skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Many of you have been writing in to the blog expressing concern about the lack of entries from January 1 until January 10, 2008. In fact, some of you went so far as to suggest the District shut us down. Just how that would happen, I cannot imagine. Have you been reading the blog? Can you imagine a scenario that involves the District's legal team pulling the plug on our public forum? This blog is an instrument for change and though the District may be opposed to change, they cannot stop a force for good.
The short hiatus was due to a small disagreement with my writing staff. They caught wind of all of the money that can be made in residual payments when this blog is eventually launched into syndication. They wanted a piece of the action and demanded to have their issues addressed under threat of a strike. I tried to convince them that the blog is not driven by money and that I would never relinquish control to corporate fat cats seeking to control the movie rights. My writers didn't believe me and staged a short walk out.
Fortunately, I know my writers. I know they love the smell of Krispy Kreme doughnuts in the morning and cannot resist the call of freshly-brewed All City Coffee. It was only a matter of time before they had to get back to writing.
Sorry for the lapse in coverage and thank you for your continued support and words of encouragement.
Mark Zandberg
Executive Director of Blog Content Development
Editorial: Seriously, because I cannot lie to you, I was caught up in a few investigations and strategic planning that took up a lot of my time. There was also a couple of days of the sniffles and I didn't want to drip on my keyboard.
[Wendy]
I received this from opposing counsel last week. Let me know if you want to discuss.
[Mark]
Though the District doesn't know what documents I have, this one I kept because it was a friendly letter from Marla, which is a very rare thing to obtain. I put it in my references file, along with a few other friendly letters that you have in my file there.
I am not a public agency and not obligated to reveal or provide documents that were sent to me. Do they want my pay stubs? Holiday cards sent from others? Just what limits would be placed on this request.
They have all of my email stored on their servers. They are welcome to dig through them and use what they like.
[Wendy]
Opposing counsel emailed me to follow up on the District's request for return of docs. I told counsel to be more specific about what the District thought you possessed and what it wanted back. I told them, though, that I'd ask you to return the one specific letter referenced in its request (the friendly letter from Marla). Would you mind mailing to me, and I will forward to oppo counsel.
Here is that email message.
I have received email and calls to the tip line about how Marla felt she was qualified to run the operations side of the District, because her brothers were in construction. My eyebrows still pop upward when I hear or read such a justification for her position.
Having reviewed her resume, I am a little bewildered as to why she didn't include her brother's professions among her qualifications. It certainly wouldn't have hurt her chances of getting hired at the District. By now we all know it isn't a matter of what you know, but who you know. Or, apparently what your brother's might know.
I am wondering if these brothers in construction had more influence over current district management than I may have originally surmised. Perhaps little Marla had to evolve into a cunning, manipulative scheme artist to survive in her household. Maybe it is through a honed set of skills in deception that led to a life of duping the public for personal enrichment. Maybe there is a deeper problem here that would require the involvement of mental health practitioners.
With all due respect, the recent piano scam has revealed a number of things;
1. It is possible for a con artist to lose track of their scheme. While it is clear that Marla sought to enrich someone with whom she had developed a personal relationship, she back-peddled when things started to feel uncomfortable. By throwing $39,000.00 at her new friend, she had hoped to avoid the consequences of poor choices.
2. While I originally thought that Arnie Tucker was just looking for a one time gift of public funds and befriended Marla in an effort to secure a hand out, I have since backed away from that concept. I think Arnie was interested in the long game. I think he was interested in dining at the District's expense for years and years. I suspect that Arnie was looking to have these lease schemes rolled out every year.
3. Manny's involvement seems like every bit of the character people have been claiming that he is. When an unsavory aroma wafts from Marla's direction, Manny stands at the ready to fan the fumes and make excuses. He is loyal and knows who butters his bread. Clearly a patsy. A fall guy.
4. Tam was a bit of a surprise. I am quite convinced that he was swimming with sharks and probably got in over his head. No doubt there was an opportunity to provide pianos to school kids and I suspect Tam was interested in the outcome. He was probably fixated on the outcome and deferred any qualms about process to Marla. After all, if the head of business and operations claims there is nothing immoral about the piano scam, why would a music man step in the way?
5. The board remains every bit of the cast of clowns they have always been. Far more impressed with the seats they sit in than any sense of obligation to perform their assigned tasks to the best of their abilities. I remain convinced that each of these "bored" members have out-lived their recommended shelf life and they need to step aside and make room for people who hold public servants accountable. We need people on the board that are not afraid to speak up or ask real questions. At this stage, it would be far better to have a board of crazed lunatics than five useless do-nothings. Perhaps people might start showing up at meetings to watch the excitement.
6. The superintendent, like his five puppet masters, doesn't understand the financial impact of rushing forward with bad ideas. He continues to cook up new and interesting ways to present himself to the public while our district is consumed with fire from his kitchen. Sure, we can talk about how students can improve their academic performance by throwing a few dollars at new programs, but wouldn't it be more prudent to prevent the millions and millions of dollars from being handed out to Marla's friends?
Still disgusted.
Editorial: Is it a violation of attorney client privilege if I reveal that Brian Harding thinks Jerry Lutz of Perkins Coie is an as#hole?
Some months ago, an avid reader commented that he would consider the blog a success if it ever posted it's 100th entry. Not that we are overly-fixated on so arbitrary a benchmark, but we have now posted our 200th entry and continue to look forward to the next many years of constructively engaging the District in its many, many questionable decisions and misinterpretation of board policies. While it is sad to see these short-sighted and self-serving people in public education, it remains our hope that they may one day seek to be more responsible. Preferably somewhere else.
There are still a number of allegations floating around from the District's legal team and they need to be flushed. (The allegations, not the team. I have actually started to enjoy my exchanges with Duncan. Thank you.)
Second, while an employee of the District, Mr. Zandberg and his supervisor met with a Jaswinder Singh who was interested in buying property adjacent to Brier Terrace Middle School. Working with Perkins Coie, Mr. Zandberg and his supervisor informed Mr. Singh that the District would not grant his request for an easement to access his property using the driveway of Brier Terrace Middle School. After he resigned, Mr. Zandberg then took on Mr. Singh as his "client" using information he had gained as an employee to represent Mr. Singh's adverse interests.
I would think this matter would also fall well within whistleblower protection, if one sought to include it as such. In this case, the District possesses a document that grants perpetual access for one, single family residence. Mr. Singh acknowledges the existence of this document and may or may not have seen this document first hand. The reason why Mr. Singh met with me and my supervisor was to negotiate the possibility of obtaining a second access point when and if Mr. Singh sought to subdivide. The District was dismissive in granting such access and I support my former supervisor in taking this position. The District currently seeks to exclude Mr. Singh from accessing his primary residence, despite a letter from the District granting such permission. This is the same letter that both Marla Miller and Brian Harding told me to "bury".
With respect to Mr. Zandberg's use of King County computer resources to send e-mails to District employees, the District has, at various times, received e-mails from Mark Zandberg, Kirsten and Rachel Brisbane, which have been traced through the District's IT Department as originating from the same IP address, and having been routed through the King County computer server.
I find your faith in the District's IT Department to be laughable and without a morsel of credibility. The fact that individuals may have emailed me at an address that I access from work, once in a while, and that their concerns may have been forwarded to District employees for comment or informative purposes, does not even come close to a level suggesting anything other than normal conduct. Again, as I have said before, the District's legal team would be better advised to counsel their client on the appropriate use of public funds.
With respect to Mr. Zandberg's use of District e-mail under a false name, Gary Noble received an e-mail allegedly from Debbie Jakala on September 27, 2007 at 9:40 p.m. That message encouraged Mr. Noble to visit a posting on Mark Zandberg's blog, containing malicious statements about Mr. Noble's wife. Ms. Jakala did not send that e-mail, and it has been traced to an IP address outside of the District. Likewise, Clint Goodison allegedly received an e-mail from himself, inviting him to visit a posting on Mark Zandberg's blog, containing disparaging remarks about the District's administrator's salaries. Mr. Goodison did not send that e-mail, and it has also been traced to an IP address outside of the District.
I suspect you intend to suggest that the name "Debbie Jakala" is not false but the pretense under which it was used may be false. I am flattered that the District thinks such an email came from me, but then since the District's crack IT Department only narrowed it down to somewhere outside of the District, how could you possibly conclude it was sent by me? To clarify, are you suggesting the email came from outside of the geographic boundaries of the District or outside of their server parameters? This would narrow your search from 6.8 billion persons to something closer to one million.
With respect to Mr. Zandberg's contact with a District consultant after he had resigned, on or about September 26, 2007, Mr. Zandberg contacted District consultants Al Morgan, at Reid Middleton, and Deb Ladd at AMEC, asking about a meeting that had occurred on May 10, 2005, and particularly inquiring about which District board members had attended the meeting. In response, Deb Ladd forwarded a page from a proposal she had prepared documenting that meeting. Mr. Zandberg responded by asking her questions she felt were inappropriate, and she attempted to contact him by telephone at the District, whereupon she learned that he was no longer a District employee. Ms. Ladd then informed the District of his inquiries and stated that because Mr. Zandberg had been using the esd15.org e-mail address, she thought he still worked for the District. She has prepared a declaration citing these facts.
Wow, Duncan, thank you for authenticating my earlier statements about the mysterious meeting that Marla claimed resulted in her being directed to start negotiating for the contaminated swamp - if you can call that a negotiation. Marla has been claiming that a lot more happened at that meeting than actually did and I am honored that you have taken the time to verify that I did get my information from a very reliable source. It is a shame, however, that people are so easily confused by the use of a dot org domain. The District is still in education, right?
On a grammatical note, your sentences are rather long-winded and your inclination toward commas is a test of tolerance. I don't need to take so many breaths of air when I am reading to myself.
Finally, with respect to the destruction of public records, at the time the District denied Mr. Zandberg's claim, the District was relying on a forensic computer analysis suggesting that files had been intentionally wiped from Mr. Zandberg's former hard drive using wiping software, or that files had been encrypted prior to deleting them. However, upon further investigation by the District, no evidence of such action has been uncovered.
Remember what I said about your faith in the District's IT Department? They have left me laughing on more than several occasions.
The matter of the anonymous letter has been resolved. As indicated in a previous entry, I mailed seven postcards from around the Seattle area and kept track of their starting positions and the postmarks that were stamped upon them.
When the postcards arrived, I carried them to a man that retired from 34 years in the postal service. After a brief evaluation of the postmarks, it was determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the source is within one block of Seattle's Department of Transportation.
The odds of Pat Shields, Gary Noble or any other "anonymous" member of the public mailing the letter from within a block of Susan Paine's place of employment is highly improbable.
We need more intelligent board members.
Don't be alarmed, but I run server inquiries on a regular basis to check who might be reading the blog and what pages they read. This is done in part to determine what story lines are of interest to the District and their legal counsel.
For instance, an IP address normally used by jlutz at Perkins Coie read an article at 8:47 AM that covered attorney client information. I find it humorous that Perkins discouraged the purchase of the new administration site and yet when Marla bought it anyway, I am being accused of having revealed protected information.
I find it a little bewildering that someone from Nick Brossoit's alma mater would be interested in reading the blog. Unless it was Nick himself and he was either at PLU when he read the blog, or has internet access through some sort of relationship there.
I also find it rather peculiar that when a Professional-Technical employee has a real estate license and works in the industry, legal claims there is some sort of conflict and yet the superintendent teaches at Seattle University. Of course, Manuel Juzon also teaches. Is that one of those board policies that is entirely open to interpretation and applied whenever it suits management or their legal counsel?
Time (EST) IP Address
12:37:19 PM plu.edu (152.117.104.146)
Several Deleted
11:47:15 AM seassgs-cluster.perkinscoie.com (198.22.100.4)
Editorial: For those of you who might be worried that your comments may be tracked back to you through IP address mining, don't worry. The data is protected and the domain is entirely outside of any District influence. All server information is periodically cleansed to protect your identities.
It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. I was wrong. I thought Arnie Tucker was taking a bunch of dim-witted District managers for a ride when all along, it was the District playing the man like a fiddle. Oops, I mean piano.
Read Exhibit 1, where Manny Juzon tries to take back money that was paid to Arnie Tucker in support of this questionable lease that was clearly intended to avoid competitive bidding practices. It is no coincidence that the dollar figure is just a few dimes less than the mandatory required threshold of $40,000 for competitive bidding procedures - and this guy teaches management for some online diploma mill in Missouri.
Then read the response from Arnie Tucker's lawyer. Notice the fact that his lawyer questions whether legal advice was sought in constructing this "lease agreement" and also his interesting use of the term "scheme". It is very clear that Marla and Manny hoped to avoid competitive bidding requirements and were fully expecting to exploit a small company just trying to make a buck. I am not so sure I like District managers financially screwing businesses on behalf of the taxpayer. The rules are intended to protect everyone.
Then you have to take a look at the actual invoice that Marla and Manny claim is false. It isn't "false" but it does show the effort they exerted to keep the dollar amount just under $40,000.00.
There is nothing honorable about this transaction. In fact, there is nothing honorable about the conduct of District managers putting this deal together and going out of their way to avoid legally-required processes.
There is an absolute failure of leadership at every level. The board didn't know what they were looking for when they hired Nick Brossoit and he has absolutely no understanding of the operations side of the house. This gives seasoned schemers every opportunity to hatch questionable transactions for the benefit of themselves and their cronies.
I am disgusted.
1. With respect to Mr. Zandberg's use of District computers to conduct personal business, the District has recovered electronic files and/or documents from the District computer assigned to him while he was employed by the District, many of which are personal in nature, and not related to District business.
(Big deal)
Several of these electronic files reflect employment searches by Mr. Zandberg, which were conducted on District time (Note to Management: when constructively terminating staff, you should expect they might start looking for work somewhere else. Having cover letters or resumes on one's hard drive does not mean they were developed on company time.), and several files appear to contain images (There are only three image files associated with my online resume. You must mean my online photo album. I hope you enjoyed the photos.) used to create the website www.markzandberg.com, on which Mr. Zandberg maintains his resume.
Mr. Zandberg notes on that resume that he has worked as a realtor for RE/MAX since 2005, at the same time as he was employed by the District (I was never told I could not have a second job and I never signed away my right to have such a second job.), and electronic files related to RE/MAX were found on Mr. Zandberg's hard drive as well.
Are you really so stupid as to make this an issue? I performed dozens and dozens of property searches with my access to real estate sites that I used for the benefit of the District. In fact, the District encouraged me to obtain my real estate license and even paid for the exam. They had full knowledge of my real estate license and took full advantage of the access it provided. Care to pick up three years of desk fees and dues?
The District also discovered files containing images of what appears to be various pages from Edmonds rental property (I do not have any rental properties in Edmonds.) and African safari websites referencing the name "Umsizi", which is an African name bestowed on Mr. Zandberg according to his resume.
Duncan, you have my utmost sympathy. The scant material you have to pull together to make a case against me is rather slim and insignificant. The District would be out of their mind to make a case to terminate me on this sort of evidence. Were you aware that there are teachers that tutor for additional income? Custodians that clean for extra income? Managers that sell public property for kickbacks and personal favors?
2. With respect to Mr. Zandberg's use of confidential or proprietary information, you will recall that in its denial letter the District simply stated that it was investigating whether Mr. Zandberg had been using proprietary and confidential information to benefit his personal business.
I define "business" as making a profit for performing some sort of task. I have never made any money peddling District information, access or property, unlike District management.
First, Mr. Zandberg himself raised a red (I prefer blue) flag as to that issue as he has already divulged attorney-client privileged information on his blog, which he apparently learned in meetings he attended with the District's counsel from Perkins Coie.
I never signed any sort of agreement that required me to withhold the truth or lie to the public to support District management's efforts to defraud taxpayers. When I left the meeting with Perkins Coie, everyone agreed that the property transaction was dead and that we would not be moving forward. Marla elected to move the transaction forward on her own. Exposing such is not privileged information. Marla acted contrary to the advice of AMEC, Reid Middleton and Perkins Coie.
He divulges this information in an attempt to discredit Assistant Superintendent Marla Miller with respect to a recent property transaction. (Marla discredits herself.) See "Rise above the confusion of conflicting rumors," dated September 19, 2007. Mr. Zandberg again repeated that privileged information on September 25, 2007.
Editorial: This is the first of two parts. I will include the rest of the District's letter when more time allows. Here it is.
While I worked in Edmonds I was threatened with a poor evaluation and approached in a threatening manner by an angry, intense, red-faced administrator. I had come in to get clarification on a technical question. When I tried to back out of the meeting, the person demanded that I settle this now, and began punching the air saying, “We'll do this now. Right now.” I was so terrified and upset that I began to cry and quietly asked if there was something I could eat. I was feeling faint. They found food, I ate a couple of crackers and left. I was so upset that I avoided contact for months afterward.
(see RCW 94.04 J)
A couple of months later there was an incident where I became upset and had words with a person new to the building. I knew I was wrong after I spoke, but before I could talk to them classes began. She was upset and went to the administrator, who called me to the office. Before meeting with the administrator I spoke with the person I hurt, apologizing and explaining why I was upset. She totally understood and forgave me. The administrator lead us into the office where they repeated the earlier performance in front of the staff member. Out of the corner of my eye I could see her eyes get huge. “We’re going to talk about this right now.” I asked for an EEA rep. “No, we’re going to talk about this now,” in an intense and angry manner. I stood my ground and repeated my request; he left and returned with a Rep. We never talked about what originally took place. The rep asked me later what had happened and I explained. Having known seven previous administrators, I had never run into this kind of abusive and threatening behavior. Eventually, I talked to three other people in the building who the administrator had also yelled at.
As the year went on, I avoided the office and the specific administrator. At the beginning of the following year I intentionally talked with the administrator asking “What can I do to make things better.” I received no answer.
That year I used an activity from What Every Middle School Teacher Should Know. (T. Knowles and D. F. Brown) Over several days students reflected on concerns: personal and family, community, state and national, world. We shared out and created a list of important issues. The students were brutally open and honest. At the word “harassment” no one wanted to share so I said, “I’ll tell you about a situation I faced.” Before I could continue, a boy yelled out, “Is Mr. X bullying you, too?” I quickly recovered and described intimidation by a boss in earlier years. Students notice these things.
My question is, “How can teachers themselves protect students from bullying when subjected to intimidation and threats from people in authority? Who can you turn to?"
At one point we requested assistance from the union. We were told there was going to be a meeting with administration, but at the last minute the union rep reported that the administration was too busy (Later the union claimed that the employee caused the meeting to be cancelled by not making a formal complaint [which we considered professional suicide]). A letter was written to upper administration describing the treatment given certain staff in the building; the administration responded by asking the problem principal if the allegations were true. Of course, they were denied and the upper administration closed ranks. The school year ended on that sour note.
(see RCW 94.04 H)
What can you do when complaints and concerns are not investigated by those in positions of power when required?
"Delta"
Editorial: This is a guest submittal and likely the first of many parts to run in the next days and weeks. Thank you to the author for sharing your experience with the rest of us.
One by one, jurors who convicted a Seattle man of first-degree murder a month ago were ushered into a courtroom on Wednesday.
It was a rare post-trial questioning of panel members over whether any of them improperly conducted Internet research about the case. Afterward, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wynne said there was no hint of impropriety, and that Noel Caldellis' conviction should stand. "I don't see any evidence of misconduct," Wynne said. "It appears the jurors followed the instructions of the court." The questioning was the latest trial-level bid by Seattle defense lawyer Raymond McFarland to overturn the conviction of Caldellis, 20. He was convicted of gunning down a college student from Mukilteo on Sept. 3, 2006. The next stop for McFarland will be at the state Court of Appeals, where he vowed to challenge rulings that Wynne made during the trial.
Meanwhile, Caldellis is behind bars, awaiting a Feb. 13 sentencing. He faces a prison term between 34 and 42 years. In his 29 years as a judge, it's the first time Wynne has called a jury back to question them about possible impropriety without first being provided some evidence of jury misconduct, he said. Of concern here was an Internet blog posted by an uncle of victim Jay Clements, 21. The blog included comments on the case and some news stories. McFarland became aware of the blog after the trial concluded Dec. 11. The blog started in September 2006 and was removed after the trial.
McFarland was concerned about a posting by someone who said she was a juror -- a day or two after the trial concluded. Jurors are sworn to uphold the law and to follow the judge's instructions. Among other things, they are not allowed to conduct independent research on the case they are hearing, or to read newspaper coverage of trials. McFarland told the judge that if a juror posted a message so soon after the five-week trial, it raised the question whether somebody on the panel had seen the blog earlier. Wynne agreed to question the jurors to address McFarland's concern. Deputy prosecutor Matt Hunter called the defense inquiry "a fishing expedition."
Individually, the seven women and five men who comprised the jury came into Wynne's courtroom Wednesday. Two said they weren't aware of the blog. The rest said they learned about it after the trial and after the judge released them from their obligations as jurors. Some said they did Internet research afterward. None said he or she had any indications the other jurors knew about the blog during the trial. Earlier on Wednesday, Wynne denied three motions brought by Caldellis' lawyer, seeking a new trial. The defense argued the judge and the prosecutor made mistakes.
Clements was killed during a Labor Day weekend party when Caldellis and some of his friends went to Brier for a fight. The jury ruled that Caldellis exercised "extreme indifference to human life" when he fired a .357-caliber pistol into a crowd gathered to watch the melee. Clements was shot twice. Caldellis also was convicted of two counts of second-degree assault.
Editorial: At esd15.org, we are not meddling with murder cases. This blog is only about exposing the profoundly stupid decisions made on behalf of taxpayers by poorly-educated managers without an deliberative board demanding reasonable explanations. The article above is taken from the Herald.
To All ESC Employees,
With the start of a New Year comes the opportunity to clean out those old key chains! We will be conducting a KEY AUDIT of all employees in the ESC building on MONDAY JANUARY 14 from 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. and TUESDAY JANUARY 15 from 8:30 to 10:30 a.m.
We will be in the MAIN FOYER OF THE ESC and will need a response from every employee in order to facilitate an accurate audit. Please be prepared to bring any and all Edmonds School District keys that you have including keys to the main doors, departments, and file cabinets. This process of updating our records will help to improve the overall security of our facility here at the ESC.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
I am wondering where former employees might go to turn in their keys? Will there be an amnesty or reward program? If great grand masters are sold to students (the ones that have been expelled for not following board policy), we could fetch as much as $200. Will the District provide an incentive? Maybe exchange sets of great grand master keys for that highly-prized South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce membership coupon for District employees.
Call me a cynic but I am guessing the FileMaker Pro database is still missing. Every person in the ESC had their key numbers tracked. I guess management now knows how inefficient it is to delete a user account - even if you detest the user.
Also unfortunate is the fact that everyone in the building has to have their day interrupted just so they can help management re-invent a 6 year old database. What would happen if I told you that a copy of that database is in the ESC? There's a hard copy in the vault, but then that is likely the only thing you have to go on.
Don't you have developer responses to do?
The person that I will be discussing in this entry will not have his name revealed. He has a very long list of legal cases and I would prefer not to be part of his latest attempt to make a dime or dollar. He is a lawyer, lives in the area and makes a living suing anyone at any time for any purpose whatsoever.
The incident occurred on June 3, 2007. It was a Sunday. The supplemental police report reads as follows:
[Kamka]
I was dispatched to a suspicious person on the field at [Former Woodway High School]. The caller, a school employee, had tried to talk to the male to ask him what he was doing. The male responded by yelling at [employee] saying something about working on the field.
Sgt Marsh arrived first and contacted the male, later identified as [Subject]. When I arrived I saw Sgt Marsh approaching [Subject] on foot. [Subject] looked over at Sgt Marsh a few times, but was clearly making no effort to stop working or acknowledge that Sgt Marsh was there.
When I arrived, Sgt Marsh had been talking to [Subject] for a minute or so. I heard [Subject] telling Sgt Marsh that 'they' were going to sue the school because two kids had hurt their knees playing on the field. [Subject] said he was there to fix the field. As Sgt Marsh continued to talk to [Subject], [Subject] was stamping the area around home plate with his foot and not making an effort to actually have a conversation with Sgt Marsh.
Then Sgt Marsh asked [Subject] about his conversation with the custodian. [Subject] instantly became defensive saying he only told her that he had permission to be there. When Sgt Marsh asked if he yelled at her, [Subject] stiffened and said absolutely not.
He then picked up a stamping tool. The tool had an 8" x 8" square iron foot, which was connected to about a 4' wooden pole. He was vigorously stamping the ground with this potentially dangerous tool, completely ignoring Sgt Marsh.
Sgt Marsh told him a few times to stop, but he continued. Sgt Marsh then reached over (they were about an arms length from each other) and took the tool from [Subject] and tossed it to the side, telling [Subject] to stop and to listen to him.
[Subject] became even more upset than he had been, yelling at Sgt Marsh to get his hands off him. As far as I could tell, Sgt Marsh hadn't touched him while taking the tool.
Sgt Marsh leaned in towards [Subject], who is taller, and told [Subject] to stop and listen to him. Sgt Marsh was pointing his finger towards [Subject]'s face, but his finger was at least 6" from it, trying to get [Subject]'s attention. [Subject] then just yelled at Sgt Marsh about being in his face.
Sgt Marsh was still continuing to tell [Subject] that he was there to talk to him about why he was on the field. [Subject] just kept yelling that he had the right to be there, that Sgt Marsh needed to leave him alone, keep his hands off him, and get his finger out of his face.
I believe Sgt Marsh next told [Subject] to leave the field, but he refused. He was told several times, but [Subject] only continued to yell. Sgt Marsh then told [Subject] that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct (against the school employee). Sgt Marsh then told him to turn around and put his hands behind his back, but he refused. He kept yelling that he wasn't doing anything wrong. Sgt Marsh told him over and over to turn around. Finally Sgt Marsh put his hands on [Subject] to make him turn around. [Subject] kept spinning around, telling Sgt Marsh to get his hands off him and that he had no right to touch him. [Subject] turned around several times before the handcuffs were put on. Because we were out on a field, there was nowhere else to corner him except against the chain link backdrop.
[Subject] was still yelling that he was an attorney, that we were making a big mistake, and that he was going to sue us. We told him to just listen and stop arguing. Sgt Marsh told him to walk towards our cars. he continued to argue, and refused to walk unless the handcuffs were loosened. [Subject] was now trying to spin around away from Sgt Marsh.
When we got to the cars, [Subject] was searched incident to the arrest with nothing found in his pockets. He was saying that he's not a criminal and that we were making a big mistake. When Sgt Marsh tried to help him sit in the car [Subject] shrugged him off saying he would do it by himself. I rolled down the windows and walked away from the car to talk to Sgt Marsh.
Sgt Marsh said [Subject] had been argumentative and hostile from the time he arrived. [Subject] had originally been closer to where our vehicles were parked and when he arrived [Subject] intentionally walked away from him.
The custodian spoke with Sgt Marsh for a few minutes while I tried to talk to [Subject] and get his name and date of birth. When I walked up to the car I let [Subject] talk for a few minutes. he was still saying that he was an attorney and we were making a big mistake. When I asked him for his name he said he wasn't going to give it to me. I started to walk away and he said, "Okay, I'll tell you." Instead he said he has a lot of friends who are cops and he knows this isn't right. He complained about what had happened some more. I asked him again what his name was, and again he said he wasn't going to tell me. I said ok and walked away. He called out that this time he would tell me, but I did not return again.
[Marsh]
At 1310 I had a message that [subject] wanted to talk to the duty sergeant. I called him back and when he found out it was me he said that I had broken his wrist or a rib. I couldn't really tell due to the static in the phone call. I stated "oh really?" He said that he was driving to the doctor right now and he would be calling the Chief on Monday. I said okay and hung up. Ofc Kamka later informed me that he had continued to pick up his tools and load things into the truck for several minutes after our contact and I had left.
Charges: Obstructing a Public Servant and Resisting Arrest.
Editorial: The subject also made a call to Marla to get the criminal trespass notice removed and to have all charges dropped. District staff would have had to alter their statements for this friend of Marla's to avoid prosecution.
[Anonymous]
I was at Arnie's yesterday and overheard a man in the booth next to mine ranting about the Edmonds Police and the Edmonds School District . Your name was mentioned many times, rather impolitely. The man's name was [Subject] and he said the school district was managed by pushovers.
Just thought you should know.
[Marla]
Thanks for sharing. It just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished! The man in question was given a second chance for the benefit of his son, not due to his powers of persuasion. However, it is just one more chance . . .
[Mark]
I never received any password and sat quietly at my desk without internet access or the ability to check email, my calendar or voicemail. Today was a day as a volunteer. My last day of effective employment was Thursday, June 7, 2007 - and even that was only the morning hours.
Brian claimed that he never received a password from you. No need to worry. I just wish I could have done more during my final day of service for the District.
[Donovan]
I feared that it had turned into something other than an amicable separation, but I did what I said I was going to do.
Would you work with me to turn over the Esd15.org website? I'm sure it's on their minds and it probably doesn't occur to them that we can simply change the ownership of it if we ask.
[Mark]
You can tell Marla that if she seeks to modify the site, I would be happy to provide a proposal. Since being terminated, I have a lot more time on my hands and would be able to provide a high quality site for a public servant sort of fee.
[Donovan]
They haven’t asked me about it yet. I just wanted to take care of it before it became a large issue if that was possible. If you want to make it an issue that’s up to you, it’s against my advice, but you have to do what you have to do.
If you want to offer Marla your services then you will need to do that directly. All I can do is offer to facilitate to move the domain so that it ceases to be a possible point of contention for you.
If they ask me about the domain I will simply say that I’ve made the suggestion and that you have said no. The rest is up to you.
[Marla]
I wanted to let you know I have authorized Brian to change your voicemail and e-mail greetings to a "who to contact" message.
Also, when you asked me about the esd15.org website, I responded based on my expectation you would leave the site available for people to use for property contacts with the district based on our ads/billboards. I did not expect you to continue to monitor the site or be responsible for responding to requests for information. It seems inappropriate to me that you would use the site to invite people to contact you directly, since the site is clearly meant for communicating with Edmonds School District regarding property inquiries.
Would you please provide me with the information necessary to update the site and make changes to it from here on out?
[Mark]
The site directs all inquiries regarding property to you at your district telephone number. If people seek to contact me personally, they may do so by using the address posted.
The Edmonds School District did not pay for the domain. All work on the domain was performed on my own time and on my own computer. The site is hosted by Iyavaya, not the Edmonds School District. The websites created for Property Management are located at:
www.edmonds.wednet.edu/propertymgt
By the way, the sites will need to be updated to reflect my absence.
Thank you.
[Marla]
Thanks for the clarification, Mark. Are you saying you intend to keep using the esd15.org address as a way of contacting you personally? I don't understand why you would want to do that.
[Mark]
I have several email addresses. If Edmonds School District staff seek to contact me, they may do so by using mark@esd15.org. As a courtesy, I will check the account from time-to-time and offer responses when needed. This email address is so much easier to remember than many of my other addresses.
An email address differs from a website. The website can contain anything under the sun. It could become an operations site, an unofficial district blog, a conduit for property ground leasing information, or whatever. If you seek to customize the look and feel of the website, I would be happy to develop a proposal.
I am a public servant. The domain has always been available for District use as an extension of my professional attributes while employed. Sort of like having a freakishly tall co-worker than can retrieve items from the highest shelf. He may not have been hired for his height, but it comes in handy every now and then.
Mark to Brian on June 6 at 4:17 PM
To ensure that we meet for a length of time that meets your needs and expectations, please book an appointment via Outlook.
Thank you.
Brian to Mark on June 7 at 9:56 AM
It appears that you have not given me the ability to look at your calendar. I had asked you to be available here, today, after 1:00. I need to modify the time so that our meeting can begin at 1:30. The purpose of this meeting is to orient others with your files and outstanding projects needing completion. You have not given me any indication that you would not be available, and stated your intent to cooperate in providing transition information. In addition, you will need to be available, in person, here in the office tomorrow, Friday during the hours between 8 AM and 4:30 PM; (excepting breaks) so that Bob and I can continue, as our schedules permit, to obtain information from you to carry on business.
Mark to Brian on June 7 at 10:27 AM
After reviewing the matter with others, the following points render the meeting irrelevant.
“Any communication prepared on behalf of the District must be reviewed by my supervisor”.
Since everything I do while working for the District is on behalf of the District and involves communicating, the Letter of Direction would have required that I seek your review of any attempt to communicate. Therefore, I have no pending official task items that fall outside of the Letter of Direction. If I actually communicated in an effort to support the District, and did not seek your review, I would be in violation of the Letter of Direction and subject to possible termination (effective versus constructive) or other disciplinary action.
A rhetorical question: Why would the District’s Custodial Manager be assigned work related to Planning and Property Management?
I would be happy to meet to point at file cabinets and share where documents may be found. Just schedule an appointment via Outlook.
Brian to Mark on June 7 at 10:33 AM
You are to be available, in your office, personally during the times mentioned in my e-mail.
Brian to Brian on June 7 at 2:18 PM
ttttttttt
(Brian had my email access terminated and was testing the account to ensure that email traffic was being diverted to him.)
Mark to Brian on June 7 at 4:44 PM
I see that access to my email account has been terminated. Since my last effective day was slated for Monday, does this mean I need not show up for any meetings tomorrow? I have no way of seeing what meetings have been proposed on Outlook without access to my email account. This action only strengthens any claim of constructive termination.
Returning keys to the head custodian does not constitute resignation or demonstrate one's intention to never enter the ESC for work. As I have no need for security access in the final days of employment, I would rather not carry them around or assume the liability of doing so.
I will assume that my services are no longer needed. If incorrect, you may reply to this email address since my District address is no longer accessible.
Mark to Brian on June 7 at 7:46 PM
I recall that you mentioned something about meeting on Friday in an email sent to zandbergm@edmonds.wednet.edu. In checking my email account, it appears as though the account has been terminated. I have no way of knowing when we were to meet if I cannot access my calendar or email.
I would characterize an email account as being critical to the completion of my assigned tasks. Terminating the account would undermine my ability to perform my job.
As you know, I was scheduled to be at work until the 11th of June. You apparently have decided to change my date of termination. I will need a letter confirming my actual last day so I might accurately complete an HR-100 for time off from service to the District.
Mark to Debby on June 8 at 6:18 AM
It would appear that my last day of service was June 7th, 2007. I worked from 9:00 am until 10:30 am, when I transported my wife to CDI for a medical appointment in Mountlake Terrace. You may call to confirm.
I planned to return immediately after her appointment but my calendar, email and voicemail access was terminated.
If you would be so kind as to send my final check to my home address, along with a summary as to what the amount includes and what it does not include, I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
Brian to Mark on June 8, 2007 8:06 AM
In as much as you responded to my e-mail directing you to meet yesterday afternoon and this morning at 8 AM, I find it difficult to believe that you can plead any kind of ignorance to the instructions. Your services are still required here and as your supervisor, I have every right to expect your cooperation.
Your e-mail was suspended after our Head Custodian informed me that you turned in your keys to him saying that you would not be coming back. I find that his statement credible given that I was present in the building when you chose to leave without contacting me, you did not show up for the 1:30 PM meeting, your failure to meet between 9 AM and 10 AM daily this week to assist us with orientation to your office and pending projects, and your failure to be here this morning. Your employment has not been terminated in any way by the District and until this is sorted out, I expect you to perform your duties as an employee.
Mark to Brian on June 8 at 8:50 AM
I was asking for you to propose a meeting through Outlook. Technology can help you understand how meetings are proposed in Outlook. Email does not always provide assurances that conflicts will be resolved in scheduling because one has to see availability prior to booking time. Scheduling or proposing an appointment is very simple. Of course, since my email account has been terminated, there is no way to schedule an appointment now. I am unaware of what other appointments have been deleted.
Gary is very correct in reporting that I turned in my keys and reported that I will not be returning to the ESC while it is locked. I no longer have any need to gain access to any District site since I am no longer on emergency rotation and have so few days remaining of service. I suspect you likely misunderstood Gary because I also have the utmost regard for his ability to relay critical messages and building concerns and I am confident that he reported the facts, they just weren't entirely heard.
In future, I would recommend that you make direct contact with the individual from whom you require critical information. I will continue to check my account access throughout the day and over the weekend. Once I can see what my schedule holds, I will happily meet the obligations contained therein.
Additionally, I am hopeful that someone documented the many calls on my voicemail before it was deleted.
Brian to Mark on June 8 at 10:15 AM
Your computer will be turned back on shortly. I acted on information as it was represented to me and asked to have the computer secured as I would for any employee upon departure from employment.
Mark to Donovan on June 11, 2007 4:55 PM
Subject: Parting is such sweet sorrow.
I never received any password and sat quietly at my desk without internet access or the ability to check email, my calendar or voicemail. Today was a day as a volunteer. My last day of effective employment was Thursday, June 7, 2007 - and even that was only the morning hours. Brian claimed that he never received a password from you. No need to worry. I just wish I could have done more during my final day of service for the District.
Editorial: When my district email account was terminated, I continued seeking clarification by way of mark@esd15.org. I was not able to see any of the many appointments I had coordinated with developers, parent groups and contractors in anticipation of my departure. As you may imagine, the last few days of work tend to be rather heavily booked. Brian had access to my calendar, just no concept of actually proposing a meeting via Outlook (and you don't need access to propose a meeting). Unlike what had been suggested previously in an HR tactics entry, I did not book up space in my calendar. There were plenty of openings and I would have met at any time - day or night.
Some months ago, my supervisor received an anonymous letter, alleging that I was "blogging" on the clock. After an evaluation of the site, my supervisor dismissed the allegation. I immediately thought it must be Pat Shields, since he just called me at work, on a brand new telephone with a brand new telephone number, in a brand new building looking for Jim Young.
This evening, I got back to the blog cave and ran a report on IP hits for today. Low and behold, I found an entry from an IP address at the City of Seattle. I also found that this person from the City traveled to esd15.org by way of Google. This person also logged on at 12:29 PM from a computer in the City of Seattle's Department of Transportation. Perhaps Jim Young, the State and Federal Funds Coordinator. But then my eyes fell upon the name Susan Paine, also an employee of the City of Seattle, in the Department of Transportation and a member of the Edmonds School Board.
Sure, it may have been a lunch break, but is that an appropriate use of public resources? Surfing the internet and reading blogs on the taxpayer's dime? Maybe an anonymous letter is needed.
Now I am wondering if the anonymous letter addressed to my supervisor and postmarked in Seattle, was mailed from the Seattle Municipal Tower or perhaps across the street at the Columbia Center. I have six postcards and a one hour lunch break on Wednesday. I will let you know if I get a match.
Isn't this fun?
"When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), quoted from, Life of Jefferson (Rayner), p. 356.
We are bombarded these days by news stories, radio rants, and talking heads decrying corruption in government: no-bid contracts, insider deals, and allegations of kickbacks large and small. Politicians of every stripe are spinning, posturing, and rushing to photo ops. Some of the charges of corruption are leveled at those who receive the government's largesse, but many indict those within government who grant it.
This gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands is likely to produce "reform" that places additional burdens on government purchasers and the purchasing process. Why is reform necessary? Don't we have laws on the books in every jurisdiction down to the tiniest hamlet against throwing contracts to friends and cronies? Of course we do. The answer may be that what's needed is not reform of law, but the restoration of ethics.
Laws are a manifestation of societal values. For example we all agree that rigging bids and taking bribes is wrong. But law does not address the moral questions government purchasers face. How does a government purchaser obey the law, and, when called to task, retain the ability to stand up and say "my conduct was both legal and ethical"? Law and ethics are not necessarily synonymous.
A definition of ethics may help in understanding the difference:
eth-ics: 1 a. A set of principles of right conduct,
b. A theory or system of moral values, e.g., "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain".
2. The study of the general nature of morality and of the specific choices to be made by a person, a moral philosophy.
3. The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession, e.g., medical ethics.
Ethics as "right conduct" requires action. Deeply held moral beliefs are satisfying and can be good for society, but even a large group of individuals having such beliefs is of no appreciable benefit unless those individuals put their conduct where their values lie. To accomplish this, it is useful to agree to a short list of ethical conduct rules that go beyond legal technicalities. A procurement ethical code might include the following:
1. Be Independent
A government official engaged in purchasing should be independent, from vendors, bidders, prospective bidders, interested parties and, in a perfect world, politicians and political appointees, including their own bosses. As human beings we tend to form emotional obligation bonds with people we like, who are nice to us, who help us, who flatter us and people who give us things. In procurement, while one can be friendly and helpful, one must resist the temptation to accept benefits, emotional or economic, from any would-be vendor, so as to reduce the desire to reciprocate.
2. Act Only in the Public Interest
A procurement official represents the public interest, as defined by the legislature or Congress, and never the private commercial interest of a seller of goods or services. It is the legal duty of every person representing a commercial enterprise to maximize its profit. A commercial representative who says he is trying to help the public is not doing his duty to his company. This is not to say that it is bad to have a profit-motive, the profit motive drives markets toward developing better mousetraps. And corporations can be very good public citizens. But a purchasing officer must assume, always, that private profit is the only motive of the vendor or interested private party.
3. You Are a Trustee of the Public's Money
A government purchaser is a fiduciary for the public's money, a trustee. An effective regulatory scheme governing procurement officers might read as follows:
A. It's not your money.
B. It's not your money.
C. It's not your money.
D. It's not your money.
This catch phrase delineates exactly the ethical limitations of purchasing personnel's discretion. You are not Donald Trump and it is not your money. Spend the public's money with the care you'd demand a bank exercise in handling your own funds.
4. Follow the Law
Most jurisdictions have many statutes and rules that protect competition and consumers in government purchasing. Take all the training in competition and public integrity law available. Develop a close working relationship with enforcement lawyers, so that legal questions can be asked and answered. Your agency's risk management department will be thrilled with your commitment to the law. There are plenty of lawyers who will be used against you, ask that public lawyers be used to help you. This outside check empowers procurement officials since enforcement lawyers can run interference with higher-ups when what they want to do is unlawful, unethical, or against public policy.
5. Strive for Efficiency
This is not easy to do in a system of cumbersome procurement rules. But efficiencies can take hold in ways you can control. Do your homework, independent of any one vendor. Study historic outcomes that reflect poor procurement choices and avoid them. Identify what efficient vendors do and use that as a guide for your next set of specifications. Don't let the vendor write them, write your own so as to produce a similarly efficient outcome. Ignore the "bureaucrats waste money" talk and do your job as efficiently as the system lets you.
6. Protect the Economy
The economy works best when large and small firms are competing to produce the highest quality goods at the best possible prices to meet consumer demand. Buyers drive markets, and government purchasing has a tremendous effect on economies. To protect local economies, consider these guidelines:
A. Do Not Bundle Contracts - Bundled contracts favor big, incumbent firms, to the exclusion of small business. Some regulatory schemes specifically prohibit bundling. Bundling leads to longer contracts, and less flexibility to take advantage of new market products. Some projects require bundling and some statutes allow it, but know that bundling favors old technologies and prevents taking advantage of innovation and the power of head-to-head competition.
B. Run an Arms' Length Shop - Relationships turn into conspiracies where public money is involved, and the official who gets too close to a vendor may be engaged in criminal bid-rigging. Bid-rigging hurts economies and there is no law to the contrary.
C. Research New Ideas - Markets create new technologies and unheard-of small firms come up with wonderful new products and services. Do the market research to ensure that you are not locked into obsolete technology. The economy works better when innovation pays off.
7. Take Nothing, Ever
Don't even accept cookies from the vendor dropping by with the paper delivery. Why not? Surely no one is bought for cookies! If you don't take the cookies, no "appearance" of a "relationship" with that vendor arises and you create no witnesses who can testify against you. Even if your rules permit you to accept lunch or anything valued under $25, do not take anything. Acceptance of anything can create the appearance of conflicted interests.
8. Do Not Socialize with Vendors
Prosecutors prove procurement offenses through testimony putting government officials at social events with government vendors. If you have social friends who may be bidders, get completely out of any aspect of the process, then socialize. Otherwise, don't do it. This applies to business associations also. If you want to fraternize, get out of the procurement process entirely before you do.
9. Maintain Confidentiality
The business of the government in buying goods and services is your business, not the business of your business associates, your friends, or your golf buddies. Reveal only that necessary to insure clean bids and a sterling selection process. The possession by a bidder of insider information not available to his competitors is almost universally an issue in procurement crime enforcement. If the information is public, everyone gets it. If it is not, nobody gets it.
10. Do Not Play Favorites
Do not help cronies, family members, business associates, or good buddies get a leg up in the procurement process. Whether you like the representative of a contractor or would-be bidder, whether the firm has the best holiday parties, or whether the vendor will hire your child to help her through college are all irrelevant to the procurement process. It is not irrelevant to criminal prosecutors. Almost every jurisdiction has common, or court-made law that says favoritism in the expenditure of public money is wrong.
Here then is a working model of a proposed Ten Commandments of Ethical Government Purchasing. Since you are, in Jefferson's words, a "public property", your ethics are as important as your formal rules. Remember that, "an ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain". Above all, stay independent and you'll stay above the fray. The payoff? It won't be your name, or your agency's name, in the next "culture of corruption" headline. Ethical procurement isn't always easy, but it's always worth the effort.
Editor's Note: Suzanne M. Dallimore has 28 years' experience as an antitrust and commercial and securities fraud litigator, prosecutor, and trial attorney in Utah and Arizona. She served as Chief Antitrust Counsel for the Arizona Attorney General and as Chief Counsel, Utah Attorney General's Antitrust Division. Ms. Dallimore is currently in private practice. Notable cases include: State v. Thompson and State v. Fletcher (criminal RICO, bid-rigging and commercial bribery criminal convictions); In re: Project SLIM Investigation, (Arizona state government contract bid-rigging, $750,000 recovered for Arizona); In re: Electric Utility Deregulation Proceedings, Arizona Corporation Commission, (utility stranded costs proceedings, $800 million saved for Arizona electric consumers); Baseplans USA v. Arizona Department of Transportation, et al, (Public corruption and bid-rigging, case pending).
Late 1999
MJR partners Mike Raskin and Mike McClure develop concept for Woodinville Village while having a beer at Redhook Brewery. The vision: to develop a tasting room along Highway 202 where small wineries could offer samples of their wines.
2002
Idea expands in scale to a four-acre site incorporating not a just tasting room but two wineries, a grocery, restaurant, and banquet facilities. This is currently the site which Novelty Hill and Januik wineries have now begun construction.
2003
A nine-acre site becomes available in the current location of Woodinville Village. Work with the Planning Commission and City of Woodinville begins.
2004
Additional parcel acquired. Site size expands to 18 acres. Initial site plans developed and refined, design team chosen, master planning begins.
August - December 2004
Extensive planning and meetings with the City of Woodinville and the Woodinville Planning Commission to obtain zoning variance in the Woodinville Tourist District in order to include residential (project not viable without residential component).
October 2004
Zoning variance approved by Planning Commission.
December 2004
City Council accepts Planning Commission’s recommendation for zoning variance.
January 2005
MJR drafts proposal to enter into development agreement with City of Woodinville. It would be an unprecedented agreement that would lay the groundwork for more effective collaboration between city government and developers.
July 2005
Edmonds School District buys MJR property in Lynnwood for $3,300,000.00 and provides a seller's bonus of $2,500,000.00 to support the Woodinville Village and Wineries Project.
August 2005
Woodinville City Council unanimously agrees to enter into development agreement with MJR. The two entities will work together to ensure that the vision of the project is in line with the City’s goals for both tourism and residential quality of life.
August 2005 - June 2006
Design review process continues.
September 2006
Retail leasing begins.
March 2006
Additional parcels acquired, bringing total size of project to 24 acres.
Disclaimer: Okay, technically it wasn't a seller's bonus, but since the District overpaid by at least $2,500,000.00, it stands to reason that Raskin happily funneled the proceeds right into his winery project.
The chain across the driveway at Esperance was left off over the weekend and now piles of trash are popping up like dandelions. The normal course of events would be to have Grounds go out to the site and pick up the bags of trash. It isn't a large pile, but all around the pile are pieces of cardboard and junk that tried to escape in the wind.
I would estimate that from the time someone is dispatched (likely two people) until they return to their normal course of duties, an hour or more could pass. Add the cost of properly disposing the debris and this bit of careless dumping costs more than $100.00.
Of course, one could exert the energy to dig through all of the bags of trash and look for identifying information. Who knows, maybe you'll find my address.
If you do send someone out, could someone please send the bill to Razz Construction. There is no point in the District picking up the tab when all associated fees for using Esperance have been waived. Better yet, give Don a call and have him clean it up.
The Blog seeks to address any and all matters of interest to the tax payers of the Edmonds School District. In working to achieve this goal, we are rolling out the Blog Tip Line so that members of the public seeking to provide comments, ask questions or relay story ideas can just pick up the telephone and leave a message. The number is 425-218-3172.
No one will pick up the call. If you want to talk to someone from the Blog, just leave your name (fictional or otherwise), a telephone number and a time when to call and someone will get back to you shortly.
We are aware that not everyone has a computer at home and some choose not to have an active internet connection. Still, some would prefer not to call from their home or office for fear the call may be traced. Now, you can simply write down the Blog Tip Line number and make a call from a pay phone (if you can find one), a protected cell phone or home phone, or from any conference room in the ESC. Just another way the Blog is trying to make reporting even easier.
Once again, thank you for your support and we look forward to a great year of blogging.
Mark Zandberg
Chief Executive of Blog Content Development
425-218-3172
The intention of applicants MJR Development, Inc. and Polygon Northwest is to develop a multi-family project in the vicinity of the Interurban Trail and west of the Lynnwood Park and Ride. In order to make such a development possible, they have requested a plan designation change from Business/Technical Park (BTP) to High density Multi-family (MF-3). A previously approved office development PUD is still active on this property and the underlying zoning is Light Industrial (LI).
Larry Calvin, owner of NW Development Advisors, P.O. Box 12391, Mill Creek, Washington 98082. Mr. Calvin is represented Mike Raskin (President of MJR Development, Inc.). He informed the Commission that the MF-3 is a more viable option than an industrial development. However, in case it isn’t approved, they are working on an industrial flex-space development as an option. He felt that the 60/40 goal was the primary obstacle to their 2003 proposal, but are more confident this year because that goal is being considered for removal.
Ted Hikel, Lynnwood City Council Member, disagreed that the 60/40 was the main problem. Instead, he pointed out that the Raskin property contains 85% of all developable industrial land in Lynnwood and the Council is aware that we need more industry and jobs.
So, either Ted Hikel thinks that school administration is industrial work and would create new jobs, or the City of Lynnwood had their "sites" set on the District moving away from the Alderwood Mall. But Ted, that would create more retail jobs not industrial ones. Perhaps Ted believes mopping floors and deep-frying food is industrial work.
Fun Factoid: Mike Raskin donated $4,200 to Mike McGavick's campaign for state senator. His candidate didn't make it but that extra $2,500,000.00 should soften the blow. Didn't Mike McGavick stick it to Safeco? What's up with these Mikes? Something about birds and feathers...?
I suppose one could adopt the position that a board member has every right to avoid contact with a member of the public, but Board Policy 1220, Item 7 leaves me a little confused.
To represent the Board of Edmonds School District to the public in such a way as to promote both interest and support.
This morning, as I left King Street Station and started my short walk north up 4th Avenue to my workplace, I couldn't help but notice a certain board member just a short distance ahead of me. I immediately wondered if she would continue walking north or take her new short cut through the dark, puddle-ridden and slippery parking lot up to 5th. Of course, knowing I was right behind her and that I could potentially ask a question, she darted across the street and opted for the path of darkness.
Then I thought, rather than stop at All City Coffee for my morning latte, let me just skip the coffee and head straight to work. I went up the Prefontaine steps and headed east on Terrace. As I was approaching 5th Avenue, this board member popped out from behind the Yesler Building, caught a glimpse of me and darted across to the other side of the street.
Either there is a caste system that was voted into effect by the board, or I would be willing to bet she is avoiding contact with a member of the public. What if I just handed you a list of questions? You could respond at your leisure and send them via email. How does darting through the shadows encourage my interest and support?
Editorial: As "leprosy" grew more prevalent during the Middle Ages, the status of lepers changed. Far from being pitied, lepers became increasingly more reviled by the populace. The vocabulary linking sin with leprosy increased in frequency. This idea may have been most aided by the expanding power of the church. The church rhetoric of equating uncleanliness with sin was used by all levels of the population. This association led to the equivalence between lepers, sin and punishment.
I asked for and received the job description for the individual currently working for Powerful Partners, but on the District's payroll. No where in the job description does it mention that management of Powerful Partners is a requirement, nor is Powerful Partners a District program. It is, as their contractual relationship suggests, a separate entity and outside of District operations and obligations. Very similar to other non-profit organizations based in the region.
Naturally, I am curious. How is it that Powerful Partners has a full time para-educator, on the District's dime, working to support their programming? By "their" I mean Powerful Partners.
We have a plethora of respectable non-profits in the area that would love to receive a free cubicle and staff to promote their agenda. Why did the District single out this entity for special treatment? Did the Board authorize this free ride?
I am sure that some of this person's time goes to support some District activities, but how much? She is a coordinator of volunteers, and yet not a volunteer herself. I am not suggesting that people should work for free, but why work for a non-public agency at the expense of District taxpayers.
Why wouldn't the District just gobble up Powerful Partners and make them an official department within the District's list of departments? Could there be a financial impact for doing so? Could it be that the executive team of Powerful Partners draws income from their affiliation? Could it be that grants and funding would dry up if Powerful Partners was absorbed by the District? Just what is the logic behind giving all of these public funds away to fringe, extraneous programs?
The District is full of parent-teacher associations and organizations and yet they are not clerically-supported or provided with free office space at the ESC. Why is that? Does the Board have a problem with their mission statements or purpose for existing? Is a PTO's mission so much more inharmonious than that of Powerful Partners? Why the special treatment?
Why won't the Board go on record and officially sanction the accommodation of Powerful Partners? Why would the District go through the trouble of drafting a use agreement if they had no intention of enforcing it?
Perhaps you may have noticed the mess at Esperance. The District's Director of Facilities Operations authorized a county contractor to stockpile materials there for the month of October. But wait, it is almost January. What happened?
The weather apparently entered the equation and led to delays in the contractor's schedule. Sad, very sad. Thank goodness the District is earning something for the mess being created. Granted, it isn't much, but it adds up over time and could serve as a motivating force to get the contractor off the site as soon as possible. Too bad the fees were waived.
Why were the fees waived, you ask? Well, it was felt that the work being performed by the County was tangentially supportive of the District's mission. The County was addressing some long-standing drainage issues that originate near Chase Lake Bog. The bog is a District site and therefore, by the reasoning of others, a District problem. If this were the case, why wouldn't the County require the District to correct the issue?
To extrapolate that the drainage issue is a District problem and therefore warrants a free ride on storage is utterly foolish. The same reasoning can be applied to other issues. Perhaps they will be waiving rent at Melody Hill because those day care programs are serving future students? There's an idea, call King's Temple Day Care a kindergarten program and hit up the state for more money. Perhaps the District will soon offer hotel rebates for persons interested in adding to the number of children born in the District. Better still, just let couples use classrooms after hours.
Voice Mail Message to Marla Miller from Evan Pearce June 15, 2007
Good Morning Marla. This is Evan Pearce, it's Friday about 11:40ish the 15th. I was calling you because, well it's in regard to the potential field rental, playground rental, usage for our community groups, kind of a barbeque/potluck meeting in the, you know an outdoor meeting, not really a meeting just an outdoor get together for the community group and the neighborhood itself, and, I spoke with Joni, the office manager there and she put me pointed me toward Mark Zandberg and the reason I'm calling you is because I remember Mark Zandberg article that ended up in the Beacon and View pretty vehement about his opinion regarding our group and [laughter] so call me jaded, paranoid or whatever but it just seems like he's probably not the best person to deal with on something like this it didn't seem like he was very objective in the article, so at any rate if you could give me a holler that would be great 206-6X3-1X90 hopefully I'm not sounding [message faded out] everybody, again, it's around 11:40 on Friday, we're looking for availability on the 24th of June, that's a Sunday, I think it's the day before the last day of school, but if you could please give me a holler I'd appreciate it. Thanks, hope you're well, talk to you soon. Bye bye.
First, his name is Evan Pierce, not Evan Pearce. A simple check with Google or Edmonds City Council minutes would reveal the correct spelling of his name.
Second, this call came in on June 15th and my Letter to the Editor appeared in late March. Didn't Mr. Pierce read the rebuttal by the superintendent? Apparently, I had nothing to do with the Old Woodway transaction and my position was merely a clerical function. Clearly, the position is clerical now, though I would have thought Outlook, Word and Access would have been in a secretary's arsenal of software packages.
Third, my last day with the District was June 11th. Didn't an announcement go out to office managers? If a supervisor even had a morsel of an idea as to what department staff did all day, one might think to notify office managers of such news.
Fourth, Mr. Pierce does acknowledge that my views were an opinion. I am impressed. Though he does share that he felt my opinions were not objective, but then opinions seldom are. That is why most people use the term "subjective".
Fifth, how can voicing an opinion render a person incapable of reserving a playground? I find it amusing. But then District leadership felt the same way, which is why constructive termination had to come into play. If I had anything questionable in my past, the District would have used it.
Finally, the Mayor of Edmonds spoke at a RE/MAX luncheon just after this letter ran in the Beacon and expressed his support for the comments that I had made. He also went on to say that Marla supported my position privately, but of course couldn't say so publicly. Not that I was seeking her support, but clearly her position requires that personal thoughts and objectives be left at home. Why couldn't she retain such a policy when putting together a real estate transaction with Raskin?
Many of you have been writing in to the blog expressing concern about the lack of entries from January 1 until January 10, 2008. In fact, some of you went so far as to suggest the District shut us down. Just how that would happen, I cannot imagine. Have you been reading the blog? Can you imagine a scenario that involves the District's legal team pulling the plug on our public forum? This blog is an instrument for change and though the District may be opposed to change, they cannot stop a force for good.
