Seattle School Board Campaigns - What Does a "Positive" Campaign Look Like?
Ballots are to drop on Wednesday the 16th and I have two questions:
1) Is politics like love and war - all is fair in order to win? As we are discovering about privacy, everyone has a different tolerance for what they believe is right/allowable.
2) Is a candidate defined by their supporters? Because this seems to be a sore point with the Peters/Dale Estey campaigns.
At the time, I asked Dale Estey about that flyer and said she legally cannot have any communications with that PAC and can't tell them what to do. That's true. But there would be nothing illegal in her publicly stating that she wants her supporters to echo her positive campaign. But she didn't. She could have but she didn't.
In fact, she told the Times on August 1st that she ""agrees with the ad's main message, although she has mixed feelings about its negative approach." Mixed feelings, huh?
Now we learn that yet another supporter - Jean Bryant, an active parent in the NE - has stepped in to do her own negative campaigning on Dale Estey's behalf.
You might remember Ms. Bryant, a former PTA president, as the person leading a group that was campaigning against BEX IV. That's okay except that their complaint was just about Eckstein and no other school according to reporting at Crosscut on Feb. 6th. That seemed a bit myopic.
Bryant also told the Times in a July 22nd story about School Board elections that "Last time I wasn't a voice as much as I should have been ...and it's so critical." Which leads us to today.
Byrant is an endorser for Dale Estey, named as an education leader at the DE website, and was introduced by Dale Estey at a meeting as a member of "my steering committee." Bryant has co-hosted a fundraising event for Dale Estey. So she is not just some random supporter (although I do believe she is acting on her own accord.)
Bryant decided to take her e-mail list and send out an e-mail about her support for Dale Estey and her disdain for Sue Peters.
She starts the e-mail by supporting Dale Estey but then gets personal (because Bryant has been at the same school with her children as Peters has been with hers for the last seven years.)
Bryant goes on to state all the things Sue hasn't done for the school (and how Byrant can know all this for certain is unclear - she was the president of the PTA but that doesn't mean she is clairvoyant.)
Now. Jean may know about PTA e-mails.
But there is NO way for anyone to know about district e-mails Sue may have written to any staff UNLESS someone told her about them.
That would be a gross violation of confidence for ANY SPS staff person to have told a third-party about e-mails between a parent and another staff person.
So how did Bryant know of the existence of any e-mails? That's unclear but she must have known because of what she did.
She filed a public disclosure to the district for e-mails between Peters and the principal and Peters and her children's teachers.
Yes, you read that right. Peters's emails about her children's education that she wrote to her children's teachers and principals were the ones Bryant filed a public documents request to read.
It is absolutely legal to use public disclosure; I do all the time. But I have NEVER - in 15+ years - ever asked for an e-mail so I could see what a parent was talking to a staff member about pertaining to a child. Never.
How would you feel if you were running for a public office and someone working on a campaign for your opponent was looking for something to hit your campaign with and decided that looking at e-mails you sent, talking about your children and their education, would fit the bill?
I'll just go out on a limb here and say I would not like it - one - little - bit. In fact, I would consider it an invasion of my children's privacy.
What's interesting is that Bryant ended up sending out an apology. She apologizes for making people "uncomfortable."
You mean people felt uncomfortable because you were bragging to people about knowing about e-mails that you have requested so you could try to find something, anything to smear Sue Peters (and to heck with her children)? That kind of uncomfortable?
She then goes on to say her words are "accurate" and that her "passion" for the district can "sometimes lead me astray from the real focus, the kids." (And I'm guessing she means any kids but Sue Peters'.) She states that anyone who requested to be removed from this "email circulation" will have their wish honored. (Obviously people were appalled by these tactics. At least three of them contacted me.)
I wrote to Dale Estey when I learned about this action. (I already knew Bryant had made a public disclosure request to the district for Sue's e-mails but I had hoped nothing would come of it. So I did nothing.) When I saw Bryant's e-mails, I wrote to Dale Estey and told her about this issue. That was Monday the 7th.
Dead silence.
Beyond what you might think of Bryant, why is it that Dale Estey's supporters are going as far as they can to win?
When the ballots drop this Wednesday, I have NO doubt what will come out from Dale Estey's supporters' PAC. More negative and unpleasant talk rather than talking about the issues. Maybe they'll use information they gleaned from Jean Bryant's e-mail request.
Meanwhile I see that Dale Estey is urging people to send her money and to tell their friends about her campaign. "Remember to keep it positive" she says.
Given what has happened (and what is likely to come) those are hollow and disingenuous words.
Dale Estey is NOT running her own campaign. She has a team of handlers deciding her campaign moves. She has supporters who, apparently, will denigrate Sue Peter's background and will even go after Sue's children.
And Dale Estey just smiles.
1) Is politics like love and war - all is fair in order to win? As we are discovering about privacy, everyone has a different tolerance for what they believe is right/allowable.
2) Is a candidate defined by their supporters? Because this seems to be a sore point with the Peters/Dale Estey campaigns.
- Is it envy on the part of Peters because Dale Estey is so well-funded and has paid campaign strategists and a paid treasurer and and manager? Dale Estey's campaign will surely go down as the highest collecting/spending School Board campaign in the history of Seattle. Fifty people (out of her touted 500+ contributors) gave more than 50% of the money her campaign has (the majority of them being lawyers, CEOs, managing partners or someone married to them with a couple of billionaires thrown in there for good measure). I could see someone being envious of that kind of firepower.
- Or is it troubling that Dale Estey has so many well-funded connections (especially to business and to ed reformers) that two of them set up their own PAC just to get her elected? That PAC appears to want to take the negative road just as Dale Estey repeatedly says she's running a positive campaign.
At the time, I asked Dale Estey about that flyer and said she legally cannot have any communications with that PAC and can't tell them what to do. That's true. But there would be nothing illegal in her publicly stating that she wants her supporters to echo her positive campaign. But she didn't. She could have but she didn't.
In fact, she told the Times on August 1st that she ""agrees with the ad's main message, although she has mixed feelings about its negative approach." Mixed feelings, huh?
Now we learn that yet another supporter - Jean Bryant, an active parent in the NE - has stepped in to do her own negative campaigning on Dale Estey's behalf.
You might remember Ms. Bryant, a former PTA president, as the person leading a group that was campaigning against BEX IV. That's okay except that their complaint was just about Eckstein and no other school according to reporting at Crosscut on Feb. 6th. That seemed a bit myopic.
Bryant also told the Times in a July 22nd story about School Board elections that "Last time I wasn't a voice as much as I should have been ...and it's so critical." Which leads us to today.
Byrant is an endorser for Dale Estey, named as an education leader at the DE website, and was introduced by Dale Estey at a meeting as a member of "my steering committee." Bryant has co-hosted a fundraising event for Dale Estey. So she is not just some random supporter (although I do believe she is acting on her own accord.)
Bryant decided to take her e-mail list and send out an e-mail about her support for Dale Estey and her disdain for Sue Peters.
She starts the e-mail by supporting Dale Estey but then gets personal (because Bryant has been at the same school with her children as Peters has been with hers for the last seven years.)
Bryant goes on to state all the things Sue hasn't done for the school (and how Byrant can know all this for certain is unclear - she was the president of the PTA but that doesn't mean she is clairvoyant.)
Bryant then states - not claims - that there are e-mails between Peters and the principal, some teachers, the PTA and the district. She calls them "highly combative."
Now. Jean may know about PTA e-mails.
But there is NO way for anyone to know about district e-mails Sue may have written to any staff UNLESS someone told her about them.
That would be a gross violation of confidence for ANY SPS staff person to have told a third-party about e-mails between a parent and another staff person.
So how did Bryant know of the existence of any e-mails? That's unclear but she must have known because of what she did.
She filed a public disclosure to the district for e-mails between Peters and the principal and Peters and her children's teachers.
Yes, you read that right. Peters's emails about her children's education that she wrote to her children's teachers and principals were the ones Bryant filed a public documents request to read.
It is absolutely legal to use public disclosure; I do all the time. But I have NEVER - in 15+ years - ever asked for an e-mail so I could see what a parent was talking to a staff member about pertaining to a child. Never.
How would you feel if you were running for a public office and someone working on a campaign for your opponent was looking for something to hit your campaign with and decided that looking at e-mails you sent, talking about your children and their education, would fit the bill?
I'll just go out on a limb here and say I would not like it - one - little - bit. In fact, I would consider it an invasion of my children's privacy.
What's interesting is that Bryant ended up sending out an apology. She apologizes for making people "uncomfortable."
You mean people felt uncomfortable because you were bragging to people about knowing about e-mails that you have requested so you could try to find something, anything to smear Sue Peters (and to heck with her children)? That kind of uncomfortable?
She then goes on to say her words are "accurate" and that her "passion" for the district can "sometimes lead me astray from the real focus, the kids." (And I'm guessing she means any kids but Sue Peters'.) She states that anyone who requested to be removed from this "email circulation" will have their wish honored. (Obviously people were appalled by these tactics. At least three of them contacted me.)
I wrote to Dale Estey when I learned about this action. (I already knew Bryant had made a public disclosure request to the district for Sue's e-mails but I had hoped nothing would come of it. So I did nothing.) When I saw Bryant's e-mails, I wrote to Dale Estey and told her about this issue. That was Monday the 7th.
Dead silence.
Beyond what you might think of Bryant, why is it that Dale Estey's supporters are going as far as they can to win?
When the ballots drop this Wednesday, I have NO doubt what will come out from Dale Estey's supporters' PAC. More negative and unpleasant talk rather than talking about the issues. Maybe they'll use information they gleaned from Jean Bryant's e-mail request.
Meanwhile I see that Dale Estey is urging people to send her money and to tell their friends about her campaign. "Remember to keep it positive" she says.
Given what has happened (and what is likely to come) those are hollow and disingenuous words.
Dale Estey is NOT running her own campaign. She has a team of handlers deciding her campaign moves. She has supporters who, apparently, will denigrate Sue Peter's background and will even go after Sue's children.
And Dale Estey just smiles.
That's not a positive campaign and that's not integrity.
So I have one last question - who will Dale Estey be listening to if she wins?
Comments
-I am Out!
Either way, getting personal seems like the wrong way to go for anyone-stick to the facts, people!
Go Hawks!
I agree w/ the first poster, though, on things being askew. I hope folks are going to be able to take a deep breath and step back before we become like nutty new yorkers.
http://nymag.com/news/features/ethical-parenting-2013-10/
I agree w/ the first poster, though, on things being askew. I hope folks are going to be able to take a deep breath and step back before we become like nutty new yorkers.
http://nymag.com/news/features/ethical-parenting-2013-10/
zb
Understand that the child's name has to be redacted (although the district has not always done the best job there - see this year's Special Ed blumder for one student where the name was not redacted for a committee meeting document AND appeared - briefly - online in a document).
You are known by the company you keep - I'm not sure I know what to think about the people that Dale Estey surrounds herself with and that are "helping" her campaign.
"It it time to get past the personal politics our Board too often focuses on and achieve real results for our kids."
She might practice what she preaches if she doesn't like "personal politics."
Furthermore, FERPA should protect a parent's emails to any staff concerning their student - these conversations are part of the student's educational record, and no one without a legitimate educational interest should have access to them.
FERPA also protects student personally-identifiable information INCLUDING their parent's name. I expect that information would be redacted.
Too bad parents cannot sue for violation of FERPA because I would.
Scrutiny of communication regarding your kids? In a school board race? Really?
Byant crossed the line by delving into a child's privacy. Absolutely shameful and disgusting.
Thank you for daylighting this Melissa.
Ugh
We can wait and see but I'm not asking again for a comment. I suspect she would say - just as she did for the PAC - that she cannot control anyone.
But she CAN set the tone and apparently, her "positive" tone isn't the one that those who support her believe can get her elected. Very sad.
FYI off the AMA website: "Finally, offenses committed with the intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm permit fines of $250,000, and imprisonment for up to ten years."
I assume -- I hope -- none of the emails were actually released, were they?
Signed: wtf
But that fine was a pretty pretty thought there for about 10 minutes.
Signed WTF.
I hope NE APP doesn't end up at JAMS! We don't need the drama. We have enough obstacles to deal with for the successful launch of JAMS.
- JR Mom
North-End APP folks (&SNAPP): Do yourselves a huge favor and get this person off your PTA ASAP. I know for a fact that administrators and school board members did not appreciate N End APP partaking in Bryant's "blackmail advocacy" during the levy campaign. Such selfish, short-sightedness puts the entire district at risk while Bryant soils APP's nest. Damage to APP's image has already occurred. Bullying, intimidation and deliberate undermining of a fellow APP parent is disgusting, gutter-level behavior, beneath the culture of APP and soiling its reputation. It needs to stop NOW!
WSDWG
The continued antics of SDE and her campaign have made me lose all confidence in her judgment and ability to represent students, teachers, and communities.
This wouldn't be the first campaign to resort to despicable actions (really? emails about her KIDS??) but its very definitely a telling incident to me. Hmm...
If you have had direct communication with Jean Bryant regarding the activities listed here (or any other thing that’s been said about her), then you are absolutely entitled to share those interactions and your perspective.
If, though, you have “heard” this or that, or read it here without the benefit of a 360-view of the situation, please don’t jump to conclusions.
Find out for yourself.
Records requests are common – even within SPS – but my understanding is that sensitive information regarding parent/child/teacher interactions are protected under FERPA. Has anyone seen the records that were provided to Jean Bryant? Why are we castigating her when many others – bloggers, journalists, parents, school board members – have also filed public records requests?
I know that this is a hot subject. But I’m worried that we’re entering in to a “defamation of character” arena that I’m very uncomfortable with. Having been a reader of this blog for many years, I have appreciated the open discussion on many topics. But I can’t recall another time when a specific parent has been called out by name in such a negative fashion.
- A little civility
Who are you supposing is "defaming" whom?
I called out Bryant - by name - after a long soul-searching (and an early draft without it). But she signed on to Estey's campaign - in a big way - and she sought the e-mails and she broadcast - in a campaign e-mail - that she had them.
It's not defamation.
I am confused about one thing, how do you know that Jean Bryant "filed a public disclosure to the district for e-mails between Peters and the principal and Peters and her children's teachers."
Did she say that to you or is it in her email?
Thanks.
I think her references to the e-mails implies someone either told her about them (in detail if she calls them "highly combative") or she saw them via a staff member or she made a public disclosure request.
I don't know HOW she knew of their existence but I know she made a public disclosure request at least a month ago.
I have not spoken with Jean at all. (She and I both served on the AL Taskforce. I found her to be thoughtful and nice. After the news of her opposition to BEX IV - based solely on Eckstein, I went "Hmmm." After this news came to me - and I heard from several people that this was burning up the SNAPP list serve - I was very troubled.)
-Signing off
Kp
It seems to me that you only have half the story here. Ms. Bryant did step over the line in requesting communications with teachers, but Sue Peters is NOT the innocent victim. Sue and her supporters have been doing their own goading and instigating. It's a nasty campaign...but which one is dragging the other one down into the dirt, I can't say. From my vantage point, they are both throwing punches.
Disappointed
This is a personal battle between these two candidates,
This is NOT supposed to be personal - it's a campaign about issues. Dale Estey - as I quoted her in the thread - said herself she didn't like "personal politics."
Disappointed, you said:
"Sue and her supporters have been doing their own goading and instigating."
Let me know what that's about and I'll investigate. I haven't had any word on this and I will follow up if I do.
By saying "Sue is not the victim", what do you mean?
This latest flap demonstrates nothing more than petty personal animosity against a rival APP parent, taken public to trash Peters. The cake-taker of all is the utterly disingenuous, condescending "sorry if I made you uncomfortable" non-apology. Translation: "I didn't do anything wrong, and I'm not changing. But, if you have a problem with that, I'm happy to freeze you out of the e-mail loop."
And people think Hazing is a Garfield problem. Gee, where do the kids get their ideas?
WSDWG
Maybe it's good campaign strategy to make your endorser a negative distraction for your opponent. On the other hand, it can also mean Estey has no control over Bryant. For me, this is middle schoolers problem, FB and all. It's embarrassing on so many fronts, not the least involving all females of similar backgrounds. SLOG would love this.
Good grief, it's not like this district doesn't have enough problems to deal with! Can't we focus on those real problems?
ugh
Voter
- Pot / Kettle
If your reliable source is Jean Bryant, ask her if she got wind of (her words) "highly combative" emails from her friend the APP @ Lincoln principal, Rina G. I don't know the latter except from what I read in the Times about Greg King and her tenure at Lowell. Perhaps their sources were unreliable...
* The comments expressed here and elsewhere are my own and not the position of Sue Peters or her campaign. : )
Melissa, you say: "I do know for a fact that the request was made." But beyond that you conflate facts and assumptions and, I believe, unfairly defame Jean. Do you know for a fact that the emails being sought were about Sue's children and their education? Or are you leaping to conclusions? As was alluded to by another poster, there is history that provides another explanation for the request (history that might balance out the distaste-o-meter). And do you know for a fact that Jean wasn't assured private information of a certain sort would be protected?
-Not Black and White
I'm reporting what I learn (and was already out in the APP ether) and it's negative? I also note that when someone said "Sue isn't the victim", my immediate reply was okay, tell me what you know about her. I'm still waiting.
Not Black and White, I do know that the e-mails were between Sue and her children's teachers/principal. Not to teachers that weren't her children's.
"And do you know for a fact that Jean wasn't assured private information of a certain sort would be protected?"
What does that even mean? Are you saying Jean would be assured that her request would be private? That's not how that works (and I know that). Public disclosure works both ways.
I think Jean did a good job all by herself.
About privacy...I was referring to protection of any private information specific to the children referenced within the requested emails, not Jean's privacy.
-Not Black and White
Melissa wrote: "She filed a public disclosure to the district for e-mails between Peters and the principal and Peters and her children's teachers."
PRR log lists Bryant's request for Peters' emails with Rina G. and with Peters' child's teacher.
What do you THINK Peters' was emailing about? The date of the next bake sale?
Bzzzt! Si'down!
The Public Record Request Log of Seattle Public Schools contains this entry: 7/20/2013
Bryant, Jean requested emails between ksblum@seattleschools.org and smlpeters@gmail.com Between 10/2012 and 7/2013?; And
legeoghagan@seattleschools.org and smlpeters@gmail.com Between 1/2012 and 7/2013; And
mkwoodbury@seattleschools.org and smlpeters@gmail.com Between 9/2011- 7/2012; And
legeoghagan@seattleschools.org and ksblum@seattleschools.org Between 4/2013 and 6/2013; As Kay
also uses kaysmithblum@gmail.com to conduct board business, ideally it would be great to include that address."
People can make all the public record requests they want. They aren't always going to get filled, and I doubt that this one was filled in its entirety. The log does not say.
I don't have a problem about public record requests about communications between public employees. This request goes over the line.
I also don't see how Suzanne Dale-Estey could control an overzealous supporter using questionable judgement.
But I do see how she should disassociate herself from this kind of thing in a far bigger manner than she has.
She should speak up.
inquiring minds
But when someone else uses the same tactics that you've trumpeted, you are above it all? Pot meet Big Black Kettle.
You chastize directors like Carr and DeBell who attend fundraisers for candidates you don't like --and clearly you don't like Estey. But did you publicize the big ol fundraising efforts Kay Smith-Blum just had for Peters? No you did not.
Pot Meet Big Black Kettle
Blog Reader
You teach and trumpet the tactic, you got no credibility criticizing a pupil gone astray.
Blog Reader
NEMom
As for why knowing who Dale-Estey's handlers and funders is important? Look to Denver and purchasing of their school board. David Sirota just released a powerful article that references how the new Ed Deformers who bought their school board seats and are busy destroying public education to benefit their (not public) charter schools and other "educational endeavors". It's behind a firewall, but you might be able to find a copy somewhere.
Scary reading, and as we have often seen, similar situations will start showing up in Washington State to a greater degree than they may have already manifested themselves, particularly if 1240 is upheld and we end up with private charters receiving public funding. The more we know ahead of time, the better we can protect public education so that it indeed stays public.
CT
- not jumping
-CT
She probably wanted the people on the e-mail list - given it was a campaign issue e-mail - to go out and tell their friends and families and co-workers malicious lies about Sue Peters (I didn't even document all that was said).
That all got out into the SNAPP list serv and passed around.
And now that it hits the bigger news, it is wrong to talk about? Shooting the messenger much?
No, the wrong choice was made by Ms. Bryant who has - and I would say this as someone in the same position - put herself out there for a candidate issue. She did it for BEX IV (against it because of Eckstein) and now she's doing it for Dale Estey.
She and I don't have much in common on what we support but I give her credit for putting her name on what she does.
The majority of the e-mails are to APP at Lincoln staff if you read carefully.
Understand, I am making an assumption about what is in the e-mails because frankly, it's none of my business. But if someone asks for e-mails for a teacher and principal from a parent at their school, there is bound to be overlap. I note no keywords that would have ejected e-mails including Peters' children.
I submitted a list of proposed URL changes a few months ago, as it's been awhile since Seattle Schools changed its content management system and site tree, but not the Round Tuit required to implement the URL updates. I don't remember if I found the Blog Guidelines before, but we shouldn't have to sign in to Acrobat.com to read them.
-Pumpkin patch
NE mama
"Some parents have extended me the courtesy of reaching out offline regarding my public records requests and others will continue to post or blog with misinformation, that can’t be helped. As someone I respect I wanted to explain to you the back story to my reasoning behind the public records request.
First of all I have never filed a public request before, but district staff clearly explained that I would NOT be receiving parent-child-teacher sensitive information strictly protected by FERPA. Public record requests are very common among bloggers and reporters seeking a story or encounter. When Melissa Westbrook and Sue Peters went on the attack of our principal, Rina, public records were filed. It is my understanding that school board member, Kay Smith-Blum, has even overloaded the records requests for emails involving Lincoln parent and FACMAC chair, Elizabeth Wong.
As a professional blogger running for an important elected position, Sue of all people should be able to handle scrutiny regarding her school and district relationships especially since she has no board experience to draw from and in my opinion her history as a blogger has not demonstrated any ability to collaborate. Whether you agree with public records requests or not, they are legal and serve the purpose of accountability.
As you can imagine, when I was PTA president and BLT rep I was privy to a wide variety of conversations and frustrations among Lincoln staff. I have experience firsthand one of Sue Peters’ attack including posting my email on the blogs in an unsuccessful attempt to advance her personal agenda and am keenly aware of her unfair treatment of Rina and her vocal dissatisfaction with Ms. Huss during her part-time return from maternity leave.
I did not see the emails that Sue sent to the teachers and Rina, but did see the tears and brokenness as a result. She did not ask Rina for a meeting prior to sending her an extensive email demanding for her resignation. Followed by one from her husband copied to the entire PTA board. And for someone who says she values teachers and APP teacher retention, Ms. Huss was truly driven out.
My public request was made in July after my PTA responsibilities were complete, in an attempt to capture those encounters. I had no plan to use the information in any campaign function, Suzanne doesn’t work that way. Her campaign has never asked me to do it and has no involvement in the matter. To be completely honest I had no idea what I would find and what I would do - it was mostly a quest for clarity. To this day, none of those public records have been circulated.
I do not plan on retaliating on FB or the APP blog because I believe this avenue of communication does a great disservice to our community. I am very aware of the one-sided personal attacks and censorship that the blogs represent. Personally, I believe this election is too pivotal to lose site of the real issues - healthy governance. Last time I checked, I’m not the one running for school board. I choose to be FOR Suzanne, not AGAINST Sue.
As I have continued to say, I am always open to discuss concerns and hope you will continue to reach out to me instead of participating in online attacks. I would also request that this email does NOT get forwarded because this is truly written to you, not to get picked apart and posted on a blog later. I also hope you come and meet Suzanne tomorrow and discover why I am over-the-top-excited about her. Thank you for contacting me.
Respectfully,
Jean Bryant"
I'm not going to create a laundry list of every mean or misguided statement made by Sue Peters, and wouldn't want to prolong this blog topic. Just to be clear, I will say that I've personally witnessed Sue in action and don't support her as a member of the School Board.
I believe that Jean Bryant's intent was to highlight Sue's communication style and ability to collaborate, which are relevant judgement criteria for a School Board candidate, and not to expose her children to privacy violations. And even if I didn't believe this of Bryant, I know to my core that every conflict arises when both people contribute. Bryant used poor judgement in the public disclosure request...but Peters has disparaged Bryant as well. Even before the request for disclosure.
I am most disappointed in this post, which reads like a Bryant witch hunt or like something designed to rally a Sue Peters sympathy vote...neither of which are valid reasons to vote/not vote for either candidate. I hope that most people will ignor this attempt to elevate emotions and vote for whoever they believe is most capable in the job - even if you disagree with me.
Disappointed
--Transparency please
"It is my understanding that school board member, Kay Smith-Blum, has even overloaded the records requests"
In my admittedly numerous disclosure requests (none as odious, however), I have never seen KSB submit one. Never. I urge anyone so inclined to, yes, submit one for that information.
I feel no need to justify my numerous requests. Many parents and media have benefitted from the outcome of those records. The records serve to inform both my own and others' opinions about how this district does business.
The only "fishing expedition" I engaged in is the emails between high-level staff, directors and "powerbrokers". They proved very illuminating. I hope there are SPS stakeholders who felt more fully informed by the interesting emails that resulted. These were emails with public employees, elected directors, and third-parties.
I'll admit that I considered for one minute to "fish" for Bryant's and Estey's emails. But, for whatever reason, I did not think this was right. Wha....?! Scruples?!
I have no idea what this even means. I sit through meetings where the public disclosure officer comes and reports to the Board and I have never heard her use the word "overloaded."
Define "board experience."
That the principal and a teacher expressed frustrations about one parent to a PTA president is very unprofessional and may not even be legal. As a ex-PTA President myself, I was NEVER told of any teacher or principal issues by my principal or any teacher. So there is no "as you can imagine" except that apparently they do things differently at Lincoln. If I were a parent at Lincoln, if this is how it is done - the PTA president is "privy" to internal staff issues/discussions - I would be quite distressed.
Why Jean thinks it important to "capture" these encounters, I don't know.
"I had no plan to use them in a campaign function" and yet an e-mail was sent out - a campaign e-mail. Whether Suzanne knew it or not, that information was used in a campaign sense. That e-mail was clearly FOR Suzanne and very clearly AGAINST Sue. Should I release the whole thing?
Again, the post was not really about Jean - and I bookended that way - to ask the question, do the supporters of a campaign represent the campaign or mean something about the candidate?
Clearly, there were issues between Sue and Jean but Jean is the one who has carried them into this campaign.
- not jumping
Another1 Disappointed
Your explanation reads like a thinly veiled attempt to rationalize behavior that most people would find creepy. Mature adults will often disagree, and people will passionately defend their position. Debating issues is okay. But you crossed the line. Clearly you were on a fishing expedition looking for anything you could find to smear Sue and advance your chosen candidate.
What is even more remarkable is that you continue to engage is innuendo without a single specific example or reference from the public records you garnered. I can only guess you came up short. Instead you continue to make vague reference to “conversations” among folks at Lincoln. Amazing.
And to reference a teary-eyed Rina Geoghagan is equally puzzling. Let’s not forget that Ms. Geoghagan, along with Principal King, were sited for misconduct by an independent investigator who determined both mishandled reports of potential inappropriate touching between a staff person and special ed students at Lowell. To make matters worse, Ms. Geohagen punished the staff for filing the initial reports. She can cry a river, but her behavior was inexcusable.
Your carefully parsed “story” is simply not credible no matter how much you try to talk around the issues. You want to engage in behavior that most people would find unseemly, but then justify it through some convoluted rationale. Whatever. Maybe that makes you feel better and fools a few. I’m not buying it.
--Skeptic
-Unbelievable
I paid attention to the reaction to the King/Geoghagen misconduct and remember being heartened by Sue's willingness to speak up against the many who seemed to want to pretend this rather serious incident (in my view) never happened. I don't like a hunker down and protect our own mentality AT ALL. I like Sue's backbone.
APP in ALO
You attribute mean, misguided and disparaging statements to Peters - without offering a single fact - while decrying "witch hunts" and not wishing to prolong the discussion.
That is just rich.
WSDWG
It's unfortunate that I can't give Estey the benefit of the doubt, but I made that mistake with Sundquist and Maier, and its obvious when one looks at races around the country that those dollars aren't simply donations, but investments with expected returns. There's no independence or lack of pressure to deliver when the dollar amounts get so high. I'd like to believe that, after surviving MGJ and the gang-of-four, we've learned our lesson. But following the money says "new candidates, same agenda." And I can't go for that.
To me, what ruins this race is Estey's PAC, which consists of the same donors, by and large, as those who supported Maier and Sundquist. Those individuals bought 4 seats on the school board to enact their Ed Reform agenda, and we have lived with the consequences ever since, despite turning out 2 of the gang-of-four in the last election. Do we want to go back to a rubber-stamp school board again, carrying forth the agenda of the people who bought the seats on the board? Or do we want the actual community, students and parents being represented on the School Board?
It's unfortunate that I can't give Estey the benefit of the doubt, but I made that mistake with Sundquist and Maier, and its obvious when one looks at races around the country that those dollars aren't simply donations, but investments with expected returns. There's no independence or lack of pressure to deliver when the dollar amounts get so high. I'd like to believe that, after surviving MGJ and the gang-of-four, we've learned our lesson. But following the money says "new candidates, same agenda." And I can't go for that.
Kp
Yes, I realize how funny that sounds. I'm sorry you didn't understand my ironic tone. The point is, I heard a rumor too...but I don't know first hand and can't publish it as fact. I didn't throw names out there - this blog did. I think it was a poor decision to post this thread. And no, my "source" isn't Jean Bryant. I've never spoken to the woman. I am a truly undecided voter - I am not impressed with either candidate. (Luckily, I don't have to vote for Jean Bryant). I have had one direct interaction with Sue Peters, and found her very passionate, if myopic, and thought she was incapable of seeing any other point of view, which is not a good trait for a board member. She can be incredibly abrasive. Estey I don't like just be her association with her supporters. But I've never met her personally. So there you have it - rock and a hard place. They are both running campaigns that are disgraceful. I know this blog never purported to be unbiased, but this post was over the line and served no purpose but to stir up the mudslinging.
-Signing off.
Looks like the only one to vote for is Estey! No she doesn't need to apologize for anything. What is she supposed to say? "Gee I'm really sorry those 2 got in a catfight." Ridiculous! Just not being one of the others, and not being in APP, is already better, albeit it's hardly an endorsement either.
Signing Off 2
I respect your position. Rereading your post, I see you were posting someone else's words. I shouldn't have attributed the content to you.
There were many times that I just plain refused to vote for the names on the ballot. This time however I'm not in that quandary.
I hope you will not "Sign off" and will continue advocating. : )
Shoreline redux.
Mindful
-Proud of my modeling
I challenge anyone to show me a blog without bias.
As well, again, shoot the messenger. I was not the person who wanted this message out in the ether,hoping it would convince people to vote for Dale Estey. Do keep that in mind.
I have said, if you can tell me what Peters has done IN HER CAMPAIGN that you don't like, please let us know. I haven't heard a single thing about that.
And again, I bookmarked this thread very carefully - it is not about what Bryant did - it is about who Estey surrounds herself with and what they will do in order to help her win.
It's called integrity. And asked two questions at the beginning which everyone has ignored. That would be a good discussion.
The Estey campaign can step back from this fray and claim this is really personal business between two people. Has nothing to do with the candidate herself. On the 1mm surface, this maybe true. But it stinks.
It could be that Peters is thorny and difficult to deal with. You can argue this does not lend to board harmony. BUT neither does Estey's do nothing position! There lies the rub for me.
What is the difference in having a proxy opponent to stir up such a distraction than doing it yourself. In the end both styles are bad for Board governance and are just as pernicious and destructive.
There is no winner here. Whatever doubts I have are stronger than ever. If you were to make a caricature of these 2 candidates, you get one possible hot head and the other a behind the scene, divisive manipulator.
It's just bad all around. Perhaps a write in candidate..... Anyone?
ugh
To those who call Peters "abrasive" and such, I can attest first-hand that she's no pushover and doesn't swallow BS. If you've been in this district awhile, you know we need that. If you value go-along-to-get-along, over accountability, don't vote for her. She's definitely not your type.
However, if you want someone who's collaborated and worked with parents all over this district for a decade to improve schools from the grassroots up, Peters is it. She doesn't have the friends in high places like her opponent. Instead she has them in APP, Leschi, Rainier Beach, West Seattle, Pinehurst, North Beach, Salmon Bay, Lowell, Thurgood Marshall, Wedgewood, and on and on. If she loses this race, she'll continue that work, because that's who she is.
IMHO, the fault with Peters lies in her ability to see the big picture and all its moving parts, which makes people uncomfortable and feel overwhelmed. With all that's gone on in North End APP it doesn't seem those folks enjoy hearing "wait, slow down, or don't," and who can blame them? But, by looking out for the district as a whole, and not always in the self-interests of North End APP, I have no doubt Peters has often been the unpopular voice in the room. But that's the price that's often paid by those who look at the long-term, beyond their own self-interests and outside the walls of their own schools. People have to constantly be reminded that we're all in this together, and they don't always like it.
But, to return to the main point, where are the facts? Things like "I didn't read the e-mails but I saw the tears" or "Peters can stomp on people" are not very persuasive, considering the sources. How about facts?
Otherwise, we're electing a School Board member like we'd elect a Prom Queen. Yuck.
WSDWG
Estey & I have mutual friends who have told me that Estey is not a supporter of charter schools and a reform agenda, but I don't trust that information because I haven't heard her say anything directly on the subject and her campaign website is remarkably content-free from a policy/platform perspective. Therefore in the absence of any actual information (and I have asked a couple of direct questions, to which I'm still waiting answers), for me, Estey is an unacceptable candidate by association: 1) endorsed by the extremely damaging DeBell; 2) the sources of her campaign financing.
-flibbertigibbet
So this is my gamble vote, + the mayoral one. But this one has more potential for vastly different outcome depending on who wins. That's what driving my voting decision.
Until this point, Estey has been a bland candidate for me because she has no track record in the district. There isn't much there except what gets in the ST or mailed out. I went this morning to both their websites and read. I noted their endorsers.
What this whole ridiculous sideshow tells me is I rather have a firebrand than a manipulator. Professionally, I can handle an abrasive personality on the team than one who play manipulative head games. In my job, this matters in my patient outcome.
So I'm gambling on Sue Peters. I'm gambling that Peters as Board member will move beyond the narrow group she has been most associated with. I'm gambling that she will embrace SPED and those constituents that you rarely hear on any blog or see at community meetings (A change in zip code has been my personal eye opener.)
I think Estey's heart is in the right place, but her campaign shows a hardness there and perhaps a greater political ambition than just mere school district board member. There's nothing wrong with that, but politics forge strange partnerships and not always good ones. I fear that's being played out right before our eyes.
I don't want this on our Board. I want peace in the valley. I want the board to work with Mr. Banda and get us through some very tough challenges ahead. I don't want the distraction of ed reform politics, TFAs, charters, latest learning gizmos, state/city politics or for that matter, personal politics to detract from that work.
I want a well governed and managed school district to be proud of and healthy learning environment for our kids.
ugh
Bryant is not an innocent bystander.
I will point out one thing about comments about Sue's advocacy at APP@ Lincoln. She was willing to stand up and be counted. She asked hard questions and didn't back down. Was that abrasive? I wasn't there.
But, in the end, both the principals got sanctions.
And, we find out that the one that remains at Lincoln has been having inappropriate personnel conversations with at least one PTA parent (and maybe she's continuing that on today, I don't know) who used that knowledge in a campaign e-mail against Sue Peters.
You are known by who you associate with. That people are taking a harder look at Dale Estey's list of supporters (and financial contributors) is a good thing.
Look at both candidates' supporters. Look for a broad base of people. Ask yourself if you see names that might go into one category rather than a broad spectrum of the community.
I'm going to the City Club One-Stop Ballot Shop tonight where the candidates will be at tables and you can talk to them one-on-one. Get their views, find out what they know about the growth boundaries or math adoption or any burning issue.
It's at the Armory starting at 5 p.m. It's a golden opportunity.
HP
Go. Listen. These are good opportunities.
Estey's SECOND consultant- ARGO STRATEGIES- set-up the meeting.
-What Are We Fighting For
-What Are We Fighting For
curious