Please explain ESD Policy 6810.

Well, I nearly spilled my Cheerios when I started reading ESD Policy 6810. Apparently, the Board thought to insert some redundancy in their policies - for the many lawyers and misguided public employees that can rebuke only one policy at a time. The meaningful portion of the policy reads:

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.

If you don't do your homework, you won't pass the test.

The Capital Facilities Plan is not Pulp Fiction

The Edmonds School District distributes their Capital Facilities Plan free-of-charge, to all that request a copy. If you have concerns about where the District and their Board thought enrollment was heading, read the CFP. It is a short document that captures enrollment trends and shows that student numbers were plummeting since 2002. The Board adopted this document (as well as the Snohomish County Council) and yet district staff didn't think to use it while planning.

Email the Planning and Property Management Specialist at halls@edmonds.wednet.edu and request that a copy be mailed to you.

If you would rather view it online, you may do so by clicking here.

The Legend of Zandberg

Late at night, while the rest of Lynnwood sleeps, a masked man slips through the neighborhood under cover of darkness. He lurks in the shadows and slides undetected across rooftops, looking for any sign of misappropriated public funds. He slinks through vacant offices and rifles through file drawers in search of evidence. His endless search takes him to places that would be off limits to mortal men.

He has an established routine. He is a creature of habit and without exception, he leaves his tell-tale calling card after every mission. He always leaves the superintendent's office door open - just enough to make others aware of his vigilance.

Someone should tell the night custodian not to go on the roof after dark. If he falls, Sue Venable may not be around to raise an alarm.

Shoveling smoke and talking by the hour.

The following is an excerpt from the District's legal counsel. They seem to be under the impression that I suggested Gary Noble was violating state law. Gary Noble is serving on the school board for the Edmonds School District and should be held to the standard of school board policies. Unfortunately, these lawyers didn't see a need to cite state law to save Bruce Williams.

Mr. Zandberg questions ESD Board member Gary Noble’s decision to vote in favor of constructing a new Lynnwood High School [That is not true, I question whether he actually deliberated.], and alleges that the vote was cast to “curry favor” [not my quote] with his wife, Kay Noble, a current Lynnwood High School teacher. He further demands that Mr. Noble “step down” from his position “at once” due to this alleged conflict of interest.

ESD’s position on the issue is that Mr. Noble does not sit on the Board in violation of any ESD policy. [Their position on Bruce Williams was also contrary to Board Policy.] Indeed, ESD Policy 1260 specifically exempts the alleged conflict of interest raised by Mr. Zandberg. That policy provides that no spouse of a Board Member shall have any interest in any contract to which the District is a party except to the limited extent authorized by law. [Why are you citing the second portion of the sentence? It is irrelevant. The first portion disqualifies him.] Under RCW 42.23.030, which lists exceptions to prohibited interests in municipal contracts, there is no conflict in the situation raised by Mr. Zandberg if the spouse of the school board member was employed by the District before the School Board member took office ["...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..."], and the compensation received by the spouse is commensurate with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the EEA and the District. Mrs. Noble was hired by ESD on September 12, 1990, and Mr. Noble was elected to the School Board in November 2003. He took the Oath of Office on December 16, 2003. [Let's not revisit unfortunate events.] Further, Mrs. Noble is compensated pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement pertaining to teachers at Lynnwood High School. Because the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Noble falls squarely within an exception under Washington State law, ESD Policy 1260 also encompasses the exception [Please revise the policy, so next time you can be right.], and there is no impropriety with Mr. Noble’s continuation as a Board Member [That will be a decision for the voters].

Please feel free to contact me or my associate Sarah Mack with any questions.

Very truly yours,

Duncan Fobes

Waiting for public records and responses.

September 30, 2007
In reviewing the notes taken by staff and handouts provided during the September 27th meeting, I am wondering why district staff did not utilize the Capital Facilities Plan in developing their student enrollment forecast. In discussing the 2004-2009 CFP with others, it shows clearly that enrollment was moving downward and was far more accurate in determining actual FTE for 2007 than anything provided by your budget analyst.

Why wouldn't a Board-adopted document be part of the planning process? If Board members were provided a copy of the CFP, read it entirely and then adopted it, wouldn't they have every expectation that district staff would follow the forecasting methodology described therein?

To the casual observer, it would appear that district staff was aware these reductions in FTE were coming and chose to adopt a more optimistic forecast model so that more aggressive cuts could be made at a later date - without any reasonable warning.

September 28, 2007
1. Please provide the total of all payments made to AMEC since and including P.O. #240076. This would include a subtotal for their work at the Maintenance and Transportation site and a subtotal for the new administration site.
2. Please provide the names of the two board members that based their decision to buy the new administration site upon the outcome of a meeting on May 10, 2005.

September 26, 2007
I seek one copy of the current use agreement between Powerful Partners and copies of all rent checks paid since 2003.

As I already know, Powerful Partners has a "use agreement" as opposed to a lease. I am aware that a use agreement does not pass along base rent to the end user but does require reimbursement for general fund expenditures, such as utilities, custodial care and maintenance.

I hereby request one copy of the most current, fully executed use agreement between Powerful Partners and the Edmonds School District and copies of checks paid to the District since 2003.

September 26, 2007
I had asked which two members of the board were at that meeting, assuming you were there. Was that the case? Who accompanied these board members? When might a response be provided?

September 17, 2007
1. A list of all applicants that applied for the position of Executive Director of Business and Operations that resulted in the hiring of Marla Miller.
2. A list of all District employees that reviewed applications for the above position.
3. A list of all District employees that conducted interviews for the above position.
4. The most recent application completed by Marla Miller for any position at the District - less protected information.
Not directly related but also important;
5. Copies of all purchase orders involving Seattle Piano Gallery (SPG).
6. Copies of all leases between SPG and the Edmonds School District.

September 16, 2007
Please include the rating sheets for Ms. Hall and the other applicant, as well as the names of District staff members that were involved in rating these candidates.

September 12, 2007
Please provide a copy of the application and related documents of the current Planning and Property Management Specialist. Of course, you should exclude her social security number, date of birth, home address, telephone number and email address. I am only interested in knowing what qualifications she claimed to possess prior to being hired by the District.

August 14, 2007
We are seeking a copy of the document that I found and showed to Brian Harding demonstrating that access will be granted for one single family residence. It was signed by the superintendent at the time.

Utterly transfixed and unengaged.

Some people might be under the impression that I seek to convince everyone that the District is a poorly managed public agency. This is not the case. I seek to provide insight into my personal observations and allow others to make their own determination. I would prefer that every reader harbors an overwhelming sense that all is right in the District and that my concerns are but a drop in a bucket. I merely seek acknowledgement of the drop and the bucket.

As Americans, we have reached a stage in our development where we commonly mistake ignorance for not taking a position. I advocate for the free discussion of information and the elective adoption of views and opinions based upon that information. I believe that opinions are only formed when information is available and understood. As a visitor to this blog site, you are free to read, understand and disregard all that is written. As long as the information had a moment of consideration, that is all that I seek. You are free to cast it aside and get back to other matters as quickly as you like.

I recently had a conversation with a man in Lynnwood. He was unwilling to read a single entry in the blog because it would be biased. Quite honestly, I doubt I could find a less intellectually-receptive individual on this planet. As a population, we gobble up drivel and slop like our existence as a species relied upon it. We seem so utterly transfixed on superficial hype and unengaged in local, meaningful issues that directly impact the health and well-being of our families. We spend hours each day following the lives of celebrities and spend precious moments reading to our children.

In my humble opinion, there is no greater cause in our community than how we educate our children. They will be making choices for us when we release our grasp on governance. How a school district chooses to spend our property tax dollars on the provision of public education for our children should be of critical importance to all of us.

Freeloading and government cheese

Recent newspaper reports indicate that Bruce Williams moved just 10 blocks from his director district and yet, he felt compelled to honor board policies. Board policy 1245 did not leave any room for interpretation and so Bruce resigned. It was an honorable move and preserved the integrity of board policies - if only for a moment.

Then there is Pat Shields. There is no debating the fact that he is the director of Powerful Partners. There is no debating the fact that Powerful Partners uses space in the ESC. There is no debating the fact that they have never paid rent when they signed a use agreement with the District agreeing to do so. So why the special treatment?

Okay, it was a rhetorical question. Pat Shields is a board member and believes he is entitled to take greater liberties with tax dollars than the rest of us. A vote cast for Pat Shields apparently was interpreted as permission to freeload. Will members of his family start moving in to the ESC? Will the ESC's custodian have to start washing the Shields family car? Will Pat Shields start having his personal mail delivered to the ESC? Maybe the Board will bring back laundry service so Pat Shields can have his shirts cleaned, pressed and delivered through inter-departmental mail.

Do we really need these kinds of people guiding the District? Do we need this sort of influence on the Board? Are we educating children or preparing them for a life on welfare and public assistance? If they follow the Board's leadership, they will no doubt be developing a taste for government cheese.

Board had a map. Staff still got lost.

In reviewing the notes taken by staff and handouts provided during the September 27th "All ESC" meeting, I am wondering why district staff did not utilize the Capital Facilities Plan in developing their student enrollment forecast. In discussing the 2004-2009 CFP with others, it clearly shows that enrollment was moving downward and was far more accurate in determining actual FTE for 2007 than anything provided by your budget analyst.

Why wouldn't a Board adopted document be part of the planning process? If Board members were provided a copy of the CFP, read it entirely and then adopted it, wouldn't they have every expectation that district staff would follow the forecasting methodology described therein?

To the casual observer, it would appear that district staff was aware these reductions in FTE were coming and chose to adopt a more optimistic forecast model so that more aggressive cuts could be made at a later date - without any reasonable warning.

District Presentation Outline

Pat Shields: Powerful Parasite?

For years, I have always wondered why Powerful Partners never paid rent for their use of precious cubicle space in the ESC. Now I know why.

Shortly after starting my job at the District in 2001, I was directed to prepare a "use agreement" for a program that works in conjunction with the District's mission. A use agreement differs from a lease in that no base rent is charged to the program but they are billed for actual charges that would otherwise be covered by the District's general fund. Essentially, the District would be subsidizing their tenancy but not giving away public money in covering utilities, telephone service, parking, maintenance and custodial care (clearly, a matter of interpretation).

When the use agreement was completed, I immediately provided it to Powerful Partners so they could begin making their monthly payments - but alas - they never did. I complained numerous times and worked my way up the food chain to Marla Miller, who promptly did nothing. I was told many times that she would take care of it, that she will talk to them, that she would sort it out - but alas - she never did.

Then it recently occurred to me, I have been sending the use agreement to the program manager, when really I should have been sending the use agreement to their director, Pat Shields. But wait, isn't Pat Shields a member of the school board?

Interesting. Very interesting. A textbook case of conflict of interest. Does the board member uphold the best interests of the school district and promptly pay rent or does he use his influence to get a free ride for his program? I am not claiming that the program does not do great work. Maybe they do. The mission statement of Powerful Partners secured them the reduced rate - a reduced rate they have never paid.

And it isn't as if Pat Shield's wife was the director of Powerful Partners. Because we all know how that would turn out. Don't we, Gary Noble?

Kay Noble voted for a new Lynnwood High School.

Like many of my readers, I am left wondering why Gary Noble voted to construct a new Lynnwood High School. Could it be the District's explosive population boom and the huge influx of students pouring into the Lynnwood High School service area? No. Could it be the ever-increasing rate of student retention? No. Could it be that his wife, who works at Lynnwood High School, wants a stylish new classroom? No doubt.

This is precisely why the Board adopted their "Conflicts of Interest" policy. It was intended to prevent a situation like this. We will never know if Gary Noble ever engaged both sides of the debate. We will never know if Gary Noble truly deliberated the pros and cons of relocating Lynnwood High School. We will never know if Gary Noble's vote was tainted by the subjective opinion of a lone voice at Lynnwood High School.

Could I vote against constructing a new high school for my wife? I wouldn't have to pay a dime and it certainly would help the "family dynamic" in other areas. It would be better than any diamond ring or Lexus and wouldn't trigger years of payments (for me, at least). How could I admit to my wife that the numbers just don't make any sense.

Sure, Nick Brossoit can cite all the rules and regulations of other professional associations, like his favorite the "Washington State School Director's Association". They have a link that specifically claims a board member can have a spouse that works for the District, just as long as the spouse was an employee before the Board member was elected.

The Edmonds School District did not adopt such a policy. They specifically elevated the standard and haven't backed away since. It was the Board's choice and that's exactly what Board Policy 1260 states. There is no gray area and no room to negotiate. Gary Noble must step down at once.

School Board doesn't follow its own policies

It seems the Board doesn't like to follow its own policies, like 1260 Conflicts of Interest. It reads as follows;

It is the policy of the Edmonds School District 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 OR have any pecuniary [financial] interest in any contract to which the District is a party except to the limited extent authorized by law. For the purposes of this policy, such pecuniary interest shall not be deemed to exist by reason of a contract between the District and the employer of a Board member if: (a) the compensation of the Board member from such employer consists entirely of fixed wages or salary; (b) such employment relationship is disclosed and is recorded in the minutes of a Board meeting prior to the formation of the contract with the employer; and (c) the contract is approved by a vote of the membership for the Board sufficient for the purpose without counting the vote of the Board member employed by the contracting party.

Gary Noble's spouse, Kay Noble is a teacher at Lynnwood High School and therefore receives and accepts compensation for services rendered to the District.

The Board would be well-advised to spend more time reading their own policies and less time violating them.

Board wanted site. Marla just negotiated.

[Mark to Rachel]
While I appreciate that you are interested in facts, I am afraid you will not get them from Marla on this topic. Facts may be provided by the people involved in that meeting (assuming they will not be blacklisted by the District for speaking up) like Mark Quehrn from Perkins Coie, Al Morgan from Reid Middleton, Deb Ladd from AMEC, and Jack Dinniene from Northwest Valuation Services. Marla should offer them assurances that they, or their respective companies, will not be negatively impacted for confirming the validity of my statement.

Minutes from that meeting will confirm that we all agreed that the site would be too expensive to mitigate the soils issue even at the lesser amount of $3.3 million.

To jog Marla's memory, it was one of the few meetings that I attended on this topic - in part because that meeting was supposed to be the final nail in the coffin for this transaction. I sat to her right and we both had our backs to the window. Mark Quehrn sat between us. It took place in the main conference room at Reid Middleton in Everett, Washington. I will check my PDA and get back to you with a date and time.

Thank you for your interest in seeking the truth.

[Marla to Rachel]
On May 10, 2005, two board members met with AMEC and Reid Middleton to talk directly with them regarding their analysis of the site. Following that meeting the board instructed me to proceed with the negotiations to purchase the site.

I’ve never been to the Reid Middleton offices in Everett.

[Mark to Marla]
So, which two board members attended that meeting?

[Marla to Mark]
(The sound of crickets chirping)

Interesting turn of events here.

District leadership will lead us where?

Top ten reasons the Board thought buying a contaminated bog was a good idea.

1. Seller was wearing Reid Middleton and AMEC name badges,
2. Thought the seller was saying "This site is conterminated",
3. Certain that erratic settling and cracked foundations would become hip,
4. Residual pesticides would keep away the mosquitos from the bog,
5. Big savings for Transportation in being able to dump oil on site,
6. School kids could collect asbestos samples for science class,
7. Rain would create a pretty, rainbow-colored sheen across the site,
8. New uniforms for District staff fashioned in Tyvek,
9. Encourages staff to sweat more to over-power chemical smells,
10. The Superintendent could catch three-legged frogs during his lunch hour.

Top ten reasons Marla negotiated a purchase price of $5,800,000.00 for the site.

1. Had her fingers crossed when she agreed to pay $5,800,000.00,
2. Thought she was buying the Lynnwood Park and Ride,
3. Overcome by noxious cloud while touring the site and lost her senses,
4. Convinced the large black line to the southeast was river frontage,
5. Site offers numerous places to dump the bodies of disgruntled employees,
6. Forgot to include that payment would be made in Zimbabwean dollars,
7. Focused on the fact that they threw in a KitchenAid toaster oven,
8. Had not yet discovered rebate coupon for $2.5 million was misplaced,
9. Adopting a new strategy to get staff to burn up sick time more frequently,
10. Thinking about the frequent flyer miles she would get by using the District's procurement card.

Always drink upstream from the herd.

Nick,

While we may differ on many issues, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the upcoming appointment of a new Board Member for Director District 4 and hope that you can see things the way many others do.

Evidence is now coming forward from individuals that claim you were aware of Bruce's relocation long before it surfaced on esd15.org. In fact, I suspect you may recall suggesting the quick revision of Director District boundaries to accommodate his relocation - like that was a viable option. These statements, coupled with a long-serving Board Member's full awareness of Board Policy 1245 should have caused Dr. Williams to immediately withdraw his application with the County and step down as a candidate. The fact that Dr. Williams continued to pursue his Director's seat could be described as election fraud.

While I have no knowledge of the political or educational background of Roger "Cowboy" Wilson, it would appear that the Board's only reasonable decision at this stage is to reverse a series of poor choices made by Dr. Williams and others. To appoint anyone other than Mr. Wilson would be disrespectful to democratic principles and would demonstrate the continued separation between the Board and its constituents.

Mr. Wilson's application for Director District 4, assuming he chooses to apply, should be provided more than just a passing glance.

Sincerely,
Mark Zandberg
Moderator, esd15.org

blogger@esd15.org

Some people are under the impression that everyone is a public employee and that email addresses should be doled out like Tootsie Rolls on Halloween. Well, for a limited time only, your friends at esd15.org are offering a brand new email account for communicating with District administration, co-workers, friends and fellow taxpayers.

Never again will you have to worry about having your email account added to someone else's SPAM list. You can also remain entirely anonymous - which is how we like it. Even Nick Brossoit launched a survey recently seeking anonymous comments. That last field was just a bit too small for the comments we would like to make.

All we ask here at esd15.org is that you keep your comments clean, sincere and honest.

Contact our account rep today: amber@esd15.org

Oh, and thanks to Amber, we've added labels for better tracking of issues on the blog. Who wants to wade through all those topics to find the desired thread.

The So-Called Attendance Incentive Program

The District has a number of Board Policies that don't accomplish anything. They are merely placeholders for future action - when the Board isn't busy plotting real estate schemes and handing out raises during a budget crisis. Two such policies quickly come to mind, one is the Whistleblower Program and it reads as follows;

The Edmonds School District:
1. expects its employees to report improper governmental action taken by its officers or employees, and
2. protects employees who have reported improper governmental actions in accordance with this policy and related procedures.

The superintendent shall establish procedures for receiving and acting on employee reports of improper governmental actions and responding to allegations of retaliation.

To date, no procedures have been established.

The other policy is the Attendance Incentive Program and it reads as follows;

The Edmonds School District shall provide an attendance incentive program for employees who are not members of a recognized bargaining unit. This program shall operate in accordance with the terms and limitations of applicable statues and regulations.

While the District claims to encourage staff to attend work regularly, they limit the number of vacation days to 50 and then refuse to compensate a departing employee for any days accumulated over 30. Where is the reasoning behind this ill-conceived formula? What incentive does anyone have to accumulate more than 30 days? Can we infuse a little wisdom into the program and meet in the middle? Sick days are paid out at a rate of 25% of actual value. Where's the incentive there?

It would make sense to reduce the accumulated maximum for vacation days to 45 days and then compensate an employee for the full 45 days when he or she is constructively terminated for whistleblowing.

Rise above the confusion of conflicting rumors.

You indicated in an e-mail to the superintendent and Board that Mark Zandberg shared with you a rumor there is soil contamination at the new administration site. The rumor is false.

[Definitions of the words "rumor", "false" and "fraud".]

Allegations concerning hazardous materials are extremely serious, and I believe it is important to provide accurate information and ask you to share it with others who may have also been told of this rumor.

[Definitions of the words "contamination" and "hazardous".]

As a part of the purchase offer for the new administration site, the District conducted “due diligence” activities before closing the deal, including geotechnical and environmental assessments of the site. We hired Reid Middleton to conduct the geotechnical analysis, and AMEC to do the environmental assessment. Our attorneys reviewed previous environmental studies of the site, as well as Department of Ecology correspondence with the owner about adjacent property he owns (and continues to own).

[Like the detention pond that the District now maintains for him. And by the way, I was in the room when Reid Middleton, AMEC, Perkins Coie and Northwest Valuations recommended NOT buying this site and we all left the room with that understanding.]

Numerous test pits were dug on our site to sample the soil. One pit – test pit 15 – had material that was questioned, and both our consultant and the seller’s consultant reviewed the laboratory results of the analysis. The Seller agreed to remediate that test pit, and that work was observed and the results examined by our consultant, AMEC. To quote the senior scientist on the project for us: “Marla - I have no remaining concerns regarding TP-15.”

["... but I do have concerns about everywhere else." TP-15 is an incredibly small sample. How do you draw conclusions about an incredibly small sample (needle) and then compare it to the huge volume of soil (haystack)?]

[The school board favored the seller's appraiser over their own - why would they now favor the District's consultant over the seller's?]

As a precaution to protect the District, we negotiated in the purchase agreement that the Seller would pay for an insurance policy to pay to mitigate any soil contamination found on the site during construction. The District reviewed several options and selected an insurance company, who also reviewed the environmental reports before issuing coverage. The Seller paid for a two-year policy, and the District chose to pay to extend that policy for another three years to provide a 5-year window for construction to occur.

[Why buy insurance if the contamination is a rumor? How much was the seller's premium if no activity would be taking place during the initial term of coverage?]

The construction of the new building is dependent on revenues from the sale and ground lease of properties, and we wanted to be certain to have ample time to complete the necessary transactions.

[In other words, financing this poor choice is dependent upon the outcome of other bad choices.]

We have now demolished the old buildings and begun an “early site grading package”, to do the earthwork and other site preparation within the coverage period of the insurance policy and to prepare the site to be ready for building construction regardless of time of year. The contractor currently working on the site was provided with the geotechnical and environmental reports by our capital projects staff. The insurance company who issued the 5-year policy was notified that we are beginning earthmoving work. We hired AMEC to be on site to monitor the condition of soils during this phase of construction, and they are monitoring the earthwork being done now. Nothing has surfaced as of this date.

[Why hire environmental consultants if the contamination is a rumor? Who is footing that bill?]

If you have additional questions please let me know. I will be responding to your request for public records as soon as I complete several others that have been submitted ahead of yours.

[There are others seeking to expose a pattern of bad choices.]

Marla Miller
Assistant Superintendent
425.431.7036

Fun Factoid: Calling something a rumor does not make it one.

Doctor of Medicine or Geology?

The board minutes have been released. Bruce Williams resigned because he "recently relocated his residence".

Board Minutes for September 11, 2007

Yeah, and we were all born recently. I thought he was a medical doctor not a geologist. He relocated his residence in 2005. That would be years ago. He got caught "recently".

Fuzzy Meth

Imagine a house in Lynnwood that sold in 2001 for $90,000.00.
Now imagine that same house being sold in 2005 (four years later).

To determine value, your lender asks that you have it appraised.
Your appraiser establishes a value of $330,000.00.

The seller, of course wants more money (don't we all).
The seller's appraiser establishes a value of $580,000.00.

What price would you pay?

Now imagine that the house was a meth lab.

Fun Factoid: Public agencies use the Request for Qualification (RFQ) process to protect the public and ensure competent service from public employees and their designated consultants.

Pandora's Box found in Lynnwood

[Claire]
I was reading Gary Noble’s cryptic comment about the Board being well aware of the differences between the two appraisals, and a thought came to me. Is there an environmental issue at the new administration site that would cause a difference in the valuation of the property?

[Mark]
It is my understanding that while the District’s appraiser was aware that contamination may be an issue, his appraisal did not directly address contamination or its impact on valuation.

[Claire]
So, what you are saying is that on top of a difference in valuation of $2.5 million, there is a hidden cost related to environmental contamination that was not considered?

[Mark]
That is correct. Neither appraiser included environmental issues related to contamination.

[Claire]
Ok, so they came up with two different amounts on the market value. But neither addressed liability associated with the development of the site. Isn’t it part of due diligence prior to a property transaction to have at least a Phase I Environmental Assessment completed for the proposed acquisition? A bank would require this prior to financing.

[Mark]
A Phase I Environmental Assessment was performed but the site was not financed and therefore not subject to a review by a lender. This was a cash purchase and the funds utilized came from Capital Fund Reserves.

[Claire]
Did the Board see the Assessment?

[Mark]
I am not sure. I saw the assessment and I am not quite sure every aspect of its contents could be easily understood. It couldn’t just be handed to them. They would need to be walked through the document and portions would have to be explained in layman’s terms.

[Claire]
-Sigh- This doesn’t sound good. What you are telling me is that there could be Pandora’s Box when they go to excavate. I did these assessments for years and found even a good one can only hit the tip of the iceberg given the limited scope of work of a Phase I. It isn’t until you get into sampling that you figure out what the potential costs could be. Would the liability for the site be covered by the Risk Management Pool the District belongs to?

[Mark]
If the contamination was limited to one specific area on the site, I could imagine a scenario that might allow excavation and development to occur. However, everything I have seen shows that the contamination is everywhere and varies in magnitude. Regarding liability and protecting the District’s bottom line, I know the District was exploring and then eventually purchased a supplemental insurance policy to protect them from any unanticipated expenses associated with contamination. The likelihood of hitting contamination would be very high, given the nature of District activities to be placed on that site.

[Claire]
I’m shocked at what you are telling me. I’m trying to regroup here; the implications of knowing there is contamination and then purchasing a policy is less than above board. This is very, very sad. It’s scary to think of what the taxpayers might have to pay to develop the property. The increase in construction costs on contaminated soils is significant.

Where is the Assessment? Is it on file at the ESC? Is it a public document? Is it under attorney-client privilege?

[Mark]
The Assessment was provided by AMEC and is in the ESC. It is a public document and can be reviewed by anyone seeking it out. You can call the Planning and Property Management Specialist (425-431-7332) to coordinate a viewing, dependent upon approval from the public records request designee – Marla Miller.

[Claire]
Ok, I’ve already expressed an opinion about whether Marla should be the custodian of public documents, so I’m not going to repeat myself. But, if it’s not attorney-client privilege and its 90 days past the transaction, why would I or anyone else need “approval” to view it?

[Mark]
You can ask Marla why her approval is needed when you make your request.

[Claire]
Well, I now understand your passion about all of this. Not only was the market value possibly inflated, not all of the information regarding the actual development of the site may have been known or understood. I will make a records request tomorrow. I will let you know when I receive it.

[Mark]
That will be in 15 days. Talk to you then.

Fun Factoid: Claire Olsovsky is the former Loss Control/Safety Specialist for the District. She left the District shortly before Marla put this land transaction together. Claire has a Master’s degree in Environmental Health and 22 years of experience in the field. Her first site was the 93rd Street School at Love Canal and worked on the first Superfund site to be de-listed (the Wade Site, Chester, PA).

"Hire a third party to investigate."

Given the light of the allegations regarding Marla Miller’s behavior revealed on the esd15.org blog, I am curious to why she has not been put on administrative leave? The District in the past has used this tool when investigating allegations of illegal, unethical, or harassing behavior. The content of the web page and the number of contributors and visitors to the site would suggest that something is awry with not only the management of District funds, but in the treatment of its employees by Ms. Miller.

It wasn’t so long ago a foreman in the Maintenance Department suffered this consequence after allegations of bullying and harassing behavior. It took a brave employee registering a formal complaint to initiate the investigation that resulted in the leave; does not Mark Zandberg’s account lend the same weight? He continually spoke up during his tenure about the land dealings and was disregarded. He then used the proper channels and provided the State Auditor a painstaking account of the events he observed. The Auditor’s office deferred immediate action and is conducting an “ongoing” investigation. This is not surprising since it took them over twelve years to detect simplistic bookkeeping fraud by a District employee. When he was constructively terminated in retaliation for whistle-blowing, he used the blog as a last resort because TIME IS CRITICAL.

Ms. Miller has control of all the documents that could either incriminate her or prove her innocent of any illegal, unethical, or incompetent behavior. To have her as the continued custodian of public records requests is clearly a conflict of interest. Why has she not voluntarily stepped aside from this role to dispel any doubts cast on her performance as the business manager handling millions of dollars for the District? More importantly, given the dollar amount of the alleged mismanaged funds on both the Capital and Operations side of the house, why wouldn’t you want to seek the facts independently? You cannot deny there is a shortage; you just announced another $400,000 shortfall.

Irrespective of the allegations of mismanaged funds, (which the examination of the paper trail will prove or disprove) doesn’t the low morale bordering on despair amongst the employees in the District plague your consciences’? Can you not see why no one signs their name on their blog entry? Do you really expect someone to come forward when Ms. Miller is the head of Operations? Especially since someone like Mark experienced retaliation after exercising his right to free speech outside of work?

Your silence and inaction are viewed by many as a form of complicity.

Be the stewards you promised to be when you ran for school board and accepted the job as Superintendent. Place her on administrative leave and request the State Auditor hire a third party to investigate.

Claire Olsovsky
Former Employee

"The Board was well aware"

I want to assure you that the Board was well aware of the $3.3 million valuation for the property. Although I cannot get into details, the difference between the two appraisals was very understandable, and was due to several differences in assumptions and ground rules, including a different "highest/best use" assumption. It was clear to the Board that the second appraisal more accurately represented the current commercial value of the property.

The Board [considered] these property transactions very seriously, always striving to use capital project funds as wisely as possible.

Gary Noble
Edmonds School Board
425-342-5181, Cell: 425-931-5118

Editor: I would be willing to bet that Mr. Noble couldn't articulate the details even if Marla was holding his cue cards.

Dumbing Down a District

Be aware. There is a move afoot to change the Operations side of the Edmonds School District that will result in a more ambitious and energetic approach to solving problems and tackling long-standing issues. The plan will streamline discussion and quickly build consensus on every pertinent issue confronting the District and how it handles the operating side of the organization.

The strategy is unique.

It involves the aggressive and unmistakable "dumbing down" of the District. When they adopt this philosophy in the private sector, the business crumbles and quickly files for bankruptcy protection. Eventually, like every poorly-managed business in history, it fails - leaving people unemployed and investors adding up their losses. Fortunately, the Edmonds School District is a public agency and the taxpayer will keep it afloat. It will survive long enough to see where this curious little experiment in economics takes us.

Imagine how quickly things will be decided when everyone in the room looks to their leader for a cue. Pre-meetings will become all the rage ensuring that everyone knows how to respond when their opinion is sought. There will no longer be a need to delay action to debate wisdom and direction. No one in the organization will be standing in the way of change and outsiders will gaze in awe at how the whole District seems so unified in purpose.

It is the beginning of a new era. Redefining the destination to accommodate the speed and direction in which you are traveling.

What's this?!? More budget cuts?

It was announced at P-12 yesterday that enrollment projections were even lower than previously anticipated. The financial impact of these unanticipated reductions amount to $400,000.00 in budget cuts on top of the $4,500,000.00 just cut earlier this year.

Does anyone read the Capital Facilities Plan? It clearly shows a striking downward trend for the next several years. Since the District is paid per head and the heads are not showing up in our schools, maybe they shouldn't plan to spend money they won't ever receive. Here is the link for the CFP.

Please, for the love of God, read it. At least look at the pictures. The yellow line going down and to the right means your checks from the state will be getting smaller.

Maybe the District's administrators can give back their recent raises. That alone would save $550,000.00 per year.

And then there were four.

Breaking News

Blog reporters claim that a resignation was tendered this evening at the school board meeting. Unfortunately, the vacancy will be filled by appointment and the candidate will be selected by the current board of directors - two of whom will likely not be holding their seats much longer.

Stay tuned for updates through the remainder of the week.

If you don't have anything nice to say...

From: Brossoit, Nick
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 11:31 AM
To: @All Edmonds Email
Cc: 'Tatia Prieto'
Subject: State Performance Audit


September 10, 2007

Dear Colleagues:

As part of the state required performance audit, the superintendents of each of the 10 largest school districts were asked by the State Auditor's Office to send out the following text. Participation in the on-line survey is optional; however, it is also an opportunity to provide input which could be helpful at the local and state levels. Thanks for your consideration of this opportunity in the context of your busy schedule.

Sincerely,
Nick


The Washington State Auditor's Office (SAO) is currently undertaking an independent performance audit of the administrative and overhead operations of the 10 largest school districts, which includes ours. The audit will review and analyze the economy and efficiency of the administrative and overhead operations in the districts.

Your input is an important part of this study. Later this Fall, a team from Cotton and Company, LLP (the contractor selected by the State Auditor's Office to perform this work) will be on-site in each of the 10 largest districts to review operations and you may be asked to provide input at that time during interviews or small groups. Your first opportunity to provide input is through an anonymous web-based survey.

This survey can be accessed through this link, beginning on September 10th:

The Edmonds specific instrument is at:

http://surveys.egs-jobforce.com/surveys/index.php?sid=69


Technology has been enabled to ensure that respondents only complete the survey once. If hitting "control" and clicking on the link does not take you directly to the survey, you will need to copy the link and paste it into a web browser.

If you have any difficulty accessing the survey, please contact Tatia Prieto either by phone at 954-465-1175 or by e-mail at Survey@ConsultEvergreen.com.

Please submit your survey no later than September 17th at midnight. All survey responses will be kept confidential and go directly to the consultants with Cotton and Company.

Emergency sheds or public storage?

Well, word has gotten out that the District just installed emergency sheds at every location and filled them with emergency supplies. Unfortunately, one can never rely upon the contents being inside during an emergency because looting has become prolific. A few simple screws are all that stand between saving student lives during a crisis and mischievous kids building a tree fort.

In 2005, the District, under more competent leadership and direction, scoped a steel structure that was secure and could hold its own against prospective looters. Of course, in the spirit of tossing out anything and everything scoped by intelligent predecessors, these structures were re-scoped to reduce the per unit cost. In the process, structural integrity and adequate security were eliminated and now money will forever be poured into keeping the equipment inside stocked to a usable level.

Saving a few capital fund dollars today while blowing a wad of general fund dollars day after day, for the rest of forever. Another triumph in facilities management.

Disgruntled or uninformed - those are your choices

When my supervisor left the Edmonds School District in 2005, his insulating powers left with him. When fecal matter hit the fan, he was always standing between us and that fan. The extent of our collective observation would be nothing more than the faint whiff of something unsavory. What arrived in his place was someone with fecal matter between his ears. No insulating happened and the exposure to all that was unholy was laid out right before us. It was unpleasant. It was raw. It was agonizing to behold. What was once explained in advance and resulted from departmental collaboration was now plunked down in reeking filth without so much as an introduction.

For those among you that still do not know, I love the District sincerely. I want to see our public schools thrive and churn out healthy, happy and intellectually-developed young men and women. Unfortunately, such results depend on money. The same money that is being handed out in questionable land transactions and through unnecessary raises for only district administrators. Employees on the front line have to carry the burden of program cuts and staffing reductions - not administrators. The real sacrifices are being made in the classrooms, when class sizes increase and academic programs are scaled back. Students have fewer opportunities. Staff have greater pressures on rapidly dwindling resources. How can you be anything other than dissatisfied?

Am I disgruntled, as Marla Miller claims in the board minutes? Absolutely. Disgruntled means "in a state of sulky dissatisfaction - discontent". What is happening in the District makes me incredibly dissatisfied and far from content. Like many people, I intend to express my dissatisfaction and discontent with a ballot. I will not vote for the current school board. I will be voting for change and strongly encourage others to join me.

More than just stealing milk money

There has been a lot of chatter recently about the list of required items that students must purchase prior to the start of school. For the many families that have more than a single child in school, these expenses can quickly add up. Just ask Assistant Superintendent Marla Miller how much it cost her to send her children to school - or you can just read it in the Seattle Times by clicking here. Why would anyone advertise their hyper-extravagance during a budget crisis of $5 million?

For the many of us that are raising families on something less than a superintendent's salary - of more than $200,000 per year - these expenses can make a big difference in a family budget. A reasonable person has to ask the obvious question like, "How can a person earning more than the Vice President of the United States and Secretary of State endorse such a lengthy list of new fees and necessities?"

Are you aware that while parents and students were away from the classroom, the school board passed a rather large and grotesque set of raises for administrators that amount to just under $30.00 per student. How far could that $30.00 per student have gone toward helping correct other budget casualties? Why hand out cash to your friends with one hand while cutting back needed programs and services with the other?

Operator? Can you help me place this call?

I was surprised to get a call this morning from none other than Pat Shields, board member for the Edmonds School District. Of course, since I was at work and his call was not work-related, I couldn't stay on the phone very long. The call was only long enough for him to ask for "Jim Young".

Now, for those of you who follow City of Edmonds Planning Board meetings, you will know that Jim Young works for the City of Seattle and serves on the Board. Why would Pat Shields call me at work and ask for a member of the City of Edmonds Planning Board? Very strange. My telephone number is not even close to Jim's number. What could have prompted such a call?

Since I have a well-established reputation for going far above and well beyond any request received from the public, I forwarded along Pat's telephone number to Jim by way of email. I just wanted to make sure Pat got a hold of Jim. After all, since Pat's number is unlisted, it may not be very easy for Jim to get in touch with Pat.

If I had to speculate, I'd say Pat must have had a rather cluttered notepad full of my contact information that he wanted to share with Jim. Maybe Pat wanted to ask Jim a few questions about City of Seattle and King County government and what their views might be regarding what employees do when they are not at work.

Maybe Pat's Rolodex lumped "Young" and "Zandberg" on the same index card and he got his numbers crossed, but then I don't recall ever providing my telephone number to Pat. I just moved into a brand new building and the number is barely three weeks old.

Fun Factoid: The total number of possible 7-digit phone numbers "-defghij", starting with: -0000000, -0000001, -0000002, ..., -2426825, ..., -9999999. So there are 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 10^7 seven digit integers between "0000000" and "9999999" with no other restrictions on the counting procedure. Combining that with the 4 possible area codes in the Puget Sound (206, 253, 360 & 425) gives: 40,000,000 possible phone numbers, each with a probability: P = 1/40,000,000. The caller's probability of winning the Washington State Lotto is only 1/13,983,816, which would make the winning ticket nearly three times more likely to obtain.

What I did this summer, by Nicky B.

Furst, I waded til evrybudy lef town. Den me an my frens thot up a way to git mor munny. It was scarry to try an git mor munny win peeple culd sho up at bored meadings an ask hard kweshuns. Aniway, me an my frens desided to giv all of de begshots mor munny evin tho Mommy sed the bank akount is short by five gazilion dollers. But Mommy gav us mor munny becuz she got sum to.

Den i wen to sumer kamp an lirned to wader skee.

Blog Highlights: the first 77 days

1. Board member occupying position in direct conflict with Board Policy 1245.
Seat is unavailable for qualified individual
2. Purchasing property based upon seller's questionable appraisal.
$2.8 million loss
3. Selling property through attorneys to avoid disclosing appraisal.
$2.2 million loss
4. Pornography found on manager's computer.
No action taken by District
5. Technology offering direct links to child pornography through their website.
Site modified to prevent such access
6. Management hired without applications, interviews, or public forums.
A series of questionable choices by unqualified staff
7. Big raises for administrators during a budgetary crisis of $4.5 million.
Case in point

Not to mention "inspection through urination" by a director and legal fees expended trying to prove this blog site is cyber-squatting... And the reports keep flooding in.

Thank you for your support.

ESD15.org staff

"High Roaders" or High Rollers?

Hey there fellow bloggers, tax payers & District employees. Since this seems to be the most recent, urgent & volatile issue requiring action on someone's part - I am attaching the following info in the hope it gets read.

Here are a few more numbers for you to chew on:

Administrator's salaries for the upcoming 07-08 school year are at ten million two-hundred thousand dollars (that's $10,200,000.00). This figure reflects an increase over the previous year of $550,000.00 which works out roughly to be a 5.7% increase (if my calculations are wrong, please someone correct me).

The cost of living increase accepted by Fortune 500 companies and the national average is 3.2%.

Can anyone explain to me why our District administrators qualify for this comparatively large increase? Especially in light of our budget cuts coming up in 08-09 and no raises for classified or certified staff (cuts having been announced) how can this be? Who passes these increases? We know the School Board (yes, them again) awarded the Superintendent another raise based upon "performance" paying him over $200,000.00 a year. That's $40,000.00 in raises in 2 years! I don't remember being asked if I thought he was doing a great job and was deserving of this. Were any other employees or community members involved in this decision? Shouldn't we all be involved in some way with his review? (I think maybe Mark's website is a reflection of this only too late.)

We are facing a budget deficit of 6 million dollars. One negative additional contribution to this figure was the missed prediction that our enrollment would increase when it actually has decreased by 247 students which translates to a loss of $1 million (according to the Herald). A few years ago this forecast was short 22 students and the Budget Analyst responsible for the prediction was "let go" having this cited as the reason (even though most other Districts suffered similar losses using the same formula). Additionally, this occurred to him after providing years of excellent service and the distinction as being one of the most consistent and successful in the State. The current analyst who missed this is now being groomed for management.

Supposedly sacrifices are having to be made. Unfortunately the previously mentioned (ignorant, sycophantic and completely useless yes men in) middle management who are comfortably raking in $110,000.00 per annum for doing nothing are not considered sacrificial. There is no justice. However many arrows are available in this quiver to aim at the top administrators and board members they are sure to close ranks.

An historical reminder: the peasants are rallying just outside the castle...

Fun Factoid: The federal government's Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice and the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Robert Gates each earn just $183,500 per year. Running a school district must be a greater challenge than running the State Department or the Pentagon - that Iraq War must be making things a lot easier.

Squeezing out a... well, one anyway

[ESD15.org staff]
In reading the exchange between Kirsten and Nick, my mind immediately called the obvious question and, quite frankly, my research shows that Kirsten was incorrect. Bruce Williams was not re-elected and then promptly left his residence. He filed as a candidate on July 25th, 2005 and then moved out of his director district in August 2005. The election was in November 2005.

School Board Policy requires that candidates immediately resign upon departing their director district. Why wouldn't Bruce and his friends take the time to revise board policy to accommodate his new circumstances.

ESD15.org makes it easy
Nick, and we all know you are reading this, please click here, print the document and hand it to Bruce on Monday.

Fun Factoid: The County Auditor's name appears on the Declaration of Candidacy document. Bob Terwilliger is the husband of Mimi Terwilliger, a fellow board member of Bruce Williams at the time of filing.

Why are my ears bleeding?

Good afternoon everybody,

Fire alarm and sprinkler testing is scheduled for Thursday and Friday. This involves testing monitoring and fire suppression equipment. Each station will have to be tested. The process is that a technician will activate each monitor while another technician will be at the alarm panel to immediately cancel the signal. This is required yearly testing. There may be very brief soundings of the horn which will last no longer than it takes to turn it off. We apologize for any disruption in your work areas by personnel trying to reach monitoring devices. I received the notice today and apologize for passing on the short notice. Thanks

Come on now. Why would anyone schedule such a disruptive series of tests during operational hours? In the past, we used to schedule these to occur outside of normal business hours. The tests don't take very long and it is far better to inconvenience a couple of technicians that start work at 7:00 am than to blast everyone in the ESC several times during their work day. Management needs to plan ahead or follow well-established protocol - even if they disagree with those who may have developed it.

Fun Factoid: If you exclude the hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, you have 123 hours a week when these sorts of tests could take place.

"Irresponsible communicator" speaks out

Thanks Mark for this website as an avenue for us "anonymous" (faceless & unimportant) individuals to share our experiences & express our opinions. As District employees we know there is nowhere and no one within to share any of these issues & concerns without fear of repercussion.

If indeed Nick is reading, what his reaction is & what action he takes in addressing the content herein should certainly reveal his character and I hope not continue to make him appear to be protecting the guilty or simply his own personal interests.

I have seen 5 Superintendents during my tenure with the District. The quality of life here has continued to diminish with each new appointment. I am a local taxpayer & support the District. I am a former student & have children in attendance at our schools. This should give me enough status to adequately make some credible comment on the climate within the District. I resent that, although he was addressing you in his letter, Nick has suggested that because we are not making our identities known our comments should be discredited as untrue. If he believes this he expresses a callous disregard & lack of respect for we are community voices.

What is true is that we have to work under threats, intimidation & bullying while attempting not to allow these ridiculous acts on the part of some members of the administration to interfere with our focus on doing our jobs.

Good leaders are rare in our present society. Honesty, though, should be the cornerstone in which all leaders base their decisions and which drives their actions (and secures their employment). What we should expect from our Superintendent are thoughtful, respectful & considerate responses to these problems and who as our leader must have the health of the District as his prime maintenance target. As you have expressed your intent in this regard, I hope that your blog and its contents do begin to reach a larger and more influential audience. Major changes must be pursued; the District's leaders must better reflect the philosophies that are upheld in our schools.

This is not a privately owned business and should not be considered as such. If in fact it were it would have been out of business a long time ago except for the good graces in the form of involuntary support from taxpayers. Is our money being spent wisely? Are our assets being properly protected? Is the leadership abusing their power? Are they overpaid for their services? Isn't there some slimming that should be done in management?

I guess we will all have to stay tuned. I hope that for your sake Mark this does not injure your highly regarded reputation. It is certainly not you who is leading the District into disrepute.

We're not in Tumwater - use a map

[Nick to the County Auditor]
We welcome any attention to this matter.

After moving out, Dr. Williams was renting an apartment still in his area that was the “old residence” to which I referred. I never said in any communication that he was still living with his wife. His rental was his residence while he purchased his new home and he was there and did not move until after the filing period. He has documentation to support this and all of the Board members are aware of this allegation.

[ESD15.org staff]
The evidence presented in this blog clearly demonstrates that Dr. Williams was renting a dwelling at Park Place Apartments on Edmonds Way in Edmonds. No part of Edmonds Way falls inside of Director District #4. Board Policy 1245 requires that this disqualified board member resign immediately.

Fun Factoid: Park Place Apartments was constructed by Burnstead - the same developer that bought half of Old Woodway Elementary.

Here is the legal description for Director District #4:
Starting at the intersection of school district, Puget Sound and Shell Creek. Southerly along Shell Creek to Caspers St. East on Caspers St. to 7th Ave. North on 7th Ave to Brookmere Dr. East on Brookmere Dr. to 8th Ave. North on 8th Ave to Hindley Ln. East on Hindley Ln. to 9th Ave. North on 9th Ave to Puget Dr. Easterly on Puget Dr. to 196th St. East on 196th St. to State Hwy 99. Northeast on State Hwy. 99 to 60th Ave. North on 60th Ave to 188th St. East on 188th St. to 40th Ave. South on 40th Ave to 191st Pl. East on 191st Pl. to 36th Ave. South on 36th Ave/37th Ave to 196th St. East on 196th St. to I-5. Southwest on I-5 to 212th St. West on 212th St. to 66th Ave. South on 66th Ave to 220th St. West on 220th St. to 84th Ave. North on 84th Ave to 218th St. West on 218th St. to 92nd Ave. North on 92nd Ave to 216th St. West on 216th St. to 96th Ave. South on 96th Ave to 216th Pl. West on 216th Pl. to 98th Ave. North on 98th Ave to Pine St. West on Pine St. and extension to Puget Sound and school district boundary. North following school district boundary to the point of the beginning.

Duped by the Supe

[Nick]
I do not agree with your blog concept; by allowing anonymous posts you are promoting irresponsible communication and in fact allowing people to say untruths about the district and staff. No person or organization has a responsibility to respond in any forum to anonymous allegations. Thus, your suggestion that you are personally interested in making the district a better place does not fit with your practices.

[Mark]
People have been forwarding comments to the blog that seem a bit hard to believe. I just want to make sure I have the facts correct because I am trying not to post any inaccuracies.

1. Bruce Williams moved out of his official residence prior to October of 2006.
2. He then Quit Claimed the residence to his wife in October, 2006.
3. His wife then refinanced his former home in February, declaring that she is legally separated.
4. Bruce then moved to Park Place Apartments on Edmonds Way prior to February 2007.
5. He then bought a house outside of Director District 4 in April of 2007.
6. The deadline for filing accurate residential information with the County Auditor was June 8, 2007.

Just when, exactly did you become aware that Bruce Williams moved?

So far, it sounds like the inaccuracies on my blog are confined to the information you have been providing.

Please advise.

Mark Zandberg

Fun Factoid: Blogs are web logs that are regularly updated, some even daily. They consist of information that is related to a certain topic. In some cases, blogs are used as daily diaries about people’s personal lives, political views and commentaries. Simply put, blogs can be made into whatever the author want them to be. Blogs can be traced back in the 1990’s. Who started them is not known. Although it started during that time, it was in 1999 that people got into blogging.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

It would appear as though Dr. Williams and his wife could not legally live in the same house, as Nick Brossoit claims, because a restraining order was filed in August of 2005. So, it would stand to reason that he vacated his official residence in August of 2005, or violated the restraining order.

Oddly, why would these matters be settled in King County if the parties involved were living and working in Snohomish County? A person not living in the right director district - represents it. A couple not living in King County has their dispute settled there.

Jurisdiction: 1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies. 2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area. 3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police. 4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.

If his re-election took place in November of 2005, he was not a qualified candidate at the time, let alone on June 8, 2007.

Bruce Williams was "modernizing"

[Kirsten]
Given the upcoming election for school board positions, I was wondering if it was a requirement to live in the director district you represent.

[Nick]
We have three positions open right now that will be on the November ballot, and based on the residence information we have - the current Board members who are on the ballot do reside in the correct Board member district. We do not check the address of those who file with the Auditor’s office; that office verifies the requirements.

If a Board member moves out of their director district after they have been elected and depending on when they move, they are either allowed to finish their term of office or the remaining board members select a replacement to complete that term. Then, that position would be open just as any at the regular cycle of the term. The Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA) has all the legal references and requirements if you have additional questions.

[Kirsten]
Are there any such board members, currently living outside of the director district they represent, that have been allowed to continue serving on the board? If so, is such a decision made during a public board meeting or behind closed doors? What percentage of their term must be served while a resident of the director district they represent?

[Nick]
One of our current Board members, Bruce Williams moved still within the district, but outside of his “director” district. At that time, we checked with WASDA and based on the timing of his move and where it fell in his term, the law did not require him or the district to make any changes and he is allowed to complete his term. When his position opens in 2009, he would not be eligible to run for that specific “director” position based on his new residence; however, since he still lives within the district he could decide to run for the “director” district where he now resides if he wanted to when it became open. This required no district action other than to verify with WASDA at that time. It is something that was known by the Board and staff at that time as we processed that information. This rarely happens in school districts, thus you are welcome to communicate with WASDA to learn more.

[Kirsten]
I have contacted the County Auditor, as you recommended. It would appear as though Dr. Williams was re-elected and then promptly left his director district. When the majority of one's term is spent living outside of their director district, how does this serve the best interests of the public?

[Nick]
Dr. Williams was re-elected and later bought a new house; however, he stayed at his old residence while he was modernizing the new one. Thus, he did not leave “promptly” as you suggest; and when he moved it was clearly within the WSSDA parameters for him to continue on the board. Keep in mind the law requires all board members once elected to represent the whole district and at no point are they to vote or represent just their “director” districts in district matters. Thus, this law is in the best interests of the public because all board members once elected do represent all of the public in the school district. He has and continues to be a distinguished veteran board member who also has a medical practice in the district.

[Kirsten]
Such modernizations would trigger building permits.

So, Dr. Williams has more than one residence and is seeking public office from the more convenient address.

[Nick]
Painting and such does not require a building permit.

Dr. Williams was already in office and had not changed his residence; these are the rules for this type of change during any Board member’s term.

[Kirsten]
So when the District seeks a capital levy to modernize schools we shall expect the amount to be limited to the price of paint.

The auditor's response is attached. It seems responsibility has shifted back to the District.

Use your name so we can harass and intimidate you

Thanks Mark,

I do not agree with your blog concept; by allowing anonymous posts you are promoting irresponsible communication and in fact allowing people to say untruths about the district and staff. No person or organization has a responsibility to respond in any forum to anonymous allegations. Thus, your suggestion that you are personally interested in making the district a better place does not fit with your practices.

While you seek and follow whatever legal advice you choose, you are welcome to bring your legal council to a meeting with me if you would like to process your concerns about the district or your situation constructively. I enjoy every day Mark; it is troubling that you are where you are in how you have responded to what was an appropriate letter or direction when you were here.

Sincerely,
Nick

Numbers don't lie, but people do

Three lots were purchased by MJR in 2001 for $1,937,500.
These same lots were appraised in 2005 by the District for $3,300,000.
This represents a return of 17.5% per year.

The District purchased the same lots for $5,601,551 in 2005.
These same lots were appraised in 2005 by MJR for $5,600,000.
This represents a return of 47.5% per year.

Lot One
Lot Two
Lot Three

"Walking the high road"

It seems the board is also reading the blog.

http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/board/minutes/Minutes%207.10.07.pdf

Right now she may be walking, but I'll have her jogging in no time.

Okay, so he does read the blog

Mark,

I appreciate you sending the e-mail. I don't think that Marla or the "district" would agree with how you state some of these things, perhaps that is from your perspective. I wish you would have met with me and processed your issues before deciding to leave, as I would have helped work through them as necessary. You still have that option.

With respect to the letter to the editor you wrote and in light of the topic and your position with the district at that time, it was not a good decision and it was something that did cause issues for us with some in the public. Thus a letter of direction to you from Marla to not do that was appropriate. Also, if some type of review of your communications followed that would make sense if there were any question about your judgments made in terms of communication.

Thus, if you want to problem solve with Marla, I am happy to facilitate the discussion, but you seem to want to just toss rocks at her and us? I have always been about trying to do what is right and not try to be right; I don't know for sure what you are about with the things you are doing in these matters. Maybe you are trying to justify or defend something you did by writing that letter? I would think it wiser to accept that was not the best decision, accept the district's response and then move forward - if there were other job related issues that surface after the letter of direction, those could have been worked out. It seems given the fight or flight options when faced with a disagreement, you did both?

Sincerely,
Nick

c: Marla

Chicken Doodle Supe

Feel free to contribute in any manner you please.
The superintendent will not be reading this blog.

Mark,

I more than vaguely recall who you are, and believe it or not enjoyed the times I communicated with you. I am not going to read the blog. And you are now as much as you were at any time always welcome to call JoAnn Kerns at 425 431 7003 to set up a time to meet and visit about any of your issues, past or present.

Sincerely,

Nick

From: Mark Zandberg [mailto:mark@esd15.org]
Sent: Thu 8/9/2007 1:47 PM
To: Kirsten W.
Cc: Brossoit, Nick
Subject: Correct email address

Kirsten,

Thank you for sending along the attached email. I was not aware that Nick Brossoit emailed me. If it was sent to my email address: mark@esd15.org, I never received it.

The email may have been sent to zandbergm@edmonds.wednet.edu, but that account was terminated on June 7, 2007, five days before my final work day.

I am sending a copy of this email to Nick Brossoit and will recommend that he read the blog entry called "Squeezing out a good one" for a better idea of what precipitated my departure. He may vaguely recall who I am, as I drove him around Edmonds in search of a place to live prior to the start of his current job.

http://esd15.blogspot.com/2007/07/squeezing-out-good-one.html

Mark

Running with Numbers

Surely I can't be the only one wondering how the District fell into dire financial straits. In an effort to understand the current financial woes of the District, I dug around a bit and discovered something rather upsetting.

First, the District purchased a new administration site in 2005 for $6.2 million based on an appraised value of $5.6 million. The trouble is that the appraisal was provided by the seller. The District's appraisal determined the value to be $3.3 million. Why would a public agency trust the seller's appraisal when they already identified an appraiser of their own through the legally-required RFQ process? The District's appraisal was apparently disregarded and seemingly not even used to negotiate the higher figure down a tad.

Second, the District sold an elementary site in 2006 for less than market value and did not obtain an appraisal for each portion, once they divided it in half. State law requires that the District receive no less than 90% of appraised value. Rather than have both halves appraised, they appraised it just once. Worse still, I am told they appraised it through their legal firm so as to protect the document from public disclosure laws. Even more damaging is the fact that the District will be refunding the costs of demolition. Ouch!

I realize the second point is hard to swallow and not easy to understand. Let me explain a bit more.

The District sent out very few invitations to developers to bid on the property as 11.2 acres. From the few that were invited to bid, not all possessed the ability to demolish a building full of hazardous materials. Among the scant few bidders that were involved, the high bidder was identified as Burnstead. After Burnstead agreed to pay a known price for all 11.2 acres, they were then informed that the available portion was just the vacant half - the building was to be sold to the City of Edmonds. Burnstead was then allowed to modify their offer to reflect the smaller piece of vacant dirt. It stands to reason that Burnstead already deflated their price to accommodate the cost of demolition, estimated at just over one million dollars. Now that they have a vacant piece of land, they have 50% of the demolition discount and no actual demolition costs. Hmm, imagine that?

Then look at the City of Edmonds. They bought the remaining portion of the site, with the building to demolish and purchased it for a price containing a 50% reduction for demolition. Then the Edmonds School District allegedly offered to refund, rebate or discount the purchase price by the cost of demolition. Their discount is therefore 150% of demolition.

What really disturbs me is that the City of Edmonds will have no real motivation to keep costs down while they demolish. After all, the District is picking up the tab.

By my math (and I confess that I was not educated in an Edmonds School District classroom) that adds up to five million reasons to ask a few questions.

Working and lurking in the shadows

There was a time, not long ago, when natural light was viewed as a resource to be shared among staff. In deliberating the wisdom behind office cubicle orientation, it was decided to maximize the amount of natural light by keeping shorter panels near the windows and allowing taller panels to only be placed perpendicular to the glass. Such an arrangement allows people further from the windows to also get a glimpse of daylight - when it happens.

The taller panels of supervisor stations, because of the confidential things they sometimes contain, were to be placed further from the windows and thereby not prevent natural light from flowing on others. The additional size of the cubicle was intended to offset the distance from the windows.

These days, there are people that should know better placing tall panels right up against windows and endowing themselves with more square feet than to which they are normally entitled. Standards were developed for the benefit of all staff but now, deviation is the norm.

It seems utterly self-serving to reconfigure a space with no other regard than to create a little bunker within which a person can hide their addiction to Solitaire and hot rod magazines. If a supervisor knew their staff a bit better, they would know that such a cubicle transformation will only cause a greater wedge to develop. But then staff development and good relations are not a high priority these days.

District jobs without interviews

While the vast majority of District staff arrived in their positions through application, interviews and sometimes public forums, there are several who have not.

On the one hand, the District required a long-standing employee to re-apply for a position she had been performing exceptionally well for a number of years. There was no change in classification and no change in the job description - aside from the District making the position Exempt. There was a concern that this specific employee was making too much money in overtime because she worked long hours and was always solving District emergencies. Quite frankly, it was absolutely shocking the number of hours she would work every week - and it wasn't for a love of money but rather a love for the District.

On the other hand, there are a number of employees that slipped into their positions without jobs being posted, without any transparency and seemingly under cover of darkness. In one extreme case, a member of staff was moved from Human Resources into a leadership position without a job posting, application process, candidate review or even a public forum. I am told the individual in question has only a bachelor's degree in theater or performing arts and yet somehow qualified for this newly-created position.

During the obvious coronation, an underling was also carried to a new and dizzy height in administration without a job posting, application, candidate review or public forum. Overnight, another young protege was whisked into management without so much as a competitive process. It doesn't sound like the bending of rules but rather a blatant disregard for employment processes. How are the rest of staff supposed to feel about the manner in which they became employees of the District?

While many may think it's Business as Usual in the District, to me it smells like the common theme of gifting public funds and nepotism. If you came into your position through questionable practices why would your work be anything other than questionable? The age-old adage seems appropriate here: It's not what you know but who you know.

How to take credit for everything

I once sat in a meeting where I asked a question, the answer to which was already known. My supervisor had recently left and I was handling - to the best of my ability - all of his work as well as my own. His district telephone number forwarded callers to me and I had received numerous emails from staff and leadership praising the manner in which I was "juggling" so much work and doing so with great success. I didn't complain. I wasn't seeking special treatment. I was doing what I could to help during a busy and turbulent time in my department's history. There was plenty of work to do and I managed the workload.

The sad revelation occurred when a new position was created to oversee my department and Maintenance. It was not a position designed to take on my former supervisor's duties, but rather a position to ensure that someone else continued to take them on. When the new person was hired, I was invited to a meeting with the newbie and his boss. It was during this meeting when I posed the question, "Who do you believe has been doing all of this work since the position vacated?"

Of course, to create and maintain an aura of qualification, the boss, despite emails to the contrary, chimed in and took full credit for everything. I was expecting the response but was jarred by the deliberate attempt to bury obvious feelings of inadequacy. I suppose a great District leader knows when to take credit for everything. In this particular case, I suspect the boss had no idea the extent of work for which credit was being swindled. But hey, the new guy probably believed you.

Making requests for public records

For the many people who have asked about requesting public records, here is how it works. The District is still aware that they are a public agency and serve the public. Therefore, the District knows that when a member of the public wants to review something, they can request a copy. The copies, however, cost 10 cents a page, which is intended to offset the expense incurred by the District to make the requested copies.

It is always better to request the fewest number of pages, not to keep costs low but to reduce the amount of paper and the time processing the request. They are still public employees after all and their time should not be consumed with filling such requests.

You can also cite the relevant legal references, but since the District already knows that you are entitled to the information, you need not worry about making such a reference in your request.

All requests for public information should be addressed to the Public Records Designee, Marla Miller, and your requests may be sent via email, but the District will adhere to protocol and generate paper copies. The information is normally provided in 10 days and arrangements will have to be made to pay for the copies made. You should be willing to collect the copies at the front desk of the ESC and leave a check to cover the fees.

If you have any trouble getting copies of records, please let me know. I am always happy to render aid in such matters.