Ethics Complaint
I can't recall if I have already shared this, but last week I sent an email to Noel Treat, the District's Ethics Officer in which I made a number of Ethics Complaints - in accordance with Board Policy F11.00
Here is the text of the complaint(s):
Anyway. I wanted to keep folks current on the news.
Here is the text of the complaint(s):
On January 6, 2010, Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson provided to the Board her 2010 Statement of Financial Interest and Potential Conflict of Interests. On this statement, the superintendent disclosed that she is a non-salaried officer of three non-profits: Board member of the NWEA, Board member of the Broad Center, and Board member of United Way of King County. Further, she attested that this list is complete to the best of her knowledge as of the date of her signing (January 6, 2010).So here's the weird thing. Mr. Treat has referred the matter to the District's outside special ethics counsel for an external review and a determination. What's that about? I'm going to get a message from some lawyer, hired by the District to serve as outside counsel. This is probably because it would be tricky for Mr. Treat to investigate or stand in judgement over his boss. But how is it any less tricky for a vendor to do so?
This list, however, was not complete. The superintendent is now, and was at the time of her statement, a member of the Board of the Alliance for Education. The Alliance for Education is also a non-profit.
I regard her failure to disclose this position as a violation of the Ethics Policy.
I regard her attestation that her disclosure list was complete as another violation of the Ethics Policy.
I regard her failure to recuse herself from decisions regarding the numerous dealings, financial and otherwise, between the District and the Alliance as a string of additional violations of the Ethics Policy.
Some sort of censure - if not termination for cause - is a necessary response to these violations. Following the censure, the superintendent should disclose (or resign) her position with the Alliance and recuse herself from any future dealings between the District and the Alliance - as she claims to have done with the NWEA.
I see it that way, but I'm not the Ethics Officer. You are.
I await your decisions.
Anyway. I wanted to keep folks current on the news.
Comments
The Superintendent is NOT a Crook.
Then again resignation looks like a good option Mr. Nixon.
the agenda to last night's Budget Work session & tonight's Transition Plan has apparently been changed without any notice that I've seen except for this now on the Board's home page:
Note to Public: The board and district leadership are taking an Integrated Planning approach to the 2011-12 student assignment plan transition, long-range capacity management, program placement for 2011-12, and budget development for 2011-12. Upcoming work sessions and workshops may focus on one or two areas per workshop but may have information on all topics. This calendar will be updated as the work moves forward. Those work sessions are:
Tuesday, November 30, 4:00-8:00pm (Student assignment, academic assurances, and program placement)
Wednesday, December 1, 4:00-8:00pm (Student assignment transition, budget)
-------------------------
Despite "Student Assignment" being listed (above) for both dates, on the linked Power Point, neither "Capacity Management" nor "NSAP Transition Plan for 2011-12" will be covered?
In the past, the Alliance was a civic booster of the District and largely a "philosophically neutral" fundraiser and money-passthrough to the District.
With this set up it was not unreasonable that the superintendent and school board president sat on the A4E board. It is common throughout the U.S.
However, with a change in A4E leadership at the end of last year, the group has a different direction...one that advocates for some very specific policies and tactics within our District. The public introduction of this new direction was the NCTQ rollout and it was followed by lobbying for specific issues during teacher contract negotiations. Much of these items fall under the Ed Reform umbrella. In addition, the prioritization of these issues are being driven by leadership's allegiance to national Ed Reform priorities, vs. the past state of affairs, in which our own District's priorities took center stage.
Pragmatically, because A4E has both money and readily available "helping hands" its influence within the JSCEE can fairly be noted to be far more extensive than other Ed not-for-profits and advocacy groups in town including many teacher and parent voices. (The Gates Foundation, which appears to have a similar amount of influence, is a different thread, and in any case, does not have the superintendent or Board Pres on its Foundation board.)
So the net of the issue is that with A4E now having an "agenda", its ability to shape District direction, supply personnel directly -- or grants for personnel -- and to put its time and resources toward only those items it deems correct from its view of the world, is troublesome for those of us without such access.
This change in the old status quo has been fast (1 year). Fast enough that I give the superintendent the benefit of the doubt that she hasn't followed the implications for her membership on the A4E board. (If she saw nothing amiss with NWEA, she almost certainly wouldn't be critically thinking about this membership.)
DeBell has publicly commented that he has wrestled with whether it is now appropriate for a School Board president to sit on A4E. But, at least publicly, nothing has happened. Probably because to have the Board President resign from A4E will set up the kind of Downtown Business consternation that many of our Board members so studiously avoid. Resignation means a political mess.
A4E has every right to chart its own course. But to my mind, taking a position of advocacy means that the superintendent and Board Pres should indeed step down, gracefully, from the A4E board.
In my Opinion of One, this is an issue that absolutely needs daylighting and discussion in our community.
Skeptical in Seattle
Political activities and a 501c3 do not go appropriately together or do they?
That is my question.
-----------------
As to benefit of the doubt.... Is this MGJ's first legal violation? No it is NOT.... she gets a lot of benefits ... when does the public get accountability?
My guess is not my holding the Superintendent accountable for her actions.
Nice punt Mr. Treat......
The question is now did you kick the ball to an official or just another member of the District's team.
=======
My My pretty warm out for December 1 and likely to get hotter.
It may be that there are enough ethics complaints that SPS's legal department needs to engage outside counsel just to deal with the complaints.
I filed an ethics complaint about the Superintendent's position on the NWEA board, as I feel that is a clear conflict of interest, and the arguments I've heard for why the position wasn't disclosed have been offensively disingenuous. To be honest, if there had been an honest, candid admittance of a screw-up, I wouldn't have filed a complaint.
I would guess that I'm far from the only person who filed about NWEA.
I supposed I could file a public records request to find this out, but it's hard not to speculate whether or not the number of official complaints and lawsuits are higher for this Superintendent's tenure than for previous Superintendents.
I do have to say that this makes more sense from a strong board perspective. I suspect the change was made at the behest of board members who want their work to be more meaningful, to have more impact. After all, creating and enforcing policy can ONLY be done through what gets budgeted.
We need to talk about that though. And FYI, the one board member who was ticked off from a public engagement view point is Steve Sundquist. (I know, his new ability to speak up is a little too late, but at least he is paying attention and doing it now.)
Anyway, here's a gem to add to this ethics complaint, Charlie. One of the data sets the board asked for is a list of all contracts. We got a list of FY10 contracts totaling 6 million dollars. There are a couple issues with it, including Meg is convinced it is not complete. Another issue is that some items are deceptive because they are pass throughs from money coming into the district. Don is going to augment the list with such details (weather and holiday delayed this).
One particular contract worth paying attention to is a contract TO Alliance for Education for $130,048 for Community Partnership management servs
He hopes for a decision in a couple of weeks (he said it seemed straightforward).
Good job, Central Area Mom. A good recap.
The Alliance paid for all of Carol Rava Treat's salary for the 2 years she was at SPS.
I have a public disclosure request in for all non-governmental grants. Let's see what that turns up.
Sounds like he won't have much to do, other than shuffle complaints from his desk onto another desk, at great cost to us, of course.
I definitely see why the public might have concerns about how Mr. Treat got his job (ie his wife having worked for the district). In his favor I will say that a city council member whom I deeply respect absolutely raved about him. He has a rep for being open, kind, smart, and thoughtful.
I am wondering if we can keep a communal open mind about him and check back in a few months?
Thanks,
GT
Just to be clear, I think these could be violations of the policy because the state auditor suggested that there was an ethics policy violation with the NWEA contract and I believe that the Alliance for Education is exactly analogous with the NWEA.
I wonder if this is where all of the professional development coaches have disappeared to? Peter Maier is showing around a document that says SPS only employs 6.8 coaches now.
--sped parent
And I have not confirmed this, so take it for the unsubstantiated rumor it is, but I have heard that the MAP data coaches are being paid for with capital funds (which... how is that justifiable, exactly? I'm both skeptical that it's in the rules and willing to see the info on why it is allowed).
My skepticism on the list of contractors is because Education First, a consulting company that I understand regularly works for SPS, isn't on the list (and overall, there aren't many education consultants on there). And the drop-off from large sums to small is weirdly rapid. So there may be some other designation - not a contracted worked, not an SPS employee, but...? I don't know. The list provided is only stuff from baseline funds? My imagination fails me right now. I can't guarantee that the list is incomplete, but it doesn't smell right. To me, anyway. Maybe it smells like roses to someone less suspicious.
Just because he replaces Ikeda hardly indicates he will act like Ikeda.
I realize that many of us have been mislead by SPS administrators.
I watched Brad Bernetek do the cherry-picking to help Santorno mislead the Board into adopting Everyday math. Now we have the 17% fiasco authored by Brad.
So when Eric M. Anderson was hired in the position of Gates Data Fellow ........ I was plenty skeptical. So far I have found his reports very informative.
Except of course for the Anderson "draft memo" that MGJ fraudulently claimed to be the "memo sent to the school board" on which she and Susan Enfield based the construction of the 3-12-2010 NTN action report.
Dr. Anderson's final NTN report contained some inaccuracies. This seemed partially the fault of others than entirely on him.
I think Dr. Anderson is a quality guy ... the fact he wound up in the SPS working for MGJ is not his fault.
So as for Mr. Treat .. let us give him some time.
If we can sack the "Supe" Mr. Treat may be quite a guy ... without crazy guidance from above.
You will learn the state law on conflicts of interest for municipal employees.
There wouldn't be any trouble with the superintendent's position on the NWEA or the Alliance so long as she discloses the position and recuses herself from the transactions.
She can document her disclosure of her position on the NWEA board and credibly claim to have recused herself.
But she did not disclose her position with the Alliance or refrain from recommending those deals.
The law says that contracts made with conflicts of interest are void.