But that witch just won't die.
Now that the infernal test has been put to rest for the year, gosh, it's hard to know where to start. Lots to process, of course: another fully-salaried, shorter legislative session is complete; the School Board seems delirious as they wander in the wilderness; the County Commission has come up with what it's willing to fund and it's unrelated to what it costs to, I don't know, actually educate children; and the fatigue is visible on the faces of district staff who may or may not have jobs at the end of next month.
And I'm pretty sure that the Special Master actually used his words and spoke at the Board meeting last night.
And the Grizz won.
More coming soon.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Mayor Wharton Changing Tune on MPD in Schools
Mayor Wharton seems to have come full circle on how he feels about the Memphis Police Department's involvement in Memphis schools. Back in 2010, he couldn't abide anyone besides MPD officers in schools. Since the surrender of the charter, he's had trouble concealing his glee about no longer having a "maintenance of effort" for the Memphis schools, and finding new ways to spend the $68 million annually that had gone to the schools. This has included ending the presence of MPD officers (School Resource Officers, or "SRO's") in Memphis schools. As of the end of January 2012, it had been made clear to the TPC that school security in the merged district would not include the MPD. Now, here we are two-thirds of the way through the first quarter of 2013, and we find that Mayor Wharton is again an advocate for the MPD's presence in Memphis schools.
Back in November, in one of my earliest posts, I wrote that Memphis has a responsibility to continue to provide police services in Memphis schools - just as all of the municipalities that have police departments plan to do. At the time, I incorrectly assumed that this was a Police Director Toney Armstrong decision. Mayor Wharton is now making clear that this decision - whichever way it goes - is all "his administration's". Mayor Wharton seems to have come to a renewed understanding of the benefits for the city and its police enforcement efforts that stem from a police presence in schools: here he comments to Channel 3, and here, he explains his position to the Memphis Daily News. This is very late in the planning process, and we can hope that Mayor Wharton will expedite his decision making process so that everyone else can get underway with necessary planning. It may also be that Mayor Wharton has missed his window entirely, and that because other government entities have had to make do without his administration's input, they have already made their plans.
As I explained in the November post, neither district is able to fully reimburse either the MPD or the Sheriff for the services that our provided in our community's schools. Most of the safety and security services, therefore, are paid for as part of the MPD and SCSO budgets - unlike both school systems, who fully fund both of their in-house security teams and make lump-sum payments to MPD ($1 million/year) and SCSO ($200,000/year). Back in November, I was surprised that without any input from the School Board, the County Commission selected the most expensive way to provide safety and security services to schools, and decided to hire additional sheriff's deputies at a cost of $2 million per year (actually, a low-ball effort since Mayor Luttrell acknowledges that the actual cost is likely more than double that amount at about $5 million). But maybe it's easier to give more funding to the Sheriff than it is to give more funding to schools.
My view is that as long as most of the municipalities in Shelby County are stepping up to the plate with in-school services, Memphis should not be the only one to walk away from schools within the city limits - especially where that means some other law enforcement agency has to shoulder that burden, possibly at a higher cost. All of that said, it may well be that specially-trained in-district security staff at significant cost savings may be a strong option.
So here's a perfect project for our new Special Master - an issue that is vital to the smooth operation of all of our schools on Day 1, involves multiple parties, where pretty clearly no one is talking to anyone else about how to resolve it, has to do with multiple funding streams, and presents a good opportunity to gain efficiencies for the taxpayer if only Someone would limit the need for negotiation and just tell the parties how it will be done.
Back in November, in one of my earliest posts, I wrote that Memphis has a responsibility to continue to provide police services in Memphis schools - just as all of the municipalities that have police departments plan to do. At the time, I incorrectly assumed that this was a Police Director Toney Armstrong decision. Mayor Wharton is now making clear that this decision - whichever way it goes - is all "his administration's". Mayor Wharton seems to have come to a renewed understanding of the benefits for the city and its police enforcement efforts that stem from a police presence in schools: here he comments to Channel 3, and here, he explains his position to the Memphis Daily News. This is very late in the planning process, and we can hope that Mayor Wharton will expedite his decision making process so that everyone else can get underway with necessary planning. It may also be that Mayor Wharton has missed his window entirely, and that because other government entities have had to make do without his administration's input, they have already made their plans.
As I explained in the November post, neither district is able to fully reimburse either the MPD or the Sheriff for the services that our provided in our community's schools. Most of the safety and security services, therefore, are paid for as part of the MPD and SCSO budgets - unlike both school systems, who fully fund both of their in-house security teams and make lump-sum payments to MPD ($1 million/year) and SCSO ($200,000/year). Back in November, I was surprised that without any input from the School Board, the County Commission selected the most expensive way to provide safety and security services to schools, and decided to hire additional sheriff's deputies at a cost of $2 million per year (actually, a low-ball effort since Mayor Luttrell acknowledges that the actual cost is likely more than double that amount at about $5 million). But maybe it's easier to give more funding to the Sheriff than it is to give more funding to schools.
My view is that as long as most of the municipalities in Shelby County are stepping up to the plate with in-school services, Memphis should not be the only one to walk away from schools within the city limits - especially where that means some other law enforcement agency has to shoulder that burden, possibly at a higher cost. All of that said, it may well be that specially-trained in-district security staff at significant cost savings may be a strong option.
So here's a perfect project for our new Special Master - an issue that is vital to the smooth operation of all of our schools on Day 1, involves multiple parties, where pretty clearly no one is talking to anyone else about how to resolve it, has to do with multiple funding streams, and presents a good opportunity to gain efficiencies for the taxpayer if only Someone would limit the need for negotiation and just tell the parties how it will be done.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
It's Tuesday, So Vouchers and the State Charter Authorizer Are on the Docket
Some of our high-ranking state officials have already decided that they know better for us than we do. And their well-funded friends are trying to sell our neighbors on the idea that benefitting some kids over other kids is good for all kids.
From the group Standing Together for Strong Community Schools:
"Join us tomorrow on the hill, Tuesday March 5th for the House Education Committee meeting at Legislative Plaza, room 16 at 12 PM. They will be hearing the charter authorizer bill and voucher bill (with a likely amendment to expand the program) and we need as many people there as possible. We had a great turnout at the Education Committee meeting on February 19th–we need to fill the room with concerned constituents! As parents, business owners, community members, educators and public school advocates we ARE making a difference and our voices are being heard so let’s show up in force at Tuesday’s meeting.
If you have not done so already, please contact the committee members (copy and paste email addresses below to send your message) or sign our petitions (see links below). Call Governor Haslam’s office (615) 741-2001 to tell him you do not agree with vouchers. Also contact Beth Harwell’s (615) 741-0709 office to express your objection for a State Charter Authorizer as that will be up for vote on Tuesday.
bill.haslam@tn.gov, speaker.beth.harwell@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Harry.Brooks@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.John.DeBerry@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Joe.Pitts@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Harold.Love@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.John.Forgety@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Roger.Kane@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Debra.Moody@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Dawn.White@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Mark.White@capitol.tn.gov."
Petition Against the State Charter Authorizer
Petition Against Vouchers
From the group Standing Together for Strong Community Schools:
"Join us tomorrow on the hill, Tuesday March 5th for the House Education Committee meeting at Legislative Plaza, room 16 at 12 PM. They will be hearing the charter authorizer bill and voucher bill (with a likely amendment to expand the program) and we need as many people there as possible. We had a great turnout at the Education Committee meeting on February 19th–we need to fill the room with concerned constituents! As parents, business owners, community members, educators and public school advocates we ARE making a difference and our voices are being heard so let’s show up in force at Tuesday’s meeting.
If you have not done so already, please contact the committee members (copy and paste email addresses below to send your message) or sign our petitions (see links below). Call Governor Haslam’s office (615) 741-2001 to tell him you do not agree with vouchers. Also contact Beth Harwell’s (615) 741-0709 office to express your objection for a State Charter Authorizer as that will be up for vote on Tuesday.
bill.haslam@tn.gov, speaker.beth.harwell@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Harry.Brooks@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.John.DeBerry@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Joe.Pitts@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Harold.Love@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.John.Forgety@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Roger.Kane@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Debra.Moody@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Dawn.White@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Mark.White@capitol.tn.gov."
Petition Against the State Charter Authorizer
Petition Against Vouchers
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Commissioner Pickler Did the Right Thing
Commissioner David Pickler has found himself under an ethics cloud since mid-December. His colleague, Commissioner Martavius Jones brought the allegations at a Board meeting in a surprise resolution. I've done some thinking, and in the end, was not all that surprised that the Ethics Committee called off its investigation of the allegations. Not exonerated, not investigated, and still handling funds on behalf of MCS and SCS, Commissioner Pickler was not quite out from under that ethics cloud.
I'm relieved that Commissioner Pickler has now taken affirmative steps to remove even the appearance of impropriety. Elected officials that do business with the bodies on which they sit should always face increased scrutiny and abide by high standards of disclosure and transparency.
Without checking the budget myself, I believe Commissioner Pickler and SCS General Counsel Valerie Speakman when they say that the nature of the $12 million investment and its inclusion in the budget approved in June 2012 did not have enough information attached to it to indicate to Commissioner Pickler that his firm or employees would benefit from the investment. All of that said, I believe that as an elected public offical, at the point that Commissioner Pickler understood from his position as the head of a wealth management firm, that the firm was managing a large investment initiated by a government body of which he as a Board member, he had a duty to investigate his involvement in the investment. Specifically, he should have investigated how the investment originated, and then reviewed whether or not he voted in favor of the investment. Had he done that kind of investigation, he would have discovered that, in fact, he had voted in favor of the investment. Commissioner Pickler's next action should have been to satisfy his to duty to disclose the conflict of interest, and advise the Shelby County School Board of the situation. I hold public officials to a high standard, and regardless of what the written rules are, there are just minimum standards of conduct by which public and elected officials should abide. Pie in the sky, no?
Commissioner Pickler has now corrected the situation as best he can, give the timeline of events. Michael Kelley reports that Commissioner Pickler will no longer manage Tennessee School Board Association investments associated with MCS or SCS: "Pickler, who owns Pickler Wealth Advisers, has been the broker for the TSBA fund for several years, but he said he turned the account over to an employee whose commissions were not shared with him.
The TSBA last Tuesday accepted Pickler’s offer to withdraw his firm completely from any involvement with funds contributed by either MCS or Shelby County Schools."
The buffering from the live online broadcast of the Board meeting last night was abysmal, but I gathered that Commissioner Pickler stated that he also offered to resign from his position at the Tennessee School Board Association, and that the offer was rejected.
Commissioner Pickler's withdrawal of his firm as an investment manager for any MCS and SCS funds is appropriate, and will erase any appearance of impropriety going forward related to Commissioner Pickler's ability to vote in favor of local district investments in TSBA's trusts. That the TSBA has determined that it has no problem regarding doing business with one of its members and officers is not my concern.
Some further assessment of the accounts that were opened last summer will be necessary, in order to determine that the MCS investment is not assessed two separate annual fees due to the transfer of accounts to another wealth management group. Either the receiving wealth managers should waive the initial fees or first set of annual fees to which they may be entitled, or Pickler Wealth Management should refund the fees that it collected. Under no circumstances should the change in the investment managers result in any duplicative fees or debits to the initial MCS investment. Given the scrutiny on these accounts, we can expect that Board Chair Billy Orgel and the MCS finance folks will be double-checking to make sure that the MCS investment proceeds in a fair and orderly manner.
I'm relieved that Commissioner Pickler has now taken affirmative steps to remove even the appearance of impropriety. Elected officials that do business with the bodies on which they sit should always face increased scrutiny and abide by high standards of disclosure and transparency.
Without checking the budget myself, I believe Commissioner Pickler and SCS General Counsel Valerie Speakman when they say that the nature of the $12 million investment and its inclusion in the budget approved in June 2012 did not have enough information attached to it to indicate to Commissioner Pickler that his firm or employees would benefit from the investment. All of that said, I believe that as an elected public offical, at the point that Commissioner Pickler understood from his position as the head of a wealth management firm, that the firm was managing a large investment initiated by a government body of which he as a Board member, he had a duty to investigate his involvement in the investment. Specifically, he should have investigated how the investment originated, and then reviewed whether or not he voted in favor of the investment. Had he done that kind of investigation, he would have discovered that, in fact, he had voted in favor of the investment. Commissioner Pickler's next action should have been to satisfy his to duty to disclose the conflict of interest, and advise the Shelby County School Board of the situation. I hold public officials to a high standard, and regardless of what the written rules are, there are just minimum standards of conduct by which public and elected officials should abide. Pie in the sky, no?
Commissioner Pickler has now corrected the situation as best he can, give the timeline of events. Michael Kelley reports that Commissioner Pickler will no longer manage Tennessee School Board Association investments associated with MCS or SCS: "Pickler, who owns Pickler Wealth Advisers, has been the broker for the TSBA fund for several years, but he said he turned the account over to an employee whose commissions were not shared with him.
The TSBA last Tuesday accepted Pickler’s offer to withdraw his firm completely from any involvement with funds contributed by either MCS or Shelby County Schools."
The buffering from the live online broadcast of the Board meeting last night was abysmal, but I gathered that Commissioner Pickler stated that he also offered to resign from his position at the Tennessee School Board Association, and that the offer was rejected.
Commissioner Pickler's withdrawal of his firm as an investment manager for any MCS and SCS funds is appropriate, and will erase any appearance of impropriety going forward related to Commissioner Pickler's ability to vote in favor of local district investments in TSBA's trusts. That the TSBA has determined that it has no problem regarding doing business with one of its members and officers is not my concern.
Some further assessment of the accounts that were opened last summer will be necessary, in order to determine that the MCS investment is not assessed two separate annual fees due to the transfer of accounts to another wealth management group. Either the receiving wealth managers should waive the initial fees or first set of annual fees to which they may be entitled, or Pickler Wealth Management should refund the fees that it collected. Under no circumstances should the change in the investment managers result in any duplicative fees or debits to the initial MCS investment. Given the scrutiny on these accounts, we can expect that Board Chair Billy Orgel and the MCS finance folks will be double-checking to make sure that the MCS investment proceeds in a fair and orderly manner.
Last Minute School Closings Coming. Thanks, ASD.
School closings are controversial and contribute to instability in already vulnerable communities. I view school takeovers with the same critical view, with particular concern about the often patronizing - we know better - attitude of transplanted charter operators.
Before Thanksgiving, we knew that a high number of school closings were coming. Really, we'd known that since the spring of 2012 between the ASD's stated intentions and the Transition Planning Commission recommendations. But as of November, we still had no details about which schools and neighborhoods would be most affected. The announcements soon came hard and fast. I recently wrote about the seeming decline in the ASD's expansion.
If my readers don't know, there's a weekly WKNO program hosted by Eric Barnes, the publisher of the Memphis Daily News. He and other local journalists interview local newsmakers, usually with a political focus. I've added a "page" on the right-hand side of the blog for easy access. Anyway, last Friday (Feb. 22, 2013), ASD Superintendent Chris Barbic was interviewed by Barnes, his journo Bill Dries, and Eleanor Boudreau of WKNO Radio. The video isn't up yet, I'll post it when I see it. A transcript of the interview is available here.
Lots of background to tell you that there is no decline in the ASD's expansion. During the interview, ASD Supt. Chris Barbic stated that the ASD will open ten schools in Memphis for the 2013-14 school year. This would not be news, except for the fact that the ASD has only announced that it will open six schools in the fall.
The ASD announced that it will close and takeover six schools: Whitney, Georgian Hills, Hanley, Klondike, and Shannon Elementary Schools, and Corry Middle School. Cornerstone Prep announced that it will take over Lester Middle next year. So it is unclear whether the ASD would say that it has announced that it will take over six or seven schools for takeover, depending on whether they consider Cornerstone's announcement as a new announcement or not.
Here's the exchange from the Behind the Headlines interview:
Before Thanksgiving, we knew that a high number of school closings were coming. Really, we'd known that since the spring of 2012 between the ASD's stated intentions and the Transition Planning Commission recommendations. But as of November, we still had no details about which schools and neighborhoods would be most affected. The announcements soon came hard and fast. I recently wrote about the seeming decline in the ASD's expansion.
If my readers don't know, there's a weekly WKNO program hosted by Eric Barnes, the publisher of the Memphis Daily News. He and other local journalists interview local newsmakers, usually with a political focus. I've added a "page" on the right-hand side of the blog for easy access. Anyway, last Friday (Feb. 22, 2013), ASD Superintendent Chris Barbic was interviewed by Barnes, his journo Bill Dries, and Eleanor Boudreau of WKNO Radio. The video isn't up yet, I'll post it when I see it. A transcript of the interview is available here.
Lots of background to tell you that there is no decline in the ASD's expansion. During the interview, ASD Supt. Chris Barbic stated that the ASD will open ten schools in Memphis for the 2013-14 school year. This would not be news, except for the fact that the ASD has only announced that it will open six schools in the fall.
The ASD announced that it will close and takeover six schools: Whitney, Georgian Hills, Hanley, Klondike, and Shannon Elementary Schools, and Corry Middle School. Cornerstone Prep announced that it will take over Lester Middle next year. So it is unclear whether the ASD would say that it has announced that it will take over six or seven schools for takeover, depending on whether they consider Cornerstone's announcement as a new announcement or not.
Here's the exchange from the Behind the Headlines interview:
Barnes: Now I’m going to come back to Humes and
Gordon in a second. But just a quick,
you’ll add how many schools in next year?
Barbic: Next year we plan to add ten schools. Two that we’ll run ourselves, so two more in
Frayser. And then we will have eight
charter schools operating, uh, next year.
And all ten of those schools will be in Memphis.
So depending on how you count Lester Middle School, the ASD still has some school closures to announce - three or four to come. At the outset of this process, explained that it would select ten schools from a published list of fourteen schools. So far, eight schools on the list have NOT been selected. What ASD Supt. Barbic's statement on Friday night means is that the parents at:
Graves Elementary
Norris Elementary
Alcy Ball Elementary
Cherokee Elementary
Treadwell Elementary
Caldwell-Guthrie Elementary
Cypress Middle
Denver Elementary
should all still be very worried about who will be teaching their children next year. And teachers, of course, should be worried about whether they should be looking for other employment. The Norris parents and teachers are already nervous, since it's on MCS's school closure list. But ASD Supt. Barbic's statement is important because it means that either three or four of the schools on that list will be closed and reopened with charter organizations next school year. Well, kind of. Lester Middle was not on the list, but is being taken over next year. Maybe ASD Supt. Barbic is willing to take over schools that aren't on that list, but we have to think that there would be considerable pushback, as there has been in Binghampton, should the ASD continue to take over schools that are not on the published list of schools that might be taken over.
What are our stakeholder pain points here? I phrase it that way only because the consultants won't understand what we're talking about if I leave it in plain English. So there's the neighborhood instability that comes along with any school takeover, along with the loss of long-standing respected and well-loved employees that contribute to the sense of stability and well-being for the children that attend the school. There's the loss of tradition and neighborhood pride in the schools - like when the name, colors, or mascot of the school is changed. What if the ASD told Houston that it was no longer the Mustangs? Or that White Station was no longer the Spartans? Oh, that's just whining. There's the unpredictable nature, for the parents, of what kind of teachers will be brought in to educate the children - often newly-named, not-quite-fully-credentialed teachers, alt-cert teachers with mixed student teaching experience, and let's not forget the five-week-trained Teach for America recent college grads - all with little classroom management experience or knowledge of school discipline principles. Oh, but they're eager and well-meaning (we must not forget that part). For the students, it's the sea change in the school that they attended last year - the loss of familiar faces and patterns, and the pressure of learning from a brand new teacher who is still on the front end of their own learning curve.
And then there's the teachers. Based on last year's transfer process, the process for teachers to voluntarily transfer to another school should already be underway. According to the current information on the "Teach Memphis" website, managed by TNTP (formerly, The New Teacher Project), the contractor hired by MCS and SCS to conduct teacher hiring, the transfer period is scheduled for spring 2013. But depending on the timing of the ASD's delayed announcement, teachers at schools that are being closed by the ASD may miss their opportunity to transfer to another position. The second round of hiring for the ASD finishes up in the next few days. Nothing like putting teachers at a disadvantage in the hiring process.
If the ASD continues its trend of rejecting the full-school turnaround model, then not all of the teachers at the schools subject to the ASD's delayed announcement would lose their jobs all at once - but it will depend on how the ASD chooses to implement its plan.
We're still very much in the weeds of the budget for next year, but we know that both the School Board and the County Commission are considering significant teacher lay-offs next year, both in SCS and MCS. There has been no talk of an external hiring freeze, so with the expiration of the contract with MEA this summer, we should expect that experienced teachers will be competing for scarce positions with both new education school graduates, the alt-cert pipeline (individuals that become teachers through non-university programs) loved by reformers, and however many Teach for America folks that the district has contracted to hire. There will likely be no more "bumping".
At this point, we have to assume that ASD Supt. Barbic understands that he is contributing to the grave uncertainty associated with putting together the merged district, and the School Board's ability to reach an agreement on appropriate school staffing levels. Should we be grateful that the ASD planners weren't wasting their time and our state tax dollars in coming up with their expansion plan? Maybe. But I don't think we should appreciate the continued, unexplained delay in ASD Supt. Barbic's announcement regarding the remaining MCS schools that he expects to close at the end of this school year, and the resulting spinning of wheels by the Board and district staff with local tax dollars.
Graves Elementary
Norris Elementary
Alcy Ball Elementary
Cherokee Elementary
Treadwell Elementary
Caldwell-Guthrie Elementary
Cypress Middle
Denver Elementary
should all still be very worried about who will be teaching their children next year. And teachers, of course, should be worried about whether they should be looking for other employment. The Norris parents and teachers are already nervous, since it's on MCS's school closure list. But ASD Supt. Barbic's statement is important because it means that either three or four of the schools on that list will be closed and reopened with charter organizations next school year. Well, kind of. Lester Middle was not on the list, but is being taken over next year. Maybe ASD Supt. Barbic is willing to take over schools that aren't on that list, but we have to think that there would be considerable pushback, as there has been in Binghampton, should the ASD continue to take over schools that are not on the published list of schools that might be taken over.
What are our stakeholder pain points here? I phrase it that way only because the consultants won't understand what we're talking about if I leave it in plain English. So there's the neighborhood instability that comes along with any school takeover, along with the loss of long-standing respected and well-loved employees that contribute to the sense of stability and well-being for the children that attend the school. There's the loss of tradition and neighborhood pride in the schools - like when the name, colors, or mascot of the school is changed. What if the ASD told Houston that it was no longer the Mustangs? Or that White Station was no longer the Spartans? Oh, that's just whining. There's the unpredictable nature, for the parents, of what kind of teachers will be brought in to educate the children - often newly-named, not-quite-fully-credentialed teachers, alt-cert teachers with mixed student teaching experience, and let's not forget the five-week-trained Teach for America recent college grads - all with little classroom management experience or knowledge of school discipline principles. Oh, but they're eager and well-meaning (we must not forget that part). For the students, it's the sea change in the school that they attended last year - the loss of familiar faces and patterns, and the pressure of learning from a brand new teacher who is still on the front end of their own learning curve.
And then there's the teachers. Based on last year's transfer process, the process for teachers to voluntarily transfer to another school should already be underway. According to the current information on the "Teach Memphis" website, managed by TNTP (formerly, The New Teacher Project), the contractor hired by MCS and SCS to conduct teacher hiring, the transfer period is scheduled for spring 2013. But depending on the timing of the ASD's delayed announcement, teachers at schools that are being closed by the ASD may miss their opportunity to transfer to another position. The second round of hiring for the ASD finishes up in the next few days. Nothing like putting teachers at a disadvantage in the hiring process.
If the ASD continues its trend of rejecting the full-school turnaround model, then not all of the teachers at the schools subject to the ASD's delayed announcement would lose their jobs all at once - but it will depend on how the ASD chooses to implement its plan.
We're still very much in the weeds of the budget for next year, but we know that both the School Board and the County Commission are considering significant teacher lay-offs next year, both in SCS and MCS. There has been no talk of an external hiring freeze, so with the expiration of the contract with MEA this summer, we should expect that experienced teachers will be competing for scarce positions with both new education school graduates, the alt-cert pipeline (individuals that become teachers through non-university programs) loved by reformers, and however many Teach for America folks that the district has contracted to hire. There will likely be no more "bumping".
At this point, we have to assume that ASD Supt. Barbic understands that he is contributing to the grave uncertainty associated with putting together the merged district, and the School Board's ability to reach an agreement on appropriate school staffing levels. Should we be grateful that the ASD planners weren't wasting their time and our state tax dollars in coming up with their expansion plan? Maybe. But I don't think we should appreciate the continued, unexplained delay in ASD Supt. Barbic's announcement regarding the remaining MCS schools that he expects to close at the end of this school year, and the resulting spinning of wheels by the Board and district staff with local tax dollars.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Ethics Investigation Called Off
The ethics committee investigation into allegations against Shelby County School Board Commissioner David Pickler made by Martavius Jones has completed its work. Here's an article, but the headline doesn't exactly match the contents of the article.
Commissioner Pickler has taken the opportunity to claim that he has been "exonerated", and to carefully not comment on any action he might pursue against Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Pickler believes that his business and his family have been affected by the allegations. This information might match the headline "Panel in Memphis Clears School Board Member of Ethics Charge."
In fact, the committee declined to investigate the allegations against Commissioner Pickler because "it has neither the evidence nor the power to investigate the accusations." It sounds like the committee needed some more information about the allegations but did not have the power (or ability) to get that information. No ability to subpoena records or take sworn testimony likely posed a problem. The chair of the committee explained that the committee's recommendation is to revise the policy - ostensibly, so that a future committee could complete an investigation.
This is a good news/bad news situation for Commissioner Pickler. "Committee member David Reaves and school board attorney Valerie Speakman noted that Pickler had carefully disclosed his brokerage connections in business with Shelby County Schools. Speakman also noted that Pickler could not have been expected to disclose in this case because there wasn't a way for him to know what the expense was when the budget was presented to the board last June." This is good for Commissioner Pickler: in the past, he "carefully disclosed" the conflict of interest. The SCS General Counsel squarely supports Commissioner Pickler when she says that the investment as itemized in the budget approved in June would not have reasonably indicated to Commissioner Pickler that the investment would end up with his firm, or that he should disclose his conflict of interest. All fair, and it resolves some of the concerns that I've raised in previous posts.
The bad news for Commissioner Pickler is that the Committee was not able to get to the actual allegations and issue an opinion one way or the other. Two of the three members of the committee pretty clearly thought there was some smoke, but didn't get to investigate whether there was fire.
But let's take Commissioner Pickler's word for it. He's an honest guy. He previously disclosed his business relationship with the TSBA accounts. And he didn't know that when he voted on the budget, he was voting in favor of a $12 million investment with his firm.
This should be a major lesson for the school district and for the staff (or highly-paid consultants) who put together the budget. The line items for expenditures, contracts, investments, whatever should be detailed enough that Board members who do business with the district, or business near the district, can reasonably determine whether their business will be affected by the budget. This would allow Board members to appropriately disclose their conflicts of interest, and recuse themselves from any votes if necessary.
This is a different problem than Commissioners not reading the budget or the supporting information that they are provided. It should not be up to district staff to flag conflicts for Board commissioners - each Board commissioner should be on top of their business relationships with the district (or near the district) and review the budget for any possible conflicts of interest.
Recently, Commissioner Joe Clayton raised the issue that several Board commissioners are retirees of either MCS or SCS, and therefore have a very personal financial interest in some of the TPC recommendations related to district benefits, mainly health insurance, for retirees. He asked if recusal would be necessary. SCS General Counsel explained that if MCS and SCS retirees were required to recuse themselves, that it is unlikely that the Board would even be able to achieve a quorum to vote on any proposals. That's a tough situation, but at least the conflict has been publicly discussed. We should hope that as these matters come up for votes that each Board member with a personal financial interest will explicitly disclose the conflict.
Given all of that, Commissioner Pickler still might have a problem. Obviously, best case scenario is that you disclose your conflict of interest on the front end - prior to the vote. But what if you didn't know you were voting in favor of your financial interest? Does your duty to disclose expire? Or do you have a duty to disclose the conflict of interest at the point that you become aware of the conflict of interest? I don't know anything about wealth management, but just the name of the profession seems to imply that you're dealing with large amounts of money. When you're in that profession, is it fair to assume that as the owner of a wealth management firm, you would be aware of a new $12 million investment? My sense is that in this area of the country, a $12 million investment would be notable.
Certainly, in a monthly or quarterly review of the accounts, a new $12 million investment seems like it would cross the purview of the owner of the business. It would be up to the owner to make sure that commissions and account fees are distributed appropriately to his or her employees, at the very least. We could suppose that it would be possible that the first that Commissioner Pickler heard about the $12 million investment was in Commissioner Jones' resolution, but we should probably consider how likely that is. It probably still matters what Commissioner Pickler knew, and when he knew it.
In an editorial, the Commercial Appeal argues for a ethics policy that would empower an ethics committee to investigate and gather information in order to investigate ethics allegations. Well, now that we know that the current policy did not allow either to take place in this case, we can hope that the attorneys or the policy people are working on a re-write. Now that we know, we should respond appropriately. Because when you find out about a potential problem, you should seek to remedy it.
Commissioner Pickler has taken the opportunity to claim that he has been "exonerated", and to carefully not comment on any action he might pursue against Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Pickler believes that his business and his family have been affected by the allegations. This information might match the headline "Panel in Memphis Clears School Board Member of Ethics Charge."
In fact, the committee declined to investigate the allegations against Commissioner Pickler because "it has neither the evidence nor the power to investigate the accusations." It sounds like the committee needed some more information about the allegations but did not have the power (or ability) to get that information. No ability to subpoena records or take sworn testimony likely posed a problem. The chair of the committee explained that the committee's recommendation is to revise the policy - ostensibly, so that a future committee could complete an investigation.
This is a good news/bad news situation for Commissioner Pickler. "Committee member David Reaves and school board attorney Valerie Speakman noted that Pickler had carefully disclosed his brokerage connections in business with Shelby County Schools. Speakman also noted that Pickler could not have been expected to disclose in this case because there wasn't a way for him to know what the expense was when the budget was presented to the board last June." This is good for Commissioner Pickler: in the past, he "carefully disclosed" the conflict of interest. The SCS General Counsel squarely supports Commissioner Pickler when she says that the investment as itemized in the budget approved in June would not have reasonably indicated to Commissioner Pickler that the investment would end up with his firm, or that he should disclose his conflict of interest. All fair, and it resolves some of the concerns that I've raised in previous posts.
The bad news for Commissioner Pickler is that the Committee was not able to get to the actual allegations and issue an opinion one way or the other. Two of the three members of the committee pretty clearly thought there was some smoke, but didn't get to investigate whether there was fire.
But let's take Commissioner Pickler's word for it. He's an honest guy. He previously disclosed his business relationship with the TSBA accounts. And he didn't know that when he voted on the budget, he was voting in favor of a $12 million investment with his firm.
This should be a major lesson for the school district and for the staff (or highly-paid consultants) who put together the budget. The line items for expenditures, contracts, investments, whatever should be detailed enough that Board members who do business with the district, or business near the district, can reasonably determine whether their business will be affected by the budget. This would allow Board members to appropriately disclose their conflicts of interest, and recuse themselves from any votes if necessary.
This is a different problem than Commissioners not reading the budget or the supporting information that they are provided. It should not be up to district staff to flag conflicts for Board commissioners - each Board commissioner should be on top of their business relationships with the district (or near the district) and review the budget for any possible conflicts of interest.
Recently, Commissioner Joe Clayton raised the issue that several Board commissioners are retirees of either MCS or SCS, and therefore have a very personal financial interest in some of the TPC recommendations related to district benefits, mainly health insurance, for retirees. He asked if recusal would be necessary. SCS General Counsel explained that if MCS and SCS retirees were required to recuse themselves, that it is unlikely that the Board would even be able to achieve a quorum to vote on any proposals. That's a tough situation, but at least the conflict has been publicly discussed. We should hope that as these matters come up for votes that each Board member with a personal financial interest will explicitly disclose the conflict.
Given all of that, Commissioner Pickler still might have a problem. Obviously, best case scenario is that you disclose your conflict of interest on the front end - prior to the vote. But what if you didn't know you were voting in favor of your financial interest? Does your duty to disclose expire? Or do you have a duty to disclose the conflict of interest at the point that you become aware of the conflict of interest? I don't know anything about wealth management, but just the name of the profession seems to imply that you're dealing with large amounts of money. When you're in that profession, is it fair to assume that as the owner of a wealth management firm, you would be aware of a new $12 million investment? My sense is that in this area of the country, a $12 million investment would be notable.
Certainly, in a monthly or quarterly review of the accounts, a new $12 million investment seems like it would cross the purview of the owner of the business. It would be up to the owner to make sure that commissions and account fees are distributed appropriately to his or her employees, at the very least. We could suppose that it would be possible that the first that Commissioner Pickler heard about the $12 million investment was in Commissioner Jones' resolution, but we should probably consider how likely that is. It probably still matters what Commissioner Pickler knew, and when he knew it.
In an editorial, the Commercial Appeal argues for a ethics policy that would empower an ethics committee to investigate and gather information in order to investigate ethics allegations. Well, now that we know that the current policy did not allow either to take place in this case, we can hope that the attorneys or the policy people are working on a re-write. Now that we know, we should respond appropriately. Because when you find out about a potential problem, you should seek to remedy it.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
A Budget Primer - Courtesy of Steve Ross
We're finally seeing some traction for meaningful analysis of the schools budget. I couldn't bring myself to get into the numbers, so I concentrated on process - big picture stuff.
Thank goodness Steve Ross has a higher tolerance for putting together the actual numbers - on his own, with no help from the consultants. It's not quite safe to assume that all of our Board members really understand how the schools get paid for. The Tennessee School Board Association gives presentations to Boards - the Board members are not exactly without the resources to figure this stuff out. But most of the unfortunate aspects of the public discussion has resulted because of lack of understanding by the public and by our elected officials of the fundamentals of school funding. To the list of resources we now should add the two most recent posts from Steve Ross - Required Reading.
Steve Ross got started on Sunday. Since then, he's been furiously writing and explaining. First, he explains where the money comes from, then he explains where the money goes. Great work. Seriously, great work.
I've heard most of the pieces of this, but not in one place. Mr. Ross has really done a lot of work to pull this together. And his commentary is important.
And, I think, raises some questions that the County Commission needs to answer. The state lets the County know what its minimum level of funding is. Shelby County has funded both systems slightly over that minimum. However, "[a]s you can see here, the County has consistently, over the past 4 years, funded the City schools less, as a percentage of BEP than the County Schools. Sure, both numbers are more than the minimum, but the lack of true parity turns into real money in short order. $63m of real money in fact."
The County Commission would likely tell us that with the extra Memphis contribution, and the fact that for capital improvements, Memphis gets $3 for every $1 in SCS capital spending, that Memphis just didn't need an equitable level of funding. Maybe that used to fly - in a merged system, it doesn't.
But this policy by the County Commission has real results. What would be an example of how that little bit of extra disproportionate funding could be spent? One example might be the shiny new Grays Creek facility that SCS built out in Arlington. This building did not follow the usual process - through the former Needs Assessment Committee (recently disbanded) - which was put in place to make sure that capital expenditures in the two school districts were equitable. Capital expenditures are funds spent on building buildings, repairing them, and other one-time infrastructure expenditures. As mentioned above, the proportion was $3:$1 and generally, if SCS wanted to build a school, it would come up with the cost, and MCS would get three times that amount. It has to do with proportionate spending between the two districts and functioned as a pain point for the county, and a point of negotiation for the city.
So how could SCS build a building that didn't go through the Needs Assessment Committee and that didn't result in equitable funding for MCS? My understanding is that it managed to build it entirely with surplus funds. Each year, just about any money that was left over at the end of the school year was put toward the building as a "one-time, non-recurring educational expense". That's right, with all of the cuts that were necessary in SCS over the last few years - ask the administrators and teachers, they'll tell you how they were impacted - SCS still managed to have enough "surplus" funds to build the beautiful Grays Creek facility.
You might be for or against the merger, and you might be for or against municipal school districts. But the merger, for the year that it exists, just might let us have a real discussion about what equitable funding looks like, why it's important, and how it impacts the classroom.
Thank goodness Steve Ross has a higher tolerance for putting together the actual numbers - on his own, with no help from the consultants. It's not quite safe to assume that all of our Board members really understand how the schools get paid for. The Tennessee School Board Association gives presentations to Boards - the Board members are not exactly without the resources to figure this stuff out. But most of the unfortunate aspects of the public discussion has resulted because of lack of understanding by the public and by our elected officials of the fundamentals of school funding. To the list of resources we now should add the two most recent posts from Steve Ross - Required Reading.
Steve Ross got started on Sunday. Since then, he's been furiously writing and explaining. First, he explains where the money comes from, then he explains where the money goes. Great work. Seriously, great work.
I've heard most of the pieces of this, but not in one place. Mr. Ross has really done a lot of work to pull this together. And his commentary is important.
And, I think, raises some questions that the County Commission needs to answer. The state lets the County know what its minimum level of funding is. Shelby County has funded both systems slightly over that minimum. However, "[a]s you can see here, the County has consistently, over the past 4 years, funded the City schools less, as a percentage of BEP than the County Schools. Sure, both numbers are more than the minimum, but the lack of true parity turns into real money in short order. $63m of real money in fact."
The County Commission would likely tell us that with the extra Memphis contribution, and the fact that for capital improvements, Memphis gets $3 for every $1 in SCS capital spending, that Memphis just didn't need an equitable level of funding. Maybe that used to fly - in a merged system, it doesn't.
But this policy by the County Commission has real results. What would be an example of how that little bit of extra disproportionate funding could be spent? One example might be the shiny new Grays Creek facility that SCS built out in Arlington. This building did not follow the usual process - through the former Needs Assessment Committee (recently disbanded) - which was put in place to make sure that capital expenditures in the two school districts were equitable. Capital expenditures are funds spent on building buildings, repairing them, and other one-time infrastructure expenditures. As mentioned above, the proportion was $3:$1 and generally, if SCS wanted to build a school, it would come up with the cost, and MCS would get three times that amount. It has to do with proportionate spending between the two districts and functioned as a pain point for the county, and a point of negotiation for the city.
So how could SCS build a building that didn't go through the Needs Assessment Committee and that didn't result in equitable funding for MCS? My understanding is that it managed to build it entirely with surplus funds. Each year, just about any money that was left over at the end of the school year was put toward the building as a "one-time, non-recurring educational expense". That's right, with all of the cuts that were necessary in SCS over the last few years - ask the administrators and teachers, they'll tell you how they were impacted - SCS still managed to have enough "surplus" funds to build the beautiful Grays Creek facility.
You might be for or against the merger, and you might be for or against municipal school districts. But the merger, for the year that it exists, just might let us have a real discussion about what equitable funding looks like, why it's important, and how it impacts the classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)