Who's Got a Secret?

One of the claims made about the 4 D11 board members who were elected in 2003 is that we were "stealth candidates." The claim, which apparently makes the left feel better about the election, is that we somehow misled the public into voting for us. Nothing cold be further from the truth. In fact, the 4 of us were probably the most direct and transparent board members ever to be elected in D11. Almost all school board candidates use terms such as "accountability" and "improving student achievement" as their catch phrases. Once elected, of course, no one is held accountable and student achievement is nothing more than a pipe dream.

The class of '03 promised site based decision making; D11 has now formally adopted that model. We promised real accountability; for the first time ever, D11 has an employee evaluation system in place for every employee. We also removed a totally ineffective superintendent, setting an example for leaders across the district. We promised to reduce administrative spending; through the site based directive and through an administrative hiring freeze, the district is continuing to reduce administration. Most important, the district has seen academic growth for 2 years straight under our watch. The growth has not been as good as it could have been had we had an effective superintendent, but there has never been this type of growth under any other board.

Were we misleading or secretive about any of our goals or agendas? Was it a secret what we believed or who supported us prior to election day 2003? You decide. The following article was printed on the front page of the Gazette on November 1st, 2003. The election was held on November 4th. We swept into office. The 2 incumbents in the race placed 9th and 11th out of 11 candidates in the race.

Denver cash used in race for D-11
Campaign donors support vouchers
By PAM ZUBECK THE GAZETTE
The big money in the Colorado Springs School District 11 Board of Education race is coming from wealthy conservatives in Denver who back school vouchers. Republicans Edward Mc-Vaney, founder of software giant JD Edwards and Co., and communications executive John Saeman and his wife, Carolyn, have given more than $15,000 to four candidates. Willie Breazell, Craig Cox, Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes have received $1,900 each from McVaney and $1,900 each from the Saemans. All four, vying with seven other candidates for four seats, are doing the most direct-mail advertising. Some reportedly have bought radio time. McVaney, named several times to Forbes list of the richest 400 people in the nation, is known for backing conservative causes and has contributed heavily to Republican candidates. So has Saeman, who gave $25,000 in 1992 to a drive to support the voucher petition issue. McVaney and Saeman have supported Rep. Mark Cloer, R-Colorado Springs, and Gov. Bill Owens. McVaney backed Sen. Ed Jones and Rep. Dave Schultheis, both Colorado Springs Republicans. Now they are supporting Colorado Springs school district candidates. Neither could be reached for comment as to why they are funding voucher program advocates, considering D-11 is subject to vouchers. The school board will determine which private schools are included in the voucher program, so members will play a big role in implementing vouchers, Cox said. "Why this race matters is that . . . out of 33 applications for voucher schools, this school board turned down more than 20 of those," Cox said. "To me, that is a sad commentary." Christen, who expects to spend $10,000 to $20,000 to win a board seat that pays nothing, welcomes the money. "I'll take any support from anybody anywhere in the country that supports my agenda for doing good things for students," Christen said. "I think it (money from Denver) really demonstrates my dedication to this race and my goal of seeing this board is taken out of the hands of special interests," he said, defining special interests as teacher unions and "status quo" advocates. Christen, who attended private elementary schools and plans to home-school his son, said, "Choice is going to improve (education) wherever it's implemented, and if it's not implemented, there's no competition to improve the system that's there." He pointed to Milwaukee, where a voucher system similar to one in effect in Colorado increased public school enrollments as public schools improved. Breazell, who has received more than half of his campaign money from McVaney and the Saemans, supports taxpayers paying for private schools through vouchers. "I contend we need to let the parents make the call as much as you can to get them to be involved," he said. "We have a national crisis." The out-of-town contributions are fine, he said, because "I think other people who are interested in improving education, no matter where they come from, it's OK." Some candidates said, however, they don't like the idea of Denver money influencing a Colorado Springs election. "I just don't want big bucks running my school district," Cindy Sorensen said. She, Randy Rickards and Wendy Chiado have received money from the Colorado Fund for Children and Public Education, a teachers political action committee. Albert Gonzales, whose funding comes mostly from himself, said, "I don't like the fact money from outside the city is looking to buy this election for people." Noting the Denver contributions are legal, he said, "All we can do is say we don't like it." In a related development, Gonzales took issue with a mailer that identifies the four voucher advocates as "pro-parental rights" candidates and four others as "anti-parental rights" candidates. The remaining candidates are labeled with a question mark, including Gonzales, who said he doesn't think vouchers are the total answer to education's problems. "They're not fair representations," he said. Defending those labeled "anti-parental rights," Gonzales said, "Teachers are very involved in the education process. To say if you're part of the teachers association or endorsed by them that you're anti-parental, it's in very low, low taste." Citizens for Education Accountability, a nonprofit education committee, funded the mailer. It received $22,004 in "nonmonetary" contributions of printing and mailing services from Colorado At Its Best, according to an Oct. 29 filing with the Secretary of State's Office. Colorado At Its Best is not listed in the Secretary of State's electronic database but gave an address on the campaign filing as 49 S. Lookout Mountain Road, Golden. Citizens for Education Accountability's campaign's financial report was filed by Denver attorney Marnie Walsh, who didn't return a phone call seeking comment. CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0238 or zubeck@gazette.com

To this very day, articles about D11 contain references to the fact that we support choice and that we were supported by others who support choice. I am proud of the fact that we were supported by a broad cross section of the business community, including the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce. Business owners are directly impacted by poor performing school districts. As to the issue of choice, opponents of parental choice like to tout the fact that Coloradans have rejected vouchers on 2 occasions. That is a valid argument that is hard to defeat unless one uses facts. First of all, it is clear that we ran on the issue of choice and we won after the entire community knew where we stood. Equally important is the fact that in El Paso County, residents supported Amendment 17, which was the parental choice amendment in 1996. The official result of that election was 83,537 in favor, 82,782 opposed. See http://car.elpasoco.com/elegen96.asp for the official results.

In addition to the above article, both the Gazette and Citizen's Project printed candidate profiles in which each of our positions were clearly laid out.

So did we get elected by some covert means? Not hardly. Now the question remains: what was the condition of the district that we inherited, who are Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann, what do they stand for, and who supported them?