No questions. No debate. No opposing views.

Our community is comprised of essentially two groups of people. There is a group that believes the District is doing everything it can to make the right decisions and do the right thing. There is another group that believes the District constantly drifts away from their mission and consistently makes bad decisions that have short and long-term consequences. Regardless of the group that best captures your prevailing view, there is one fact that cannot be denied - the current composition of the Board is unhealthy and unproductive for legitimate debate and progress.

Our current board lacks the ability to engage in open and honest dialogue. No one is challenged when presenting information and no one's conclusions are questioned. The board has essentially been degraded to a point of ineffective governance. Whatever district management wants, they get. No questions. No debate. No opposing views.

Why wouldn't our community seek to change this condition by electing people to the Board that care about how public resources are being spent? Why wouldn't our community seek to elect individuals that offer a pattern of constructive engagement in every aspect of district management? Our current board seems to be meeting privately to make sure that everyone takes the same position on every issue. Once the board meeting starts, no one has anything to say about any topic other than "Aye". And we wonder why no one attends board meetings.

Board meetings are a real snoozefest where the outcome is determined by the agenda and the minutes offer no new information. All that is proposed is passed. Every word that is uttered goes unchallenged. Where is the constructive engagement? Where are the discussions? Sometimes it is helpful to initiate a counterpoint or even occasionally play the devil's advocate just so our community can take comfort in knowing that all points have been offered and all positions have been presented, discussed and subjected to meaningful deliberation. Our current board is spineless.

At present, district management governs the district. The Board is impotent. District management develops an agenda and then drives it down the throat of our community with the illusion of a real board's endorsement. The end result is that our unions get weaker, staff get trampled upon, and every district employee quickly discovers that they need to jump ship and swim to shore or join in the mutiny by swearing allegiance to the kingpin of management - and we all know who that is.

Personally, I am tired of watching what has happened to our district and to our schools. When we have an ineffective board, there is no way to control the manner in which management exerts their unique form of control. Without accountability to a board, management does what they want and pays little attention to a board that is incapable of asking a probing question.

In an ideal world, the Board (or at least one that follows board policies and understands the reason why they exist at all) would stand up to bullies of management and demand a greater degree of transparency. If this current board had any real, collective intelligence, they would look around and understand that the problems plaguing the District right now are a direct result of their inability to demand more from management.

Of course, it wouldn't hurt for this current board to follow their own policies. How Gary Noble thinks that he earned his seat in the last election is still a mystery. Sure, your friends may have changed the rules, but your "election" was to the height of an earlier standard. A standard that you did not meet. As for Pat Shields, it is still shocking how he could be so closely involved in the creation of "Powerful Partners" and then allow them to go so many years without paying a dollar toward the lease they signed. And will they keep changing their name every time a bill arrives in the mail? Of course, we shouldn't forget that Ann McMurray was the one that directed Marla Miller to start negotiating for a contaminated piece of property before they even had the results from an environmental assessment. Bruce Williams was part of that decision but then his policy violations and personal issues eventually bounced him from the Board.

Edmonds School Board isn't smarter than fifth graders.

The blog was recently contacted by a fifth grade teacher from another school district. The teacher, who shall remain nameless, provided two board policies to her class for discussion.

Board Policy 6810 used to state that, "No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse or dependent child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent."

Board Policy 1260 used to state that, "No member of the Board, or any spouse or dependent relative of such member, shall receive or accept any compensation or reward for services rendered to the District."

Even after lunch, the class, with minimal prodding, was able to make the distinction between these two different rules and conclude that they basically describe the same restriction. While the sentences had to be broken into sections, for ease of discussion, the concepts were fairly clear and straight forward.

Surprisingly, the task didn't take a lot of time and it wasn't too complicated for them to understand. It also didn't involve the payment of a small fortune in legal fees or the input from sluggish hacks from the State Auditor's Office. Clearly, the Board of Directors for the Edmonds School District is just too stupid or corrupt to follow simple rules that even children can understand.

Blog: Thanks to Mrs. J for her email.

Something is rotten in the Edmonds School District.

I will number them for ease of reference and for the convenience of our international readers.

1. Bruce Williams moved outside of his director district, the blog and its readers easily proved it and he was compelled to resign on September 11, 2007. I won't go into the reasons as to why he relocated, but they insufficiently justify the nonsensical retention of his board seat. His appointed replacement, Susan Phillips, reads the blog frequently but has no independent thought of her own.

2. Nick Brossoit lied numerous times to cover for Bruce Williams and yet his lies were easily dismantled by the blog and its readers. When Bruce Williams moved outside of his director district, Nick Brossoit asked Mark Zandberg to redefine director districts. Then, when Mark Zandberg asked about Bruce Williams, while using a pen name, Nick Brossoit concocted a ridiculous story about modernizing a rented apartment.

3. Marla Miller entered into a scheme with Arnie Tucker of Seattle Piano Gallery to buy pianos under the disguise of a "lease" to fool the State Auditor. Then, to make matters worse, Tam Osborne issued a check for just under the legally significant threshold of $40,000.00 to buy four of these pianos. Even Arnie Tucker's lawyer characterized the piano transaction as a "scheme" and the Audit Manager was still unable to connect the dots.

4. Gary Noble ran for a seat on the Board despite two different board policies that prevented it. Sure, when you run the first time you might be forgiven because technically the violation only occurs once you are elected. When Gary Noble ran for re-election, there was no denying the fact that he was in direct violation. Nick Brossoit and the Board repeatedly denied the fact that none of them can read and understand simple English and waited until after the State Auditor told them to follow or revise board policies to actually revise them. It doesn't change the fact that Gary Noble is currently serving under the rules of the earlier policies. His day in court is coming.

5. Pat Shields was actively involved in the formation of Powerful Partners. This organization then entered into a lease with the Edmonds School District and never paid a single cent of the required rental payments. In fact, it was just a use agreement, which excluded a base rental rate and came without any financial benefit for the District. Mark Zandberg attempted to collect the rent and was always turned away. Then Marla Miller stepped in and declared that she would take care of it. The way in which she "took care of it" was to give Powerful Partners a free ride.

6. The State Auditor is an agency of hacks. I have had the pleasure and privilege of knowing a few of their former employees and the stories they share would make any taxpayer shudder. In the case of the Edmonds School District, Sadie Armijo was unable to understand the concept of a property appraisal and how such devices can be easily used to defraud taxpayers. Chris Kapek was easily bamboozled by Powerful Partners changing their name to Powerful Tutors. Chris Kapek was also easily fooled by the words contained in the piano "lease" and couldn't see the intent behind the words. The State Auditor is not doing any favors for the taxpayers of the Edmonds School District.

7. Marla Miller also manipulated the process of appraising the property known as Old Woodway Elementary. While it resulted in a direct windfall to the City of Edmonds and her friends at Burnstead, the Edmonds School District lost a fortune.

8. Marla Miller also worked with Mike Raskin to convince the Board to buy a contaminated piece of property that had been rejected three times before. The fact of contamination is irrefutable, despite Nick Brossoit's statements to the contrary. The District's appraisal came in at $3,300,000.00 and the seller's came in at $5,800,000.00. The District paid $5,800,000.00 and will have to deal with the contamination whenever they make any changes to the site.

9. The Capital Partnerships Program was shifted away from Property Management, where the District was an actual project partner, to the Capital Projects Office, where the District charges for project management and every time staff moves a muscle or lifts a pencil. How is that fair to parents or community members that sell cupcakes to subsidize CPO staff salaries in addition to the increased property tax they have already paid and continue to pay every year.

10. There is also a swollen collection of imbeciles that are in positions at the District where they either have absolutely no meaningful experience or an utter absence of intellect that makes the completion of their job virtually impossible. These individuals are so arrogant that they even profess to their co-workers their amazement in how they were hired in the first place. What is troubling for the many of us looking in from the outside is that most of the District is so focused on saving the nickles and dimes in their sphere of control, they don't appear to notice the hemorrhaging going on everywhere else.

There are many other bone-jarring issues covered in the blog, but the ten points above offer a quick snapshot of what this blog is all about. We believe in public accountability and will not rest until the Board and Superintendent realize they are on the wrong path and make meaningful corrections - like resigning and moving on to a community that can more adequately afford the corruption they have allowed to take root here.

Perhaps NPI should audit that piano transaction.

Living in Edmonds, we have a great resource right at our fingertips. There is an organization called Northwest Procurement Institute that offers training in public agency procurement practices. Just take a look at the current list of course offerings. Wouldn't it be great to tap that exceptionally endowed organization to review the piano scam and truly put the issue to rest, once and for all?

We could also ask NPI to review the Powerful Partners (conveniently renamed Powerful Tutors) lease and see if it truly is a legally binding document. I don't run an "Institute" but I am fairly sure that I know a lease when I see one, or in this case, write one. If NPI can wield the weight of their considerable intellect and publicly declare whether the lease is valid, it could take a lot of pressure off of the Board and offer a respite from sniping by the blog.

But wait a minute. Isn't that the same organization that is owned and operated by a member of the school board? So, wouldn't it stand to reason that such a review has already taken place? If the Board accepted and endorsed the manner in which the pianos were acquired and declared the lease with Powerful Partners invalid, that would undermine the strength of management at NPI. This is a rather sad turn of events. The Board seemingly had an expert among them and still allowed district management to run amok. It wasn't as if there were five imbeciles on the Board. One of them actually passes himself off as an expert in the realm of procurement practices.

The same can be said of the contaminated site slated to accommodate the new administration building. Someone trained as an engineer should be able to understand the concept of contamination. So, if such an engineer were to be a member of the Board, and I am led to believe that there is such an engineer on the Board, wouldn't he be in a position to know what constitutes a significant threshold? Wouldn't he have an idea as to what constitutes a mathematical certainty and what can be relegated to a less significant margin of acceptability? Wouldn't this person's inability to grasp the concept of contamination cast a questionable shadow across his employer's ability to hire the best and brightest engineers? Of course, since he only recently asked if the site was contaminated, he clearly must have been sleeping since 2005.

We need better people on the Board. While the public may have tapped the current board members for the illusion of intelligence, it hasn't generated the sort of results we have been seeking. Having the credentials to serve the public and using them are two entirely different things. Saying you seek public accountability and actually promoting it are two different things. The Board is currently unable or unwilling to truly govern our district with the sort of leadership we desperately need.

I find it surprising that, as a nation we were able to take an awe-inspiring step forward by electing a relatively unknown senator to become our next president and yet locally, we collectively refuse to embrace the opportunity to change things for the better.

I wonder if the owner/operator of NPI truly believes that the piano scam wasn't a scam at all. I wonder if he truly believes that a signed lease with a public agency doesn't mean anything.

I wonder if an engineer in the aerospace industry truly believes that the new administration site isn't contaminated because Marla confirmed it. Perhaps if Marla taped cardboard wings on a bicycle and confirmed that it could fly, this board member would be packing his bags to fly it to his next vacation.

The foolish choices made by our elected board members, and Gary Noble, do very little to promote the intelligence and objective deliberation of district leadership, but they also weaken the strength of companies in our region.

Blog: Simplified Acquisition Procedures - Advanced - 5 Days - $830. If a public agency seeks to procure anything, just write a lease. Give Perkins a call and I am sure they can draft something hardly intelligible but that meets the minimum legal threshold.

Blog has become a permanent record of district misconduct.

In reviewing blog traffic recently, it has become abundantly clear that our entries are being read by a wide range of people from a wide range of places. Many of our visitors have been reading articles from the summer of 2007 while the majority are reading several entries every day.

Thanks to StatCounter, I can tell how long each visitor is staying on the blog, what articles they are reading, in what order and where they go once they leave esd15.org. This is powerful information and can be used to specifically guide topics for discussion. I know what is interesting to our visitors and I know what generates the most traffic.

The vast majority of our visitors come from a Google search of keywords. There are many other search engines being utilized, but the bulk of searches come by way of Google. The same can be said of browser locations. There are many people visiting the blog from all over the world, but the vast majority come from Snohomish County.

People are using Google to search for things like "Nick Brossoit", "Edmonds School District blog", "election results", "Randy Dorn", "pat shields school board edmonds", "School district superintendent, no trespass, retaliation", "why cheese sandwich in schools" and "Seattle Northwest Securities school bond". What is most interesting is that the information presented on the blog will be available for many years to come. It will forever illustrate what this current band of scoundrels has been up to and it will offer all of the evidence for their misdeeds for the foreseeable future.

To date, the blog has exposed election fraud by Bruce Williams, utter stupidity and election fraud by Gary Noble, theft of public resources by Pat Shields, refusal to photocopy checks or keep adequate records by management, favoritism in Human Resources, violations of public procurement requirements by Marla Miller, absolute incompetence by management regarding Cedar Valley, Site 6 and the new administration site, irrefutable evidence of simple-mindedness regarding the Capital Facilities Plan, blatant theft of public resources regarding the Capital Partnership Program and a wide assortment of other iniquitous conduct by district management. All the evidence any reader would need is right here in this blog. If anyone has a doubt, ask the District to explain themselves. They won't because they can't.

The blog also has more than 186,364 page views and more than 500 entries.

Additionally, the blog has been contacted by countless concerned parents and community members expressing a desire to stop this obvious and deplorable conduct. The general consensus at present is to challenge the District in court. The Board has been given every opportunity to correct their behavior and, to date, has demonstrated a shocking disregard for the public. I am inclined to believe that change will not happen without a court decision.

The next step in this process is to have the Gary Noble issue heard in court. Only through such a process can the many issues presented in this blog be presented in a courtroom - to be heard by a jury.

Clearly we have a problem. The blog, the State Auditor and the Attorney General all believe that Gary Noble was not eligible to run for a seat on the school board. It was recommended that board policies be changed to prevent this sort of stupidity from happening again. Those policies have been changed, but the illegitimate outcome of last year's election has not yet been corrected.

As the next phase moves forward, Gary Noble needs to decide if his unjustified seat on the Board is worth racking up additional legal expenses for the District.

Superintendent's "Open Door Policy" is a sham.

At the Board meeting last night, Nick responded to a community member's comments that dealt specifically with district staff and their reluctance to expose mismanagement in the organization. District employees are clearly concerned that if they speak up and reveal their identity they might find themselves without employment. It isn't hard to imagine. Look what happened to the moderator of this blog.

Nick's response was to encourage staff to pass along their concerns to their association presidents so the information might be conveyed anonymously to management without regard to the identity of the source. Nick even went as far as to encourage former employees to use the open door policy.

Well, let's review the record on one glaring topic.

A member of the public mentioned to the Board and Superintendent that Gary Noble was ineligible to compete for a seat on the Board. The notification was made prior to the election. There was adequate time to revise policies and protect Gary, but alas, Nick and the Board decided to pretend they were not native English speakers. They even went as far as to hire a law firm to support their confusion with references to irrelevant state statutes.

No constructive action was taken by the Board. No meaningful steps were taken by Nick. In fact, when confronted with irrefutable evidence, Nick's response was to duck and dive. He was handed critical information and decided to not only ignore it but to spend public money trying to bury it.

To be clear, it wasn't as if a member of the public was offering an opinion. No one was saying that Board members shouldn't look like a Keebler elf or have grey hair. It wasn't an opinion from the community - it was matter of fact and an adopted board policy.

Why wouldn't Nick or the Board act on a concern from the public that involved a conflict clearly cited in board policies and verified by the State Auditor and Attorney General? Well, it wasn't in their interest to do so. If they refuse to adequately and appropriately respond to irrefutable evidence, how would anyone expect them to respond on matters of community opinion?

Do us all a favor, Mr. Nick, and drop your nauseating references to an "Open Door Policy". You may think it sounds impressive because you heard better men use it, but the proof is in the pudding and your dishing out nothing more than scorched mayonnaise.

Fun Factoid: I thought Nick was opposed to anonymous comments. It seems he is now encouraging such anonymous comments to be funneled through an approved conduit. Is this about control or has Mr. Nick had an epiphany?

Malignant cells quickly invade the healthy tissue.

It is a sad day in our district. After identifying a problem and expressing concerns to the Board and Gary Noble, the District decided to ignore plain, simple words and instead, picked up the phone to engage a team of lawyers. A frantic search was launched, looking for any shred of information that may give the illusion that Gary Noble’s conflict of interest was just a misunderstanding. For those of us that can read, there was no misunderstanding.

Since the Board would not act to correct the problem (or revise board policies prior to the election of November 2007), we had no other choice than to seek the opinion of the Washington State Auditor. Of course, the Auditor was probably bewildered as to how a group of five English-speaking adults could not understand a rather simple board policy. After consulting with the Washington State Attorney General, the State Auditor’s Office reached a conclusion on April 23, 2008 – follow board policies or revise them.

If the Board wasn’t wrong, why would they have to revise their own policies? Have we elected a group of imbeciles? Like many others, I am starting to wonder just who is making the meaningful decisions about the educational needs of our community’s children.

Even more troubling is the fact the State Auditor waited from April 23, 2008 until October 6, 2008 before responding to the concerned citizen. What purpose could that delay have achieved other than to allow the District enough time to revise their plain, simply-worded policies? Not only did the State Auditor wait until after the revisions occurred, they also shifted the burden for responding to the core issue by claiming the County Auditor makes the determination regarding candidate qualifications.

In communicating with the County Auditor, it was made abundantly clear that the Board is responsible for monitoring their own compliance. What happened to checks and balances? What happened to accountability? The public elected citizens to serve on the Board with the understanding that board policies would be followed. Why else would we have board policies?

If board policies don’t mean anything, why would staff be terminated for violating them? Why would students be expelled for violating them? If this isn’t a double standard, I don’t know what would be.

Why would the Board allow Bruce Williams to resign? Didn’t anyone bother to tell him that board policies don’t actually matter?

Since board policies don’t actually matter, why have them at all? Why not add a statement right at the beginning of every policy that provides a disclaimer: The following policy is entirely optional and may or may not be followed, depending upon how the board feels at the time. Such a disclaimer would eliminate any confusion and prevent the public from developing any expectations.

It is no big mystery why no one attends board meetings. If board policies don’t matter, the board doesn’t matter. If the board doesn’t matter, what hope would a community member have in expressing interest in a topic or an opinion regarding our educational objectives?

To the Edmonds School District Board of Directors, you have my heartfelt congratulations. I have demonstrated on paper just why there are so few people that attend your meetings. Clearly, our community views your existence like something akin to a terminal illness. Try as we might to correct a condition, the remaining malignant cells quickly invade the remaining healthy tissue and hasten the demise of the organism.

Board is the final authority for its own violations.

[Mark Zandberg]

One year ago, you had an exchange of emails with a member of the community that forwarded the communication to me. It was an exchange regarding the status of a school board member in the Edmonds School District. The member was Bruce Williams and your advice was to take up the matter directly with the District.

The issue was raised and the board member ultimately resigned on September 11, 2007. He violated board policies and lied to the County Auditor when he filed as a candidate. He used an address that was not his actual residence.

Thank you for your direction in that case.

Presently, there is another issue of which you may not be aware. Gary Noble ran for re-election in November 2007. In July 2007, I contacted the school board to inform them that Mr. Noble was ineligible to occupy the seat and running for re-election demonstrated an utter disregard for board policies. Mr. Noble was in violation of a provision in board policies that prevented spouses and dependents of district employees from serving on the Board. My comments were disregarded. No action was taken at that time to revise the policies.

I continued to express concerns regarding the candidacy of Mr. Noble and in September 2007 sent a formal letter to the Board and the Superintendent. They responded in October 2007 through legal counsel expressing that Washington State law prevailed and essentially dismissed the validity of all board policies.

I then contacted the State Auditor who immediately added the issue to their list of audit issues for January 2008. When the State Auditor concluded their annual evaluation, they specifically directed the school district to follow board policies or revise them. The direction was included in their Exit Conference dated April 23, 2008.

In September 2008, the school board took action to revise board policies allowing conflicts of interest to occur. While the Board is well within their rights to modify or revise their policies, it does not change the fact that Mr. Noble was ineligible at the time of his "re-election".

On October 6th, 2008, two weeks after the board policy was revised, the State Auditor contacted me and suggested that I take up the matter with the County Auditor. That is the purpose of this letter.

I am concerned that the Board blatantly disregarded their own policies in allowing Mr. Noble to seek re-election when he was an ineligible candidate already.

The revised policy makes it possible for Mr. Noble to run for the position during the next election cycle, but his current status is in question.

I am gravely concerned about the many highly-qualified people that did not run for the board position because board policy prevented it. I am also concerned about the other candidates that expended personal funds to contest the election against an ineligible candidate.

Perhaps I am mistaken to believe that rules mean something, but when so many other people disqualified themselves in reading board policies, how can we allow an ineligible candidate to serve on the Board.

Again, changing the rules in September 2008 makes him an eligible candidate from that day forward but it does nothing to correct the injustice of an unfair election.

I seek corrective action from the County Auditor, as recommended by the State Auditor. The election of Gary Noble needs to be reversed and the options, in my humble opinion, include the following; 1. declare the election of Gary Noble invalid and declare the position vacant pending the next election cycle in 2009, or 2. declare the other candidate as the successful contender and move to have him seated immediately.

It warrants mentioning that the recent revision passed by the Board prevents the appointment of any replacement. All future board members must be elected.

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Four days later...

[Mark Zandberg]

One small point of clarification. When the Board voted to revise their policies on September 23, 2008, allowing future conflicts to occur, Mr. Noble abstained from voting. The reason he abstained is because voting to allow his current conflict would have been a conflict.

Clearly, Mr. Noble is fully aware that his status violated board policy prior to the election of November 2007 and continues to be in violation - despite the recent revision.

The State Auditor and the Attorney General's Office have reviewed this issue and have recommended that I take the matter up with the County Auditor. If you prefer to take no action, I would like to know as soon as possible.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

[Carolyn Weikel]

Thank you for your e-mail regarding your concern over some of the actions by the Edmonds School Board. I would be interested in having a copy of the state Auditor's findings to try and determine why they would refer you to the County Auditor for corrective action. There is no statutory authority delegated to the County Auditor to invalidate a candidate and to declare a position vacant. There are statutory procedures to challenge a candidate's eligibility but there are specific timelines associated with that process which have currently all expired. In addition, any challenge to a voter's or candidate's eligibility based on residency must be initiated by a registered voter or by the Prosecuting Attorney not the County Auditor. If Mr. Noble was in violation of any school board policy that issue needs to be addressed directly with the school board not this office. If you wish to continue to pursue this action the only possible avenue I can think of would be to file a recall petition. (RCW 29A.56)

[Mark Zandberg]

It would appear that you agree with the District's legal counsel, that school board policies do not actually mean anything.

A recall petition is not a viable option. I am not seeking to remove a legitimately elected member of the school board.

Attached is the letter from the State Auditor's representative.

Fun Factoid: The State Auditor notified the Board of Mr. Noble's lack of eligibility on April 23, 2008 and directed them to adhere to existing policies or revise them, but the State Auditor waited until two weeks after the revisions were adopted to respond to my concerns in writing. The County Auditor is now saying that violations of board policy must be "addressed directly with the school board, not [the County Auditor's] Office."

Gary Noble should immediately resign.

The residents of the Edmonds School District deserve to know why Board Policies 6810 and 1260 are being revised.

Board Policy 6810 currently states that,
"No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse or dependent child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent."

Board Policy 1260 currently states that,
"No member of the Board, or any spouse or dependent relative of such member, shall receive or accept any compensation or reward for services rendered to the District."

Gary Noble is married to Kay Noble, a teacher at Lynnwood High School. Such a relationship eliminates any sense of objectivity in making critical decisions, like building a brand new Lynnwood High School in Bothell.

Despite Susan Paine's claim of "seven or eight months", the Edmonds School District was officially notified of Gary Noble violating board policies on September 26, 2007. Well before the election in November of 2007.

The Edmonds School District's legal counsel responded to my concerns on October 4, 2007, essentially offering nothing more than a smoke screen as a delay tactic to allow Gary Noble to successfully be re-elected.

Marla Miller made a claim during the last board meeting that these changes were merely "housecleaning" and were the result of a recommendation from the State Auditor. However, I lodged the complaint with the State Auditor after the District ignored my concerns. The State Auditor and Attorney General weighed in after reading the current board policies and agreed with my position.

Unfortunately, Gary Noble was ineligible to seek re-election and committed election fraud when he filed as a candidate. Gary Noble swore to uphold board policies and conveniently disregarded the very policy that rendered him ineligible.

The Board Action scheduled for next session proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Board was fully aware of Gary Noble's ineligibility and now seeks to conceal this obvious miscarriage of our electoral process. Unfortunately, the other candidate in the last election, never had a chance to mount a meaningful opposition when the Board was blatantly working to protect Gary Noble's status as a member of the school board.

Gary Noble might be a nice person and he might be a respectable member of our community, but it doesn't change the fact that at the time of the election in November of 2007, Gary Noble was ineligible. If he started an election campaign under the newly-revised policies, he would be in compliance, but unfortunately, the last election was undermined by fraud.

Gary Noble should do the honorable thing and immediately resign his position and allow the community to start the process of rebuilding what was once a respectable school board. Refusal to do the honorable thing will force this community to take the necessary steps to remove Gary Noble from office - and it won't be a recall election because Gary Noble was never legitimately re-elected in November of 2007.

Revisions prove Noble cheated to stay on the Board.

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.

Often a noble face hides filthy ways.

There was a time, not long ago, when the moderator of this blog was the only one reading board policies. It was September 26, 2007 when we first drew attention to the fact that Board Policy 1260 posed a problem for Gary Noble. It was September 27, 2007 when we described just how much influence Kay Noble had on important decisions like building a new Lynnwood High School.

On October 4, 2007 the District's legal team drafted a rebuttal to the claims this blog was making. In fact, it was Duncan Fobes who specifically stated "the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Noble falls squarely within an exception under Washington State law".

On October 7, 2007 the blog raised the question regarding Board Policy 6810 that states, "No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse or dependent child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent."

On April 23, 2008 State Auditor completed their evaluation of the blog's assertions and agreed with our position, specifically recommending that "the most stringent policy be followed or policies be revised".

My question now is, if the District's legal team clearly demonstrated that the relationship between the Nobles fell "squarely within an exception under Washington State law", why would there be a need to revise board policies?

Blog: For themselves. By themselves.

Board will revise policies to allow Conflict of Interest.

For those of you wondering just how low the Edmonds School District will stoop to accommodate the needs of their friends, just peruse the agenda for the school board meeting on September 9th. The Board seeks to revise board policies to allow clear conflicts of interest to occur.

Such action clearly demonstrates where the District's priorities lie - not with students, not with the community, but solely with Gary and Kay Noble. The Noble School District would be more appropriate and actually has a nice ring to it.

I find it bewildering as to how leadership can assemble a crowd of four real estate agents to discuss the District's rapidly eroding image in the community and just a short time later seek to change the rules so their friends can stay in their positions of power.

There isn't an image problem. The image is a realistic depiction of actual conditions. The reputation of the Edmonds School District stinks and every whiff has been earned.

Blog: Unfortunately, Gary Noble was in violation of Board Policies when he sought re-election in 2007 and, like his former counterpart Bruce Williams, committed election fraud when he filed as a candidate.

We have English teachers to make it all very clear.

Welcome!

Ms. Kay Noble
ELL (English Language Learner) Teacher
Room 58
425-431-5304
NobleK@edmonds.wednet.edu
Lynnwood High School

This webpage will give you information to help you succeed in my classes. You'll find my email address and my phone number above. Please contact me if you need help. I am available during tutorial every morning in my classroom and after school by appointment.

I've also included a link to Skyward so you can check your grades frequently. If you need your login/password, please check with your Advisory teacher or the Counseling secretary.

I want to help you succeed at Lynnwood High School!

Ms. Noble

As an ELL Teacher, the casual observer may be of the opinion that you have a highly-developed ability to articulate the meaning of statements made in English. Please help our readers understand the following statements:

1. No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse or dependent child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent. [Board Policy 6810]

2. We recommend that the most stringent policy be followed or policies be revised. [State Auditor's Exit Conference with the District on April 23, 2008]

3. Please explain the difference between "Termination of Employment" and "Leave of Absence".

Teachers that work with small children sometimes adopt the speaking patterns that best support the process of being understood. Such teachers are easy to point out at social gatherings because their rhythm of communication is terribly deliberate and the manner in which they pronounce even simple words can make others cringe.

Perhaps the same can be said of teachers that work with non-native English speakers. Such a teacher might just adopt a perspective that leaves her convinced that no one understands English quite like she does. Mildly complicated expressions like "Conflict of Interest" may be viewed as inexplicable in this teacher's world. Even lawyers have taken a crack at explaining the concept and have failed to adequately do so.

Thank goodness we have English teachers to make it all very clear.

Reader struggles to make sense of facts.

If you are truly interested in uncovering unlawful or unethical actions, why can't you be factual in your reporting. The information posted conflicts with your statement about Gary Noble. The only facts I see in the "Board Policies: Conflict of Interest" is they identified a conflict between the two policies. One policy prohibits employment of Board member spouses and the other allows exemptions as prescribed by law. Where does it say "The State Auditor "recommends" that either Gary Noble resign or that Board Policies be revised to allow this conflict of interest to occur."

I am sorry. I should have been clearer. Kay Noble could resign. It would have to be a resignation since a “Leave of Absence” does not constitute termination of service. With a leave of absence, she would technically still be an employee.

As for the Conflict of Interest issue, one board policy says that employees cannot be the spouse or dependent of a board member (BP 6810) while the other essentially states that board members (or spouse/dependents) cannot be employed by companies doing business with the District (BP 1260). While I fail to see the conflict between the two policies, it is clear when the Auditor decided to over-simplify and side-step the real issue, he actually made matters worse for the Nobles. The more “stringent” policy would be to eliminate Kay Noble’s employment or Gary Noble's status as Board Member.

If you are going to be some advocate, quit misrespresenting the facts. Most of what you report is taken out of context and doesn't report all the facts, which does nothing but undermine your creditability. Sure the office was redesigned and it cost ten thousand dollars, but you didn't report the rest of the facts, such as the decision and contract to revise the cubicles was made prior to the decision to combine 2 manager jobs. The staff reporting to the new warehouse manager asked to be moved to the warehouse after the fact. You didn't report the cost savings the district will incurr by combining the warehouse manager position with another manager position. You only choose to report what serves your vindictve motives.

I am guessing you mean “office” in the global departmental sense, because seven cubicles were reconfigured for $11,000.00. No hard walled offices were modified during the departmental reconfiguration.

I agree that by eliminating a Warehouse Manager, the District saved the value of his salary and the potential damage from the problems that were brewing. It was a wise move by the District. However, when the Custodial Manager assumed responsibility for the Warehouse was it really necessary to relocate Custodial Services? I suspect if you knew what you were talking about and actually spoke to the people involved in the move, you would find the real motive for their relocation.

As for “creditability”, I am not seeking validation from the blind allies of district administration. The 123,000 page views, averaging nearly 10,000 a month is validation enough.

Have you ever reported that the infamous property the District purchased did was tested several times and found not to have hazardous waste present. No I didn't think so.

The blog mentions a few test pits, but since the site was an informal public dump, the test pits were too few in number and not effectively placed to serve the interests of the public. Have you read the volumes of reports generated by Raskin’s consultants? Have you reviewed the reasons why the District rejected this site twice before? I have confidence in the blog and so do many others.

You write as if you are so pure. Fact is you used confidential information you gained as the property manager for ESD to write a letter to the editor as a private citizen and then got upset when the district tried to reign you in. Grow up and taking your consences like any 5 year old would.

What “confidential” information are you referring to? Assuming there was confidential information, just how long are public processes supposed to be kept from the public? The property transaction was completed long before my letter was ever submitted to the Beacon. Besides, the Letter to the Editor has nothing to do with the blog. The blog is about public accountability, not reigning in staff or shutting them down.

What is a “consences” and why would a five year old take them?

I agree with holding public officials accountable, but I also believe in honest, factual reporting. I don't believe in selective fact reporting to misrepsresnt the truth of the matter.

Selective reporting is precisely what the District has been doing for years and they have been doing it so effectively, they clearly have you convinced. The blog offers an opposing view. Accept or reject it, at least you have been exposed and can decide what to believe based upon your ability to process information.

I won't leave my name, because Lord knows you would just manipulate that and be even more vindictive.

That would be a District tactic and not one supported by the blog. I appreciate your perspective and you have my respect for speaking out. I would not target you for expressing your views nor do I expect to be targeted for expressing mine.

A concerned citizen.

"Exit Items" reveal that Gary Noble must go.

There was an Exit Conference on April 23, 2008, where the Edmonds School District was notified of the following Exit Items. Among them is the issue regarding Gary Noble and his status on the Board.

The State Auditor "recommends" that either Gary Noble resign or that Board Policies be revised to allow this conflict of interest to occur.

Exit Items

General Disbursements - Segregation of Duties

The system where purchase requisitions and purchase orders are created (WESPAC) allows an individual with Level 2 Authority to both create and approve purchase orders. Additionally, those with the ability to approve may edit a Purchase Order created by another individual and approve the purchase order without a second level of review.

We recommend additional controls be implemented to create a segregation of duties between who creates and approves a purchase order.

Procurement Card Procedures

Credit card reconciliations and supporting documentation are not all reviewed by each employee's supervisor prior to payment, as required by District policy. The District's policy does not outline the maximum amount for meal expenses while an employee is in travel status, nor are there guidelines regarding maximum meal expenses allowed. Finally, online procedures do not always agree with the procedures in practice.

We recommend that each employee's supervisor review supporting documentation such as invoices, receipts and credit card statements and sign the credit card reconciliation before payment. We recommend that the District implement a policy outlining maximum amounts for meal expenses while in travel status and that the estimated meal expense is included on the B-100 Travel Authorization. We also recommend that procedures be followed or revised.

Board Policies: Conflict of Interest

Board Policies 6810 and 1260 conflict with each other. Policy 6810 allows no person to be employed by the District if they are a spouse of a Board Member while 1260 allows for exceptions as prescribed by law.

We recommend that the most stringent policy be followed or policies be revised.

Enrollment

The District is not correctly calculating FTE based on minutes of instruction and passing time, but is currently in the process of addressing the issue.

State Auditor stumped with simple change of name.

July 8, 2008

Brian Sonntag
sonntagb@sao.wa.gov

Dear Mr. Sonntag,

Thank you for your recent response to a concerned member of our community. Your response was forwarded to me for an opinion. While I have already weighed in on the strength of your other responses, your response regarding space rentals and Mr. and Mrs. Noble is shocking. To think that the Washington State Auditor is prepared to hang his hat on such a feeble set of arguments is baffling.

Space Rental

Clearly you have lost your mind. The organization that you claim "disbanded prior to 2007" merely changed their name from "Powerful Partners" to "Powerful Tutors". They have the same staff, the same space in the administration building and continue to use the name "Powerful Partners" when they require name recognition - like when they endorsed the District's Tech Replacement Levy late last year. [Bottom right corner of page 2]

By your reasoning, it would be appropriate for criminals to legally change their name and have all prior criminal activity instantly vanish. If our county prosecutors used this approach to combating crime our prisons and jails would be empty. Who would have guessed that the bookkeeper that pilfered funds right under your nose for years could have just walked to the courthouse next door, paid $65 and avoided spending thirteen months in prison?

Additionally, you have been making recommendations to the District to refine their monitoring of facility rentals and leases for years. Your guidance is clearly landing on deaf ears, or perhaps no one takes your audits seriously. Based upon the strength of your findings, it is likely the latter.

Board Policy Violation

First, "It is the policy of the Edmonds School District that non member of the Board" should read "no member of the Board".

Second, your interpretation of the referenced RCW opens a larger issue that needs to be explained. Can a school district adopt board policies that are inconsistent with state law? Can a school district adopt policies that are more restrictive in an effort to remove any possibility of future conflicts of interest? Can a school district adopt policies that seek to create and maintain an elevated standard?

Your argument weakens the quality of elected school boards across the State of Washington, when clearly it was the intent of the voters in the Edmonds School District to remove any possibility of the corruption that may routinely occur elsewhere in the State.

Furthermore, Board Policy 1260 has nothing to do with Board Policy 6810. Board Policy 1260 pertains to contractual work performed for the District where a board member may be affiliated in a non-salaried capacity. Meaning, the board member cannot receive any financial benefit from any business transaction between an employer and the District - unless this relationship is specifically disclosed and recorded in board minutes. The policy essentially sought to exclude conflicts between board members (spouses and dependents included) and entities providing services to the District.

In case the Conflict of Interest provisions were not entirely clear in Board Policy 1260, earlier, more enlightened boards specifically called out a circumstance that would be a clear conflict. It is contained in Board Policy 6810 and reinforces the conflict described in Board Policy 1260. The inconsistency is not between Board Policy 1260 and Board Policy 6810 but rather between these board policies and the conduct of this board.

So, now the Edmonds School District will revise board policies to specifically allow clear conflicts of interest to exist. Would such a revision be in the best interest of the public?

Board minutes have also reflected the Board's intention to revise policies contained in the 1000 series, when in actuality; any revisions in that series would be meaningless without altering the intent of Board Policy 6810. Maybe this board intends to eternally postpone any action on Series 1000 until Gary and Kay Noble have milked every conceivable advantage in maintaining this conflict.
[Discussion Topic 1 on Page 2 of the Board Agenda]

I look forward to your response to the many other concerns I have forwarded.

Sincerely,

Mark Zandberg

Spinach, pet food, beef and board members.

There is an alternative to waiting for the next election cycle: RECALL. It is a provision allowed in a democratic society. It's sorta like impeaching a federal official, but it's a tool reserved for the PEOPLE to make mid-course corrections in their local elective officials.

Choose the two or three most vulnerable board members and begin a recall campaign to remove them from office. Local papers would HAVE to report the movement; it is news, after all. With the recall campaign in the minds of the public, there would be a better opportunity to raise these ethical, if not criminal, missteps and affect change.

Thank you for the suggestion.

RCW 29A.56.110
Initiating proceedings — Statement — Contents — Verification — Definitions.
Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based. For the purposes of this chapter:
(1) "Misfeasance" or "malfeasance" in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;
(a) Additionally, "misfeasance" in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and
(b) Additionally, "malfeasance" in office means the commission of an unlawful act;
(2) "Violation of the oath of office" means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.

RCW 29A.56.120
Petition — Where filed.
Any person making a charge shall file it with the elections officer whose duty it is to receive and file a declaration of candidacy for the office concerning the incumbent of which the recall is to be demanded. The officer with whom the charge is filed shall promptly (1) serve a copy of the charge upon the officer whose recall is demanded, and (2) certify and transmit the charge to the preparer of the ballot synopsis provided in RCW 29A.56.130. The manner of service shall be the same as for the commencement of a civil action in superior court.

RCW 29A.56.130
Ballot synopsis.
(1) Within fifteen days after receiving a charge, the officer specified below shall formulate a ballot synopsis of the charge of not more than two hundred words.
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, if the recall is demanded of an elected public officer whose political jurisdiction encompasses an area in more than one county, the attorney general shall be the preparer, except if the recall is demanded of the attorney general, the chief justice of the supreme court shall be the preparer.
(b) If the recall is demanded of an elected public officer whose political jurisdiction lies wholly in one county, or if the recall is demanded of an elected public officer of a district whose jurisdiction encompasses more than one county but whose declaration of candidacy is filed with a county auditor in one of the counties, the prosecuting attorney of that county shall be the preparer, except that if the prosecuting attorney is the officer whose recall is demanded, the attorney general shall be the preparer.
(2) The synopsis shall set forth the name of the person charged, the title of the office, and a concise statement of the elements of the charge. Upon completion of the ballot synopsis, the preparer shall certify and transmit the exact language of the ballot synopsis to the persons filing the charge and the officer subject to recall. The preparer shall additionally certify and transmit the charges and the ballot synopsis to the superior court of the county in which the officer subject to recall resides and shall petition the superior court to approve the synopsis and to determine the sufficiency of the charges.

I will discuss this with the blog's legal counsel.

One hundred and forty-four days of blogging.

Gary and Kay Noble
While Gary sits on the board, his wife works at Lynnwood High School. This is in clear violation of board policy, despite legal counsel's rendering of the English language.

Pat Shields
Using influence to secure free rent for one of his pet projects, Pat is in violation of board policies and has no apparent ethical issue with taking public resources. Maybe I should ask about the funding for Powerful Partners' employee.

Bruce Williams
Arguably committed election fraud by relocating prior to an election. His violation of board policies prompted his resignation on September 11, 2007.

New Administration Site
Despite claims to the contrary, the new site is contaminated. If it wasn't, the District should have purchased it in 1991 when it was shockingly more affordable.

Appraisals
Many are left to question why the District chose to ignore their own appraisal and pay every penny of the seller's appraisal for a site that will cost a significant amount of money to remediate. At the per square foot Raskin was citing, the District should have sold their site to him.

Capital Partnerships
These widely-popular projects have moved to the Capital Projects Office, where management fees will mean a reduction in scope for every future partnership project.

Seattle Piano Gallery
A questionable deal appears to have left the District paying a lot of money for just four pianos. A request has been made for a copy of the $76,121.10 check that may bring the deal back to reality. Seattle Piano Gallery's owner appears to be filing for bankruptcy.

Letters of Direction
When you get one, and its only a matter of time, they apparently don't mean anything and shouldn't be taken literally. If a few short email messages diffuse the intent of a Letter of Direction, why hand them out in the first place?

Post-Resignation Conduct
Apparently, employees can never get out from under the District's thumb. Once you accept a paycheck, the District views you as owned property and unable to have an independent thought upon departing.

Don't make copies of checks
The District claims they don't retain copies of checks. This would be directly contrary to past practices for more than a decade. The tax-paying public would appreciate the retention of copies, and at ten cents per copy, it makes financial sense.

Cities do not honor Inter-Local Agreements
I have yet to receive any proof that payment has been made to support Terrace Park or Cedar Valley gym expansions. I know the District has asked for payment, but no doubt it was over turned on appeal.

Capital Facilities Plan
The board apparently doesn't read everything it adopts. The 2004-2009 CFP clearly demonstrated that student enrollment was trending downward and yet no one bothered to use the CFP when planning on financial support from the state.

Attendance Incentive Program
This program doesn't mean anything. If you show up for work every day and accumulate vacation at a greater than average rate, expect to lose everything over 30 when you leave.

Superintendent does not accept anonymous comments
And yet endorses the Auditor's use of anonymous comments to help guide the District in becoming a more efficient agency.

There are no cubicle standards in the ESC
Once upon a time, cubicles were kept at a minimum standard for the comfort and operational requirements of their occupants. Now, anyone can move high walls next to windows and cast shadows over their co-workers.

ESD15.org is not a district domain
The District thought if they camped in my yard for a few nights, they could lay claim to my house. I should have charged a tent fee.

Letter to Rob McKenna, Attorney General

rob.mckenna@atg.wa.gov

Dear Attorney General McKenna,

There is an utter disregard for the rule of law brewing in the Edmonds School District. Prior to September 11, 2007, a majority of the District's board members were in direct violation of their own policies and ineligible to hold the seats they were occupying. The following is a snapshot of these board members.

1. Bruce Williams relocated from his director district prior to an election that he subsequently won. The District's superintendent rallied to support his presence on the board by citing WASDA guidelines and recommendations but was ultimately unable to prevent Mr. Williams from doing the right thing and resigning. He resigned on September 11th.

2. Gary Noble serves on the board while his wife is an employee at Lynnwood High School. While the Superintendent has cited numerous RCWs describing how this might be permissible, District policy explicitly prevents such a conflict from arising by offering two specific policies, Board Policy 1260 and Board Policy 6810. The board, under Mr. Noble, is relocating and rebuilding Lynnwood High School without the support of demographic trends and student enrollment. While the outcome may be debatable, his conflict of interest is undeniable.

3. Pat Shields serves on the board while his "non-profit" program, "Powerful Partners" receives free rent in the District's administration building. This is happening despite a signed and notarized use agreement declaring their commitment to pay for their portion of the District's operating expenses. The agreement already discounts the rental rate because they are a non-profit program, and yet they have refused to pay for more than five years. This is a gift of public funds and a violation of board ethics, as described in Board Policy 1260, Board Policy 1270 and Board Policy 9200.

In light of these clear violations of Board Policy and this Board's inability or reluctance to enforce their own policies, I humbly request remediation by the Office of the Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Taxpayer & Voter
Edmonds School District

Weakening standards is not a strategy for success.

I just received the District's response to my request for their interpretation of the English language. Wow, they really have no regard for anyone but themselves. Here is essentially what is happening, in the form of an analogy they might understand.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith insist that their child receive the best education possible and have relocated to the Edmonds School District because they were convinced of higher standards. Unfortunately, after the Smiths relocated, the teaching staff decided to degrade the curriculum and stop challenging students. All those pesky questions from academically-stimulated children were just creating stress among the teachers and state standards were far easier to achieve.

Essentially, voters decided to elevate the standard of district policies to a higher level than dictated by state law by electing thoughtful board members years ago. They found the wisdom in making sure the Edmonds School District continues to churn out the region's most academically-gifted students and thought they were accomplishing this by demanding the highest quality board members. Regrettably, it is clear that this particular board just wants to meet weaker, all-accommodating state standards and not the standard they agreed to uphold.

I thought the Edmonds School District was better than rock bottom. Apparently, this board is happy to wallow among the weakest in the state.