When is $250,000 greater than $623,900?

When it is all about politics, of course.

The D11 recall supporters, including sitting board members John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann, have tried to make a big deal over the fact that a consultant was hired by the district and board majority to help the district in its transition to a site based management system. The consultant will be paid $250,000 for its first year of work. If the consultant is needed after year 1, the amount will decrease for each subsequent year. The work of the consultant will include training and advising the district leadership on transforming the entire district to a school building oriented system that will drive student achievement and increase accountability. The consultant will help to develop non-negotiables, it will help to establish and adjust site based budgets, it will assist in setting up student weighting formulas, it will assist with building leadership training, and it will train the staff on generating community involvement in the schools. There will be much work to be done by the consultant in the first year alone.

The three board members mentioned above were opposed to hiring a consultant. They clamored that this was just another example of the 4 reformers wasting D11 tax dollars. Mann said that she would never vote for a consultant fee of $250,000. She pointed out that Terry Bishop had worked in a site based system in Texas and she felt that he should be able to handle the transition by himself (Bishop disagreed). Hasling said that the board had wasted enough money lately and that she could not support this expenditure. Gudvangen said that this was just too high of a price for him to support. The motion to hire the consultant passed on a 4-3 vote on August 23, 2006, with Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann voting against site based.

Now let's jump forward to November 8. During this board meeting, the board was asked to vote to pay a consultant $623,900 to help the district with a possible fiber optic project. What was this consultant to do that would cost the district this much? I asked that question and received an email reply from Dr. Bishop. A copy of the memorandum is below:

TO: Board of Education

FROM: Dr. Terry N. Bishop
Superintendent

SUBJECT: REQUESTED INFORMATION ON CONSULTANT FOR FIBER OPTIC NETWORK

DATE: November 1, 2006

Attached is an email from Director Cox requesting information about the network consultant. Also attached is a response from John Elliott, Glenn Gustafson and Dennis Shultz.

Below is a quick summary of the response to specific questions:

How much is consultant being paid?
Phase I (feasibility study) - $207,128.00
Phase II (project design/permits) - $405,610.00
Phase III (project management/construction oversight) - $623,900.00

In general, I would say that Power Engineering was asked to look at all options and make a recommendation that was both cost effective and would provide District 11 the most capability for the students and the staff over a ten to twenty year period.

Please let us know if you have questions or need additional information.

Phase 1 of the project was simply to determine if the fiber optic network could be handled by D11 internally. That cost to the district was $207,128. Did the three board members who objected to the site based cost complain? No - none of them said a word.

Did we really need to spend the money for phase 1 of this project? Here is a reply from D11 contracting officer John Elliot:

From: ELLIOTT, JOHN L.
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:28 PM
To: BISHOP, TERRY N.Cc: GUSTAFSON, GLENN; SHULTZ, DENNISSubject: FW: Consultant
T.B.,

This is the recommended response to Director Cox. It includes the recommended changes from Glenn.

The District’s voters passed a technology bond to establish a fiber optic network connecting all of our schools with a fast wide area network (WAN) for data, telecommunications, video, security, and distance learning. The fiber optic network WAN will replace existing T-1 lines at the schools.

Following a best value competition, the District entered into a consulting contract with Power Engineers to assist the District’s Network Services Department in determining the best solution for developing a new fiber optic network. Power Engineers was selected by the evaluation team to provide these services based on its professional expertise and experience in providing this type of service to industry and governmental agencies. Specifically Power Engineering was contracted to conduct a feasibility study on all potential options for a fiber optic network implementation to include evaluation of risks, determination of lease versus buy, assessment of costs, exploration of any educational funding available and recommended implementation approaches. The contract has three phases; however, as of this date only Phase I has been awarded at a price of $207,128. Of that amount the contractor has invoiced and been paid $190,274. Power Engineers has performed the research, obtained the cost data, and as a result made the recommendation that the lease of the Colorado Springs Utility ring and the build of the laterals from the ring to the schools was the best approach to satisfy the District’s requirement. The Qwest option was dismissed as unfeasible based on the bond proceeds prohibition covering leased costs, the E-rate funding dependency and Qwest’s total life time cost for providing the network services.

Notice that there was no real option for the district to take because of the legal limitation on the bond issue. D11 was required to own the fiber optic network because the law says that is the case. We paid over $200,000 for a consultant to tell us something that we already knew based on a phone call to our bond attorney, Sherman and Howard.

Eric Christen and I voted against this expenditure of funds. The 3 who complained about the $250,000 consultant did not object at all to the $623,000 consultant.

Where is the outrage from the recall group Chaos? Where is the outrage over this waste of tax payer dollars? Of course Chaos won't complain because this expenditure was voted on by the board members who they control. The faux outrage over the site based consultant was simply to add fuel to the recall fire, nothing more, nothing less.

Who is playing politics on this board?

The Words of Civility

The big reason given for the recall effort against Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen is that they are not "civil." Civility is the key word for opponents of reform in D11. Christen emails have been published on several occasions to show that he is not a civil person.


Is civility really important to the status quo crowd? Are John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann actually civil, and are the proponents of the recall effort civil?


The following messages were taken from the Gazette blog after Christen announced his resignation on November 21st. Note the civil tone of these comments:


What a sleaze! This guy could have resigned a few months ago and saved tax payers several thousand dollars. This is just the latest example of what an unethical jerk Christen is, and I can only hope that he moves back to California!-Nicole 11/22/06 06:52:42 AM


Yeah, but you see . . if gets recalled, he probably doesn't get that half million payout like that crook in D49. This way, he save's face and gets rich off the taxpayers. He ain't as dumb as he looks.-John 11/22/06 07:05:11 AM


Can't trust. thsi idiot. He should have resigned months ago. Now what does he have up is dirty little sleeve?-JS 11/22/06 11:37:52 AM


The article quites Christen as saying ' “I’m going to make my wife the happiest woman in the world tonight. I’m effectively resigning from the D-11 board.” ' Kinda sad that' the only way he can make his wife happy.-George 11/22/06 12:31:33 PM


These are only a small sample of what can be found on blogs around town. Seems as if civility is nothing more than a talking point for elections, not a practice to be followed.

The same people who are running the recall election today are the people who ran the campaigns of John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann in 2005. Let's take a look at the civility of their campaign that year. They spent over $1 million to win their seats, and they sought to personally destroy their opponents in the process.

"Keep Washington interests from controlling local education?" The NEA, located in D.C., spent $200,000 to elect these 3 candidates. Progressive Majority spent the same. PM is also in Washington. Outside money? Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann received hundreds of thousands of dollars from 3 Denver millionaires.

The most interesting bullet on this hit piece is that the 3 liberal candidates wanted to get Colorado Springs money out of the race. They certainly managed to do that!


















This one advocates talking about students and teachers. These 3 have served on the board for over one year now. As I have pointed out elsewhere, none of them has ever introduced one thought or idea or policy that will affect students or teachers in any form or fashion. Gudvangen and Hasling control the agenda setting process. They have had free reign to place anything on the agenda that they wanted to place there. They have literally brought nothing in the form of ideas to this board. Was the $1 million well spent? If you are interested in the status quo, I imagine that it was. This is the type of board member that you will get with Chaos candidates Charlie Bobbitt and Jan Tanner.











This mail piece is probably one of the most "civil" from the 2005 campaign. Of course I'm kidding.


Nowhere in the history of D11 politics have any candidates sunk as low as the 3 progressives from 2005. To mail a piece that shows this type of destruction, and then to claim that your opponents advocate doing this, is somewhat below most people's definition of "civil." Jan Tanner played an active role in that campaign as she managed Gudvangen's campaign. Anne-Oatman Gardner, who heads the recall, also played a part in this trashing of 3 very respected community members (Carla Albers, Reginald Perry, and Bob Lathen).












They claimed to be "Constructive Conservative." Unfortunately, the Progressive Majority bragged on its web site that they were able to keep the D11 school board out of the hands of the conservative community. Hardly conservative.



For the record, each of the checked bullet points that the 3 progressives espoused were borrowed from the 2003 reform campaign. The difference is that we actually implemented those thoughts and policies, while the 3 progressives opposed each of them after they were elected. You can expect the same sort of double talk from Bobbitt and Tanner.















This final mail piece derides outside money. Besides the NEA and Progressive Majority, Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Tim Gill, a Denver millionaire and homosexual activist; Jerod Polis, a Denver millionaire and homosexual activist; Pam Stryker, a Denver millionaire and gay rights advocate. Over $1 million spent, and very little of it from Colorado Springs.

The same supportes of that 2005 "civil" campaign support the recall and they are supporting the campaigns of Bobbitt and Tanner.

We do not need this brand of civility in D11.

Empty Vessels

Recall organizers Anne Oatman-Gardner and Mary Ellen McNally have hand picked Charlie Bobbitt and Jan Tanner to run for the seats of Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes in the D11 recall election. The Colorado Springs Education Association, the local labor union representing the NEA, has also thrown its support to the same two candidates.

In giving their support to Bobbitt and Tanner, the recall group and the labor union say that these two have the best interests of public education in mind. What does that really mean? What do either of these two stand for that warrants support from anyone? What are their remedies for improving either D11 or "public education?" They literally never say. One thing that they have in common is that they do not like Eric Christen. They believe that he is rude. OK, great. Neither believes in site based management, so they do not want more money directed towards the individual schools rather than a central bureacracy. Both believe in allowing Planned Parenthood into D11 schools, so at least we know something for which they will take a stand. But what do they bring to the equation that will help teachers, or students, or tax payers? No one will say.

Bobbitt is quoted as saying that he is bothered when people speak negatively of D11. He feels that the board of the Denver Broncos would never speak negatively of the Broncos, so why would D11 board members ever speak negatively of their own school district.

Is it speaking negatively of D11 to publicize the facts about the district? Are dismal graduation rates for minority students to be hidden from the public? Should low CSAP scores be ignored? Should inept administrators be left in place? Are each of these topics forbidden fruit or should the public view their school district (which consumes nearly $500 million annually) with their eyes wide open?

Who is truly being negative here? Our side is claiming that D11 can be better, that every student entering a D11 school can and should receive a first class education. The other side says that this is not true, that D11 is performing at its best. Our side says that D11 can improve fairly quickly, while the other side claims that a push for improvement will only cause the district to collapse. Our side believes in parental choice, and that parents of 10,000 kids who reside in D11 but do not attend our schools will come back to D11 in a competitve environment. The other side believes that people will flee D11 if given true choices, and again, that the district will collapse. Our side believes that we have strong principals in place to move towards a school focused management system. The other side believes that our principals are weak and helpless and unable to make decisions for their schools. Our side believes that we should lift up our good teachers by rewarding them for their excellence. The other side believes that we should hold all teachers down so as not to offend the poor performers.

Who is really negative in this district? Why would anyone support two empty vessels who believe that D11 is a fragile system that will not survive a push for excellence? The labor union leadership has been holding on to mediocrity for way too long. It's time for the public to have the kind of world class school district that 1/2 billion dollars annually should certainly provide.

Teacher's Union wants members to harass citizens

According to School District 11 Human Resource Director David Schenkel (and confirmed by D11 attorney Richard Nagl), the National Education Association has issued a directive to its local affiliates to encourage them to harass any citizens who might be part of contract negotiating teams. The minutes from the November 8, 2006 D11 school board meeting where this information was presented to the Board are found below:

Human Resources Executive Director Dave Schenkel expressed concern that community involvement might make the negotiation process political and time consuming. The District's attorney advised the Board from a legal point of view.

Mr. Nagl: Commented on his experience with the negotiation process since 1991...and advised the Board from a legal point of view...There is a manual that CSEA puts out on what the union should do to enhance its position at the negotiating table, item # 5 was get community people on the negotiating committee, because they are susceptible to pressure in ways they aren’t getting paid for; i.e., picketing, boycotts of a business, those sorts of things can come up. Trade off is not worth it. Anything the Board wants to do, I am willing to try, but this year would be a difficult year to start something new.

Director Christen asked for clarification on his statement regarding getting community involvement.

Mr. Nagl said that the union’s view is if you get community members, they will eventually cave to pressure like boycotting business, picketing at their homes, and they will give in to union demands; therefore, the union encourages their people to try to force school boards to put community members on negotiating teams, especially as the issues grow. He said nobody likes the union, but everybody likes their teacher.

The Colorado Springs Education Association is the labor union representing D11 teachers. The employer of the teachers is the D11 public. The Board of Education is supposed to represent the public during contract negotiations. The labor union board is supposed to represent the teachers against the public. Unfortunately, the labor union has always purchased board seats with its massive political campaign funding machine. The result is that school board members usually forget about the public and take their marching orders from union leaders. After all, board meetings are attended by militant union leaders who sit and taunt board members during meetings. That pressure tends to easily affect people like John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann (and their predecessors, of course).

The CSEA does not want to have union negotiations open to the tax payers. They do not want the public to see that union negotiations have nothing to do with how to better serve kids. Why, then, would the local labor union NOT want citizens on the negotiating team of the district if that is what their orders tell them to encourage? There is a simple answer. D11 boards have always been populated with majorities of union selected board members. The public is never represented in contract negotiations because the boards have not and do not appoint negotiators who have the interests of the public in mind. The boards have always appointed Dave Schenkel as the lead negotiator. His definition of success is that negotiations are completed quickly. Schenkel never answers the question, "What did you negotiate that will improve the academic environment?" The local union does not need "weak" citizens on the negotiating team for the District because they already have weak administrators on the team.

Let there be no doubt: if citizens of Colorado Springs were ever appointed to the D11 negotiating team during contract negotiations, those citizens would find pickets outside of their homes and businesses. Those pickets would include members of the AFL-CIO and the Steelworkers, just as members of the Pueblo D60 Board discovered.

Attorney Rich Nagl does not encourage citizen involvement in negotiations involving millions of their own tax dollars because of a looming threat from union leadership. These are the same union leaders who have supported the D11 recall effort because of issues of "civility." It is interesting to note that one of the issues that the union leaders have against Eric Christen is that he believes that schools would perform better without government involvement. In a public school district, of course, you the people ARE the government. The labor union leadership does not want you involved (unless it is to target you for harassment to get the upper hand in labor negotiations).

Since neither of the recall candidates supported by the union (Charlie Bobbitt & Jan Tanner)have enlightened the public as to what they will do to improve D11, it is safe to conclude that they will continue the tradition of placing the interests of the public well below the interests of the labor union leadership.

For the record, the interests of the D11 public and their local school teachers are much more closely aligned with each other than are the interests of the NEA and the local teachers. Once Board members have been co-opted by the union money, they lose sight of that critical fact.

Recall Endorsements

My recommendation for the recall election is to vote "No" on recall, and then vote for Greg Garcia and Don Schley. You may not vote for a replacement candidate if you fail to vote on whether you want recall for either Eric Christen or Sandy Shakes. Even though Christen has resigned, you must still vote for a replacement candidate, in this case Greg Garcia.

I oppose the recall. The cost to D11 and county taxpayers now exceeds $314,000 (thank you Anne Oatman-Gardner and Mary Ellen McNally for this big bill to the tax payer). The recall organizers have admitted that this is nothing but a political stunt that they are using the tax payers to fund for them. This stunt should not be rewarded by supporting the recall.

Why Garcia and Schley? If the recall is succesful, these are the only two candidates who are talking about the issues or who are at least on the right side of the issues. Albert Gonzales has a wife who chairs the D11 math department. Math is one area where D11 has performed dismally over the years. Gonzales' wife has not taken appropriate action to change the situation with math, and Gonzales tends to support a go-slow, status quo type approach. I believe that this approach will continue to harm the students of D11.

McNally's 2 candidates have literally been absent on any discussion of the issues. They are not worthy of anyone's support. Their only reason for running for the board is because they hate Christen. That is not good enough for the parents and students of D11. D11 has real issues to address. A hatred of Christen is not going to keep D11 moving forward. Let these two send their days hating Christen on their own time. We don't have time for this on the board. I want colleagues who are serious about D11's performance. I want colleagues who are serious about moving forward today, not at some point in the future. Our kids don't have time for that.

Vote "No" on recall, and then vote for Greg Garcia and Don Schley.

McNally & Oatman-Gardner now cost D11 OVER $300,000

Remember when Mary Ellen McNally and her side-kick Anne Oatman-Gardner told the community that their personal mission to oust Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen would "only" cost the tax payers $99,000? Remember when people actually believed them?

Remember how this recall is supposedly about the outrageous expenditure of $425,000 to fire incompetent ex-superintendent Sharon Thomas? Remember how it was McNally ally Karen Teja and little known board member Dave Linebaugh who negotiated this money giveaway in the first place?

El Paso County Clerk Bob Balink reported on November 21st that the cost of the recall to the D11 tax payer is now $240,000. This is only the cost to conduct the mail in only election. In addition, the county has expended $32,000 tax payer dollars so far to handle recall issues. An additional tax payer cost was paid to D11 law firm HRO. HRO has never been cheap, and the bill to handle recall issues from that law firm is $42,871, so far.

The grand total with the recall election still 3 weeks away is $314,871. Keep in mind, both Shakes' and Christen's terms of service expired in November 2007. Both board members have publicly declared that they have no intention of seeking re-election.

If recall organizers are really upset about money issues, why are they costing the tax payer nearly the same amount of money to run the recall as the amount of money that their friend Sharon Thomas took with her rather than leave to the students of D11? There is nothing to say that the recall costs have stopped climbing. Chances are, when all is said and done, the recall costs caused by McNally and Oatman-Gardner will be every bit as egregious as the amount of the golden parachute that they supported in the Thomas contract.

As an ex-board member herself, McNally knew the true cost of this special election. As a Democrat party operative, Oatman-Gardner knew, as well. Even worse, Jan Tanner, D11 Treasurer, knew that D11 had a $1.8 million shortfall last year, and that this expense is the last thing that the district needed. Her political aspirations obviously trumped her concern for the students of D11.

Labor Union recall candidates refuse to answer to public

The Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA) labor union came out of the closet and endorsed D11 recall candidates Jan Tanner and Charlie Bobbitt. Interestingly, CSEA president Irma Valerio had met with Sandy Shakes only 2 weeks prior to this endorsement. At the time, she informed Shakes that Tanner was not someone that the labor union had any interest in endorsing. She felt that Tanner was not a politically attractive candidate.

The Black/Latino Leadership committee conducted a debate on Tuesday, November 21st, and all 7 candidates were invited. Recall organizer Anne Oatman-Gardner was furious over the fact that Shakes and Eric Christen were invited. She felt that it was unfair that these two sitting board members might know facts about the district that her 2 people would be unable to address. Typically, left-wing candidates and board members are unable to speak publicly without having to refer to pre-written notes from their handlers. Anyone who watches or attends D11 board meetings can verify that this is true by watching John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, or Sandra Mann.

Tanner and Bobbitt refused to attend the Tuesday debate, claiming through their spokesman Oatman-Gardner that the debate was rigged. The rules for the debate were that all questions would come from audience members. The threat of having to address citizen questions was apparently a bridge-too-far for the status quo pair. The lack of pre-screening for these questions might have meant that the candidates would have to answer questions on education issues rather than repeat their mantra that, "Eric Christen is mean and he sends mean emails sometimes." Recall note-taker Lois Fornander did make her presence known when she begged debate organizer (and Democrat) Joe Barrera to believe that Tanner and Bobbitt really, really, really had a prior committment. Thanks, Lois.

Also in attendance at Tuesday's debate were long time Christen antagonists Luis Cortez and Angelo Christopher. Mr. Cortez rose to ask a question that he claimed was asked at a previous debate that Bobbitt and Tanner did attend since Shakes and Christen were not invited. Cortez revealed that his question related to what the candidates would do to address the dismal performance of poor and minority students in D11. Cortez, no conservative he, stated that Bobbitt danced nicely around the issue without ever answering the question. He also pointed out that Tanner said absolutely nothing in her answer to his question. Is it any wonder that these two refused to face the public for a second time? The point is, Tanner and Bobbitt have no knowledge of the current academic situation in D11. That is not their concern. They offer nothing that will help teachers, parents, or students, but the labor union chose to endorse them anyway. Maybe these two have promised to allow more absentee time for labor union members to travel to outlying districts to picket with the steel workers.

During the 2005 campaign in D11, the 3 conservative candidates were roundly criticized for failing to appear at a debate hosted by the Citizen's Project. This organization was founded to advocate for left-wing social causes, and all debate questions are pre-screened to ensure that they deal with left-wing social causes. Additionally, the sponsor of the debate was a financial supporter of the 3 "Progressive" candidates that year. Despite this obvious bias against the conservative candidates, I believe that they should have attended the debate. I attended all debates during both of my runs for office. I believe tha the candidates in 2005 were hurt by their absence, and I believe that Tanner and Bobbitt were hurt by their absence on Tuesday.

Bobbitt and Tanner were both active in the recall effort. They had the courage to talk bad about Shakes and Christen while collecting signatures for recall, but they did not have the courage to face the two in person. This is typical of liberal candidates in this town. It is much easier for them to spread rumors and go into hiding than it is for them to stand up and debate facts.

NEWSFLASH - 100% of Voters Oppose Recall!

Colorado Springs - 100% of voters surveyed in Colorado Springs oppose the recall effort against Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes, according to a survey conducted on November 21st. According to the survey, 100% of voters are furious over the fact that recall organizers Mary Ellen McNally and Anne Oatman-Gardner are spending nearly $300,000 in public funds to advance their liberal agenda. "I'm not going to tell you how many people I surveyed,"said Craig Cox, who conducted the survey. "All I know is that my figures are very strong and I stand by the 100% figure."

If anyone read an article like that, they would conclude that: A) The conductor of the survey is out of his mind; B) The reporter who printed the article is doing a disservice to the public for reporting such warped statistics. How many surveys were returned? 10? 100? 1000? 1900? The numbers matter, and the labor union won't tell.

Is an article like the above really unrealistic? Let's look at an article from the November 21st Colorado Springs Gazette article:

Union backs D-11 recall

The union’s board of directors opted to support the recall efforts against Christen and Shakes after conducting an online survey of its members, said Irma Valerio, president of the Colorado Springs Education Association. She said 95 percent of respondents supported the recall of Christen, and 82 percent backed the ouster of Shakes. Valerio declined to reveal how many union members responded to the survey.

This is typical of the way that labor unions operate. They distort the truth, they hide the truth, they manipulate the public. They certainly enjoy lurking in the shadows and want no public scrutiny at all. This union survey was conducted using the publicly funded D11 email system.

Interestingly, the Gazette did not publish the name of the article's author. To even put an article like this in a daily newspaper shows a certain level of incompetence on the part of the editor involved.

Even more on the Debate

The Black/Latino Leadership Coalition has issued one final clarification on the November 21st recall debate. In my opinion, they have done the right thing. They have decided to allow discussion on the issue of the Sharon Thomas firing.

To amplify the key points on the below invitation, Anne Oatman-Garder and Mary Ellen McNally insist that Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes not be allowed to participate in the debate. They then insisted that the topic of the firing not be allowed because Christen and Shakes would have the unfair advantage of having more information on that issue than would the other candidates. (Interesting argument. I wonder why the recallers did not admit their lack of information on the issue before they committed $300,000 for the recall).

After the Coalition agreed to keep the firing off the table, recall orgaizers complained that it was not fair to keep this issue off the table. Bottom line is that they do not want a debate on the issues. They wish for emotion and not facts to rule the day.

The Coalition message is below:

Dear Friends,
At the risk of trying to explain too much, we would like to
clarify some of the give and take on the Black/Latino
D-11 Recall Election and Candidates'
Forum scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 21, 6-8PM,
Carnegie Room, Penrose Library.
It may sound like the proverbial tempest in a teapot
to some, but the passions unleashed by the Recall
Election are not something to be trifled with.
Let me quickly explain what we felt that we needed to
do in the last three days in order to try and satisfy
some very vocal people about the rules of the Forum.
This is an honest assessment.This will be our last email on
the matter.
First, many people were saying, "don't let Sandy
and Eric come to the Forum. They will only dominate
the discussion and it won't be fair to the rest of the
candidates." But this is not right, we felt, regardless
of how anyone feels.
So, we said Eric and Sandy will be invited because this serves
the public purpose.
Second, others said, "don't let Eric and Sandy talk about
the firing of Sharon Thomas.That will only serve their purposes
and they will use up all the time doing that."
OK, we said, we won't let Eric and Sandy talk about that.
So, we put out an email laying down the rules: Eric and Sandy
to be there, but no discussion of the firing. Focus on the future,
we told the candidates in the email. Tell us what you want
to do to fix the problems, but don't dwell on the past. Look
at your vision of the future as the best way to heal a fractured
community.
Third, lots of people started telling us, "you can't do that. We
need to talk about the firing because it's the most important
part of the recall, etc., etc. Some of the same people who don't
want Eric and Sandy to appear are now saying we have to talk
about the termination with Sandy and Eric.
Fourth, OK, we said in another email, we'll allow questions
on the firing, since most of the evaluations of Dr. Thomas
are a matter of public record (posted on the D-11 website)
and therefore we can have a discussion more or less based
on facts. Initially, we did not want any discussion on the
termination because it was a personnel matter and all the
pertinent facts are not known to the public. But now that
we're aware that they are on the website, we'll allow questions
on the termination--hoping that folks will read the material
and come to the Forum well-informed.
We're very sorry if misunderstandings have caused anyone
to feel threatened or alienated.
We need to keep in mind that difficult issues are the ones
that need the most exposure. But as a neutral group we wanted
to balance the need of the public to know with an attempt to
lessen the potential for useless recriminations. Now we can
guarantee you that the Forum will not be a limited debate.
All issues are on the table, provided everyone behaves
with respect and decorum.
Sincerely,
Willie Breazell, Co-Chair,
719-310-5853
Joe Barrera, Co-Chair,
Black/Latino Leadership Coalition
719-328-9620

AFl-CIO coming to a School near You

Yes, that's right. The teacher's union has joined with the largest and most militant labor union in the country. How will this improve education, you ask? Great question. I personally don't see the link between the AFL-CIO and education. The purpose is probably not to improve education. The purpose is probably to allow the teacher's union to become more militant so that it can control even more school boards across the country. A link to one of many articles on this topic is below:

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/jointheaflcio/nea.cfm

In a June 29, 2006 letter addressing this new partnership, AFL-CIO head John Sweeney showed his excitement over the union's more powerful ability to purchase the nation's legislatures and school boards. He said:

Now we can forge new bonds and make new gains in
school boards, in city councils, and state houses where so many decisions affect
the quality of working families' lives.

Again, how will this improve the state of education for your children? Do we expect this new labor partnership to visit the local area any time soon? The following exerpt can be found at http://masooma.blogspot.com. This blog is run by Diana Beatty, who is the Secretary to the local CSEA Board:

Pueblo 60
Last night about 6 board members for CSEA (including Tim, technically not a board member, but the Uniserv Director) went down to Pueblo to support teachers in District 60. They are still trying to negotiate a contract since last school year. They are not on strike yet, but could be if the situation doesn't improve. They were holding a rally before the school board meeting. Interestingly, after watching part of their meeting, it seems school board problems are everywhere. I personally feel part of the problem is that school board members frequently do not really know education, schools, etc., and yet they become in charge of them. It seems to me to be a flawed system. Anyway, they really seemed to appreciate the support and presence of other teachers. There were also members of the Steel Workers union and the Teamsters there to show their support. The evening was a very positive one for the teachers even though no progress was made in getting a contract.

From the CSEA website at http://www.cseateacher.org/ we see:

Rallying with our Pueblo Colleagues
On Tues, October 10 several members of the CSEA Board of Directors went down to Pueblo to rally with the District 60 teachers. They are having a difficult time bargaining with their own challenging school board. They have reached impasse and are now in the process of fact-finding. They are working to contract and there is talk of stronger job actions on the horizon. Keep them in your thoughts 'cause we're all in this together!
What time is it?

It's Union Time!

Notice that it's not "Time for Kids!" It is "Union Time!"

People wonder why I have a problem with the union leadership. My problem is not that D11 has a union; my problem is that the union leadership does nothing to further excellent schools. The union leadership did not go to Pueblo on that Tuesday in October to demand better student performance. They and their new AFL-CIO partners went to support the "union."

The CSEA likes to claim that it is a professional organization rather than a union. This partnership with the AFL-CIO proves otherwise. A "professioanl organization" would advocate for kids, would it not? Sadly, this new militancy will only detract further from the improvement of the American education system. This new partnership was not meant to improve your schools; rather, it is designed to give the union leadership greater power over its employer, which is you, the public.

I would like to see the talking points for this trip to Pueblo. Maybe they would say, "This show of force with the steelworkers is meant to show the parents of School District 11 that we are serious about the plight of unionized labor...no wait, serious about the plight of the steel industry...no, not that....serious about the state of education in D60, no we mean D11...serious about purchasing unchallenging school boards...oh, never mind."

...but it was a successful trip!

More on the Debate that Anne Oatman-Gardner opposes

Joe Barrera sent out a follow-up invitation to the D11 recall candidate debate, scheduled for November 21st. Apparently, Anne Oatman-Gardner is apoplectic over the fact that the 2 recall targets are being allowed to debate.

Here is the invitation:

Dear Friends,
You are invited to the Colorado Springs Black/Latino
Leadership Coalition's School Board Candidate Forum
on Tuesday, Nov. 21. Scheduling concerns compel us
to hold the Forum next week, even if the date is not
our first choice.
In regard to the high emotion generated by the recall election,
we understand that some may feel that to allow
Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes to speak their minds
in the presence of other candidates does not serve a useful purpose.
But in our opinion it also does not serve the larger public interest.
We need to be perfectly clear about this. The public interest
is best served when all sides are heard.
We are committed to having all sides of the School Board issue
brought forward at the Black/Latino Leadership Coalition Candidates'
Forum and have invited Eric and Sandy to participate.
(That's why we started this group in the first place, to allow
disparate opinions the chance to be expressed.)
There are three points we wish to make about this School
Board election.
1)We do not want any more discussion about why
or how the action in regard to the immediate past superintendent
was taken. This was a personnel matter and all the pertinent
facts are not available to a Forum such as ours. Therefore,
we will request that this subject not be brought up. This
is fair because further discussion of this Board action no
longer serves the public interest.
2)In regard to the issue of the recall election, we are
prepared to consider all candidates, including Sandy and Eric,
as candidates for two positions on the Board. There may be
a recall election on December 12, but we can also see it
as an "early election" in which two board members are asked
to justify themselves before the electorate, who may choose to
retain them or replace them with other people.
3)We need to hear from all the candidates at the Forum. If someone
is facing recall, we need to hear why he or she should not be recalled.
If someone wishes to replace present incumbents, we need to hear
why that person feels worthy of election. We cannot hear only from
certain candidates to the exclusion of others and expect to make
a fair judgment.
Our urgent need is to move forward as a community from
where we are now. We cannot delay this anymore, but to move
forward we must first heal the wounds of division. The only
way to do this is let all sides be heard.
We urge all candidates to attend the Forum on Nov. 21.
We will conduct the meeting with decorum and respect,
and will ask everyone to abide by our rules. We will not allow
name-calling, personal attacks, or uncontrolled rants.
The focus will be on how to move D-11 forward, not on
recriminations about the past. We will ask everyone to
focus on the vision for the future, and how to get started.
Everyone will answer questions and be allotted a set time
to respond. Our main objective is to enhance understanding
and dialogue. We can certainly agree to disagree, but we
must do so civilly.
Again, we urge everyone to attend the Forum on Tuesday,
Nov. 21, 6-8PM, Carnegie Reading Room, Penrose Library.
Sincerely,
Joe Barrera, Co-Chair,
719-328-9620
Willie Breazell, Co-Chair,
719-310-5853
Colorado Springs Black/Latino Leadership Coalition

Anne Oatman-Gardner tries to silence debate

The Colorado Springs Black/Latino Leadership Coalition is hosting a candidate debate for D11 recall candidates on November 21st at the Carnegie Room of the Penrose Library. The invitation is below:

Dear Friends,
The Colorado Springs Black/Latino Leadership Coalition
will sponsor a School District Eleven Recall Election and
School Board Candidates' Forum on Tuesday,
November 21, 2006, 6-8PM, Carnegie Room, Penrose
Library, 20 N. Cascade.
All candidates are invited, including those facing recall,
and those wishing to win election to the D-11 Board of
Education.
The format of the Forum will follow that of previous
Forums, with each candidate having a chance to
speak and give the reasons why he or she should stay
on the Board, or be elected to the Board. There will
be time for questions and answers and rebuttals.
In addition, there will be an opportunity for those who
wish to explain the reasons for the recall election to
present their views.
The Black/Latino Leadership Coalition is a non-partisan
group and is about educating the community on issues
affecting all of us. We do not take positions on issues
or endorse candidates. We wish to give all sides of contested
issues and elections the chance to present their views.
We invite all candidates, activists, community leaders, and
the public to our D-11 School Board Forum.
Sincerely,
Willie Breazell, Co-Chair,
Joe Barrera, Co-Chair,
Colorado Springs Black/Latino Leadership Coalition

According to Joe Barrera, recall propagandist Anne Oatman-Gardner was furious over the fact that the the targets of the recall, Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes, were also invited to participate. Oatman-Gardner demanded that the debate go forward without allowing Christen and Shakes to be heard.

The last thing that Oatman-Gardner wants is an honest and open debate. Her career working for liberal politicians and their pet causes has been based on her ability to lie about and destroy other people. She knows that her puppet candidates will not be able to hold their own in a debate based on facts.

Congratulations, Annie. Your true colors become more apparent each and every day.

In her own Words

D11 recall organizers use the firing of ex-superintendent Sharon Thomas as one of the reasons that they are pushing for a recall. They claim that Thomas was fired for no legitimate reason other than personal vendettas against her by some of the Board members.

During the superintendent evaluation process, Thomas had an opportunity to rate herself. Based on what the recall supporters have been saying, Thomas must have given herself an A+, right?. Keep in mind that Thomas received a salary of $170,000 per year, plus benefits that drove her cost up to $262,000 per year. With that in mind, let's look at how Thomas rated her own performance. The following documents were created by Thomas. They show Thomas's self evaluation with her self-rating included. Thomas had 21 areas on which to grade herself. Of those 21 rated areas, Thomas rated herself "Progressing," which is "below average," in 9 of those 21 areas. Thomas only rated herself "Proficient" or above 58% of the time. (The handwritten notes that are included on the following documents are my "notes to self" as I reviewed her ratings).
























Thomas supporters claim that she was never given any direction. Under her major assumptions above, bullet #2, Thomas says that "mission, vision and goals were established ...prior to my arrival." Further, she states, "These documents reflect major organizational direction and were developed within the CQI framework." Thomas destroys her own argument that she never had any direction.

On the next page, Thomas gave herself a "Progressing" on accountability to ensure that schools were self-assessing for imprvement. This below average self-assessment includes such important areas as department and division goal setting, school improvement plans, and reporting and collecting data. All of these are major areas when it comes to tracking performance.























Goal 2.2 above relates to goal setting and creating school improvement plans. Thomas says that she is below average in these areas. It is hard to have employees meet or excede goals when the leader does not require them to set goals or to align them with the district. Goal 2.3 above relates further to goals, and Thomas again grades herself below average. A pattern quickly developed wherein Thomas never set goals for herself and never required district employees to set goals. It is impossible for people to "achieve" if they are not held to any standard. Again, this is Thomas grading herself. These ratings are not the work of the big-bad reformers.


























Goal 5.1 above relates to rewarding performance. Thomas admits that she was below average in that field. She states that she "attends" certain events or meetings, but that does not speak to what was actually accomplished by her attendance. Goal 5.3 relates to developing a training program to help staff accomplish goals. Thomas probably rated herself below average in this area because she never required anyone to have goals to which she could then train them. Goal 5.4 required Thomas to actively seek staff feedback. She felt that she did not accomplish this task to standard.

To summarize, the recall organizers wish to remove board members who gave the superintendent a below average evaluation. It turns out that this very superintendent also gave herself a below average evaluation. This superintendent was a high paid chief executive who oversaw a 1/2 billion dollar school district. This superintendent claimed to be able to "hit the ground running" since she was a long time D11 employee. This superintendent cost the district $262,000 per year in salary and benefits, plus she took with her a $400,000 golden parachute that was advocated by the very people who are orchestrating the recall effort. This superintendent could only rate herself "above average" on 58% of her goals, and the recall organizers are up in arms over her firing?

It really clears up any doubt that the recall organizers do not have the interests of the D11 taxpayers in mind. As Mary Ellen McNally said clearly: It's all about politics.

I end this entry with a copy of an email that I sent to fellow board members after we received this self-eval. This provides my summary of her overall self-evaluation.

Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 4:20:53 -0600
From: craigcox@adelphia.net
To: Board
Subject: Supe input

I have been looking over the superintendent's input for her evaluation and have made some observations. The first observation is that despite her letter that came with the 27 pages wherein she complains about not knowing what the evaluation tool really is, she lists as an assumption that the goals and measures were based on the CQI eval tool and that the district mission and goals were already in place for her to adopt. Where is the problem?

Thomas gave herself a rating on 21 subtopics. Of these 21, even she had to give herself a below average mark (Progressing) on 9 of them. Pretty sad for a $170K annual salary employee. Under 1.1, she admits that the goals were already set, but I note that she does not say what she has done in an attempt to meet those goals, nor has she given her vision of how to meet those goals. She takes credit for the CAAP, but Norm created that last year. She takes credit for requiring the Edison schools to have SIPs, but state law mandates that. She takes credit for giving recommendations for the Mil money, but she only gave a broad list of possibilities with no specific recommendations. Besides, I don't see this stuff at the bottom of page 2 as fitting under setting mission, vision, and goals. The remainder of that list of stuff is stuff that was begun by others.

On page 3, she gives a litany of speeches that she gave about achievment. Based on the initial CSAP result, she will miss that 7% increase goal anyway. Besides, so what if she gave the same speech to different groups? What was the result? At the bottom of the page, she admits waiting until Jan 31st to talk about her goals for this year. It boils down to growing admin. She then lists some talking points about having a great district on pg 4, but never suggests a plan to get there. At the bottom of page 4, she begins a laundry list of meetings that she might attend. According to her Outlook and her phone bills, she rarely attends any of these groups.

Pg 5 shows a list of possible meetings - her Outlook does not reflect any of this. She then lists a list of outside activities, but does not express the goal of attending these events. Again, they are not reflected in her official schedule. Pg 6 continues pg 5, and then she tells of all the input she has collected. My question is what she has done with the input. Pg 7 is another laundry list of stuff that does not specify goals or results - just a list. On pg 9 she talks of an accountability system in place but does not show or state how she is holding anyone accountable for anything. On page 10 she talks of meeting with stakeholder groups but does not enlighten us as to what she did with the feedback from these groups. On pg 11, she informs us that she collects data but does not say what she does with it. The bottom of page 11 is simply false (relations with stakeholders). Ditto pg 12.

All the IT stuff on pg 13 was already in place before her arrival. What has she done to improve this? She doesn't say. On pg 14 she claims to model a team approach; again, false. On pg 15, she simply refers us to other pages. Page 16 becomes fantasy stuff. She takes credit for last years modest gains under 7.2, and then claims to have Satisfactory relations with this Board. On pg 17 she uses the term, "given the circumstances..." What does she mean by this? The remainder of the stuff that she includes is just that list of meetings that she attends. What are the results of these meetings? We have seen her division head and cabinet agendas. They are random and do not address any of the district goals or strategic plan issues. What is striking in all of this is a total lack of a plan for anything. In her memo excusing the flat reading CSAP scores, Thomas claims that our ESL population is rising, causing the flat scores. OK, fine. If we accept that, then her next response ought to be to tell us what her plan is to address this issue. No plan exists.

Once again, in her memo, Thomas complains that she is still learning the district and has not had time to do anything. If she was going to be on a "ride along" program for the first year on this job, we should have been told up front. She is basically claiming a student superintendent status and should have been paid accordingly. At the least she is making the case that she should be considered on a probationary status. We never gave her permission to take the first year off and still get paid $170K. Before we worry too much about having to pay her to just leave (and I hate to give her a dime), we need to remember what past Boards have done repeatedly. The best example is the employee who sexually harassed/assaulted his own staff member and had a sex toy in his elementary school. The BOE paid him over $250K to leave. They did not fire him outright, they paid him 6 figures to leave. This is only 1 of many cases like that. Why didn't these... women (Fornander, Peterson, etc) scream and hollar about that?

Craig W. Cox
D-11 School Board
219-0032

At least it's the Truth, for a change

Stop the presses!! Liberal Colorado Springs socialite Mary Ellen McNally is quoted in the November 12, 2006 Gazette as making a statement that actually contains some truth! Truth-telling has never been easy for McNally, so she certainly deserves credit for this chance meeting with integrity.

In a Gazette article titled "Faces of Chaos," the final two paragraphs read as follows:

McNally, who rarely agrees with Christen, seemed to acknowledge that politics looms large in the recall. But her definition of politics seems to differ from Christen's.

"My hope for the election," she said, "is that the recall is successful, and we have two new board members who will work to return some civility to the school board - at least until next election."

McNally finally admitted that this recall effort is nothing more than politics. She finally admitted that she is wasting over $300,000 tax payer dollars over the fact that members of an elected school board have different political views than she does.

Her final quote is also extremely telling. McNally is only interested in "civility" until the next election, which will occur in less than one year from the date of the recall election. McNally and her side-kick Anne Oatman-Gardner ran one of the most vicious and foul campaigns in 2005 to ensure that 3 equally dishonest and vicious people would be elected to the D11 board. While McNally uses "civility" as a recall talking point, she and her cronies will be anything but civil during the 2007 campaign as they will once again attempt to personally and professionally destroy any other candidates who may not agree with their liberal ideology.

Let's take the bright spots where we can. On November 12th, 2006, Mary Ellen McNally finally told the truth. The truth, of course, is that liberal ideology takes precedence over educating kids in D11.

Creatures of the Night

The Colorado Springs Gazette ran an article today (11/10/06) in which this blog and 2 other web sites were discussed. One of those web sites was created by Eric Christen at www.ericchristen.com. The other site was created to spread misinformation about those of us on the Board who wish to improve the District. That web site can likely be located with a keyword search of "fiction." All of these sites claim to provide information on School District 11 and/or the board members or other significant "players" who are involved in the D11 arena.

For those who read the Gazette article, and for those who visit each of the web sites, there is a striking difference between this blog, Christen's web page, and the other site. That striking difference is the fact that the authors are clearly identified in 2 of the web sites, but not in the 3rd. I have not hidden the fact that I am the author of this blog. Christen named his web site after himself, and he even provides quite a bit of information on his personal life. No secrets there.

Now let's look at this other web site. The only name mentioned in the Gazette article is that of Lois Fornander. Anyone who knows Fornander can tell by the vitriolic tone of that web site that she had a hand in its creation. Fornander is the person who sent around an email titled "Sunrise Massacre" when the Board attempted to provide a mid-term evaluation of ex-superintendent Sharon Thomas. A copy of that email can be found on a previous blog entry on this site. Fornander, who seems shocked that Thomas was fired, actually lectured the D11 Board during the citizen comments portion of one of our meetings. During that lecture, Fornander turned to her friend Thomas and gave some sage advice: "Just ignore this Board." Thomas took Fornander's advice, and as a result, harmed the District. Fornander can't understand why someone who ignores the input of her employer would end up having her contract terminated.

Fornander's husband is Gerald Fornander. Gerald is also mentioned in an earlier post (That's not exactly right). He is the "concerned citizen" who filed an election complaint against the 3 reform candidates from the 2005 D11 election. Fornander's complaints were each dismissed. For the record, the Independent did issue a retraction/correction to their totally false article on that topic.

Fornander mentioned that there are a total of 6 contributors to her mostly fictional web site. Fornander never provides names. Fornander and her ilk despise accountability when it comes to the operation of a school district, so it is no surprise that she and her cronies do not want accountability for their web site. I provide documents and data to back up my claims on this web site. Fornander does no such thing on hers. Who can believe information from a web site where no author is identified and no evidence is presented to validate the outrageous claims? I created this blog to counter such fictional sites as the one run by Fornander. She and her kind have been spreading lies for the 3 years that I have served on this board. Nowhere on her web site or in her lectures will anyone be able to find anything constructive that will lead D11 to excellence. Fornander and her fellow authors are perfectly content to allow poor and minority students to continue to suffer with sub-par educations. In Fornander's world, these children are incapable of learning anyway, so why waste money trying to educate them?

An analysis of Fornander's circle of anti-parent friends can lead to an educated guess as to who is behind her fiction-based web site. Traci Cooper was hired by Thomas to be her personal PR representative. Cooper was paid thousands of dollars by Thomas (behind the Board's back, I might add) to try to make Thomas look good to the community. Cooper is a regular contributor to Fornander's site. Mary Ellen McNally, who is behind the D11 recall effort, is most likely involved as well. McNally sat by timidly as D11's performance slipped during her tenor on the D11 board. Delia Busby, who sued D11 for a six figure dollar amount, is also a likely contributor to the D11 fiction web site, as is Elizabeth Palmer, who wrote a threatening letter to a local business owner who supported improvements for D11. That letter is also posted in an earlier article on my blog (Could you imagine...?). Other apologists for mediocrity who may be involved in the web site include Lynn Peterson, Lyman Kaiser, Lisa Mieritz, and Ann Oatman-Gardner. Each of these people are vehemently opposed to parental involvement in their children's education and prefer to operate in the dark. This is the exact behavior of people who are void of ideas and who will only back Board members who share their view that accountability has no place in a public school district. Fornander's web site expresses support for recall candidates Jan Tanner and Charles Bobbitt. Taxpayers can be sure that these 2 candidates will be as secretive and antagonistic towards improvement as are the handlers who have invited them into this race.

Time for What?

Jan Tanner wants to serve on the School District 11 school board. Mary Ellen McNally, Anne Oatman Gardner, and Norvelle Simpson, who initiated the recall effort against Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen, support Jan Tanner's effort to get on the D11 board. Based on the incompetence that Simpson and McNally demonstrated while serving on the D11 board in the past, you can be certain that Tanner would bring the same status-quo, "poor and minority kids can't learn anyway" attitude to the board.

Tanner thinks that she would bring big ideas to the board. In an interview with the Gazette, she stated that her reason for desiring to serve on the board was simple: "I have time." Wow. Time for what, Jan? She doesn't say. She just has time. D11 is a district with declining enrollment, minority graduation rates in the 50% range, minority math scores in the teens, and like John Gudvangen, Tanner brings no ideas - just "time."

Tanner is a strong ally of Gudvangen and Tami Hasling. She would fit well with these "progressives" on D11's board. In fact, Tanner posts her election season priorities on the left-wing blog, "ProgressNow Action." The question on the blog about priorities to defeat the "right wing" forces in Colorado is answered by Tanner:

Priorities
Reply
By Jan Tanner (Unregistered) Jan 5th 2006 at 7:54 pm MST
EducationReferendum
C spending priorities
Domestic partnership rights
Property rights/eminent domain reform

It's no wonder that Denver homosexual activists Tim Gill and Jared Polis have supported the recall effort and presumably Tanner's campaign.

Another thought that Tanner expressed to the Gazette is that the Board should not take action unless that action has the support of all 7 board members. Oh really, Jan? In 2004, Tanner was elected to be the Board's unelected treasurer in a political stunt that was passed by a vote of 4-3. Surprisingly, Tanner accepted the treasurer's role despite the split vote. We can see how strong Tanner is on her principles. Tanner's attitude that all board votes should be 7-0 just shows that she would be nothing more than a mouthpiece for the administration rather than a representative of the people.

Tanner has a history that highlights her opinion of parents and minority students. After the Colorado legislature passed a bill granting vouchers to poor families in 2003, Tanner was the lead litigant in a lawsuit filed to stop poor and minority families from getting a quality education. Tanner does not feel that poor and minority children should have the same rights to a quality education as do the children of wealthy families. In Tanner's world, minority students should keep their mouths closed and remain in their low performing schools. Tanner does not believe that parents should control how their tax dollars are spent to educate their own children. Those decisions, in Tanner's opinion, should be left to the bureaucrats.

So how has Tanner performed as the D11 treasurer? Quite simply, she has demonstrated complete incompetence. The duty description for the treasurer is as follows:

The Treasurer shall perform or cause to be performed the following duties:
1. Account for all moneys belonging to the district, or coming into its possession.
2. Report to the Board on all expenditures and budget transactions of the direct Board accounts quarterly.
3. Report to the Board of Education as required for all moneys of the District.
4. Sign either by written signature or facsimile all warrants or orders drawn on the County Treasurer or checks drawn on a district depository. The Board of Education may require the countersignature of another person.

During Tanner's tenor, the only issue that has caught her attention is the board related spending of Eric Christen. The only issues that Tanner have brought to the attention of the Board have been related to Christen's expenditures on his $2,000 Board account. During Tanner's tenure as treasurer, her liberal allies on the board have taken over $750,000 from the general classroom fund to place golden parachutes onto the contracts of ex-superintendent Sharon Thomas and the district deputy superintendents. Although Tanner knew of these golden parachutes, Tanner never raised objections or informed the board of the fiscal impact of this egregious transfer away from the classroom. Additionally, while Tanner was determining who ate lunch with Christen, Thomas spent over $3 million on contracts and temporary hires for individuals and businesses for which the district had no performance goals or job descriptions. Tanner was silent on these issues, and was even present at meetings where friends of Thomas were on the payroll for doing as yet undefined duties for Thomas. Since Thomas had no authority to sign checks for her friends on these "purple packet" contracts, Tanner or a representative of hers must have signed for these payments, yet Tanner never informed the Board of this issue of the superintendent's hiring of old friends. While Tanner was the treasurer, the D11 legal fees skyrocketed to record heights. Although Thomas was a licensed attorney, her use of the D11 legal team from Holmes, Robert, & Owens (HRO) caused the D11 legal bills to reach new heights. Tanner never raised a red flag over this unbelievable spending.

One of the most egregious acts of self serving incompetence by Tanner is her participation in the recall effort. Tanner knew that this recall would cost the D11 taxpayers over $300,000, yet she was an active petition circulator for the recall. Despite the fact that Tanner knows that D11 will spend that same amount of money in less than one year after the recall election, Tanner felt that it was more important to get her name on the ballot than to allow this $300,000 to be used to educate kids. But that fits well with Tanner's big plans for D11 - "I have time."

What do you do?

If you run a business or if you are a supervisor, what do you do if you have an employee who is constantly insubordinate, or incompetent, or just not able to perform the job that they were hired to perform? Most people would fire the employee, or retrain them, or in some way take action to remove them from that position so as to minimize the damage that they could do to the organization.

On the other hand, what would you do as a supervisor or owner if you had an employee who was a true superstar who outperformed and outworked everyone else around? What would you do if you had an employee who was getting results that were above and beyond what was expected or required? Most people would find a way to reward or promote this employee or to recognize this outstanding performer and to motivate this person to continue to perform at those levels.

Sadly, in the important world of education, supervisors do not have the option of taking the courses of action listed above for either type of employee. Although teachers perform one of the most important jobs in the world, teacher's unions have used their power and influence to ensure that poor teachers continue to work along side good teachers in our schools.

When a new teacher is hired in School District 11, the Colorado Springs Education Association, a private organization that is controlled from Washington, D.C., tells these new teachers that they should join the union so that they will have job protection. Common sense would tell you that good quality teachers are not in danger of being fired from teaching jobs. Good quality teachers are, in fact, in demand. They are in no danger of being terminated from their jobs. Therefore, the only people who the union protects are the low performing teachers. The damage that this does to students is not relevant to the union leadership. It is more important for them that the union gets this union member's dues than it is whether or not children are being adequately educated. Beyond the damage to students is the damage that this does to the morale of good teachers. It does not boost the morale of a good, hard working teacher when a fellow teacher does less work but makes more money simply because they have been employed for a longer period of time.

The problem with removing low performing teachers goes beyond the union contract. Due to millions of teacher union lobbying dollars, state law has been written to construct a long and expensive trail to remove a bad teacher from the classroom. As important as a good teacher is to the success of a child in a classroom, the union places its political funding ahead of the success of our schools.

The following link leads to the website of Common Good. The website shows a real world example of what it takes in Colorado to remove an insubordinate or low performing teacher from the classroom:

http://cgood.org/Colorado-dismissal.html

The union does not want this to change. As the union continues to purchase seats for school boards and legislatures, they are ensuring that this will never change and that accountability will not be a part of public education. The parents, taxpayers and students will continue to be the losers in this battle for quality schools.

More on Attendance

The following absence data is taken from D11 records. This is a by-school look at teacher attendance across the district. Keep in mind that students can be declared truant after missing 10 days in a school year. The data below shows the total number of teachers in each school (data taken from D11 School Accountability Reports) and the total number of teachers in that school who missed 10 or more days during the 2005-2006 school year. The last number is the percent of teaching staff per school who missed 10 or more days of school in a 170 day school year.

Coronado High School: 83 teachers; 34 absent > 10 days; 41%
Doherty High School: 108 teachers; 47 absent > 10 days; 44%
Mitchell High School: 85 teachers; 37 absent > 10; 44%
Palmer High School: 105 teachers; 49 absent > 10; 47%
Wasson High School: 85 teachers; 35 absent > 10; 41%

East Middle School: 36 teachers; 23 absent > 10; 64%
Holmes MS: 44 teachers; 20 absent > 10; 45%
Irving MS: 56 teachers; 25 absent > 10; 45%
Jenkins MS: 51 teachers; 25 absent > 10; 49%
Mann MS: 43 teachers; 22 absent > 10; 51%
North MS: 41 teachers; 27 absent > 10; 66%
Russell MS: 45 teachers; 9 absent > 10; 20%
Sabin MS: 46 teachers; 22 absent > 10; 48%
West MS: 34 teachers; 24 absent > 10; 71%

Adams Elementary: 24 teachers; 18 absent > 10; 75%
Audobon: 26 teachers; 11 absent > 10; 42%
Bates: 18 teachers; 9 absent > 10; 50%
Bristol: 19 teachers; 8 absent > 10; 42%
Buena Vista: 18 teachers; 7 absent > 10; 39%
Carver: 28 teachers; 11 absent > 10; 39%
Chipeta: 27 teachers; 12 absent > 10; 44%
Columbia: 17 teachers; 11 absent > 10; 65%
Edison: 26 teachers; 9 absent > 10; 35%
Fremont: 23 teachers; 10 absent > 10; 43%
Grant: 31 teachers; 12 absent > 10; 39%
Henry: 27 teachers; 15 absent > 10; 56%
Howbert: 19 teachers; 1 absent > 10; 5%
Hunt: 22 teachers; 9 absent > 10; 41%
Ivywild: 17 teachers; 9 absent > 10; 53%
Jackson: 19 teachers; 3 absent > 10; 16%
Jefferson: 20 teachers; 10 absent > 10; 50%
Keller: 31 teachers; 8 absent > 10; 26%
King: 29 teachers; 8 absent > 10; 28%
Lincoln: 23 teachers; 3 absent > 10; 13%
Longfellow: 23 teachers; 14 absent > 10; 61%
Martinez: 41 teachers; 10 absent > 10; 24%
Madison: 23 teachers; 6 absent > 10; 26%
Midland: 14 teachers; 6 absent > 10; 43%
Monroe: 33 teachers; 21 absent > 10; 64%
Queen Palmer: 21 teachers; 12 absent > 10; 57%
Penrose: 31 teachers; 7 absent > 10; 23%
Pike: 14 teachers; 7 absent > 10; 50%
Rogers: 26 teachers; 15 absent > 10; 58%
Rudy: 33 teachers; 10 absent > 10; 30%
Scott: 41 teachers; 14 absent > 10; 34%
Steele: 18 teachers: 3 absent > 10; 17%
Stratton: 21 teachers; 9 absent > 10; 43%
Taylor: 22 teachers; 3 absent > 10; 14%
Trailblazer: 25 teachers; 14 absent > 10; 56%
Twain: 41 teachers; 24 absent > 10; 58%
Washington: 21 teachers; 13 absent > 10; 62%
Whittier: 15 teachers; 6 absent > 10; 40%
Wilson: 39 teachers; 13 absent > 10; 33%

On average, 44% of the D11 high school teachers were absent from their classrooms more than 10 days during the 05-06 school year. On average, 51% of middle school teachers in D11 were absent from their classrooms more than 10 days in that same year. On average, the elementary schools checked in a little better with 41% of teachers absent from their classrooms more than 10 times that school year.

Although the District does occasionally require teachers to be absent from their classrooms for training, there are very few "workshop" or "district meeting" reasons given on the absence reports.

This level of absences in D11 is not only disruptive to student learning, it is expensive to the taxpayers. D11 spends $2.5 million per year to hire substitute teachers. This is a district-wide problem that needs to be addressed. Although the supporters of the status quo, such as John Gudvangen, believe that nothing needs to change in D11, I would strongly disagree. The D11 school year is only 170 days long. If we are to tell our students that it is their "job" to be in class each day, then we must also ensure that our teachers are in those classrooms every day as well.

Does Attendance Matter?

The following definition is from D11 policy JHB, "Truancy:"

A "habitual truant" shall be defined as a student of compulsory attendance age (from seven years of age to under sixteen years of age) who has four unexcused absences from school in any one month or 10 unexcused absences from school during any school year. Classification as a habitual truant shall cause judicial proceedings to be initiated to enforce compulsory attendance.

The following is from Board policy JH, "Student absences and excuses:"

One criterion of a student's success in school is regular and punctual attendance. Frequent absences may lead to poor academic work, lack of social development and possible academic failure. Regular attendance is of utmost importance for school interest, social adjustment and scholastic achievement. No single factor may interfere with a student's progress more quickly than frequent tardiness or absence.

The school district and the state take student attendance issues very seriously. If a student is not in class, he or she is not likely to succeed. It is hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with the sentiment that students who have good attendance records will do better overall than those who frequently miss school. D11 has only approximately 170 student/teacher contact days each school year, and if a student is not regularly in his or her teacher's classroom, it is hard to expect that teacher to fully educate that student. The question is, what happens if the students are not in the presence of their teacher, but it is not the fault of the student?

The Master Agreement is the contract that the local teacher's union (CSEA) works under in D11. Since the union purchases its own Board members, the contract says exactly what the union leadership wants it to say. The public has no input at all. The contract has nothing to do with educating students. The union contract contains 18 different categories that a teacher may use to be absent from the classroom. Those acronyms and their meanings are as follows:

AWP=Admin Leave With Pay
CDE=Colo Dept of Educ
CEA=CSEA Business
CON=Conference
CUR=Curriculum
DMT=District Meeting
EVL=Evaluation
INT=Interview
ITT=Inter/Intra District Meeting
JUR=Jury Duty
LOP=Leave Without Pay
MIL=Military Duty
MTR=Maternity Leave
PLV=Personal Leave
PRO=Professional Leave
SCK=Sick Leave
TLV=Teacher Leave
WKS=Workshop

As a Board member, I do not fully understand the difference between some of these categories or their exact meanings. Some of the categories listed have specific limits on days, while others do not. For example, Jury duty cannot be limited to a certain number of days due to the uncertain nature of jury duty. Military leave is limited to 15 days per school year. Paid teacher leave is limited to 11 days per school year, but any unused leave will be carried over to the following year and converted to sick leave. By contract, there is not allowed to be a limit on sick days. There is also no limit on CEA days. The only caveat is that these days are either funded by D11 and the union, or by the union in total, depending on the reason. If the reason supposedly benefits academics in some way, then D11 foots the bill in part or in total. D11 has to pay for a substitute regardless.

Each school in D11 has a teacher who is designated as the Association Representative, or AR. From these ARs are chosen union members who are a part of the executive board for the CSEA. The board from 2005-2006 for the CSEA was made of the following individuals:

Irma Valerio-Garcia
Mark Hampson
Diane Beatty
Nancy Haley
Margie Couper
David Fisk
Katie Freidel
Brian Kachel
Jeff Marshall
Scott Noller
Patsy O'Neal
Lori Watson
Tom Watson
Jeanne Williams

Keeping in mind that a student could be hauled into court for missing 10 days in one school year, let's look at the total days absent from the classroom for each of these union reps. (Valerio-Garcia does not teach while performing duties as the union president. However, the contract requires D11 to pay 25% of her salary anyway for running this private organization).

Mark Hampson: 12 days, 11 being CEA days
Diane Beatty: 14 days, 6 being CEA days
Nancy Haley: 0 listed
Margie Couper: 13 days, 1 being CEA
David Fisk: 13 days, 8 being CEA days
Katie Freidel: 6 days, all 6 being CEA days
Brian Kachel: 8 days, 2 being CEA days
Jeff Marshall: 31 days, 3 being CEA days
Scott Noller: 30 days, 6 being CEA days
Patsy O'Neal: 24 days, 9 being CEA days
Lori Watson: 16 days, 4 being CEA days
Tom Watson: 18 days, 7 being CEA days
Jeanne Williams: 14 days, 1 CEA day

Of these 13 union representatives, who are teachers as well, 10 missed more than 10 class days during the 05-06 school year. Of these 13 reps, 9 of them (excluding Haley, Couper, Kachel, and Williams), took CEA days during the November 2005 election. Not only did these teachers skip class time with their students to perform political activities, they also designated those absences as days that would require D11 to fund half of their pay. One of the union members above (with 31 days absent) missed school to film a TV commercial for the CEA where the topic was actually how much the CEA cares about kids. Amazing.

What effect do teacher absences play on student performance? How can students get any consistency when some of their teachers are absent for 20 or 30 days or more during the year? Of those absences above, very few of those days were taken as sick days.

D11 has to pay over $2.5 million per year to hire substitutes. D11 has the highest absentee rate for teachers in the area. The problem is especially noticeable on Mondays and Fridays, as the following totals from D11 illustrate for the 03-04 school year:

Total teacher absences for Fridays: 7106
Total teacher absences for Mondays: 5350
Average teachers absent per Friday: 192
Average teachers absent per Monday: 141
Percent absent Fridays: 10.7%
Percent absent Mondays: 7.84%

For 04-05, the percentages are almost identical: 10.13% absent on Fridays, and 7.07% absent on Mondays.

Almost 10% of the D11 teaching force is absent on any given Friday. Principals will say that there is nothing that they can do about this alarming absentee rate in the District. They say that the Master Agreement forbids them from keeping teachers from using any of their 18 choices listed above to be absent from the classroom.

In raw numbers, the number of individual absences per year is huge. For the 03-04 school year, there were 27,843 teacher absences for a 170 day school year. In 04-05, the number was 29,782, and in 05-06, the total number of individual teacher absences was 19,102. As a side note, the 05-06 school year was the first year for the new evaluation system to take effect. This may have had an effect on the absentee rate. We on the Board have also implemented a performance pay plan that rewards schools for good employee attendance. This may bring the rate down even further.

The absentee rate for teachers will have just as damaging an effect on students as the absentee rate for students. When students must have substitutes 20 or 30 times per 170 school year, the classroom consistency is non-existent. Students are considered truant for missing class. There are no sanctions for teachers for missing class. A student's absence affects that individual student; a teacher's absence affects an entire classroom.

The challenge to addressing this problem lies in the fact that majorities of the D11 Board have always taken their marching orders from the union since their elections were purchased by the union. The union spent over $200,000 on the campaigns of John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann, so these Board members are not likely to take an interest in the absentee problem. The union leadership has offered no solutions to this absentee problem, and they won't offer any. Only when the public begins to take notice of how their school district ignores a serious problem will anything be done.