The new Wake County school board members will have their next round of orientation meetings today, including a review of the legal aspects from board attorney Ann Majestic.
One of the things that Majestic will discuss is the state Open Public Meetings Law. Some questions were raised based on the meetings the new members held before they were sworn in and during the recesses on Tuesday.
But the board could have a new attorney at the end of June.
The new board took the first step on Tuesday by passing by a 5-4 vote this resolution to appoint Thomas Farr of Ogletree Deakins as interim special legal counsel.
Among his duties, subject to negotiation of an acceptable compensation amount, Farr will conduct an independent review of the district's legal expenditures.
Majestic's firm, Tharrington Smith, will still be the board's attorney during the review. But Farr can also be called in at new board chairman Ron Margiotta's request to provide legal advice to the board.
New board member John Tedesco repeatedly said Tuesday that Farr's appointment doesn't necessarily mean Tharrington Smith will be replaced. But the board minority was suspicious.
"Why is a firm that represents 20 or more districts, has national acclaim and has served us well for many years become suspect now?," said former board chairman Kevin Hill.
Hill also raised the possibility of a conflict of interest because Farr, who is reviewing Tharrington Smoth's work, isn't precluded from bidding for the legal contract.
Tedesco justified the review based on how Wake spent $1.2 million in legal fees and $600,000 in liability insurance in 2008-09. Tharrington Smith was one of several firms that received part of the money.
Margiotta said the firm came highly recommended. He said one of the problems with finding a firm to do an independent review is that so many local ones have conflicts, either working for Wake or against the district.
Based on a prospectus given to Margiotta, the firm does have educational law experience.
But the appointment of Ogletree Deakins does raise other questions.
Farr has been heavily involved in state GOP politics.
Farr has been the lead state GOP attorney on legislative redistricting cases. He had also been nominated by Pres. Bush to be a U.S. District Court judge.
Lawyers from Ogletree Deakins also gave campaign donations to Tedesco and fellow new board member Chris Malone. But they denied that the contributions had anything to do with the contract.
Comments
<a href="http://www.uggbootszone.info/ugg-bailey-button-c-1425.h
Fri, 01/08/2010 - 22:27 — yuying520dsfjjcuihnn
I would just like to say "I
Mon, 12/14/2009 - 12:06 — carson79I would just like to say "I told you so" on my comments and speculation on this posting as evidenced in the quotes in the article in the N&O today.
He had also been nominated
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 20:34 — anxious2010He had also been nominated by Pres. Bush to be a U.S. District Court judge....??
He was nominated but the
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 23:54 — KeungHui (author)He was nominated but the Senate didn't act on it before Bush's term expired.
2 QUESTIONS
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 12:45 — RandyRockettHow much do we pay Ann Majestic and her firm in total each year? How much money did her firm bill out for the Robert Escamilla in total? T. Keung Hui can find out if anyone can!
Broken Promises and Conflict of Interests
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 12:38 — WhalerCaneAll of the new BoE members campaing on reducing 'Adminstration Costs', yet one of their first acts is to hire another expensive layer of Adminstration with no posting of the job, and a no bid contract with a firm that contributed to their campaigns, giving the impression of pay to play.
If it is just an Audit, than the firm doing the audit should remove itself from any consideration as a replacement to the current Law Firm, so as not to give them a built in conflict of interest and reason to find something.
No, this is an end run around proper procedures to hire thier guy at an extra costs to the taxpayers. Congrats on falling right into politics as usual.
What a bunch of buffoons
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 19:59 — occum_sharpeI watched the replay. What a bunch of buffoons! They should have spent a little time studying procedure (Robert's Rules) instead of having their independent "private" meetings.
They will have to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $20-$50 thousand dollars, if not more, to audit the long standing attorney they already have. Conflicts of interest all over the place. It would be interesting to see what would happen if T-S terminated their contract and walked out.
Best of the night was Mr. Tedesco's recess call so they could "huddle" and try to get the train back on the tracks. It is hard to believe that all 5 of them were stupid enough to meet during a recess. What a circus.
Even funnier was WRAL's interview with Margiotta as he was saying he had no idea of the resolutions that were brought about by the other members until the board met, even though, at times during the meeting, he appeared to be "coaching" them through the resolutions.
I agree with many of their ideas, but I can't support some of the nutty stuff they are doing. Doesn't look like there are a lot of brains in this bunch.
Kind of gives you an idea of what it would be like to have Sarah Palin as president. I can see Russia from my back yard.
Brains?
Sat, 12/05/2009 - 23:09 — SDR256Watch out for underestimating someone. Stupid like a fox I'd say.
You can call names and laugh
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 09:07 — woodstockYou can call names and laugh all you want, but the truth is a tremendous amount was accomplished at the first school board meeting with a new majority. They sent a powerful message that WPCSS will be setting a new course and the students and families in Wake County finally have advocates on the school board who recognize the deficiencies in the system and will work to correct them.
Positive change is going to occur. You can either choose to continue your childish insults, or you can be a part of the discussions and solutions moving forward.
Shock and Awe!
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 10:20 — g88ky07That's the message that was sent last Tuesday and my bet is next Tuesday comes another dose! I say bring it on!
Yeah
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 09:30 — supportwcpssThe powerful message is that they will ramrod through what the 10K people who voted for them want (or think they want), and not listen to anyone else.
I watched again last night and was still amazed at the amateur hour. I was even more shocked that after 6 years of watching, Ron still doesn't understand procedure. What was he doing all those years - sleeping?
As for the rudeness of the audience, again, you have all obviously conveniently forgotten about Board meetings over the last 2 years and how 'others' have behaved.
Hypocrite
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 10:49 — Dadof3All members have been duly elected; the most current 4 by significant electoral majorities. (The only kind that matter)
We've had this conversation before. Like it or not, the electoral process was fair, as it was when I didn't care for who won. You can try to paint the result as you wish, but only if you don't care about the integrity of your point.
As for "listen to anyone else;" outside of your shrill emotionally-drenched assertions, I don't see any reason to believe that.
Lovin' it, Dad-e-o
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 11:45 — petehsLovin' it, Dad-e-o.
You sure do have a way with words.
Never
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 11:35 — supportwcpssI never questioned the electoral process. They won fair and square. I am questioning whether they plan on listening to anyone else but those voters. And I see by your comment that you don't see any reason to believe that also.
So we agree on something.
Listening....
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 11:52 — Bob_SconceThere's a difference between LISTENING and ACTING. Furthermore, the main place that the listening happens is *not* in the public comment period in board meetings (despite the apparent belief of the NCAE's shrill leadership.)
Ron has been 'listening' to supporters of the old policy 6200 for years. Those supporters were also heard in their votes in the election, on the editorial page of the N&O, on this blog and elsewhere. But, when it comes down to it, if 100 voters want something done, and 50 don't, you go with the 100. Going with the 50 is a great way to get yourself voted out of office, as Horace Tart discovered.
Now, 2 years from now, what the voters want will be much less clear, so the new board won't be able to rely nearly as much on the results of the board election to discern voter preferences. But, right now, that's the clearest evidence of public desire that we have.
And
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 12:01 — supportwcpssI think that evidence is very limited to a platform and a small population who voted. I think each of newly elected individuals should hit hte pavement and figure out what ALL the people in their district want.
Duck and weave
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 12:53 — Dadof3What all people want? Really? What would or could anyone make sense of that ball of jelly? Wouldn't it be better to determine what makes the most sense among those most motivated (across the continuum, of course) to improve education?
But, there you go again raising the "small population who voted" frame. Despite being a larger-than-average turn-out for an off-year election, yes, you can play the numbers game, which is mooted by what I raised earlier — it was a fair and representative election. So "small" is as significant an adjective in this context as was the shapes of the clouds on those voting days.
Well...
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 12:49 — Bob_SconceWe have elected boards because it's impossible for everybody to get together to decide how things should work -- direct democracy only works in a few small towns in Switzerland. Instead of that direct democracy, we elect representatives as proxies for the voters.
Now, the representatives can consider the desires of non-voters, but only to the extent that the voters themselves would have considered those desires. But, when the voters have made their desires clear, it would be WRONG for the representatives to go against those desires.
(That principle is a lot easier to implement at the local level than, say, at the federal level where there's such a mish-mash of policy and personality considerations that discerning voter intent can be quite difficult.)
But
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 14:29 — supportwcpssSo the new board should stop at the election and not gather more information? I think it's irresponsible for them not to do their due diligence and continue to do this over the entire period they are in office.
As for the population, there are 866,000 people in Wake County and 30K voted.
The 866,000 population
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 15:56 — CaryCurmudgeonThe 866,000 population figure includes babies, preschoolers and a bunch of other residents who are not old enough to vote. There were 360,000 citizens who were eligible to vote this fall.
Tedesco/Malone/Prickett/Goldman earned 21,684 votes in this election. Four years ago, Tart/Millberg/Head/Goettee earned 13,372 votes. Morrison and Sutton earned zero votes.
Voter turnout is always low in off-year elections. But this year's turnout was 80% higher than four years ago.
You may not like the new board's direction, but don't kid yourself that they were elected by a fringe group of voters while the rest of the county slept.
Excellent post! Right on the
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 21:04 — woodstockExcellent post! Right on the mark.
"You may not like the new
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 17:31 — user12345"You may not like the new board's direction, but don't kid yourself that they were elected by a fringe group of voters while the rest of the county slept. "
866,000 people, 360,000 voters, 140,000 students, 13,372 votes, 4 board members …
Do not kid yourself that the victory was a wide spread popular movement with a mandate either. It was the result of a few well-financed and organized people using an off year to gain a majority coupled with a disparate Republican Party trying to prove they were still relevant in a non-patrician election. I have not seen a ground swell of poor, minority, administrators, or teachers welcoming the new board. The new board still needs to prove itself, build trust and consensus before they will earn respect.
Do not kid yourself that the
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 18:52 — jenmanDo not kid yourself that the victory was a wide spread popular movement with a mandate either. It was the result of a few well-financed and organized people using an off year to gain a majority
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one who is fooling himself, user. Well-financed?!? That's hilarious since most of the donations WSCA received were small ones from individuals. There were a few who gave large amounts but most of the money was raised from parents who are fed up with this system.
You got one thing right, though. It was a few well-organized people who got the movement started, or rather, harnessed all the fed up citizens in every area of the county.
PPP's own poll showed disapproval of the diversity policy and I remember a poll done a few years ago (by WEP perhaps) that showed the same.
Like it or not, User is
Wed, 12/09/2009 - 01:19 — carson79Like it or not, User is right...this is the perception and it's seen as a fring movement of newcomers to the area angry that things arent they way they were where they are from. Like it or not, this is how it is getting framed among most people that don't have kids or don't live in Apex...my perception. Those of us that have lived here before 1998 know some of the old right wing guys VERY well and the name Claude Pope just doesnt equal OUTSTANDING EDUCATION REFORM to us.
“Well-financed” in terms
Tue, 12/08/2009 - 09:35 — user12345“Well-financed” in terms of a lot of money raised though many large contributions came from a few doctors. It was not as if Black churches across SE raise $1 donation selling cookies to thousands of people wanting to end diversity.
Most people are not fed up. Most people are apathy. Only a minority are affected enough by assignments and YR to organize, raise money and vote. This was not a ground swell of discontent. Just a few well organized, well-funded discontents using an off year election to get a narrow majority.
“PPP's own poll showed disapproval of the diversity policy” … don’t always believe what you read … did you get these survey calls? … I did … pro side … “would you support diversity if you knew it would raise taxes if you didn’t” … con side … “would you support diversity if you knew your child would be on a bus six hours a day traveling to dangerous areas?”
Mirror, mirror on the wall
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 18:14 — Dadof3That's very nice how you perceive it. What's the relevance of your novel perceptions for anyone else?
Don't expect to see a
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 18:06 — CaryCurmudgeonDon't expect to see a groundswell of public support from teachers any time soon. Any teacher who speaks publicly in favor of the new board will suffer the wrath of three levels of management. And Jennifer Lanane will attack them. I hope this is one of the things that will change under the new administration -- teachers should be able to bring new ideas forward without fear of retribution.
Oh, and anyone that thinks that the group Lanane brought to the first meeting is representative of all Wake County teachers is deluding themselves.
I wouldn't expect a groundswell of public support from administrators either, for the same reasons as teachers.
Maybe I missed that "groundswell" of support from poor and minority parents, favoring our current failed policies. Seems like most of the people who have spoken out in favor of those policies are neither poor nor minority. Think Friends of Diversity.
The 13,372 votes you mention go with the four minority board member seats. The four new majority seats goet 21,684.
Still low
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 18:19 — supportwcpssStill less than 10% of the votinf population. I would say this no matter what side of the fence people were on CC. The fact is people are apathetic and i think both you and I can actually agree on that.
It will be interesting to see which of the apathetic people will stand up when the new board flips things upside down. Again, people don't shout until it affects them. Sad state no matter what your views are.
Yes, the fact that less than
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 19:18 — CaryCurmudgeonYes, the fact that less than 10% of eligible voters bother to go to the polls for school board is something we can agree on.
Unfortunately, it is a fact of life. Just an observation, but most of the people who are saying the new board was elected by a fraction of the voters are:
1. Supporters of the status-quo, and people who did not question the even lower turnout we had four years ago, and/or..
2. People who last year argued violently against having any form of at-large elections for school board seats.
The Wake NCGA delegation killed the idea of at-large elections last year because the current system was working fine to protect the policies that they favored. Ty Harrell even brought in a NAACP lawyer who postulated that at-large elections would disenfranchise the minority vote (this was before the big reverand came here and said that not having at-large elections disenfranchised the minority vote). Given it would be a local bill, the Wake delegation could introduce an at-large bill (or support one of those submitted by Dollar or Hunt) during this year's short session.
I actually get her point
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 16:50 — Dadof3but it gets squisher with clarification.
Her point is that the board should listen to more than the majority of Wake County voters who voted, since the overall vote count is a significant minority when factoring all possible voters.
So, should we listen to libertarians who like to do away with public education altogether? How about religious voters who deride the lack of prayer in schools? What about statists who desire school for propagandizing children to their world view? What about people who specifically don't vote and don't care to vote and have no interest in participating in the system.
Perhaps this is the progress-stymying navel gazing you would hope to bring the system to?
More reasonable people will press forward more pragmatically and seek out the input from a diverse range of parents, and not just the (admittedly impressive) vote count of 2009. I have every reason to believe they will do so.
Agreed Again
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 18:15 — supportwcpssI agree. I was hoping to believe they would also until they tried to shove an agenda through in the next meeting. As Bob has said, and I agree with, it would have been better if they would have just placed the topics on the table to discuss.
But the goal going in was to get all the resolutions approved. Based on the public comment period there are other with opinions and if they don't want to appear to act like the old board, then they did to take the topics at an easier pace like they said they would.
So...
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 19:56 — Bob_SconceWhoa.... I suggested that with they should have given the other side some notice of the proposed changes to the assignment policy before asking them to vote on them. I think the approach they took toward removing Hill as chair, the legal audit and Wacky Wednesdays was appropriate.
I have since learned that the policy changes required two votes on two different days, so could not have possibly been crammed down the minority's throats last week. (Next week, maybe, but then they would have had notice.) In the end, I think the board got to a reasonable compromise.
Hmm...
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 15:11 — Bob_SconceYou're forecasting 4 years based on a single meeting??
First of all, more than 30K people voted -- people also voted for (and against) Kevin Hill and for Mrs. Meeker (not trying to be disrespectful; just don't remember her name off the top of my head) as well as for the people who nominated Carolyn Morrisson and Keith Sutton. Sure, they didn't vote this year, but they certainly voted.
Secondly, they're not answerable to the entire county -- seats are elected by district, and each member is elected to represent his/her district. That's by intent -- many NC districts are at-large, but the General Assembly specifically decided that Wake County should be elected district-by-district. They did that to allow different needs of different parts of the county to be heard.
Thirdly, if you choose not to vote, you've given up your voice. (Or, more precisely, you've said "I don't care.")
Fourthly, if you are ineligible to vote, then your remedy is to convince the people who do vote to consider your views.
The voters in a majority of the districts have made it abundantly clear what they want. Over time, as new issues arise, things won't be so clear. In those situations, I expect the members will seek out public guidance. But right now, on these issues, public guidance has already been given.
Did they say they would quit
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 14:34 — red_balloonDid they say they would quit doing due diligence and not bother to take into account emerging/ changing information?
Touché
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 11:40 — Dadof3You CAN be as pedantic as me; well done!
So then, make a point and then run from it. Not too pretty.
Now, then; a correction: I don't see any reason to believe your assertions that the new board members will not listen to all parents.
There. And I didn't use too many big words, either.
Wow
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 11:41 — supportwcpssA compliment by the King of wordsmithing. I feel honored.
I think trying to shove through 8 resolutions without any opportunity for public comment on these issues indicated a lack of listening. Because we didn't comment on the general platforms during the election then our window of opportunity has closed?
Fairly...
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 11:55 — Bob_SconceIt was not possible to "shove through" a change on policy 6200 at the first meeting -- it needs two readings on two different days. There's chance for public comment in between those two readings.
Is that faster than opponents would like? Sure -- they want to stall the process as long as possible. But, it does give them time to comment.
I watched a part of it last
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 09:45 — red_balloonI watched a part of it last night. Who was that woman with the "sold your souls" comment? She was spewing hatred along with Lanane and I wondered if these were the same people claiming to have the welfare of children at heart.
There wouldn't have been a
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 20:32 — red_balloonThere wouldn't have been a need for the huddle if the other members were civil and responsible.
Not sure how asking for more discussion was uncivil
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 23:09 — occum_sharpeI'm not really sure how Mr. Sutton making a motion that the move to neighborhood schools be discussed in committee before a vote was uncivil or irresponsible. If anything, I think Ms. Goldman and Mr. Tedesco had a "change of heart" when they saw things going downhill (audience upset, board members pointing out that Ms. Goldman's resolution was not prepared and in board hands prior to meeting for review) and wanted to try to pull something together to save a little face.
If anything the new board minority was "gutless" in how they addressed the new majority (It is amazing how they wilted. I expected someone to raise a little cain, be a little uncivil and stand up for something, but they never did.) Give Ron Margiotta credit for the fact that he didn't try to sugarcoat and goose step around issues when he was in the minority. There is never any question about what he wants, and he states it in such a way that it is clear. I wanted to check Kevin Hill for a spine.
I was referring to the
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 23:20 — red_balloonI was referring to the likely confrontational attitude becoming evident before the 12/1 meeting occurred. As for the motion from the minority, it would make sense if the meeting was about finalizing the details. I am guessing it was only at a high level to mark a shift toward neighborhood schools. Since the new members ran on that plank, I do not know what discussion in a committee would achieve for a statement of direction when the will of the majority is known. I can understand discussions about the minutae but about the high level direction itself? Why would the new members back pedal on their election promises? They were sent in with a certain mandate and the old members should have sought to strike less disruptive ways of working with the new members since they were more experienced and should have known better.
I Understand
Sat, 12/05/2009 - 16:56 — occum_sharpeI understand where you are coming from, but I hate to see a "plank" agenda being pushed as it never comes out good in the end. However, I don't think the old members put up much of a fight. They were more whiny and wimpy than passionate and emboldened.
We can't play politics with our children and that is why I hate to see a platform that the Fab 5 is expected to stick to. They represent the school system as well as their individual districts and they need to have original thoughts, not just a party line.
Like the movie about the plane that crashed in the Andes, they will eventually have to "eat" one of their own when things get tough and it comes time to reassign students and if I were Mr. Tedesco, I would be worried. He will probably never see it coming. Not all of their districts will "win" in the neighborhood schools movement and the most likely losers will be in the Garner area.
What defines
Sat, 12/05/2009 - 23:55 — TrailerParkGirlWhat defines a "win" and a "loss"?
I agree. John is too nice
Sat, 12/05/2009 - 19:31 — user12345I agree. John is too nice and naive and Garner get shafted.
Said the man
Sun, 12/06/2009 - 00:03 — TrailerParkGirl"John is ... and naive," said the man who did not grow up in poverty about the one who did.
what does "nice & naive"
Wed, 12/09/2009 - 01:27 — carson79what does "nice & naive" have to do with poverty?????
you leaped right over what she/he said there to make a presumptuous comment about another bloggers' background that had nothing to do with the post even. Well done!
TP ... growing up in
Sun, 12/06/2009 - 11:16 — user12345TP ... growing up in poverity does not make you a political genius.
I have high hopes for John since he is the only member who truly understands the 40% minority / ED students and schools that need the most attention. But I don't think John was Ron's first choice and might go off script. Garner has many issues and needs a lot of help to rival Cary and Apex. I just don't see John getting that out of Ron. But I hope I am wrong.
Ron didn't make the
Sun, 12/06/2009 - 14:25 — jenmanRon didn't make the decisions as to who WSCA endorsed.
I meant
Sun, 12/06/2009 - 13:01 — TrailerParkGirlthat John is not naive about what needs to happen to raise achievement for ALL students. If you meant politically, he was a Town Manager and not naive about local politics either.
What I find amusing and frustrating is elites who act like they know everything about situations they've never personally experienced.
So, which is it - was John not Ron's first choice or is John Ron's pawn? I have never seen a person get labeled so many contradictory things before (I'm speaking in general) - it's nuts.
"So, which is it - was John
Sun, 12/06/2009 - 16:25 — user12345"So, which is it - was John not Ron's first choice or is John Ron's pawn? I have never seen a person get labeled so many contradictory things before (I'm speaking in general) - it's nuts. "
I think John was the least of all evils for Ron. Ron had to pick someone who was not associated with the old group which left John. But that meant Ron can not control him which is a risk. Eventually, John will need to deliver for Garner not Cary and Apex.