Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Not all welfare recipients wait around for the cheese.

I asked for and received the job description for the individual currently working for Powerful Partners, but on the District's payroll. No where in the job description does it mention that management of Powerful Partners is a requirement, nor is Powerful Partners a District program. It is, as their contractual relationship suggests, a separate entity and outside of District operations and obligations. Very similar to other non-profit organizations based in the region.

Naturally, I am curious. How is it that Powerful Partners has a full time para-educator, on the District's dime, working to support their programming? By "their" I mean Powerful Partners.

We have a plethora of respectable non-profits in the area that would love to receive a free cubicle and staff to promote their agenda. Why did the District single out this entity for special treatment? Did the Board authorize this free ride?

I am sure that some of this person's time goes to support some District activities, but how much? She is a coordinator of volunteers, and yet not a volunteer herself. I am not suggesting that people should work for free, but why work for a non-public agency at the expense of District taxpayers.

Why wouldn't the District just gobble up Powerful Partners and make them an official department within the District's list of departments? Could there be a financial impact for doing so? Could it be that the executive team of Powerful Partners draws income from their affiliation? Could it be that grants and funding would dry up if Powerful Partners was absorbed by the District? Just what is the logic behind giving all of these public funds away to fringe, extraneous programs?

The District is full of parent-teacher associations and organizations and yet they are not clerically-supported or provided with free office space at the ESC. Why is that? Does the Board have a problem with their mission statements or purpose for existing? Is a PTO's mission so much more inharmonious than that of Powerful Partners? Why the special treatment?

Why won't the Board go on record and officially sanction the accommodation of Powerful Partners? Why would the District go through the trouble of drafting a use agreement if they had no intention of enforcing it?


Anonymous said...

In the info the district gave you was there any minutes or other documentation for the meeting(s) which must have occured to create this position? Or was it just another created to appease someone in management? Maybe I can talk that person(s) into creating a position for me to replace the one that was eliminated resulting in my having to leave employment with the district. (Even though it has been said by some and quoted elsewhere in this blog that no jobs were eliminated during the last budget reduction.)

Anonymous said...

The Public Education Foundation of the Edmonds School District doesn't have a cubicle, nor a district person to do their work, Why only Powerful Partners?

Anonymous said...

Why Power Partners? Pat Shields that's why.

But you know the party line is that there is no favoritism or gift of public funds in this case; after all THE AUDITOR didn't find "anything."

Which makes me think the auditor couldn't locate their navel. said...

12/26/07 @ 8:59

I have no information that supports the decision to create this position. In this season of giving, chalk it up to yet another gift of public funds.

Anonymous said...

Powerful Partners, because it is Patrick Shields pet project, has received a huge gift of public funds, in so many ways.

Just another crooked deal perpetuated by Marla Miller for her own personal gain.

C'mon Duncan, how do you justify this one?