I was surprised to get a call this morning from none other than Pat Shields, board member for the Edmonds School District. Of course, since I was at work and his call was not work-related, I couldn't stay on the phone very long. The call was only long enough for him to ask for "Jim Young".
Now, for those of you who follow City of Edmonds Planning Board meetings, you will know that Jim Young works for the City of Seattle and serves on the Board. Why would Pat Shields call me at work and ask for a member of the City of Edmonds Planning Board? Very strange. My telephone number is not even close to Jim's number. What could have prompted such a call?
Since I have a well-established reputation for going far above and well beyond any request received from the public, I forwarded along Pat's telephone number to Jim by way of email. I just wanted to make sure Pat got a hold of Jim. After all, since Pat's number is unlisted, it may not be very easy for Jim to get in touch with Pat.
If I had to speculate, I'd say Pat must have had a rather cluttered notepad full of my contact information that he wanted to share with Jim. Maybe Pat wanted to ask Jim a few questions about City of Seattle and King County government and what their views might be regarding what employees do when they are not at work.
Maybe Pat's Rolodex lumped "Young" and "Zandberg" on the same index card and he got his numbers crossed, but then I don't recall ever providing my telephone number to Pat. I just moved into a brand new building and the number is barely three weeks old.
Fun Factoid: The total number of possible 7-digit phone numbers "-defghij", starting with: -0000000, -0000001, -0000002, ..., -2426825, ..., -9999999. So there are 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 10^7 seven digit integers between "0000000" and "9999999" with no other restrictions on the counting procedure. Combining that with the 4 possible area codes in the Puget Sound (206, 253, 360 & 425) gives: 40,000,000 possible phone numbers, each with a probability: P = 1/40,000,000. The caller's probability of winning the Washington State Lotto is only 1/13,983,816, which would make the winning ticket nearly three times more likely to obtain.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
What I did this summer, by Nicky B.
Furst, I waded til evrybudy lef town. Den me an my frens thot up a way to git mor munny. It was scarry to try an git mor munny win peeple culd sho up at bored meadings an ask hard kweshuns. Aniway, me an my frens desided to giv all of de begshots mor munny evin tho Mommy sed the bank akount is short by five gazilion dollers. But Mommy gav us mor munny becuz she got sum to.
Den i wen to sumer kamp an lirned to wader skee.
Den i wen to sumer kamp an lirned to wader skee.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Blog Highlights: the first 77 days
1. Board member occupying position in direct conflict with Board Policy 1245.
Seat is unavailable for qualified individual
2. Purchasing property based upon seller's questionable appraisal.
$2.8 million loss
3. Selling property through attorneys to avoid disclosing appraisal.
$2.2 million loss
4. Pornography found on manager's computer.
No action taken by District
5. Technology offering direct links to child pornography through their website.
Site modified to prevent such access
6. Management hired without applications, interviews, or public forums.
A series of questionable choices by unqualified staff
7. Big raises for administrators during a budgetary crisis of $4.5 million.
Case in point
Not to mention "inspection through urination" by a director and legal fees expended trying to prove this blog site is cyber-squatting... And the reports keep flooding in.
Thank you for your support.
ESD15.org staff
Seat is unavailable for qualified individual
2. Purchasing property based upon seller's questionable appraisal.
$2.8 million loss
3. Selling property through attorneys to avoid disclosing appraisal.
$2.2 million loss
4. Pornography found on manager's computer.
No action taken by District
5. Technology offering direct links to child pornography through their website.
Site modified to prevent such access
6. Management hired without applications, interviews, or public forums.
A series of questionable choices by unqualified staff
7. Big raises for administrators during a budgetary crisis of $4.5 million.
Case in point
Not to mention "inspection through urination" by a director and legal fees expended trying to prove this blog site is cyber-squatting... And the reports keep flooding in.
Thank you for your support.
ESD15.org staff
Friday, August 24, 2007
"High Roaders" or High Rollers?
Hey there fellow bloggers, tax payers & District employees. Since this seems to be the most recent, urgent & volatile issue requiring action on someone's part - I am attaching the following info in the hope it gets read.
Here are a few more numbers for you to chew on:
Administrator's salaries for the upcoming 07-08 school year are at ten million two-hundred thousand dollars (that's $10,200,000.00). This figure reflects an increase over the previous year of $550,000.00 which works out roughly to be a 5.7% increase (if my calculations are wrong, please someone correct me).
The cost of living increase accepted by Fortune 500 companies and the national average is 3.2%.
Can anyone explain to me why our District administrators qualify for this comparatively large increase? Especially in light of our budget cuts coming up in 08-09 and no raises for classified or certified staff (cuts having been announced) how can this be? Who passes these increases? We know the School Board (yes, them again) awarded the Superintendent another raise based upon "performance" paying him over $200,000.00 a year. That's $40,000.00 in raises in 2 years! I don't remember being asked if I thought he was doing a great job and was deserving of this. Were any other employees or community members involved in this decision? Shouldn't we all be involved in some way with his review? (I think maybe Mark's website is a reflection of this only too late.)
We are facing a budget deficit of 6 million dollars. One negative additional contribution to this figure was the missed prediction that our enrollment would increase when it actually has decreased by 247 students which translates to a loss of $1 million (according to the Herald). A few years ago this forecast was short 22 students and the Budget Analyst responsible for the prediction was "let go" having this cited as the reason (even though most other Districts suffered similar losses using the same formula). Additionally, this occurred to him after providing years of excellent service and the distinction as being one of the most consistent and successful in the State. The current analyst who missed this is now being groomed for management.
Supposedly sacrifices are having to be made. Unfortunately the previously mentioned (ignorant, sycophantic and completely useless yes men in) middle management who are comfortably raking in $110,000.00 per annum for doing nothing are not considered sacrificial. There is no justice. However many arrows are available in this quiver to aim at the top administrators and board members they are sure to close ranks.
An historical reminder: the peasants are rallying just outside the castle...
Fun Factoid: The federal government's Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice and the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Robert Gates each earn just $183,500 per year. Running a school district must be a greater challenge than running the State Department or the Pentagon - that Iraq War must be making things a lot easier.
Here are a few more numbers for you to chew on:
Administrator's salaries for the upcoming 07-08 school year are at ten million two-hundred thousand dollars (that's $10,200,000.00). This figure reflects an increase over the previous year of $550,000.00 which works out roughly to be a 5.7% increase (if my calculations are wrong, please someone correct me).
The cost of living increase accepted by Fortune 500 companies and the national average is 3.2%.
Can anyone explain to me why our District administrators qualify for this comparatively large increase? Especially in light of our budget cuts coming up in 08-09 and no raises for classified or certified staff (cuts having been announced) how can this be? Who passes these increases? We know the School Board (yes, them again) awarded the Superintendent another raise based upon "performance" paying him over $200,000.00 a year. That's $40,000.00 in raises in 2 years! I don't remember being asked if I thought he was doing a great job and was deserving of this. Were any other employees or community members involved in this decision? Shouldn't we all be involved in some way with his review? (I think maybe Mark's website is a reflection of this only too late.)
We are facing a budget deficit of 6 million dollars. One negative additional contribution to this figure was the missed prediction that our enrollment would increase when it actually has decreased by 247 students which translates to a loss of $1 million (according to the Herald). A few years ago this forecast was short 22 students and the Budget Analyst responsible for the prediction was "let go" having this cited as the reason (even though most other Districts suffered similar losses using the same formula). Additionally, this occurred to him after providing years of excellent service and the distinction as being one of the most consistent and successful in the State. The current analyst who missed this is now being groomed for management.
Supposedly sacrifices are having to be made. Unfortunately the previously mentioned (ignorant, sycophantic and completely useless yes men in) middle management who are comfortably raking in $110,000.00 per annum for doing nothing are not considered sacrificial. There is no justice. However many arrows are available in this quiver to aim at the top administrators and board members they are sure to close ranks.
An historical reminder: the peasants are rallying just outside the castle...
Fun Factoid: The federal government's Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice and the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Robert Gates each earn just $183,500 per year. Running a school district must be a greater challenge than running the State Department or the Pentagon - that Iraq War must be making things a lot easier.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Squeezing out a... well, one anyway
[ESD15.org staff]
In reading the exchange between Kirsten and Nick, my mind immediately called the obvious question and, quite frankly, my research shows that Kirsten was incorrect. Bruce Williams was not re-elected and then promptly left his residence. He filed as a candidate on July 25th, 2005 and then moved out of his director district in August 2005. The election was in November 2005.
School Board Policy requires that candidates immediately resign upon departing their director district. Why wouldn't Bruce and his friends take the time to revise board policy to accommodate his new circumstances.
ESD15.org makes it easy
Nick, and we all know you are reading this, please click here, print the document and hand it to Bruce on Monday.
Fun Factoid: The County Auditor's name appears on the Declaration of Candidacy document. Bob Terwilliger is the husband of Mimi Terwilliger, a fellow board member of Bruce Williams at the time of filing.
In reading the exchange between Kirsten and Nick, my mind immediately called the obvious question and, quite frankly, my research shows that Kirsten was incorrect. Bruce Williams was not re-elected and then promptly left his residence. He filed as a candidate on July 25th, 2005 and then moved out of his director district in August 2005. The election was in November 2005.
School Board Policy requires that candidates immediately resign upon departing their director district. Why wouldn't Bruce and his friends take the time to revise board policy to accommodate his new circumstances.
ESD15.org makes it easy
Nick, and we all know you are reading this, please click here, print the document and hand it to Bruce on Monday.
Fun Factoid: The County Auditor's name appears on the Declaration of Candidacy document. Bob Terwilliger is the husband of Mimi Terwilliger, a fellow board member of Bruce Williams at the time of filing.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Why are my ears bleeding?
Good afternoon everybody,
Fire alarm and sprinkler testing is scheduled for Thursday and Friday. This involves testing monitoring and fire suppression equipment. Each station will have to be tested. The process is that a technician will activate each monitor while another technician will be at the alarm panel to immediately cancel the signal. This is required yearly testing. There may be very brief soundings of the horn which will last no longer than it takes to turn it off. We apologize for any disruption in your work areas by personnel trying to reach monitoring devices. I received the notice today and apologize for passing on the short notice. Thanks
Come on now. Why would anyone schedule such a disruptive series of tests during operational hours? In the past, we used to schedule these to occur outside of normal business hours. The tests don't take very long and it is far better to inconvenience a couple of technicians that start work at 7:00 am than to blast everyone in the ESC several times during their work day. Management needs to plan ahead or follow well-established protocol - even if they disagree with those who may have developed it.
Fun Factoid: If you exclude the hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, you have 123 hours a week when these sorts of tests could take place.
Fire alarm and sprinkler testing is scheduled for Thursday and Friday. This involves testing monitoring and fire suppression equipment. Each station will have to be tested. The process is that a technician will activate each monitor while another technician will be at the alarm panel to immediately cancel the signal. This is required yearly testing. There may be very brief soundings of the horn which will last no longer than it takes to turn it off. We apologize for any disruption in your work areas by personnel trying to reach monitoring devices. I received the notice today and apologize for passing on the short notice. Thanks
Come on now. Why would anyone schedule such a disruptive series of tests during operational hours? In the past, we used to schedule these to occur outside of normal business hours. The tests don't take very long and it is far better to inconvenience a couple of technicians that start work at 7:00 am than to blast everyone in the ESC several times during their work day. Management needs to plan ahead or follow well-established protocol - even if they disagree with those who may have developed it.
Fun Factoid: If you exclude the hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, you have 123 hours a week when these sorts of tests could take place.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
"Irresponsible communicator" speaks out
Thanks Mark for this website as an avenue for us "anonymous" (faceless & unimportant) individuals to share our experiences & express our opinions. As District employees we know there is nowhere and no one within to share any of these issues & concerns without fear of repercussion.
If indeed Nick is reading, what his reaction is & what action he takes in addressing the content herein should certainly reveal his character and I hope not continue to make him appear to be protecting the guilty or simply his own personal interests.
I have seen 5 Superintendents during my tenure with the District. The quality of life here has continued to diminish with each new appointment. I am a local taxpayer & support the District. I am a former student & have children in attendance at our schools. This should give me enough status to adequately make some credible comment on the climate within the District. I resent that, although he was addressing you in his letter, Nick has suggested that because we are not making our identities known our comments should be discredited as untrue. If he believes this he expresses a callous disregard & lack of respect for we are community voices.
What is true is that we have to work under threats, intimidation & bullying while attempting not to allow these ridiculous acts on the part of some members of the administration to interfere with our focus on doing our jobs.
Good leaders are rare in our present society. Honesty, though, should be the cornerstone in which all leaders base their decisions and which drives their actions (and secures their employment). What we should expect from our Superintendent are thoughtful, respectful & considerate responses to these problems and who as our leader must have the health of the District as his prime maintenance target. As you have expressed your intent in this regard, I hope that your blog and its contents do begin to reach a larger and more influential audience. Major changes must be pursued; the District's leaders must better reflect the philosophies that are upheld in our schools.
This is not a privately owned business and should not be considered as such. If in fact it were it would have been out of business a long time ago except for the good graces in the form of involuntary support from taxpayers. Is our money being spent wisely? Are our assets being properly protected? Is the leadership abusing their power? Are they overpaid for their services? Isn't there some slimming that should be done in management?
I guess we will all have to stay tuned. I hope that for your sake Mark this does not injure your highly regarded reputation. It is certainly not you who is leading the District into disrepute.
If indeed Nick is reading, what his reaction is & what action he takes in addressing the content herein should certainly reveal his character and I hope not continue to make him appear to be protecting the guilty or simply his own personal interests.
I have seen 5 Superintendents during my tenure with the District. The quality of life here has continued to diminish with each new appointment. I am a local taxpayer & support the District. I am a former student & have children in attendance at our schools. This should give me enough status to adequately make some credible comment on the climate within the District. I resent that, although he was addressing you in his letter, Nick has suggested that because we are not making our identities known our comments should be discredited as untrue. If he believes this he expresses a callous disregard & lack of respect for we are community voices.
What is true is that we have to work under threats, intimidation & bullying while attempting not to allow these ridiculous acts on the part of some members of the administration to interfere with our focus on doing our jobs.
Good leaders are rare in our present society. Honesty, though, should be the cornerstone in which all leaders base their decisions and which drives their actions (and secures their employment). What we should expect from our Superintendent are thoughtful, respectful & considerate responses to these problems and who as our leader must have the health of the District as his prime maintenance target. As you have expressed your intent in this regard, I hope that your blog and its contents do begin to reach a larger and more influential audience. Major changes must be pursued; the District's leaders must better reflect the philosophies that are upheld in our schools.
This is not a privately owned business and should not be considered as such. If in fact it were it would have been out of business a long time ago except for the good graces in the form of involuntary support from taxpayers. Is our money being spent wisely? Are our assets being properly protected? Is the leadership abusing their power? Are they overpaid for their services? Isn't there some slimming that should be done in management?
I guess we will all have to stay tuned. I hope that for your sake Mark this does not injure your highly regarded reputation. It is certainly not you who is leading the District into disrepute.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
We're not in Tumwater - use a map
[Nick to the County Auditor]
We welcome any attention to this matter.
After moving out, Dr. Williams was renting an apartment still in his area that was the “old residence” to which I referred. I never said in any communication that he was still living with his wife. His rental was his residence while he purchased his new home and he was there and did not move until after the filing period. He has documentation to support this and all of the Board members are aware of this allegation.
[ESD15.org staff]
The evidence presented in this blog clearly demonstrates that Dr. Williams was renting a dwelling at Park Place Apartments on Edmonds Way in Edmonds. No part of Edmonds Way falls inside of Director District #4. Board Policy 1245 requires that this disqualified board member resign immediately.
Fun Factoid: Park Place Apartments was constructed by Burnstead - the same developer that bought half of Old Woodway Elementary.
Here is the legal description for Director District #4:
Starting at the intersection of school district, Puget Sound and Shell Creek. Southerly along Shell Creek to Caspers St. East on Caspers St. to 7th Ave. North on 7th Ave to Brookmere Dr. East on Brookmere Dr. to 8th Ave. North on 8th Ave to Hindley Ln. East on Hindley Ln. to 9th Ave. North on 9th Ave to Puget Dr. Easterly on Puget Dr. to 196th St. East on 196th St. to State Hwy 99. Northeast on State Hwy. 99 to 60th Ave. North on 60th Ave to 188th St. East on 188th St. to 40th Ave. South on 40th Ave to 191st Pl. East on 191st Pl. to 36th Ave. South on 36th Ave/37th Ave to 196th St. East on 196th St. to I-5. Southwest on I-5 to 212th St. West on 212th St. to 66th Ave. South on 66th Ave to 220th St. West on 220th St. to 84th Ave. North on 84th Ave to 218th St. West on 218th St. to 92nd Ave. North on 92nd Ave to 216th St. West on 216th St. to 96th Ave. South on 96th Ave to 216th Pl. West on 216th Pl. to 98th Ave. North on 98th Ave to Pine St. West on Pine St. and extension to Puget Sound and school district boundary. North following school district boundary to the point of the beginning.
We welcome any attention to this matter.
After moving out, Dr. Williams was renting an apartment still in his area that was the “old residence” to which I referred. I never said in any communication that he was still living with his wife. His rental was his residence while he purchased his new home and he was there and did not move until after the filing period. He has documentation to support this and all of the Board members are aware of this allegation.
[ESD15.org staff]
The evidence presented in this blog clearly demonstrates that Dr. Williams was renting a dwelling at Park Place Apartments on Edmonds Way in Edmonds. No part of Edmonds Way falls inside of Director District #4. Board Policy 1245 requires that this disqualified board member resign immediately.
Fun Factoid: Park Place Apartments was constructed by Burnstead - the same developer that bought half of Old Woodway Elementary.
Here is the legal description for Director District #4:
Starting at the intersection of school district, Puget Sound and Shell Creek. Southerly along Shell Creek to Caspers St. East on Caspers St. to 7th Ave. North on 7th Ave to Brookmere Dr. East on Brookmere Dr. to 8th Ave. North on 8th Ave to Hindley Ln. East on Hindley Ln. to 9th Ave. North on 9th Ave to Puget Dr. Easterly on Puget Dr. to 196th St. East on 196th St. to State Hwy 99. Northeast on State Hwy. 99 to 60th Ave. North on 60th Ave to 188th St. East on 188th St. to 40th Ave. South on 40th Ave to 191st Pl. East on 191st Pl. to 36th Ave. South on 36th Ave/37th Ave to 196th St. East on 196th St. to I-5. Southwest on I-5 to 212th St. West on 212th St. to 66th Ave. South on 66th Ave to 220th St. West on 220th St. to 84th Ave. North on 84th Ave to 218th St. West on 218th St. to 92nd Ave. North on 92nd Ave to 216th St. West on 216th St. to 96th Ave. South on 96th Ave to 216th Pl. West on 216th Pl. to 98th Ave. North on 98th Ave to Pine St. West on Pine St. and extension to Puget Sound and school district boundary. North following school district boundary to the point of the beginning.
Duped by the Supe
[Nick]
I do not agree with your blog concept; by allowing anonymous posts you are promoting irresponsible communication and in fact allowing people to say untruths about the district and staff. No person or organization has a responsibility to respond in any forum to anonymous allegations. Thus, your suggestion that you are personally interested in making the district a better place does not fit with your practices.
[Mark]
People have been forwarding comments to the blog that seem a bit hard to believe. I just want to make sure I have the facts correct because I am trying not to post any inaccuracies.
1. Bruce Williams moved out of his official residence prior to October of 2006.
2. He then Quit Claimed the residence to his wife in October, 2006.
3. His wife then refinanced his former home in February, declaring that she is legally separated.
4. Bruce then moved to Park Place Apartments on Edmonds Way prior to February 2007.
5. He then bought a house outside of Director District 4 in April of 2007.
6. The deadline for filing accurate residential information with the County Auditor was June 8, 2007.
Just when, exactly did you become aware that Bruce Williams moved?
So far, it sounds like the inaccuracies on my blog are confined to the information you have been providing.
Please advise.
Mark Zandberg
Fun Factoid: Blogs are web logs that are regularly updated, some even daily. They consist of information that is related to a certain topic. In some cases, blogs are used as daily diaries about people’s personal lives, political views and commentaries. Simply put, blogs can be made into whatever the author want them to be. Blogs can be traced back in the 1990’s. Who started them is not known. Although it started during that time, it was in 1999 that people got into blogging.
I do not agree with your blog concept; by allowing anonymous posts you are promoting irresponsible communication and in fact allowing people to say untruths about the district and staff. No person or organization has a responsibility to respond in any forum to anonymous allegations. Thus, your suggestion that you are personally interested in making the district a better place does not fit with your practices.
[Mark]
People have been forwarding comments to the blog that seem a bit hard to believe. I just want to make sure I have the facts correct because I am trying not to post any inaccuracies.
1. Bruce Williams moved out of his official residence prior to October of 2006.
2. He then Quit Claimed the residence to his wife in October, 2006.
3. His wife then refinanced his former home in February, declaring that she is legally separated.
4. Bruce then moved to Park Place Apartments on Edmonds Way prior to February 2007.
5. He then bought a house outside of Director District 4 in April of 2007.
6. The deadline for filing accurate residential information with the County Auditor was June 8, 2007.
Just when, exactly did you become aware that Bruce Williams moved?
So far, it sounds like the inaccuracies on my blog are confined to the information you have been providing.
Please advise.
Mark Zandberg
Fun Factoid: Blogs are web logs that are regularly updated, some even daily. They consist of information that is related to a certain topic. In some cases, blogs are used as daily diaries about people’s personal lives, political views and commentaries. Simply put, blogs can be made into whatever the author want them to be. Blogs can be traced back in the 1990’s. Who started them is not known. Although it started during that time, it was in 1999 that people got into blogging.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
It would appear as though Dr. Williams and his wife could not legally live in the same house, as Nick Brossoit claims, because a restraining order was filed in August of 2005. So, it would stand to reason that he vacated his official residence in August of 2005, or violated the restraining order.
Oddly, why would these matters be settled in King County if the parties involved were living and working in Snohomish County? A person not living in the right director district - represents it. A couple not living in King County has their dispute settled there.
Jurisdiction: 1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies. 2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area. 3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police. 4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.
If his re-election took place in November of 2005, he was not a qualified candidate at the time, let alone on June 8, 2007.
Oddly, why would these matters be settled in King County if the parties involved were living and working in Snohomish County? A person not living in the right director district - represents it. A couple not living in King County has their dispute settled there.
Jurisdiction: 1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies. 2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area. 3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police. 4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.
If his re-election took place in November of 2005, he was not a qualified candidate at the time, let alone on June 8, 2007.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Bruce Williams was "modernizing"
[Kirsten]
Given the upcoming election for school board positions, I was wondering if it was a requirement to live in the director district you represent.
[Nick]
We have three positions open right now that will be on the November ballot, and based on the residence information we have - the current Board members who are on the ballot do reside in the correct Board member district. We do not check the address of those who file with the Auditor’s office; that office verifies the requirements.
If a Board member moves out of their director district after they have been elected and depending on when they move, they are either allowed to finish their term of office or the remaining board members select a replacement to complete that term. Then, that position would be open just as any at the regular cycle of the term. The Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA) has all the legal references and requirements if you have additional questions.
[Kirsten]
Are there any such board members, currently living outside of the director district they represent, that have been allowed to continue serving on the board? If so, is such a decision made during a public board meeting or behind closed doors? What percentage of their term must be served while a resident of the director district they represent?
[Nick]
One of our current Board members, Bruce Williams moved still within the district, but outside of his “director” district. At that time, we checked with WASDA and based on the timing of his move and where it fell in his term, the law did not require him or the district to make any changes and he is allowed to complete his term. When his position opens in 2009, he would not be eligible to run for that specific “director” position based on his new residence; however, since he still lives within the district he could decide to run for the “director” district where he now resides if he wanted to when it became open. This required no district action other than to verify with WASDA at that time. It is something that was known by the Board and staff at that time as we processed that information. This rarely happens in school districts, thus you are welcome to communicate with WASDA to learn more.
[Kirsten]
I have contacted the County Auditor, as you recommended. It would appear as though Dr. Williams was re-elected and then promptly left his director district. When the majority of one's term is spent living outside of their director district, how does this serve the best interests of the public?
[Nick]
Dr. Williams was re-elected and later bought a new house; however, he stayed at his old residence while he was modernizing the new one. Thus, he did not leave “promptly” as you suggest; and when he moved it was clearly within the WSSDA parameters for him to continue on the board. Keep in mind the law requires all board members once elected to represent the whole district and at no point are they to vote or represent just their “director” districts in district matters. Thus, this law is in the best interests of the public because all board members once elected do represent all of the public in the school district. He has and continues to be a distinguished veteran board member who also has a medical practice in the district.
[Kirsten]
Such modernizations would trigger building permits.
So, Dr. Williams has more than one residence and is seeking public office from the more convenient address.
[Nick]
Painting and such does not require a building permit.
Dr. Williams was already in office and had not changed his residence; these are the rules for this type of change during any Board member’s term.
[Kirsten]
So when the District seeks a capital levy to modernize schools we shall expect the amount to be limited to the price of paint.
The auditor's response is attached. It seems responsibility has shifted back to the District.
Given the upcoming election for school board positions, I was wondering if it was a requirement to live in the director district you represent.
[Nick]
We have three positions open right now that will be on the November ballot, and based on the residence information we have - the current Board members who are on the ballot do reside in the correct Board member district. We do not check the address of those who file with the Auditor’s office; that office verifies the requirements.
If a Board member moves out of their director district after they have been elected and depending on when they move, they are either allowed to finish their term of office or the remaining board members select a replacement to complete that term. Then, that position would be open just as any at the regular cycle of the term. The Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA) has all the legal references and requirements if you have additional questions.
[Kirsten]
Are there any such board members, currently living outside of the director district they represent, that have been allowed to continue serving on the board? If so, is such a decision made during a public board meeting or behind closed doors? What percentage of their term must be served while a resident of the director district they represent?
[Nick]
One of our current Board members, Bruce Williams moved still within the district, but outside of his “director” district. At that time, we checked with WASDA and based on the timing of his move and where it fell in his term, the law did not require him or the district to make any changes and he is allowed to complete his term. When his position opens in 2009, he would not be eligible to run for that specific “director” position based on his new residence; however, since he still lives within the district he could decide to run for the “director” district where he now resides if he wanted to when it became open. This required no district action other than to verify with WASDA at that time. It is something that was known by the Board and staff at that time as we processed that information. This rarely happens in school districts, thus you are welcome to communicate with WASDA to learn more.
[Kirsten]
I have contacted the County Auditor, as you recommended. It would appear as though Dr. Williams was re-elected and then promptly left his director district. When the majority of one's term is spent living outside of their director district, how does this serve the best interests of the public?
[Nick]
Dr. Williams was re-elected and later bought a new house; however, he stayed at his old residence while he was modernizing the new one. Thus, he did not leave “promptly” as you suggest; and when he moved it was clearly within the WSSDA parameters for him to continue on the board. Keep in mind the law requires all board members once elected to represent the whole district and at no point are they to vote or represent just their “director” districts in district matters. Thus, this law is in the best interests of the public because all board members once elected do represent all of the public in the school district. He has and continues to be a distinguished veteran board member who also has a medical practice in the district.
[Kirsten]
Such modernizations would trigger building permits.
So, Dr. Williams has more than one residence and is seeking public office from the more convenient address.
[Nick]
Painting and such does not require a building permit.
Dr. Williams was already in office and had not changed his residence; these are the rules for this type of change during any Board member’s term.
[Kirsten]
So when the District seeks a capital levy to modernize schools we shall expect the amount to be limited to the price of paint.
The auditor's response is attached. It seems responsibility has shifted back to the District.
Use your name so we can harass and intimidate you
Thanks Mark,
I do not agree with your blog concept; by allowing anonymous posts you are promoting irresponsible communication and in fact allowing people to say untruths about the district and staff. No person or organization has a responsibility to respond in any forum to anonymous allegations. Thus, your suggestion that you are personally interested in making the district a better place does not fit with your practices.
While you seek and follow whatever legal advice you choose, you are welcome to bring your legal council to a meeting with me if you would like to process your concerns about the district or your situation constructively. I enjoy every day Mark; it is troubling that you are where you are in how you have responded to what was an appropriate letter or direction when you were here.
Sincerely,
Nick
I do not agree with your blog concept; by allowing anonymous posts you are promoting irresponsible communication and in fact allowing people to say untruths about the district and staff. No person or organization has a responsibility to respond in any forum to anonymous allegations. Thus, your suggestion that you are personally interested in making the district a better place does not fit with your practices.
While you seek and follow whatever legal advice you choose, you are welcome to bring your legal council to a meeting with me if you would like to process your concerns about the district or your situation constructively. I enjoy every day Mark; it is troubling that you are where you are in how you have responded to what was an appropriate letter or direction when you were here.
Sincerely,
Nick
Monday, August 13, 2007
Numbers don't lie, but people do
Three lots were purchased by MJR in 2001 for $1,937,500.
These same lots were appraised in 2005 by the District for $3,300,000.
This represents a return of 17.5% per year.
The District purchased the same lots for $5,601,551 in 2005.
These same lots were appraised in 2005 by MJR for $5,600,000.
This represents a return of 47.5% per year.
Lot One
Lot Two
Lot Three
These same lots were appraised in 2005 by the District for $3,300,000.
This represents a return of 17.5% per year.
The District purchased the same lots for $5,601,551 in 2005.
These same lots were appraised in 2005 by MJR for $5,600,000.
This represents a return of 47.5% per year.
Lot One
Lot Two
Lot Three
Sunday, August 12, 2007
"Walking the high road"
It seems the board is also reading the blog.
http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/board/minutes/Minutes%207.10.07.pdf
Right now she may be walking, but I'll have her jogging in no time.
http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/board/minutes/Minutes%207.10.07.pdf
Right now she may be walking, but I'll have her jogging in no time.
Okay, so he does read the blog
Mark,
I appreciate you sending the e-mail. I don't think that Marla or the "district" would agree with how you state some of these things, perhaps that is from your perspective. I wish you would have met with me and processed your issues before deciding to leave, as I would have helped work through them as necessary. You still have that option.
With respect to the letter to the editor you wrote and in light of the topic and your position with the district at that time, it was not a good decision and it was something that did cause issues for us with some in the public. Thus a letter of direction to you from Marla to not do that was appropriate. Also, if some type of review of your communications followed that would make sense if there were any question about your judgments made in terms of communication.
Thus, if you want to problem solve with Marla, I am happy to facilitate the discussion, but you seem to want to just toss rocks at her and us? I have always been about trying to do what is right and not try to be right; I don't know for sure what you are about with the things you are doing in these matters. Maybe you are trying to justify or defend something you did by writing that letter? I would think it wiser to accept that was not the best decision, accept the district's response and then move forward - if there were other job related issues that surface after the letter of direction, those could have been worked out. It seems given the fight or flight options when faced with a disagreement, you did both?
Sincerely,
Nick
c: Marla
I appreciate you sending the e-mail. I don't think that Marla or the "district" would agree with how you state some of these things, perhaps that is from your perspective. I wish you would have met with me and processed your issues before deciding to leave, as I would have helped work through them as necessary. You still have that option.
With respect to the letter to the editor you wrote and in light of the topic and your position with the district at that time, it was not a good decision and it was something that did cause issues for us with some in the public. Thus a letter of direction to you from Marla to not do that was appropriate. Also, if some type of review of your communications followed that would make sense if there were any question about your judgments made in terms of communication.
Thus, if you want to problem solve with Marla, I am happy to facilitate the discussion, but you seem to want to just toss rocks at her and us? I have always been about trying to do what is right and not try to be right; I don't know for sure what you are about with the things you are doing in these matters. Maybe you are trying to justify or defend something you did by writing that letter? I would think it wiser to accept that was not the best decision, accept the district's response and then move forward - if there were other job related issues that surface after the letter of direction, those could have been worked out. It seems given the fight or flight options when faced with a disagreement, you did both?
Sincerely,
Nick
c: Marla
Friday, August 10, 2007
Chicken Doodle Supe
Feel free to contribute in any manner you please.
The superintendent will not be reading this blog.
Mark,
I more than vaguely recall who you are, and believe it or not enjoyed the times I communicated with you. I am not going to read the blog. And you are now as much as you were at any time always welcome to call JoAnn Kerns at 425 431 7003 to set up a time to meet and visit about any of your issues, past or present.
Sincerely,
Nick
From: Mark Zandberg [mailto:mark@esd15.org]
Sent: Thu 8/9/2007 1:47 PM
To: Kirsten W.
Cc: Brossoit, Nick
Subject: Correct email address
Kirsten,
Thank you for sending along the attached email. I was not aware that Nick Brossoit emailed me. If it was sent to my email address: mark@esd15.org, I never received it.
The email may have been sent to zandbergm@edmonds.wednet.edu, but that account was terminated on June 7, 2007, five days before my final work day.
I am sending a copy of this email to Nick Brossoit and will recommend that he read the blog entry called "Squeezing out a good one" for a better idea of what precipitated my departure. He may vaguely recall who I am, as I drove him around Edmonds in search of a place to live prior to the start of his current job.
http://esd15.blogspot.com/2007/07/squeezing-out-good-one.html
Mark
The superintendent will not be reading this blog.
Mark,
I more than vaguely recall who you are, and believe it or not enjoyed the times I communicated with you. I am not going to read the blog. And you are now as much as you were at any time always welcome to call JoAnn Kerns at 425 431 7003 to set up a time to meet and visit about any of your issues, past or present.
Sincerely,
Nick
From: Mark Zandberg [mailto:mark@esd15.org]
Sent: Thu 8/9/2007 1:47 PM
To: Kirsten W.
Cc: Brossoit, Nick
Subject: Correct email address
Kirsten,
Thank you for sending along the attached email. I was not aware that Nick Brossoit emailed me. If it was sent to my email address: mark@esd15.org, I never received it.
The email may have been sent to zandbergm@edmonds.wednet.edu, but that account was terminated on June 7, 2007, five days before my final work day.
I am sending a copy of this email to Nick Brossoit and will recommend that he read the blog entry called "Squeezing out a good one" for a better idea of what precipitated my departure. He may vaguely recall who I am, as I drove him around Edmonds in search of a place to live prior to the start of his current job.
http://esd15.blogspot.com/2007/07/squeezing-out-good-one.html
Mark
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Running with Numbers
Surely I can't be the only one wondering how the District fell into dire financial straits. In an effort to understand the current financial woes of the District, I dug around a bit and discovered something rather upsetting.
First, the District purchased a new administration site in 2005 for $6.2 million based on an appraised value of $5.6 million. The trouble is that the appraisal was provided by the seller. The District's appraisal determined the value to be $3.3 million. Why would a public agency trust the seller's appraisal when they already identified an appraiser of their own through the legally-required RFQ process? The District's appraisal was apparently disregarded and seemingly not even used to negotiate the higher figure down a tad.
Second, the District sold an elementary site in 2006 for less than market value and did not obtain an appraisal for each portion, once they divided it in half. State law requires that the District receive no less than 90% of appraised value. Rather than have both halves appraised, they appraised it just once. Worse still, I am told they appraised it through their legal firm so as to protect the document from public disclosure laws. Even more damaging is the fact that the District will be refunding the costs of demolition. Ouch!
I realize the second point is hard to swallow and not easy to understand. Let me explain a bit more.
The District sent out very few invitations to developers to bid on the property as 11.2 acres. From the few that were invited to bid, not all possessed the ability to demolish a building full of hazardous materials. Among the scant few bidders that were involved, the high bidder was identified as Burnstead. After Burnstead agreed to pay a known price for all 11.2 acres, they were then informed that the available portion was just the vacant half - the building was to be sold to the City of Edmonds. Burnstead was then allowed to modify their offer to reflect the smaller piece of vacant dirt. It stands to reason that Burnstead already deflated their price to accommodate the cost of demolition, estimated at just over one million dollars. Now that they have a vacant piece of land, they have 50% of the demolition discount and no actual demolition costs. Hmm, imagine that?
Then look at the City of Edmonds. They bought the remaining portion of the site, with the building to demolish and purchased it for a price containing a 50% reduction for demolition. Then the Edmonds School District allegedly offered to refund, rebate or discount the purchase price by the cost of demolition. Their discount is therefore 150% of demolition.
What really disturbs me is that the City of Edmonds will have no real motivation to keep costs down while they demolish. After all, the District is picking up the tab.
By my math (and I confess that I was not educated in an Edmonds School District classroom) that adds up to five million reasons to ask a few questions.
First, the District purchased a new administration site in 2005 for $6.2 million based on an appraised value of $5.6 million. The trouble is that the appraisal was provided by the seller. The District's appraisal determined the value to be $3.3 million. Why would a public agency trust the seller's appraisal when they already identified an appraiser of their own through the legally-required RFQ process? The District's appraisal was apparently disregarded and seemingly not even used to negotiate the higher figure down a tad.
Second, the District sold an elementary site in 2006 for less than market value and did not obtain an appraisal for each portion, once they divided it in half. State law requires that the District receive no less than 90% of appraised value. Rather than have both halves appraised, they appraised it just once. Worse still, I am told they appraised it through their legal firm so as to protect the document from public disclosure laws. Even more damaging is the fact that the District will be refunding the costs of demolition. Ouch!
I realize the second point is hard to swallow and not easy to understand. Let me explain a bit more.
The District sent out very few invitations to developers to bid on the property as 11.2 acres. From the few that were invited to bid, not all possessed the ability to demolish a building full of hazardous materials. Among the scant few bidders that were involved, the high bidder was identified as Burnstead. After Burnstead agreed to pay a known price for all 11.2 acres, they were then informed that the available portion was just the vacant half - the building was to be sold to the City of Edmonds. Burnstead was then allowed to modify their offer to reflect the smaller piece of vacant dirt. It stands to reason that Burnstead already deflated their price to accommodate the cost of demolition, estimated at just over one million dollars. Now that they have a vacant piece of land, they have 50% of the demolition discount and no actual demolition costs. Hmm, imagine that?
Then look at the City of Edmonds. They bought the remaining portion of the site, with the building to demolish and purchased it for a price containing a 50% reduction for demolition. Then the Edmonds School District allegedly offered to refund, rebate or discount the purchase price by the cost of demolition. Their discount is therefore 150% of demolition.
What really disturbs me is that the City of Edmonds will have no real motivation to keep costs down while they demolish. After all, the District is picking up the tab.
By my math (and I confess that I was not educated in an Edmonds School District classroom) that adds up to five million reasons to ask a few questions.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Working and lurking in the shadows
There was a time, not long ago, when natural light was viewed as a resource to be shared among staff. In deliberating the wisdom behind office cubicle orientation, it was decided to maximize the amount of natural light by keeping shorter panels near the windows and allowing taller panels to only be placed perpendicular to the glass. Such an arrangement allows people further from the windows to also get a glimpse of daylight - when it happens.
The taller panels of supervisor stations, because of the confidential things they sometimes contain, were to be placed further from the windows and thereby not prevent natural light from flowing on others. The additional size of the cubicle was intended to offset the distance from the windows.
These days, there are people that should know better placing tall panels right up against windows and endowing themselves with more square feet than to which they are normally entitled. Standards were developed for the benefit of all staff but now, deviation is the norm.
It seems utterly self-serving to reconfigure a space with no other regard than to create a little bunker within which a person can hide their addiction to Solitaire and hot rod magazines. If a supervisor knew their staff a bit better, they would know that such a cubicle transformation will only cause a greater wedge to develop. But then staff development and good relations are not a high priority these days.
The taller panels of supervisor stations, because of the confidential things they sometimes contain, were to be placed further from the windows and thereby not prevent natural light from flowing on others. The additional size of the cubicle was intended to offset the distance from the windows.
These days, there are people that should know better placing tall panels right up against windows and endowing themselves with more square feet than to which they are normally entitled. Standards were developed for the benefit of all staff but now, deviation is the norm.
It seems utterly self-serving to reconfigure a space with no other regard than to create a little bunker within which a person can hide their addiction to Solitaire and hot rod magazines. If a supervisor knew their staff a bit better, they would know that such a cubicle transformation will only cause a greater wedge to develop. But then staff development and good relations are not a high priority these days.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
District jobs without interviews
While the vast majority of District staff arrived in their positions through application, interviews and sometimes public forums, there are several who have not.
On the one hand, the District required a long-standing employee to re-apply for a position she had been performing exceptionally well for a number of years. There was no change in classification and no change in the job description - aside from the District making the position Exempt. There was a concern that this specific employee was making too much money in overtime because she worked long hours and was always solving District emergencies. Quite frankly, it was absolutely shocking the number of hours she would work every week - and it wasn't for a love of money but rather a love for the District.
On the other hand, there are a number of employees that slipped into their positions without jobs being posted, without any transparency and seemingly under cover of darkness. In one extreme case, a member of staff was moved from Human Resources into a leadership position without a job posting, application process, candidate review or even a public forum. I am told the individual in question has only a bachelor's degree in theater or performing arts and yet somehow qualified for this newly-created position.
During the obvious coronation, an underling was also carried to a new and dizzy height in administration without a job posting, application, candidate review or public forum. Overnight, another young protege was whisked into management without so much as a competitive process. It doesn't sound like the bending of rules but rather a blatant disregard for employment processes. How are the rest of staff supposed to feel about the manner in which they became employees of the District?
While many may think it's Business as Usual in the District, to me it smells like the common theme of gifting public funds and nepotism. If you came into your position through questionable practices why would your work be anything other than questionable? The age-old adage seems appropriate here: It's not what you know but who you know.
On the one hand, the District required a long-standing employee to re-apply for a position she had been performing exceptionally well for a number of years. There was no change in classification and no change in the job description - aside from the District making the position Exempt. There was a concern that this specific employee was making too much money in overtime because she worked long hours and was always solving District emergencies. Quite frankly, it was absolutely shocking the number of hours she would work every week - and it wasn't for a love of money but rather a love for the District.
On the other hand, there are a number of employees that slipped into their positions without jobs being posted, without any transparency and seemingly under cover of darkness. In one extreme case, a member of staff was moved from Human Resources into a leadership position without a job posting, application process, candidate review or even a public forum. I am told the individual in question has only a bachelor's degree in theater or performing arts and yet somehow qualified for this newly-created position.
During the obvious coronation, an underling was also carried to a new and dizzy height in administration without a job posting, application, candidate review or public forum. Overnight, another young protege was whisked into management without so much as a competitive process. It doesn't sound like the bending of rules but rather a blatant disregard for employment processes. How are the rest of staff supposed to feel about the manner in which they became employees of the District?
While many may think it's Business as Usual in the District, to me it smells like the common theme of gifting public funds and nepotism. If you came into your position through questionable practices why would your work be anything other than questionable? The age-old adage seems appropriate here: It's not what you know but who you know.
How to take credit for everything
I once sat in a meeting where I asked a question, the answer to which was already known. My supervisor had recently left and I was handling - to the best of my ability - all of his work as well as my own. His district telephone number forwarded callers to me and I had received numerous emails from staff and leadership praising the manner in which I was "juggling" so much work and doing so with great success. I didn't complain. I wasn't seeking special treatment. I was doing what I could to help during a busy and turbulent time in my department's history. There was plenty of work to do and I managed the workload.
The sad revelation occurred when a new position was created to oversee my department and Maintenance. It was not a position designed to take on my former supervisor's duties, but rather a position to ensure that someone else continued to take them on. When the new person was hired, I was invited to a meeting with the newbie and his boss. It was during this meeting when I posed the question, "Who do you believe has been doing all of this work since the position vacated?"
Of course, to create and maintain an aura of qualification, the boss, despite emails to the contrary, chimed in and took full credit for everything. I was expecting the response but was jarred by the deliberate attempt to bury obvious feelings of inadequacy. I suppose a great District leader knows when to take credit for everything. In this particular case, I suspect the boss had no idea the extent of work for which credit was being swindled. But hey, the new guy probably believed you.
The sad revelation occurred when a new position was created to oversee my department and Maintenance. It was not a position designed to take on my former supervisor's duties, but rather a position to ensure that someone else continued to take them on. When the new person was hired, I was invited to a meeting with the newbie and his boss. It was during this meeting when I posed the question, "Who do you believe has been doing all of this work since the position vacated?"
Of course, to create and maintain an aura of qualification, the boss, despite emails to the contrary, chimed in and took full credit for everything. I was expecting the response but was jarred by the deliberate attempt to bury obvious feelings of inadequacy. I suppose a great District leader knows when to take credit for everything. In this particular case, I suspect the boss had no idea the extent of work for which credit was being swindled. But hey, the new guy probably believed you.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Making requests for public records
For the many people who have asked about requesting public records, here is how it works. The District is still aware that they are a public agency and serve the public. Therefore, the District knows that when a member of the public wants to review something, they can request a copy. The copies, however, cost 10 cents a page, which is intended to offset the expense incurred by the District to make the requested copies.
It is always better to request the fewest number of pages, not to keep costs low but to reduce the amount of paper and the time processing the request. They are still public employees after all and their time should not be consumed with filling such requests.
You can also cite the relevant legal references, but since the District already knows that you are entitled to the information, you need not worry about making such a reference in your request.
All requests for public information should be addressed to the Public Records Designee, Marla Miller, and your requests may be sent via email, but the District will adhere to protocol and generate paper copies. The information is normally provided in 10 days and arrangements will have to be made to pay for the copies made. You should be willing to collect the copies at the front desk of the ESC and leave a check to cover the fees.
If you have any trouble getting copies of records, please let me know. I am always happy to render aid in such matters.
It is always better to request the fewest number of pages, not to keep costs low but to reduce the amount of paper and the time processing the request. They are still public employees after all and their time should not be consumed with filling such requests.
You can also cite the relevant legal references, but since the District already knows that you are entitled to the information, you need not worry about making such a reference in your request.
All requests for public information should be addressed to the Public Records Designee, Marla Miller, and your requests may be sent via email, but the District will adhere to protocol and generate paper copies. The information is normally provided in 10 days and arrangements will have to be made to pay for the copies made. You should be willing to collect the copies at the front desk of the ESC and leave a check to cover the fees.
If you have any trouble getting copies of records, please let me know. I am always happy to render aid in such matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
