Location Still an Issue - How could the Charter School end up at Manor?
Despite numerous assurances and claims that MAP/RVC leaders have no intent to locate at Manor, the Charter Petitioners decided not to include any of this language in the actual Charter document itself. The entire 358 page petition does not once mention that the Charter,
· Will not be located at Manor, or
· Will not open immediately if Manor is the only facility available, or
· That it will not exercise its Prop 39 rights to request RVSD facilities (which would result in the school being located at Manor as that is the only available equivalent space).
In fact, what the Petition does say is – “The Charter School plans to rent facilities within the District’s boundaries … and will explore … public school facilities to accommodate its educational program.” (pg 198 RVC Petition)
Simply stating that the petition included a budget item for rent or that it doesn’t intend to make a Prop 39 facility request right now does not mean that it can’t or won’t in the future. If approved, California ED Code Section 47614 (Proposition 39) clearly states that school districts are required to provide equivalent facilities to charter schools.
Even the MAP teachers, who really want to move out of Manor, will not be in control of that decision, the RVC Board will be in charge. There is nothing to preclude their intent from changing if they can’t find an alternate facility, decide in a year or two that Red Hill is inadequate, or if the RVC board (now or in the future) simply decides to change its mind. Once RVC is chartered, there’s no going back and it will have full Prop 39 rights now and forever. If this had truly been a core element of the proposal, as was portrayed in all of RVC’s marketing materials, it should have been included somewhere in the Charter petition. It wasn’t!
Fairfax and Manor simply cannot take the chance, now or in the future, of splitting Manor’s campus any further. After-the-fact excuses are hollow and don’t change the reality that the RVC petitioners did not bother to secure Manor’s future as a single neighborhood school as part of its petition document.
Didn’t the Petitioners send a letter to RVSD saying they would agree, in writing, not to be at Manor?
The letter (Click here) was a bit of “smoke and mirrors” intended to persuade the District “that this concern can be put aside.” It did not state that RVC would not open until other facilities, funded by RVC, could be secured. Nor did it waive RVC’s Prop 39 rights or state that RVC would not at some future date exercise those rights.
Furthermore, the letter curiously chose not to focus on the core issue and instead referenced just one small part of the law (Section 47614(b)(1)) that relates to a District not having to pay for facilities “to create … space it does not currently have.” This section of Prop 39 is completely irrelevant to our situation as the District would have available space – the MAP space at Manor.
Simply agreeing not to use the available space at Manor does not mean that the space doesn’t exist. Therefore, Prop 39 would remain in effect and RVC would have the right, now or at any time in the future, to make a facility request.
In fact, having a "Not at Manor" agreement with Prop 39 still in effect, could potentially force the District into one of two very difficult “non-Manor” options: 1) Reconfigure the boundaries to move the available space at Manor to another campus for RVC to occupy, or 2) Voluntarily fund a Red Hill upgrade (since it would be choosing not to use its available space at Manor it would be exempt from the above mentioned Section 47614(b)(1)) .
RVC’s marketing campaign does not match its actions. It has now had three chances (2 petitions and a follow-up letter) to codify in writing its “intent” not to be at Manor. All three times it has failed to put those “intentions” into action – i.e. into legally binding contracts.
Either this was indeed a mistake made 3 times in a row, and the MAP/RVC leaders are ill equipped to manage the administrative work of running a school, or they disingenuously mislead the community to gain support but intentionally kept their Prop 39 rights to Manor open as a last resort, “fall back” option.