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."
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."
posted by Craig Cox | 10:58 AM
8 Comments:
Jan Tanner has not been accused publicly of any incompetence by you or any other board member Mr. Cox. If she was as awful as you claim there would evidence of her incompetence brought forward and she'd be dismissed, much like Eric Christen was before her. It's interesting to note that when the topic of her dismissal came up for a vote, that neither you nor Eric said a word about why you wanted her out. No accusations of incompetence, no evidence of misuse of her position...nothing what so ever.
Jan Tanner has volunteered her time and effort to do a job that the majority of the board elected her to do. It's a shame that you can't be honest enough to admit that she's done a very good job without complaint from anyone but Eric.
Please re-read my blog entry. I make the accusation that Jan Tanner is incompetent, and I back my accusation with facts. On one hand, you constantly ridicule Christen for being "too mean," and now you complain that he was going to handle the Tanner removal in a much more professional manner than his removal was handled.
You state that Tanner was elected by a Board majority. Tanner herself says that 4-3 votes should not be sufficient when important decisions are being made. Why did she take the Treasurer's job on a 4-3 vote? By the way, Sandy Shakes was part of that 4-3 vote to "hire" Tanner. As a recall supporter, you don't like Shakes' votes. Was this one different? Sharon Thomas was fired by a majority 4-3 vote of the Board, was she not? Why, then, is there this recall effort based on that majority vote?
Tanner has declared herself to be a candidate for public office. She has now opened herself to public scrutiny whether you or she like it or not. Tanner is as lacking in ideas and as opposed to improvement as are her 3 liberal allies on the Board (Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann). Therefore, she will be equally as damaging to the district.
I never said I was a recall supporter, Mr. Cox. There is another one of those erroneous assumptions that you and Eric are known for. You should know better.
You're really grasping at straws bringing on a 4-3 debate on Jan's election. How many 4-3 votes have been made on very large sums of money in the past years? Why did you allow that to happen despite the high percent of discontent among your fellow board members? Two can play that game,sir.
It is very disturbing for members of this district to have to tolerate your black and white coloring of issues. If you're a reformer then you do good, and all others are bad. Then you throw in the liberal labels as if that defines the person in a nut shell. I'm sure there are things within your party's platform that you don't endorse or represent. I wouldn't want to misrepresent the person you are by giving you a label that really doesn't define you in a personal way. You should consider doing the same for your opponents.
I didn't realize that declaring canidacy means she receives scrutiny from you, a member of the board that she is an officer of. Maybe you think that gives you a right to be judgemental, but I would think that you might want to leave that task for the political campaigners and concentrate your efforts on the students and their needs. Unless you are running again next year, it really doesn't matter to you who is elected. The only responsibility you have as a board member is to attempt to work with the new members in a productive manner, something that could have been done in a better way than has been demonstrated with the newest three.
"Another erroneous assumption?" Then you do not support the recall?
Why is it grasping at straws to bring up the 4-3 vote to select Tanner to be the Board Treasurer? Are you suggesting that this vote was not important? If that is the case, then why were you so upset when we discussed removing Tanner? Would that not have been an equally "unimportant" vote? As far as those 4-3 votes that you refer to, check your Board minutes. I was on the losing end of most of those money votes. Why did I let them happen, you ask? The Master Agreement deals with 2/3 of the total D11 budget. We are talking about millions of dollars here. That is one of the largets "big money" votes that the Board takes each year. Why does your side keep passing that vote on a 4-3 decision? Why do they let that happen without working with our side?
As far as your "black and white" concerns, I don't apologize for holding to my beliefs that all kids in this district should receive a quality education, particularly since we as a district have a budget that is almost 1/2 billion per year. The real "black and white" issue that your side will not acknowledge is that our students of color are not performing at the same levels as our white students. What is your side's reply? That children of color or poor children just can't learn like white kids. Pretty repulsive ideology.
By the way, the term "liberal" is not specific to party. Mary Ellen claimed to be a Republican, but she is certainly a liberal. If you are concerned about not "misrepresenting people," does that mean that you will stop accusing me of trying to destroy public schools simply because you disagree with me?
Are you really suggesting that I, as a member of the Board, have no right to scrutinize Tanner or to pass judgment on her? If that is the standard, how can you applaud the fact that your board allies passed judgment on Christen by removing him from the Treasurer's role? As an "officer of board," Tanner circulated petitions for the recall effort. Is that type of judgmentalism OK with you? As sitting members of the Board, Hasling & Gudvnangen signed recall petitions against their fellow Board members. Is that OK as well? This after they voted down a resolution condemning the recall effort because they felt that Board members should not get involved. Your concerns are somewhat hypocritical it seems.
I believe the reason some wanted Tanner removed as Treasurer is because she was installed erroneously to begin with. Former President Shakes has stated publicly that the removal of Christen from office was politically motivated (and I suspect driven primarily by Karen "I didn't get a single officership nomination" Teja). He had not done anything wrong as Treasurer.
Why the separate standards, Anonymous? Why does there need to be a reason to remove Tanner when there clearly wasn't one when Christen was removed?
Let me quote McNally here :"It's all political". Thank you very much
In response to Anonymous' defense of Tanner: Tanner's own political activism has identified her as who she is and what she stands for. Her own quotes include saying something to the effect of change IS needed, but she is okay with it being at a snail's pace (keep in mind that many of the kids who started kindergarten the first year of the Hunt/Adams fiasco are no longer in school, either thru dropping out or for around half: graduating).
Her affiliation with various candidate campaigns and the recall campaign is now her mantle to wear.
Jan Tanner is a left leaning liberal who will take her orders well from McNally, Peterson, et al, and the world will be a better place.
Now that Bobbit fella, that's a different story. What is his position on the termination of Sharon Thomas? What is his position on expanding choice? What is his position on the master agreement? Citizens Project never asks the questions I would like to hear answers to, and something tells me Tanner and Bobbit will not be available to debate these issues before December 12th.
Come to think of it, as Board Treasurer, should Tanner have known the specifics of the golden parachute and was it her responsibility to inform the board at some point prior to the vote to hire and transfer those dollars? That could be considered incompetent, if she was charged with such duty.
It will totally suck if the recall goes and McNally Marionettes are put in place. It wouldn't surprise me if first order of business is bringing Thomas back to ride on the train.
There is no doubt that Tanner knew of teh golden parachute. She was intimately involved with orchestrating the money giveaway as a pretext to recall.
Now, of course, Tanner and her sidekick Charlie Bobbitt, who also participated in the recall effort, are riding on taxpayer dollars to win a seat on the board. Keep in mind that they are running on eric Christen hatred, not on issues that relate to education.
Post a Comment
<< Home