Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

This may only be a partial list of reasons; please, add anything else in the comments. The deadline to file to run for the Board is May 19th.

Entire Board Majority

• NOT vetting the Superintendent in any way, shape or form. Even the Seattle Times thought that was wrong.  It was just absolute hubris and it was wrong.
  

For the second time in just over a year, board members voted to negotiate a superintendent contract during a special meeting with no opportunity for public comment. This time, they showed an even deeper disregard for their responsibilities as public servants: Aborting a national search for a new superintendent and denying Interim Superintendent Brent Jones a chance to show students, parents and taxpayers that, indeed, he is the best person for the job. Government bodies can’t fast-forward through transparent processes just because they think they know the right answer.

One other odd thing about the hiring of Brent Jones - most permanent SPS superintendent contracts are for three years. Jones only signed for two. What will that mean when those two years are up in (checks notes), July 2024?

• Student Focused Outcome Governance (SOFG).  This comes via the Council of Great City Schools and it's costly. How costly? I can't tell you because the public disclosure process that I set into motion months ago is moving slowly. It's a considerable amount of navel-gazing with all these "self-checks" on their work.( I can see how sitting back and looking at a checklist of focus items and then comparing your work to that could be useful. But no one needs a consultant to tell them that. ) They went so far as to have the consultant critique them in the middle of a Board meeting. 

The Board has never really said how this is working out for students. And, we will really know that answer when the budget arrives; will they stay away from schools with their cost-cutting? Another question: how long before we truly know this governance model is making any kind of real and public difference? 

• Moving large numbers of items on the Board agenda for their meetings to the Consent agenda. That meant that many items were barely discussed and so, they clump items into a single vote. This included the district budget. And, they voted for a Juneau budget without getting clear answers on their questions about it.
  

• As we all know, the Board decided they didn't need all their oversight committees so they got rid of them all except for the "legally necessary ones" which (I had assumed) were Audit&Finance and the BEX/BTA Oversight Committee. The Board recently issued a report at their board meeting saying how great it was all working out so they are NOT going to reinstall the committees. 

Imagine my chagrin to find out I was wrong; the Board only kept the QUARTERLY Audit&Finance Committee, NOT the monthly Audit&Finance Committee. 

My belief is that upper management hated having to come and explain what they are doing, the costs and why they think it's so necessary. I think for upper leadership this is a big new addition of time in their work week. Is the district running better for it? I don't think so.  

• How did we got here? The new governance model of Student Outcome Focused Governance and its overseer, A.J. Crabill.  One worry I have is that even if there is a new majority on the Board and they do vote to seek other ways to serve both students and the public, that something has been quietly baked into this process that will prevent that. Hersey could whine about how much money they have spent on that (and who agreed to that? Not the public) but I'm not sure that could stop a determined majority.

• Voting to up their oversight of public dollars from $250,000 to $1M. Plus, senior leadership only has to report that spending quarterly. 

• Student members of the Board. Do I think students have important viewpoints to bring to the Board? I do. And there used to be a student body group - with reps from all high schools - who did regularly issue their ideas. But listening to the last Board meeting with Hampson and one of the reps having this whole lengthy conversation about PTA spending was head-shaking. And, given that the student reps have publicly complained about their input not truly being listened to, I think the reps are mere props for some of the Board to use. As well, the Board put staff in the position to take time to mentor and train the students. 
  

• The Board did near-nothing about the encampment at Broadview-Thomson. In fact, Directors Liza Rankin and Chandra Hampson seemed to encourage it despite complaints from parents and the community it sits in.
  

• No real community discussions during COVID relating to student outcomes.  
  

• No real discussion about the use of ESSER dollars. 
  

• Moving to include some Work Sessions in the middle of Board meetings, thereby bringing the Board meeting to a dead halt which meant almost no one stayed until the end. 
  

• Moving to use "intro/action" as a regular course of action for the Board when "intro/action" had forever been ONLY for emergency actions. This means less discussion and less oversight. 
  

• Five members of the Board almost NEVER have community meetings. They sometimes meet with "community" but only report it after the fact and never announce these meetings as public. The exceptions are Director Leslie Harris, who actually has a longer one once a month (sometimes with lasagna) and Director Vivian Song Maritz who has a one-hour Zoom meeting once a month. I note that at the last Board meeting, Harris reported in on her meeting and said that she always welcomed other Board directors but no one seemed to take her up on it. Imagine that - a fellow board member gets the place to have a meeting and arranges it and yet other directors can't be bothered to show up.
  

• The Board might make "tut, tut" noises over the exodus of students from SPS but direct the Superintendent to actually bring a report to them - with data - to figure this out? Stop the bleeding? Nope. 
  

• The almost and absolute destruction of a formerly great school - Washington Middle School. That deserves its own post and I will be writing that soon. 
  

• A surprising number of conferences attended with President Brandon Hersey buying a $2,000 plane ticket to one. 
  

• They are overseeing the expansion at several schools in their renovations, doing this - without explanation - while enrollment is dropping. By the district's own admission, enrollment is likely to continue to drop. Read the comments at any story at the Seattle Times - the public wants to know why and the district and the Board stay silent. It's sickening and a complete dereliction of duty. 
  

• If the majority of the Board stays, they will be overseeing school closures. Given the lack of transparency and oversight in their work, you can expect that to continue for this process. 
  

• The murder at Ingraham High School. EVERY SINGLE Board member should be pressing the Superintendent to fast-track safety measures thoughtout the district. That it may take nearly two years to change all the locks in school buildings and yet the district has capital funds to expand multiple schools is shocking. As well, at a recent Board meeting, Superintendent Jones gave a vague list of actions on school safety; later on, Ingraham parents testified that they have heard NOTHING from the district in five months. 
  

• Equity initiatives saw a near-blindness to every other stated item in the Strategic Plan. As well, the appearance of "racist math" happened under their watch. 
  

• The final dismantling of the HCC program. 
  

• This Board also saw big payouts for staff issues; the child caged at View Ridge Elementary, the abusive math teacher at WMS and Meany and the unpleasant and short-lived principal at WMS. 
  

• Kept quiet after the incident at Sand Point Elementary School when, just a week after Uvalde, a man jumped the fence, chased kids around a playground and into a classroom, then entered the classroom, trying to grab a couple.
  

• Just this week, I asked the Board office for a report from the State Auditor and received a canned email that said that they get too many emails to answer them all. I might expect that from Board members but not the office you are supposed to be able to call. 

Chandra Hampson

Where to start!?

• Currently STILL keeping alive her lawsuit against the district over the district's finding from an independent investigation that she and former director Zachary DeWolf had bullied/intimidated/harassed two senior staffers. As I have frequently said, the irony is that for her efforts in this lawsuit, nothing will change what her behavior was as was reported by multiple sources. She is wasting district time and money doing this and has never given a word of explanation to the public about it.
  

She appears to be a bully, through and through. That an investigation cemented that thought does not surprise me. That it surprised HER is weird because I would bet money that's not the first time she has heard that in her life. 

• Her pushing hard on enacting SOFG and her very close support of A. J. Crabill. 
  
• Her absolute ignoring the region she was elected from. It was astonishing to see her totally drop any kind of semblance about caring about those children in her region. She even said that there were students in the district who needed help more than those in her region. 
• Her snide and unpleasant manner on the HCC program and the students in it. She dismissed families of color who spoke up for the program as "tokens."
  
• She first had interactions on her public Facebook page with parents but when it became too hot to handle for her, she closed it. Basically, she ran away from criticism.
• When she was Board president, she was the most rude and unprofessional president that I have ever watched in more than 25 years being a district watchdog. It was breathtaking to see how cold and rude she was in cutting off directors from speaking at meetings, especially former director, Eden Mack. She and DeWolf excelled in this kind of attack.
• Lack of support for Broadview-Thomson families over the homeless encampment.
• She wants to cede more and more power to the Superintendent.  For example, Hampson didn't want the Board to vote on bell times. 
• Started a media fight with former Mayor Jenny Durkin. She was miffed when the new mayor didn't call HER to ask for a meeting.  
• Kept quiet after the incident at Sand Point Elementary School when, just a week after Uvalde, a man jumped the fence, chased kids around a playground and into a classroom, then entered the classroom, trying to grab a couple. This school is in her region and her children attended it.
  

Liza Rankin

• Lack of support for Broadview-Thomson over the homeless encampment. This school is in her region.
• Lack of support for Ingraham High School after the murder. This school is in her region. She, above all other directors, should be publicly holding the district's feet to the fire. 
• Rankin can be decidedly unprofessional at times, giggling her way through her remarks. 
• Appearing to almost be the acolyte to Hampson, following Hampson's lead on nearly every single vote. 

Lisa Rivera Smith

• Initially, Rivera Smith was very tentative. I believe it's always a good idea for new Board members to talk more than listen (did not happen in Hampson's case) but with Rivera Smith, I was unsure if she fully understood what was happening. In the last year, she has found her voice, albeit still a low-key one. 
• She asks good questions of staff. 
• I would have to see who runs against her (if anyone). Given her smarts, I'd rather have someone who knows the Board and the processes than a new person. 
• She didn't really have to run in the last election - being the one candidate - so if she does run, this will be interesting to see how she performs. 

Leslie Harris

Director Harris has put in eight pretty long years. Long the voice of common sense, I'll miss her presence on the Board.  I wish I could get an explanation of the last two years as Harris seemed tamped down and measuring her words more and more at every Board meeting. The topper was when the Board accepted the independent investigation report on Hampson and DeWolf and Harris - a legal eagle - said she could not say all that she wanted to on advice of counsel. 

Did Hampson actually threaten any Board members who dared to speak up on this issue? Given Harris' lack of action and demeanor at that board meeting, it might be so. It was painful to see Harris appear to be muzzled.

We should all thank Harris for her long service and hard work.