Wake County Superintendent Tony Tata isn't backing down from the concerns he's raised about the ties between the Great Schools in Wake Coalition and school board members Susan Evans and Christine Kushner.
Tata issued a statement today warning that the two board members may have "potential serious code of ethics violations" because of their ties with Great Schools. He also alleges that Great Schools has a "stranglehold" on the board members.
Both board members told Tata in their email responses they're not currently involved with the group. But Tata charges they refused his requests to sever ties with Great Schools.
Tata is supposed to meet with Evans and Kushner this week to talk in person about the concerns.
Here's a quick preface to Tata's statement. I tried to reach Tata on Monday but it appears the message never reached him.
"My response would have been that these are potential serious code of ethics violations on behalf of some board members of which I have already personally alerted the board chair to. I have had multiple private conversations with these members asking them to sever their ties with this special interest group and they refused. Membership in or support of special interest groups is strictly forbidden, as are secret meetings, secret draft resolutions and the like. Their attendance on stage as members of GSIW less than 3 weeks ago at an award ceremony is tantamount to members of the general assembly banking and finance committee receiving an award on behalf of Bank of America and then returning to the committee table pretending to represent all banks and the public equally. All of this came to light at the same time last week on the heels of their very public display of membership in and support of a special interest group. While March's Advance Ed report got dramatic coverage because it hammered one side of the aisle the recent report got tepid coverage. I fear that the hard work put into raising our accreditation, protecting our high school diplomas, and demonstrating good governance over the past year is threatened by the very narrow interests of this special interest group and the stranglehold they have on a couple of board members. But I think we can work through this and we have a meeting Friday to discuss how to move forward.
Had you asked, that is what I would have said."
Comments
Tata was wrong
Fri, 02/24/2012 - 18:58 — HereWeGoNow can we expect an apology
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 09:59 — VillageMentalityfrom the board members who accepted an award on behalf of great schools and who have NOT denounced great schools hateful rhetoric about the superintendent?
There's been wrong all over. Time for the others to admit to it, stop demonzing Tata and start woking together like grown ups.
Would the Tea Party...
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:12 — bpuli9999folks who want to dismantle the public school systems also apologize for their rhetoric? Or would that just be considered free speech?
Maybe you should go ask
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:19 — starsonoursMaybe you should go ask the Tea Party folks that said this. That would be a good place to start.
QUESTION...
Fri, 02/24/2012 - 19:26 — ClearThinkerSo what was this week about, Supt. Tata? Your actions made no sense from start to finish, and now you have significantly diminished yourself. Your judgment has been called into question, as has your leadership. The experience in public education you so sorely lacked is now so glaringly absent, as is your common sense. Either you're serious about making Wake Public Schools the best in the nation, or not. Please decide, then straighten up, or leave!
I think he got disgusted
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 10:25 — snordonewith the rhetoric from GSIW (which is not supported by WEP and the Chamber) and he momentarily lashed out. He has worked so hard, and I know YOU know what it is like to work your butt off and have an endless string of criticism that is not actually based on reality but based on an agenda. Their agenda is political control, not fixing our problems. All of us who know the people involved know their agenda. They have a long history in Wake. They don't understand the issues, they understand that there are 2 political parties and they want one completely in control.
WEP (not my favorite group, but has a few decent people) and the Chamber at least have a few issues they understand. Not the most important issues as far as I am concerned, but they are not 100% political.
If Tony leaves we are totally screwed and we all know it.
Not so
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 16:24 — realisticGSIW has Republican and Indy volunteers and supporters. Tata leaving would not be the end of the world, good grief. What drama. Now that there are cooler heads at the table, and the R's are scattering to other offices with their agendas, this leaves a more harmonious atmosphere for qualified candidates that did not consider the job last time it was available.
interesting
Sun, 02/26/2012 - 07:54 — snordoneAnne is their republican, Brenda no longer attends, she was the other one. Both saw the need to balance business with assignment policy, it was not about politics for them.
There is a huge difference between reading stories in the media and sitting down in meetings with staff, it is only through the latter that you get a real understanding of the change in focus and culture. We have had a major change that does not make for good newsprint, and therefore few people are aware of what Tata has really done. There is no drama in my statement, you just don't understand how far we have come and the real danger in going backwards. For the first time in 20 years there is a value in all children and all families, there is the understanding that demography does not define a child's ability, there is the use of accurate data and decisions are being made based on data, not the need to keep up appearances.
Did the previous board govern well? Not really. But on both sides of the isle extremism is the problem. And having a democratic extreme is no better than a republican extreme. In those situations people are committed to a party, not to the job of governing. GSIW is an extreme. The taxpayers association is an extreme. Neither are helpful, both are harmful.
I agree with Bill Gates, a publicly elected BOE is nothing but a menace. I'd love for there to be one BOE meeting/quarter and other than than leave Tony and his staff the hell alone.
Leave Tata alone
Sun, 02/26/2012 - 18:27 — Solon77Would you have taken the same position with Burns - just leave him alone ?
Leave Tata Alone
Sun, 02/26/2012 - 18:40 — HereWeGoWould you take the same position if you had a subordinate falsely accuse you of improper conduct?
Ehh...
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 11:54 — Bob_SconceTata is not subordinate to board members. He reports to the BOARD corporately, not the individual members. It's like saying "I'm a taxpayer, I pay your salary, so you have to do what I say."
I remember you...
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:09 — bpuli9999saying the exact opposite was true when it was Burns. But that was different, right?
He came out swinging for his
Fri, 02/24/2012 - 22:34 — loriacHe came out swinging for his staff. So, now back to work everyone, but his staff will have higher morale for it.
Great Point! Tata and his
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 00:57 — jeffrey1Great Point!
Tata and his staff have been working tirelessly for over a year. The did a lot of work to address the AdvancEd concerns, and AdvancEd issued a "glowing" report on their progress. But unlike all the hoopla associated with the initial AdvancEd visit, this latest visit and subsequent report were hardly addressed at all by media, GSIW, Barber, et al (wonder why?). Instead GSIW tried to steal headlines with outragous claims of lies and deceit on the part of staff.
Like any good leader, Tata got pissed off, and decided to take one for the team. Tata has enough support from the community, the media, the Chamber, etc that he could withstand the beating, come to terms with the board, and move on. But now his staff knows their boss will go to bat for them, and they will work even harder for him.
It's just like Coach Dale (Gene Hackman) asking to get ejected in "Hoosiers."
DOPEY...
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 12:20 — ClearThinker...as I sit here on a Saturday morning...reading the paper...drinking my coffee...listening to my kids playing in the living room...and preparing for my hair appt. later this afternoon...I just have to ask myself the question, "Are people like JF1 really this dopey, or are they so blown out that their "hero," Gen. Tata-tot, got his backside handed to him by two female Democratic board members ("Go sisters') who are tougher than he is when attacked?"
What Tata did this week was so unprofessional and such a lie, only truly dopey people who drink out of a bowl on the ground would rise to defend him. When Del Burns suddenly announced he was quitting and why, you same dopey bowl lickers were quick to blast the guy for what he did, and why he did it.
But when Tata-tots does worse, namely falsely and publicly accuse two sitting board members of ethics violations - something he is not entitled to do under ANY job description per his office, you Einsteins hail him for his "bravery and leadership."
BULL! It was petty, and worst of all, stupid. That man is military enough to know that if you're going to go after the enemy publicly, you better be able to kill the enemy publicly. Tony-tot went after the enemy with both barrels blazing, and in the end, was forced to fall to his knees, and lap up out of the same bowl you morons seek refreshment from.
So stop clowning yourselves, please! I mean, it's fun to read, but it's also scary to realize that there are really people like you who pride yourselves on being so, so stupid.
Tata was wrong! What he did was wrong! He has now diminished himself badly with his wrongheaded move. He now has to pray that his school choice plan works like a charm, or else his days in education are numbered.
Of course, Tata can always go back to being a shill for Fox News, or writing sexy military novels! He can falsely accuse all he wants then. Oh well, more coffee anyone?
Hope that hair appointment
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 23:11 — jeffrey1Hope that hair appointment left you with some decent locks, because I am struggling to think of any reason why someone would choose to bear children with you.
As for the content of your post, I generally don't respond to drivel.
That's the best...
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:07 — bpuli9999you can come up with?
You writing a book?
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 13:47 — jeffrey1You writing a book?
what is really "scary to realize"
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 12:24 — AngelaWis that you have spawn you are raising most likely with the same amount of hatred and filth and nastiness as you spew here.
KNOW WHY?...
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 14:24 — ClearThinker...I'm married to FS and YOU. We "spawn" all kinds of losers!
Plan
Thu, 02/23/2012 - 11:53 — jgegbgmgMaybe Tata has a plan - This might be his way of having the board majority terminate his contract so he can collect his payout and ride off into the sunset - Especially since he knows he has dug a deep hole for our system and wants to be gone when the results of his work backfire - This guy has lost his majority on the board and is trying to find a way to escape and this is his choice.
Here's the real story
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 18:44 — kah678There was a brilliant speech at the Feb. 7 board meeting during the public comment period. You can see it here, starting at about the 25 minute mark:
http://www.wral.com/news/video/10696559/#/vid10696559
Here are some key quotes from the speech, in which a Daniels mom sharply criticizes the new student assignment plan and also Supt. Tata:
“We feel like we have been duped with what we have been told about school choice…
I’m mad and disappointed that you all are knowingly doing this not only to my family but hundreds of others across Wake County. This new plan affects everyone in Wake County in an adverse way with real estate and business. I’ve heard that we’re too far along this path not to continue. But I think a good leader re-evaluates at every stage. A good general who has taken his troops across many miles would not continue with the battle if he got to the battlefield and saw his troops were outmatched. I think he would retreat and save the men and not continue with a plan with mistakes…”
Really no different...
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 18:51 — midtownmomPoint well taken. And here's my point. It's the public who was unhappy with the assignment plan and mandatory year round school and unhappy with Burn's leadership. See...really no change, just a different set of unhappy families.
Amen
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 11:57 — FSandYOUSame ole, same ole.
Ugh...more grandstanding
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 17:50 — mnordbergBoard members on both sides have had ties to "special interst groups". They are politically elected officials and to think they don't have ties to any specific group that they have the same general views as is sticking your head in the sand (Even if they are unoffical links) . When did the superintendent become the ethics or activity police for the school board? He is an appointed official by the school board. He should spend more time marketing the good things better and answering the questions that are behind all the criticism (In a way that is not condescending) . And grow some thicker skin because this is only the tip of the iceberg.
He is also a public servant
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 17:59 — starsonoursHe is also a public servant and when he discovers people violating the ethics rules should let the public know. Or would you prefer he turn a blind eye to the mis-doings of elected officials?
Ethics Violations
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 18:39 — nriemannI am sure the superintendent is tired of being attacked by GSIW. I am sure he is angry that Christine and Susan will not disavow the attacks. But the problem with the approach is that when you accuse someone of an ethics violation, you really need to be right. It does not appear to me that they violated the Board's Code of Ethics, which is in any event self-policing and therefore no more likely to be enforced against them than it was likely to be enforced against the Republican majority when GSIW was accusing them (also questionably) of ethics violations.
I expect he thought to pressure them to be more independent (as he sees it) by conducting this exercise in the media, but that too has its costs in lost trust and collegiality. I doubt it will prove to have been a wise or productive move.
ethics
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 18:57 — turnerk1The standard for an ethics violation seems to be quite hard to prove -- the member has to be "unduly influenced" by an outside group. How does one distinguish between agreeing with a group's position, and being unduly influenced? But, I know one way to determine if a member is NOT unduly influenced--when they vote against the group's position. Though it is clear Evans, Martin, and Kushner considered trying to repeal the assignment plan (note only 3 members, so it doesn't go against the Open Meetings Law), they seemed to have dropped the idea quickly. If Kushner and Evnas are really still active and influential members of the group (something they deny), they aren't being very good members since they are taking a position GSIW doesn't agree with, and they must not be influential any more, because GSIW is continuing to agitate for the plan's delay.
Is the GSIW statement false? Well, it certainly is filled with spin, and interprets facts in the worst possible light. But, in the world of political statements, it really doesn't seem any worse than usual. I don't understand why this particular statement is bothering Tata so much.
So that leaves me with why Tata decided to confront Evans and Kershner so publically. It's clear from this set of emails that they've had disagreements in private already, so why air the dirty laundry now? I'm usually not one to indulge in conspiracy theories, but I do have to wonder if he's trying to get fired. The poor guy must feel pretty abandoned. Not only did the chair that helped to pick him get voted out, but three more members are now running for higher office and may be gone soon. I've thought that Tata was such a great calming influence in the past; a voice that encouraged the board to put their differences aside and work toward the common goal. I'm very disappointed that he seems to be stirring up trouble now, instead of finding ways to get his questions answered without causing so much unneeded additional controversy. Already Debra Goldman is accusing her fellow board members of improprieties, and who knows what may develop in the next few weeks.
...
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 19:24 — SideburnsWell, we already know Evans has lied twice. Once about being a CPA. And just recently about her vote for the 9th grade center. Of course she'll deny being part of GSIW.
It seems like we're missing
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 19:04 — jenmanIt seems like we're missing part of the story here. Like you said, it sounds like they've had other discussions/disagreements before. I wonder what else has gone on.
I really hope that none of the other board members speaks out about this. Goldman breaks her media silence for this? Jeepers crow.
Interesting thoughts, Neil
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 21:50 — realisticOne would think if GSIW indeed had a stranglehold on the recently elected board members, we would be back at a base assignment plan already, and Tata would have a for sale sign in front of his house.
Which is why GSIW is so
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 23:55 — jeffrey1Which is why GSIW is so upset, and feels the need to resort to blatant falsehoods in order to try and sway public opinion. Not gonna happen GSIW, your 15 minutes are up.
So...
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 20:40 — Bob_SconceBased on the quote above, it's not entirely clear that the GSIW thing is the only ethics violation that Tata was referring to. There may very well be something else.
Regardless of whether it's an ethics problem, I think that it would do both Kushner and Evans credit to publicly disassociate themselves from GSIW. Surely Yvonne Brennen could have accepted the award -- there was no reason for them to be there.
So Tata...
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 13:49 — bpuli9999did not want to state the truth and instead opted to say a non-truth?
So are you suggesting that Board members should now publicly disassociate themselves from political organizations that they participated in before? Or are you saying the board is obligated to defend the super from criticism by the general public?
You seem to want to say something and yet cannot bring yourself to do it.
Uh...
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 17:59 — Bob_Sconce(1) No. I think that there are likely more ethics problems that were not reported. I think he did state the truth.
(2) I am not suggesting that board members should disassociate themselves from any political organizations with which they participated before. In this particular case, though, GSIW is spreading falsehoods about the school district and Evans and Kushner both apparantly have some substantial ability to influence GSIW. After all, when your organization receives an award, you don't send the guy from the mailroom to accept it -- you send the leaders. The fact that they have that ability, yet did not exercise it and did not repudiate GSIW's falsehoods is the problem.
(3) I don't know what you're expecting. I suspect you're looking for some broad statement from me about participation in political organizations -- I'm not going there, in part, because I don't have much of a problem with political participation, until it starts to falsely attack the school district.
Now, personally, I think this all is making a mountain out of a molehill. Since this all came about, both Kushner and Evans have said that they're not involved in GSIW any more and had no participation in the false press release, and that should be enough.
Not taken any action
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 18:53 — Solon77Not only have they stated they were no longer associated with GSIW, as board members they have not taken any action to derail the assignment plan or anything else Tata has put forward. In fact they have followed the code of ethics by not having their decisions influenced by special interest. Unfortunately that could not have been said about the former Fab 5 and that is what got them into trouble with Advanced ED. If Tata holds governance so dear, why is he falsely accusing two board members of ethics violations without any evidence ? That itself is poor governance. If you are going to accuse your bosses of something - you had better be right.
Argh...
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 23:43 — Bob_SconceI've gone through this before. Evidence: (1) GSIW sends them to an award presentation to act on its behalf in receiving the award -- that's evidence of a definite link. (2) public letter from GSIW that prints a bunch of falsehoods and attacks Tata. Add up those two things and you have a fairly good, but circumstantial case, that they were involved.
Yeah, it's not enough to give them the chair, but it's certainly enough to raise questions. They responded to those questions and I hope the entire matter is behind them now.
Incidentally, they are not his bosses -- he reports to the board, collectively, not to the individual members. He should definitely strive to have good relationships with them, but he also needs to defend the people who are working for him from scurrilous attacks.
Frankly, I don't understand GSIW's game here. They won the election. Time to turn off the attacks and let there be some healing. Instead, they're acting like a dog that's gotten its teeth into a bone.
Something else?
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 11:58 — FSandYOUYou're getting warmer.
Stepbystep is right. Why
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 23:07 — virginiadareStepbystep is right. Why should they disassociate themselves from GSIW? The only interest of GSIW is to make sure all schools in Wake County are great. Why is it different for board members to associate with GSIW, when board members of the former majority publicly and proudly associated with and participated in meetings of such interest groups as the Wake County Taxpayers Association, WSCA, WakeCARES, and Tea Party gathereings. These are groups who fought against funding the schools, denigrated and challenged and even brought lawsuits against the previous administration and staff, and publicly proclaimed their desire to get rid of public schools. Yet I never saw you say that board members should disassociate themselves from those groups with which they were aligned.
No...
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 23:42 — Bob_SconceThe problem isn't so-called "interest groups" per se. The problem is that GSIW is running around telling falsehoods and holding meetings where questions are asked about the assignment plan, and the people who know the most about it aren't allowed to speak. That tells me that GSIW is not only interested in making "sure all schools in Wake County are great." If you can show me where, after the '09 election, one of the then-majority was involved with a group that was spreading blatent falsehoods about the district, then I'll consider those other groups. But, frankly, I don't recall that happening.
I'd stay the heck away from
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 23:39 — jenmanI'd stay the heck away from GSIW based solely on their abhorrent behavior at public meetings and work sessions. I'd be embarrassed and ashamed to act that way and I'd want no association with people like that. It's hard to take anything that GSIW says seriously when they act the way they do.
GSIW IMO appeared to be
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 08:50 — DrActualFactualGSIW IMO appeared to be formed as an offshoot of Wake Up Wake County so that they could collect and use money raised there to fund efforts to obstruct WCPSS school operations and decision making. They worked and are currently working hand-in-hand with Rev. Barber to try to defeat and/or modify the controlled-choice assignment plan. They worked with NC Heat and other activist groups, etc. and the fact they brought AdvancEd into the equation to jeopardize the accreditation of our high schools and jeopardize the futures of our current students is reprehensible. I don't see why people can't clearly see them for what they are and how damaging their actions are to Wake Co. students. I would love to see the Raleigh Chamber of Commerce and WEP who both floated the Alves plan in the first place come out with some harsh criticism of GSIW--but I think WEP in particular works with them in many instances.
I'd say that's an accurate
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 09:18 — jenmanI'd say that's an accurate description.
why?
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 22:38 — stepbystepBecause Mr. Tata wants them to? I don't agree with all that GSIW says, but the group has also offered valuable information during the past two years. It seems that HE'S the one out of line with all his rants of late. I don't like his power moves. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote Ms. Evans and Ms. Kushner by email; he wanted attention and a chance to vent publicly because he knows the N&O is keeping tabs on email correspondence. I wish the BOE members hadn't taken his bait and instead simply responded with "let's meet or discuss by phone." His "apology" is not an apology at all, just another calculated move. It seems as if he's forgetting that he answers to the board rather than the other way around. I'm sure being part of an educational bureaucracy is very different from being a military commander, but he lost credibility with this latest maneuver. Also, I think he has more than enough on his plate than to be discussing BOE members and ethics violations. Besides, I'm sure Ms. Goldman will be happy to monitor ethics issues on his behalf and for the sake of all North Carolinians.
Concur
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 19:26 — Dove314Does seem unwise to productive interactions between BoE members and Supt. Tata when he elects to communicate in this fashion. Lots of hypocrisy continues to abound. What's new.
Is this blog still locked in mortal struggle over who is right and student assignment rather than productive discourse on how to maintain, much less improve student achievement with the available resource? Any progress on student achievement in the last couple of months?
Woodwork
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 21:56 — realisticI too am back out of the woodwork, Dove. Sadly, your answer is pretty much a no. Woodstock is gone, outed about 3 months ago. That's been a plus.
We can't seem to put the
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 19:47 — starsonoursWe can't seem to put the assignment plan behind us because the newly elected members want to roll back the clock to 2008...as so famously quoted in the Godfather "Everytime I try to get out they pull me back in!".....
Want is irrelevant
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 21:25 — Solon77What they may or may not want is irrelevant. What have they actually done to stop progress of the assignment plan ? Hmm - that would be nothing. Tata is trying to line up a scapegoat when things go south and the new board is not taking the bait.
What have they done to stop the plan?
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 12:02 — FSandYOUWasn't it just the other day it was reported/posted/blogged that several of them were discussing the plan, again, behind closed doors?
Don't kid yourself.
Its not like they didn't
Tue, 02/21/2012 - 23:56 — starsonoursIts not like they didn't work on a resolution to stop it (see blog about it today). They decided the could not take the blow back from the public for stopping the plan. Or in plain english they didn't have the guts to stop it. It seems they have decided instead to undermine and make sure the plan doesn't succeed (see blog about Evans, Kushner today). Tata is not trying to line up a scapegoat, he is trying to find out why members of the Board are supporting a group that does not support the Super and his staff (kinda odd to be a member of a group and also a member of a group that is determined to make sure the first group fails).