For that reason alone, he does not deserve re-election
In an earlier thread, skeptical wrote about Director Sundquist:
I'll provide the second one.
At the Board meeting of November 17, 2010, Director Martin-Morris scolded his Board colleagues for trying to verify a statement made by Dr. Enfield. He lectured them that they should just accept her statements as true and not insult her by verifying them. For that reason alone, he does not deserve re-election. The statement in question proved false, a fact he knew when chastizing his fellow Directors, but that didn't slow him down one bit.
Sundquist also opened the last, hardest, of this year's budget sessions by making a sweeping statement that staff's board recommendations should be baseline accepted as the starting point of discussion.Which actions or statements by Board Directors make them un-deserving of re-election?
For that reason alone, he does not deserve re-election.
I'll provide the second one.
At the Board meeting of November 17, 2010, Director Martin-Morris scolded his Board colleagues for trying to verify a statement made by Dr. Enfield. He lectured them that they should just accept her statements as true and not insult her by verifying them. For that reason alone, he does not deserve re-election. The statement in question proved false, a fact he knew when chastizing his fellow Directors, but that didn't slow him down one bit.
Comments
Spending way more Central than any other District in the state. And for 2011-2012 they are shamefully headed for more of the same. To keep their monster headed admin. they are going to cut direct intervention that the elementary counselors provide. this should not be allowed to happen. Most of the Board are just a bunch of yes sirs or yes maams. No thinking involved. Vote them out!!!
At the time, the investigation was unknown to the public, but known to the board.
And I was told that he stated at a public event that Summit teachers had sex with their students...
Summit and AS#1 teachers were wondering how to handle that incident; I was present at some of the discussion... in the end, it wasnt taken further...
Were we to go on past performance (and maybe we should), not ONE of these four, not ONE, would deserve even a moment's consideration. Rubber stamping, failing to oversee, buying into ed reform, signing that ridiculous board governance thing that MGJ got them to sign -- where they agreed basically not to interfere with how she ran the district. It goes on and on.
BUT -- one thing that "came out" of the 2007 election is the peril to the District of new, clueless directors (especially when they are a majority of the board -- which they WILL be). I am not advocating that you change your position on Meier -- but we need to make sure whoever runs against him is better, out of the box, than he was (although the sex with students comment is pretty much decisive, if it happened, because if he had grounds for saying it, he had an obligation to report it to the police, and if he DID'NT have grounds for saying it -- it was an outrageous thing to say.
My criteria are:
1. Understands the job and is willing to oversee the Superintendent.
2. NOT enthusiastically and uncritically pro ed-reform (mild, I can handle -- but not the chanting acolytes.)
3. Data literate.
4. Willing to engage (not just pretend engage) with parents and Seattle citizens.
5. Willing to stand up to special interests even if (and maybe especially if) they show up with wads of cash in one hand and an agenda in the other.
Every single Board member had the opportunity to question the Silas Potter issue. No one did. We still don't know why, even after the $35k check Potter tried to take for his company AND the July 2010 audit, it took until December for the Board to launch an investigation.
But for me, the road ahead is about what this district does. Those up for reelection seemed pretty on-board with what MGJ was doing and the ed reform direction she was following. I would need to know how they feel now. I would need to hear what has changed in their thinking on this issue.
As I said previously, I think there are sharks circling our district because it's a great time to try to muscle in. (It does bring a smile to my face because MGJ and Tom Payzant thought they could muscle into our district and I do believe they got schooled about the deep investment and commitment that our parents and our communities have to this district. We are not a district to be rolled.)
I would never vote for someone not qualifed to sit on the Board. But I will not vote in someone who will not make it clear that he or she is operating in terms of what is best for our district and not for a national ed reform agenda.
Signed, Wedge from the Rebellion
If that's the case, they should have at some point recommended that they have some sort of assistance or alternative means to have the time to understand the issues.
As far as I'm concerned, many of us with full time jobs and children to raise were able to understand what was going on before these louts were.
These folks fell victim to money, political aspirations and promises that will now not be kept.
They all need to be voted out except for Patu who seems to have kept her personal strength of character.
To say upfront…I think Harium is an honest man and a person of integrity. Anything he is saying at current I believe that he believes.
His turning point seemed to be the closure of Cooper. At many a community meeting he stated how Cooper had done everything right. The District told them to raise test scores and improve student achievement and they did that.
They kept their end of the bargain and the District betrayed them and broke their promise.
The closure of Cooper seemed to be a huge turning point for Harium. I don’t know if he sought the favor of MGJ to gain more influence or what actually happened but it seems like an almost Stockholm syndrome change in Harium before and after Cooper.
I like Harium as a person, but do not agree with his priorities and current thoughts on the role of a Board Director. I’ll be voting for Michelle.
Carr and Maier:
I am not completely confident in their current change in direction. Unlike DeBell, they are both up for reelection so I am not assured their recent public posturing is due to a true epiphany or a desire to be re-elected. Carr has a tremendous political savvy. You have to, to rise to the heights of such a large organization as Boeing. She can read the tea leaves and present the public face needed.
I don’t know if Maier is just riding the current tide of public and media sentiment or if he truly has a desire to support us little folks the parents, vs. the big money players.
I really hope both of them will have an opponent for election so it will be a true contest and both can be more fully vetted.
Sundquist:
There are a lot of engaged and passionate people in West Seattle I have had the privilege to meet. Some are still in support of Sundquist. Some are wavering, and some have turned the corner as their children are bearing the brunt of lack of planning and burden at their local schools. I know if the passionate people I have met no longer accept words from Sundquist but require true action on behalf of his constituents he is toast.
His rambling about being African American and somehow how that had something to do with something in making his decision about firing Goodloe-Johnson was pathetic.
He was on-board with all of the ed reform edicts that Goodloe-Johnson sent down the pike particularly after his trip to DC when he met with Arne Duncan.
Harium might be a great guy but he is not an appropriate person to sit on the school board at this time. He has done his time and has proven to be ineffective at representing the rest of us.
Unfortunately, from the votes that I have seen, she has no idea what is going on or has only the concern of financial backers who will be paying for her next political campaign.
He's a tool.
grumpy
Sundquist, Maier, Carr, Harium and DeBell have all been tainted by the Broad through retreats, Broad book reading assignments, paid trips to DC and Denver and who knows what else.
I would suggest that anyone who has been tainted with that influence either needs to begin to show that they can begin to think for themselves or be thrown out in the upcoming elections.
And that means seriously reconsidering the re-segregation of our schools, Teach for America and MAP.
To improve a system requires the intelligent application of relevant data.
The FOUR consistently tell fairy-tales and avoid the relevant data.
For this reason it would be pointless to have any of these four in office again. After 3.5 years of "leadership" nonsense from the crew ... elected by spending $480,000 to get elected in 2007, there is NO TIME left to correct for extremely poor dishonest decision making.
Under MGJ, we were put through hell.
We saw first hand the influence of wealth and politics on our children's education.
Since MGJ's departure, I've been sleeping much better.
NEVER AGAIN!
Martin-Morris and Sundquist should go. Period. I don't believe their is any way for them to redeem themselves at this point, and their non performance is more harmful that their "experience" is beneficial.
KSB and DeBell are both fantastic and I'm glad they will both be remaining on the board.
Betty is coming around - and I believe that her heart is in the right place. I think she lacks experience, and still has a lot to learn, but I think she is working and growing. I think she is still somewhat limited in her vision and advocacy (south end, minority, struggling students) and does not always see, or advocate for the big picture (all the other children and schools in SPS). Still, I am glad that she is remaining on the board, and have high hopes for her.
Peter has struck me as a man who values integrity. He wants to act with integrity. And as such, he had a strong belief in other's integrity. So when the public would offer suggestions that staff was acting with less than complete honesty and integrity, his response was to dismiss the messenger as the one without integrity. Very blind. I do believe that his eyes are now open, opened in an extremely painful way. That, with the experience he's gained from being on the board, makes me inclined to be hopeful about him in the future. (Now Sahila's anecdote does shoot holes in my theory, so that just shows that there is no clean pigeonhole for anyone. I can certainly see why that could be enough reason to not vote for him.)
Sherry. What does she do for Boeing? Because when I first started paying attention to her, I was struck by how... non-smart... she seemed. Clueless or just flaky or something, not a leader. But she has gotten in her groove and asks pointed questions, pushes the discussion in fruitful ways that shows a much more complex grasp of issues than I would have thought.
Is this growth enough for people to support them? That's going to be a personal decision, isn't it? How much are you willing to overlook past sins, how much do you believe in real change, how much do you think that their experience will make them better board members or whether their past records are too damning? With both Carr and Maier, I can see reasonable people arguing either way. With Sundquist and Martin-Morris, the answer seems much clearer to me.
Either way, we need candidates in all the races. No one should run unopposed. There are strong arguments that every race should have at least three candidates to force a primary election that will keep the candidates and their issues in the public eye longer.
We DO need smart, savy, independent Directors willing to stand up to SOME of the "lifers" in key District administration who feel no compunction about telling the truth to the Board.
Perhaps the City can step in to donate a few staff folks for the School Board?
There is a huge learning curve. We cannot afford to keep turning out experienced Directors unless they have truly ceased to perform. In my opinion, Director Carr has worked hard to step in where politically possible. With tenure, comes additional political capital. Let's get them some staff!
Directors Martin Morris and Sundquist, however, don't seem to be asking serious questions, showing a range of thinking. Unless something different happens, I'm not too confident in either of them.
But then the district just hired Strategies 360 to be its Communications lead (yes, they only hired a S360 employee, but still...) so all bets are off. Once again, I have to keep a sharp eye out for who is in bed with who.
I'm still waiting to hear what directors know about Gates/Broad/Alliance/S360/Burgess/SPS backroom deals, and what they think about them. THEN I can vote next November with the straight skinny.
S360 in Comm seat....ridiculous.
To Peter & Sherry Rubber Stamp - I think you're playing Potemkin Public Interest, and Potter-gate is a great opportunity to pretend that things are changing while you just rename all the Arne Duncan lies.
An Arne By Any Other Name Will Still Stink.
Go the PDC and look at the top contributors to their 2007 campaigns. How many of them live in Seattle? And of those, how many actually sent their children to SPS? Why would so many rich people want to support the campaigns of Board directors of public schools they didn't send their children to?
I realize that the rich have political interests, too. They spend their money on various causes, and some of them spend them on public education for the express purpose of influencing what shape it takes in the future. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. The effects of their actions are to undermine public education as an institution--an institution that is essential to a democratic political culture.
Under no circumstances will I support the incumbents.
Dot