The District is entirely reactive in my opinion. Assuming no external force such as running out of money or the end of friendly loan modifications from Bank of Alameda, the course of the District is unlikely to change until management or the Board majority changes. Hence, I see less need to comment at this blog, but item C.3. on Monday’s (April 2) open Board meeting agenda is remarkable in every sense of the word.
Debi Stebbins, nine months into the year, at a point that it seems unlikely that the District will finish in the black (indeed, for a time, it seemed the District would be subject to that external forceof not being able to pay its bills until the Jaber funds got transferred) decided to submit her proposal to insure she would still have the opportunity to receive up to a 12.5% bonus. That’s about $37,500 for those keeping score at home. In the past, I have been concerned that Management prepares its own performance evaluation and recommendation for bonus. It seemed unseemly to me. Jordan Battani would assure me that there was zero bonus paid if the District lost money for the year so it didn’t really matter.
All I can say about this item is “Wow, that’s some chutzpah.” To ask for a change of rules when it is clear that you will get nothing under the assumed set of rules, the ones that have been in effect every year previously, and to do so only after you have nine months out of twelve to evaluate your chance of success is pretty aggressive. I suppose in the Panglossian world of my fellow Board members, this is no problem but, “Wow, that’s some chutzpah.”