Parent representative says Mt. Diablo Unified ignored legal concerns in Bancroft dual‑immersion decision
Loading...
Summary
At a March 25 Mt. Diablo Unified School District board meeting, John Kelly, representing the Bancroft Dual Immersion Parents Association, told the board he had identified 22 Education Code violations tied to a Jan. 28 decision and said the district declined further discussion; the board then entered closed session to discuss negotiations and litigation, including Lawler v. Mt. Diablo Unified.
John Kelly, speaking for the Bancroft Dual Immersion Parents Association, told the Mt. Diablo Unified School District board on March 25 that he had sent a March 6 letter identifying "22 specific violations of the education code" in the process leading to the district's Jan. 28 decision on the Bancroft dual‑immersion program.
"We cited the statutes by number, and we asked the district to pause and to please follow the law," Kelly said. He said the district requested and received an extension to March 20 but then failed to respond; later the district's attorneys said a response had been sent to an incorrect email address.
Kelly said the district's written reply had "some serious problems," including citing statutory sections he described as unrelated and failing to produce a privilege log showing which documents it had withheld. "Only 3 of the 22 points we raised were even addressed," he said, and he said his group had sought to "meet and confer" to avoid further spending but had been rebuffed.
The board's presiding officer cut Kelly off when his three minutes expired and thanked him for his remarks.
After public comment, the board went into closed session. The Chair read agenda language saying the board would discuss negotiations under Government Code section 54957.6; possible discipline, dismissal or reassignment under Government Code section 54957(b)(1); conference with legal counsel on existing litigation under Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)(A), naming Lawler v. Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Contra Costa County Superior Court case number C22‑02736; anticipated litigation under Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) (two matters); and a possible expulsion for student number 1126.
The meeting record does not include any public response from district officials to the allegations described by Kelly; the board took no vote in open session and moved into closed session as shown on the agenda.
