Seattle Schools This Week

It will be quite the week by the time we all get to the end of it.

From SPS Communications:
Tuesday, Nov. 3 Deaf/Hard of Hearing (DHH) community gathering cancelled

Due to an unforeseen circumstance we must cancel and reschedule the Nov. 3, 2015 DHH Community Gathering. A critical component for this meeting is appropriate interpretation services. Despite early requests and multiple agency contacts, interpretation services were not secured. The district was informed of this on Oct. 30.

Monday, Nov. 2
  • Work Session: Superintendent 2014-15 Evaluation (4:30-6:00 PM)
  • Executive Session: Evaluate the performance of a public employee (6:00-8:30 PM*)  
  • Location: Board Office Conference Room, John Stanford Center
The Work Session is open to the public but the Executive Session is closed to the public.  It is clear they are probably going to be talking about the Superintendent's contract including adding a year to it and/or a raise. Personally, I don't think either action is justified by the Superintendent's performance.  He himself came here, saying it was only for three years. 

Tuesday, Nov. 3
Election day for four seats on the Board; three will be new Board members and one might be an incumbent or be a new person.  

Wednesday, Nov 4
School Board meeting at JSCEE, starting at 4:15 pm.  Agenda.

This is the next-to-the-last meeting for the current Board. (Their last meeting together will be Nov. 18th.  I believe the new Board members will be installed on Dec. 1.)  They will be voting on several pivotal issues.

  • Under the Consent agenda, there's the Personnel agenda.  It lists hires, rehires and "separations."  One of those is for the principal of Queen Anne Elementary, David Elliott.  It is under "separations" but the date is 6/30/2016.  I don't know if this is placeholder for when he might really leave OR maybe the district is doing the smart thing and keeping him to finish the school year for the good of the school community.
  • Vote on 2015-2016 legislative agenda
Seattle has three priorities for this session:
- Fully Fund McCleary including Regional Salaries
- Address Capacity Needs in Seattle
- Close opportunity gaps 
  • Bell Times. I see nothing different from the last iteration with Tier Three with 13 schools.  I do, however, note this which I find troubling:
The superintendent is authorized to make minor modifications to the District Transportation Standards and/or operational procedures as required in the best interests of the district.

I'd like to know the definition of "minor."  In absence of that definition, I see that statement as more of a power grab by the Superintendent than just allowing latitude.
  • Severing of the official relationship between the district and the Alliance for Education.
  • Two major technology contracts with three different companies.
  • Approval of the Student Assignment Plan.  This is a MAJOR overhaul in several directions.  It is not a clear document that could be put up at the district's website as a resource for parents.  It leaves too many unanswered questions (whose answers appear to hang on whatever the Superintendent and staff want the answers to be).  This is not, as was told at the three community meetings advertised as "growth boundaries" meetings with "minor revisions" to the student assignment plan.  It is an utter switch from Board oversight of the student assignment plan to rubberstamping a fill-in-the-blanks template that operates at the will of the Superintendent.
  • Approval of the BTA IV levy including the list of projects.  I find this list disappointing.  As well, one major item was added after the community meetings with no real public notice except at this blog.  (That is over $8M to help pay off the bonds for the JSCEE.)  If that's what happens before the election, what happens to that list after the election?  Because of that (and because of the Cedar Park situation), I will be voting no on BTA IV.
Thursday, Nov. 5th
State of the District Speeches.  There will be two speeches.
- 1:00 pm at City Hall in the Bertha Knight Landes room.  In past years, this event has been produced by the Alliance for Education so it will be interesting to see how an SPS stage-managed event will be.  Wonder if Sara Morris, CEO, of the Alliance will come?  Will the Mayor come?  
- 7:00 pm an "encore" speech at JSCEE.  

Executive Committee meeting at 4:30 pm at JSCEE.  No agenda yet available.

Friday, Nov. 6th
Work Session on District Scorecard/Operations Data Dashboard, 4:30-6:30 pm.  No agenda available and it's unusual to see one on a Friday.  But hey, the Superintendent's evaluation is partially based on this info. 

There are no director community meetings on Saturday.


Anonymous said…
First, these are all hugely critical issues and I hope (and know they will be) that the various communities are respective of each other's needs and supports them in making sure there are diversity in speaking slots. I am glad the board prioritized across the various action items to ensure there is public testimony on each.

With that said, one note, on the QAE situation (I also mentioned on the Friday open thread earlier but worth mentioning here) - the personnel report vote is scheduled to be BEFORE public testimony. That means the public has no chance to weigh in before the board approves or rejects the HR actions taken.

I understand and respect that there are rules around discussing individual personnel matters at board meetings - but it is wrong that we are not being given a chance to weigh in on the vote to approve or reject the report in total/aggregate, including the process and decisions used to compile the list and send it out for approval. There's no need to mention or involve individual personnel decisions or names to discuss the report as a whole.

Even more so, like in this case, when there are extremely controversial items in the report that there has been large demand, without response or scheduling, for a venue in which students and parents can discuss with staff.

No matter how you feel about the actions taken, the way this is being railroaded through without community engagement is wrong (hey - sounds just like just about every other issue being discussed!) - The board should reject the personnel report.

- Dad
Queen Anne said…
I have a few questions regarding the Queen Anne principal.

1. First, public documents indicate that Michael Tolley gave the principal 15 minutes to decide whether he wanted to be fired, or whether the principal wanted to resign. Clearly, the principal was put under duress. Does the principal have the ability to pursue legal action and are district assets at risk?

2. Why wasn't remediation offered?

3. Why didn't the district ask for the principal to resign BEFORE school began? The actions of the district have created instability for Queen Anne Elementary.

4. Why didn't the district take action before the start of school? Clearly, administrators weren't checking to see whether or not teacher evaluations were completed. What administrator will be held accountable?
Queen Anne, no one, save Mr. Elliott and the district, knows all the facts. Remediation may have offered.

Mr. Elliott certainly can seek legal counsel and file against the district. On what grounds, I don't know.

As to why the district didn't act earlier, well, that's another matter. I think Mr. Elliott's legal counsel may find the district's actions, via their JSCEE staff, lacking.

And you ask the eternal question of when any JSCEE administrator will ever be held as publicly accountable as teachers/principals? I have almost never seen that happen except over legal matters.
mirmac1 said…
To see the Center for Childhood Deafness and Hearing Loss report on SPS' Deaf/HH programs, read it here. This report was embargoed for months.
Anonymous said…
I'm finally voting. Can't decide btwn Geary & McGuire. Please help!!

Mag mom
Mag mom, I voted Geary. Reading through even just the last 5 posts here on Melissa's site shows that SPS central staff are massively dysfunctional and in need of a substantial overhaul. I believe Jill Geary is more willing to push back against the staff on behalf of the public and parents than is Lauren McGuire.

During their Seattle Times endorsement interview over the summer, McGuire talked about the need for the board to not "micromanage" the staff. That is a common argument made by those who believe that the board's role is simply to rubber stamp staff decisions, and it's an attitude that has brought us the poor leadership and bad policies that this site often highlights.

Geary doesn't view it that way. From all I can see, she's more inclined to take a critical eye toward what the staff propose, push back where needed, and at all times ensure that she's doing her job, which is to be the representative of parents and the public in the district office and provide effective oversight over the district.

Bottom line, if you like the status quo at SPS, vote for McGuire. If you want change, vote for Geary.
Lori said…
I voted for McGuire because one of the biggest issues we face is the capacity crisis, and Lauren knows more about this district, more about the capacity numbers and problems, and more about how to succesfully open new schools than any other candidate. We need this expertise on the Board. With so many seats up this election, it is likely we will get a more "activist" board regardless of this one seat, so Lauren's background on capacity and enrollment is what tips the scales for me.

I first met Lauren in 2008 when NE neighborhood schools were adding Kindergartens and converting PCP rooms to classrooms - the tip of the burgenoning capacity tsunami. The next year, she was proactively helping families understand all the nuances and pitfalls during the transition to the "new assignment plan." As of 2015, she's had 2 kids in 5 different schools, served on FACMAC, and assisted in the startup of the PTA at Lincoln after the Lowell eviction. She also helped both McDonald and Sandpoint get started, as well as JAMS. I think she was PTA president at JAMS last year (right?). So she has extensive, hands-on experience with many of the schools in the most oversubscribed parts of the city. Solving the capacity crisis in a way that works for kids and families, particularly at the highschool level, is going to be one of the most difficult challenges I've seen in my 8 years of paying attention, and I think we'd be foolish not to weigh that strongly in our voting decisions.
Anonymous said…
Mag mom, I voted Lauren McGuire. From everything I've read and heard each of them say themselves, it seems like either candidate would be a superlative board member. But given the very recent action of the staff to try to make substantial (and unwarranted) changes to the student assignment process plus the impending capacity disaster looming, I just think Lauren's participation in and knowledge of capacity issues is what's most needed right now.

Citizen Kane
Anonymous said…
McGuire's laser focus was on the Eckstein neighborhood not those north of 85th despite the fact that through HCC she ended up part of the JAMS community. In fact McGuire was the driving force behind the Eckstein-first focus and drove actions that were harmful to many students and families outside the Eckstein community. Sure she was effective for Eckstein but my money and vote is on Geary who is concerned about more than making the northeast VNESS and loud Ravenna crowd happy.

North of 85th
Kathleen Smith said…
I'm voting Jill Geary.

Geary has been a child advocate for the past 17 years. She has experience in educational law and served as an Administrative Law Judge for OSPI. Her experience extends into teacher certification and student discipline issues. She is one of the few individuals in the state with this skill set. Jill's experiences would be enormously beneficial in assuring the district is in compliance with a web of local, state and federal laws. Geary was responsible for over-seeing other administrative law judges, as well...and I've been told this is an enormously difficult job.

Geary has five children that attended public schools and is familiar with organizational weaknesses.

Geary as worked to assure prek children have the social and psychological skills necessary to be successful in K.

I've seen Geary take some hard stands, and she stood with teachers during the strike. She understands that high stake tests unfairly impact vulnerable students.

Geary is the candidate that understands that the present board governance structure does not work, and she is willing to work on this issue.

Lastly, I've had an opportunity to work with Geary. She has an incredible work- ethic. I've found her kind, caring and compassionate.

Kathleen Smith said…
Lastly, Geary is the candidate that has experience with law, policy and administration. The board's job is to create policy that is in accordance with laws. She is the only candidate with this skill.

The board can work with committees and community members to ascertain information.
Anonymous said…
I voted for Geary for the same reason you outlined. Violation of state law has been a consistent problem in the SPS. They need to be held accountable.

-SPS parent
Lori said…
North of 85th, I think you are confusing Lauren with someone else. Seriously. Yes, there were advocates for Eckstein during the 2013 MS process, but Lauren never put Eckstein's needs above anyone elses. I've never seen her pit one community against another or be anything other than open-minded fair.

I even remember way back when during the NSAP transition, she advocated for boundaries and rules that would adversely affect her own family, but it was better for all. That was when I first realized that she's the real deal when it comes to considering all children, city wide.

Joseph Rockne said…
Jill Geary is one of most intelligent, thoughtful and hardworking persons that I have had the pleasure of meeting. I am an enthusiastic supporter.

For years one of the biggest problems our school board has faced has been their inability to understand (and call out) the work of the general counsel and his staff. This is not for their lack of is because of their lack of a legal background.

Jill Geary has that.

I understand that Peter Meier was an attorney. But his area of expertise is Lemon Law. (He is very good at that and I routinely refer clients to him).

Jill's expertise is education law and, in particular, special education law. An area that the district has failed in on numerous occasions.

Jill brings 20 years' professional experience in this field.

We need her on the school board.

QAEParent said…
One note on David Elliott's June 2016 departure date in the personnel report: His firing was always structured as his taking "leave" for the remainder of the school year followed by his "resignation" in June. So this is not a change. In fact, if the board moves forward in approving the personnel report it is just another sign that they are hellbent on ignoring parents who criticize the moves of this district.
Anonymous said…
I'm finally voting. Can't decide btwn Geary & McGuire. Please help!!

Mag mom

If endorsements from legislative districts' political communities, local politicians, both candidates' supporters, blog commentators' personal votes are not enough, if you need something other than robocalls and Facebook posts to sway you, I invite you to read the candidates' views and experiences in their own words in the completed surveys for the Seattle Education Association.

Listed in Alphabetical Order:
Jill Schlegel Geary's completed SEA questionnaire survey
Lauren Jennings McGuire's completed SEA questionnaire survey

If you still can't come to a decision, form a ring with your nondominant hand's index finger and thumb; place your dominant hand's index finger inside the two-digit ring, rest it against the "juncture" of the ring; say aloud "I want to vote for [say candidate's name]"; using your index finger inside the ring, PUSH against the juncture in an attempt to break open the ring "clasp" by separating your nondominant hand's index finger and thumb. If the two digits forming the ring on the non-dominant hand separate without much or any resistance, try "I want to vote for [say other candidate's name]" and see if there's a difference in resistance. The statement that precedes the PUSH with the greater resistance will contain the name of the candidate you should mark down on your ballot.
Lauren McGuire does have a lot of experience with the capacity issue. But what will she actually do to address it?

The problems with SPS capacity stem from district mismanagement. Staff doesn't listen to parents, and then suddenly comes up with a massive change to the entire process that they want a lame duck board to approve. And that's just the most recent example of how staff have screwed up capacity management.

The most important and effective step toward improving SPS capacity management is for the board to crack down on the staff. No more sudden changes, no more inexplicable proposals, no more head-in-the-sand attitudes. The staff will continue to do that, however, as long as they believe the board will merely be a rubber stamp that is unwilling to challenge them.

I don't see anything to suggest McGuire will challenge the staff. Instead, she's gone around saying that she doesn't want to be seen as "micromanaging," which means more of the same failed approaches to capacity management. McGuire may have experience, but she is not planning to use that experience effectively. Jill Geary also knows capacity issues quite well, but more importantly, she knows that getting it done effectively requires a different approach to being a board member.

That makes all the difference.
You know my vote; it's Jill Geary. As I have said, I know and respect Lauren. But I think right now, Jill's skill set (and willingness to ask hard questions which is not Lauren's strong point) is the skill set we need on the Board.

Many readers have pointed to Lauren's knowledge on capacity and yet, when given the chance at two forums to speak out about the dismantling - with no explanation - of the highly-effective FACMAC committee, she merely said, "Oh yes, I was part of that capacity committee." Not good enough and I have to wonder why she didn't speak up.

As well, Lauren was one of the founding members of a group started by Michael DeBell and others to try to steer the course of governance for school boards. I have no problem with that conversation but that Lauren rarely mentions it - given the office she is running for - and her name has been taken off their website, you have to wonder.

I am tired of wondering about board members.
Anonymous said…
I've worked with Lauren closely. She is amazingly professional, not a person who brags about her knowledge or her accomplishments.

I think Jill Geary is fine - sad that the two strongest, IMO, candidates are against each other. But in truth, one of the vital pieces for Special Ed stability in this district - and especially in the crowded parts - is capacity. When a school is full, people get squeezed out, and SpEd and ELL are often the first to be squeezed out of a school.

Lauren is probably one of the top ten or so people understanding the capacity problems, their history, solutions, repercussions, ripples, etc in the district as a whole - like Meg Diaz, Kellie LaRue, retired Dr. Libros, etc. She gets it at the policy and numbers level, and she has also direct experience with the squeezed-out-of-school process. I was impressed, working with her, that she was always looking at the big picture district-wide and not just at her own slice.

I believe it is a reflection of her professionalism and long-term view (because it is impossible to work with people if you burn your bridges, and then future effectiveness is nullified) that she has been able to maintain good relations with a variety of people on the board, in schools, and in administration. She was instrumental in the many good things that have happened with the capacity management - many of which people don't see.

You REALLY don't want to know the problems that Lauren's input helped guide the district away from in the last round of boundaries and projects. Just - shudder - crazy stuff that would have been so destructive to many school communities. But she clearly recognizes that it's not helpful to future work to point fingers and say "hey, so and so's bad idea - I helped defeat that internally before it ever even got to daylight!" So that's why people don't know everything good that Lauren has managed to achieve, because so much of it was getting bad ideas discarded before they got enough traction to get to "community engagement" (ARHG!) stage.

Signed: Math Counts
Anonymous said…
I live in the NE and have kids in 2 different schools that will both take a beating on capacity as the south NE continues to explode. I can't believe I'm turning down a chance to vote for an expert on capacity in my region (McGuire), but it comes down to trust. I don't trust or respect VNESS, and after years of reading this blog, it's Melissa's endorsement that seals the deal for me. So MW, your work matters to this voter and it's Geary for me.

Anonymous said…
Geary does not have 17 years experience helping children, how would you come to that conclusion.

She has greatly exaggerated what she has done for students in the Seattle school district. Yes, she did sue the district twice, as a lawyer and charged the parents a fee. She is a lawyer, not a advocate. That means she charges parents for her services and working at OSPI was her job. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a lawyer, just don't confuse it with what Lauren has done for FREE!

Geary has accepted money from one of the most anti family, anti student, lawyers to EVER work for SPS. She has also accepted money from other lawyers who have sued parents. She tried to work the system in this election, just like she will work the system to move on to her actual goal, which is not school board.

When $51K wasn't enough, she broke the rules and loaned her own campaign $17,000 then said, "it was a mistake". Wow, can you imagine the "mistakes" she would make on the board!

Open your eyes to the facts and you will see her for what she is.

Geary lied
So Geary lied, you seem to have all the answers - what's "her actual goal?"
Anonymous said…
Jill Geary - STOBER BAILEY consulting fees = $20,625.00

Enough said

Anonymous said…
Voting, Voting, and Campaign Spending .....

Peter Meier still holds the spending record with $167,000 spent in 2007. That was the year the four winning candidates spent $480,000 on campaigns.

The fact that the Edu-Biz Big Boys are not spending much these days makes me think that "other factors" may soon be in play. Is Mayoral control in the offing? Will more CCSS type mandates be driving spending? Will schools be converted to Charter School money makers? Will Gates inspired top-down direction determine curriculum and materials?

Time will tell. Will crap math direction continue (secretly or not)?

Will the local public control their Seattle Schools for the first time in years?

If so for how long?

-- Dan Dempsey
Anonymous said…
Do people know who the closet charter schools supporter candidate is? I do.

Anonymous said…
Thanks, everyone. I wish they weren't running against each other and we could have them both on the school board.

Mag mom
Anonymous said…
I'm sure this won't be a popular notion, but I've found myself wondering whether SPS *was* actually on top of the evaluations, following up, extending deadlines and trying to remediate the situation. And whether Mr. Elliott bought just enough time til school started either hoping that admin wouldn't pursue it (since school had started) and/or banking that the QAE community would rise up in defense of him if the known consequence was meted. Which is of course, exactly what has happened.

This isn't Mr. Elliot's first rodeo, I would be surprised if he didn't know that being relieved of his principal duties was at least a possibility of not completing the evaluations. And I'm certain he is aware of the ability of his parent community to rally to a cause.

I can't believe this is what Mr. Elliott would want for his school or his community. He should ask his community to stand down which will assist them in moving forward.

Anonymous said…
Voted for Geary. She was on the line with the teachers during the strike.

GarfieldMom said…
NBPTA, if you have something to share about a board candidate being a closet charter supporter, share it please, or don't bring it up here.
Po3 said…
NBPTA - Nope I don't, can you tell us?
Anonymous said…
North Beach PTA, do you know Michael Christophersen by chance?

Harris supporter
Anonymous said…
There is nothing wrong with charter schools per se - so long as they don't siphon funds from public schools.

-SPS parent
Anonymous said…
Yes, both Christopherson and Burke where on the North Beach PTA together. Christopherson fought for students in special education at North Beach. Burke, not so much. They both supported Saxon math and were part of a group who pushed for the math waver at North Beach. Christopherson supports Creative choice schools, you connect the dots.

Anonymous said…
Awww, there's your pro-charter candidate. Thanks NBPTA. If that doesn't drive the nail in the coffin...

Harris supporter
GarfieldMom said…
NBPTA... and? Nothing in what you've said demonstrates that there's a board candidate who is a "closet charter supporter." Just insinuations. Try again?
Voted Geary said…
Lauren McGuire is running for school board and some claim her to be professional. From the Geary campaign:

"My opponent has been spreading some misinformation about me and my campaign. I can assure you these attacks aren't true. I'm sad that it has come to this. I've asked her to take responsibility for her actions and run on issues rather than attacks. Tomorrow is the big day and no matter what the outcome is, I am grateful. You all have been on this incredible journey with me and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. We have so much work to do to ensure every child in Seattle gets the education they deserve. My last request is that you make sure your friends and neighbors have turned in their ballots and join me in standing up against the status quo. Thank you for everything. Jill"

I see no reason to put faith into McGuire.
Anonymous said…
Garfield Mom,

Based on what I see here, Christophersen is the not-so closet charter supporter. For many, the whole, half-baked "creative approach" schools push was SPS (guided by Alliance/LEV and friends) dipping its toe in the water: autonomy from union rules, waiver of curriculum requirements, etc. That suggests to me that Michael would be happy for charters if it helped his interests.

If not him then I'd guess Marty. She supported Nyland's proposal to make SPS a charter authorizer.

Harris supporter
GarfieldMom said…
Harris supporter, really? I thought NBPTA was trying to suggest it was Burke! I guess it's easy to misinterpret when someone isn't clear about what they're trying to say. Who knows, maybe we're both wrong and it's...Pinkham? Geary? Mayor Murray? Goodspaceguy? I now have no idea what NBPTA is trying to say...LOL
NBPTA, I'll bet you think you are quite clever. Either state whatever it is you think you know (and how) or buzz off.

SPS Parent, you'd have to define "siphon." Because yes, they do but I may not be as cut and dried as you might think.
Anonymous said…
True - I'm not for charter schools for that reason. They often find ways to siphon funds that would otherwise be slated for public education. Just getting exasperated by snarky hinting this close to the election when straight talk would be appreciated.

-SPS Parent
Anonymous said…
I'm curious, SPS Parent, which funds charter schools siphon off "that would otherwise be slated for public education"?

--- aka
Maureen said…
I'm in favor of Creative Approach Schools--I see them as a way of keeping the old Alt Schools going (though I've been disappointed in how many of them have applied.) I am totally against charters. So I don't see that support as a smoking gun.
seattle citizen said…
Maureen, ask yourself what the intention of the district (and the behind-the-scenes supporters) was in pushing Creative Approach. The district hasn't been a supporter of traditional alts. I think CA was indeed a test run at district as charter authorizer.
Maureen said…
I guess, you would know better than I. But I always wished that the Alts had just taken that opening and run with it. I thought they could have pre-empted some of the charter hype. Choice you know. ...
GarfieldMom said…
Does anyone know when they post the Friday Memo? Last week's is not there yet, but I don't know if that's unusual.
Anonymous said…
NBPTA, was it a math waver that you supported.... Ya know, math that waves at you? Or, a math waiver? Did you support sped students, or did you simply support some sped students.... as in, your own kids instead of others?

Anonymous said…
Aka -

Perhaps the more correct sentence would be: "....that COULD otherwise be slated...."

-SPS Parent
Anonymous said…
The state supreme court has already spoken on this issue. Given the supposed shortage of tax funding for public schools diverting state and local taxes to charter schools, many of whom are also partially funded by private donations from companies that avoid legal taxation using offshore hedge funds, it is difficult to rationalize any tax money for charter schools.

_SPS Parent
Unfortunately SPS Parent, the charter supporters are continuing to draw this out. There was a fairly late friend of the court filing by some former AGs. Well, the Court may have been ready to rule at the end of October but had to consider that filing. And now it's November and we are still paying to run schools that the Court say are unconstitutional.

My bet is that the Court will uphold their ruling BUT say, in the interests of these kids, that the Leg should fund them thru the school year.

Watching said…
"I think CA was indeed a test run at district as charter authorizer."

Lisa MacFarland and Burgess was involved with original endeavor- and pushed by Michael DeBell...they guy that consistently attempted to shift oversight away from the board. The original version of Creative Approach schools took financial oversight away from the board. Citizens filed a law suit and won. Now, financial oversight is within the hands of the board, and I'm supportive of this model.

Clearly, there is an attempt of this administration to undermine alternative forms of education. The district closed Middle College and put Creative Approach Schools on the chopping block during CBA negotiations...this little fact was buried in papers and the public hadn't been made aware.

Lastly, in relation to Interagency Schools, I noted that Murray has declared a state of emergency due to increasing rates of homelessness. Seattle PUblic Schools serves 3000 homeless students. Interagency Schools serve approximately 179 homeless students.

Teachers at Middle College assured students were safe in hotels/motels because homeless shelters are dangerous. The W. Seattle Blog reports that the district disallowed students from enrolling, and then claimed there were insufficient students for this school.

One word to Michael Tolley: Karma.
Watching said…
Lastly, whenever there is slime, you can usually find Michael Tolley.
Anonymous said…
Technically, the friend of the court brief was filed by ALL of the living former AGs, not just some. They must be on the take.

--- aka

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools