ICEF Amateur Hour continues...ICEF tries to charge $800 to view public records

Honestly, I didn't think we'd have another ICEF Amateur Hour episode so soon, but here we are again.

ICEF Charter School bogus invoice to view public records

    ICEF continues to play dumb about their responsibility under the California Public Records Act (PRA). On Thursday, ICEF responded to a PRA request with a invoice of $867.87 to just view these records. The fees included copying, redacting, reviewing the redactions, and even lunch breaks. ICEF's lawyer was cc'd on the invoice.
 
I had a great belly laugh when I saw the email. What fresh BS is this?

    Per the PRA, public records can be viewed upon request on location at no cost to the requester. Any work required to make these documents available must be taken on by the keeper of the records. This "invoice" is just another lame attempting to not comply with the law.
    After complaining about the legality of the invoice to ICEF CCO/CFO Greg Brendel , I was directed to speak with ICEF's legal counsel. I connected with the lawyer on Friday afternoon and we spoke for 23 minutes. It was exhilarating!
    ICEF's counsel offered to reduce the cost of access to the documents to $250. Absolutely not, I told him, I would not pay anything to see public records. This invoice was bogus and was even attempting to double charge for copying of records for redaction for public viewing.
    I have made many public records request since I started this blog, (the most notable and troublesome request involved getting copies of documents related to the CWC stripping and hosing a student on campus)  and this was the first time anyone tried to charge. The lawyer said he would get back to me next week.

    So, fellow Adventurers, tune in next week for the next episode where more amateur antics are sure to ensue.
 
 
 

ICEF Vista amateur hour: Campus Co-location Committee follies

This year, LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortinez is trying a new way to handle the problems created by charter co-locations. He is requiring schools with co-locations to create a CAMPUS CO-LOCATION Committee (CCC) that would contain the plant manager, both schools principals, lead teachers and parent representatives from both the district and charter school. The committee's purpose is to: (1) create the Shared Use Agreement between district and charter school, and (2) incorporate the charter into the District safe school plan.
    On January 23, 2015, Superintendent Ramon Cortinez sent out a letter (see images) to all charter principals whose school had been given a preliminary co-location offer. In the letter, Cortinez lays out the timeline and steps that will be required.
   The last two items in the timeline are that in May the schools will form a CCC and the group will meet before the Memorial Day weekend.  LAUSD ESC West set up an initial meeting on May 21 for schools with co-locations on the Westside, including Stoner and ICEF. Stoner representatives showed up, but ICEF did not.
   In order to get the ball rolling, Stoner scheduled a meeting directly with ICEF for Friday, June 5. ICEF showed up with a member of the board, the ICEF Vista director and two teachers. They were unaware of the CCC requirements, claiming they never received the letter and objected to the presence of a Stoner parent at the meeting.  ICEF also claimed that they had not received an invitation to the May 21 meeting to which the LAUSD Prop 39 representative responded with a sign and and a "No."
      So, the meeting technically wasn't the first CCC meeting since the CCC contains the plant manager, ICEF principal and ICEF Charter  parents.  However, the ICEF representatives did try to begin working on Use Agreement.

   A few items were discussed, and ICEF's lack of basic knowledge regarding the co-location were troubling to say the least.
   ICEF Director Buczek began negotiations by suggesting having similar start times.  I objected citing traffic and safety issues, and also noted that because of the tension between the  two schools, we would want time between the schools'  start times. (Besides, ICEF had told their community that there would be a definite divide between the school and similar start times would not allow for their desired divide.)
  The issue of  campus clean up came up and ICEF director suggested that a parent or staff could clean up their side of campus. I objected, and pointed out that the final agreement specifically states that LAUSD will handle all campus maintenance for the charter.
 This made me question, had the ICEF staff even read the agreement?

  One thought keep coming to me during the meeting, "What is this, amateur hour?" ICEF Vista staff were unprepared and lacked basic understanding about what they were getting in to. It was very disheartening to witness.  If this is what we are seeing before the co-location, what can we expect for next year?
   Last time we saw what a "Sak Fifth Avenue" charter school who didn't know the rules could do: escaped children; student stripped and hose on campus. What will ICEF, a "99 cents" charter do this year?

ICEF Amateur Hour - ICEF denies access to inspect public records

Sometimes I can't help but laugh at ICEF's amateur hour follies. They are almost too predicable...

Today, I finally had sometime during ICEF office hours to inspect the ICEF Vista charter school Parent Volunteer logs I've been trying to get my hands on.

August 17, I requested access to the logs.
September 11, ICEF's lawyer wrote in a postal letter that the documents would be available for inspection on Sept 22 at 10:30 PM.

    Yet today when I went in to inspect the records, ICEF CFO/CCO Greg Brendel denied access to inspect the records. At one point, frustrated and upset, Brendel shouted "I done playing games with you."
       That's funny, I didn't know he was playing games. I have a serious interest in reporting on ICEF since ICEF has moved in across the street from my house on the same campus that my children attend. The only way I can provide accurate reporting is to have access to ICEF's records which are public records. Under the California Public Records, these records should be available for inspection at all times during office hours.
     What does ICEF have to hide? Why are they not making these records available as they are supposed to under law?
   

ICEF Amateur Hour - poor record keeping

Back in August, I made a public records request for the email addresses of the ICEF Board of Directors so that I could email these un-elected, appointed directors to complain about the conditions on the Stoner Avenue Elementary School campus caused by the co-location of ICEF Vista and ask them to not return next year.

ICEF provides incorrect information in response to public records request

     Greg Brendel, ICEF CFO/COO and ICEF Keeper of Records, responded to my request and provided me with 6 email addresses.

    However, when I tried to email the board, all six emails bounced back returning a message that the email address did not exist.
     It's very odd that the ICEF keeper of records would not have the correct email information for board members, especially since he runs the board meetings.

   This isn't even the first time this year that Brendel has given me incorrect email address information for board members. In February of this year, I had asked for the email addresses of the ICEF board at the time. There were errors with the information he released then too.
 
     What's the deal? Can't ICEF provide true and correct information, or is it purposely providing incorrect contact information for its board?

   After pointing out the error (and complaining to the LAUSD Charter School Division), ICEF responded with the correct email addresses.
   It's very interesting that since last school year, the entire ICEF Board of Directors has changed. Is it normal for an entire school's boards to change in a one year? I guess we will learn more as ICEF releases more information in response to public records requests.

FLASHBACK - ICEF Amateur Hour preview: "Brown Act" violation

I should have known that I was in for a doozy of a co-location adventure when I first met ICEF CFO/CCO Greg Brendel in person.
   On February 18, 2015 a little before 5 PM, I was in the reception area of ICEF corporate headquarters waiting for the ICEF monthly board meeting to start. I wanted to use the public comment section of the meeting to alert the board to the Stoner and local communities' opposition to the co-location, and to ask them to please not co-locate at Stoner.
   As I was waiting, Mr. Brendel came out to greet me. He told me that, unfortunately, I would not be able to attend the meeting because I had not contacted the ICEF executive team with my concerns before the meeting.
   I was shocked!

   ...not attend the meeting?  Oh what a fool I was...Poor, poor me. ICEF has already won.
   ...none of those thoughts passed through my mind. I though "Is this guy serious?"  He must either be lying or very, very confused.

    ICEF board meetings pertain to the use of public funds and as such are subject to the Brown Act. The board meetings must be conducted as open public meetings.
   You don't need to announce that you will attend a public meeting.  Heck, anyone who just happened to walk by on the street and wanted to sit in the meeting for kicks would have every right to be in the meeting.
     So, trying to prevent me from attending a public meeting for any reason is a violation of the Brown Act.

     As for not contacting the executive team, well, a week before the meeting, I emailed all ICEF administration, including Mr Brendel, a complaint about the proposed co-location but never received a response.

     Regardless of his lame bluff, I told him I was attending the meeting and I would be speaking because it was an open public meeting subject to the Brown Act. I was allowed in the meeting and I spoke.