Um, I think that this behavior by the district toward your charter appears possibly persecutory to me. First, they move you over the summer. Then they break your agreement to use that property, and move you in the middle of the year to a location that had a school that they....*drum roll*.... closed down last summer?! Moreover, the location is exactly the *worst* choice for parents from midtown to commute their kids to. It is in the middle of a neighborhood that is far from transit and freeway access, along THE most congested freeway corridor in Sacramento. It seems clear to me that someone wants to make it difficult to send CMP's existing kids to school. Let me add that the parents around this school were also dropkicked by the District- their school was shut down last spring, after the district handed down a report that stated the District would work to improve the school in a School-Based Coordinated Program (SCCP) found here: http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:0m_Vpe2cx5QJ:schools.scusd.edu/jefferson/Thomas%2520Jefferson%2520School%2520Plan%25202008-2009%2520school%2520version.pdf+scusd+jefferson+school&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNE6bfLsc1F9BPUkkolA5NznHNZFtA More information on the school can be found at google maps: http://maps.google.com/maps/place?oe=utf-8&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=jefferson+elementary+school+sacramento&fb=1&gl=us&hq=jefferson+elementary+school&hnear=sacramento&cid=7584962875910411078 This raises questions about how the District is spending its money, because it had expended funding on coming up with this plan, allocated further tens of thousands of dollars to this school in the plan, and then shut it down with no notice. I don't know what else to make of this, because I would need a lawyer to work out all of the bureaucratic chicanery and shell games that I have seen so far.

Wow. Just... wow. After reading the other article, and this one, the only question I have is why haven't the parents contacted an attorney to represent their interests and have an injunction filed by the court (if possible)? Springing something like this in the middle of the year with no notice seems irresponsible at best, especially since there is no legal *requirement* forcing them to do this immediately.

I spent the past year looking for a school for my kindergartner in the SCUSD. I went to lots of meetings with staff and administrators from various standard public, magnet, and charter schools, and I even went to a few school board meetings. My impression, and this is just MY impression, is that the traditional SCUSD hierarchy is the 300 lb gorilla in the room, with everyone else afraid of making it upset. The charters and magnet schools, while being quite excellent, are sometimes seen by the larger SCUSD as drawing away students from the standard school system. It was a refrain I heard at several charter and magnet campuses that made me realize just how threatened the larger bureaucracy feels, "...we are not here to replace the existing system. We don't want to make waves. We are here to offer an educational option for committed parents."

One of the local bike advocacy orgs in Sac needs to get together with the Sheriffs and SacPD to put together a bait bike program. Same thing as a bait car, but with the bait bike you can track the thieves to where they are pawning their goods to and take down the whole theft chain. All they would need is a small GPS and $500 hidden in the frame of a Cannondale to take the penalty well beyond the threshold of grand theft. I normally wouldn't be so irate about this, but I get to work, school, and the store on my bike. It isn't just my ride, I use it to get my daughter around too. It is my primary form of transportation, and when it is gone it is just as devastating as losing my only car. A "decent" bike will set you back almost $500 new, and a really good bike will easily be worth more than $1200 to outfit it for specific use. I've had two bikes stolen, and property damage due to bike thieves trying to take out structural supports to get at a bike. I'd love to see these punks get some jailtime for taking away people's work rides.

The irony, Steve, is that if the speech you were referring to were really legally defined hate speech, no online moniker would give any protection. There are specific remedies in place where someone clearly breaking the law will lose any anonymity from using a pseudonym. After working on tier 1 and tier 2 networks for the last 10 years or so, I have found that nobody is anonymous on the internet. I personally don't say anything to anyone online that I wouldn't say in person, face to face. I would suggest the same to yourself and anyone on this forum- please never presume you are anonymous, or that what you say online doesn't have real life implications. The old rule of presuming that you will meet someone you replied to within 5 min of leaving your home should always apply. I agree that people who are consistently rude shouldn't have a forum here, but once that becomes a forum policy it becomes very difficult to draw the line, and set who it is drawn for. There are other mechanisms in place to warn folks about the trolls (like people who get consistent thumbs downs in posts). I would also refer you to the comment above by Casey Kirk. There are hecklers everywhere, and in your role as a political consultant I'm sure you have encountered plenty in real life. I'm sure that you will be able to adapt to the online world of public forums in no time.