This is in response to a letter from Paul Kessler in the April 2 Thousand Oaks Acorn. He wrote, "You'd also add transparency to district contracting. Will this ever happen?"

No, not at Conejo Valley Unified School District. If you read CVUSD Board Bylaw 9270, you'll find a clause that the CVUSD administration put in during their review and updating of board bylaws. Board Bylaw 9270 has a custom clause in it:

"The superintendent may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although in a 'designated position,' is hired to perform a limited range of duties and thus not required to fully comply with disclosure requirements. The superintendent's written determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties and a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements based upon that description. This determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection along with this conflict of interest code."

I've checked many other school districts for their conflict of interest bylaws, and haven't found any other district that supports this little custom-made snippet.

Why would the superintendent intentionally not share all information that's available with the school board members regarding any consultant? Why should our elected representatives have to take the time to go to public record before voting on any proposed contract?

The only transparent issue is that Mario Contini and Jeff Baarstad will do what they can to circumvent full disclosure and unless our elected school board members actually take the initiative to go public record will vote to spend taxpayer dollar without all the pertinent information. Mary Gesner Thousand Oaks