Seattle Schools Community Forum

The Times has a revealing article about Fred Stephens, former head of Facilities and Silas Potter's enabler/friend/supporter.  I was wondering when someone in the mainstream media might want to examine his record.  The Times does a fairly good job but does miss/leave out a few parts. For me, it jogs my memory back to several Board meetings.  (I keep most of the Board agenda's at meetings where I have spoken and so I can recall testimony from other speakers.)  The article starts off with African-American activists wanting more access/opportunities to bid on SPS construction contracts.

I actually don't have time to get into this in depth but let me explain what I know about how this idea about outreach to small businesses that are minority/woman-owned. (I will try to flesh this out more later or, hopefully, some media-type will do it.) This started with an idea from former School Board member Mary Bass. It became a policy (but again, I don't have the policy number or date in front of me). What I understood it to be was merely a way to say to those smaller companies, "Here is a staff person you can call with questions. He/She can help guide you through the process." In addition, I think they were probably going to make a small brochure with tips and maybe have a couple of classes a year on doing business with SPS.This work would be part of one person's job in capital. That's it. No roster of classes, no roster of instructors, no personal service contracts so that prominent people in the community could do outreach. Just a way to bro...

I dithered on whether to post a link to this editorial about the Seattle School Board elections results. That's because the first two paragraphs are, to me, breathtaking in the unkind words directed at Director Mary Bass. The editorial is completely silent on Cheryl Chow (which could be a ding at her because they didn't even thank her for all her years of service - I did even if I disagreed with her). Okay Times - we - get - it. You don't like Mary Bass. Maybe they are feeling the sting of so many of their editorial endorsements going down with this election so pointing out that the ones they got right makes them feel better. This editorial should have started with the third paragraph which is far more accurate and rational. That the editors at the Times read this and thought it fair to run is appalling.