money plus a donation to the School District. Out of over $50,000 raised from the Turkey Trot approximately $30,000 was retained for future Turkey Trots, with the School district receiving approximately $20,000.

In December of 2013, Weber and other individuals decided to form a nonprofit corporation (Piedmont Turkey Trot C3628657) with the State of California and in the future incorporation as a nonprofit with the Federal Government.  The corporation filing indicates it is a nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation.  The stated purpose of this corporation is “to help children and adults learn the skills of running.”

Members of the Board of the Turkey Trot Corporation are listed as:  Edna Cooper, Pam Roure, Chris Smith, and Marilyn Weber.

The organization has stated on the 501(c)(3) form, it ‘s purpose as “fostering amateur sports competition.”  

On the standard application, the reason to use Piedmont services and streets is to hold “the Piedmont Turkey Trot.”

The organization’s application letter to the City states:

“The PTT Thanksgiving Day Race non-profit was formed to ensure the necessary structure was in place to continue a community event of this size that benefits youth sports in the community.  It is our intention to donate net proceeds from the 2014 Turkey Trot to the following beneficiaries; the PHS Cross Country Team, the PHS Track Team and the City of Piedmont’s Athletic Facilities Preservation Fund.” [emphasis added]

Turkey Trot publicity states:

“The Piedmont Turkey Trot is a nonprofit organization supporting local charities and organizations.”

School District athletic programs had previously been the sole beneficiary of Turkey Trot proceeds.

For approximately 13 years, the School District received funds from the Turkey Trot for athletic programs.  Volunteers, primarily parents, became concerned when the purpose of the Turkey Trot was changed to benefit “local charities and organizations” and there was a new organization incorporated without School District or volunteer knowledge and participation.

Approval of the application for the Turkey Trot is on the City Council agenda for November 3, 2014.  The staff report states:

“While the organizational structure of the race has changed, the stated purpose of the race and application of net proceeds will continue to benefit both school sports and the Community. For these reasons, it would, as a matter of policy, be appropriate for the City to continue its tradition of supporting the race in the same manner and level as in previous years.”

“For information purposes, the cost of this support is estimated as follows:

Fire Department:  $1,030.40
Police Department: $ 920.05
Public Works Department:  $3,355.36
For a total cost to the City of Piedmont: $5,305.81″

“Regarding the 2013 Turkey Trot, there have been extensive discussions between the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) and the race organizers as to the fate of net proceeds from that race. We are informed that both parties have been working diligently toward resolution of outstanding issues. While this is not relevant to the City’s authority to issue a Street/Sidewalk Use Permit, I am pleased to report that the race organizers and PUSD have both indicated that an understanding has been reached and consideration of the agreement will be added to the agenda of an already scheduled Special Meeting of the Board of Education on November 4, 2014. ”
By: John O. Tulloch, City Clerk

According to the Piedmont Unified School District’s Special Meeting agenda for November 4, 2014, there is no item on the agenda to discuss the Turkey Trot, unless it is covered under anticipated litigation during the Closed Session.

Published sponsors for the 2014 Turkey Trot are:  Transports  ~  Highland  Partners ~ Piedmont Grocery ~ McCutcheon Construction ~ MB Jessee Painting J. Miller Flowers ~ Mulberry’s Market ~ Piedmont Post ~Village Market ~ Clif Bar

The meeting will be broadcast on KCOM Channel 27 and live streamed from the City website.

Read the staff report including application and information on Turkey Trot organization. 

Read reports published in The Piedmonter.

Read second report published in the The Piedmonter.

See other articles previously published on this site by searching “Turkey Trot.”