I attended the board meeting last night and wasn't surprised by the manner in which one particular issue was handled. First reading, approve revisions to policies 1260 and 6810 - Conflicts of Interest.If the Board was going to have a "First Reading" wouldn't it have been nice of them to actually read the revisions being proposed? They weren't typed up and provided to everyone that attended the board meeting. They weren't discussed in any way, shape or form. It was as if they didn't want anyone to know what the policies contained and what they soon will not contain.
Pat Shields was confused. For a moment he thought the Board was planning to revise Board Policy 1270 to get him off the hook regarding his ethical issues. One thing at a time Pat. Your turn is coming.
Marla Miller characterized the revisions as just standard housecleaning. That the State Auditor stumbled upon these board policies and independently recommended they be revised.
There was no mention that the concerns were initially uncovered by the blog. No one mentioned the inadequate legal counsel the District received when their lawyer dismissed the blatant conflict as falling squarely within an exception under Washington State law.
Susan Paine described the discovery of these questionable board policies "seven to eight months ago", but the Auditor had only just arrived in the ESC and certainly wouldn't have spent those first few days reviewing board policies.
What happened to full disclosure? Why wouldn't the Board just come clean and share with their constituents the reasons for revising board policies 1260 and 6810? If they truly believe they are doing nothing wrong, why hide behind the process? Why conceal the real motivation for accommodating one of their own?
I suspect the reason why board meetings don't attract a crowd is because nothing is ever actually shared with the audience.
I am saddened that in order for Gary Noble to be re-elected, he had to cheat. He was ineligible to seek re-election to the Board and his cronies denied a better candidate the opportunity to serve his constituents and the best interests of the Edmonds School District.
Note to Duncan: I have taken the day off from work.
16 comments:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts when attending the Edmonds School District Board meeting. I am not surprised by the results; just another example of how they conduct themselves and how Marla responds and "covers up" most every situation/concern. Your dedication to the BLOG is appreciated; your hard work is to be applauded.
The evidence on this blog demonstrates that Susan Paine lied last night.
On October 4, 2007, before Gary Noble was "re-appointed" through a sham election process, the District's lawyer responded to allegations about his conflict of interest.
The District was entirely aware of this conflict more than one year ago - not "seven or eight" months ago as Ms. Paine alleges.
Someone is lying and it is not the blog.
I wondered why I got a "key communicator" e-mail blast from "Debbie Joyce Jakala" this AM about school lunches. Until I saw this:
http://tinyurl.com/64c7s8
The board is unfit for service.
I appreciate the Barry photo to help clear this up. In other words Gary , for you uneducated, ignorant, monkey types, stop cheating and lying. Your record does not stand in my eyes!
I declare WAR! only the man up stairs can help. Sorry its not you, you might think its you.
Talk about shocked and applauded to learn of the new Draconian measures taken by the District Adminstration to collect past due lunch fees.
This action is completely contary to the District's Mission statement and promise to the students.
Last night, Nick lamented about the current financial situation taking no credit for his own dubious business decisions that have wasted School funds.
Shame on you Nick. The parents and taxpayers should provide you with cheese crackers and a 3rd class train ticket out of town. Please take the Board with you.
I think Laura Velasquez should help someone run for the school board after all she brags about her hostile takeover of the office personnel group. High 5'n and all so proud of how she handled her election. Oh maybe the school board could take some lessons from her.This is the kind of leadership the OP group has to deal with. Members are already asking how to have her removed from office and she just started 9/1. makes me laugh
Please tell me if I'm right or wrong on this: The old Policy 6810 says that "no person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse or dependant child of any member of the Board except as authorized in Policy 1260." Then when I read old Policy 1260 it says that if a spouse was a certified or classified empoyee with the school district before the date on which the board member assumes office and the spouse's contract is communsurate with a collective bargaining agreement in the district then it's ok for the spouse to be employed by the district.
The question is: was Kay Noble employed by the district before or after Gary Noble was first elected to the school board?
Nick got an award!
http://www.komonews.com/news/28162184.html
Oh wait, I don't think that's an award you want to win...
Kay Noble was hired as a teacher BEFORE Gary was elected to the Board. There is no debate there.
The debate is... Board policy prohibited him from serving on the Board while his wife was an employee. His re-election last year was in direct conflict with Board policies. If it wasn't, why would the Board seek to revise these policies.
Gary Noble committed election fraud. He was ineligible. The need for revisions prove it.
...and 6810 does not mention 1260. You must be reading the revised policy. Since copies have not been provided to the public, you must work for Supe's staff.
Why don't you folks initiate RECALL proceedings?
It seems obvious that, AT THE TIME OF ELECTION, district policies were clearly violated.
For the board to come back later and modify the policy does not eliminate the fact that, AT THE TIME of election, the Districts own policies were violated.
Under WA law, a recall petition may be filed with the county or state elections agency, if certain criteria are met. This appears to meet this criteria.
I would do it, but I do not live in the District's electoral boundaries.
GOOD LUCK folks, keep up the good fight against "cronyism, nepotism, rascalism and service to the Innarests!"
See you later Nick Schrammy!
OK, you were right and I was wrong. I wrote comment #9 on this topic, but obviously I was looking at the "revisions" and not the current policy. So now I've carefully read the current policies that are on the school district website. I was hoping, Mark, that you were wrong, but instead you were right. Gary Noble clearly violated current board policies (that have been in effect since the last revision in 1993) when he ran for office. It's really very disappointing to know that such a cover up is going on.
Some info for you folks on recalls and recall procedures:
The info listed below was found at this link:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm
Washington: commission of some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violation of oath of office (Const. Art. I §33)
WHO CAN BE RECALLED:
All but judicial officers
For statewide officers:
SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS:
(For non-statewide officers)
35% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
CIRCULATION TIME
Others: 180 days
Constitutional & Statutory Cites for Recall:
Washington - Const. Art. 1,§ 33-34; Wash. Rev. Code §29.82.010 - 29.82.220
Good Luck!
Post a Comment