The D11 Fact Sheet

There is much disinformation and misinformation circulating around the School District 11 community. Much of this misinformation is being spread by those who are intent on maintaining the status quo. This blog will set the record straight and it will educate the public on the identities of these defenders of the status quo.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Clean Sweep

No one who is familiar with D11 ethics is surprised to learn that the administration has declared that Jan Tanner has neither violated the spirit nor the letter of the law with her decade’s old money making scheme with the school district. After all, look back just two years and remember how CFO Glenn Gustafson quickly declared ex-labor union boss Irma Valerio “not guilty” of felony theft of tax payer money after she stole funds from D11 and from her own union treasury. The district also declared itself clean after investigating its own practice of handing tax payer funded vouchers to at least eight employees and anti-parent board member Karen Teja, all while using tax payer dollars to fight against vouchers for not-so-connected moms and dads across the district. To give the appearance of validity to the district’s investigation of itself, it publicly states that it brings in “independent” legal experts to look into the matter in question. In the case of the Teja vouchers, and in the most recent case of the Tanner pizza dynasty, D11 brought in Denver area attorneys to declare that the district and leftist board members in question were completely clear of any wrong doing. Take that “independent” opinion with a healthy grain of salt. If the law firm hired to find Tanner to be clear of wrong doing was hired by D11 law firm Holmes, Roberts, and Owen (HRO), just as was the law firm hired to find D11 clear of wrong doing in the Teja voucher scandal, where is the independence? If D11 or its attorney is paying another law firm to look into D11 matters, then D11 is essentially the client of the “independent” law firm, and law firms who want future business tend to base their conclusions on the wishes of the client.

So why would D11 have an interest in declaring that Tanner did nothing wrong? The answer is simple – D11 is also in the wrong. Former Procurement head John Elliott, whose wife Linda ran the political campaign for Tanner and who has been friends with the Tanners for years, handed the Tanner businesses a very lucrative pizza contract that lasted more than 10 years without ever placing that contract up for bid until two months ago. That is much more than a small oversight. The fact that Tanner never publicly disclosed her conflict of interest shows clearly that she knew that she was in the wrong for several years. Neither Elliott nor Gustafson have been asked by Superintendent Nick Gledich to address their roles in this matter, and the pliable Gazette reporter who covers (for) D11 can’t quite get the nerve to dig deeper. Having written that, I will give reporter Sue McMillin credit for objecting when the D11 board adjourned into executive session to discuss the matter of elected official Jan Tanner at the November 4th work session (for those who watch video of D11 board meetings, D11 has edited out McMillin’s objection).

By law, public bodies must meet in open session, with very few exceptions. One exception that a public body may use to meet in private is to ask for legal advice on a specific issue. Board member Tom Strand made the motion for executive session on November 4th, and in his motion, he declared that the purpose of legal advice was to receive advice on conflict of interest. If the board simply wanted advice on the definition of conflict of interest, there was no legal authority for them to have retreated into executive session. The advice must be for a specific question. Since Gledich released a statement following the meeting that Jan Tanner was clear of wrong doing, that specific advice must have pertained to Tanner. If the board was seeking advice regarding Tanner’s actions, then why was Tanner in the executive session? Further, since Tanner was the topic of discussion, the BOE had no legal authority to discuss her actions in private. Tanner is an elected official, which means that she is not covered by the “personnel” exception to open meetings laws. HRO gave that very advice to our board when questions about Eric Christen’s background were raised by Karen Teja. The tape recording of the executive session from November 4th is public record not protected by state law. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Sue McMillin to request a copy of that tape.

Don’t be fooled by the praises heaped on D11 by the Gazette editorial of a few days ago. The editorial pointed to an “unqualified” opinion given for D11 financial accounting - which is a good opinion. This was simply an external audit, which is conducted annually. External audits are focused only on the accounting practices used by the district. The auditors determine if Gustafson is using proper accounting practices to keep the district books. He is. Every column lines up properly and 2+2=4 in each instance where it should equal 4. Unfortunately, Gustafson and his board allies have refused to allow for an internal audit to be conducted on D11’s books. His reason is that this will be costly. Internal audits are not the friend of someone with something to hide. These audits are the friends of the owners of D11, who are the tax payers. Internal audits are those that turn up fraud and waste if they exist. Why is Gustafson so opposed to them, and why does Gustafson consistently refuse to speak out against the Irma Valerios and Jan Tanners and Karen Tejas? Gustafson has an interesting history with D11, and this history might provide clues for the answer to that question.

Spydra has even more on Tanner’s inflated income from her Inflated Dough business with D11. Read it here at http://spydrasweb.blogspot.com/2009/11/ill-apologize-in-advance-for-regularly.html.

4 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

"Gustafson has an interesting history with D11, and this history might provide clues..."

Do tell. Do.

4:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swept under the rug, just like the QPG report. Eventually, the dirt under the carpet begins to leak out around the edges. Wonder when that will happen?

6:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Craig: It's a good thing you aren't there anymore. They get along, they cover for each other, they lose more kids, they close 9 schools. You tried, they screamed, they own the failure.

6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just the fact that Jan Tanner asked John Elliott if there was a conflict of interest proves that she knew her business relationship with D11 was a conflict. Why else would one ask? She chose the easy way out - close her eyes and hope no one else would see her either.

9:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

free html counters
Circuit City Discounts