Kitsap Education

From: Louis Mitchell

Sent: Tuesday January 05, 2010 1:08 p.m.

To: Flip Herndon

Subject: FW: Communication between members of a governing body outside of a meeting

Importance: High

Flip,

It has come to my attention that a Board member is attempting to contact me to discuss the Board business outside of a public meeting. I do not engage in emailing or calling Board members directly and have only accepted a call from a seated Board member once in recent years. The call served to reaffirm my strict adherence to the Open Public Meetings Act.

On December 11, 2009, Mr. Scott Rahm called me and engaged me in a 2 hour and33 minute conversation in which he stated he had direct conversations with a quorum of the Board (Mr. Boynton and Ms. Perkins) – prior to the December 10, 2009 Board meeting - to discuss the nomination process (and by extension vote) for Board leadership. I informed Mr. Rahm that his actions have just taken the Bremerton School District “two steps backward.” This egregious  violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) in which discussion among a quorum occurred to set, predetermine, influence and/or arrange a public nomination and vote is reprehensible and an affront to the laws and procedures we are sworn to uphold. Although we have new faces, it seems we again are confronted with old behaviors.

Sidebar discussions of a quorum of the Board to discuss votes may constitute an “action” as defined by RCW Sec. 42 and undermines public trust, open communications and foments distrust among the Board. I have attached one of the many opinions from the Washington State Attorney General’s Office to elucidate the issue. Whereas communication may occur between two members of a governing body, one cannot be assured of confidentiality between other governing members as emails – and conversations – have been shared among a quorum in the past. The best insurance against OPMA violations is to not engage is (sic) such communications to begin with.

Although I am willing to consider the actions of the three new Board members as ignorance of the law, I have determined that until such a time as the new members participate in a study session on the OPMA and come to consensus on their obligations under the law, engaging them in direct communication outside of public meetings is not in the best interests of school district governance and will not build public communication and trust. The only way to build communication and trust – as the three new members have stated is their focus – is to set in place policies that restrict such communications to open public meetings, and eliminate policy promoting gatekeeper authority over individual Board members. In light of Mr. Rahm’s revelations, I have amended my previous email disclaimer to include conversations.

Regards,

Louis Mitchell - Bremerton School Board Director

DISCLAIMER

In order to observe strict compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, I do not authorize the forwarding of this email to any Bremerton School Board Director, nor will I send or accept direct emails or conversations from Bremerton School Board Members.

Olympic High School has a lot to celebrate this winter. The school held a massive celebratory pep rally this week to congratulate the many students who have achieved in musical and athletic competitions. Students and staff also gave a cheer for OHS grad Bree Schaaf, who is competing this week at the Winter Olympics in the bobsled.

OHS students who were feted this week included:

Kim Grey – State Solo Vocalist, selected to compete at the State Solo contest
Tim Layton – All State band selectee to play in the State Band
Krista Behling – State Solo pianist, selected to compete at the State Solo contest
Knowledge Bowl Team – Selected to compete at the State competition March 25th
Girls Bowling – 2nd place at State (Lacee Ness, Liza Ambrose, Audrey Deutsch, Emily Sutton and Kendra Willis)
Wrestling Team – 4th place at State (best team finish in school history)
Brandon Yeik – State Champion (wrestling)
Caleb O’Halek – State Champion (wrestling)
Cody Yeik – 2nd place at State (wrestling)
Jesse Borcherding – 3rd place at State (wrestling)
Matt Hoyt – 5th place at State (wrestling)
John Wojtek – 2nd place at State in the Breast Stroke (Swimming)
Girls Basketball – Congratulations on making the post-season
Boys Basketball – Congratulations on making the post-season

Today was the day we’ve all been anticipating – the release of the Senate and House budget proposals. The Senate’s proposal offers up much tougher cuts in K-12 public education.

Below is a sampling of reactions from various education stakeholders.

This statement is from Superintendent for Public Instruction Randy Dorn:

Today, the leadership in the state House of Representatives and Senate released their supplemental fiscal year 2010 budgets. In 1994, the state’s per pupil spending was $3,707, adjusted for inflation. The state Senate’s proposed budget for 2010 is $3,815 per student, just $108 per student more than 16 years ago and down $311 from 2007.

While both budgets decrease K-12 public education funding, the Senate’s version would cut approximately $650 million for the 2010-11 school year. Below is a statement from State Superintendent Randy Dorn on the impact of the budgets:

Both chambers of the Legislature today made an attempt to lessen the blow to education funding. The Senate budget, however, still makes cuts to education that will have real impacts on real students.  As this legislative session moves into its final days, I will urge the Legislature to support the House’s funding levels for our schools.

The Senate budget significantly cuts funding for the K-4 staffing ratio enhancement, reduces the funding districts have to hire classified staff and cuts funding for Initiative 728.  What would these cuts mean to our schools? The elimination of about 2,500 teachers and more than 300 bus drivers, secretaries and other classified staff; the increasing of class sizes in our kindergarten through fourth grade;  and the loss to school districts of more than 450,000 hours districts will have facilities maintenance and cleaning.

If I ask myself if today’s students have the same quality of education as their counterparts of three years ago, I would definitely say no. We are moving backward with education funding and putting more of a burden on local school districts. That’s just not right.

The bottom line is, we are now more dependent than ever on local levies for funding public education and that creates an alarming equity issue.

Even raising revenue doesn’t get us back to our 2007 funding levels, and those are the figures a King County Superior Court judge recently ruled weren’t enough to amply fund basic education.

Our education system is much more complex than when we first enacted education reform in 1994, and that’s about where the Senate’s proposed funding puts us. We have nearly 10 percent more low-income students and double the number of English-language learners (with 202 languages spoken by K-12 students). We have got to get serious about this. We’re asking educators to do much more with not nearly enough.

Let’s be clear, neither of these budgets meets our constitutional requirement to amply fund basic education. When we don’t put education funding first, students suffer. As the state’s education leader, I will let both chambers know their budgets continue to underfund education and do not ensure all our students are provided a meaningful, equitable education.

This is the reaction from the Washington State School Directors Association:
After several days of clear and sunny skies, the rain returned Tuesday. Unfortunately, even though you could retreat indoors to avoid the rain, the clouds and a feeling of doom and gloom hovered within legislative buildings as both Senate and House budget-writers released their 2010 Supplemental Operating Budget proposals today. Links to each budget proposal, along with a summary and the agency detail, are available from the Legislative Evaluation & Accountability Program Committee, under 2010 Supplemental Budgets. Brief details of each proposal follow below and we will provide more comprehensive information of the two plans in the next issue of our Impact newsletter.

The Senate plan solves the state’s $2.8 billion budget problem in four parts: budget reductions in all areas of state government total $838 million; $583 million in approved or “anticipated” federal relief (including $483 million in federal Medicaid payments); $498 million in various budget transfers; and $918 million in new revenue. The new revenue would come from an elimination of several tax loopholes or tax exemptions ($518 million); a one dollar per pack increase in the cigarette tax ($86 million); and a temporary 0.3 percent increase in the state sales tax ($313 million). The sales tax “surcharge” would be imposed from June 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013. The estimated $313 in additional 2009-11 revenue is intended to maintain funding for Local Effort Assistance, state-funded all-day kindergarten and state higher education need grants.

The Senate’s budget would reduce the K-12 education portion of the “maintenance level” budget by $214 million (maintenance level is the current budget, plus mandatory “maintenance” increases, such as increases in student enrollment and special education costs). By way of comparison, Gov. Gregoire’s Book I budget included a $406 million reduction to K-12, and her Book II budget called for $197 million in reductions. The major reductions include:

• The remaining $99 per student allocation to support purposes of Initiative 728 is eliminated, saving $79 million.
• Funding for the Class Size Enhancement in Grade 4 is eliminated (saving $37.2 million) and the K-3 Staff Ratio is reduced (saving $65.7 million). Currently, the law requires 49 certificated instructional staff (CIS) to 1,000 annual average FTE students enrolled in grades kindergarten through three; the enacted budget provides enhancements over these levels to reduce class size, funding 53.17 CIS per 1,000 average annual FTE students in grades kindergarten through four. These enhancements are decreased from the current ratios of 53.17 staff per 1,000 student FTEs to 49.5 staff per 1,000 student FTEs in grades K-3.
• Classified staff ratio enhancements are eliminated, saving $15.3 million.
• The final state-funded Learning Improvement Day is eliminated, saving $15.3 million.
• Numerous smaller statewide programs and grants are reduced or eliminated, decreasing costs by $10.5 million.

The House plan solves the state’s $2.8 billion budget problem in four parts: budget reductions in all areas of state government total $653 million (including $45 million in reductions already adopted with the passage of HB 2921); $641 million in anticipated federal funding; $547 million in various budget transfers, including $311 from reserves (leaving $428 million in the state’s General Fund ending balance; and $857 million in new revenue. The new revenue would come from…an unknown source. House budget-writers intend on releasing their revenue plan tomorrow. Several plans are on the table, including the mix of “discretionary” use taxes from the governor, the Senate’s 0.3 percent sales tax increase, and several ideas already introduced in the House. Those House plans include a temporary one cent increase in the sales tax, an increase in the estate tax for “high wage” earners, and an elimination of tax loopholes or tax exemptions.

The House’s budget would reduce the K-12 education portion of the “maintenance level” budget by $112 million — while it also provides some important increased funding. $7.2 million is provided to increase the “per pupil inflator” from one percent to four percent. This increases Local Effort Assistance funds for school districts and will allow some districts to collect additional local funds previously approved by voters. Another $25.3 million is provided to increase Local Effort Assistance by two percent, as provided for in HB 2893.

The major K-12 reductions included in the House budget include:

• The remaining $99 per student allocation to support purposes of Initiative 728 is eliminated, saving $79 million.
• Beginning in the 2010-11 school year, alternative learning experience (ALE) programs such as online and digital learning delivered over the internet, parent partnership programs (primarily instructional programs taking place in the home, with district responsibility for overseeing instruction), and contract-based learning programs will no longer be available to students in grades K-6, saving $22.7 million.
• The final state-funded Learning Improvement Day is eliminated, saving $15.7 million.
• Funding for K-4 staffing levels is reduced, saving $11.1 million. The state allocation for teachers and other certificated instructional staff in grades K-4 is reduced to approximately 52.7 staff per 1,000 students, from the current allocation rate of 53.2 staff per 1,000 students.
• A number of reductions are made to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards bonus program, totaling approximately $5.7 million.
• Numerous smaller statewide programs and grants are reduced or eliminated, decreasing costs by $10.8 million.
• Funding for the Focused Assistance program is eliminated, saving $3 million.
• Funding for Navigation 101 implementation grants is discontinued beginning in FY 2011, saving $3.2 million.
• Funding for the Beginning Educator Support Team (BEST) program is discontinued beginning FY 2011, saving $2.3 million.
• Funding for the Alternative Routes to Certification program is reduced by $2.1 million in FY 2011.
• Funding for middle school career and technical education is discontinued beginning in FY 2011, saving $1.8 million.

Both the Senate and House budgets were heard in their respective legislative committees this afternoon and evening. Both budget plans are expected to move fairly quickly; both are already scheduled to be moved out of their committees tomorrow. Whether both houses will adopt their own plan is to be determined. Normally, one house will pass their budget to the other house, where it will be amended and sent back to the first house, then behind-the-scenes negotiations on a final compromise budget will begin. Because both houses introduced their respective plans on the same day, it is unclear what process these budgets will follow. Of course, we will continue to keep you apprised.

In his recent resignation letter, former Bremerton School Board member Louis Mitchell wrote somewhat cryptically about why he left. He wrote about the importance of upholding the fidelity of office and “conducting one’s self beyond legal reproach.” In his only “on the record” statement about why he resigned, Mitchell explained that his letter was directed more toward his fellow board members than the public. It seemed as if he wanted to admonish other board members for their conduct.

On Thursday night, three board members responded. President Dave Boynton and members Carolynn Perkins and Scott Rahm were present for the meeting; Vicki Collins was absent. Mitchell did not attend.

When Boynton announced Mitchell’s resignation, he called his former colleague a “special person” for serving more than 10 years as a volunteer in education. “A community is lucky to have that  sort of person,” he added. Boynton said he hated to see Mitchell move on, and that he wished him the best of luck.

Perkins said the resignation made her very sad. She said Mitchell was a valuable source of information. “His integrity was above reproach.”

Rahm said Mitchell took his school board position very seriously, making tough choices and standing behind them. Mitchell will serve as a role model for the current board members, said Rahm.

At the end of the meeting, during the board members “reflection time,” both Rahm and Perkins mentioned moving forward positivelyto face tough choices, especially in regard to the budget.

It will be interesting to see who is chosen to replace Mitchell on the board. The board will accept applications for the position and go through an interview process. Boynton said he hoped the new member could be appointed before tough budget talks begin in April.  The new member will serve out Mitchell’s term through 2011.

Notably, former school board candidate Dave Rubie sat in the front row and watched the proceedings Thursday night. He’s a frequent audience member and was also a major player in the recent school support levy campaign.

The Sun recently received the email I’ve pasted below. (I’ve removed some identifying details.)

On tuesday 2/8 my son was suspended from school for fighting. While I understand the zero tollerance policy for fighting and I would NEVER encourage my child to hit another child the events that took place I found rather upsetting and disturbing. The children were out at recess, in an area that was not in the view of those supervising the playing children. Another child attacked my child, knocking him to the ground, pinning him there, and started to punch and kick my son. NO teachers where there to break this up nor did they witness any of this. The ONLY reason the other child stopped hitting my son was the bell rang for them to line up. My son did hit this child back trying to get him off of him.

I was called by the school and told that my son would be suspended for fighting at school because he and another child were wrestleing and it got out of hand (my thought was that is understandable boys will be boys). When my son got home from school is when I found out that no teacher had seen any of this and that wrestling was not at all the case. I immediatly called the school because I wanted to address this issue ASAP. I was then informed by the school that “The principal does not have time to address your concerns, they will have to wait until your schedualed meeting on Thursday”. I understand that she has a great deal to do, but that she “did not have time to address my concerns” about my child being attacked by another student while under their care and supervision astonished me, you would think it would have some what of a priority.

When attending “our meeting” I was then informed that while no adult saw this occure they interviewed 2 other children as to what they saw happen. It was based on these accounts thaty they gave out the punishments. I explained that I understood the identity of the minor children remains cinfidencial but I would like to see the statements that you are using to accuse my child. I was then time that under no circumstances would that be alloud, it was against policy. I guess that this school is not in america and due process does not apply.

They made no appologie for this happening, They went on to say that even if he was only defending himself that he still would have been suspended because he hit back. How is it ok to tell a child you should just take a beating when there is no adult to help you and if you do not just take it you will be labeled a brawler/troublemaker and receive the same exact punishment as the person who attacks you. When I asked how do you not expect him to defend himself when there was no one there to get this other kid off of him and how do you punish him for that I was informed that we simply will have to agree to disagree….really???

So this email brings up a couple questions in my mind:  How do teachers and principals deal with  (adjudicate) these situations? Is it OK to sometimes fall back on the “boys will be boys” mentality? Is the simple fix that when kids are on the playground, they should never be in a place that’s out of the sight of the supervisors? I’m sure Kitsap Education readers have some thought on this … fill me in folks.

Bremerton School Board member Louis Mitchell announced his resignation today.

Here’s a letter he sent to district officials and to some supporters today:

Pursuant with Bremerton School Policy 1114:
Having postponed this decision until such a time as to not interfere with the upcoming levy vote, I hereby give notice to Bremerton citizens of my resignation as your school board director. It has been a great honor to serve.
Having volunteered on various school district committees and in several of our schools since 2000, these combined ten years of experiences (in part) have served to reinforce lessons in public governance.
The most important lesson is to uphold with fidelity the oath of office and laws of the land, conducting one’s self beyond legal and ethical reproach, and not to let stand rationalization of questionable actions – by others – as being in the interest of students. This lesson is paramount, as infidelity to oath of office breeds controversy and distrust, deterring school district focus from its mission of excellence in public education, and ultimately becomes a diminution of the Board’s ability to govern in good faith.
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created” (RCW 42.56.030).
As United States citizens, our collective experience serves to remind us that our governing laws, forged from mistakes and abuses of the past, enable citizens to be the repository of authority, should they remain watchful. This past year, Bremerton citizens have proven a watchful eye is the best check to temper questionable governance. I commend our citizens’ demonstrated involvement in public education.
Our school district has made vast academic strides thanks largely to our teachers and classified staff charged with ever increasing academic results for all students. In order to continue this progress, it falls to the Board and administration to become high functioning governors and managers respectively. High functioning Boards check the temptation that those in leadership know what is best, instead seeking meaningful counsel from those we serve and employ. District leadership would do well to study and adopt year-round interest- based dialogue with staff and the public in order to maximize citizen input in governance decisions. I fervently believe that as we continue to value increasing open governance with our stakeholders, the Bremerton School District shall then be poised to become the most improved in Washington State.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve.
Respectfully,
Louis Mitchell

Last week’s ruling in the NEWS lawsuit, which challenged the funding of education in Washington, continues to make “news.”
Here’s a letter a group of legislators sent to Gov. Chris Gregoire asking her not to appeal the decision from Judge Erlick in King County Superior Court. Erlick found that the state does not properly fund education.

More than 30 legislators signed the letter, including some from this area: Larry Seaquist, Kathy Haigh, Christine Rolfes and Sherry Appleton. It asks Gregoire not to appeal the case and instead use those funds to work toward a solution for school funding.

A few weeks ago I wrote about a proposed piece of legislation that would have changed the way we refer to “at risk” kids. Instead they would have been called “at hope” kids.

Just as an FYI to Kitsap Education readers, that bill is now off the table.

From the AP:

The idea of changing Washington state law to refer to poor kids as “at hope” instead of “at-risk” has died in a legislative committee.

The bill sponsored by Democratic State Sen. Rosa Franklin didn’t even have a hearing before the Washington Legislature’s deadline for passing bills out of their committee of origin.

Franklin says she proposed the bill because negative labels are hurting kids’ chances for success.

The chair of the Senate Education Committee says the idea needs more work before it can be debated in Olympia.

Education is getting a lot of ink and attention around the region these days. Here’s a sample:

Back in August I wrote about a controversy in the Seattle School District over the adoption of a new, uniform math curriculum. A lawsuit grew out of the controversy and now a judge has ruled that the district must revisit its curriculum choice, Discovering Math, with a critical eye.

The Seattle Times published a fantastic piece yesterday on AP classes.

The Kingston High School Buccaneers Marching Band took third place, and $2,500, in the KZOK Battle of the Bands contest. The contest results were announced this morning on KZOK on the Bob Rivers Show.

This was Kingston’s first entry into the Battle of the Bands contest. The school is only three years old and band director Adam Campagna said the money will be well used for equipment and clinics for the students. Read more about that in this previous blog entry.

This is the third year for the Battle of the Bands. First place winner Puyallup won $10,000; second place Union will receive $7,500.