The Superintendent serves on the Alliance for Education Board of Directors, yet that position is not listed on her disclosure statement.
In the Board Action Report on the NWEA contract the disclosure statement is described like this: "On January 6, 2010, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson provided to the Board of Directors at its public meeting the disclosure of her appointments and the appointments of her husband, Bruce Johnson, to any non-profit boards (attached)." The disclosure statement is supposed to list her participation on ANY non-profit boards.
In the disclosure statement the list is described this way: "Appointment of you or your spouse as a non-salaried officer of a nonprofit corporation.". The statement concludes with this assertion: "These lists are complete to the best of my knowledge as of the date of my signing this disclosure statement."
When asked about the failure to list the office, Director Martin-Morris wrote:
The superintendent is on the Alliance for Education board. Since the Alliance was established to support SPS it was not included on the list.
But the disclosure statement doesn't suggest that it excludes any non-profits for any reason. And the description of the disclosure statement in the Board Action Report says that it includes ANY nonprofits.
I don't understand how Director Martin-Morris can believe that there is no potential conflict of interest between the Alliance and the District. It appears that Director Martin-Morris regards the Alliance as an agent of the District.
Was the Alliance for Education acting as an agent of the District when they formed the Our Schools Coalition to try to influence the District's contract with the teachers' union? How can the Alliance be taken seriously as a "critical friend" of the District when they are an agent of the District? It's not credible.
The Alliance says that they are an independent nonprofit organization. They say that they "act as a constructive partner to Seattle Public Schools."
What's the deal here? What is the relationship between the District and the Alliance? Is the Alliance independent or is it an agent of the District?
Wouldn't it be a lot easier for folks to just admit a mistake and to acknowledge that the Alliance should have been included on the list on the disclosure statement? That would be easy for most folks, but the District is pathologically incapable of admitting error.