Stranger Article on Peter Maier and Pottergate

From the Stranger comes reporter Riya Bhattacharjee's look into Peter Maier and red flags that he either didn't follow-thru on or didn't wave in the faces of his colleagues.   The key one?

As chair of the school board's Operations Committee, Maier acknowledges that he read warnings in a document called the Sutor report, commissioned by the district, about irregularities with a small-works contracting program, originally a component of the regional small-business development program.

Peter had The Sutor Group report (given to him at an Ops Committee meeting by Stephens).  I have never heard Peter say why Stephens gave it to him (and only him) but that seems to be the case.

At a March 6 school board meeting, right before the board unanimously voted to fire superintendent Goodloe-Johnson for her role in the scandal, Maier said he had been alerted to the problems and didn't tell the board.

Bhattacharjee was looking for evidence that it might have made a difference had Maier spoken up.

"I read the report and was concerned," Maier said. Former facilities director Fred Stephens handed him the report in January 2009, Maier said, after his first meeting as chair of the Operations Committee. At the time, approximately $1.2 million dollars had been lost. Between the time Maier received the report and when the district finally sought a criminal investigation, according to the state audit, the district had lost another $500,000.

Peter disagrees:
"I don't think that's possible," Maier says. Even though the report had its own red flags he blames Stephens for "not telling me the whole truth."

She also covers the issue of what appears to be rubber-stamping on his part of every single staff recommendation.  He says this:


"I am a problem solver, not a table thumper," Maier argues.

I'm a lover, not a fighter, eh, Peter?  Okay, we'll bite; what problems have you solved, Peter?


By the time Maier received the report, he had been in office just over a year.   That's about the amount of time it seems to take most Directors to get the lay of the land.  Peter could have told his colleagues about the report - he didn't.  (And it's a mystery to me why he didn't, particularly those members on Ops.)  

The Board received notice of the report via the Superintendent's Friday update in late Feb. 2009 because it was to be the focus of an article in the Daily Journal of Commerce but Peter didn't say anything to his colleagues.  (And apparently, none of them had the intellectual curiosity to ask what the report was and why the newspaper was doing an article on it.) 

The article referenced one contractor, Solar West, who the unions said was not licensed (true) and had allowed workers in schools without having background checks (also true).  What's interesting is that Harium and Steve KNEW about this company and these issues back in late 2008.  The union had come to them about it.  They, too, did nothing.  I find it hard to believe that Steve, especially as a business person, wouldn't have had a red flag go up when he saw that Friday update months later with "small works program" and "report" in the same place along with an article about them in a local business newspaper. 

Additionally, Silas Potter had gone before the Board in April 2009 and laughingly told them he had lobbied the Legislature for his program even though he knew he wasn't allowed to (and he knew Fred Stephens had told him to stop).  He got smiles in return from the Board and not a single Board member told him that Board policy stated who could lobby the Legislature.  It was a serious moment that got laughed off by all.

So several Board members knew of issues with the Small Business works program and really did very little in oversight or follow-up.

Every incumbent running has an problem with this issue but Peter more so.