So, the District accepted PCS’s last offer on December 10th (see press release below) and asked PCS to seal the deal by December 17th (per today’s article). PCS responds on the 19th, when SCCS is out for the Winter Break, with a modified offer requiring yet another round of closed session negotiations including a meeting this Thursday. Following the chain of events, it would appear that PCS countered their own offer that had already been accepted by SCCS.
We also found this post by “mbj” on the Sentinel forum of interest:
…There are lots of details in any rental agreement that also have to be settled. Someone at SCCS is intent on completely discarding the language and basis of the existing use agreement…
One wonders how “mbj” came by this information, not disclosed in any article or minutes from any pubic proceeding. This is not the first time that PCS associates on that forum have flirted with violations of closed session negotiations and loose interpretation of the Brown Act.
To sum, SCCS was ready to lock in a lease agreement for the Natural Bridges site with a vote of its board on January 14th. Now PCS sends back an offer with “sticking points” and a request to postpone final approval until January 23rd, or six weeks after SCCS already accepted an offer from PCS.
Updated: We note another post from “mbj” that includes these comments:
SCCS responded to the last PCS offer not by accepting the offer, but by throwing in some new small, but important additional conditions on the use agreement. The additional conditions were so vague that the associated costs (to PCS) were not even determinable.
The details of these negotiations are still a matter for closed session for both parties. “mbj” is a either member of the PCS board and/or negotiating team and is disclosing this information in a public forum or this information was provided to “mbj” by a PCS board member and/or member of the negotiating team.