skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The most efficient way to cover the long list of material covered on this blog is to read the "Summary" section and then drill down to individual topics for greater detail. You can get to the "Summary" page by clicking right here or by clicking on the word "Summary" in the margin to the right.
While I can appreciate there are a lot of topics covered here, the overall trend clearly demonstrates that our current school board cannot provide the oversight they have been elected (or appointed) to provide. They may collectively claim to be doing their best, but "their best" is not good enough.
It all comes down to whether this community wants a reactive board that lacks the tools and experience to resolve problems or a proactive board that has a history of recognizing problems before they happen and has the skill and resources to prevent the problems that plague us now.
With the long list of issues covered here, just imagine how much more effective district leadership can be with the right person asking the right questions at the right time. This community cannot afford more of the same.
Thank you for taking the time to read this blog and please remember to vote.
If you have been following my departure from the District, you may recall that Marla Miller and her minions were spewing the concept that I somehow violated the public trust by revealing something confidential about the Old Woodway Elementary transaction.
For those of you who still cling to the statements made by questionably-motivated managers, please review the following, simple facts.
Before the Old Woodway Elementary site was sold, it was advertised in the Herald as being a surplus site and it was marketed to developers in its entirety. That means, it was made available for purchase as a complete site of 11.2 acres. The fact that such a declaration was made in the Herald (albeit just once, not the legally-required twice) and that the site was advertised to developers as 11.2 acres means that no portion of the site was obligated to anyone and certainly not the City of Edmonds. Making such a declaration in a Letter to the Editor was just restating publicly-known facts. If any portion of the site had been committed to anyone else, then the entire site would not have been available to developers.
For those of you who still choose to cling to the statements made by Marla Miller, I advise that you read her own words here in this transcript of her own words and approved by her lawyers. Line 14 on Page 141. The rest of her transcript will be posted later.
So, why would Marla Miller, Nick Brossoit and the Board take action to constructively terminate a highly-praised employee? Clearly they wanted to silence the only voice of reason in a real estate transaction that was far more complicated than it needed to be and that resulted in millions of dollars lost for the District. Remember that the Old Woodway Elementary transaction happened right on the heels of the District's purchase of the contaminated site - a site purchased without the Board-mandated Site Acquisition Committee.
I say again, since I have said it numerous times before, Marla was gravely concerned that the manner in which district funds were being squandered, through poorly-crafted real estate transactions, would deeply upset the community. What she failed to understand is that our community doesn't have the time or energy to study the issues that come before our school board. That is precisely why we elect board members who create and maintain board policies. Our community believes that their elected board members understand the consequences of their decisions. Unfortunately, the current board is not capable of the oversight they have been elected to provide. Susan Phillips may "pledge to do [her] best for our students and District" but, quite frankly, her best is not good enough.
Change is needed on the Board. In electing even one board member that has the intellectual capacity to articulate consequences before they happen, never again can our school board claim to be uninformed or refuse to accurately assess circumstances before they devour us. One voice of reason would be a great start to a total board transformation that must happen sooner rather than later... for the sake of our children.
Blog: Photo acquired through flickr and pfly.
I am fairly confident that if the school board election were held today, in Ethiopia and Kenya, I would win by a wide margin.
For the many of you that have been writing in during my absence, I would like to thank you for filling my inbox. There are so many things to discuss and so many questions to be answered. An email that I received today served as a valuable reminder as to why it is so important to have a strong school board with inquisitive, analytical minds at work for the taxpayers of our district.
I am including this most recent email here and will respond more fruitfully once I have explored the issues raised. The email is as follows:
Hi Mark:
I don't know if you're still actively maintaining your watchdog blog (last update: June 30) but I wanted to know if you were aware of this:
Parents got a mailing recently from ESD Transportation Department urging them to make sure their (eligible) kid rode the school bus this week, October 12-16, as a student headcount will determine the amount of state funding for the department.
The card says:
"Already, we use local levy dollars (about $4m last year) to backfill the gap in transportation funding because the state's formula does not cover actual costs. The levy dollars also directly fund classroom expenses, such as curriculum and salaries. So by ensuring all assigned bus riders are on the bus during the 'count' week, our District can recoup the maximum amount of transportation funding to which we are entitled - and preserve more dollars for the classroom."
I'm asking:
Is it legal and proper to raid the local levy fund to keep bus service at full strength at the further expense of classroom ops? Parents already get incredible 'wish lists' from teachers, asking us to contribute the most basic classroom supplies... why are they so ready to strip the classroom experience to the bone and beyond to keep the bus fleet running?
If maximum ridership is so politically important, why did ESD rule this year that no kid within a radial mile of his/her school can ride the bus? Surely this policy is costing us state money.
Why is ESD in the transportation business anyway? I've wondered this for years. Fueling and operating 100+ buses is far, far outside ESD's core competency, and it's a major drain on capital. In the private sector you'd look at the Transportation Department as a natural candidate for sell / leaseback, outsourcing or spin off action. It strikes me as completely insane that ESD has such a fetish for buses (but so little apparent skill at running them) and now is actually raiding the classroom-funding bucket to keep the "bus business" whole. It's like an airline cancelling flights and laying off pilots to keep the kitchens making its in-flight meals running at full strength.
Would we not be better served by selling the ESD bus system's assets to a private contract operator (that knows something about fleet management, fuel hedging, personnel management, etc.), banking the proceeds, then tying the contractor's pay rate to performance metrics? One of the really frustrating things about the current arrangement is that there's no way to sanction bad performance. We have buses run late or not at all... kids standing in the rain and darkness for 20, 30, 45 minutes...substitute drivers get lost... and the Transportation Department just shrugs and says it wishes they could do better. If they were a contractor performing this way, they'd have to do more than shrug.
This "buses first, classrooms second" line is especially frustrating considering the giant salaries ESD leadership is earning...
Thanks, and I'd sure like to know what you think about this. Please keep me anonymous if you use this on the blog.
Cheers
Anonymous
Blog: The State does not reimburse transportation costs for students living within one mile of their school. There have been discussions outside of board meetings that involved students walking away from their schools to bus stops just outside of the one mile restriction. Such a student would be counted but the practice is clearly contrary to the intended policy.
The District continues to dodge the real question that must be asked. Of course, this question can be asked many times and the responses are normally not connected to the question.
The Edmonds School District continues to peddle the argument that their team of assistant superintendents are compensated in a normal, reasonable fashion. However, the question that must be answered is how many assistant superintendents do other districts have? More revealing would be to ask, "How many people in other districts earn more than $100,000.00 per year?" I suspect the result would be rather troubling.
I would never suggest that an assistant superintendent or "deputy" superintendent should not be paid $150,000.00 a year. Yes, it seems rather excessive when you compare such a salary to average salaries within our community, but if this assistant superintendent was a powerful force for educational empowerment and motivated our community to take greater interest in producing great students, I would readily argue that the salary was not high enough.
Part of the responsibility of the Superintendent's Office is to build upon the successes achieved in the classroom and nurture support from the community to strengthen the District's mission. If we had a superintendent that successfully accomplished this goal, with an appropriate number of assistants, that would be newsworthy. Unfortunately, we have assembled a team of six assistants while other districts work with far fewer.
Here are a couple of rather telling documents provided by the Edmonds School District. First, there is a direct comparison (here) with other school districts in our region and the level of compensation provided to their assistant superintendents. Notice the absence of real information, like how many assistants work at these districts. Notice also that Bellevue has no "deputy" superintendent. How is that possible? Based upon the Edmonds model, they should have at least five.
Second, there is a document (here) that reveals the financial impact of having so many assistants, each of them receiving a cost of living increase on an annual basis. If our district had just one assistant superintendent, the financial impact would be significantly less. Unfortunately, we have six assistants. Every couple of years, the COLAs alone would fully fund yet another assistant. Of course, that same series of adjustments could add capacity to the number of teachers.
Third, there is a rather interesting document (here) that illustrates just how many assistants are dining at the trough of public funds. While there may eventually be an initiative to reduce the number of "assistant superintendents", there will never be a downward adjustment in the number of dollars spent on these employees. Titles may change, but salaries will continue to move onward and upward.
How is it possible that so many other districts can survive with so few "assistants" and "deputies"? I have said this many times before and I will mention it once again. During periods of financial challenges, when raises cannot be handed out to upper management, titles are used to make people feel better about themselves. When funding improves, these managers start wondering how people with such powerful titles can be earning so little - raises come flooding in. These raises come at a direct cost in the number of teachers, paraeducators and librarians.
Make no mistake, it is a club and until our community is prepared to address the senseless gluttony demonstrated by these bloated salaries, we will continue to struggle financially.
For those of you that may think our electoral process is free and impartial, let me caution you now. We have only to look at the record to see just how far the District is willing to go to protect their own.
It is only through having an unengaged crop of board members that management can force through poor property decisions and illegal procurement practices.
Bruce Williams
Shortly after Bruce was compelled to leave his home through the filing of a restraining order, the Superintendent contacted me to have Bruce's director district redrawn. The intent was to have a rather elongated portion of Director District 4 reach across Director District 1 and include the apartment on Edmonds Way where Bruce Williams was living at the time. Of course, I knew it was sheer lunacy and didn't even pursue the matter, and in the process tell the world we are a collection of fools.
Nick Brossoit even expended considerable effort researching WSSDA recommendations as to the validity of Bruce Williams' status - not that WSSDA governs anything or has any influence in the manner in which the District is held accountable to its voters. Clearly, Nick was prepared to chase the issue to the end of the earth to save Bruce from a premature departure from the Board.
Gary Noble
The matter surrounding Gary Noble was made very clear to the Board and the Superintendent and yet they spent public money hiring attorneys to unsuccessfully reinterpret the English language. Board policies made it very clear that his occupation of a board seat was improper and his position as a board member was unauthorized under the terms of board policies.
This forum reported the issue to the State Auditor and the Board was directed to adhere to their policies or change them. The Board elected to change board policies to allow clear conflicts of interest to occur. They also went as far as to review all board policies so as to suggest to voters that the need for changing the restriction upon Gary Noble was something they discovered on their own.
Oddly, even though the Board had gone through a review of all board policies, they had missed the policy regarding the filing date for school board candidates - a point raised by this forum. The change was immediately adopted because it was characterized as an issue coming from a member of the public. Had it been revealed that the blog made the suggestion to revise the policy, there would probably be a flurry of legal briefs generated and untold fortunes spent on lawyers.
Pat Shields
The issue surrounding Pat Shields has more to do with his affiliation with Powerful Partners and the protection the program has been provided. Despite having signed a lease, Powerful Partners refused to honor their obligation to the tax-payers of this district. When the matter was brought to the attention of the State Auditor, Powerful Partners had mysteriously changed their name to Powerful Tutors, though still used their original name to endorse the District's ballot action.
The refusal of Powerful Partners to pay the rent was particularly painful since it had been happening for more than seven years and the District was in the process of redefining their facility use policy and seeking to pass along rental obligations to casual users of community facilities - particularly parent groups and fund-raising activities in support of district schools.
Susan Phillips
No one is saying that Susan Phillips is a bad person. On the contrary, her willingness to continue her involvement in the community should be applauded. Unfortunately, this district needs someone on the Board that cares about the financial stamina of our public schools. We need someone that knows what enrollment forecasting is all about. We need someone that knows a scheme when they see one. We need someone that knows how the District works from the inside. We need someone on the Board that isn't afraid to speak up for tax-payers and ensure that public funds are spent appropriately.
Unfortunately, that person is not Susan Phillips.
The District needs someone on the Board that understands facilities issues. We need someone on the Board that knows about the legal requirements of public procurement. We need someone on the Board that knows what a Capital Facilities Plan is and the impact such a document has on an operating budget. We need someone on the Board that is significantly more critical of how dollars are spent on education than a group of five people with an irrefutable belief that any money thrown in the direction of education is money well spent.
In times like these, we need to be a little more particular and much more targeted in our approach to funding.
At the risk of upsetting my numerous supporters, I must voice a word of caution to the Edmonds Education Association that invited me to speak for five minutes last week. In this current climate of illogical cuts to district programming, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to rock the boat and allow district management to view your association with anything other than a favorable eye. If such a group were to express any interest in endorsing a candidate who stands for the appropriate use of public funds, district management would likely become enraged.
The fact that current, sitting board members were allowed to sit in your audience demonstrates the Board's keen interest in knowing what your group is thinking. Surely they don't attend with a legitimate interest in understanding your issues but rather to detect opposition before it has an opportunity to form.
While it is true that I am a relative newcomer to the realm of politics and running for school board, my record for defending public funds is without question. A lot of the bad decisions made by district management were endorsed by this current board. Just take a few minutes and read about Gary Noble and how this board had no idea what their own policies required. Even the legal team they hired was completely in the dark. It was only after my concerns were expressed directly to the State Auditor that the Board "decided" to review all of their policies and make changes. But alas, they missed a big one.
Perhaps some of you may recall the most recent change to Board Policy 1235 on June 2, 2009. It clearly specified that the filing period for school board candidates was in July. After I called out the misinformation, the issue was taken up at the next board meeting and corrected immediately. It was a case of simple language and didn't threaten a board member's service to the community. What was mildly humorous is the manner in which the Board tried to characterize the change as something they discovered on their own.
Why wasn't the Noble conflict issue handled as quickly? Why did this board have to hire a team of lawyers to redefine terms and expressions in the English language? It merely proved that the district's lawyers will say anything for a fee and that this board was unable to understand the meaning of their own policies.
Rules were also violated when Bruce Williams filed as a candidate from an address where he was legally prevented from living. The blog pointed out this issue and it was resolved with his resignation.
The ubiquitous Piano Scam is another issue that came to light under the watchful gaze of this forum. It is further proof that this current board is unable to truly dissect a recommendation from staff before rubber stamping it. The District lost a pile of money and even the piano vendor himself described the entire transaction as a "scheme". Read the blog and see for yourself.
The many questionable decisions coming out of Human Resources also shows how detached the current board is from reality. If management was even remotely concerned about having their conduct challenged, they would take a little more time to cover their tracks or work a little harder to conceal misconduct. When there is no real oversight there is never any danger of seeing the consequences of getting caught.
There are many examples of misconduct by district management to be found on this blog. The fact that the current board is either unable or unwilling to hold management accountable clearly demonstrates how disconnected the Board is from the responsible use of public funds. This board would be well-served by having a more inquisitive mind among them - someone with the experience of seeing the misconduct of management from the other side.
I am not suggesting that every decision made by this Board is wrong, but I am suggesting that too much money is being wasted on the wrong choices at the cost of adequately funding the right ones.
I am not asking to be elected to the school board along with four like-minded friends. However, I am absolutely convinced that adding me to this current board would offer something more to the discussions behind closed doors.
Besides, Nick Brossoit keeps telling us that 70% of residents in this district don't have children that attend district schools. Why not have such a person on the Board? Why not have someone on the Board that just wants to see our schools become even better? Why not elect someone that just wants to make sure that public funds are spent wisely before asking the public to provide additional funding for new projects or buildings?
Ultimately, what the Edmonds Education Association chooses to do with their endorsement is their business. I certainly wouldn't want to see an important relationship suffer within the District. As a group you can endorse my opponent, but as individuals I would hope that you would vote differently - after a little research into what this district truly needs to get things back on track.
susan4schools@gmail.com
June 7, 2009
Dear Susan,
With the recent filing of candidates, I noticed that only the two of us will be contesting the position for Director District 4. This being the case, I am writing to express hope for an open and honest dialogue regarding matters of importance to the Edmonds School District. In the spirit of such discussion, I would like to invite you to debate the issues facing our beloved district at a venue to be determined and moderated by a member of the media.
It is also my hope to obtain your consent to have the debate videotaped for broadcast on local television. Clearly, the voters of our community deserve to know where we stand on the issues. Not every voter may be familiar with our names or the positions we take on matters of great importance. It would be through a televised debate that our community can gain greater insight and develop a more meaningful opinion than just seeing our names on yard signs.
Please respond as soon as possible, as a facility will have to be arranged and a mutually-agreeable moderator will have to be coordinated.
Sincerely,
Mark Zandberg, Candidate
Director District 4, ESD15
To reduce operating costs (general funds), I have elected to remodel my primary residence (capital funds) and then rent the house to a family that could more fruitfully utilize the 2,400 square feet of living space. The house is just way too big for two people that spend most of their time working anyway.
Of course, I would have loved to hire my favorite contractor two years ago, but since I was an employee with the District and met this contractor at that time, I wanted to make sure there wouldn't be anything inappropriate by hiring him. So I waited until now to start this project.
Remodeling a home kicks up a lot of dust and creates a lot of obstacles for a person having to get up at 5:00 AM to catch the train to work. So as to prevent any temptation with rolling up my sleeves after a 12 hour work day, jeopardizing my productivity at work, I have decided that the best path forward would be to leave the house and let the contractor take total control of the premises.
The project involves the relocation of walls, upgrading all plumbing, heating and electrical systems, the installation of an enhanced security system and running Cat5 cabling to all rooms on both floors. There is also a considerable amount of tiling and carpet to install. It is my hope and expectation to have all of the work completed by the end of summer.
Because it is my intention to rent out the house after the project is completed, I have taken up residence elsewhere in my community. That new residence happens to be in Director District 4.
To be very clear, the following points deserve to be mentioned.
1. My wife has never filed a restraining order against me.
2. I have never filed as a candidate for a school board position from a former address.
3. The "modernizing" going on at my former residence will be performed by a real contractor.
Blog: A special word of thanks to Nick Brossoit for doing a little research on this issue.
The most efficient way to cover the long list of material covered on this blog is to read the "Summary" section and then drill down to individual topics for greater detail. You can get to the "Summary" page by clicking right here or by clicking on the word "Summary" in the margin to the right.
