Where does public money go?

Anti-parental choice advocates like to confuse the public with statements that voucher or choice supporters wish to divert public funds to private companies or educational institutions. They say this as if all public monies coming into D11 (or any other school district) remain solely within the district. In April 2004, I asked for information on vendors with whom D11 does business, which means vendors to whom D11 pays public funds. The email from D11's then top contracting supervisor is as follows. The Bold emphasis is added by me:

From: O'BRIEN, TIMOTHY J
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:51 PM
To: NALESKI, ELAINE Subject: FW: VENDORS OVER 10K--for Director Cox
Elaine, as we spoke, attached is a list of 300 plus vendors, with which and with whom we did over $10,000 in business last calendar year. Our full vendor base is in the thousands--including vendors, consultants, recipients of purchase orders, agreements, P-Card transactions etc. The list is alphabetic, and will print out on legal paper. I hope this is useful. Tim

Mr. O'Brien pointed out that D11's full vendor base "is in the thousands." 300+ of these private vendors had contracts of over $10,000 per school year. The list of 300+ is below. Some of these vendors are educational institutions. Each of these vendors supposedly contributes to the mission of D11. Included in this list of private companies is an arm of the largest opponent of parental rights in the nation - the Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA), which is the local mouthpiece for the National Education Association (NEA).

The notion that public funds never leave the public realm is ridiculous. The fear of partnering with private businesses is equally ridiculous. The D11 administration will hold that the District could not effectively conduct its day to day operations without the "thousands" of vendor partners that the District utilizes.

3M
A1ST AUDIO/VIDEO SYSTEMS
ABBOTT FIRE EXTINGUISHER CO
ACADEMIC CONNECTIONS LLC
ACADEMIC SPECIALTIES INCORPORATED
ACCOUNTEMPS
ACCURATE DETECTION CANINES
ACORN PETROLEUM INC
ACORN PETROLEUM INCORPORATED
ACTION IMAGES
ADD STAFF INCORPORATED
ADVANCED RESOURCE ALLIANCE
ADVENTURE SYSTEMS AND DESIGNS
AET ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFINITY BUSINESS SYSTEMS
ALL AMERICAN SPORTS
ALL PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL
ALLIANCE GENERAL CONTRACTORS LLC
ALPINE ACHIEVEMENT SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
ALPINE CONSULTING INCORPORATED
AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL
AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL ADVISORS INC.
AMERICAN GUIDANCE
AMERICAN MECHANICAL SERVICES
AMERICAN PRIDE
ANDERSON DUDE & LEBEL PC
ANDERSON DUDE & LEBEL PC
AQUEOUS SOLUTION INC
ARCHITECTURAL ENERGY CORP
ASCD
ASSOCIATED INSULATION INC
AXXIS AUDIO
B & H PHOTO ELECTRONICS CORP
BAAB STEEL SUPPLY
BANC ONE LEASING CORPORATION
BARBIZON LIGHT
BASSETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
BCS/WESTERN COST MANAGEMENT TRUST
BEMIS ART SCHOOL
BERKSHIRE BIOLOGICAL SUPPLY CO
BERWICK ELECTRIC CO
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL CENTER
BIG J ENTERPRISES LLC
BIRCHAMS OFFICE PRODUCTS
BLICKS SPORTING GOODS
BOISE OFFICE SOLUTIONS
BONDI AND CO
BOULDER CORPORATION
BOUND TO STAY BOUND
BRIDGE TO AWARENESS COUNSELING CENTER, I
CARD SERVICE CENTER
CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL SUPPLY
CASE
CELT CORPORATION
CEM SALES AND SERVICE
CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
CENTRAL STATES ROOFING
CENTRAL UNIFORM
CEWINC.COM
CHILDRENS PLAY STRUCTURES INC
CHILDRENS WORLD ACADEMY
CHINOOK BOOKSHOP INC
CLASSROOM CONNECT
CLIFTON, HOOK & BOVARNICK, P.C.
COIN EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTS
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
COLORADO DIVISION OF WORKERS COMP
COLORADO SCHOOL MEDICAID CONSORTIUM
COLORADO SPRINGS DAY NURSERY
COLORADO SPRINGS EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATION
COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES
COLORADO STATE SAFE AND LOCK
COLORADO WEST EQUIPMENT INC
COMM. PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS & ASSOCIATES,INC
COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS AND ASSOCIATES
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILD DEV.
COMP USA INC
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING INC
COULTER GAIL
CSEA
CSEA
CTB-MCGRAW HILL
CUSTOM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC
D AND H DISTRIBUTING
DANKA OFFICE IMAGING CO
DAVE TRIPLETT
DD MARKETING INC
DELL MARKETING LP
DELTA EDUCATION INC
DMA COMPUTER SOLUTIONS
DONNA SHELDON
DUCTWORKS INC
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
EDUCATION LOGISTICS INC
EDWARD J MULHOLLAND
EL PASO COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES
EL PASO FLOOR COMPANY
EL PUEBLO BOYS & GIRLS RANCH
EMILY GRIFFITH CENTER INC
ESCHOOL SOLUTIONS
EVERYDAY LEARNING CORPORATION
FALL RIVER MUSIC AND SOUND CO
FERNANDO'S FOODS
FINANCIAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT
FIRE SECURITY & CONTROL SYSTEMS
FIVE STAR SANITARY PRODUCTS
FLEECS, THOMAS A
FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES
FRANKLIN COVEY
FRONT RANGE SOLUTIONS
GAZETTE INC
GE JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION CO
GOLDEN BELL CAMP
GRAINGER INC
GRANER SCHOOL MUSIC CO
GREAT SOURCE ED GROUP
GRONINGER CONSTRUCTION INC
HALL & EVANS, LLC
HARCOURT
HARRISON SCHOOL DISTRICT #2
HEALTHSOUTH HOLDINGS, INC
HOLME ROBERTS AND OWEN
HOLME ROBERTS AND OWEN
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC
INTEGRATED MEDICAL INC.
INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE
INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY ACADEMY
JACKIE REYNOLDS SCHOOL
JEFFERSON HILLS
JIM SHIPLEY & ASSOCIATES
JOB STORE STAFFING SERVICES, THE
JOSTENS, INC.
KALEIDOSCOPE ASSOCIATES
KELLY-MOORE PAINTS
KEY CURRICULUM PRESS
KILLEN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
KING SOOPERS
KUMAR & ASSOCIATES
KYOCERA MITA AMERICA INC
L L JOHNSON DISTRIBUTING
LAFARGE WEST INC
LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS
LEISER PAINTING AND DECORATING CO INC
LIFETOUCH PUBLISHING INC
LONG BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES INC
LONG ENERGY SOLUTIONS
MACMILLAN/MCGRAW-HILL
MARSH RISK TECHNOLOGIES
MARSH USA INC
MARTIN BUSINESS GROUP
MARTIN LUTHER HOMES OF COLORADO INC
MATH'S MATE
MAXIMUS INC
MCGRAW HILL
MCNEIL, TERESA K
MEEKER MUSIC
MEL-RO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
METLIFE INVESTORS
MICHELLE LINN AND JOHN LINN
MICROTECH-TEL
MID-CONTINENT RESEARCH FOR EDUCATION LEA
MONDO
MOSAIC
MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING LLC
NATIONAL COALITION BUILDING INSTITUTE
NATIONWIDE PAPERS
NCS PEARSON
NEWBRIDGE EDUCATIONAL PUBS.
NEXTEL CORPORATION
NICHOLAS, MICHELLE DENISE
NORTHERN COLORADO PAPER INC.
OASIS STAGE WERKS
OFFICE DEPOT
OLSON PLUMBING AND HEATING CO
ONCE UPON A MIND
OTISED
PALMER ELECTRIC INC
PARK STRUCTURES OF COLORADO
PEARSON EDUCATION
PERA
PHONAK, INC
PIKES PEAK BOCES
PIKES PEAK COMMUNITY COLLEGE
PIKES PEAK GLASS INC
PIKES PEAK TOURS & CHARTERS
PIKES PEAK TOURS INC
PIONEER SERVICES CORP
PITNEY BOWES
POSTAL PRIVILEGE
PREMIER AGENDAS, INC.
PREMIER IMPRESSIONS INC
PREMIER SCHOOL AGENDAS
PRENTICE HALL MEDIA
PROFILE EAP
PROJECT LEAD THE WAY
PRYOR FLOOR COMPANY
PSYCHOLOGICAL CORP., THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION
PUEBLO WINTRONIC CO.
PYRAMID EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS
QSP
QUAL TECH ELECTRIC LLC
QWEST
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
RAP EXPRESS, INC
RED LION HOTEL
RELATRIX
RENAISSANCE LEARNING, INC.
RIVERSIDE PUBLISHING CO
RMCAT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ROOSEVELT-EDISON CHARTER
ROUNDUP FELLOWSHIP
SCA INSURANCE
SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
SCHOLASTIC
SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS
SCHOLASTIC, INC
SCHOOL SPECIALTY
SCIENCE KIT AND BOREAL LAB.
S'COOL SERVICES, INC
SEAL COAT SPECIALTIES INC
SEDLAK ELECTRIC
SERVE, INC.
SIEGEL OIL COMPANY
SIGN LANGUAGE NETWORK LLC
SIMPLEX GRINNELL
SIRS PUBLISHING, INC
SIRSI CORPORATION
SMR
SOFTWARE EXPRESS
SOFTWARE SPECTRUM
SONDERMANN/E-SQUARED PARTNERS, INC
SONITROL OF SOUTHERN COLORADO
SOUTHERN COLORADO CERAMIC SUPPLY
SOUTHWEST PLASTIC
SPACE MARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SPRINGS TRANSIT
SRA
SRI SPORTS INC
STANBURY UNIFORMS
STERLING TIES PUBLICATIONS
SUCCESS FOR ALL FOUNDATION
SYNERGY DATACOM SUPPLY
TEACHERS CURRICULUM INSTITUTE
TERRITORY TITLES
TEXTORDER (DOT) COM
THE CHANGE AGENCY
THE GALE GROUP
TIMBERLINE LANDSCAPING INC
TRAFTON ROOFING INC
TRANE
TRANSIT MIX CONCRETE CO
TRANSWEST TRUCKS, INC
TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS, INC
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
TURFMAKER CORP
U S WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC
UNISOURCE WORLDWIDE
UNITED BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
UNITED LEARNING
UNITED RESTAURANT SUPPLY, INC
URBAN LEAGUE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
US SPACE FOUNDATION
VENATOR TEAM SALES
VERIZON WIRELESS
VERIZON WIRELESS, BELLEVUE
WALKER HICKS PIPING, LLC
WALSWORTH PUBLISHING COMPANY
WELLS & WEST INC
WHITNEY ELECTRIC CO
WILLIAMS, ROBIN H
WRIGHT GROUP
WRIGHT PLUMBING AND HEATING CO
WRITING ALIVE, INC
XPEDX PAPER COMPANY

Alliance for What?

An organization called Alliance for Quality Public Schools was formed in Colorado Springs after the 2003 elections. Two of the founders of this left-wing organization were Delia Busby and Elizabeth Palmer. The Alliance was formed to protect the public against itself, as the public voted for 4 candidates who promised to bring reform to D11. This had never happened before in this district, so the founders felt that there must have been a terrible mistake.

Busby was a former D11 Board member. Out of 11 candidates in 2003, Busby came in dead last. This incumbent was only able to muster just over 5,000 votes (compared to 18,000+ for the winner). D11 Board minutes during Busby's 4 years on the Board show that she missed votes on a regular basis. She was also known for reading the newspaper and sleeping during Board meetings. Prior to her Board service, Busby was a principal at Mitchell High School. Busby was fired from her job and subsequently sued D11. She was able to get D11 to give her a 6-figure settlement.

Palmer is the liberal activist who sent a threatening letter to the owners of the North End Diner because the owners were supporting pro-parent candidates in the 2005 elections. This letter can be found in an earlier post.

One of the goals of the Alliance is supposedly to keep public education dollars from going to private providers. Both Busby and Palmer are vehemently anti-parental choice when it comes to education. Other members of this group feel the same. Two of these "other" members happen to be Albert Gonzales and Jan Tanner, who are both vying for spots on the D11 Board through the recall process.

Apparently, the members of the Alliance are very selective in their objection to allowing public dollars to fund private businesses. Busby runs a company which she calls Adventures in Learning K-12 (AIL). The purpose of this company is supposed to be for tutoring and dropout services. On June 23rd, 2004, the D11 Board gave the administration permission to enter into contract negotiations with Busby's company. As of that date, D11 had never paid attention to its dropout problem. As a board member, Busby had never brought attention to the dropout problem. The motion by the Board was to enter into negotiations with Busby for a 1-year contract. Conditions would be applied to this contract to ensure that AIL was actually doing something productive with its public funds. Yes - public funds. Busby, who is opposed to public money going to private firms, was asking D11 for a contract for public funds. Remember, Busby had already made quite a healthy amount of money off of her lawsuit against her own district. The Board initially approved a funds transfer of $48,000 for this contract. The administration subsequently requested $70,000 for the contract, and this was approved. According to the contract terms, AIL was to provide quarterly updates to the district to verify performance. The Board never saw any of these updates.

At the end of the first contract year (2005) , I asked for the total payments to AIL from that preceding year. The administration provided me with those payment amounts, as well as an administrative review of AIL's performance. The amounts are below:

From: KEY, DEB
To: Craig Cox'
Cc: David Linebaugh (E-mail) ; Eric Christen (E-mail) ; Karen Teja (E-mail) ; Mary Wierman (E-mail) ; Sandra Shakes (E-mail) ; Sandy Shakes (E-mail) ; Willie Breazell (E-mail) ; THOMAS, SHARON A. ; THURMAN, MARY E. ; BISHOP, TERRY ; GUSTAFSON, GLENN ; GIDDENS, GWENDOLYN B. ; CAPPS, MARK T ; STRUCK, CHARLES
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: Delia Busby - info
Director Cox,

Below is the information you had requested.


REQUEST: Could I please get the financial information on how much Delia Busby and/or her organization (by whatever names she used for it) was paid by D11 from 1 July 2004 through 1 July 2005? Thanks.

RESPONSE
Name Scheduled to Pay Amount
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
Total: 91,419.24

Busby was paid $91,419.24 on what had begun as a $48,000 contract. Her company must have performed in an outstanding manner to receive this chunk of public money, correct? The following document is the final page of AIL's 04-05 contract.

Notice the box at the bottom of the page. The proposed budget was $48,000. The contract called for 100 enrollees K-12 MINIMUM. The Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Office(AERO) in D11 performed an analysis of AIL for the first contract year.

On page 1 of the report, part II, it states:

Approximately 100 students were served by the AIL program. 88 of these are documented in the office of instruction, 48 of them are documented in Zangle.
From this administration report, it appears that 88 equates to "almost 100" students. The true facts appear on page 2, section IV:

It should be noted that the students served by Adventures in Learning represent a highly mobile population. As a result only 48 students had both pre and post tests in order to look a a full year's growth.

The reality is that although the AIL contract called for 100 students minimum, AIL and the District could only account for 48 students. AIL was paid over $91K anyway. This to a woman who is fighting to keep public funds away from private companies. The conclusion that the AERO office arrived at, based on the academic evaluation, is found below:

The AERO office concluded that there was no statistical difference between those students who were tutored by AIL and those who were not. Yet Busby took over $91K anyway. In addition, Busby was issued an additional contract for the 05-06 school year with a contract amount of $77,000 from July 1st 2005 through December 31st 2005. She received a contract for over $140,000 for the entire year.

Like many other liberals, Busby does not appreciate having her actions exposed to the light of day. Since I dared to question AIL's performance during several Board meetings, Busby had her attorney send threats to me and the administration:























Stokes never clarified what "lies" were being told about her client or how it was being "derogatory" to question this expenditure of public funds. On the September 5th memo, Stokes complains that I claimed that Busby was paid $91,000 for tutoring services. The fact that her contract specifically calls for "tutoring services" apparently escaped Ms. Stokes.

The contract with AIL highlights the hypocrisy that the recall proponents and their status quo supporters epitomize. Their goal is to stop public funds from going to private businesses unless the private business is run by one of their own. The threats from Busby's attorney are also typical of this crowd. Busby's ex-board mate Karen Teja also filed a suit against her own district while she was a sitting board member. The goal is secrecy for their actions, which never tend to serve the public good.

As the Alliance for Quality Public Schools supports Jan Tanner and Albert Gonzales, one has to wonder what personal benefit the leaders of this group would gain by having these two idea-lacking people on the Board.

2003 Board Guidance

One of the complaints that anti-reform/anti-improvement advocates level against the D11 Board members who were elected in 2003 is that we never had a vision. They complain that we never gave guidance to the District or to the two superintendents who served under us.

Shortly after Sandy Shakes, Eric Christen, Willie Breazell, and I were sworn onto the Board of Education in 2003, Shakes read a short memorandum which was titled "Board of Education Guidance." This memorandum is found below:


Immediately after Shakes presented this guidance, the status quo Board members, (Karen Teja, Mary Wierman, and David Linebaugh), accused us of ignoring the will of the public by not asking the public if we could present this guidance. These 3 union purchased Board members had never heard of the idea of Board members having ideas before. They had spent years on the D11 Board and had never presented ideas of their own. They would simply vote the way the administration or their handlers would instruct them to vote. The notion of Board members actually presenting concrete thoughts and guidance was just too much for them to handle.

The issue that the status quo Board members had with this guidance is that it was not developed through a committee process. In fact, these statements on the memorandum were a continuation of the campaign promises that each of us made in 2003. They were a public commitment by the new Board members to lead the District exactly where we said we would lead the District should we be elected.

Those who are running the recall campaign against Shakes and Christen have never presented clear reasons for their campaign. As has been shown in other postings, one of the main reasons for the recall is a personal vendetta. Another reason is that these status quo proponents are upset about the fact that the 2003 Board has actually moved forward on the agenda that we promised to implement. For status quo Board members who ran D11 for decades, the success of reform in D11 would highlight the abject failure of these people over years and years. This is just too much for these self-serving people to deal with.

Despite the objections of the do-nothing crowd, and even despite the political wranglings between Shakes and Christen for 2 years, both of these Board members have been instrumental in moving forward with each of the points in the guidance memorandum.

As to #1 in the memo, the Board implemented a site based directive in May 2006; Shakes and Christen voted "aye." For #2, Shakes and Christen both voted for a new employee evaluation system for the entire district. In addition, both voted for a new school-based performance compensation program for the district. For #3, several new charters have been approved with the votes of Shakes and Christen, and a magnet Montessori program was implemented with their support. For #4, this again is addressed in the site based directive. Monies will first be allocated to the school sites before administration takes its share of the public dollars. For #5, Dr. Norm Ridder had his staff develop a Comprehensive Academic Achievement Plan (CAAP) for the 2004-2005 school year. (Dr. Sharon Thomas actually attempted to take credit for developing a CAAP, but this was not the case). #6 is also addressed by site based management. Teachers will have a much stronger voice in the operation of their school buildings as this management system is implemented across the district.

The question still remains: why the recall? Shakes and Christen, along with Breazell and I, have moved forward on our campaign promises. Have there been fights and struggles along the way? Absolutely. These are extremely important issues. These issues cause emotions to run high, especially for those of us with children. However, despite the overwhelming status quo forces aligned against us, we have made progress that has never been seen before in D11. After the damage inflicted on D11 by Mary Ellen McNally, Lyman Kaiser, Lynn Peterson, Karen Teja, and Mary Wierman, it is amazing that we have moved this far this fast. Rather than waste hundreds of thousands of public dollars on recalling 2 Board members who have kept their campaign promises, the public needs to demand that this group of failed D11 Board members (all of whom have participated in the recall effort), admit their failures and allow D11 to become the highest performing school district in El Paso County, as it should be.

The cost of Revenge (so far)

The cost to the public of the D11 recall continues to rise. The unreimbursed cost to El Paso County so far, according to Clerk & Recorder Bob Balink, is about $20,000. The cost to D11 is in the neighborhood of $200,000 and rising. That is just the cost to hold the election.

In addition to the public's cost to hold this recall election, D11 has incurred legal expenses related to the recall. To date, those expenses equal $42,000. They will continue to rise. No explanation was given by D11 law firm Holmes, Robert, & Owens (HRO) as to how D11 racked up $42,000 in legal fees in only a 2 month period.

According to the HRO bill, D11 was charged $31,118.00 for August alone. If one uses the average HRO hourly rate, this equates to 124 billable hours in August for the recall question alone. This amounts to over 3 straight weeks of 8 hour days by HRO to work on the recall issue alone. What work was being done and who ordered HRO to do that work?

For September, the $11,363.00 bill amounts to 45 additional hours at $250/hour on the recall question. Again, what legal work was being done by D11? This legal bill, which is paid by the taxpayers, does not include the legal bill that El Paso County incurred on the recall issue. That bill is also being paid by the taxpayers.

Mary Ellen McNally and her hit man Anne Oatman Gardner are to be thanked for these continually rising costs. All of this for a personal vendetta that McNally holds towards Sandy Shakes. Shakes refused to believe that McNally was to continue to run D11 since, as McNally told Shakes, John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann would "do as they are told" since McNally and her group of liberal admirers "got them elected." Although as a past D11 Board member herself, McNally did nothing about a declining academic environment and went through 3 superintendents in 4 years, McNally still feels that she actually has the right to give direction to D11 staff and Board members. Self important people like McNally and her male counterpart, Lyman Kaiser, are dangerous when they continue to force their shallow beliefs on an entire district. Both did immeasurable harm to D11 as Board members, yet both actually believe that the District cannot survive without their failed ideas.

Although the $42,000 seems small when compared to D11's $481 million annual budget, that is the cost to pay one school teacher for one year's work. The $200,000 for the ballot question could fund 5 teachers. D11 will spend 6 figures in less than one year after the recall election to elect more board members. McNally's personal grudge outweighed the importance of using D11 funds to educate kids. To this date, neither McNally nor Oatman Gardner can list one benefit to the D11 community from this recall effort. Public tax dollars are being wasted to fund the egos of 2 very reckless and dishonest women.

Big Bucks, Small results

The median income for Colorado Springs is just under $40,000. When most people go to their places of employment, they are expected to "do their jobs." Most people have a measurable way of determining whether they have performed their jobs or not. And most people would not hold their jobs long if those measurements of performance indicated that they were not producing results.

The following are incomes for several top administrators in School District 11. The amounts are inclusive of base salary plus benefits.

2006-2007 $100K earners

Attendance Services: $107,583

Instruction: $190,000 (approx)

Curriculum alignment: $101,547

ARCA: $102,819

CQI: $109,036

Special Ed: $111,226

Athletics: $105,000 (approx)

Superintendent: $251,047

Community Relations: $107,491

Business Services: $196,129

Budgeting: $113,523

Procurement: $100,000 (approx)

Fiscal Services: $103,010

Maintenance & Ops: $110,000 (approx)

Security: $101,589

Transportation: $100,474

Human Resources: $110,000 (approx)

In addition to these amounts, D11's 66 principals earn over $90,000 annually in salary plus benefits.

These salary expenditures for D11's top paid administrators are included in D11's huge 2006-2007 budget. The total budget for the 06-07 school year is $481,050,130. That is almost 1/2 billion for this school year alone! Of that total, approximately $142,600,000 is set aside for capital projects, leaving $339,000,000 to educate kids. In comparison, the budget for the entire city of Colorado Springs is in the neighborhood of $260,000,000.

In light of this massive expenditure of public funds, and in light of the salaries of the District's top paid personnel, one is left to wonder why any of the District's 29,000 students are not being educated sufficiently. One has to wonder how math proficiencies can remain below 20% for minority students and around 30% in 10th grade for white students. Where are the big ideas coming from these high-paid administrators? Where is the leadership?

The D11 community is pumping nearly 1/2 billion dollars into D11 this school year alone. That equates to $16,500 per student when capital funds are included. Removing capital funding from the equation, D11 has the operating funds to spend $11,650 per student per year. Why is the District not approaching 100% proficiency in every area with these budget numbers?

According to county election records, D11 administrators regularly provide financial contributions to school board candidates who support the status quo. There appears to be a fear among these 6-figure earners that they might have to work hard for these large salaries. Instead of taking the lead to provide answers for stagnant performance, these public servants fight change. It's all about living off of public funds while failing to uphold the public trust.

The D11 community needs to know what is happening with 1/2 billion dollars of its money each year. 6-figure salaries demand 6-figure results. The facts show that this is not happening.

Jimmy can't read, and John don't care...he's a poor kid anyway (sung to the tune of Jimmy Crack Corn)

One of the biggest areas of debate in D11 is whether there should be reform or whether the District should maintain the status quo. The 4 of us who were elected in 2003 contend that the District needs to change to improve. The 3 board members elected in 2005 claim that the status quo is good enough.

The 2 charts below illustrate the schools in D11 that did not make their performance goals for the 2004-2005 school year.

Out of 41 elementary schools, 22 did not meet their performance goals for the 04-05 school year. Of the 13 D11 middle schools, 10 did not make their goals. Of the 10 tested high schools, none made their goals for that school year. The 04-05 statistics are relevant here because John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann were elected in the fall of 2005. Their campaign began during the 04-05 school year. At a campaign debate in October 2005, the candidates were asked what they would change in D11. Gudvangen's answer was very simple and to the point: " I can't think of anything that I would change." 42 of 64 schools did not meet their performance targets, and Gudvangen could not think of a single area that needed to improve in D11; not one.

Gudvangen's 2 running mates did not offer much more than did Gudvangen. Hasling thought that it would be helpful to have Hispanic translators at Board meetings. The obvious follow-up question should have been, "How will that help student achievement?" Sadly, that question was never asked nor answered. All 3 agreed that D11 needs more parental involvement. None of the 3 ever offered any ideas on how to make that happen.

A search of D11 Board meeting minutes since the 2005 elections will indicate that the 2005 candidates have offered exactly 2 ideas between the 3 of them since they were seated. Hasling offered up the idea to cap student enrollment at Doherty, her son's high school. Gudvangen has asked for a pay raise for D11 support employees. As for the statistics above, none of the 3 feel that anything needs to change to address that issue.

It is fairly easy to guess which candidates Gudvangen and his cronies will support for the recall election in December. Gudvangen and Hasling both participated in a liberal group called Alliance for Quality Public Schools. The group supports candidates Jan Tanner and Albert Gonzales. Tanner stated in the Colorado Springs Gazette that she wants to move slow if she is elected. She believes that big decisions need to be decided with 7-0 votes of the board. She never defined "big decisions." This "unanimous vote" requirement puts Tanner squarely in the Gudvangen/Hasling camp of doing exactly nothing to improve D11. Gonzales was quoted in the Independent as claiming that he wanted "reform," but then stated that he saw no reason to change anything in D11. Gonzales said that he wanted to be a voice for minority students in D11 because Willie Breazell, who is black, is not qualified to speak for minority students because he received campaign funds from local businessman Steve Schuck. Schuck, ironically, gives tens of thousands of dollars annually to minority students in the Pikes Peak region who need help with tutoring, computers, and general educational needs. Gonzales apparently believes that talk is more effective than action. Gonzales's wife happens to be the supervisor of math for D11. She has been in her current role as D11 math proficiencies lingered around 6% for black students and 11% for Hispanic students in 10th grade. It is not clear if Gonzales believes that this is the type of voice he wants for minority students in D11.

As a reminder of where D11 was when we were elected in 2003, the following charts speak volumes:

Again, Gudvangen and his voting buddies cannot think of a single thing in D11 that needs to be changed or improved, with one exception: they believe that the Board makeup needs to change because the 2003 Board members have had the guts to highlight this dismal performance. Gudvangen and Hasling have actively supported the recall effort against 2 of their colleagues, and they and Mann have publicly called for Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes to resign. They are desperate to fill the Board with 2 more status quo colleagues.

Gudvangen served for 8 years on the Harrison District 2 school board. He was legend for blaming the low performance of that district on the income and color of the students. Gudvangen and his ilk believe that the color of a child's skin and the income level of a child's parents determine the ability of that child to learn how to read or perform math. The following charts show the disparity in ACT and SAT scores between white students and minority students in D11.

People like Gudvangen and Hasling look at these statistics and claim the statistics prove that minority kids cannot learn. Therefore, they conclude that there is nothing that school districts can do to improve the test scores. Their strategy is to simply do nothing to help these students improve their lot in the world. Although Gudvangen and Hasling spout the typical school board mantra that we should "educate all kids," that mantra comes to a dead stop when it comes to actually doing something to educate all kids. Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann are staunchly opposed to school choice. They vehemently object to allowing the parents of these minority students to take their kids to another school outside of D11 to attempt to give their children a fighting chance. Although liberals agree that minority students cannot be educated like white students, they certainly understand the economics of school financing. They want to keep those minority students in the district to get the thousands of state dollars that go along with those students.

The fact is, minority students can learn to read and write and perform math. Schools around the country have proven that to be true. The problem in D11 is low expectations and zero accountability. As long as there are weak board members such as Gudvangen and Hasling, accountability in school districts will never be a reality. As long as administrators worry more about covering for fellow administrators than they do about educating kids, there will never be true accountability.

Union Facts

The Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA) is the local arm of the National Education Association (NEA). Each local union is assigned a Uniserve representative, who is a full time employee of the NEA. The Uniserve representative has the job of ensuring that the local unions follow the marching orders of their national daddy. The Uniserve representative also has the duty of ensuring that local dues get forwarded to the state and national level for use in supporting liberal causes across the country. D11 teachers each pay approximately $720 annually to the union. Approximately 60% of these dues are pushed to higher headquarters for political activities. D11 teachers will automatically have their money removed from their paychecks for union purposes unless they order the school district to withhold those funds. Teachers only have a 10 day window to opt out of the union dues. If a teacher accidentally misses the window, the union will not refund their money.

To obtain more information about your local union and its NEA sponsor, visit www.unionfacts.org. This website is full of information about the union and its political activities. This website contains interesting information on the union, such as this quote from an Oregon union leader: "The major purpose of our association is not the education of children, rather it is, or ought to be the extension and/or preservation of our members' rights." While the union purchases school boards across the nation, its leaders readily admit that its mission has nothing to do with educating kids.

One of the issues that the union keeps in the forefront of the public debate on education is the issue of teacher pay. In fact, union bosses have made an agreement with Colorado Governor candidate Bill Ritter that if he is elected, he will attempt to mandate that all teachers in Colorado, no matter their skill level or ability, will make no less than $40,000 annually. What the union does not advertise to its own membership is the wages of the union bosses, who are not in the classrooms and who openly admit that they do not worry about educating kids.

The NEA has 941 full time employees. These are not teachers, these are union employees. (There are 2,731,419 dues paying members of the NEA). Of the 941 union employees, 417 make over $75,000 in annual salary. In fact, the top 10 salaried NEA employees earn over $200,000 per year in compensation. Their compensation is listed as follows:


Name Title Total Compensation
Reg Weaver Nea President $ 438,920
John Wilson Exec Director $ 336,925
Lily Eskelsen Nea Secty/treas $ 329,378
Dennis Van Roekel Nea Vp $ 318,823
Marilyn Rogers Regionaldir $ 225,488
Carmen Quesada Director $ 224,010
Kevin Howell Cio $ 220,719
Andrew Linebaugh Director $ 217,692
Cynthia Swann Project Dir $ 216,544
Nelson Okino Manager D $ 215,599

These top 10 earners live a life of luxury off the backs of hard working teachers all across the country. Even with these salaries, NEA leaders offer nothing of substance to the issue of education in this country. The union spends more on left-wing causes than it does on anything related to education. The list of liberal groups that receive forced union dues monies include:

Human Rights Campaign ($15,000)
National Women's Law Center ($5,000)
Rainbow/PUSH Coalition ($5,000)
Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network ($5,000)
Democratic Leadership Council ($25,000)
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation ($40,000)
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute ($35,000)
Economic Policy Institute ($45,000)
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center ($75,000)
People for the American Way ($51,000)
Fund to Protect Social Security ($400,000)
Rock the Vote Education Fund ($10,000)
Floridians For All ($249,000)
Alliance for Nevada's Working Families ($250,000)

In 2004, the union spent $65.5 million -- nearly 20 percent of its entire budget -- on "contributions, gifts and grants" that largely funded left-wing and non-education-related causes, including drives to raise the minimum wage and campaigns to kill Social Security reform. As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted, its financial disclosure forms "expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students."

Additional facts that can be found on the unionfacts webpage include the following:

And the NEA isn't afraid to align itself with shady organizations to achieve its goal of killing reform. It gave a large grant to a group called ACORN, which has been tied to voter fraud in a dozen states, government-grant fraud, and even union busting. The purpose of the money was simply listed as "NCLB" - No Child Left Behind, the legislative bane of the union's existence.
That the NEA would give money to ACORN -- and nearly $250,000 of its members' money to a 2004 political campaign in Florida run by ACORN and beset by allegations of voter fraud -- makes sense in light of the groups' shared radical philosophy. Both organizations were profoundly influenced by "Rules For Radicals" author and self-avowed Marxist Saul Alinsky, whose teachings advocated that education union organizers not let teachers "fraternize with the enemy" because "distance helps you polarize the issue." The "singleness of purpose" a union organizer must have, wrote Alinsky, is "the ability to build a power base."

It's all about power. This is the same organization that spent $200,000+ to purchase the 3 D11 school board seats in 2005. The union is about protecting its political funding source. While the teachers work hard in the classrooms to educate kids, the union leadership squanders those teachers' hard earned money to finance their own bloated salaries and their left-wing political causes. The union agenda is made clear each year at the annual conventions. Following are some of the union's top priorities, which can be found at www.eiaonline.com.

F-2. Pay Equity/Comparable Worth. The Association supports all efforts to attain accurate and unbiased forms of job evaluation and to raise the pay of those jobs that are presently undervalued. The "market value" means of establishing pay cannot be the final determinant of pay scales since it too frequently reflects the race and sex bias in our society.

-1. Peace and International Relations. The Association urges all nations to develop treaties and disarmament agreements that reduce the possibility of war. The Association also believes that such treaties and agreements should prevent the placement of weapons in outer space. The Association believes that the United Nations (UN) furthers world peace and promotes the rights of all people by preventing war, racism, and genocide. The Association supports the U.S. Institute of Peace, which provides publications, information, programs, training, and research data in developing peacemaking and conflict resolution skills.

B-69. Home Schooling. The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state requirements. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used. The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.

A-11. Use of Closed Public School Buildings. The Association believes that closed public school buildings should be sold or leased only to those organizations that do not provide direct educational services to students and/or are not in direct competition with public schools.

* NBI 33 was approved. It creates a committee to explore creating a website to defend public education against negative propaganda in the media. The voice vote produced a significant number of "nays," undoubtedly EIA readers who like negative propaganda in the media.

* NBI 37 passed, after the provision to organize a march on Washington was removed. The same delegate introduces a march on Washington NBI every year, but not always for the same reason. I think she might sell shoes on the side.

* NBI 39 – The anti-war measure was not considered by the delegates. Two-thirds of the delegates voted not to even bring it up for debate.

The delegates also debated amendments to NEA's legislative program:

* Legislative Amendment 6 was approved. It puts NEA in opposition to the use of voter ID. A delegate was kind enough to point out to me that NEA secret ballot elections, such as the ones that took place yesterday and today, require the delegates to produce photo ID before they can vote. Fraud in a vote for a one-year seat on the NEA Board of Directors is apparently more worrisome than fraud in a vote for President of the United States .

* Legislative Amendment 8 was defeated. It would have required NEA to work to repeal the No Child Left Behind Act, but the NEA Positive Agenda essentially precluded this amendment from passing.

* Legislative Amendment 10, restoring daylight savings time to its original dates, was defeated.

* Legislative Amendment 17 was approved, placing NEA in opposition to "federal legislation giving financial incentives or pay to teachers based solely on the subjects or fields in which they teach." The rationale for the item stated such programs "serve to advocate NCLB's priorities and create a hierarchy, thus breaking the union."

5) Upcoming Business. These new business items are on (the) agenda:

* NBI 46 calls on NEA to publish an article on the implications of patronizing Costco. Well, they can always head on over to Sam's Club.

* NBI 59 directs NEA to investigate the test-handling practices of the Educational Testing Service and other Praxis testing companies.

* NBI 64 is one I love. It calls on NEA to "develop guidelines to assist state affiliates in the resolution of conflicts between state boards of directors, state elected officials, and the executive director." It was submitted by a delegate from South Carolina . It couldn't possibly have anything to do with this, could it?

* NBI 71 indicates some delegates are worried about the recent actions of Warren Buffett. The item directs NEA to solicit the opinion of its members "on the positive and negative impact of large-scale philanthropy as it relates to public education." Start with the Annenberg Challenge.

* NBI 79 requires NEA to form a task force to explore the idea of a U.S. Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing every child in America a free, high-quality, public education. I always thought a Constitutional Amendment that said this would be really, really great: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But at least I know something like this could never make it into the Constitution.

Other business to be transacted:

* A proposed amendment to NEA's policy statement on charter schools would add a provision requiring a public hearing before a charter application is approved, at which teachers, school employees and the community can testify as to "the positive and negative impact of the charter on the authorizing school district."

* The debate on resolutions will take place tomorrow, including one referencing mayoral takeovers, one opposing the creation of charter schools as a remedy during a state takeover of schools and school districts, one on home schooling that requires passing assessments (not just "taking" them), and, of course, the B-10 resolution that has caused such an uproar over the last few weeks.

Locally, the CSEA fights all efforts to allow the general public (or even the school board) to know what is happening in union negotiations. Even though teacher salaries comprise approximately 2/3 of the district's annual operating budget, the union demands that the negotiations process occur in the dark. Your public funds are being discussed, but you the taxpayer are not welcome at the table. Since this union spent $200,000 to elect their board members in 2005, it is highly unlikely that these board members will disobey the union bosses by advocating for an open contract process.

Since the unions control such a large portion of our public tax dollars and our schools, it is important to understand what they stand for and what they want to do with our schools.

It's Only Fair

Since 2003, D11 residents have been kept well informed as to who supported the 4 candidates who were elected to the Board that year. However, the local press has shown no interest in the backers of the 2005 slate, even though they spent over $1 million to purchase those seats. It is only fair that the public gets to know the people behind the money that was spent on D11 in 2005.

Pam Zubek wrote an article for the Gazette in November 2003 that gave background information about supporters of the reform slate that was running for the Board. Zubek mentioned John Seaman and Ed McVaney, and she told the public that these men supported vouchers and school choice. Following are exerts from her article:

Republicans Edward Mc-Vaney, founder of software giant JD Edwards and Co., and communications executive John Saeman and his wife, Carolyn, have given more than $15,000 to four candidates. Willie Breazell, Craig Cox, Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes have received $1,900 each from McVaney and $1,900 each from the Saemans.

Each of us received $1900 from these supporters, and $15,000 was given in total by these men. That was considered a big story. Both McVaney and Seaman are well known for their support of school choice. Both men are on the record as believing that choice strengthens our schools, and that it gives parents leverage over their childrens' education. Both the Gazette and Citizen's Project publish candidate surveys prior to each election. In those surveys, all 4 of us candidates (Willie Breazell, Eric Christen, Sandy Shakes, and myself), publicly declared our support for school choice. To this day, our opponents decry the influence of what they call, "Denver money" in that race. The question is, what is it that concerns them? All 4 candidates claimed to support choice, and the Denver supporters sent money to the 4 candidates who supported choice. The logical outcome, of course, is that we would be influenced to support choice, which we already do. Based on election results in El Paso County from 1996 (the last time a voucher amendment was on the ballot), the majority of El Paso County residents also support choice. What is the issue?

Another supporter of ours who gave money to our campaigns is local businessman Steve Schuck. A recent Gazette article dispelled rumors that Schuck is out to destroy public schools. In fact, Schuck supports choice and any other program that helps kids to get a quality education. Again, the big fear here is that Schuck might influence 4 people to support choice when those 4 people are already inclined to do so.

Now let's look at the supporters of the 2005 slate. The big money in 2005 came from the teacher's union, Tim Gill, Pat Stryker, Jared Polis, and the Progressive Majority. Of those 5 people or entities, none reside in Colorado Springs. The Progressive Majority and the headquarters of the union are based in Washington D.C. What do these entities stand for and what influence do they want to have over their D11 Board members?

First of all, let's compare the donations from 2005 to 2003. The teacher's union contributed at least $200,000; Tim Gill contributed $150,000; Pat Stryker added $70,000; Jared Polis threw in another $70,000; The Progressive Majority paid over $250,000 to fund these campaigns. The $1900 that was a "scandal" in 2003 looks pretty paltry in comparison. So what do these groups and people stand for and why are they buying seats in D11?

Union leaders from across the nation have proudly proclaimed that they do not represent kids or parents. They represent teachers. The union has always contributed to Democrat Party and liberal causes whether they have anything to do with education or not. The union has recently joined forces with the AFL-CIO to increase its ability to be militant. The union wants to control the local school districts, so they must control the boards. Unions are adamantly opposed to any type of reform that would improve the state of education. They are opposed to rewards for high performing teachers, and they are opposed to removing poor performing teachers. If teachers are removed from the system, then the union loses their union dues, which are used to fund liberal causes. The agenda of the union is much more important to its leadership than is the education of kids. Despite its ability to purchase school boards across the country, the union leadership has never offered any ideas on how to improve our struggling public schools. The school board members who are supported by union money are required to be void of ideas as well (another blog post will deal exclusively with the agenda of the union).

Tim Gill not only supported the 2005 slate, but he was a major contributor to the current recall effort against Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen. Remember, this homosexual activist lives in the Denver area. What is his interest in D11? What is Gill all about? The following information comes directly from his own website:

The Gill Foundation, established in 1994 by software entrepreneur Tim Gill, seeks to secure equal opportunity for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression. The Gill Foundation is the nation's largest funder focusing primarily on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights.
Tim is an avid snowboarder, parasailer and hiker, recently reaching the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro. Tim and his partner Scott Miller live in Denver, Colorado.
While the bulk of the (Gill) Foundation's grants go to glbtq causes, some are awarded to other entities such as libraries, children's charities, and arts organizations. Gill feels that it is important to make "straight folks aware that the organizations they know and love also get gay support."
Gill, who is gay, founded software-maker Quark Inc. in 1981 and pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars after selling his stake in 2000. He poured roughly $200 million into the Gill Foundation, begun in 1994 to support gay and lesbian causes.
In recent years, he has become more active politically, supporting Democratic Party causes. (Denver post – 11 October 2006).

What influence does Gill have over John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann? Why did he pour so much money into the 2005 D11 race, and why is he funding the recall effort? What do his 3 candidates owe him for his $150,000 donation?

Pat Stryker is a Ft. Collins billionaire. What does she stand for and what causes does she support?

Pat Stryker was born into one of the wealthiest families in the country. Forbes has estimated her net worth at more than $960 million...Stryker gave ($100,000) July 10 to Coloradans for Fairness and Equality, which is campaigning for a measure that would give gay couples many of the benefits and responsibilities afforded to married couples. It is on the ballot because of legislative action.

What interest does Stryker have in D11, and what influence does she have over the 2005 slate in return for her $70,000?

Jared Polis is a member of the Colorado Board of Education. Of the 3 liberal millionaires who helped to purchase the 2005 slate, Polis has the closest background to having an interest in education. According to his website:

Jared Polis FoundationMission: We encourage individuals and organizations to be proactive by supporting and pursuing education and technology in Colorado communities.

From the Boulder Daily Camera 7/1/06: And, 2-1/2 years into a relationship with a male partner he declined to name, Polis says he'll be supporting a domestic-partnership measure this fall. That he is gay — no surprise to family and friends — hasn't been widely known, but Polis says he's visible enough in the community that he's made "a personal decision to share this."

Why is Polis interested in D11 to the extent that he spent $70,000 here? What ideas does he want his 3 candidates to implement that will improve D11?

The Progressive Majority is a D.C. based organization that strives for a liberal majority at all levels of government across the country. While local liberals complain about "Denver money" in 2003, where is the outcry over the money from this organization, which espouses the following on its website:

Progressive Majority has a clear and bold purpose: To elect progressive champions who will help change the direction of this country. We will do this by building a nationwide member network that will provide much-needed early support to progressive candidates - helping them to win elections and bring our values back into the halls of government.
Progressive Majority is your one-stop connection to innovative and idealistic candidates working to build a practical — and progressive — future. Progressive Majority will foster the emergence of a talented "farm team" of future progressive leaders and decision-makers. We know it's not going to happen overnight. But it can happen with disciplined strategies, determination and yes, your dollars.
It's time to turn up the heat. Progressive Majority members need to lead the way against the anti-worker, anti-family, anti-environmental agenda being pushed by conservatives in power. But that's not all. Progressives must also challenge and embolden Democrats to fight against the conservative tide at the local and state level across the country.

Progressive Majority uses its website to brag about the victory of Gudvangen and Hasling in 2005.

Who are the 3 liberal millionaires who paid heavily to control the D11 school board:

• Tim Gill was the founder of software company Quark, where he made a fortune that Forbes Magazine estimated at more than $425 million.
• Pat Stryker was born into one of the wealthiest families in the country. Forbes has estimated her net worth at more than $960 million.
• Jared Polis is a member of the state board of education. His parents founded the Blue Mountain Arts greeting card company, and he helped them create an Internet site that was sold in 1999 for $900 million.

If we are to have a discussion about the influence of "outside money" in D11 politics, why do we not include this money and these people and organizations in the conversation? If 4 proponents of choice are in danger of being influenced to support choice by donations of $15,000, then what is the influence of $200,000, or $150,000, or $70,000 on the 2005 slate? What do these donors want for their money, and how do their wants match up to the wants and needs of the parents of D11 students?

That's not exactly right

The local Colorado Springs rag sported an article in its 5 October 2006 edition in which it claimed that 2005 D11 school board candidates Carla Albers, Reginald Perry, and Bob Lathen had been "found guilty" of campaign law violations. The article quoted complainant Gerald Fornander, a local left-wing activist, as claiming "victory" with his complaint. Unfortunately for Fornander, the actual legal ruling does not confirm his account.

Fornander filed two complaints against the conservative trio. The first complaint charged that they should have reported the expense for certain mailers, and the second charges that the three failed to file timely reports. The ruling is below:

48. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the Defendants failed to report as contributions any money spent on the mailers they were aware of. While the amounts paid to Response Technologies was slightly higher than the corresponding amounts reported as contributions, the basis for this discrepancy was not revealed by the evidence, and there is insufficient evidence that the Defendants knew of the discrepancy. Again, the Defendants relied on Mr. Broerman to tell them how much was being spent.

49. The evidence shows a passage of time from when the mailers were sent and the time the Defendants reported the cost of the mailers as contributions. The evidence does not establish, however, when it was that the Defendants learned of these costs from Mr. Broerman to enable Defendants to report them. The evidence is insufficient to show that any of the Defendants was late in reporting the costs of the mailers as contributions, once they knew of them.

Conclusions of Law

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the ALJ enters the following Conclusions of Law:
First Claim for Relief: 2. Here Claimant alleges that the expenses for the mailers were electioneering communications that should have been reported by the Defendants per Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, Section 6(1). That Subsection provides:
Any person who expends one thousand dollars or more per
calendar year on electioneering communications shall submit
reports to the secretary of state in accordance the schedule currently
set forth in 1-45-108(2), C.R.S.,...
It is Complainant's apparent position that the cost of the mailers should have been reported to the Secretary of State in accordance with Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, Section5(3) as they were coordinated with or controlled by the candidates. Without reaching the coordination or control issue, the ALJ granted the Defendants motion to dismiss this claim. The motion was granted because the mailers failed to meet the definition of "electioneering communications" as they were not distributed within sixty days before a "general election."
Second Claim for Relief: Here the Complainant alleges that Carla Albers, Bob Lathen and Reginald Perry and/or their candidate committees failed to file correct or timely reports with the El Paso County Clerk's Office listing contributions and expenditures as required by Section 1-45-108)1), C.R.S. Section 1-45-108(1)(a)(l) states:
All candidate committees... shall report to the appropriate officer
their contributions received,...Expenditures made, and obligations
entered into by the committee...
5. The Complainant alleges that the Defendants failed to timely report the costs of the mailers as contributions. Irrespective of whether the costs for the mailers are properly seen as "contributions," the evidence is insufficient to show that any of the Defendants failed to report the costs of the mailers they were aware of, or were late in reporting the costs of the mailers once they knew them, see Findings of Fact 48 and 49 above. Therefore, the Defendants are not responsible for a violation of Section1-45-108(1) as alleged in the Complainant's second claim on the basis of failing to report contributions.

Appropriate Sanction
Colo. Const. art. XXVIII Section 2(9) provides that, if the ALJ determines that a violation of Section 1-45-108 has occurred, such decision shall include any appropriate order, sanction, or relief authorized by Article XXVIII. In determining the appropriate sanction, it is important not to lose site of the fact that the cost for the mailers appeared on the Defendants' reports as contributions. The evidence is insufficient to show that any of the Defendants failed to report any expenses for the mailers once they learned of them. The fundamental fact of Mr. Cranberg's involvement in the campaign was apparent to anyone who read the campaign disclosure forms. The error of Defendants Albers and Perry was in not disclosing the costs of the mailers as their own expenditures. This is a technical violation that does not merit the imposition of a fine.

Anyone who reads this ruling will be astonished at the blatant lies printed in the Independent article.

Fornander filed his complaint on the grounds that he was merely a concerned citizen who wanted to ensure an open and honest campaign. The campaigns of John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann have never fully disclosed the amounts and origins of the $1 million plus that was poured into their campaigns, yet Fornander has never questioned this. While these three liberal candidates will dispute any figure that is quoted in relation to their campaigns, they will never disclose the actual amount spent to purchase their seats. If any campaign was filled with deceit and secrecy, it was certainly their's. They allowed their supporters to misrepresent their views to buy their seats, and to this day they attempt to smear three honest and honorable people who ran a clean and professional campaign.

There exists an interesting Legislative Declaration that is a part of Colorado finance law. Section 1-45-102 C.R.S. states:

The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that large campaign contributions to political candidates allow wealthy contributors and special interest groups to exercise a disproportionate level of influence over the political process; that large campaign contributions create the potential for corruption and the appearance of corruption; that the rising costs of campaigning for political office prevent qualified citizens from running for political office; and that the interests of the public are best served by limiting campaign contributions, encouraging voluntary campaign spending limits, full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions, and strong enforcement of campaign laws.

Amendment 27:
Section 1. The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that large campaign contributions to political candidates create the potential for corruption and the appearance of corruption; that large campaign contributions made to influence election outcomes allow wealthy individuals, corporations and special interest groups to exercise a disproportionate level of influence over the political process; ...

Is Fornander really just a concerned citizen who wants to see a clean election process? If so, why did this declaration not lead him to look at the Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann campaigns? The Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA) is one of the largest special interest groups in the area, and that organization contributed $200,000 to their campaigns. There was also big money from individuals in the Denver area. Homosexual activist Tim Gill kicked in $150,000; liberal State Board of Education member Jared Polis contributed $70,000, and Pat Stryker from Boulder added another $70,000. The Progressive Majority from Washington D.C. brags on its website that its six figure contribution helped to keep the D11 Board seats out of conservative hands. It is interesting that Fornander never concerned himself with the big money that poured into the hands of the liberal candidates. That tarnishes his "concerned citizen" image just a bit.

Fornander had asked the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to fine Albers, Lathen, and Perry, $50 per day from the day of their alleged violations, which would have cost each of them over $12,900. The fact that both of Fornander's complaints were found to be baseless means that no fine was levied.

The technical violation that the ALJ mentioned in his final paragraph dealt with the listing of "Contributions in Kind." Albers and Perry listed these contributions on line 12 of a financial disclosure form, but they did not also enter those contributions on line 18 of the same form. The intent of the law is to enforce disclosure of information. As the ALJ concluded, the amount was obviously disclosed on line 12. Fornander did not even make this particular disclosure charge in his formal complaint. He waited until closing arguments to make this complaint as he saw his other two complaints approaching a dead end. The ALJ saw this complaint as trivial, as would any logical person.

The Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann campaign reached a new low for gutter politics during the 2005 campaign. Their supporters cannot yet seem to find their way out of that deep gutter in their attempts to destroy three honorable people.

Just get Along (too well)

In both of my campaigns for D11 school board (2001 and 2003), I suggested that the incumbents were not independent thinkers who actually understood the issues or who understood the seriousness of the state of education in D11. My view was that these were people who were hand-picked by the union to maintain the status quo. My view was also that they would simply take the recommendations from the administration on each issue that was placed before them and they would vote accordingly. I do not believe that leaders and representatives of the public should take their marching orders from an administration (or private union). By law, it is supposed to be the other way around.

In a prior post titled "Just get Along," I pointed out that since the 2003 election, the D11 board has not been as "dysfunctional" in terms of voting as some might claim. Most votes have passed with a supermajority since 2003. However, no one can claim that there has not been independent thinking among the four of us who were elected in 2003.

The voting records of the D11 boards from 2000 through 2003 show that my viewpoint about "lockstep" voting was right on target. The 00-01 board consisted of Sherry Butcher, Bruce Doyle, Karen Teja, Lyman Kaiser, Delia Busby, Waynette Rand, and Mary Wierman. The 01-02 board saw the addition of David Linebaugh (replacing Butcher).

The vote totals from 00-01 are as follows:

Total votes on main motions:130

Unanimous votes: 112

6-1 votes: 15

5-2 votes: 2

4-3 votes: 1

An astounding 99% of all votes taken were passed by a supermajority (5-2 or greater). Only one vote during the 00-01 school year was by a split 4-3 vote. A full 86% of all votes were unanimous. D11 had a declining enrollment, increasing dropout rate, and dismal test scores, and no one on the board could step out against the status quo.

* Note: Some of the unanimous votes were by 6-0 or 5-0 margins as Delia Busby and Karen Teja are listed in the minutes as being "absent" or away from the dais for votes on many occasions.

The 01-02 vote totals are not much different.

Total votes: 114

Unanimous: 105

6-1: 6

5-2: 2

4-3: 1

Astounding once again that none of the board members would stand up for the students and taxpayers of D11 by voting against the status quo. 99% of all votes were carried by a supermajority. The board member who voted out of step the most was actually Delia Busby. Coincidently, Busby's seat was the only one that was not purchased by the union at the time.

The 02-03 vote count was even worse.

Total main motion votes: 82 ( apparently a slow year)

Unanimous: 75

6-1: 6

5-2: 1

4-3: 0

100% of all votes taken were passed by a supermajority. Not once could a group of board members bring themselves to show leadership. Instead, they meekly voted on every issue exactly as they were told to do. That is exactly why D11's performance continued to remain flat.

A review of the minutes from 00-03 show that the majority of votes taken during this time period were on resolutions. It appears that the boards back then felt that it was easier to resolve to do something than to actually do anything. Resolutions are safe - they tend to make board members feel good without them having to actually make any hard decisions. These same board members are supporting today's recall effort. They apparently believe that their do-nothing record is what D11 needs to dramatically improve and to avoid having its schools taken over by the state for failure to meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP).

In my view, there is such a thing as getting along a little too well.

Just get Along

Liberals in Colorado Springs like to complain about the lack of representation for their viewpoint at the state capitol. They say that it is healthy to have diversity in representative government so that all sides are heard.

When it comes to school boards, liberals suddenly feel threatened by diversity. Traditional school boards are made up of unambitious individuals who are serving on the boards strictly at the pleasure of the teacher's unions. Union money has always determined the makeup of the D11 board until 2003. The entire slate was elected without any of the four new board members receiving either union money or the union endorsement. Trouble could not be far behind.

Opponents of the four of us who were elected in 2003 claim that we don't know how to get along, and that we don't have the best interests of the District in mind. They say that we don't work well with others and that we will only vote for our "personal agendas." Because we actually engage in debate and because we stand up for the principles for which we were elected, we are labeled as "dysfunctional" and ineffective. Traditional school boards are expected to sit quietly and to vote however they are instructed to vote by either the administration or their handlers. The fact that there are board members on the D11 board who do not follow those unwritten rules has caused heartache since 2003.

The board members who were elected in 2005 campaigned on claims that the 2003 board members were disruptive and unwilling to work with their colleagues. To this date, they continue to make those claims and they use these statements to justify their support for the recall effort against Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen. Do their claims have validity? Are the board members who were elected in 2003 really unwilling to work with others? Let's look at the record.

The voting figures below are totals from D11 Board votes since the 2005 election. These are votes on main motions (as opposed to amendments, which simply change main motions).

Since the new board was seated in November 2005, there were 101 votes on main motions through June 2006 (motions which direct policy or procedure or adopt resolutions).

Vote analysis:

Unanimous votes: 65

6-1 votes: 15

5-2 votes: 16

4-3 votes: 5

(64% of all votes were unanimous. Votes of 5-2 or greater = a “supermajority.” 95% of all votes were by a supermajority).

Read that again: 95% of all votes were carried by a supermajority. Just because board members actually argue and debate issues, it does not mean that policy is not being created and progress is not being made. The claim that certain board members won't work with others is simply wrong.

What about the vote totals prior to 2005? How did the totals stack up from the 2003 elections to the seating of the 2005 board members?

Total votes taken from the seating of the 2003 board through the end of the 2003-2004 school year: 85 votes on main motions.

Unanimous: 62

6-1 votes: 9

5-2 votes: 5

4-3 votes: 9

72% of all votes on main motions were unanimous; 89% of all votes were by a supermajority. The fact that only 10% of the total votes were carried by a 4-3 margin does not scream "discord." Let's move on to the 2004-2005 school year.

Total votes on main motions in 04-05: 135

Unanimous: 93

6-1 votes: 16

5-2 votes: 10

4-3 votes: 16

68% of all votes taken during the 04-05 school year were unanimous. 88% of all votes taken were by a supermajority. Only 12% of all votes were carried by a 4-3 vote.

If any board of any type voted together on every issue 100% of the time, the public should be worried. Our form of government was designed to allow the arguments and fights to occur in the board rooms and legislative chambers around the country instead of the streets. It is called a representative republic. Despite the claims of the detractors, the D11 boards moved things along just fine over the past 3 years.

Of special note is the fact that Tami Hasling has voted against most of the main platforms of her campaign. She voted against an administrative hiring freeze, even though she promised to cap administrative spending. She voted against site based management, even though she campaigned for it. John Gudvangen also voted against putting more money in the classroom, even though he ran on that platform.

It makes quite a difference when the facts on board votes are compared to the rhetoric. It hardly appears "dysfunctional" when 88% or more of all votes are carried by supermajorities each year.

Evaluating the Eval

Sharon Thomas received 2 evaluations prior to her being fired as the D11 superintendent. Her firing is cited as one of the reasons that the group "Chaos" wishes to recall Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen. While never listing any of Thomas's accomplishments or proposed actions to improve D11, Chaos members have said that the firing was wrong because it cost the D11 taxpayers just over $400,000. This monetary loss to the District was a result of a Golden Parachute that was voted into Thomas's contract by ex-Board members Karen Teja, Dave Linebaugh, and Mary Wierman. Shakes voted with those 3 at the time, but quickly discovered that Thomas could have played a lead role in "The Emperor's New Clothes." She brought nothing of value to the District.

As noted in a previous post, Shakes tried to get the mid-year evaluation process off the ground in December 2005. Board President John Gudvangen refused to allow this evaluation to occur, and Thomas herself complained that it was not fair to evaluate her at this point. It was also noted in an earlier post (Oh, is that the reason?) that Thomas agreed to evaluation metrix in a letter to Shakes, but then publicly complained about never receiving any evaluation metrix.

The Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB) was hired to assist D11 in its superintendent search after past superintendent Norm Ridder took a job in Missouri. CASB was hired against the votes of myself, Christen, and Willie Breazell. CASB claimed that it could conduct a thorough search for $32,000. The CASB representative claimed that CASB could provide D11 with top notch candidates even though the Board had a reputation for being contentious. I had proposed using a local search firm which was in the business of conducting international searches for CEO's. This search would have been conducted at no cost to the District, but that offer was rejected by the D11 Board majority.

CASB only returned 9 finalists to D11. This was a very poor search that was anything but thorough. CASB issued a litany of excuses for their sub-par performance, one of which was a "contentious board," the exact issue that CASB promised that it would overcome. CASB not only failed in its superintendent recruitment efforts, but it also failed in its contractual follow-up. As part of its contract, CASB was to assist D11 with setting goals for the new superintendent. The following is from a memorandum that CASB provided to the D11 Board:

CASB never followed through with this performance plan meeting. Its efforts were a very wasteful failure. Despite CASB's failure to perform its job, Thomas did acknowledge that she was in receipt of evaluation criteria for her first year on the job:

Thomas understood the criteria, and she and her supporters claimed that Thomas was the perfect match for D11. Thomas had worked both as a D11 employee and as legal counsel for the District. As noted in the Colorado Springs Independent:

As for Thomas holding onto her job, some community observers give her good odds. "She can hit the ground running," said Mary Ellen McNally, Chairwoman of Friends of District 11. "[Getting fired] is not even on her list of problems."

McNally is now one of the recall leaders, and she now claims that Thomas "never had a chance to get to know the district."

Thanks to McNally and her friends at Chaos, there is a perception in the community that Thomas was only evaluated poorly by Shakes, Christen, Breazell, and me. Let's see if that is the case. Thomas made it very clear that she wanted to have every aspect of her evaluation open to the public. She went so far as to make an Open Records request for all Board member correspondence regarding her performance. Below is the open records, or CORA, request from Thomas:

All members of the Board of Education,
As the Custodian of Records for the District, I am notifying you that I have received a Records Request from Superintendent Dr. Thomas as follows:
1. Copies of all e-mails and other written communications between two or more Board members relating to her
a. performance as superintendent generally, b. 2005-06 mid-year performance evaluation, or remediation plan, or, c. selection or longevity as District 11's superintendent.
To clarify, this request includes all written communications in which one or more of these topics is addressed or discussed. The relevant time period is March 1, 2005 through February 15, 2006.
2. All written communications as are described in paragraph 1 immediately above that occur after February 15, 2006, be preserved.
3. In addition, this is to serve as a request that all e-mails and other written communications between any Board member and any other person relating to her
a. performance as superintendent generally, b. 2005-06 mid-year performance evaluation, or remediation plan, or, c. selection or longevity as District 11's superintendent.
4. All written communications as are described in paragraph 3 immediately above that occur after February 15, 2006 be preserved.
This request is two fold.
1. Written communications and e-mails that you have as described above from March 1, 2005 through February 15, 2006, please send to me prior to Wednesday February 22, 2006. Paper copies may be delivered to the Board's office in the Administration building or the District's Records Management Center. E-mails may be forwarded to me at keydl@d11.org.
If you do not have any records responsive to this request it is imperative that you reply to this e-mail stating so prior to Wednesday February 22, 2006.
2. From February 15, 2006, until notified otherwise by myself, all written communications and e-mails received as described above are to be preserved by you.
If you have any questions or would like assistance in this process please feel free to reply to this e-mail or give me a call at 520-2075.
Deb Key, Custodian of Records Archives and Records Center Colorado Springs School District 11 719-520-2079

The employee evaluation system in D11 allows for one of 4 ratings in several different categories. As can be seen on the below evaluations, these ratings are "Unsatisfactory," "Progressing," "Proficient," and "Advanced." Keep in mind that Thomas was making a CEO salary of $170,00 per year plus benefits, which launced her cost to the District to approximately $262,00 per year. One would expect that a CEO making that type of salary would "hit the ground running" to earn many more Proficient and Advanced ratings than Unsatisfactory or Progressing ratings. New teachers begin their careers as student teachers. They also begin new jobs in new districts as probationary teachers. When one hires a Chief Executive, such as a superintendent, there should be a very high threshold of expected performance.

The following is a roll-up of the final evaluations from all Board members:

Out of a possible 147 individual ratings (7 Board members X 21 categories), Thomas received 56 Unsatisfactory ratings and 46 Progressing. She was found to be below average in 102 of 147 possible ratings by 7 Board members. Further, the next chart shows Board of Education & Superintendent relation indicators.

Out of 35 possible ratings (7 BOE members X 5 categories), Thomas received 20 Unsatisfactory ratings. She only received 2 Excellent ratings.

After reviewing the evaluation of Thomas, the question about the purpose of the recall becomes very interesting. Why would any board retain a low performing superintendent like this? Was the Golden Parachute a waste of money? Of course it was, and the board members who were responsible for that should be held to account and Thomas should immediately return those funds. Sadly, as the performance evaluation makes clear, more harm would have fallen upon D11 by allowing Thomas to remain with the District. She would have continued to draw a large salary that she was not earning, and she would have continued to harm morale.

Why is it that the Chaos group is so upset over the removal of a superintendent with this type of an evaluation? Why do they want to have this type of person leading an organization with the major task of educating kids?

What do the employees want?

Since the election of 2003, there has been much discussion in D11 about the "agendas" of the 4 Board members who were elected that year. Those who oppose us continue to claim that we are not looking out for the best interests of the District and that we are creating "chaos" and a climate of fear.

In the spring of 2003, which was before the 2003 elections, Jim Shipley & Associates conducted a staff survey of D11 employees. Shipley is the force behind the Continuous Quality Improvement system that was implemented in D11 back in 2000. The purpose of the survey was to give the Board and senior administration the pulse of the District from an employee standpoint. The following results are taken directly from that survey:

Let's look at some of the results of this survey and compare those results to the "agendas" of those of us who were elected in 2003.

From the first page, "make the Master Agreement (union contract) more kid friendly;" "trim down the size of Central Office;" "totally reprioritize financial resources;" "all sites are empowered but held accountable;" "return to site-based decision making;" "hold principals and teacher teams accountable;" "DAAC & BAAC not being used for school improvement;" "CSEA (union) gives negative information;" "Change;" "District 11 is right for change;" "We need bottom up decision making;" "There is a lack of focus in the District."

If those of us who were elected in 2003 are really all about destroying D11, then we find ourselves in interesting company. All of the comments about site-based management and bottom up decision making are directly addressed by our adoption of a site based model. We ran on the promise of moving D11 to a site based system and we kept that promise. We have been saying that the Master Agreement is all about adults and not at all about kids, and employees agree. We have been demanding accountability at all levels, and employees agree. We have said that our DAACs and BAACs, which are accountability committees, are not aligned with state statute and that they are not effective in their current configuration. D11 employees agree. The final comment about a lack of focus falls directly on the shoulders of Lyman Kaiser, Karen Teja, Mary Wierman, Dave Linebaugh, and Waynette Rand, all of whom were on the Board at the time, and all of whom are involved in the recall effort against Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen.

Page 2: "HR department is not good;" "We need less focus on adults and more focus on kids;" "the mind set of staff needs to come into the 21st Century;" "we have no way to measure people's performance;" "HR is the District's biggest problem;" "We need to get rid of dinosaurs;" "Too many leaders with individual agendas."

One of our stated reasons for moving towards a site based system is to allow school staffs to have a say in who is selected to work in that school with that school team. As it now stands, Human Resources (HR) limits the candidates for school positions. Most candidates are completely screened out prior to the school site ever having a say. The staff at each school has a better understanding of who it is they need in their buildings than does an administrator downtown. In my view that is based on experience and feedback from employees, HR works on a good-old-boy system where the best and brightest are not necessarily the employees who will get hired to fill the job openings. It is common knowledge around D11 that those who have connections with the right administrators are those who will make the final cut. The comment about focusing on kids instead of adults is a comment that Christen repeats over and over again. It is a problem that staff obviously recognize as well. The comment about a lack of performance measuring device has been rectified by those of us who were elected in 2003. The employee evaluation system is not perfect, but until we were elected, an evaluation system never existed. The dinosaur comment came from an employee, not any of us. However, I concur. Finally, the last bullet was made during the reign of the aforementioned Board members who now accuse us of having "personal agendas." It appears that the "agenda" issue was a problem in D11 long before we came along.

Page 3: "Too many layers of gatekeepers;" "no one seems to want to be accountable;" "District demographics are changing and no one seems to acknowledge this;" "Schools need to take responsibility for results;" "the Board frequently falls below the line;" " the union is an impediment to student achievement."

As to the layers of gatekeepers and the information flow, those of us from 2003 ordered an administrative hiring freeze. We agree that there are too many bureaucrats who interfere more than they help. Black and Hispanic students constantly fall well below the performance of white students, and their graduation rates are far below those of whites. We hear nothing but excuses as to why this problem is not being addressed; apparently our employees notice this lack of focus on the changing demographic as well. Schools will be held accountable for results under the site based system that we approved. Employees felt that our predecessors on the Board were necromancers. Again, these are the same ex-Board members who now rally the public against the current Board. If the union disagrees with the final statement, I would welcome a list of ideas and accomplishments that the organization can point to from the past 30 years that illustrates how the union has improved public education in D11. After running D11 for 30 years, union leadership must certainly be able to list numerous ideas that they have implemented (through their chosen Board members), that have directly impacted student achievement.

These survey results lay waste to the claims of those who continue to say that we are out of touch with the employees of D11. These comments are the exact comments and concerns that each of us has expressed over and over again. The big difference between us and prior boards is that we have actually taken action to address many, if not most, of the concerns that were expressed prior to our election.