Wake County school board member Susan Evans has turned to a leader of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition to be one of her District 8 Board Advisory Council chairs.
Evans nominated Patty Williams, the communications director for Great Schools, on Monday to be one of the two BAC co-chairs. Williams was appointed in December to the BAC, which acts as sounding boards for board members.
The appointment comes after the controversy last week about the involvement of Evans and fellow board member Christine Kushner with Great Schools.
You had Superintendent Tony Tata's emails to the board members and their responses saying they weren't actively involved with Great Schools. Then you had Tata's statement questioning whether ethics violations may have occurred.
The state NAACP jumped into the picture on Thursday when the Rev. William Barber sent out an open letter that criticized Tata and praised Great Schools. Barber charged that in criticizing Great Schools, Tata "also attacked the teachers, parents, and children to whom this organization devotes itself."
"Putting in thousands of volunteer hours, GSIW was a critical partner in the black-white-brown coalition that came together to stop efforts by the extreme right wing movement that used Wake County students as pawns in an ideological crusade," Barber also said in the statement.
Then you had the joint statement from the school system on Friday:
"Board members Susan Evans and Christine Kushner; Board Chair, Kevin Hill; Superintendent Tony Tata; and Board attorney, Ann Majestic met today and had a serious, frank, and constructive conversation to discuss events of the past week. We all agreed that Ms. Evans and Ms. Kushner have not violated any ethical rules or principles in their work as board members. Mr. Tata has apologized to these board members for suggesting otherwise and has acknowledged that he should have handled his concerns in a different manner. We recognize the importance of a positive working relationship between the Board and the Superintendent and are all committed to working together on behalf of our students and our community."
Allison Backhouse weighed in on the issue on Saturday in a blog post in which she defended Tata and criticized Evans. Backhouse cites different instances where she charges Evans has lied. She also points to the award that both board members accepted on Great Schools' behalf last month.
"So pardon me if I don't believe the 'Just take our word for it' approach about their involvement in GSIW," Backhouse writes. "Actions speak much louder than words -- especially when there's an award involved."
Backhouse is a former District 8 BAC co-chair and was chair of former school board chairman Ron Margiotta's re-election campaign.
Comments
Don't worry
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:21 — fiestamomWe're in the best of hands, folks.
Why does Evans care about PC?
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:54 — local23Doesn't Ms. Prickett have PC in her district?
The more I read about Evans the more I am confused..IMHO hidden agendas.
...
Thu, 03/01/2012 - 08:08 — SideburnsWell, to be fair, many families from D8 attend Panther Creek. And, up until the redistricting, it was a D8 school.
What will be interesting is -- now that Evans has lied about her vote and rescinded her support to appease some of the parents (Sinkez), will she continue to lie to the rest of the parents who will now be frustrated when their child begins attending a very overcrowded school? There is no solution for next year.
Yes.
Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:18 — loriacYes.
Deja vu
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:01 — snordoneSame extremism, same mess, with a D rather than an R.
Argh...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:44 — Bob_SconceThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Yep. Why on earth would
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:06 — jenmanYep. Why on earth would she do this? The paid communications director of Great Schools as a BAC co-chair? Why do they need a co-chair? Definitely history repeating itself.
OH, I DON'T KNOW...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:46 — ClearThinker...why did Margiotta need to hire Shanahan or the other Tea Party attorney for so-called "in-house" counsel to do anything for the school system, when the school board already had an expert law firm on school matters on retainer? Williams isn't costing us one dime, and she has a right to serve. Margiotta frittered away enough taxpayers' money on right-wing lawyers to pay ten teachers salaries. What did we get for it? Why don't I hear you complaining about THAT?!!!
?
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:19 — Bob_SconceSo, first of all, neither Shanahan nor Farr are associated with the Tea Party. But, I guess it's your wont to label any conservative as a "tea-party extremist."
Secondly, Farr was hired to do an audit, which is something Tharrington-Smith could not do because they were a partial subject of an audit.
Thirdly, Farr found a number of ways in which the distict could improve its legal services and save money by doing so. Unfortunately, by the time he was done, your side had raised such a ruckus that implementing any of his recommendations would have set off another firestorm.
Fourthly, the board has a right to choose counsel of its own liking. Yes, they choose Shanahan to do the redistricting work, but if they hadn't of hired him, they would have had to hire somebody else -- election law is tricky, and the money has to be spent.
Fifthly, nobody has a "right" to serve. She has a right to public information and a right to *attend* public meetings. She has the right to speak during the comment session of school board meetings. But she does not have a 'right' to be on any BAC. That was purely Evans' call.
NICE TRY, SCONCY...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 14:28 — ClearThinker...., problem is the facts and truth are a bit different.
Thomas Farr was hired because Uncle Ronnie wanted a tough GOP consigliere to counter the NAACP racial bias lawsuit he knew was coming. That was Farr's claim-to-fame, unraveling racial biase claims. The audit assignment was added because margiotta was looking for leverage to get rid of Tharrington & Smith. Problem was T&S proved to be doing a great job at a greatly reduced price, so Ronny had no choice but to keep the Democrat dominated law firm.
Secondly, in my book, if you're not vocally against the Tea Party, then you're with them, so cut that crap. Farr and Shanynanny were sympathizers for sure.
Thirdly your point on the "your side had raised such a ruckus that implementing any of his recommendations would have set off another firestorm" is bull. Give me evidence, not lawyer's tricks, to back that up.
Fourthly, the board wasn't choosing counsel, margiotta was choosing counsel because he knew he had the votes to back uo whatever he did. The point is the board didn't need to hire to additional attorneys unless Majestic recommended they do so, and she damn sure didn't recommend the two clowns they...I'm sorry, I mean Ronnie hired.
And lastly, as a WCPSS parent and a taxpayer, Patty Williams has the right to be considered for any public post that is open to the general public via the school system. Her involvement with GSIW should not disqualify her from any consideration just because you don't like it. There. Clarifiied. Feel Better?
So...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 14:48 — Bob_SconceYour first paragraph is complete speculation with no evidence.
As to my point about implementing Farr's recommendations, that's just my read of the situation. I don't have evidence to back it up. I do know that he made a number of good ones. (A big one is that the district does need its own inside counsel to fend off legal risks that Tharrington-Smith just isn't in a position to see because they're outside.)
As to your last parargaph, the position didn't even exist until Evans created it for Williams.
The rest of your post is just childish name-calling, so I'm not going to respond, except to point it out.
THEN POINT THIS OUT...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 17:44 — ClearThinker...while you're at it...an N&O article from May 22, 2010 titled ,"School Board's Counsel Totes Up Hours" -
The legal bills keep rolling in from lawyer Tom Farr, interim special counsel for the Wake County School Board, according to public records. This week, Chairman Ron Margiotta and crew got dinged $250 for the hour Farr spent consulting on system layoffs.
Then there was the $1,000 bill for dealing with the NAACP's complaint in March to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, claiming the board's actions had turned the system into a "shambles."
The bill reflects four hours Farr spent reviewing the complaint, talking on the phone to Margiotta and school board counsel Ann Majestic, and reviewing and revising a letter to the accreditation agency.
Farr's recent report on how well Majestic and her law firm, Tharrington Smith, represented Wake County schools found that the firm basically did a good job at a low price, but concluded that the board would be better served by an in-house general counsel.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/05/22/494593/school-boards-counsel-totes-up.html#storylink=cpy
So...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:11 — Bob_Sconce(1) Curious why the back and neck pain ad shows up in your post.
(2) I didn't say that he didn't work on Barber's stuff. I said that it was pure speculation that Margiotta hired him to deal with the NAACP. Recall that when Farr was hired, Barber wasn't even in the picture. He didn't show up for another couple of months. Further, no reason that Farr couldn't have been hired LATER if the suit actually arose.
Interesting that you accuse Farr of being a tea-partier, yet admit that he fairly dealt with Tharrington Smith.
ANSWERS...
Thu, 03/01/2012 - 07:47 — ClearThinkerPer your concerns....
1) My posts are sponsored, aren't yours?
2) Farr's hiring to primarily deal with the looming NAACP threat is not speculation. As I said, he made his rep defending corporations against racial biase claims, not doing legal audits, which was thrown in to not only justify his outrageous and wasteful fee, but throw the fear of GOP-Tea Party "God" into Tharrington & Smith that they were being cut loose if the justification could be found. All of the above is fact.
3) Dealing with Tharrington & Smith "fairly" would have meant not needlessly putting them under a cloud to begin with. They were doing good work for the school system, that is until Ann Majestic sold her soul and started doing crumbing anti-diversity reports for Margiotta. I hope the kidnappers have returned her relative by now.
My next post will be sponsored by Preparation H, a reminder of how much I enjoy "inspiring" you guys!
My next post will be
Thu, 03/01/2012 - 23:34 — jeffrey1My next post will be sponsored by Preparation H, a reminder of how much I enjoy "inspiring" you guys!
I ran into Mr. CT in the pharmacy today. Told me he was there to pick up some more Preparation H for his wife. Said something about how his wife buys it by the case. When he got to the counter, the lady behind the counter asked if it was for him. Mr. CT replied, "No, it's for the Pain In My A$$."
WHAT I DON'T...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 17:49 — ClearThinker...understand is why you couldn't look first BEFORE sticking your foot in your mouth. You and jenjen have the same problem, say what you believe BEFORE you can't prove it. Typical of you Democrat-haters!
As for the Evans BAC co-chair position being created, it makes no difference. Williams, as a parent and county taxpayer, has the same right as any other District 8 citizen to serve. I didn't say she was entitled, just that she has the same right as any other citizen or parent in the district to serve.
?
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:06 — Bob_SconceWell, duh. The question isn't whether she's eligible. The point is that it wasn't a good idea to name her. Evans could have also named the Rev. Barber to co-chair the BAC, but that would have also been dumb.
WELL DUH, DUH...
Thu, 03/01/2012 - 07:38 — ClearThinker...I don't believe whether something is a "good idea" or not is a qualifier for anything. Was it a "good idea" for Tata to publicly go after Evans and Kushner in a fight he couldn't win? Was it smart for him to rail about the partisan associations of two school board members he politically opposes, when he's still on eggshells about his own well-known Tea Party associations?
Was it a good idea for our superintendent of Public Schools to allow himself to be photographed with the board chair for the expressed purpose of having that picture used in said former board chair's chump-change re-election campaign?
I mean, the world is filled with folks who don't always have a "good idea," but press on to whatever fate awaits them. Susan Evans is entitled to her own "good ideas." The fact remains that Patty Williams has the right to serve, whether you think it's smart or not.
...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 14:42 — SideburnsSecondly, in my book, if you're not vocally against the Tea Party, then you're with them, so cut that crap.
Hilarious.
KINDA LIKE...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 17:13 — ClearThinker...your three-cent blog, eh Sidebuns?
...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 17:36 — SideburnsI'm flattered that you read it.
I DONT...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 17:51 — ClearThinker...I print it out so that my dog has an easier bathroom experience! What a public service for animals everywhere!
AND AS FOR "LYING"...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:52 — ClearThinker...about the school system, you righties have some nerve. How do you think you won the 2009 school board elections to begin with? Tedesco, Malone, Goldman and Hug-A-Bear lied through their collective gums! We can start with, "WCPSS didn't care about what happened to black children...," and work our way down. It takes real gall to now accuse otherb groups of "lying" when that's how you got power in the first place!
09 election
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:28 — fiestamomI think the previous board was ousted b/c the previous board seemed not to care about the impact of endless reassignments on families. Patti Head's comment "they'll go where we tell them to" (not exact) didn't help with the impression that they cared more about bussing kids than educating kids.
I'm of the opinion that it's hopeless now. I truly hoped that endless bussing was over, but the last 3 years cured me of my naivete.
I don't remember them saying
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:22 — shearertwI don't remember them saying WCPSS doesn't care about black children....
I do recall them pointing out that the diversity busing policy was failing ED children, especially black children and that the Dem BOE members and top administation officials including Burns appeared to be uninterested in that FACT. This was substantiated to some degree given Burn's action regarding the EVAS report. In fact, I still believe the diversity policy had ZERO to do with ED performance or the performance of black children as was claimed by the administration. I believe some (but not all) of the naive BOE members of the day thought it may have been about that and they very well may have "cared" about black children. They were just duped by their ideology. The rest of them just thought they could make themselves look good by spreading underperforming kids around like pawns to make the school level test scores look better. I put Burns in that camp.
JUST AS LONG...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:40 — ClearThinker...as the new school board doesn't waste taxpayers' money hiring right-wing worthless Republican attorneys who know nothing about school system issues or redistricting, or designate right-wing think tanks to "train" incoming school board members, I guess I could let fly a taxpayer who has a child in WCPSS serving as a BAC co-chair. Somehow, that seems a lot less subversive!
Thank goodness that
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:49 — shearertwThank goodness that "taxpayer" isn't head of an organization that clearly lied, I'm sorry, spread false information about WCPSS recently.
What I don't understand is why this person needs to be on the BAC at all? Clearly Evans is already in close communication with this person. She should have used this slot to bring in someone with a point of view she is not already directly connected to. Isn't that the point of the BAC? This just looks like group think to me....
Just like her...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:04 — bpuli9999illustrious predecessor.
anf of course
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:40 — EBDarcythe footsteps of Prickett and the others who got rid of anyone who disagreed (or was suspected of disagreeing) after they were elected.
Not the smartest move politically on Evans' part. But certainly not the first controversial person to be appointed to a BAC position.
Please specifically state
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:08 — shearertwPlease specifically state the lie/misinformation RM's BAC nominee (or RM himself) was involved in spreading...
OH BY THE WAY....
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:46 — ClearThinker....isn't Uncle Ronny getting an "award" from the very same crazy group of right-wing Tea Partiers he designated to "train" incoming school board members on how to politicize and screwup a decent school system? I'm sure he'll be honored. Don't forget in your acceptance speech to talk about how the voters in District 8 rewarded you for your "outstanding" leadership as chairman last fall. That's the best part of the story!
Thank goodness Evans is not
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:27 — shearertwThank goodness Evans is not involved with GSIW or this might look suspicious.
Exactly
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 16:18 — FSandYOUShe has absolutely nothing to do with them, yet they appear with her, around her, near her at every turn.
Mr. Tata, you should have never apologized.