Promised a U-Village. Delivered a Big Box.

Athletic fields
Rhonda Hampson stated she was unhappy the fields are gone. They are not gone.
They moved to 184th and North road in Bothell at the New Lynnwood High School. Please get your facts straight before printing these articles. The school district put exactly what they had at the old site at the new site. Also, I have children who have graduated and two who are still at LHS. This is a wonderful plan and my kids are safe in a new building.
The school district gets money for 50 years for other building sites and we as tax payers don't have to come up with funds
for upkeep and new buildings. Yeah for us all. Get over the change, it's a win, win.

Carrie McAfee

Community Resource Lost
Carrie McAfee's assertion that this community resource was not lost, but rather just relocated is absurd. Sure, she isn't complaining because they moved this community resource to Bothell, just a couple of blocks from her house.

Please enlighten us as to whether the City of Lynnwood will be managing the fields or will that task fall upon the District's Athletic Department - now managed by someone with zero experience in athletics.

The real loss to the community is not in a patch of Field Turf or the adjacent grass but rather the deception inflicted upon the community by Marla Miller and her board of puppets that sold us a University Village and delivered a severely under-utilized plot with yet another "big box".

Marla's legacy will forever be remembered with this new and unexciting development, "Miller's Double Crossing".

Manufactured Demand

Ground lease is for 99 years
Carrie,

Get it right. The ground lease is for 99 years and if you believe the District will ask us for less than you probably believe what flows out of Brossoit's mouth.

The contaminated lot that was purchased for $5.8 million from a shmuck that bought it four years earlier for $900,000 is the site to watch. The District re-graded the site for millions and now it just sits there, waiting for another handout from the taxpayers.

Where is the New Scriber Lake High School? Where is the ground lease for the transportation center next to the mall? What is happening with the site across from the Lynnwood Convention Center? The District is just waiting for the right set of circumstances for their friends and political allies to financially flog us.

We need competent leadership, not a board of like-minded do nothings, easily hypnotized by the rhythmic sway of Marla's kooky hair.

Manufactured Demand

Talking to Manufactured demand
To Manufactured Demand, You are so insecure about your thoughts that you don't even use your own name. I said 50 years because have you ever seen a building last more than 50 years? They build the big box stores cheep. Then we will be watching them change the idea of what to do on that site. I do know that the school district used the 99 year term as an end date to buy it back. The next thing I would like to address is the new LHS is near my house. But it is also near the old LHS site around 3 miles east. That being said you must know me manufactured demand because I did not say where I lived in my article. Lets talk about Marla Miller, she works her butt off for us. Our district is better off than most in our area. So get off your high horse and help out at the citizens planning committee. Where you will see that the Scriber Lake High school is temporarily at the old Woodway Sr. High. Then it will be moved to the building next to Edmonds Community College when the new site for the bus barn is ready and the district offices move to that site at the Old Cedar Valley Elem. It's a great plan to use what we have and to make sure we keep the district in the black. Then you stated the site across from the Convention center... that site was set to be a high rise and the city of Lynnwood held that construction up. The school district does not get the final say in our choice of what goes on to each piece of property we are trying to get rid of. I also want to tell you that the City of Lynnwood has the last say in what they do or do not do with fields they may or may not maintain. Look at their budget and show us where they have money to do these types of things. LHS is gorgeous and the fields are sitting there under the snow waiting for our use. Last you are just negative. Dr. Brossoit is a great asset to our school. If you helped out instead of just bitched you would see that.

Carrie McAfee

Carrie McAfee...
Why would the District "buy back" their own site?

As for a building lasting more than 50 years, have you ever been to Seattle or any urban area for that matter?

The New Lynnwood High School is not even in Lynnwood. It isn't only about distance but also about jurisdiction.

Marla Miller is a criminal and you are blind.

So, Scriber will move from Former Woodway High School to the current Administration site when the Transportation site leaves the Alderwood Mall area and into the contaminated site? Would that be before or after the District seeks another construction bond from the public?

New Lynnwood High School was designed by architects for no other real purpose than to impress simple minds and fatten the resume of the architectural firm. That school should have been more utilitarian. Gee, I wonder if you have even looked at their utility bills.

And as for serving on the CPC, I refuse to be part of the problem. You are obviously blinded by the self-obsessed. The Board is a band of fools, Brossoit is a monkey whose greatest accomplishment to date was to outshine Ken Limon and Ellen Kahan in his interview with the Board (see above).

As for Marla, she has been steering district money to friends for years and has zero business sense. I suggest you read a little more - start with that blog site written by one of Marla's former pawns (esd15.org).

Time will catch up with Marla. Her day is coming.

Manufactured Demand

Is anyone surprised that print media is failing?

For readers of the blog that are tracking all of the clear evidence illustrating the close ties between this local rag and the District, here is a rather vivid case in point.

-----Original Message-----
From: mark@esd15.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:48 AM
To: Jocelyn Robinson; Eric Stevick
Subject: Questions for Candidates

I was just informed that the Enterprise published a Q and A article regarding the candidates for Edmonds School Board. I was also informed that you have no information from me and that I "did not respond".

May I ask just how exactly you attempted to contact me because no one has ever had any difficulty in doing so? Is this fair and effective journalism for our community?

While it is true that I was in Ethiopia for the month of September, my calls and email were monitored every day and I was still responding to every inquiry - even from Addis Ababa.

At the very least, all of my biographical information and my views on every issue imaginable are freely available on the internet.

Mark Zandberg

Hi Mark,

We sent the letters and questions through the mail to the addresses listed on the Snohomish County auditor's website.

I've attached the questions we sent to Edmonds School District candidates. If you can get these back to me by Monday, Oct. 26, I can include them online. I can't guarantee that we'll be able to publish the entire answers in the newspaper, but we will at least include a referral to the website.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Jocelyn Robinson
Enterprise News Editor
425-673-6504
jrobinson@heraldnet.com

I returned from Ethiopia on October 3, 2009, the day after the Public Forum hosted by the City of Edmonds. There was nothing in the mailbox from the Enterprise and no telephone messages or email from anyone at the Enterprise. There was nothing ever mailed to me from the Enterprise to the address where I was living at the time I filed as a candidate, nor was anything from the Enterprise forwarded to my address in Edmonds.

Clearly, the Enterprise felt it would be beneficial to allow Ann McMurray and Susan Phillips to get their messages out in their small newspaper while maintaining the illusion that they were being fair and effective.

What newspaper, in this day and age, sends questions out in snail mail? One could naturally assume that if something was mailed to a candidate, the responses could be mailed back. The "journalist" (and I use the term loosely here) would then have to have the questions and answers typed up. Why not send the questions by email? After all, our email addresses were included with our physical addresses when we filed as candidates. And of course, any real journalist wouldn't have any difficulty finding contact information for the moderator of a blog with more than 400,000 page views.

Why wouldn't this "journalist" follow up with a telephone call or an email? "Gee, I noticed that you did not respond to the letter that I mailed. Did you ever receive it?" Of course, I cannot respond to a letter that was never mailed.

What is funny is that after I "complained", I was given an opportunity to respond but not given any real chance to appear in print. There was a notation at the bottom of their web article stating that my responses were submitted after the original article was published. As if to suggest that I would copy the written work of the other candidates (assuming they actually wrote their own statements).

Is anyone actually surprised that print media is failing?

This community needs a proactive school board.

The most efficient way to cover the long list of material covered on this blog is to read the "Summary" section and then drill down to individual topics for greater detail. You can get to the "Summary" page by clicking right here or by clicking on the word "Summary" in the margin to the right.

While I can appreciate there are a lot of topics covered here, the overall trend clearly demonstrates that our current school board cannot provide the oversight they have been elected (or appointed) to provide. They may collectively claim to be doing their best, but "their best" is not good enough.

It all comes down to whether this community wants a reactive board that lacks the tools and experience to resolve problems or a proactive board that has a history of recognizing problems before they happen and has the skill and resources to prevent the problems that plague us now.

With the long list of issues covered here, just imagine how much more effective district leadership can be with the right person asking the right questions at the right time. This community cannot afford more of the same.

Thank you for taking the time to read this blog and please remember to vote.

"He didn't disclose something confidential."

If you have been following my departure from the District, you may recall that Marla Miller and her minions were spewing the concept that I somehow violated the public trust by revealing something confidential about the Old Woodway Elementary transaction.

For those of you who still cling to the statements made by questionably-motivated managers, please review the following, simple facts.

Before the Old Woodway Elementary site was sold, it was advertised in the Herald as being a surplus site and it was marketed to developers in its entirety. That means, it was made available for purchase as a complete site of 11.2 acres. The fact that such a declaration was made in the Herald (albeit just once, not the legally-required twice) and that the site was advertised to developers as 11.2 acres means that no portion of the site was obligated to anyone and certainly not the City of Edmonds. Making such a declaration in a Letter to the Editor was just restating publicly-known facts. If any portion of the site had been committed to anyone else, then the entire site would not have been available to developers.

For those of you who still choose to cling to the statements made by Marla Miller, I advise that you read her own words here in this transcript of her own words and approved by her lawyers. Line 14 on Page 141. The rest of her transcript will be posted later.

So, why would Marla Miller, Nick Brossoit and the Board take action to constructively terminate a highly-praised employee? Clearly they wanted to silence the only voice of reason in a real estate transaction that was far more complicated than it needed to be and that resulted in millions of dollars lost for the District. Remember that the Old Woodway Elementary transaction happened right on the heels of the District's purchase of the contaminated site - a site purchased without the Board-mandated Site Acquisition Committee.

I say again, since I have said it numerous times before, Marla was gravely concerned that the manner in which district funds were being squandered, through poorly-crafted real estate transactions, would deeply upset the community. What she failed to understand is that our community doesn't have the time or energy to study the issues that come before our school board. That is precisely why we elect board members who create and maintain board policies. Our community believes that their elected board members understand the consequences of their decisions. Unfortunately, the current board is not capable of the oversight they have been elected to provide. Susan Phillips may "pledge to do [her] best for our students and District" but, quite frankly, her best is not good enough.

Change is needed on the Board. In electing even one board member that has the intellectual capacity to articulate consequences before they happen, never again can our school board claim to be uninformed or refuse to accurately assess circumstances before they devour us. One voice of reason would be a great start to a total board transformation that must happen sooner rather than later... for the sake of our children.

Blog: Photo acquired through flickr and pfly.

District will meddle in school board election

For those of you that may think our electoral process is free and impartial, let me caution you now. We have only to look at the record to see just how far the District is willing to go to protect their own.

It is only through having an unengaged crop of board members that management can force through poor property decisions and illegal procurement practices.

Bruce Williams
Shortly after Bruce was compelled to leave his home through the filing of a restraining order, the Superintendent contacted me to have Bruce's director district redrawn. The intent was to have a rather elongated portion of Director District 4 reach across Director District 1 and include the apartment on Edmonds Way where Bruce Williams was living at the time. Of course, I knew it was sheer lunacy and didn't even pursue the matter, and in the process tell the world we are a collection of fools.

Nick Brossoit even expended considerable effort researching WSSDA recommendations as to the validity of Bruce Williams' status - not that WSSDA governs anything or has any influence in the manner in which the District is held accountable to its voters. Clearly, Nick was prepared to chase the issue to the end of the earth to save Bruce from a premature departure from the Board.

Gary Noble
The matter surrounding Gary Noble was made very clear to the Board and the Superintendent and yet they spent public money hiring attorneys to unsuccessfully reinterpret the English language. Board policies made it very clear that his occupation of a board seat was improper and his position as a board member was unauthorized under the terms of board policies.

This forum reported the issue to the State Auditor and the Board was directed to adhere to their policies or change them. The Board elected to change board policies to allow clear conflicts of interest to occur. They also went as far as to review all board policies so as to suggest to voters that the need for changing the restriction upon Gary Noble was something they discovered on their own.

Oddly, even though the Board had gone through a review of all board policies, they had missed the policy regarding the filing date for school board candidates - a point raised by this forum. The change was immediately adopted because it was characterized as an issue coming from a member of the public. Had it been revealed that the blog made the suggestion to revise the policy, there would probably be a flurry of legal briefs generated and untold fortunes spent on lawyers.

Pat Shields
The issue surrounding Pat Shields has more to do with his affiliation with Powerful Partners and the protection the program has been provided. Despite having signed a lease, Powerful Partners refused to honor their obligation to the tax-payers of this district. When the matter was brought to the attention of the State Auditor, Powerful Partners had mysteriously changed their name to Powerful Tutors, though still used their original name to endorse the District's ballot action.

The refusal of Powerful Partners to pay the rent was particularly painful since it had been happening for more than seven years and the District was in the process of redefining their facility use policy and seeking to pass along rental obligations to casual users of community facilities - particularly parent groups and fund-raising activities in support of district schools.

Susan Phillips
No one is saying that Susan Phillips is a bad person. On the contrary, her willingness to continue her involvement in the community should be applauded. Unfortunately, this district needs someone on the Board that cares about the financial stamina of our public schools. We need someone that knows what enrollment forecasting is all about. We need someone that knows a scheme when they see one. We need someone that knows how the District works from the inside. We need someone on the Board that isn't afraid to speak up for tax-payers and ensure that public funds are spent appropriately.

Unfortunately, that person is not Susan Phillips.

The District needs someone on the Board that understands facilities issues. We need someone on the Board that knows about the legal requirements of public procurement. We need someone on the Board that knows what a Capital Facilities Plan is and the impact such a document has on an operating budget. We need someone on the Board that is significantly more critical of how dollars are spent on education than a group of five people with an irrefutable belief that any money thrown in the direction of education is money well spent.

In times like these, we need to be a little more particular and much more targeted in our approach to funding.

Endorsements come with consequences.

At the risk of upsetting my numerous supporters, I must voice a word of caution to the Edmonds Education Association that invited me to speak for five minutes last week. In this current climate of illogical cuts to district programming, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to rock the boat and allow district management to view your association with anything other than a favorable eye. If such a group were to express any interest in endorsing a candidate who stands for the appropriate use of public funds, district management would likely become enraged.

The fact that current, sitting board members were allowed to sit in your audience demonstrates the Board's keen interest in knowing what your group is thinking. Surely they don't attend with a legitimate interest in understanding your issues but rather to detect opposition before it has an opportunity to form.

While it is true that I am a relative newcomer to the realm of politics and running for school board, my record for defending public funds is without question. A lot of the bad decisions made by district management were endorsed by this current board. Just take a few minutes and read about Gary Noble and how this board had no idea what their own policies required. Even the legal team they hired was completely in the dark. It was only after my concerns were expressed directly to the State Auditor that the Board "decided" to review all of their policies and make changes. But alas, they missed a big one.

Perhaps some of you may recall the most recent change to Board Policy 1235 on June 2, 2009. It clearly specified that the filing period for school board candidates was in July. After I called out the misinformation, the issue was taken up at the next board meeting and corrected immediately. It was a case of simple language and didn't threaten a board member's service to the community. What was mildly humorous is the manner in which the Board tried to characterize the change as something they discovered on their own.

Why wasn't the Noble conflict issue handled as quickly? Why did this board have to hire a team of lawyers to redefine terms and expressions in the English language? It merely proved that the district's lawyers will say anything for a fee and that this board was unable to understand the meaning of their own policies.

Rules were also violated when Bruce Williams filed as a candidate from an address where he was legally prevented from living. The blog pointed out this issue and it was resolved with his resignation.

The ubiquitous Piano Scam is another issue that came to light under the watchful gaze of this forum. It is further proof that this current board is unable to truly dissect a recommendation from staff before rubber stamping it. The District lost a pile of money and even the piano vendor himself described the entire transaction as a "scheme". Read the blog and see for yourself.

The many questionable decisions coming out of Human Resources also shows how detached the current board is from reality. If management was even remotely concerned about having their conduct challenged, they would take a little more time to cover their tracks or work a little harder to conceal misconduct. When there is no real oversight there is never any danger of seeing the consequences of getting caught.

There are many examples of misconduct by district management to be found on this blog. The fact that the current board is either unable or unwilling to hold management accountable clearly demonstrates how disconnected the Board is from the responsible use of public funds. This board would be well-served by having a more inquisitive mind among them - someone with the experience of seeing the misconduct of management from the other side.

I am not suggesting that every decision made by this Board is wrong, but I am suggesting that too much money is being wasted on the wrong choices at the cost of adequately funding the right ones.

I am not asking to be elected to the school board along with four like-minded friends. However, I am absolutely convinced that adding me to this current board would offer something more to the discussions behind closed doors.

Besides, Nick Brossoit keeps telling us that 70% of residents in this district don't have children that attend district schools. Why not have such a person on the Board? Why not have someone on the Board that just wants to see our schools become even better? Why not elect someone that just wants to make sure that public funds are spent wisely before asking the public to provide additional funding for new projects or buildings?

Ultimately, what the Edmonds Education Association chooses to do with their endorsement is their business. I certainly wouldn't want to see an important relationship suffer within the District. As a group you can endorse my opponent, but as individuals I would hope that you would vote differently - after a little research into what this district truly needs to get things back on track.

Voters will benefit from a televised debate.

susan4schools@gmail.com

June 7, 2009

Dear Susan,

With the recent filing of candidates, I noticed that only the two of us will be contesting the position for Director District 4. This being the case, I am writing to express hope for an open and honest dialogue regarding matters of importance to the Edmonds School District. In the spirit of such discussion, I would like to invite you to debate the issues facing our beloved district at a venue to be determined and moderated by a member of the media.

It is also my hope to obtain your consent to have the debate videotaped for broadcast on local television. Clearly, the voters of our community deserve to know where we stand on the issues. Not every voter may be familiar with our names or the positions we take on matters of great importance. It would be through a televised debate that our community can gain greater insight and develop a more meaningful opinion than just seeing our names on yard signs.

Please respond as soon as possible, as a facility will have to be arranged and a mutually-agreeable moderator will have to be coordinated.

Sincerely,

Mark Zandberg, Candidate
Director District 4, ESD15

Blogger remodeling to accommodate new tenant.

To reduce operating costs (general funds), I have elected to remodel my primary residence (capital funds) and then rent the house to a family that could more fruitfully utilize the 2,400 square feet of living space. The house is just way too big for two people that spend most of their time working anyway.

Of course, I would have loved to hire my favorite contractor two years ago, but since I was an employee with the District and met this contractor at that time, I wanted to make sure there wouldn't be anything inappropriate by hiring him. So I waited until now to start this project.

Remodeling a home kicks up a lot of dust and creates a lot of obstacles for a person having to get up at 5:00 AM to catch the train to work. So as to prevent any temptation with rolling up my sleeves after a 12 hour work day, jeopardizing my productivity at work, I have decided that the best path forward would be to leave the house and let the contractor take total control of the premises.

The project involves the relocation of walls, upgrading all plumbing, heating and electrical systems, the installation of an enhanced security system and running Cat5 cabling to all rooms on both floors. There is also a considerable amount of tiling and carpet to install. It is my hope and expectation to have all of the work completed by the end of summer.

Because it is my intention to rent out the house after the project is completed, I have taken up residence elsewhere in my community. That new residence happens to be in Director District 4.

To be very clear, the following points deserve to be mentioned.
1. My wife has never filed a restraining order against me.
2. I have never filed as a candidate for a school board position from a former address.
3. The "modernizing" going on at my former residence will be performed by a real contractor.

Blog: A special word of thanks to Nick Brossoit for doing a little research on this issue.

Governors are doing the best job they possibly can.

The blog is pleased to announce the receipt of another negative comment about the blog. Including this recent arrival, the grand total is now three.

you people are are seriously uninformed. What I see in these postings are comments filled with hate and spite. You really have NO idea what Madrona and Maplewood families deal with in their daily lives. I am sure I will get some hateful responses to my posting because that is what happens on this blog. First, get your information straight before you start trash talking about people you don't know. Secondly, name calling shows your ignorance. I won't be comming back to this blog. I don't need your kind of "bias" telling me that everyone who doesn't agree with you are "stupid"
Redmond, WA

Let's study this entry, one point at a time.

1. The writer appears to suggest that you people are seriously uninformed. This statement is in direct conflict with statements made by Nick Brossoit that the blog is a one man show. It may leave the impression with casual readers that more than a single person is at work here and that even this statement could not have been written by the same, single individual.

2. The reader suggests that these postings are filled with hate and spite. A statement such as this appears to suggest that the writer is a recent arrival to the blog, otherwise they would be well aware of the fact that we are a force for change and a conduit to enlighten the community as to what happens to public money when left in the hands of the misguided. It is more likely that suggesting the presence of hate and spite may provide new readers with a motivation to draw conclusions without reading more of the blog. It also appears to be indicative of a response to a recent topic, as opposed to a sweeping condemnation of the blog and its mission.

3. The writer is correct in assuming that I have NO idea what Madrona and Maplewood parents deal with in their daily lives... which is why this blog exists. Parents generally have a lot on their plates and cannot always dedicate the time and energy to perform an effective evaluation of the manner in which their school district is being managed and public funds are being wasted. For the record, it is also quite likely that I have NO idea as to what other parents at other schools deal with in their lives.

I am not sure what the writer is attempting the achieve by only mentioning Madrona and Maplewood. I am aware that the parent community at these schools is very vocal and incredibly active, but perhaps this has more to do with the amount of time they can afford to dedicate to their children's educational needs. Does this make such people better parents? Does this make their children more deserving of public resources? Again, I am not sure I see why mentioning two specific schools validates your argument. Are you suggesting that because parents deal with more important things in their lives they warrant greater protection and funding from the District?

4. No one affiliated with this one man show will respond hatefully to your comments. We always appreciate constructive comments. It is clear that the budget reductions are impacting your life as they are impacting the lives of everyone around you. People are being laid off, teachers are being let go, programs are being slashed, librarians at smaller schools are being threatened with reductions, kindergarten programs are in danger of being dismantled. We are all aware of the suffering in the District and this blog is a mechanism for positive change. We seek to illuminate the questionable calls that result in the senseless waste of public funds. Whether capital funds or general funds they are still public funds and should be spent with our children in mind.

5. If "straight information" is something you believe the blog is lacking, please provide it. We take every reasonable step to ensure that our information is correct. The blog receives innumerable accounts deemed unreliable and we don't publish any of those. For instance, yesterday there was a rumor floating around the District that the soon-to-be Executive Directors of Human Resources and Business Operations will each be taking a $25,000 a year pay cut when they move into their new titles. Unfortunately, this was determined to be nothing more than a rumor. Salaries are governed by contractual arrangements and though the impression may be left with others that pay reductions are forthcoming, it is more than likely a tactic to encourage other unions to accept reductions in pay and benefits. If someone is telling you that an administrator is reducing their own pay - believe it when you see it.

As far as talking about people I do not know, you should know, if you have been reading the blog, that I had been an employee of the Edmonds School District for more than six years. I know a lot of people and have seen many things that should have never happened.

6. I am not entirely sure if you are writing about the contents of our entries or something someone may have said in a comment to an entry. Either way, name calling is not the goal of the blog. Offering a position is what we are all about. Dissent in government is a good thing. In order for any meaningful system of checks and balances to occur, there must be an alternative source for information and ideas. It is through the expression of opposition that arguments strengthen and organizations become better. We all want a better school district.

This forum also believes that Nick and his Governors are doing the best job they possibly can ... and that, my faithful readers, is the problem.

Program selection for cuts reveals another motive.

For the many of you that could not attend last night's board meeting, here is a brief overview.

First, Nick performed a total reversal on the issue of half day "kindie-garten". (Why people like Nick pronounce it this way is just bewildering.) While attending the community input meetings he was adamant that no reliable, valid or objective evidence has ever been shown to support the strength of half-day programming for kindergartners. At last night's meeting he mentioned "legal" research that helped staff decide to retain the half-day kindergarten programming and appeared to have an epiphany regarding the wisdom of half-day programs. Should a superintendent be performing research about the strength of early childhood development AFTER announcing that such programming would be cut? Wouldn't it have been better to know the strengths and weaknesses of an issue BEFORE blasting a hole through it?

In my opinion, the District is retaining the half-day program for two primary reasons. The first reason is that the community knows how vital such a program is and it came through in their comments. Sadly, our community seems to more in touch with the research associated with early childhood development than district leadership. It is the role of our educational leadership to know what works and what doesn't. This just seems a little too sloppy on Nick's part. I suspect another motive.

Whenever budget cuts are proposed, the District routinely threatens to slash programs they know will never be cut. I am convinced that such suggestions are made for no other purpose than to inflame the sensitivities of this community. I am convinced that mentioning half-day kindergarten programs on the list of potential cuts served no other purpose than to quickly rally support behind the District in an effort to cut anything else. So, the District is either misinformed on fundamental matters relating to education or they are manipulating us. I am convinced of the latter.

The same can be said about librarians at "smaller" schools.

The District also proposes to reduce the size of the Superintendent's Office. One path forward is to revert some of the six assistant superintendents back to "executive directors". However, since salaries will not be changing, how is this a budget reduction? Nick mentioned that administrators have been discussing furlough days, but such days only offer a temporary suspension of budget problems. The same salaries are being paid and the same level of retirement contributions are being made. Vacation and sick days are accumulated at the same rate as usual and COLAs still move these administrators further into the stratosphere.

Real and lasting cuts can be accomplished by cutting administration. The District needs to shift away from the model that assigns a correlation between salary and qualifications and toward a model that strengthens the organization as a whole. The District needs to become a place where people want to work and desire to be a part of something exciting. We already have a lot of teachers that have such a passion to teach, where are the administrators that have a passion to lead and care a little less about earning obscene salaries?

Just take a few minutes and ponder this point. If everyone had all of their bills and mortgages dissolved overnight, what percentage of our teachers would continue teaching as salaries moved toward zero? What percentage of district administration would continue to work for this community as their salaries moved toward zero? I am sure there are many great administrators within the District, but there are also far too many assistant superintendent salaries being paid. We might as well start calling them Governors because their salaries are nearly as much as our governor's.

Another point from last night's meeting stuck in my head. A teacher from Cedar Way suggested that a "pay-to-play" fee be evaluated for music programs at the District. Nick's response was some senseless drivel about music needing to be free because it is required under the auspices of the Basic Education Act. Well then why would you cut the program all together? I suspect if parents had the choice to pay a fee or see a program be cut they would likely start paying a fee. Such logic was applied to district athletic programming why would it not be at least considered in lieu of total elimination?

As the son of a librarian, I am still irritated by the District's insistence that librarians in smaller schools do not mean as much as librarians in larger schools. They are quick to reduce the level of service of librarians but why not apply the same reasoning to principals? Splitting librarians across two schools apparently wouldn't adversely impact students, why not split principals across the same two schools? In fact, let them car pool. Like many others, I am left wondering why a small school like Maplewood wouldn't be in danger of losing their librarian? Is it simply a matter of catering to the most vocal parents rather than advocating for the needs of ALL students?

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.

The difference between salary and value.

"As a public employee, the difference between what you are paid and what you are worth is a charitable contribution to your community."

Of course, this statement assumes that the public employee's "worth" is greater than their "pay" and that they are fortunate enough to be working within their community.

Whether you spend your time tracking the appropriate use of procurement cards or the appropriate use of the Internet, the value that staff contribute to the District can greatly outweigh the salary they receive for performing that work. In such cases, those employees are making a sizable contribution to their community. By preventing unnecessary waste or catching unauthorized expenses, such exceptional employees deserve to be treated with greater respect.

Conversely, public employees that seemingly go out of their way to spend more scarce resources than are absolutely necessary, or seek out every opportunity to enrich their friends and associates, should be driven from the community. They have no place in public service.

While the blog is not generating a lot of entries these days, there is a reason for it. While it may not seem very obvious why there is this lull, once you start reading future entries, it will become very clear. In the meantime, I ask new blog visitors to do what many are already doing - read a few of the blog topics that are listed in the margin to the right. In a matter of minutes, you will see why so many district employees feel frustrated and will begin to understand why it is important for the community to be involved in how their school district is managed.

Obvious candidates for RIF action are insulated.

I was amused by the following response from the District to a Request for Review from the City of Lynnwood for a development scheduled to occur in the near future. Click here to have a look at what the District considers to be a meaningful and timely response.

First, the response from the District was due no later than October 29, 2008. This response was generated on October 31, 2008 and faxed to the City of Lynnwood on the same day. What took the District so long to get back to the regulating jurisdiction?

Second, the response was faxed. Why wouldn't the District at least scan the document and then email it to the City so it can easily become part of the development record? Notice how the fax didn't feed properly and everything is skewed slightly to the left.

Third, the letterhead still shows "Facilities AND Operations". Wasn't this issue resolved nearly two years ago? It really should be "Facilities Operations".

Fourth, the fax machine is still stamping the initiating fax number as a 670 number. Wasn't this issue resolved nearly three years ago?

Fifth, the response is hand-written. How is the District tracking developments if responses are hand-written? What happened to FileMaker Pro? What happens when staff want to determine how many developments have occurred in one jurisdiction or if staff want to determine how many developments have been assigned to one cluster of bus stops? Perhaps no one is tracking this information, which calls future student enrollment forecasts into question.

Sixth, why is the mislabeled department letterhead directing all calls to 425-431-7334? Doesn't the department have an office manager? Why would all calls go directly to the Director? Perhaps "director" means "director of telephone traffic".

An additional and obvious concern is that the District's template cites the assigned "safe" walk routes to bus stop locations and then in the next sentence declares they do "not have the expertise to prescribe remedies to address these safety issues". What safety issues? There are no safety issues mentioned. Besides, who better to evaluate student safety than a school district? What would a city or a developer know about keeping kids safe? Wouldn't that be best left in the hands of professionals?

For those of you that have been watching the financial turbulence at the District, you will know that the Superintendent is preparing a list of RIF candidates for the Board to "consider". Of course, placing the Director of Facilities AND Operations or the Planning and Property Management Clericalist on such a list may be viewed by others as following the recommendation of the blog - and we all know that would never happen. So to the current occupants of those positions, rest easy in knowing that image means a lot more to the District than financial prudence. Your days of draining public resources are far from over.

School board president aspires to be oblivious.

At the last BM, Ann McMurray uttered a few words that will not soon be forgotten. It was in response to an attempt from a member of district staff to explain just a little about a project funded by taxpayers.

"Just to be oblivious would probably be best."

These eight, simple words capture the essence of what plagues our school district. On the one hand, the comment makes light of the need to be informed when spending public money. On the other, it appears to suggest that those of us in the audience would be amused by such a statement. Since I was the only one in the audience, and therefore 100% of the audience, I can assure that 100% of the audience was not amused.

Of course, there is the possibility that Ann thought the comment would be funny to her fellow board members. While likely, it just strengthens the argument that this school board is out of touch with their financial responsibilities. The fact that no one attends these board meetings, aside from collecting the meaningless certificates - doled out like raises to district administrators - just reinforces the fact that this board is unengaging, uninspiring and undeniably stupid.

Perhaps my perspective is skewed but was there ever a time when board meetings were well attended on a regular basis? What does that say about the subject matter? Sure, it might be a little dry at times, but the unsophisticated approach to public education that appears to have infected our region gives great cause for alarm. People in our community don't care about making our schools better and they have elected five idiots that feel the same way. Our community is unengaged and unsophisticated and they have elected like-minded representatives. The Board will never change until people in our community change.

An extension of this problem is the tendency of upper management at the District to go out of their way to hire morons that, for the last several years, have been driving in circles in their intellectual cul-de-sacs. The Board doesn't care about making our schools better and they have no understanding of what that process might entail. Without forming expectations of district management, mediocre staff will continually be collected for no other purpose than to keep an assortment of $700 Mirra chairs warm.

... and nobody saw that coming?

There was a time, not long ago, when we the taxpayers of the Edmonds School District were told of a magical scheme straight from the lips of Nick Brossoit. We were told that if we passed the construction bond for the new Lynnwood High School (after it failed twice before) the District would use the proceeds from the long-term ground lease of the current Lynnwood High School to fund a lengthy list of other projects. Well, it sounded good at the time... to a few of you, at least.

Now that Cypress Equities is "rethinking" their development and delaying the launch of any real revenue-generating project, one thing is for certain - the trough is empty and the cows are coming home to be milked.

As for Marla's claim that Cypress Equities is "still very interested in developing the site", she is clearly detached from the realities of our economic circumstances. Give me a break. Many of us in our 30s are "still very interested in" retiring, it just won't be happening anytime soon.

I have also been informed that Cypress Equities is just keeping their foot in the door. At the moment, they have no real plan to move forward with the current project and would never back out entirely, in case the economy improves in the next few years. What sense would there be to leave the project when they already have a number of available exit opportunities built into the ground lease? Why would they give up their seat in the first chair when it costs them nothing to sit there? There is no expiration date. There is no meter running. Why not maintain the illusion to your investors that you have yet another iron in the fire? Never mind that the fire is just orange paint.

Just how much money has been spent so far on consultants and lawyers to prepare the ground lease? What about the cost of converting the property from public use? What other magical sources of funds are available to renovate the ESC for Scriber Lake High School or develop the contaminated site for the new administration center? And where is all the money from the Old ESC site and the Maintenance and Transportation site?

The board may be dazzled by the illusion of intelligence in district management, but it is all quite relative, I assure you. Five imbeciles and an idiot are easily out-witted by a moron.

Parent asks the District to be part of the Solution.

The topic was raised that EDS15.org is a “one man show”. While I believe that this is patently false, I’ll raise the challenge to the District to “address the issue” as opposed to “point the finger”.

In these trying economic times, communication with the electorate is more important than ever when difficult issues need to be addressed. The cost of traditional mailings is very expensive and should be reserved for only the most significant issues. In order to save money and improve communication with parents and the community, the district should put a community forum in place that can put forward ideas and have the community participate in those ideas. There are a number of ways this can be done – the district can do something as simple as a moderated “google groups” page that can be moderated or host their own “blog” on wordpress or any one of a number of free services.

Now, here are a couple of objections that I’ll address up front

1. “We can’t do it because we are responsible for the content”. You have a moderated account that only puts up those items that meet your standards (and I hope your standards are about profanity, not the exchange of dissenting ideas).

2. “We can’t do it because it costs too much”. The hosting service is free. The cost is the manpower to moderate the exchange. Considering that the District spends $8000 for every mailing to communicate with parents, I would argue this is a cost savings.

3. “We can’t do it because not everyone is included because they don’t have internet access”. Aside from the fact that both Lynnwood and Edmonds have free internet terminals, this is not a reasonable argument. To view your student’s records, you go online to “Skyward”. Other services are online – why not this?

4. “We can’t do it because it allows anonymous comments”. We’ve been down this before. Ideas are the important part here – not the source.

5. “We can’t do it because government organizations can’t use computing resources we don’t control”. Please…. One word. “Skyward”.

I will be at the next board meeting and will raise this to the board for their comments. Are the leaders of our educational systems interested in a free exchange of ideas or is communication over the internet something we should ignore? Elections are coming up for 2 board members. Think about your answers carefully……..

Blog: I challenge those capable of free thought to question why this blog [esd15.org] would openly advocate for the creation of such a forum. By posting this entry, we are actively endorsing this great idea. More open and free discussion is never a bad thing.

Nick doesn't approve of anonymous comments.

The blog recently received an anonymous comment from a district computer. While the comment was one continuous series of statements without regard to punctuation, capitalization or paragraphs, I have clustered the sentences for ease of comprehension and adequate response.

You know how sorry i am for you? Very sorry.

There really is no need to be sorry. Aside from the fact that I was subjected to a lot of disturbing material while researching your IP address.

The fact that you have no life and seem to feel the need to "reveal the disturbing secrets" of ESD 15 is sickening. I mean come on. who really needs to spend this much time hating their job, when it isn't even their job anymore?

These lines appear to have nothing in common with each other. The responsibility to expose corruption when it is discovered has nothing to do with whether a person dislikes their job. While it could be said that I viewed my job with the District as being responsible for the efficient use of public funds under my control or influence, I am certain you are not describing that aspect of the work I once performed. The job I once had at the District was one that I enjoyed and did very well. At no time did I ever "hate" my job. The fact that the position has been inadequately filled by someone else would not change the manner in which I viewed the position.

I think that you have deep, psycological problems and need to take better care of your self. Why get stuck on something so trivial as a this? It's time to move on. You don't need to do this anymore.

Careful, that sounds like a medical diagnosis. While District management may think they know a medical diagnosis when they hear one, I suspect, like the vast majority of management, you lack the qualifications to make such a determination. Since you sent this comment from a district computer, I am left wondering if you are communicating on behalf of the Edmonds School District.

I do not consider the exposure of corruption to be "trivial". The money wasted by Marla, Nick and the Board is money that cannot be spent for the benefit of students. The students that sit in your classroom.

The effort you've put into this is spectacular, but think of the time you've put into this, and all for what? Make a few people angry and uncomfortable?

If the corrupt are angered by being called corrupt, so be it. I make no apologies. Accountability is not always comforting for those inclined to enrich their friends and business associates. The record on this blog speaks for itself.

All of this effort, which is really quite impressive, and use it to make this good in your life. I know that it's hard to let things go, but trust in human nature. People aren't bad. You can change this.

I am amused that you are impressed.

and please stop commenting your own blog.

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. Are you expressing a preference for me to stop blogging or would you like me to join the ranks of hundreds that comment anonymously, like you just did?

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.

Evergreen gets a temporary stay of execution.

On the Board's agenda this evening was a second action involving the closure of Evergreen Elementary. Unfortunately, the item was dropped from the agenda because, according to Nick, adequate public notice had not been provided through the Everett Herald. It was felt that the District met the notification requirements with all of the discussion provided in the paper, but they had not provided adequate formal notice.

The matter will be taken up in March of 2009.

I find it odd that Nick Brossoit is concerned about the provision of adequate notice when closing an elementary school but not when declaring district property surplus. Old Woodway Elementary was supposed to be declared surplus through a formal notification that was to appear in the Everett Herald. Unfortunately, the formal, District process for notifying the public of the action to declare the site surplus was not followed. Count how many times the notification appeared and compare that number with the actual total required.

Now that Nick has demonstrated that he knows what proper notification entails, perhaps he would be kind enough to inquire as to the process involving Old Woodway Elementary. I would love to be proven wrong.

While I am pleased that Nick is honoring the process regarding the closure of an elementary school, I am saddened that less of a concern was shown to the residents around Old Woodway Elementary.

Blog: Woodway Elementary was closed since adequate notice was provided regarding the closure of that school.