The Burke County school system has dodged a bullet and will keep its high school accreditation from AdvancED.
AdvancED told school board members on Thursday that they had decided not to go ahead with their decision to pull accreditation at the end of June. Instead, citing progress made by the school system, they're putting Burke County on probation.
How this decision could impact Wake remains to be seen. During today's press conference, Wake Superintendent Tony Tata said the district is in "good shape' to respond to AdvancED when the monitoring team comes back in the fall.
As an indication of how big a deal it was in Burke, the Morganton Herald reported today that the telephone conference call from AdvancED to the Burke school board was streamed live online.
Click here for the new AdvancED report to Burke.
While expressing relief in the news, some Burke County school board members indicated they will support seeking possible accreditation by the State Board of Education in addition to or as a possible alternative to accreditation by AdvancED.
During today's press conference, Tata said it's too early to say how the new state high school accreditation law will impact Wake. He said he wanted to see how the state Department of Public Instruction will set up the process for getting accreditation approved by the state Board.
Comments
GS 160A-83
Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:19 — csnowftwBob, it seems to me the board members could only be held accountable to the 5 required ethical points (b1 - b2) all local boards must adopt and commit to as per 160A-83. Even a few of those points are somewhat ambiguous (#2 and #3 especially), but others are very clear-cut. As for #4... an interesting sidenote: at one point in our budget debate, one of our board members (a Democrat mad about Republican budget cuts) said he would not vote to lay off employees or cut the budget; he would defer that decision to the commissioners and the State legislators since they're the ones that are underfunding the schools. So, in his mind, they're the ones that have to lay people off because he wouldn't do it. He did change his mind and voted on the budget, but a refusal to vote one way or the other (because he wanted to pass the buck) on a balanced budget could be considered a refusal to faithfully perform his duties of his office (#4).
So...
Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:51 — Bob_SconceExcept for #1, which doesn't really create an independent obligation, those are all squishy. Even #5 -- it sounds like they're talking about going beyond what applicable law says, but doesn't say anything about how far beyond.
If you're going to have a process by which sitting board members can be removed from office, then you need to have crystal clear rules about what they can and cannot do, so they know, at all times, what they need to do to stay on the correct side of the law. Otherwise, the removal process has the ability to be manipulated by candidates opposing any particular board member -- basically, it'd be a gigantic game of "gotcha." Your example on #4 is a perfect case in point: presuming the facts are exactly as you said, even you said they "could be considered a refusal to faithfully perform" -- it's not really clear.
The AdvanceEd accreditation standards have the same flavor -- heck, you talked about their insistence that Burke needed a policy manual, even though they had never required one before.
No, Actual Cost
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 18:39 — csnowftwRE: From what I've read, you have been provided literally hundreds of pages of emails... at no small expense to the school system by the way.
As per state law, citizens who receive public records pay for the actual cost of reproducing them. Per local school policy, that means we pay $.20 per page. (Could get copies at Staples for $.09/page, but whatever). Citizens of NC do not have to pay for the time it takes salaried employees to print, copy and redact information from public records, unless the time is excessive. "Excessive" in our county is now defined as 3 hours, as a result of mediation.
I don't know "what you've read", but apparently you didn't read that other citizens have received more pages of information than I have in the past few years; you also didn't read that other citizens (three, in fact) asked for and received my emails to/from the email system even though I am not a public official. Yes.... people who ask too many questions of the wrong people are then investigated. Don't ya love politics.
As for "nut" status.... I haven't found you, woodstock, to be one of the more open-minded, compassionate and impartial people I've ever had occasion to banter with. So I guess I'll just consider the source and move on, if that's ok with you. Just know that people like you do give conservatives a bad name; it's no wonder we have to work extra hard not to be considered mean-spirited jerks. Thanks so much for making everything such an uphill battle for the rest of us.
RE: So you don't know if any incriminating emails exist, but you want to search their personal emails to see if they do exist?
Star, apparently you've never placed a public records request nor read Chpt 132. You simply ask for the emails pertaining to board business written by board members such-and-so for a certain date range. If the board members use the public email system, their emails are housed on a database and the IT professionals simply write a query and print the emails. Then someone reads them to redact personnel, student, or legal information before releasing them. When a board member refuses to use the public email system to conduct public business, the board member must print their own emails in that date range that pertain to public business. The State of NC suggests that public officials NOT use private email accounts, but when it's only a "suggestion", that means little, of course. (H*ll, our public officials don't even obey the law until they're taken to civil court, let alone consider the State's suggestions).
Persue Legal Action
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 21:41 — starsonoursWell Snow you seem to know what you are doing so get busy and move forward with your case. Ask for the emails, find the incriminating evidence and take it to trial. My guess is you would rather infer that something illegal has happened, it the evidence was there you would be taking action to expose it. (just my opinion)
LOL So, I am the mean,
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 18:55 — woodstockLOL So, I am the mean, irrational one who gives conservatives a bad name... as you dig up dirt on folks, pry into people's jobs and love lives, demand personal emails and want private entities to dictate to elected bodies. Got it.
Your normal M.O.?
Wed, 07/06/2011 - 09:01 — csnowftwWoodstock's M.O.: Guilty until Proven Innocent? Information/opinion from letters to the editor (of political opponents) is considered factual? Make deteminations when he doesn't truly understand the public records law?
Dig up dirt on folks; pry into love lives.... At no time have I dug up anything on anyone. I simply told a politician, in a personal FB message, that if they launched another offensive rumor/character smear attack in '11, then this time around, a defensive strike would follow. I know others who know the details of her background who will not keep their information buried again, but it would only be used defensively. It was simply a warning to stick to the issues and play clean in '11.
Pry into people's jobs... At no time have I approached anyone's boss or dug into anyone's job. I do know someone who went to the county manager, however, to tell him that it would be nice if their DSS attorney would focus on DSS matters during his work day rather than send political FB messages and political emails during his work day from the county's computer system.
Demand personal emails.... I couldn't care less about their "personal" emails and I don't demand. A request was made for board business emails (which are public) that board members send/receive using their personal email accounts. (If you want to see "demand" in action, I understand you should have seen the anti-consolidation operative/ former campaign treasurer of one of our board members in action, throwing a temper tantrum at the Central Office because the data she "demanded" wasn't ready before the anti-consolidation rally.
Want private entities to dictate to elect bodies.... Somewhat guilty, but I'd say it this way: It's refreshing when private entities hold elected bodies accountable to abiding by their own ethics policy, board-Super relations policy, and to State law since NC laws contain little remedy to do so.
You clearly do not
Wed, 07/06/2011 - 09:24 — woodstockYou clearly do not understand how your comments come across to others. You just produce an endless stream of rationalizations. But, hey, you certainly don't need my approval. Be a reckless live wire all you want... I just don't think you are going to be effective that way.
...
Wed, 07/06/2011 - 13:12 — csnowftwIf you've learned anything at all.... Wake is not Burke and Burke is not Wake. What "works in Burke County probably won't work in Wake County. We're a whole 'nother animal over here.
sorry...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:04 — csnowftwSorry for the large font. I was simply trying to change font color of a word or two and the entire paragraph's font was changed.
What would you do?
Mon, 07/04/2011 - 22:53 — csnowftwRE: "With respect, your complaint sounds like "I don't like the results of an election, so I want some outsider to interfere until things are run how I think they should be." If you don't like how the board is being run, then convince your fellow citizens to put somebody new there."
Can you imagine, Bob?
Let's say Wake County has a great "conservative" Superintendent & administration and they're doing everything the way you like. But your citizens elect a "liberal" majority on the board who wish to change things, so they begin to usurp and circumvent; they spend tens of thousands of education dollars on legal fees to investigate trumped-up allegations, and just generally stop any progress the administrators are trying to make. Right -- they trust your conservative Super as far as they can throw him and can't wait to find something on him so they can fire him for cause. The majority liberal board members, as a quorum, deliberate via email; they go to public rallies regarding the board's budget together (no, there was no notice given, nor minutes taken); they make it difficult for citizens to receive public records, they limit the public comments time to one hour regardless of the number of people who have signed up to speak. They vote in closed session on a personnel matter, telling your Superintendent what he can and cannot propose to cut the budget.
What are you going to do about that, Bob? Can you help out your "conservative" administrators who are doing what's best for your school system? (p.s. The SBE nor the legislators nor the Governor will step in (no laws allow it), the school board members are not guilty of committing felonies so you can't have them impeached. However, AdvancED agrees that the school board is overstepping its bounds and by its actions, is causing the system to move "backwards" rather than improve. Are you still going to hate AdvancED? They feel your pain and they're trying to get the majority to straighten up.)
And.... while you're waiting for the next election to roll around, you're losing art and foreign language in the middle schools, and you're already looking at a $7 million deficit (1/3rd our local expense budget) for the 2012-2013 school year because the liberal majority wants to spend its fund balance rather than consolidate schools at 50-60% capacity. So, you're telling me to wait until the next election? My children are in school now, Bob. It matters now.
What would I do?
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 08:22 — Bob_SconceThe main thing I'd do is highlight what the new wingnuts were doing so that, in two years, people could see what's happening and vote accordingly. I'd also consider filing public records and open meetings suits. I'd also consider filing suit for breach of fiduciary duty, even though that's a hard claim to make successfully. Those are all remedies available right now.
A couple of comments: "they vote in closed session on a personnel matter": IIRC, depending on what the vote was, this may be perfectly legal. As long as it wasn't a vote to hire or fire, it was probably OK.
"they go to public rallies regarding the board's budget together (no, there was no notice given, nor minutes taken)" Was that for the "purpose of conducting hearings, participating in deliberations, or voting upon or otherwise transacting the public business"? If not, then no problem.
"as a quourum, deliberate over email." Open meetings suit right there. If it's as obvious as you say, then any lawyer ought to be willing to take the case, since his fees will be paid by the board.
Again, it sounds a lot like you just don't like the way the board conducted itself, but the rest of the citizens did. You have reemdies for part of what you complained about. But, we live under a democracy: what inflames you may be perfectly acceptible to your fellow citizens and, if so, shouldn't majority rule?
I don't blame you for being upset when you see your elected officials acting poorly. I feel like strangling the entire US Congress. But, recognize that the sort of meddling by outsiders you appear to support because it helps your kids in Burke County is potentially hurting my kids in Wake County. If you're really unhappy, then you still have the ultimte remedy -- move. (That's clearly not a light decision, but if your kids are being poorly served and you can't get it fixed at the polls, then it may be your best one.)
We Need More Remedies
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 09:31 — csnowftwYes: Highlighting has been going on and will continue. The task is monumental, but not impossible. It's difficult for a voting population to swallow enough pride to say "Dang, I thought they'd be the ones to put us on track, but they've let us down, too". When that happens to voters repeatedly, sometimes it makes for apathic voters who've lost hope. It's also difficult when the local newspaper refuses to run our newspaper ads which highlight the board's missteps. Not only do the ads directly conflict with the editor's and publisher's personal views, but I believe Media General began receiving flack for the ads, so they cancelled the last ad without giving reason and refunded the money. No joke. But there are other media sources. It does help that some of their avid supporters (who are professional educators) stand up during public comments and say to them that they "used to be one of their supporters". It's not cool to have to wait for two years when board members are violating State law. I'll get to that in a minute. But first...
Voting during closed session on personnel matters (to give the Super a directive to shut the *&%#$ up about consolidations this year) - the board went in on a(1) and a(3), not a(6). btw, they did violate 11(c) right off the bat since their motion didn't cite the law which renders the information confidential.
The anti-consolidation public rally -- it was a violation if you respect the opinion of David Lawrence with the SOG; the board did deliberate on information that it would be expected to vote on. According to Lawrence's research as given in his Open Meetings Law booklet, to deliberate is "to examine, weigh and reflect upon the reasons for or against" a possible decision. Three of the four board members spoke at the rally; one just listened to everyone else. "Deliberation thus connote not only collective discussion, but the collective acquistion and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision." A quorum of board members were certainly all in the same place, acquiring information (some giving information), and reflecting on it before being asked to vote on it during an upcoming meeting. I assume you favor openness and transparency in government. I do. It would be nice for the community and media to be given notice before such events and to have minutes of what transpired there.
I know that the "rest of the citizens" did vote for these ya-who's expecting big things, but it's not accurate to say the citizens are currently pleased with how this majority has conducted itself. They ran their campaigns railing against others for doing the very thing they themselves are now doing.
Holy Cow. If what imflames me is perfectly acceptable to the majority - shouldn't they rule? It would inflame me to have hydrocholoric acid dumped into our water supply, but let's say the majority think it's a great idea. Shouldn't they rule? They are the majority, after all. The majority of people once thought the earth was flat. If they made decisions based on that false belief, shouldn't they rule? I'm saying holding a majority opinion doesn't make the opinion right or factual. It means the majority was bamboozled... just like the decision to elect Obama. But I get what you're saying; just hold tight for the next election. The people will get what they have coming to them; it's their own faults. It's just sad when it directly affects children's education and teacher's jobs and the local economy in such an immediate and profound way.
Civil Suits are time-consuming and costly
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:35 — csnowftw(continued)...
Bob, the remedies given in Chpts 132 and 143 are costly and insufficient.
Costly: In regards to Open Meetings Law violations, the plaintiff's attorney fees may only be paid by the defendant when the plaintiff prevails and if the courts orders payment. The law doesn't say "shall"; it states "may". See 143-318.16B.
If/when it is proven that public officials willfully and consistently violate the State's Sunshine Laws, I believe it should be a criminal offense. Furthermore, our legislators enacted a law which now requires local boards to enact an Ethics Policy, but they don't allow for legal consequences (or any consequences at all) when elected officials violate their own ethics requirements.
A law without consequences is a complete waste of time and paper.
Yes...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:59 — Bob_SconceBut, IIRC those fee requests are almost always granted when there's a clear violation of the standards. And they're not really all that time-consuming; in fact (again, IIRC), the law provides for expedited review.
Incidentally, if you want to emphasize something, you're better off making it bold instead of ALL-CAPS. It's significantly harder to read all-caps since there's no variation in the height of the letters. As a result, people tend to skip over that part, which is the exact opposite of what you want.
I'm not 100% sure that the laws you claim "don't have consequences" actually don't. Can't they be enforced in civil court?
$5000 up front...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:23 — csnowftwTiming: We had someone file lawsuits against the previous board for open meetings law violations, but I don't know that it ever made it "to court". The person who filed dropped his suit about a year later. That was not an expedited process at all.
Cost: We have spoken with a few attorneys recently, and one that would send shockwaves through the board mentioned a $5,000 fee just to get the ball rolling (but this was for the open meetings violations). It is imperative to hire someone who knows they're going up against a somewhat biased local court and will most likely need to take to the appeallate level out of county.
Consequences: Open Meetings Law. Again, quoting Lawrence:
1) Declaratory judgment, in which a court simply finds that a violation has occurred. The court assumes that the public body will follow the law in the future; there will be no other effects from the judgment. (Yep, sure 'nuff, they broke the law. cs)
2) Seek an injunction against threatened, past or continuing violations; court orders the public body to avoid similar violations in the future. (Yep, sure 'nuff, they broke it and don't do that again, cs).
3) Seek a court order to invalidate any action taken, considered, discussed or deliberated in vioaltion of the act. (But what if it's too late to undo what they've done? cs)
So the only thing the lawsuit does is shine the light on the wrongdoers, assuming the local media even covers it.
I'll look at the Public Records Law remedies later... I need to run. But as I recall, the only thing the courts do is to tell the defendants: shame shame shame - naughty naughty - hand slap - please hand over the records.
We need a little sharper teeth in our laws. This isn't enough.
As for the all caps.... I was trying to change the font of one word in those paragraphs but I messed up and changed the entire paragraph, then couldn't get it changed without retyping & reposting the whole dad gummed thing. I didn't intend on all caps at all. I'm new to this blog format. Sorry.
It is your OPINION that
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 07:14 — woodstockIt is your OPINION that things are moving "backwards." Elections are how we fire elected officials who are not doing what the public wants.
AdvancED exists in Wake And Burke County to accredit individual high schools, it does not extis to overturn elections or for use as a political weapon for a few -- or one in this case -- disgruntled voter... and bitter and impatient former school board member.
I'm the only one?
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 09:47 — csnowftwYes, you're right, woodstock. I guess it's up to everyone whether or not losing art and foreign language programs in the middle schools and increasing class sizes in the high schools by 5-10 students per classroom is a matter of opinion.
I feel so special. You think I'm the only disgruntled voter in Burke County? Geee. You shouldn't have. I'm apparently the only one who came on here from Burke to blog about AdvancED's role in schools' governance. (btw, I'm not a former school board member. I'm simply a parent with three children in the public school system plus one who has graduated and attends a school of higher learning in your fair area).
Furthermore, I love rooting for underdogs. Pick your favorite: "Even if you are the minority of one, the truth is still the truth." ~ M. Gandhi "Desperate courage makes one a majority." ~ A. Jackson
btw... about the Snowjob comments... by response to you is: Touche'. Please accept my apology. I will be more appropriate in the future about trying to get you to loosen up.
I never suggested you do not
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:25 — woodstockI never suggested you do not have legitimate issues that deserve attention. Some of what you describe likely has to do with very real and very challenging budget matters. We feel them here in Wake -- a relatively wealthy county -- and I can imagine they are at least as daunting in Burke County.
All that aside, my issues with your comments had to do with using AdvancED (which I believe routinely oversteps its' bounds) as a political weapon to go after your adversaries. I think that is dead wrong. It is not their role and it disrespects the voting public. We have systems and laws in place to deal with elected officials... and they ultimately boil down to voting the ba$#ards out of office if you don't like them.
As for the apology - it is not necessary, but thanks. And, no "loosening up" is required.
Accountability
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:42 — csnowftwYou do hear me screaming: ACCOUNTABILITY, right? You're saying the only recourse for local elected officials when they consistently break State law is to expose it and hope the people vote them out in two-four years? We can only impeach if they are convicted of a felony.
As to loosening up, even as a fellow conservative who doesn't have a dog in Wake's fights, I'm on the receiving end your caustic attacks.
You said charges were filed,
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:59 — woodstockYou said charges were filed, but it has not yet gone to court, so stating that laws were violated is merely an opinion. My main concern all along, however, is the use of AdvancED by you and folks like Rev. Barbar as a political weapon. AdvancED is may be willing accommplices in that effort and happy to oblige, but it is far beyond their purview and authority; and the fact that they are currently a monopoly for accreditation in NC, that is especially concerning. You might get more support if you get off the AdvancED kick, recognize them for the radical organization that they are, and tackle your displeasure through more rational and appropriate means.
Perhaps we can join forces
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:03 — csnowftwI'm only "using" AdvancED because they are the ONLY entity which will hold elected official accountable. (btw, I can prove to you that the open meetings law was violated over and over again; set up a fake email account if you insist on anonymity, email me at cls28655@gmail.com, and I'll send you the goods if you want to see the evidence). I said a lawsuit was filed on the previous board. No suits have been filed against this board. You also need to remember that doing so requires the BoE to use education dollars (money set aside to educate my kids) on legal fees to defend itself. So lawyers get the education funds rather than teachers. Not cool. Not cool at all.
Perhaps we can join forces to put teeth into NC laws so there are consequences - real consequences - when elected officials violate the ethics policy or the sunshine laws. Since your majority members aren't doing so, and since you want ethical board members who believe in an open, transparent government, then why not join forces with others who are asking for a way to hold elected officials accountable to upholding the law.
So...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 13:24 — Bob_SconceIf Burke County is anything like Wake, you should have insurance to cover legal fees.
True...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 13:42 — csnowftwBut only up to $25,000, and I believe it's an annual deductible. But that is a good point --- I don't know if it's on a calendar year or on the fiscal Jul 1 - Jun 30th year. So we'd just need people to fork over the attorney fees initially.
...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:53 — Sideburns"I'm only "using" AdvancED...."
And therein lies the problem.
It is not AdvancED's job to
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:15 — woodstockIt is not AdvancED's job to "hold public officials accountable." They exist, or are supposed to exist, to accredit schools systems and/or high schools. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not up to them to dictate the actions of elected officials or their policies.
We have an outstanding school board majority now, after voting our own ba$#ards out of office. So, as far as I am concerned the system works just fine as it. I was as pissed are you are in '09, then a lot of folks took action and got things back on track. It takes time, committment and effort. There are no quick fixes.
Under the jurisdiction of a governing board...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 13:37 — csnowftwI'd much rather have elected
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 14:06 — woodstockI'd much rather have elected officials overstep their bounds than some out-of-state, uninformed, monopolistic entity with a political mission that has complete and unquestioned authority. The public can ultimately get rid of wayward elected officials through elections, public pressure, and/or legal action. But, how do you get rid of, or put public pressure on, a private entity that has been granted the authority to do whatever the hell they want to do?
You are barking up the tree in trying to get anyone to agree with you about AdvancEd. Besides, their days are numbered here in Wake and probably many other school systems across the state and the country.
How about neither?
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 15:14 — csnowftwAnd I'd rather have neither a private entity nor elected officials overstepping their bounds. Based on the way your AdvancED report reads, Wake will not have any trouble getting full accreditation from them as long as your board members understand their roles and abide by their own policies and State law. I assume they will.
So if folks in Wake County don't give a rip about the fact that local school board members can consistently violate State law without real consequence, then so be it. It's hard for me to swallow.
Best wishes.
Reasonably minded folks in
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 15:33 — starsonoursReasonably minded folks in Wake County (and other counties) prefer to let the courts decide if the laws have been violated. Filing suit does not mean the person is guilty. It seems you are wanting to oust elected officals that you disagree with by any means except the legal ones.
Beating my head against the wall
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 15:47 — csnowftwSo let's say a person (or group of people) sue the local school board for violating the open meetings law - and win - and the judge says... (the only thing he/she can say, by law).... 'tsk tsk tsk. Dang, guys. You broke the law. Don't do that again'. Or in the case of not handing over public records.... 'Dang, guys. You should have handed those records over. Please do so now. Thanks.' Oh? This violates the ethics policy the State of NC required you enact? No problem. There are no consequences for violating your ethics policy.
Cha Ching. Lawyers get paid by the school system's insurance company, their insurance rate probably increases, and nothing else is done to those who willingly, consistenly break both the public records and open meetings law. Not until the next election, anyway. Even then, it's iffy.
Oh - and in our case - the local newspaper will print three lines about the case in a related article and be done with it because the editor is pissed about the way it turned out; it makes the guys (he helped elect) look bad.
Yeah, that makes sense to me. That is a reasonable remedy to reasonably minded folks.
Who needs stinking laws and courts
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 16:47 — starsonoursYou're right. Lets do away with the courts and bring back some "frontier justice" and take matters into your own hands! You have decided they are guilty so just go to the BOE meeting and tell them you have found them guilty and they are no longer allowed to serve. Make sure you have already decided who will be taking their place on the Board and install them during the meeting. Then with you hand picked members on board you can get back to doing the peoples work. Good luck El Presidente!!!
I guess being a smart alec could be effective...
Wed, 07/06/2011 - 09:35 — csnowftwIt's not a matter of doing away with the courts. The issue is having to determine if the time/cost involved in the "citizen arrest" scenario through the civil court system (regarding violation of Sunshine Laws) is worth it. If the elected officials could be held personally liable for their actions, or if it led to them losing office, then it definitely would be worth it. Currently, they get a hand slap.
However, I hadn't considered the contempt of court issue like Bob brought up if they continued to violate the same law. That's worth looking into since we do have old dogs who don't learn new tricks (like abiding by the law) very well.
Well...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 16:04 — Bob_Sconce"Don't do that again" actually has some pretty severe consequences if they do, indeed, do it again -- they'd get hauled back into court for contempt. And that could lead to their having to pay some fines, personally.
As to the ethics policy, I haven't investigated that requirement in the statutes, but it sounds like the GA wanted every school board to adopt an aspriational ethics policy, not a mandatory one. It sounds like you think it should be mandatory, with judicially-imposed punishment for violations. That may be a good idea (I'm skeptical), but if you like it, take it up with the GA.
Skeptical?
Wed, 07/06/2011 - 09:26 — csnowftwPlease give it some thought and research. Does it make sense to require local elected bodies (it is a requirement, not a suggestion) to enact an ethics policy, then provide no remedy or consequence when they violate it? The Ethics Commission doesn't review complaints on local elected bodies such as BoE's. As you probably know, this fairly new law is G.S. 160A-83. It was session law 2009-403, HB1452. Fleming Bell at the School of Government is a great resource on the new law; he wrote a model code of ethics based on 160A-83. www.sog.unc.edu/node/1110
And, I did take it up with the legislators who sponsored the original ethics bill, via email. I thanked them for a good first step, but asked them to now put some teeth into it. Allow the Ethics Commission to investigate complaints on local boards, or give us a way to impeach board members who are found guilty of violating their ethics policy. The next step is to approach a coaltion or two with it.
So...
Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:53 — Bob_SconceI looked at the bill and its history. The bill required ethics training and the adoption of an ethics policy. I think it was intentional to not include a remedies section for breaching the ethics policies. First of all, ethics policies are generally not written in easily enforceable terms. Consider the following from WCPSS', for example: Remember always that a Board member's first and greatest concern must be the educational welfare of the students attending the public schools. How on earth could somebody go in front of a judge and say "Your Honor, I don't think board member XXX is always remembering what his first and greatest concern is. Please remove him from office"??
It seems clear that the GA wanted local boards to have aspirational goals for themselves. I also suspect that the bill might have been introduced just to deflect criticism from the GA -- recall that this was just after the Jim Black era.
Correct me if I am wrong,
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 16:09 — woodstockCorrect me if I am wrong, but aren't you trying to access "private" emails of board members? You know, even elected officials are citizens and have a right to privacy. From what I've read, you have been provided literally hundreds of pages of emails... at no small expense to the school system by the way. So, it sounds to me that significant accommodations have been made in regard to your numerous and lengthy requests. Wait, don't tell me, it isn't enough, right? What exactly are you trying to prove?
So...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 16:11 — Bob_SconceI think she's trying to get emails while, to their private accounts, pertained to school district business. Depending on their contents, they may qualify as public records anyway.
that's right
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 17:26 — csnowftwMost of our board members use private email accounts for conducting the public's board business... so their emails won't be stored on the schools' email database. When their emails are stored on the database, they are readily available to the people. Using private email accounts is perfectly legal; it's an effective way for public officials to keep the public's business behind closed doors until they're taken to civil court to recover them. That's the "reasonable" way we conduct business in our county. We hide the public's business until the prying SOB stakeholders take us to court.
Okay, you have officially
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 18:01 — woodstockOkay, you have officially reach "nut" status with me.
?
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 17:37 — starsonoursSo you don't know if any incriminating emails exist, but you want to search their personal emails to see if they do exist?
That is a very tough sell
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 16:30 — woodstockThat is a very tough sell and it is nearly impossible to get compliance.
You miss the point
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 15:33 — woodstockYou miss the point entirely... again. Of course, neither is desirable, but with elected officials you can end the madness in a single election cycle.
You can keep supporting AdvancED's presumed enforcement role and I will will keep rejecting it. Wake has and will continue to get full accreditation, that was never in doubt. The questions are will it be with AdvancED and will Advanced ED, as we know it, even still exist in the near future. My guess is Mark Elgart will be gone and AdvancED will alter its tune in dealing with school systems. One big issue that has been brought to light is what is their accreditation worth if they continue to accredit the worse systems in existence? If it is not about quality, it is worthless in my view.
and it's not just two years
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 15:51 — csnowftwAnd when the majority of 4 (our of our 7) are elected in one election cycle who are doing things like this, they are there for four years, not just two.
You whine more than any
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 16:02 — woodstockYou whine more than any conservative I've ever known. Suck it up, girl,... be patient and fight within the system; AND, AdvancED is NOT part of the system, nor will it be your solution.
just correcting your errors
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 17:27 — csnowftwJust correcting your errors, woodie. I'll stop whining.
Don't you realize that ....
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 05:53 — bpuli9999only the "conservatives" have the rights to protest in this country? Whether it is against a school board or the president. If anyone else does so, it it either unpatriotic or against the law. If the election is in their favor, then no one is allowed to dissent.
It's the other way around....
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:12 — csnowftwIt depends upon where you live, who controls the media, the local politics, the jobs, I suppose. It's the other way around in certain places: sometimes conservatives are not allowed to dissent. It would behoove everyone to really listen to the others' points of view without condemnation or ridicule.
It's the other way around in almost all places...
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 17:11 — midtownmomLiberals always seem to be the loudest. But if a conservative speaks his views, he is considered an outcast in modern society.
Research on the importance of accreditation
Sun, 07/03/2011 - 13:10 — csnowftwDaniel: N.C. legislative analyst reports on accreditation
by Lydia Daniel published October 26, 2009
This letter is online at morganton.com
This was submitted by the wife of Warren Daniel, new State Senator from Burke County.
Real Leadership Needed
Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:42 — paulastamIt's a pity that simple things such as high school accreditation can become a political pawn for Repubs and Demos. They should focus on saving our local, state and national economies instead!
General Tata has been VERY disappointing to date:
*Supported Goldman during her scandal - transfer of daughter from Martin to Davis MS with bus transportation to their mail box - a privilige the rest of us don't enjoy should we request transfers! Little backbone or integrity displayed on this issue folks.
*The General is ADDING/creating NEW central office positions (his high priced personal assistant that he brought from DC, 3 expensive NEW assist superintendents, etc) while clerical, custodian and assistant principal positions are being cut...go figure! Just one of his NEW assist. superintendents would fund media assistants for 3-4 schools
*He is messing up our neighborhood schools' plan with his plan to have "achievement schools" with seats open for non-neighborhood students. Plus there will be so much competition for certain schools that our kids may not even get into their own base school!
*Nobody has any real idea how much more it will cost to implement his Blue Choice Assignment Plan - will likely be more costly - local tax raises OR more cuts to public education may be on the horizon folks!
*The General showed his lack of grounding in education by requiring his HR department to recruit in traditionally Black colleges. Tata assures us that quality will not be sacrificed yet he has effectively mandated affirmative action when we should simply have the best teachers in our classrooms regardless of their race, etc. I want my children to have the best teacher available - if that means she is a white female so be it!
*The General brought in a Harvard Uni team (paid by major public education reformer Eli Broad - who trained Tata over a few weekends!) to tell us we have an achievement gap - anybody could have told him there is an achievement gap all over the nation - as long as we have poor parenting, drugs, illegal immigration and poverty we will have an achievement gap - great teaching can reduce the terrible effects of some of the previously mentioned factors but it alone cannot eliminate all of them
*The General is creating a crisis where there isn't one: Proficiency rates for minority students continue to rise in Wake's high performing school district SO he had his Broad sponsored Harvard team dig deep until they could find something...what did they find? A gap in raw scale scores...nice way to try to create a crisis so you can push thru you're reforms General!
*The General recently demoted some elementary school principals - one of those had been consistently improving student proficiency (1-3% a year) and growth and even got highlighted as a positive in HIS Harvard audit for making abnormal progress on closing the achievement gap (see his study on WCPSS website as evidence). Nevertheless that principal (Brentwood ES) has been demoted to Assist Principal - prime example of the General's lack of experience in education - he made a decision without considering full context and in the interim a successful principal has had her career destroyed by a gentleman that failed to consider all variables, etc