Oops...

I'll be honest that when I read something like this, I'm caught between concern that someone with honest intentions but poor administrative skill have created unnecessary suspicion, and a concern that we may be just scratching the surface of someone doing something far worse than it seems. I hope the Weekly will not just leave this hanging like this -- smearing a good but bumbling person or failing to find the real story behind someone trying to pool the wool over the public's eyes -- and figure out with certainly what is going on. I both feel empathy for possible bumbling and alarm at possible dishonesty. Which is it for sure?

Well, looks like we found the guy looking for the gullible 13% of local voters who thought a liar who ran a fraudulent non-profit ("Trump foundation") would make a good president.

"Misrepresent"?

So polite a word for "lie".

This News is False.
I have provided evidence of that.
As Mark Twain pointed out: In the first place God made idiots, that was for practice, then he made school boards… then, I say, this newspaper!

The fact is that the nature of the Insted and Institute for Environmental Management relationship has been one characterized as Fiscal sponsorship which refers to the practice of non-profit organizations offering their legal and tax-exempt status to groups—typically projects—engaged in activities related to the sponsoring organization's mission. It typically involves a fee-based contractual arrangement between a group or project and an established non-profit.

The REAL NEWS is: I Fight to protect our rights:

Specifically, in this election, I have at the last Board Meeting September 4th, 2018 challenged the $2.5 Million blank check by the Board, granted without a public hearing that any believe will be used against students with special education needs.

The Board waived the Board’s 2 Meeting Rule, much to the shock of parents wanting discussion and transparency, preventing required public disclosure. This is a big chunk of PIE and PTA fundraising for the entire district, for the entire year.

I believe this behavior by the PAUSD Board is in violation of the Brown Act and I have filed Brown Act complaint with the State of California and PAUSD.

We owe our children the brightest future, We are parents, teachers and students that can be the best in the world.

I am running against the PAUSD administration and and specifically this Board, with the experience of a Parent at PAUSD at four schools over six years; the experience of working with leading Stanford science researchers, visionary educators and parents; with the experience on having created an immersive STEM after school educational space; with the experience of participating in the roll out of a brilliant Wellness initiative at Stanford; with the experience of leadership at UC Davis in the Graduate Studies department as Director of Technology and with the experience of championing and managing a project with visionary design, the development and implementation of financial payments technology at State Fund, the California Worker’s Compensation Fund.

>>who ran a fraudulent non-profit ("Trump foundation") would make a good president.

Don't forget to add the ("Clinton Foundation") as well.

Go Chris! To paraphrase the great political commentator Forrest Gump, "nutty is as nutty does." Let the man tallk.

Weekly, why did you disinvite this character from your event? Isn't it up to the voters to decide if he should represent us?

Chris you might want to read up on fiscal sponsorship. There are many requirements including that the sponsored organization have a similar mission. Nonprofit status isn't like fairy dust that can just be sprinkled over anything to magically make it tax deductible.

I do agree with the previous poster. The part of the Boyd's post about the schools sounds like lunatic rantings but that shouldn't disqualify him from sharing his theories with voters if he wants to.

Dear OOPs Indeed,

That was the main reason why the Parent non profit IEM helped Insted, their organization was committed to education. Don Augenstein, the President, is a philanthropist that has sponsored education in the past also, Donhouses many graduate students and scholars that can go to Stanford but can not find housing. Please read the Brown act complaint. I will submit it next Board meeting to the public. It pays out in advance $1.1 Million in legal fees to firms that in the past have litigated against special education children. All decisions need to be fully transparent at the Board! It pays out almost $1 Million ($240K plus benefits) over three years to create a position for a Deputy Superintendent for Karen Hendricks and creates a General Counsel position which may be reasonable assumed to be a similar amount.

The PAUSD Administration has been hostile to special needs and Title IX issue which has created litigation and settlements that may reach as much as $5 Million per year. This has to stop.

Embracing special education advocacy and Title IX issues s a key point of my campaign. This eliminates the need for PAUSD legal expenses and the devastating impact PAUSD special education policy has had on so many future members of our society. All students have different modalities of learning and these need to be addressed. Einstein had special education needs and so do we all. We all need to be treated with respect, care and have education that helps us learn. Einstein was involved in reaching out to schools to advise on accommodating learning differences. We can do this extremely well if we lead with our humanity and not use lawyers to be a sword and shield against parents advocating for their children.


Thank you,

Christopher Boyd
Thank you,

@Christopher Boyd,

I agree with you about the special ed problems with the district, but you have to realize that the newspaper has to do due diligence, and if you are serious about running for office, you have to be prepared to defend yourself in a way the public can see represents how you would handle stressful situations and even accusations in office. If you are falsely accused of something, you have to defend yourself convincingly, more than once, politely, on an ongoing basis. Realize that if the paper is wrong, you can clear it up through them, but even I who am giving you the benefit of the doubt and am concerned there might have been misunderstandings or potentially benign mishandling of fiscal sponsorship do not feel I have the full story, which is why I posted as I did. I have full confidence that the reporter will not let personal feelings keep her from writing a more favorable follow on or even a retraction if due, but you do yourself no favors by attacking the reporter and paper personally, because it leaves a bad impression about how you handle this kind of stressful situation that will happen in this kind of public service. You now have a need to be even more diplomatic to undo that impression, because you cannot win without endorsements.

This is why I’m concerned about how the article did little to clear up whether the issue was a misunderstanding over administrative issues or something less benign. I myself have been offered fiscal sponsorship by an organization whose mission is easy to see as consistent but I have not yet moved forward because of how important a clear legal agreement is between a project and the fiscal sponsor - the fiscal sponsor cannot just be a pass through for donations. There are so few low-cost resources for compliance and advice on such issues. I know in Silicon Valley it can be tempting if you are on a mission to just plow ahead, but in some arenas of life, such as schools and small business/nonprofits, this can run you quickly afoul of rules that will, at the very least, make things look bad, or worse.

When you run for school board, people are going to go on the offensive; there are many fiefdoms at stake when you have an organization with so many administrators - among them known to be antagonistic to families - paid so much more than the Governor of the whole state. The paper does due diligence on all. I know it’s hard to not push back when you feel the accusations are untrue, but you do your candidacy no favors by reinforcing negative impressions with a less-than-diplomatic response. Often the only way forward in a situation like this is to apologize, keep clearing up any misunderstandings or misperceptions, and endeavor to be painstakingly diplomatic going forward. The election season will be bruising.

By the way I attended the last board meeting on another issue. Boyd's claim of legal bills paid in advance in secret is just false. The board was talking about approving spending authority for the year based on amounts that had been discussed and approved at prior meetings. There was no prepayment involved. I remember this because it was discussed explicitly and Boyd was sitting there. The biggest signal on him for me is that he doesn't make sense in school issues. The fact that he doesn't make sense about his "non-profit" is just more of the same.

Dear Parent of 2,

Thank you, but as far as the budget is concerned that $1.1 Million is not available for education, is is to be spent on what based on the use of those two law firms, will be to litigate against the special education that children should automatically receive. Why deny speech therapy to a child, why not help a 504 child receive a modified curriculum, what save $10,000 on specialist help? How many bilingual children needing special instruction are just passed without receiving remedial help. All this is so inexpensive compared to the benefit a child receives. Yes, this happens routinely in PAUSD.

If you examine the pattern of behavior in PAUSD it is very hostile towards students with 504, IEP or IDEA. The problem is that $2.5 Million could go into education and solve alll these needs, but it is allocated for litigation of claims that should be avoided. How can we know what it is going for without discussion which was cut off at the meeting. We must demand answers.

Much more will be spent on litigation and settlements this year. PAUSD does not reveal it's legal settlements. Possibly $5 Million. This is another area that needs transparency and discussion. Why if PAUSD will create a new position for a Deputy Superintendent will we not have an open search to insure we get the best talent and experience. It is preposterous to issue a $1 Million dollar commitment without an open procurement and search. This idea of the top people at PAUSD giving each other Million dollar contracts is the crony system at it's best. We must have an open competitive bidding process and an informed public; the Brown Act guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. I am already working for my constituents by filing a Brown Act complaint that the State of California will investigate on this $2.5 Million.

Who counts the kids that are hurt each year? Where is that statistic published? Our the children that drop out? I especially fight for the children and the parents hurt when special services are arbitrarily denied or when PAUSD does not follow through on 504, or IEP commitments or IDEA, ADA services or Title IX. The national averages on sexual assault are that 20% of the girls encounter this in high school. What PAUSD has done in the last year is minimal and before that even less. The Board over the last 5 years has totally failed the students, it is sworn to protect. Why?

As a Board member, I will be in the school, on watch for the benefit of all parents, students and teachers. I will litigate to bring forth the facts and find what is hidden. Every child is precious and the stress, harassment, bullying, sexual assault and harassment will not occur on my watch. The idea that the Board sits in a chair to say yea is a sin and a shame! With the $2.5 Million approved for spending last meeting

Elect a responsible board members that measures the value of every dollar. Each dollar belongs to our children's wellbeing and education.

Sincerely and Thank you,

Christopher Boyd

@Chris Boyd, first you misstate that $1.1 million was paid out "in advance" - it wasn't.

Then you mischaracterize a purchase order authorization of previously budgeted funds, which permits staff to order work on an hourly basis from the law firm, as a "blank check" to the law firms - it isn't.

When called you it, you dance around saying "as far the budget is concerned that $1.1 Million is not available for education" - which is true, but quite different from your prior two statements.

Plus there's this strange tale of your "non-profit" which just so happens to share the acronym of its unrelated fiscal sponsor.

You strike me as a person who has trouble keeping his story straight.

>Plus there's this strange tale of your "non-profit" which just so happens to share the acronym of its unrelated fiscal sponsor.

>You strike me as a person who has trouble keeping his story straight.

It's called being ostensible.

Boyd still makes a good point and one that has become more and more apparent over time. The district works VERY hard to deny students their Special Education needs. Most of these families spend enough time helping their children through school. They don't have time to fight the district, and the district takes advantage. Listen to Alex Scharf, he has experienced it himself. I've personally spoken with numerous families who have had to hire lawyers in order to get what their children deserve. Look at the DNA case that the school fought to the 9th Circuit court (I believe) to try to avoid paying approximately $100K for violating a students privacy rights.

We need people like Boyd, and Scharf and Kathy Jordan to speak up for the students. We don't need more people who will continue to make excuses for the district or hide behind lawyers to the detriment of families.

@Samuel L.

The story that will never be told is how we ended up in that situation with the DNA case. The personalities among the district office, people who had no ability to apologize and take responsibility for mistakes - in a toxic combination of bad billable-hour-seeking legal advice and complete lack of accountability among those employees - led to actions that were defended by this escalating conflict. Every once in awhile a family will not back down and be intimidated, but that bad behavior - there the district went to a doctor who didn’t know the patient to rubber stamp what they wanted to cover for previous mistakes that could have been avoided. That was a pattern [portion removed.]

One thing I find really discouraging was how over and over again that culture would overtly prevent win-win outcomes or collaborative mediation. It’s like no one in the district leadership, including the board, trusts solutions if they cover a lot of bases. It’s why we have an achievement gap. If, in several spheres, you say, if we do x,y,andz, it will also help the achievement gap (per evidence), you will be mistrusted and ignored, because they just don’t trust anything that smacks of being holistic. No, they have to just ignore all the many contributors to the problem as they come up in the normal course of years, then when they can’t ignore the outcome, they put together a committee to look at the problem. This is the least likely and most expensive way to address a complex problem like that, but even what they do get from that process is often ignored.

I bring this up because that behavior really negatively affects the special ed process. When parents propose win-wins, come up with compromises so their child is provided for within the constraints of the district, the district people just kneejerk won’t go for it because they just won’t trust holistic or win-win solutions. I think that goes hand in hand with the hubris, lack of accountability, and bad legal advice. I strongly suspect the family in the DNA case would have come to, maybe even proposed a win-win, but they would already have been so badly gaslighted, no one would have worked with them.

An article on that case can be found on this link:
Web Link

PAUSD tried to block the litigation. Mr. Colman five years to finally prevail. The appeals court stated that the parents’ complaint had adequately alleged a violation of disability law because Colman was perceived as disabled, has the right to attend the Palo Alto school closest to his home and was excluded from receiving that benefit given that he was removed from his school because of his perceived disability.

This failure to follow the law, in 504, IDEA, ADA cases happens routinely at PAUSD. I have examples by teachers, principals, administrators, counsellors and other staff. Title IX cases occurred because of this PAUSD attitude and are not because of some separate cause or are another kind of problem. The attorney in the Colman case is quoted in the article as saying:

“Palo Alto school district is unusual — conducts itself in interesting ways,” Jaffe said. “They’re different than the other public entities that I’ve dealt with in terms of their — I guess I’d call it institutional self-confidence.”

This attitude permeates PAUSD. I will fight at the Board level if elected as well as to fight it on the ground. 1. Last Board meeting I contested $2.5 Million with a Brown act complaint for occluding the facts surrounding the expenditures from the general public. [Portion removed.] 2. This Board meeting I will begin litigation to force the PAUSD to divulge the costs of the settlements and legal expenses and legal cost in general, as well as a list of all special education requests denied. I will begin outreach to families needing help obtaining special education services to help them force PAUSD to comply with the law.

The effect of this PAUSD attitude is to destroy families trapped trying to cope.

I can't wait to see this guy try to explain why discussing and voting on purchase orders in open session somehow violates the Brown Act. And now threatening litigation over some other issue? I get now why debate organizers don't want him. It's going to be, "Now to Mr. Boyd for 3 minutes of ill-informed conspiracy theories from a guy who isn't exactly transparent himself." On the other hand these are usually dull affairs anyways.

Dear Old Timer,

Thank you for your comment and questions. The complaint includes Brown Act violations among them:

1. Agenda descriptions that don’t identify potential action.

2. Cases have held that the Brown Act was violated when agenda descriptions used description that was meaningless to the public.

3. Serial meetings that may have occurred leading to the award of her $ 1 Million contract based on the tone and limited discussion. What is not the new position of Deputy Superintendent put up as a competitive search for the best candidate including Ms. Hendricks?

4. Also violation of the PAUSD Board of Education Rules provide a two meeting rule requirement to allow time for open discussion with the public and for reason and analysis.

I would hope that eventually the public will demand that the $ 2.5 Million be turned to education uses. It will prevent new legal costs as it will prevent new legal challenges to PAUSD.

We need to restructure the PAUSD of the special education organization with it's costly staff spread all over the District. There should be a centralized process of reporting leading to prompt action and assistance for every claim within 7 days (wherever possible). This organization needs to be led by and advocate for special education that understands that the first priority is to get immediate help for all students, not a lawyer. Wellness is a process that grows out of system that brings care, empathy and is based on helping all modalities of learning. Let us be inspired by Einstein who was a special education child (though he had to cope on his own) and later was a consultant to schools to implement different ways to teach kids to learn. All students need to be taught how to learn and all students learn differently. We can turn all the money being spent on litigation into having the best education in the world for all students.

Instead of PAUSD Attitude, let's use what Albert Einstein counseled, to help our teachers at PAUSD, they are all trying without resources or help. Much of this comes from studying Reggio-Emilia education and the Forman School where Albert Einstein was on the Board of Academic advisors:

1. Be proactive in helping students with different learning modalities. We all fit into this category.
2. Parent Education for using resources and help.
3. Math Comprehension: Provide students gain a basic foundation in the essential concepts of pre- algebra algebra or geometry. Calculususing a multi-sensory approach and includies assistive technology.
4. Reading: Students benefit from proven techniques like Orton-Gillingham and Wilson-based methods to advance
reading success. Teachers best practices gained through years of direct experience working with individual students to accelerate the process of learning. Students learn strategies for success in reading comprehension, paraphrasing and summarizing, and vocabulary growth.
5. Metacognitive Strategies: When students understand how they learn, they are better able to take advantage of the
strategies and techniques that facilitate their individual learning process.
6. Executive Functioning: Students gain a greater understanding and
proficiency in the skills needed to plan ahead and achieve goals: time management, task initiation, sustained attention,
and goal-directed persistence.
7. Writing: teachers will use researched-based instruction to help students improve their ability to express themselves through writing. Instruction ranges from grammar and sentence structure to the five paragraph essay; as students gain
confidence, proficiency follows.

Sincerely,

Christopher Boyd

Yeah, there is no $1 million contract, no Brown Act violation in waiving the 2 meeting rule by board vote (done probably thousands of times), and no violation in the agenda when the title describes what's happening. So actually all this guy will do is burn up the public's time and money. Hopefully as little of each as possible.

Don’t know anything about the STEM misrepresentations or not.

But this guy makes lots of good points and I tend toward wanting to address them.

People wanting to dismiss them on the grounds of their wasting time are disingenuous, given how the board spends its time.

Sounds like claims that “there is nothing behind the curtain, move on.”

How many PAUSD candidates are actually parents of school-aged children and do they all reside in Palo Alto?

If not, hardly worth voting for.

I have been following Chris Boyd and Insted for many years, ever since he started implying a relationship with Stanford that I believe does not exist. Stanford doesn't typically "loan out" classroom space to outside entities, especially if they can't prove nonprofit status. He approached me (as a Stanford staff member) about using classroom space in 2014 but when I questioned his relationship with Stanford and asked for proof of Insted's non-profit status, he never responded. After that encounter he removed a number of references to Stanford on his website (including a prominent title on the home page stating that his workshops were developed by Stanford University). Check out his website (Web Link You will see it's a disorganized mash up of stuff related to STEM education but shows no indication of any actual educational workshops or other activity since 2016. An announcement of classes starting in 2018 goes nowhere.

Is this the same Chris Boyd who is spotlighted as being unemployed on KQED?
Web Link

Here's how the article begins:

East Palo Alto resident Christopher Boyd, 54, has a lot of job experience. His resume lists expertise in enterprise architecture and artificial intelligence -- but for the last five years, he hasn't been able to land a job.

"I find as a highly experienced person that is over the millennial age, my resume can't even get past the screening process."

Boyd estimates he has filled out thousands of online applications for tech jobs. As a resident of East Palo Alto, it feels demoralizing, he says, to drive by big tech campuses day after day.

Yes, that's the same Christopher Boyd based on the voice and accent. I heard him speak at the last school board meeting. Interesting that this aspect of his experience, five years of unemployment, doesn't show up in his self-description. Curiouser and curiouser.

I liked many of the comments Chris made at the School Board candidate forum. However when I went on line to try to ask questions and give support could find no website for him.

Christopher Boyd

柯瑞思

Educational Board Campaign Notice

Two leading law firms find NO misconduct or misrepresentation by Boyd

Any one of us can be destroyed in a second due to thoughtless or malicious or simply incorrect information published in print and magnified online. We now need to adapt to “a world in which the internet has the potential to amplify defamatory communications unparalleled in human history. Plainly, the worldwide web vastly expands the reach and impact of online defamation.” (Quote from Jim Wagstaff, The Wagstaff Group)

I faced such an issue in the September 21, 2018 issue of the PAOnline published by Embarcadero Media. In a second years of work and my career was destroyed by an article based on false facts. Huge personal damage was done. It is completely false to say: "School Board Candidate Misrepresents His STEM Program.”

I have received the help from two leading law firms, one in non profit formation law and one in defamation litigation law to correct the record. The facts show no misrepresentation whatsoever. Embarcadero Media has been served with a Defamation Notice under California Law and I will correct what is a false and unlawful defamation in Court.

I can not further comment on what is now a legal matter.

Christopher Boyd
柯瑞思
[email protected]

We need to change a culture of Institutional Negligence  at PAUSD:
 
My Campaign, in summary:

1. Help Stop Teen Sexual Assault-
2. Expand Special Education
3. Student Wellness and Respect Parents Values in SexEd
4. Make the PAUSD Curriculum a Leader in the World
5. Reduce class sizes to 15 or less
6. Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) for PAUSD to World Class
7. Bring all Hispanic and Minority students into EPGY Level

Palo Alto is a kind community, but we underestimate the size of the task at hand. In many surveys including the Center for Disease Control sexual assault in High School is 20 % for girls and 5% for boys. 

High school is supposed to be a wonderful time of dreams and opportunities to explore one’s gifts. Yet for 1 in 5 girls it is a nightmare that may never recede. We want to provide a safe place for girls. 

One unique and inspiring perspective is in this video by former LAHS student, Thara Salim. Her wisdom and choices can transform our own lives. In numbers maybe 200 girls at PAUSD will suffer this before next election in 2020.

Web Link

Approximately 1 in 3 survivors tell no one and 93% do not report the incident to the school. One half tells a close friend and 13% tell a parent, but only 5% go to the police. Of the people who tell no one, one half say they wanted to deal with it alone, 44% are ashamed, 42% want to forget it happened, 50 % say that it’s private matter, 43% did not think what happened was serious.(Data from 2014 Everyfi survey).

Let us be inspired by Albert Einstein who was a special education child himself and later advised schools on how to implement different ways to teach children to learn. All students need to be taught how to learn with many different approaches and all students learn differently. We can turn all the money being spent on PAUSD litigation into having the best education in the world, for all students. PAUSD hides the amount, but upon information and belief it is in the area of $ 5 Million per year. Teach all students to learn how to learn. Bring equal education to all and create world class education and special education.