Director Martin-Morris on Oversight
This transcript comes from the November 17, 2010 Board Meeting. You can watch it for yourself here. Go to 15:50.
The discussion is over the annual approval of schools. Essentially, the Board vote is to confirm to the state that there is a Continuous School Improvement Plan for each school. The Board Action Report, dated November 3, 2010, claims that "All CSIPs are also posted online on our district website."
This statement was false at the time it was made. There were at least two CSIPs missing from the web page - one missing a link and one blank report. The missing link and the blank plan were not corrected (to make the statement true) until the afternoon of the Board vote.
Had the Board members tried to perform oversight and confirm the existence of the CSIPs, they would have seen that at least two of them were missing.
Director Carr spoke to say that, because she was unable to confirm the presence of the CSIPs, she would have to vote against the motion.
Then Director Martin-Morris spoke on the oversight role of the Board:
Of course, what was so ironic about all of this was the fact that Director Martin-Morris was saying that the other Board members should just trust Dr. Enfield without verifying her statement and his example was a statement that proved false. That didn't slow him down one bit. On the contrary, it made his point ever sharper. He seemed to be saying that this was a prime example of why the Board shouldn't try to verify staff's claims - because they may prove false. Proof is the opposite of faith and he believes that the Board should have faith, not proof.
The discussion is over the annual approval of schools. Essentially, the Board vote is to confirm to the state that there is a Continuous School Improvement Plan for each school. The Board Action Report, dated November 3, 2010, claims that "All CSIPs are also posted online on our district website."
This statement was false at the time it was made. There were at least two CSIPs missing from the web page - one missing a link and one blank report. The missing link and the blank plan were not corrected (to make the statement true) until the afternoon of the Board vote.
Had the Board members tried to perform oversight and confirm the existence of the CSIPs, they would have seen that at least two of them were missing.
Director Carr spoke to say that, because she was unable to confirm the presence of the CSIPs, she would have to vote against the motion.
Then Director Martin-Morris spoke on the oversight role of the Board:
This is actually, I guess, for my fellow Board members. The thing that I want you to understand is what is being done here is that our Chief Academic Officer, who has reviewed and has looked at all of those documents, is saying to us as a Board that she has done her due diligence and has complied with state law. She is certifying to us that she has done what she was supposed to do. Whether we go in and look at all of those or not, shouldn't be germaine to the vote. The vote is really about the certification that we trust and believe in our Chief Academic Officer that this work was done. And that's what she's doing and that's what this vote is about.Director Martin-Morris is saying that the Board not only does not have a duty to confirm the statements made by staff, but actually has no business confirming the statements made by staff. He is denying all responsibility of oversight and means to school his colleagues on their role. His little talk was to warn them off of trying to do any oversight or seeking independent confirmation of staff statements.
Of course, what was so ironic about all of this was the fact that Director Martin-Morris was saying that the other Board members should just trust Dr. Enfield without verifying her statement and his example was a statement that proved false. That didn't slow him down one bit. On the contrary, it made his point ever sharper. He seemed to be saying that this was a prime example of why the Board shouldn't try to verify staff's claims - because they may prove false. Proof is the opposite of faith and he believes that the Board should have faith, not proof.
Comments
Dr. Enfield did NOT do due diligence because the information that she okayed was wrong (per Charlie).
I would disagree with Harium; a dutiful Board Director would go in and look at the reports for each of the schools in their district. If it's important to the state, it should be important to the directors. Are these less important than the new school reports? Is Harium planning to not read those as well?
Something has changed for Harium. Maybe it was too many questions. I thought his blog shut-down was the reaction to that. All I know is that he is not acting as he did when I voted for him and I have to wonder why.
"Thank you for your email. There are some facts that were not communicated effectively by the district and we own that. That being said whether it is 17% or 46%, I am not satisfied is with either and would not have changed our efforts to make improvements."
Let's look at the 17% figure. Enough said.
Signed, a concerned parent
Funny thing is that no one was even asking him to read the reports. His due diligence was to make sure that they were there . . . he didn't even do that!
Now THAT'S scary,
stu
Totally agree. But don't forget, when we voted for Harium it was because in a practical sense he was running unopposed. What I never understood was why he got the big campaign donations when he didn't have a credible opponent. That's always bothered me.
To circle around to the original point, I feel like Harium's about face came around the time Cheryl lost her seat. Which meant that the previous "gang of four" could no longer rule the roost. I realize this sounds conspiracy theory-esque, but it's just too odd. Did someone, or some group, "get to" Harium? Are there political pressures that we mere members of the public don't have inside knowledge?
While we're on the topic of conspiracy theories, I also find it interesting that different directors come up with reasons to question or even occasionally oppose certain district recommendations, but these oppositions merely cycle through the gang and never get support beyond one or maybe two directors. So while some readers here give credit to a director (of the week) for being the occasional voice of concern, they get no brownie points from me. It feels corrupt and orchestrated. And yes, I know how that sounds, I'm just stating what it feels like from the outside without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.
Yow. That would be Machiavellian.
I know that the data fits the model, but that gives them way too much credit.
If it is too much, then they need to say so and they need to modify their promises to us.
The Board is free to delegate all kinds of work to their staff. They also have the option of delegating work to interns or volunteers. They choose not to do so. That is a conscious choice on their part. Like Director Martin-Morris, they are making a conscious choice not to perform any due diligence, not to verify staff statements, not to seek independent data, not to find their own research, and not to read the source documents.
It's not because they don't have time to do it.
It's not because they don't have the resources to do it.
It's because they don't think that it is their job to do it.
It's because they don't think that they should do it.
And THAT, my friends, is why they are so messed up and why they need to be removed from office as sooon as possible.
Since when is asking for integrity asking too much?
Either Sherry Carr did the cherry-picking or someone in Admin did the picking for her on her TfA quotation from the Helig study.
Here we saw a portion of a sentence used by Sherry in justifying her TfA vote, but the study she referenced was filled with the message that "TfA is not appropriate for Seattle".
As for Harium ... how pointless is it to be expecting him to address anything in the Bizarre NTN fiasco. On 2-3-10 he voted to approve without reading the NTN contract (trust issue). On 3-12-2010 the action report was based on forgery...... but no problem for Harium as MGJ and Enfield produced it. (trust issue)
Does Harium buy real estate or used cars from this duo?
He needs to step up and say:
"It does not matter what evidence shows or what the documents contain, I am going to do what central administration tells me and act as their puppet."
The directors' excess verbiage is the current version of Brita Butler-Wall's "We choose to trust our hired professionals". At least Brita wrote that to me "Straight up in one sentence".
Harium should just skip all the rhetoric and do the same.
Just don't make up what you should and shouldn't be doing.
There are two people who work in the Board office, Ms Dingfield, Executive Assistant to the School Board, and Ms Oakes, Senior Administrative Assistant to the School Board. The Board could assign all sorts of due diligence duties to either of them.
If you think that sort of work is above their pay grade, then the Board could ask either of them to keep a calendar of staff promises. It could contain items such as "Ms de la Fuente said that she would have data on the use of Singapore materials by Friday, May 14".
That, in itself, would be a big assist.
I am not the least bit concerned by the possibility that volunteers might have a bias. You don't think that staff have biases? You think the Board Directors don't have a bias? The staff are free to challenge the volunteers conclusions if they want to. Then we would have a real discussion of the issues based on data. How is that a bad thing?
The real problem is that the Board members don't really have a grasp of the details or the data. Consequently they aren't able to spot anomalies - such as the 17% claim - right away. They don't know enough about how programs work to question reports about the programs or to consider the impacts of changes in the programs.
Sure a director can get an intern, but do you really think an intern is going to be effective against MGJ and staff? I don't. They would get eaten alive. No match.
As for delegating work to volunteers, I don't think that would fly either. Volunteers may have their own agendas or be biased. Even correct data can be used to misguided when presented right. Who fact checks the volunteers?
I think we need a full time paid board, that has their own dedicated staff members and advisors (which could certainly be a mix of professionals with credentials that meet the job requirements AND interns/volunteers)
BTW Charlie, what "staff" are you referring to that the board could delegate tasks to? I was unaware that the board had any staff, aside from their secretary.
The fact that they have only been on the board a year and maybe aren't quite as "tired" or "tainted" as the others did cross my mind. At least they seem to be doing more due diligence than the others.
If Harium really believes that no oversight is needed of district staff - what exactly does he think is his job description?
Give blind-faith "yes" votes when asked because of course everyone who works for the district is doing their job wonderfully?
What a waste.
You forget about the Broad-paid for retreats and the jaunts and the regular visits from Broad people to keep them all on track...
None111... for once you and I agree.... you are not being paranoid... much as we would like it to be otherwise, there are puppet masters behind the scenes pulling our Board member strings...
Nothing of what they do makes any sense in any other context...
As Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) said:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..."
Let's contact the Board members and ask them how they perceived their duty to oversee. Let's remind them of Director Martin-Morris' little admonition and ask them for a response.
Should the Board verify the truth of statements made to them by staff, or should they accept those statements as true on faith - even after they are proven false?
What, exactly, is scope and depth of the Board's duty to oversee and how is that duty exercised?
Can the Board members offer examples of their oversight efforts?
Let's just ask them.
Again, "move along, nothing to see, wait for it to blow over, it's the holidays, people are busy" - all things they are saying.
Sure, everyone has their bias. And, sure most of us would LOVE a board volunteer that was, well, like you Charlie.
But how would everyone feel if the volunteer the board selected had a pro reform bias? Or a pro charter bias? Pro privatization bias? What if the volunteer thought the "Seattle Process" was a waste of everyones time and approached his/her duties with that mindset? What if the volunteer thought SPS was running handy dandy just the way it was and approached his/her duties with that mindset? What if the volunteer thought SSS bloggers were an irrational crew of nay sayers and refused to take input from them? What if the volunteer thought MGJ was the next savior?
What if this volunteer presented their data to the board in such a manner as to mislead to make their bias appealing (not lie or cheat, but mislead)?
What if the volunteer was feeding the board relatively the same crappola as MGJ and her staff were? Might make the situation a whole lot worse, huh.
Just things to think about.
but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, though Kay shows signs of blowing whichever way the wind does - I was surprised by her TFA vote...
"We will be proceeding by working on our core mission to insure that "every student" gains access to high quality education and is ready for post-secondary work. As I said either way the numbers are not acceptable to me. We were very open at the beginning as to what the 17% represented and stated publicly that this was a very high standard that we were using. When the standard was adjusted it was stated also in public."
Charlie said: "they are so messed up and why they need to be removed from office as soon as possible.”
In regard to the Recall filings for Directors elected in 2007 ...... Judge Inveen ruled insufficient on Nov 18. It is now Nov. 29 and no written ruling has been received.
I went to the Supreme Court today and found that to file an appeal of Inveen's recall sufficiency ruling is $280 per director ... and if one wins one is still out $280.
I think perhaps one appeal is in order ... I am thinking Peter Maier.
This is becoming a very expensive retirement hobby. Sorry I do not have $1120 to go for all four.
The email from Harium to another mom is just chilling.
He wrote "We were very open at the beginning as to what the 17% represented" That is an absolutely false statement.
This is denial to a pathological degree.
You are not on the Board to be collegial to Staff. But neither do you have to be adversarial.
"Trust but Verify," my friend.
"Trust but Verify".
-skeptical-
Director Martin-Morris has now revealed his agreement with Director Chow's belief.
This belief makes him unfit to serve on the Board.
Another, another parent
Another, another parent.
And to think he ran unopposed.
This was all we could muster up for an unpaid, part-time, volunteer school board director.
Sad.
-skeptical-
Why question the 17% figure when it creates a sense of crisis? Why question the 17% figure when it helps pass a levy that will fund Ed. Reform Initiatives? Why question the 17% figure when it will be used to pass legislation?
Thanks, Martin Morris. As long as Martin-Morris is in office the Ed. Reform light remains green.
Heck- As long as I am at it, might as well throw a few more directors into this category.
If any of them run for board, I, for one, will do my best to assist and to mobilize the citizenry. Not much, true, but I'll certainly do waht I can. I'll also open my wallet. Again, not much, and peanuts compared to what Broad and Gates can donate, but I'll do what I can!
By the way, what exactly is involved in running for the school board in Seattle? Beyond filing the necessary forms, are there former school board members who might be willing to offer advice to prospective school board candidates on how to run a successful campaign? Would that maybe be a good topic for an article on this blog?
I know that the data fits the model, but that gives them way too much credit.
I'm not really suggesting that they get together over coffee and conspire on who will vote against which issues (although that would make for an interesting book/movie!). But it's not such a stretch to imagine external pressures that might influence directors to stay the course on a sensitive issue if another director or two have already sided against it. Given the power and resources of the people behind the reform movement you just know there are behind-the-scenes influences that we can only guess at.
It doesn't have to be as direct as "Hey Harium, make sure to back us up and your daughter will have a shiny new car when she graduates!", or Steve walking past Luigi in the alley slapping a baseball bat against his palm. If anything, I would think it's more of a constant push by really powerful people, making powerfully persuasive arguments. And perhaps the unwritten promises of money for various programs IF the right agenda is followed.
Again, this is nothing but idle speculation, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Think of it as "light entertainment".
Apparently, the primary task is raising LOTS of money. It worked wonders in the last election, and it will be hard to fight next year as well. It will take a well organized and highly effective effort, and I think potential opposing candidates should consider banding together with a relatively coherent platform that can be "marketed" efficiently.
But the biggest thing people (voters) should do right now is push hard for legislation that limits campaign contributions for school boards. Call or email your representatives NOW. That would take care of a lot of these shenanigans.