Is this not surprising at all that the key clause was omitted from the document? What kind of leadership do we have here -- dirty and conniving . SUHSD, you are beyond words. This is shameful.

The taxpayers and citizens will simply have to revolt before this arrogant Board changes its ways and starts to serve the community rather than serving its own narrow self interests.

I'm sure it was a simple clerical error. It's not like the board could hide or deny the fact that they agreed to the inclusion of the clause - Everest representatives were at the board meeting on the 31st, as were several reporters.

resident of Menlo Park, you may be correct, if it is not deception, then it must be ineptitude.

I've been along for the ride since the first Everest proposal before the Board. I've come to question everything I read and hear from District.

All I see the move to Woodside do for Everest is thrust the kids and faculty into turmoil for a year, then dangle their future in front of them.

I don't think it's ineptitude or a clerical error. This was apparently a hotly debated point and the author of the letter knew what he was doing. This is just another example of the Superintendent doing something other than what the Trustees approved.

Trustees: Who's running this show, anyway - you or your staff? One of you with courage should call out the Superintendent (or whoever authored the letter) for not reflecting your decision. This is the kind of thing that gets you in trouble and costs LOTS of money in litigation.

POGO, while I respect your opinions enough to believe your question to be retorical, I'll answer it because Gemma's puppets won't. Gemma is running that show; no one else, period! And he will continue to run that show after he retires because his puppets put his replacement of choice in office at his direction. The scarey part to me is what is going on within the District that we don't see or hear about.

This is an edited excerpt from a story from this week's Almanac:

(Assistant Superintendent James) Lianides told The Almanac that he sent this (alternative discussion) proposal to Everest via U.S. mail as a cover letter with a package made up of another letter and the offer itself. They were expected to arrive on April 2 or 5.
This package, without the alternatives-discussion language but with other board-proposed edits, was e-mailed to Everest chief negotiator Diane Tavenner on March 31. The "alternatives" language was unavailable in electronic form, Mr. Lianides said.
Sequoia attorney David Levy said in an interview that the first letter was more of a formal document, and that a second letter was "a cleaner way of doing it."
Ms. Tavenner would likely hear about it anyway because Everest Executive Director Jon Deane attended the board meeting, Mr. Lianides and board President Olivia Martinez told The Almanac.