Un-credible -er

My last post about Patrick and Lisa Mieritz and their dishonest campaign to destroy charter schools contained a copy of an email exchange between me and D11 CFO Glenn Gustafson. In his email, Gustafson said that the DAAC and school board empowered the Mieritz's to charge forward on their anti-charter campaign. First of all, I certainly never voted to have staff waste time on the "cost" of charters. D11 charter students are D11 students, so their "cost" is the same as every other student. The fact that they cause state dollars to be directed away from the central administration bureaucracy does not mean that they "cost" more than other D11 students.

The claim that the DAAC somehow empowered the Mieritz's to wage their anti-choice campaign is not entirely true. Wendy Chiado is the chairperson of the DAAC Budget Committee. She agreed that her committee would look at the impact of charters if time and resources allowed. Chiado and her committee determined that time and resources were not available to the committee, so they declined to research the impact of charters on the district. For the record, Chiado ran against the reformers in 2003, so she is no right-wing mouthpiece for reform. Since the Budget Committee did not feel that this charter impact study was a top priority, the Mieritz's decided to concoct their own unilateral report. Neither the DAAC nor the DAAC Budget Committee approved or endorsed this phony report. Lisa Mieritz actually attempted to force her report onto the Budget Committee record, but Chiado refused to allow this. When DAAC Chairman Patrick Carter backed Chiado's decision, Lisa Mieritz threatened to sue them both! The Mieritz's appeared together at the May 2006 DAAC Executive Committee meeting where they threatened to file a lawsuit because the committee would not endorse their untruthful and "uncredible" report. Here you had the Mieritz's using the standard liberal practice of threatening a lawsuit to force people to give credibility to a report that they simply made up.

As a friend with a deep understanding of economics wisely asks, what would be the cost to society if these charters did not exist? How many of these kids would have dropped out of school altogether? What would that economic impact look like? If D11 is so "efficient," as Mieritz claimed, then why is the district a closed monopoly instead of a competitor in an open education market?

Another question that the Mieritz's avoid like the plague is this: Why do charters exist? Are they being created out of thin air and then are kids being forced into them? Are D11 students being taken from their neighborhood schools and are they being dragged into charters, or do charters exist because parents are demanding alternatives to their existing (and inefficient) neighborhood schools?

The Mieritz's are not fighting against some faceless entity called "charter proponents." They are fighting against parents who are fighting for the future of their children.

“Un-credible” works just fine

Lisa and Patrick Mieritz are two wealthy property owners who live in School District 20. They are both very ardent opponents of parental choice in education. They claim that if parents are given choices of where to send their own children to school, then the local neighborhood school district will be harmed by a loss of education funds.

Like most liberal elites, the Mieritz’s do not hold themselves to the same standards that they expect other parents to follow. Although the Mieritz family lives in D20, they choice their children into the International Baccalaureate program in D11. It is OK if they exercise their right to choose for their children, because wealthy liberal families deserve benefits that other families do not.

The Mieritz’s are particularly opposed to charter schools. Charters are public schools that are run by business or community leaders through their own boards. Of the top five highest performing schools in Colorado, four are charters. Charters reflect the ultimate in parental involvement, as parents take the time to run these public schools.

Lisa Mieritz recently took out a full page ad in the Independent in which she continued her assault on charter schools. As always, Mieritz failed to back her argument with anything resembling facts. Mieritz tries to argue that it is more expensive to educate a child at a charter school than at a traditional neighborhood school. The facts belie this silly claim. By state law, charter schools only receive 95%-98% of the total per pupil operational funding (PPOR) as do traditional public schools. While traditional schools receive about $6,000 per student for PPOR from the state (with additional funding coming from local taxes), charters receive 2%-5% less than that. The 2%-5% goes to the home school district for administrative costs. In other words, the administration still receives $150-$300 per charter student directly into the school district’s administrative budget, even though the charter is footing the cost of educating the student.

Mieritz claims that it costs $1.2 million more to educate 250 charter students than it costs to educate the same number of traditional school students. False. Whether a student attends a traditional school in D11 or a D11 charter, the state still gives the district $6000 per student. The difference is that the charter only gets to keep 95% -98% of that money, and the district gets the rest.

Mieritz offers some very strange and bizarre arguments against charters. Read the following from her ad:

“The mechanism by which charter programs bankrupt schools districts is simply to eliminate the savings these districts earn from their economies of scale. Due to its great efficiency—achieved by spreading administration, supply, food-service, security, and other costs across many students—D-11, for instance, is able to ‘conserve’ about $3,100 per student of its $6,000 in per pupil funding. This $3,100 typically goes back into D-11 to increase programming and ‘choice’—music, sports, AP, IB and other district-wide programs.

Charter programs ‘cost’ taxpayers this savings—they ‘extinguish’ this savings. Charter programs take not only the full state’s $6,000 per-pupil-funding out of D-11, but also this $3,100 in per-pupil ‘scale-savings’, so that for every charter student, D-11 has $3,100 less to support D-11 programs than if that student had been a regular D-11 student.”

Mieritz loves the term, “economies of scale,” although she has no idea what that means. She claims that D11 “saves” money on traditional schools because it “saves” $3100 per student. What she means is that rather than spending the $6000 PPOR on the student, the district keeps $3100 for administration. That is not a good thing unless one is a bureaucracy-loving liberal such as Mieritz. Mieritz then falsely claims that the charters get the entire $6000 PPOR. She knows that this is a lie, as I pointed out above. What bothers Mieritz isn’t that charters take money away from other students, but that charters take money away from administrative salaries and perks. Look how Mieritz plays with the facts above. On one hand, she says that traditional schools “save” $3100 of their $6000 PPOR. She then claims that charters “take” the full $6000 plus an additional $3100 “savings” to make it seem as if they are costing over $9000. What?

Mieritz next argues that charters will hurt D11’s budget if they draw students TO the district. This argument is based on the fact that D11 is a declining enrollment district, and several years ago the board decided to make a budgetary decision that means that D11’s budget does not decline as quickly as the enrollment declines. The state authorized this budget trick to soften the financial blow to districts that are in decline.

Keep in mind that this budget decision was made by the board prior to 2003 when the reformers were elected. This highlights clearly that even Lyman Kaiser and Karen Teja, who led the charge for this budget decision, knew that D11 was losing students at an alarming rate long before the so-called “chaos” of the reform slate. This budget decision was a bad decision. Why not make the necessary cuts to the budget as the student population declines instead of delaying the budget decisions? Lyman’s board chose this route because the administration did not want to have to cut administrator positions. D11 big-wigs were certainly not going to cut positions for their friends and relatives, so they chose to take a delayed reduction in state funding, which is turning out to be a bad thing today.

Due to this short-sited budget decision, even if D11 adds students to its enrollment, the budget will decline slowly to its low enrollment point before increasing again down the road. Therefore, if the district turns around its enrollment, there will be a couple of years where the funding will not have caught up to the enrollment. In the mind of a Mieritz, it is better for the district to continue to decline than it is for charters to draw students back in because of a budgetary hiccup caused by a previous board. Regardless of the nature of this budget issue, it is not the fault of charters that it exists. Whether the enrollment in D11 increases because of charters or traditional schools, D11 will have the budget lag. Only a fool would argue that it is better for the student count to continue downward than to find a way to draw students back into the district.

Mieritz likes to claim that she is using D11 figures to boost her argument against charters. In an email exchange that I had with D11 CFO Glenn Gustafson, here was his opinion on the Mieritz’s and their “facts.”

-----Original Message-----From: Craig Cox [mailto:craigcox@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:20 PM
To: GUSTAFSON, GLENN
Subject: Work session

Glenn,

Just wondering if the data that the Mieritz's are going to be using to call for a closure of our charters was given to them by you or if you are getting ( or even believing) data that they bring forward. I know that you testified along side them at a state hearing, but they have a bad habit of scewing data. I just don't want to be making decisions based on data from someone who despises choice unless they are the ones making the choice. The definition of "loss" still doesn't cut it for me since we are talking about D11 schools and D11 students. Besides, now that we are moving towards site based budgeting, is it not true that every school that has students could be considered a "loss" to any other school that might have had a shot at those students?

If we are going to keep inviting the Mieritz's and providing them with a forum as if they are credible, maybe you can start inviting other opinions as well.

For the record, in my opinion, none of our charters has an inherent right to exist forever if they do not begin to perform. I just don't want the Mieritz's phony data to be a reason to close them.

Thanks

Craig

Subject:RE: Work session
Date:Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:26:25 -0600
From:"GUSTAFSON, GLENN"
To: "Craig Cox"

Craig,

Thanks for asking me directly, I really do appreciate it!

Let me set the record straight on some of these issues:

1. The DAAC Budget Committee, chaired by Wendy Chiado, presented a charge to the BOE last fall, and the BOE approved that charge, that included examination of the charter schools on district finances. I was opposed to the inclusion of this element in the charge.

2. Since the BOE did approve this charge, Becky Kluck and I prepared the following analysis that shows the economic impact on the approval of new charter schools on D-11 as a declining enrollment district (see attached). While I certainly agree that the money follows the students, this model, using CDE funding spreadsheets clearly shows that the unique nature of declining enrollment districts receiving approximately 25% PPR for new students and having to transfer 98% of PPR to the charter creating a short-term financial impact to the District. From my limited research, D-11 is hit hardest by this in the State of Colorado.

3. Lisa & Patrick took this information one step further by saying, in some twisted sort of logic, that the financial impact was my number plus a full PPR. The also extrapolated this to existing charters. Much to their frustration, I disagreed with this logic and refused to recognize it. At last Wednesday's BOE meeting, after a lengthy discussion on the phone, I informed Lisa and Patrick that if they distributed their latest "fact sheet", which I felt blasted me personally, I would refuse to talk to them without an Open Records Request.

4. While Lisa and I did testify at the Capitol on the same day last year on this issue, our testimony was totally different. I was asked to suggest a positive mechanism to help school districts impacted by charter schools. I suggested a mechanism, that while not accepted, became the seeds for additional resources in D-11. Lisa, on the other hand, was immediately dismissed as her solution was to eliminate charter schools. I didn't even know she was going to be there and, believe me, she came across as un-credible (is that a word?).

5. While I am angry with Lisa and Patrick for their continuing crusade against charters and their twisted logic for doing so, I didn't empower them. The BOE, the DAAC and the DAAC Budget Committee allowed this to happen!

I really appreciate your asking me straight up! You know that I support charter schools as a healthy and innovative choice and reform in public education. Our charters would back that statement up. I ignore, as much as I can, of what Lisa and Patrick say. They aren't credible enough to warrant much of my time and while they are parents, they are neither taxpayers or policy makers in D-11. However, there is a shred of truth to the point that there is a short term impact to the District given our declining enrollment situation. As each child takes 98% of the PPR, we are left with fewer kids to cover the overhead cost of the District.

Hope this helps!

Glenn

Yes, “un-credible” works just fine when it comes to the Mieritz’s and their “facts.” As Glenn pointed out, they use “some twisted sort of logic” in their efforts to defeat parental choice, unless they are the ones making the choice.

When parents choose to keep their students out of their home district altogether by home schooling or permitting them out of the district, the district looses the entire $6000 PPOR. Based on D11 data that is actually true, Lisa, there are 10,000 students who live within D11 but do not attend its schools at all. That equates to a loss of $60,000,000. That is real money. People like the Mieritz’s will continue to drive families away from D11 by fighting against the very type of competition that will force the district to improve. If D11 had its own TCA or Cheyenne Mountain Charter Academy, students would be drawn back to their home district. The budget would begin to increase as the student enrollment increased, and the quality of the school would help to push other D11 schools in a positive direction.

Wealthy liberals like the Mieritz’s seek only to protect their wealthy friends in administration. Their concern for students is non-existent. They want the privilege of choice to be left to wealthy families such as their own, and they will invent any tall tale to advance their anti-choice agenda. Charter schools are not hurting D11's budget; poor performing schools are driving families away from their neighborhood schools. THAT is hurting D11's budget, and until the apologists for mediocrity, such as the Mieritz's, begin to acknowledge that fact, D11's budget will continue to suffer losses year after year.

Un-credible, indeed.

More Money for Central Admin

Maybe D11 board member Sandra Mann is on to something. When one reads the quotes from current board members or staff members, maybe it would help to be inebriated before actually trying to figure out what they are saying.

The Thursday, April 5th Gazette carried an article about how D11 is canceling the site based management project that was initiated in May 2006 and voted favorably on by 6 of 7 board members. Although John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Martini Mann all campaigned for a site based approach to running the district, and although Gudvangen and Mann voted to adopt the site based plan, Gudvangen now says that times have changed. His quote in the Gazette actually said this, "This was born out of a highly politicized, highly politically charged, highly egocentric environment. That’s what got us to this point and we just inherited that." (Take your first drink here).

Egocentric: regarding oneself and one's own opinions or interests as most important. The term is derived from the Greek ego, meaning "I"; a self-centered person with little regard for others.

What Gudvangen means when he declares that he voted FOR site based during a highly politicized environment is that there were people on the board with him who kept pointing out that he campaigned FOR site based management when he was running for office. What he is saying is that he was somehow forced to vote for site based management back then because people kept pointing out that he campaigned FOR site based management. Now there is no one on the board and (literally) no one in attendance at board meetings, so now the fearless leader (take your second drink here) can safely back away from his campaign promises and his vote. What he inherited was 2 consecutive elections where the electorate said loud and clear that they want to push more money to the classrooms and spend less money on administration.

The most interesting word in that statement is "egocentric." This person (Gudvangen) cannot allow a board meeting to pass without spending five to ten minutes talking about himself. The "egocentric environment" to which he refers must certainly exist with Gudvangen at the center of "ego." A site based approach to governing a school district is the least egocentric approach to governing that one could imagine. Each school building staff, and the parents of each school, have a say in their own governance. There could be nothing further from egocentric that anyone could imagine. If Gudvangen is referring to those of us who voted for site based when he used the word egocentric, how could that even make sense? (take third drink here). What possible self-serving purpose could there be to spreading the power and decision making authority down to the lowest level? That benefits the schools and parents, not the board members, which is exactly the problem that Ego-Gudvangen has with the whole concept. Like most liberals, Gudvangen feels powerful because he is a board member. His life revolves around being on boards, and if power is distributed to the schools, his self-worth will diminish. As always, Gudvangen has it all backwards. The current D11 board is very egocentric, and that is why site based has to go.

Terry Bishop's old friend and part-time $50,000 project manager Barbara Day really cleared up the site based issue (take fourth drink here). After spending eight months on the job, the best she could tell us is that "D11 already does that."

Need an analysis of your schools strengths and weaknesses? Already doing that.

Need a specific focus? Already doing that.

Need improvement plans and goals? Already doing that.

Performing at a high level of achievement? Um, well, just skip that one.

Giving the schools a say in their curriculum choices? Let's come back to that one.

Allowing the schools to have a say in their employees and leaders? Well, Dave Schenkel assigns those people based on a time-tested cronyistic and nepotistic formula.

Allowing the funding to follow the students so low attendance schools will make efforts to improve performance and attract students? CFO Glenn Gustafson once said that this is a brilliant idea, but since the board changed hands, he has to now say what is politically correct rather than what is factually correct.

One fact that Day highlighted is that D11 administrators are always "already doing that," but they never complete what they are supposedly doing. If they are really analyzing data of each school, and if a central administrative approach to managing the district is the best approach, then why has the administration not yet come up with solutions for constantly under performing schools? If the current admin heavy approach is the best approach, then why has the administration not told us how to stop the student flight from D11? If "more administrators" is always the solution to every problem, then why hasn't the administration solved the horrific math issue in the district, or the ever increasing drop-out problem, or the teacher-absentee problem? This administration controls its $500 million budget with an iron fist, and it always has. Why is it always in the "studying-the-problem" mode and never in the "problem solved" mode?

The article points out that only one principal volunteered to pilot the site based program. That is probably because Bishop canceled all site based committees in December and the principals have no idea what their requirements will be in a site based model. D11 principals have no idea what project manager Barbara Day has been doing all year. Another likely reason that D11 principals don't want site based is because then the onus of improvement will rest squarely on their shoulders. It is much easier to receive one's marching orders from central administration than it is to develop a plan for one's own building. If principals fail now, they can blame central admin. In a site based model, they would have to accept blame for poor performance. Weak leaders want no part of that.

Take your fifth drink before you try to figure out what Day said at the end of the article. She attempted to repeat a D11 administration scare phrase, but she bumbled and stumbled and got it wrong. Her comment was this with regards to principals, "they want help with student achievement, not plumbing." Hey, Barbara, the catch phrase is supposed to go something like this, "Principals want to spend their time on student achievement, not plumbing." The phrase is supposed to scare principals into thinking that under site based, they will spend their days unclogging toilets and fixing their roofs. You see, the way it must work now is that when a school toilet clogs in the current heavy central admin system, a red light blinks in the D11 plumber's office and a plumber or clog-fairy is automatically sent to the overflow scene. When a roof springs a leak, a siren sounds down at D11 headquarters and a team of roofers is deployed. The principals, who are currently spending all of their time teaching in classrooms, never even know that a leak occurred or that a toilet clogged. Thanks to technology, the buildings automatically repair themselves, all because of a heavy central administration. No phone calls to place, no decisions or actions to take on the part of principals. They can continue to spend their duty days teaching in the classrooms along side their teachers.

If a heavy centralized approach is good and a site based approach is bad, somebody better explain when the centralized approach is going to start working, because that is what this district has always had. If anyone actually believes that Mary Thurman or Terry Bishop are going to tell principals and teachers how to educate their students, then the logical question must be, "What are they waiting for?" These two have both been in the district for several years, so why are they keeping their great advice to themselves?

As is always the case in D11, the board and administration will disregard the public on the site based issue. Just as today's Gazette pointed out, administrators and board members will take their marching orders from employees rather than the public. They will choose to do what is easy (and currently completely ineffective) rather than what will be effective but more demanding on principals.

As a final note, what did ego-Gudvangen mean when he said that "times have changed" since he voted for site based management? He voted to spend $250,000 for this project, and now he thinks he can simply say that he changed his mind? Where is Mary Ellen McNally? Where is Annie Oakley-Gardner? Gudvangen already spent $134,000 tax dollars on this project, and now he is going to flush it all away before he even knows if the approach will work? Sandy Shakes was recalled for changing her mind. The Friends of Mediocrity most certainly won't sit by quietly for this flip-flop. We know that they are not driven by politics, but by the interests of the hard working D11 tax payer. Bring me my petition, Annie Oakley. I'll sign this one with you.

The Ruling Class

Public school administrators and educators are solidly united in their opposition to parents having a choice in their children's education. The more children who attend a certain school district, the more money that becomes available to pay those administrators' salaries. It is much easier for a high paid administrator to fight against school choice for families than it is to work hard to provide a quality education for those families. Competent school leaders who know that they can deliver quality education to kids should not be afraid of choice, because they should know that parents will choose the good schools for their kids.

For obvious reasons related directly to quality, D11 administrators are adamantly opposed to parental choice. D11 administrators join their labor union allies in backing school board and legislative candidates who promise to fight any attempts by parents to choose a quality school for their children. Administrators are not brought into D11 based on their proficiency as educators; they are brought in based on who they know in the system who can get them a lucrative salary or contract with the district. The pot of taxpayer money that funds D11 is a large playground for the administration. The district takes nearly $500 million annually from the tax payers, but you will never find a cost analysis that demonstrates how these funds positively impact the education of our kids.

Surely the ruling class in D11 live among us and have a direct interest in the performance of our schools. Surely their kids are subject to the same education decisions that the rest of us have to endure. Surely the ruling class struggles with us to make ends meet, and surely they would not hesitate to educate their kids in Hunt, or Adams, or Mitchell, or any other D11 school. Surely you must be crazy if you believe any of that for a minute.

I have already listed on my blog the names of the 6-figure earners in D11. While most people are expected to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency when they earn their $40,000 salaries, these 6-figure earners have no such accountability measures, and they can continue to draw their salaries based on nothing more than a promise to do better next year. Where does the D11 ruling class live on the money that we, the tax payers, give to them each year?

The Superintendent of D11 schools, Terry Bishop, lives in a home in Academy District 20 with his wife, who is a D11 principal. Their home has an assessed value of $443,366. The Bishops also own a second home in Lewis Palmer District 38 with an assessed value of $283,480.
Deputy Superintendent for Instruction Mary Thurman also lives in D20 in a home valued at $595,244. Keep in mind that the academic performance of D11 has been anemic since Thurman has been in charge of instruction, but our tax dollars are providing her great comfort anyway, thank you.

Deputy Superintendent/Chief Financial Officer Glenn Gustafson lives in D20 in a home valued at $338,719. Gustafson is currently taking training to become a superintendent. Maybe this will boost his pay enough so that he can move further north with the Bishops.

How about head of contracting John Elliott? He was deeply involved in the D11 recall campaign, so he most certainly must live in D11. No, he lives in D20 in a home valued at $418,755. Maybe the recall was important to him because he understood that reform board members might expect competence from the district employees. That might have threatened his salary.

How about head of athletics Dave Eichman? Surely the athletics guy must be "one of us." Well, at least he lives in D11, over on the west side in a home valued at $467,837. Let's continue down the list of the D11 ruling class. Chuck Struck, Director of Fiscal Services, lives in Manitou D14 in a $337,567 home. Bill Bair, Director of Transportation, lives in D20 in a $250,980 home. Frank Bernhard, Executive Director of Facilities, lives in D20 in a $252,067 home. Mike Maloney, Director of Facilities, lives in D20 in a $226,085 home. Doug Burwell, manager of channel 16, lives in D38 in a $272,513 home. Dora Gonzales, D11 Math Chair, lives in a $343,472 west side home. Yes, she lives in D11. Her second house is also in the district. By the way, how are the math scores for that kind of money? John Keane, Director of Course Approval, owns 2 D20 homes, valued at $343,472 and $210,065. Robert Carubia, Director of Discipline, owns a $317,066 house in D38. Carolyn Gillespie, President of the Educational Support personnel in the district, lives in D11 in a $308,155 home. Marv Adams, EO representative, lives in Fountain D8 in a $311,792 home. Dennis Schultz, Executive Director for Information Services, lives in a $359,238 D20 home. Ray Caplinger, Director of Network services, lives in a $378,579 Ellicot D22 home. Joseph Morin, Print Shop manager, lives in a $299,624 home in D20. Louann Dekleva, Volunteer Services coordinator, lives in a $426,320 D38 home. George Noble, warehouse manager, lives in a $301,460 D20 home.

How about this one - Terry Bishop brought in Barbara Day from Arizona to be the site based management project manager. He is paying her $50,000 for this year on a "part time" contract. Prior to moving to Arizona, Day worked in neighboring Falcon D49, where she met then superintendent Mark Maksimowicz. They moved to Arizona together, but Day came back to be a "part time" project manager. First of all, nobody in D11 has any idea what the status of the site based project is. As project manager, one would think that Day would have a handle on the situation. While briefing the board at the last board meeting, Day was quite obviously at a loss to explain the status of the site based project. In fact, several schools were to be identified this week to pilot the site based program in the district beginning next year. To date, no schools have been identified. Keeping in mind that Day is supposedly being paid $50,000 to work part time (the average teacher salary in D11 is $45,000 for a 35 hour contract work week), Day and Maksimowicz bought a home in Monument together (just after the recall election) for $527,500. Both Day and Maksimowicz backed Bishop when he threw his hat in the ring to become the D49 superintendent 2 years ago. We can expect Day to receive a full time job in D11 next year for a six-figure salary, and we can probably expect to see Maksimowicz on the D11 payroll as a contractor or salaried employee about the same time.

What about poor ex-superintendent Sharon Thomas? How is she-who-was-picked-on by the meanie reformers living? She bought a house in D20 for $881,000 back in 1995, well before the D11 board liberals placed a $750,000 golden parachute into her contract. For the record, she has not returned any of the money from that parachute to the families of D11.

As for principals, at the middle school level, 5 of 9 principals live outside of D11, and at the high school level, 4 of 5 live outside of D11.

So what does all of this show? You will notice that your kids will never see the children of the D11 ruling class in their neighborhood schools. Most of them live in D20, or D38, or D12. While these aristocrats fight to keep you from using your own tax money on the school of your choice, they do not hesitate to use your tax money to send their kids to their schools of choice. Strangely, they rarely choose D11.

There is no law or policy that any D11 employee must live in the D11 boundaries. Only elected board members must live within D11 by state statute. The point is that these same D11 leaders who are living on the backs of the D11 tax payers, and who are fighting harder against parental choice than they are for academic excellence, are CHOOSING not to live in D11. While we are paying $500 million per year to allow these employees to live in nice homes in high performing school districts, they are using your money to lobby against your right to choose the best school for your child.

D11 board president John Gudvangen relishes his place among the elitists as well. He is sitting nicely in an Old North End home valued at $481,723. During a parent sounding board discussion a couple of years ago in front of ex-superintendent Norm Ridder, the topic of school choice came up. Gudvangen said that he opposed choice, and that those parents who are living in areas with under-performing schools "should have made better life choices for themselves and they would not have found themselves in this situation." In other words, those kids don't deserve any better than what they have. Gotta love that liberal compassion.

The American aristocracy is alive and well in D11.

*All home values collected from public records.

Rosey or Mikey?

Rosey O'Donnell has been in the news lately for her ignorant outbursts and tirades against her country. Typical liberal tripe. Barbara Walters has been forced to apologize and attempt to minimize Rosey's comments for a couple of months now.

It appears that state representative Mike (hey, honey, could you steal some more signs for me?) Merrifield is attempting to emulate the bloated liberal icon. His Democrat colleagues are now left holding the bag for the mouthy little man from Manitou Springs. In a well publicized email exchange with Democrat colleague Susan Windels, Mike said this:

Ouch, Mikey, a place in Hell for parents who chose to do what is best for their kids? Pretty harsh talk from the music teacher. To top it off, Mike was offended that his email exchange went public. Never heard of anything like that happening before, have we Mike? A big part of the recall campaign in D11 was built on emails, wasn't it? But this is different. Mike says that this is unfair because a conservative group released his email. Does that somehow change the content of the email? Apparently not since Mike stood by what he said.

The email above clearly highlights the true feelings of labor union purchased legislators and board members towards parents who want the best for their children. When the labor union chooses candidates to support, the candidates must have this type of mentality ingrained in their minds. There is a difference between "child centered" education and "school centered" education. Liberals believe that the school building is what matters if it is a traditional public school, while conservatives believe that it is the child that matters. Charter schools are public schools, but Mikey doesn't like them because they are not unionized. The labor union loses money on charter schools because charter teachers cannot be forced into giving up their paychecks for the labor union political activity. The less labor union political money, the less time that people like Mikey spend as elected officials. To people like Mike, it is all about being an elected official, not at all about doing anything to serve the public. It is about being in the ruling class and feeling important, not about helping kids to receive a quality education.

When I stepped down from the D11 board, Mikey said that I had no moral purpose, and that is why I did not stick around. Where is your moral purpose, Mike? Why didn't you stick around as chairman of your little committee? One little incident and you can't take the heat? Keep telling those parents that they are scum for wanting to get an education for their kids. Keep taking their tax money to pay your wages and put those parents back in their place.

This email from Mike should not be a surprise. He has always been a hate-filled, self-serving politico who has always placed his agenda above even the "little guy." The letter below is a part of a letter sent to the D11 board in 2005 by a then D11 support employee. This letter was sent to the entire board, not just me.

I was responsible for the volunteer/donation programs with Joel Hefley's office. I managed all donations of clothing, food, and reading time. I also worked the breakfast and lunch program for extra money. I have heard that the volunteer/donation program with Joel Hefley's office has been stopped since I left.

The week before I was suspended, Mike Merrifield called the school to speak with Marlys. She was out of the office at the time. He called several more times that day, and finally the last time she had just returned. I transferred his call to her office.

I had known Mr. Merrifield as a student at Coronado High School. He was my choir teacher there. I had made some small talk with him during one of his calls, reminding him that I had been one of his students. He was kind and said he remembered and asked how I was doing, etc.

After Marlys came out of her office, she told us, (Lisa and me), that he was mad that we had not asked him to volunteer, and asked if there were political reasons why we had not asked him. I responded that he could volunteer, just like those people from Joel Hefley's office, and that we did not discriminate. Marlys then asked me if I had heard or knew about the rumors regarding Merrifield and female students while he was a teacher at Coronado HS. I responded that I had heard the rumors, but didn't know if they were true or not. I figured that they were just high school students making things up.

I took Friday of that week off as a personal day. I was told later that Michael Merrifield's wife had a closed-door meeting with Marlys that day, and then she called me to tell me that I had been suspended.

Mary Hyde, my representative for ESP, told me later that she confirmed that their meeting had been about me. I still do not know the content of this meeting or how his wife would have had any reason to meet with Marlys with regard to me at all. Mary Hyde told me that Marlys had been reprimanded for her involvement, this meeting and others with Michael Merrifield and his wife, but I do not know any information about this situation. I can only surmise that somehow I lost my job because of this, and the other things that they sited were made up or trumped up. I believe that I would not have been on paid suspension since October 4,2004, if this were not true.

Mike and his now ex-wife (the same one who was caught on video stealing campaign signs on Mike's behalf) went out of their way to get this young employee fired for inviting Republicans into her school to read. As she pointed out, Mike could have volunteered as well, but he chose not to. As always, it is about Mike's politics, not about doing the right thing. I wonder where reservations should be made for people like Mike who pull this kind of stunt on young employees?

Notice the question that Marlys (who was the principal at the school) asked the employee when she completed her phone call with Mike. She wondered if the employee knew about the "rumors regarding Merrifield and female students while he was a teacher at Coronado HS." The employee told me what those rumors were all about. Coronado teachers know what those rumors were about, as do ex-Coronado students. Seems as if Mike had a reputation in the district, but as people so often do in this district, people simply turned a blind eye. Luckily Mike was no longer a D11 employee when I served on the board. maybe Mike can tell us what those rumors were all about.

Thanks for exposing your true colors, Mike. I know that your labor union masters are a little upset with you right now, but as long as you keep voting against the public that you are supposed to serve, they will keep funneling union dollars your way. Liberals rarely police their own. You were caught stealing, and now you have shown your hatred towards your constituents, but that's OK. You were always more important than the underclass anyway.