Ethics, schmethics

Do you remember when Susan Evans was questioned about her continued involvement with GSIW? In this email, she claimed:

"I am neither actively involved in their [GSIW's] activities, nor am I given any advance notice of the content or distribution of their press releases."

Hmmm. Really?

So, how does GSIW already know what is going to happen at the June 5th Board meeting?  

Here's an email I just received:

From: Calla Wright <ccaac_aacca@yahoo.com>

Subject: [CoalitionofConcernedCitizensforAfricanAmericanChildren] Fw: May Meeting Notes, YOUR HELP NEEDED

Date: May 20, 2012 4:25:20 PM EDT

To: coalitionofconcernedcitizensforafricanamericanchildren@yahoogroups.com

Cc: parentsfordiversity@yahoogroups.com

--- On Sat, 5/19/12, yevonne brannon <ybrannon@gmail.com> wrote:

From: yevonne brannon <ybrannon@gmail.com>
Subject: May Meeting Notes, YOUR HELP NEEDED
To:
Date: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 11:11 AM

I am very sorry that you missed our meeting on Tuesday.  Your help is needed!!

Here are the meeting notes.  Please review and let us know how you can help.  ACTIVATE your friends to join you!  It is very important NOT to stand down in the month of June!! We still have many opportunities to make a difference! Some of  the critical decisions facing the board in June---from the magnet study results, the results of round one and two of assignment plan, to voting on the budget, and directives needed NOW for the 2013 Student assignment plan—let’s make sure we have a strong voice at the June 5 and June 19 board meetings.

 

Work to DO: 

1.  JUNE 5 Board Meeting: We are going ALL out to get a lot of speakers at this meeting.  We are still working to get the board to at least direct the staff for the 2013 assignment PLAN.  We need everyone to show up and speak.  We can help you with speeches. PLEASE talk to Amy W and Lynn and coordinate this effort.  Here’s the bottom line: June 5 will be the last board meeting before school is out.  We need to let the BOE know how well they did this school year!! GIVE them their Grade for the school year, did they pass?? Did they make appropriate progress in a year?  Come on, this could be fun!!!!  (other topics include the budget, the transportation mess, the horrid behavior of the feeble four, the horrid CHOICE plan in summary, the need for NEW PLAN directive for staff to start working on now!)

2. Research:

1)      Amy Lee is working on the update on Round Two of the student assignment results. Patty is working on the web site update and on various fact sheets.  Please contact Patty if you can help with the fact sheets.

2)      Call/email Amy Lee and Sharon if you can help with the IMPACT of the Choice Plan on our schools.  This is critical research and will help us in other legal actions.

 

3. Letters to the Editor: Please consider drafting a ton of LTES right away on the following three topics:

1)      Lack of transportation for those assigned without transportation. This is just as wrong as the Unassigned.  If you were an unassigned, then you will especially understand this issue. Use the I contact today to draft a short LTE.

2)      Let’s find a better way:  NEED a lot of push as the next school board meeting (JUNE 5) to MAKE A NEW PLAN for 2013.  Start by getting a lot of LTEs on asking for a directive that stops using the CHOICE proximity model and starts using a RESIDENCEY based assignment plan.  We need to set the stage for the June 5 meeting with LTEs.  If you draft, send to Patty who will edits and give to Amy W and Lynn to get published. 

3)      VALUE of magnet schools.  Clearly, magnet schools are under attack.  PLEASE take the survey and write an LTE supporting the many important objectives of the magnet program. See I contact you received for points to make.

 4.  TAKE THE SURVEY on Magnets:

1)      Yes, this is not appropriate to have a thrown together –shallow survey—only online!! But we need to make sure it is balanced in the responses.  Please get your pta to print copies or your church/synagogue and get those mailed in to central office.

2)      Make sure you add in the comments how unfair and hasty this approach to magnet reviews is and how it is not ethical to continue to attack one of our best options at attempting to keep our schools well utilized and balanced.

5.  Let’s Find a Better way.org :  Please keep putting in your stories here—this is our way to document the tragedy of the Choice Plan.  Let your contacts know of this web site.

September 29, 2012 FORUM: We are planning a statewide forum for this date.  Working title: Protecting the Public in Public Education, or Public Education is the Better Way or something positive but urgent about how we need to fight against the attacks on Public Education (lack of funding, charter schools, vouchers/tax credits for private schools, revitalization of schools services, the reformers etc.)  If you have suggestions for focus of workshop, speakers etc. please let Patty or me know ASAP. We have started a planning committee---are you interested in helping?  This will be done with GSNC (now Public Education First).

 

6.  UPDATES:

Great Schools in NC has changed to a new name due to issues with domain names/searches etc. We will now be called Public Education First.  We have new web site, Public Education First.org 

More details later.  We will have work to do in changing out our current web and face book page.  We are still seeking funding.  We had a great one day retreat this week and hope to see more progress on this statewide effort soon.  If you want to work on this project, let me know. Also, please nominate names or organizations of folks across the state who should be involved in this coalition of individuals and groups to advocate for public education. Here is revised draft of the GSNC=PEF mission: Public Education First mobilizes citizens to advocate for a system of high-quality, equitable, and diverse public schools for all North Carolina students.

Lots of work to do, let me know how you can be a part of our important work.

Peace and love, Y

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that either Evans or Kushner (maybe both?) are continuing to guide the direction of GSIW and giving insider tips to what they believe are the necessary next steps in stopping the new assignment plan.

Some of these statements are quite particular -- and some use definitive terms.

"We are still working to get the board to at least direct the staff for the 2013 assignment PLAN."

"We need to set the stage for the June 5 meeting with LTEs."

Still working? The 2013 assignment plan? Set the stage? 

Since when is there a 2013 assignment plan? 

Does this mean that the Board majority really is going to completely ignore the cries from parents for a neighborhood school (and choice and stability and predictability) and move back to node-based assignments because that's what GSIW wants? (See my last post.)

Sounds to me like there's been some improper discussions going on. How else would 
Brannon know how to "set the stage" for the next Board meeting?

I think Supt. Tata apologized to these two way too soon. 

Facing reality

Some members of the School Board are now talking about changing the assignment plan. They claim the plan is flawed and needs to be fixed. But, are they really just going to fix what’s not working? Are they really listening to what parents are asking for?

I’ve listened to the relatively few complaints over the past months. Parents – whether they have current WCPSS students, rising K’s, charter, private or home-school students – want a neighborhood school. Some were frustrated that they were left unassigned (and rightly so). But, most of them were concerned over the distance of their assigned school or their feeder pattern schools.

But, the comments made by some School Board members about this plan, once again, seem completely disconnected to reality.

Susan Evans speaks about the new assignment plan in some way at every Board meeting. Most of what she says is to satisfy her friends in the audience – you know, the GSIW crowd. The issues she raises during these soapbox speeches, however, have nothing – nada – zero – to do with the new assignment plan.

She says some parents are unhappy with their predictable feeder patterns because it keeps them in the year-round calendar rather than at a more proximate school. Evans knows full well that the problems we have with YR in our district – and throughout the county – are a direct result of MYR and previous Board’s imbalanced distribution of that calendar.

I completely agree that we are still feeling the aftereffects of MYR in our district – but Evans is intentionally misleading parents by pinning their discontent on the new assignment plan and letting them believe that changing this plan will address their concerns.

At last week’s Board meeting, Christine Kushner indicated she would like to explore a hybrid assignment model for the future – a cross between addressed-based assignments with expanded choice. I’ve written to Ms. Kushner about her comments so she can elaborate but haven’t heard back yet.

After decades of base assigning students and knowing that base assignments WILL LEAD TO REASSIGNMENT, I am baffled that any School Board member would even suggest bringing them back. It may serve to satisfy a few (magnet parents who want to opt back into their neighborhood school, realtors want a school assignment attached to the home) but we all know that base assignments are too rigid for our school system, are unable to effectively address growth, create more problems than they fix and will never be able to provide long-term stability. Who in their right mind would consider bringing them back?

Well, since writing to Ms. Kushner, I found this statement from GSIW and the NC Justice Center from last year which calls for a “fine tune” of the old node system. Both Evans and Kushner were still active leaders in GSIW when this paper was published.

Are these comments about the new assignment plan from Kushner and Evans just another example of GSIW pulling their strings? It’s no secret that GSIW and Evans, in particular, do not like Supt. Tata or this plan. Are these Board members just following their agenda with complete disregard to what parents really want?

Is this School Board interested in facing reality? 

It never ends....

I'm writing this in a rush. I apologize for the formatting.

The N&O published an article today about Susan Evans apologizing to Supt. Tata. Here's the whole story.

I wrote to Mr Hill on Wednesday, March 28th with the following:

Chair Hill,

I listened to the public comment portion of last night's Board meeting.  I am just amazed how disrespectful and attacking some remarks were -- and that you allowed them to continue. I realize you may have gotten numb to the hateful approach of the many GSIW members who speak at every meeting but I can assure you that others haven't -- and never will.  I encourage you to gain better control of your meetings.


Allison Backhouse

 ---------------------------------------------

He wrote this back: 

Dear Mrs. Backhouse,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.  While observing the Board prior to 2007, and then serving on the Board since then, citizen comment has largely been uncensored - even during the oversight of our immediate past Chair, Chairman Margiotta.  While comments last evening were strong, to say the least, they were not slanderous or libelous.  What might be appear to be disrespectful and attacking to one segment of the population, might be considered on target and driving a point home by another segment.   

Respectfully,

Kevin

 

I followed up with this email. The original email referenced in the N&O article from Susan Evans about Supt Tata is at the bottom of the thread. 

What the N&O article didn't point out is that Susan Evans made this comment to the leaders of GSIW. Not only is she still involved with this group, she's actively encouraging them.

 

Mr. Hill,

While I can't say that I am surprised by the email below, I must say that I am disgusted. Ms. Evans has lied to us once again -- and she has used an obscenity to describe Supt. Tata to members of the public.

Ms. Evans just assured the public and the superintendent that she has disaffiliated herself from GSIW yet this email clearly shows that she has not.  I believe every recipient on this denigrating email is a leader in GSIW.  I now have a better understanding of the lack of civility at Tuesday night's Board meeting as this hateful group is obviously being egged on by their role model, Susan Evans.

When Supt. Tata questioned Evans' and Kushner's allegiance to GSIW, he and the citizens of Wake County were well assured by both that they were no longer leaders of this group. Apparently, their indignant reaction to the superintendent's claim and their "just trust us" assertion was all pretense. Clearly, Mr. Tata's concerns remain valid as I now see the type of behind-the-scenes behavior that undoubtedly contributed to his original concerns.

This demeaning email is just another example of the personal attacks on the superintendent from GSIW in the media and during Board meetings.  We now know that at least one Board member is actively encouraging this type of behavior.  How many other examples are there that we don't know about -- whether in email, phone calls or personal conversations?

As a citizen of District 8, I would like to know what you, as Chair, are going to do about these types of attacks? Your response to my email yesterday was flippant and dismissive. I demand that a public apology be issued by Ms. Evans to Supt. Tata for this personal attack. Also, I formally request that Ms. Evans be investigated for ethical breaches due to her lying about no longer being a member of GSIW and for using profanity to insult our superintendent.

I would also like Ms. Majestic's legal opinion on this matter.

Thank you,

Allison Backhouse

From: Susan Evans [mailto:evanssc@mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 2:22 PM
To: 'Lois Nixon'; 'Pam Bowden'; 'Lynn Edmonds'; 'Diana Bader'; 'Christine Kushner'; 'Amy Womble'; 'Karey Harwood'
Subject: RE: The ocean

I think TT may be a dolphin J

---

From: Lois Nixon [mailto:doukab@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:07 PM
To: Pam Bowden; Lynn Edmonds; Diana Bader; Christine Kushner; Amy Womble; Karey Harwood; Susan Evans
Subject: Fw: The ocean

Think we need to bring these to the next BOE meeting.  Some are a bit naughty!  But, everyone will wonder what on earth we are smiling about!  :)

Lois 

Children Writing About the Ocean...

1) - This is a picture of an octopus. It has eight testicles. 
(Kelly, age 6)

2) - Oysters' balls are called pearls.

(Jerry, age 6)

3) - If you are surrounded by ocean, you are an island. If you don't have ocean all round you, you are incontinent.

(Mike, age 7)

4) - Sharks are ugly and mean, and have big teeth, just like Emily 
Richardson . She's not my friend any more.

(Kylie, age 6)

5) - A dolphin breaths through an asshole on the top of its head.

(Billy, age 8)

6) - When ships had sails, they used to use the trade winds to cross the ocean.  Sometimes when the wind didn't blow the sailors would whistle to make the wind  come. My brother said they would have been better off eating beans.

(William,  age 7)

7) - Mermaids live in the ocean. I like mermaids. They are beautiful and I  like their shiny tails, but how on earth do mermaids get pregnant? Like,  really?

(Helen, age 6)

8) - I'm not going to write about the ocean. My baby brother is always crying,  my Dad keeps yelling at my Mom, and my big sister has just got pregnant, so I can't think what to write. -- :( Sad, but probably true! LN)

(Amy, age 6)

9) - Some fish are dangerous. Jellyfish can sting. Electric eels can give you a shock. They have to live in caves under the sea where I think they have to plug themselves in to chargers.

(Christopher, age 7)

10) - When you go swimming in the ocean, it is very cold, and it makes my willy small.

(Kevin, age 6)

11) - The ocean is made up of water and fish. Why the fish don't drown I don't know.

(Bobby, age 6)

12) - My dad was a sailor on the ocean. He knows all about the ocean. What he doesn't know is why he quit being a sailor and married my mom. (James, age  7)

If you didn't smile at one of these, you need to find a better sense of humor.

 

Desperate times

I think we are now witnessing desperation.

The N&O recently ran a couple of columns by Burgetta Eplin Wheeler about how “disturbing”, “confusing and upsetting” the new student assignment plan is. Oh, the drama.

Ms. Wheeler’s first column addresses the “alarm bells” of this plan. She paints a picture of uncertainty and leftovers (not surprisingly, it is mostly magnet-driven fear – as Ms. Wheeler is a magnet parent herself). She ridiculously calls the plan “nearly incomprehensible”. 

I have found that most people who find the plan confusing or “nearly incomprehensible” haven’t taken the time to actually read it. It’s not rocket science. Spend a few minutes reading it, Ms. Wheeler, and check your alarms while you’re at it.

I’m fairly certain that Ms. Wheeler wrote that column to simply taunt parents and taxpayers because opposition to this plan is losing traction. She uses phrases like "casualty count" and "collateral damage" in an attempt to paint a dark picture. Instead, it comes across as a weak last-ditch effort to stop the plan.

Just days later, the N&O published her second column about the plan. In this one, Ms. Wheeler addresses the “mystery” of student assignment as it relates to realtors in Wake County. Somehow Ms. Wheeler managed to find the only 3 realtors in Wake County that have either had their heads in the sand for the past few decades or have been lying repeatedly to each and every home buyer. The realtors claimed they are worried about not having a base assignment to help sell a house. There has never been a guaranteed assignment in Wake County. After decades of yearly reassignments, any realtor that sold a house based on the currently assigned school was being deceitful – and they knew it.

In my opinion, these columns are clear signs of desperation. The so-called pro-diversity groups have lost the battle and they are now losing the war. 

So, where do Brannon and her GSIW cronies fit in? That’s hard to say. They’ve bashed and insulted Supt. Tata, have said this plan was rushed from the beginning and that it’s too confusing to parents, and have even given awards to their School Board friends (Evans & Kushner) in hopes of halting this plan.

Yet, strangely, in today’s N&O article, the leader of GSIW, Yevonne Brannon, states: 

 "A large majority of the folks we are hearing from do not understand this plan; they think it's too complicated; they'd like to go to school closer to where they live, with vibrant options to move out."

Huh? Did she just admit that the parents want to attend a school closer to where they live? A neighborhood school, perhaps?

After two years of protests, disruptions, candlelight vigils, lawsuits and arrests in response to moving WCPSS towards a more family-friendly, proximity-driven assignment plan, Brannon is now asking for a more defined neighborhood model to allow more students the opportunity to attend school close to where they live.

Is this another sign of desperation?

GSIW and the NAACP have lost the diversity battle in Wake County. The election of their leaders hasn’t really panned out. And, most damaging to their rant, parents are speaking loudly that they like this plan -- and those who don’t seem to like it actually want more neighborhood options (as I addressed in a previous post) -- not a return to diversity quotas.

If you ask me - Brannon's comments are just another desperate attempt from a group trying to remain relevant. They no longer have a target on the School Board. Their demons are gone and they have been left with nothing. Their membership is nil and their press releases have become ludicrous. There's nowhere else to go and have now shown they are willing to say anything (even "more neighborhood schools") to have a continued purpose. They are backed into a corner and will say anything just to survive.

I’ve said all along that if you let these people argue long enough, eventually they will end up in support of neighborhood assignments.

I think we might almost be there.

Lies, lies, lies...Ye-ah

With the recent hub-bub over Supt. Tata calling out School Board members Susan Evans and Christine Kushner about their continued involvement in GSIW, I have to ask.... 

What's with all the lying?

It actually started before the new Board members were even elected.

During her campaign, Susan Evans claimed to be a CPA. She put it all over her website and her media questionnaires -- even articles in the N&O and Indy Weekly referred to her as a CPA. But, she's not. 

And her response when she was caught in this lie was simply: "This is a non issue."

During his campaign, Jim Martin attempted to paint Supt. Tata in a bad light by publishing some of the emails in a chain - but not all of them. Martin was caught in this manipulation yet never apologized or even acknowledged that he purposefully tried to pull a fast one.

A couple of posts ago I exposed an email from Martin titled "Confidential Draft". In this email, he encourages Evans and Kushner to keep the discussion and information about halting the student assignment plan just between the three of them. Yet, when confronted by the N&O about these secret deliberations, Martin tries to twist his way out of it and said:

 "I challenge the assertion that somehow it was secret. By that definition, any message sent between two or three board members would be secret. That's baloney."

Uh, wrong. The fact that the email is between two or three Board members is not contentious nor does it make it secret. But certainly an email that is titled "Confidential" which leaves a breadcrumb trail of deceit, private deliberations and continued secrecy would qualify. Exactly like the one you sent, Mr. Martin.

Why didn't Martin just own up to what he attempted to do? Why is his first reaction to lie about it?

And Evans isn't done telling porkies either.

At the February 7th Board meeting, Evans voted in favor of a 9th grade center for Panther Creek. Just over 24 hours later, she was telling parents and the media that she did no such thing. Evans even tells School Board member Deborah Prickett in an email that she "...voted against it" and that the vote was "...either 6 to 3 or 7 to 2." In reality, the vote was 8-1 with Martin, for whatever reason, voting against it.

d more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/wake-county-school-board-members-question-how-the-vote-went-on-the-panther-creek-high-lease-d#storylink=cpy

Evans could have easily explained her vote to her constituents and her reasoning for her initial support of this facility. But, nooooo. Instead, her first reaction is to lie.

And, now, suddenly, we're just supposed to just believe Evans when she says she no longer has an active role in GSIW? Ms. Pants-on-fire? 

Supt. Tata had every right to question Evans' and Kushner's affiliation with GSIW.  Both of these women happily accepted an award on behalf of GSIW just last month. You don't send just any ol' person to accept an award for your group. You send your leaders.

So pardon me if I don't believe the "Just take our word for it" approach about their involvement in GSIW. Actions speak much louder than words -- especially when there's an award involved.

Kushner doesn't seem to have a track record of fabrication....yet. (In my opinion, she seems like a fairly reasonable person.) But Evans and Martin have been caught in fairly significant lies in the past.

And, as they say, past behavior predicts future behavior.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/new-wake-county-school-board-members-discussed-draft-resolution-for-delaying-student-assignme#new#storylink=cpy

Wait for me

I started this post before I had to leave town unexpectedly last week. I have some catching up to do with the recent news of Evans and Kushner accepting an award on behalf of GSIW and then - just 2 weeks later - claiming they're not active in the group. This post, however, does address yet another member of GSIW and her disbelief that she's not getting her way.

 ------------------------------------------------------------

It seems there may be some regret in electing the new School Board members.

Rita Rakestraw, who ran against Chris Malone in the 2009 School Board elections and handily lost, is now complaining about Kevin Hill’s decision to go to closed session before all the public speakers had their turn at the Feb. 7th Board meeting. Ms. Rakestraw wrote a Letter to the Editor in the N&O and she is not happy.

Funny – just months ago, Ms. Rakestraw was whooping it up with Hill at his victory party.

Maybe Ms. Rakestraw should have thought twice about who she supported in the last School Board race instead of blinding following her political party.  Hill’s decision didn’t surprise me in the least. I’ve got the guy figured out and I’m not even friends with him.

I do find it ironic that Ms. Rakestraw thought it was perfectly acceptable to make others wait hours and hours while her friends at GSIW and the NAACP were disrupting public business and getting arrested.  But now that it’s her left waiting, it’s suddenly a problem.

Rakestraw’s involvement is this video last year affirmed my opinion of her. (That’s her on the right at the beginning.) She’s looney.  She has said many crazy things over the years. She thinks billionaires supported the '09 School Board candidates. (If so, where were they last year? Hmm?) 

However, on this issue I agree with her. Hill was wrong. He saw how many people had signed up to voice their concerns and arrogantly chose to ignore them. Instead, he quoted policy ala Jim Martin and made them wait. Yes, even you Rita.

Define Good

Oh, Mr. Martin.  How many hours have we heard you boast about your good governance skills? How much time has been wasted listening to you yammer on and on, reading Board policies word-for-word as if everyone else is stupid? Well, Mr. Good Governance, you’re nothing but a sham.

Below is an email titled “Confidential Draft” from Mr. Martin that was sent to fellow Board members Christine Kushner and Susan Evans on 12/12/2011 – just days after they were sworn into office.

Martin-Email-2011-12-12

To put this in some perspective, this email was sent just two days after the entire Board had attended an all-day retreat discussing governance.  Ironically, at this meeting Mr. Martin is quoted as saying "Democratic governance isn't efficient. If you want efficiency, you'd have a dictator. But we don't want that." Two days later, Mr. Martin sent his confidential email revealing private deliberations and openly encouraging secret collaboration.

We already know Martin thinks he’s the smartest man in the room. Apparently, he also believes he can snub Board policies and the possibly the law. If you recall, he has already been caught lying to Superintendent Tata.

Doesn't this make his dictatorship comment hit a little too close to home?

Most obvious from this email is that Mr. Martin, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Hill and Mrs. Kushner were actively negotiating on how to stop and/or delay the new student assignment plan outside of the public eye. Maybe they still are. We now know why their friends (NAACP & GSIW) haven’t been protesting in their dramatic fashion at Board meetings. These Board members have been appeasing them by having these types of private conversations. Maybe Barber and Brannon have been included.

Perhaps this was the topic of discussion at their secret meeting with Mr. Alves. Mr. Hill admitted that he purposefully scheduled the Alves meeting without the knowledge of the rest of the Board in order to avoid it being held as a public meeting.

Mr. Martin states in his email that the Board members “need to bat ideas around ourselves without the outside pressure”. It’s not a great leap to assume that this sort of discussion and deliberation occurred at the Alves meeting to avoid that pressure.  All the while, Hill has contended it was an orientation session. Yeah, right.

(As a side note, I requested the minutes from the Alves meeting but, since it was intentionally scheduled to not have a quorum present, minutes were not taken.)

It is beyond incredible and downright ignorant that Mr. Martin flagrantly wags his tongue in a public email about keeping this discussion about student assignment “just to the three of us”. Not only does he want to avoid “outside pressure”, he also wants to keep discussions about the public’s business away from the public. Is that a violation of the state Open Meetings Law?

By the way, you will notice that this email had a document attached titled “Assignment”. I’ll save a review of that for my next post.