King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Janine Joly has submitted the filings for the Recall and Discharge of Seattle School Directors:
Martin-Morris
Sundquist
Maier
and Carr
to the Superior Court for a recall sufficiency hearing.
This hearing will take place on Thursday November 18 in Judge Inveen's Court room at 3:00 PM.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Recall Filed Thursday October 21, 2010 for 4 school directors
The Recall and Discharge for Seattle School directors
Carr, Maier, Martin-Morris, and Sundquist was filed at 1 PM Thursday 10-21-2010.
More information available HERE
Carr, Maier, Martin-Morris, and Sundquist was filed at 1 PM Thursday 10-21-2010.
More information available HERE
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Ballot Synopses completed August 27, 2010
The King County Prosecutor's office completed the required Ballot Synopses for the recall on August 27, 2010.
Here are those documents.
Note #8: The Board and the District have not implemented sufficient policies and controls to ensure compliance with state law, its own policies, and findings of the Washington State Auditor.
============
The District has retained Lawrence B. Ransom of Karr Tuttle Campbell of Seattle to challenge the sufficiency of the recall. A hearing without oral argument will take place on September 10, 2010 to determine if Mr. Ransom's intervention is appropriate.
There will be a hearing on September 23, to determine if the evidence for recall is sufficient and then determination regarding the wording of the Ballot Synopses.
Note: The Ballot Synopses wording is directly from the Washington State Auditor's reports in 2010.
Here are those documents.
Note #8: The Board and the District have not implemented sufficient policies and controls to ensure compliance with state law, its own policies, and findings of the Washington State Auditor.
============
The District has retained Lawrence B. Ransom of Karr Tuttle Campbell of Seattle to challenge the sufficiency of the recall. A hearing without oral argument will take place on September 10, 2010 to determine if Mr. Ransom's intervention is appropriate.
There will be a hearing on September 23, to determine if the evidence for recall is sufficient and then determination regarding the wording of the Ballot Synopses.
Note: The Ballot Synopses wording is directly from the Washington State Auditor's reports in 2010.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
August 25, 2010 UpDate + Conflict of Interest?
"Joan Sias"
Just got a call from the deputy prosecuting attorney who is responsible for processing the recall petition.
She said the draft ballot measure is ready. .......
Information: The district has indicated that it intends to file a request to "intervene" in this case, which means that they will have their own lawyer file a brief and, at the hearing, will make arguments against the recall. The amount of time we will have to review the district's arguments (their brief) prior to the hearing date will depend on which of the three options we agree to.
Three options.
1. Ask for hearing to occur in within 15 days of today, as required by statute. In this case, the hearing will be assigned to a different judge. we will have fewer days to review the district's brief prior to the scheduled hearing date.
2. Agree to a hearing date as currently scheduled Sept 14. The hearing time is 4 pm.
3. Agree to a hearing date in week of Sept 20 - Sept 24. With this option, we will get the most time to review and prepare response to District's brief, and then we might also be able to get a hearing scheduled during school hours (to get a hearing scheduled during school hours was a convenience I had requested of Janine when I talked to her last week)..
=============================
"The district has indicated that it intends to file a request to "intervene" in this case."
This district action seems to be awfully close to a conflict of interest.
This seems typical of the complete lack of accountability to the public that is a hallmark of the Goodloe-Johnson administration. The District is using District resources to individually assist "Five" school directors in resisting a "Recall Attempt", which is based entirely upon the State Auditor's Reports.
How much money are members of the public expected to expend to hold "five" School Board Members accountable for failure to do their jobs?
============================
Note the 5 directors under Recall are the same five that voted 5-2 to extend Dr. Goodloe-Johnson's contract from two additional years to three just one day after the release of the State Accountability Audit that was among the worst ever received by any school district.
Just got a call from the deputy prosecuting attorney who is responsible for processing the recall petition.
She said the draft ballot measure is ready. .......
Information: The district has indicated that it intends to file a request to "intervene" in this case, which means that they will have their own lawyer file a brief and, at the hearing, will make arguments against the recall. The amount of time we will have to review the district's arguments (their brief) prior to the hearing date will depend on which of the three options we agree to.
Three options.
1. Ask for hearing to occur in within 15 days of today, as required by statute. In this case, the hearing will be assigned to a different judge. we will have fewer days to review the district's brief prior to the scheduled hearing date.
2. Agree to a hearing date as currently scheduled Sept 14. The hearing time is 4 pm.
3. Agree to a hearing date in week of Sept 20 - Sept 24. With this option, we will get the most time to review and prepare response to District's brief, and then we might also be able to get a hearing scheduled during school hours (to get a hearing scheduled during school hours was a convenience I had requested of Janine when I talked to her last week)..
=============================
"The district has indicated that it intends to file a request to "intervene" in this case."
This district action seems to be awfully close to a conflict of interest.
This seems typical of the complete lack of accountability to the public that is a hallmark of the Goodloe-Johnson administration. The District is using District resources to individually assist "Five" school directors in resisting a "Recall Attempt", which is based entirely upon the State Auditor's Reports.
How much money are members of the public expected to expend to hold "five" School Board Members accountable for failure to do their jobs?
============================
Note the 5 directors under Recall are the same five that voted 5-2 to extend Dr. Goodloe-Johnson's contract from two additional years to three just one day after the release of the State Accountability Audit that was among the worst ever received by any school district.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Recall Filed July 22, 2010 - Thursday
On Thursday at 10:30 AM an appeal of the Superintendent's one-year contract extension to June 30, 2013 was filed at the King County Courthouse.
At 1:30 PM filings initiating the recall and discharge of each of five Seattle School Directors were filed at the King County Elections Office. Directors Sundquist, Maier, Martin-Morris, Carr, and DeBell are the subjects of these five recalls. Directors Smith-Blum and Patu are not subjects of recall.
Each of these filings rely heavily on the Washington State Auditor's Audit issued on July 6, 2010 for evidence. See Seattle Weekly's coverage of the audit here.
If you wish to volunteer to collect signatures...
please contact: .. dempsey_dan@yahoo.com
using the subject line "RECALL".
We expect to receive authorization to begin collecting signatures around August 22. Signatures will be gathered from voters registered in the City of Seattle. We hope that most voters will choose to sign all 5 petitions. Approximately 32,000 valid signatures will be needed for each director to bring about a recall election. A 180 day maximum for signature gathering is allowed and the election is scheduled 45 to 60 days after the required number of signatures has been submitted and verified. The elections offices checks each signature for validity.
Terms for Directors Carr, Maier, Martin-Morris, and Sundquist expire in November 2011, DeBell's in 2013.
This recall effort and the appeal of the Superintendent's contract are appropriate as accountability needs to be required of public officials. Salary and benefits for the Superintendent cost the district over $350,000 per year. Read the appeal filing to see the leadership that $350,000 purchased. It is certainly mysterious as to why the five school directors under threat of recall approved a one-year contract extension on July 7, 2010. Sundquist, Maier, and Martin-Morris never mentioned the audit in explaining their decisions to extend the Superintendent's contract. Directors Carr and DeBell referenced the audit and spoke about accountability but voted to extend the contract. Patu and Smith-Blum voted against the extension.
The reasons for this recall are solely based on the Washington State Auditor's report which clearly showed:
"The School Board members completely failed in their duty to enforce laws and policy and completely failed in their duty to oversee the superintendent."
Directors Patu and Smith-Blum were NOT in office during the period covered by the audit.
Recall the "5"
Seattle Times coverage here.
From the May 24, 2010 Financial Audit:
"Our audit identified significant deficiencies in controls that adversely affect the District's ability to produce reliable financial statements." pg.27
November 28, 2007 The Board signed
this Affirmation of Responsibility document. My guess is they thought that by following #8 and #14, they assumed they we free to neglect school board policy enforcement and not supervise the superintendent.
Apparently the State Auditor's Office saw things differently.
Currently we expect to have Recall Petitions available for signatures in mid-September.
At 1:30 PM filings initiating the recall and discharge of each of five Seattle School Directors were filed at the King County Elections Office. Directors Sundquist, Maier, Martin-Morris, Carr, and DeBell are the subjects of these five recalls. Directors Smith-Blum and Patu are not subjects of recall.
Each of these filings rely heavily on the Washington State Auditor's Audit issued on July 6, 2010 for evidence. See Seattle Weekly's coverage of the audit here.
If you wish to volunteer to collect signatures...
please contact: .. dempsey_dan@yahoo.com
using the subject line "RECALL".
We expect to receive authorization to begin collecting signatures around August 22. Signatures will be gathered from voters registered in the City of Seattle. We hope that most voters will choose to sign all 5 petitions. Approximately 32,000 valid signatures will be needed for each director to bring about a recall election. A 180 day maximum for signature gathering is allowed and the election is scheduled 45 to 60 days after the required number of signatures has been submitted and verified. The elections offices checks each signature for validity.
Terms for Directors Carr, Maier, Martin-Morris, and Sundquist expire in November 2011, DeBell's in 2013.
This recall effort and the appeal of the Superintendent's contract are appropriate as accountability needs to be required of public officials. Salary and benefits for the Superintendent cost the district over $350,000 per year. Read the appeal filing to see the leadership that $350,000 purchased. It is certainly mysterious as to why the five school directors under threat of recall approved a one-year contract extension on July 7, 2010. Sundquist, Maier, and Martin-Morris never mentioned the audit in explaining their decisions to extend the Superintendent's contract. Directors Carr and DeBell referenced the audit and spoke about accountability but voted to extend the contract. Patu and Smith-Blum voted against the extension.
The reasons for this recall are solely based on the Washington State Auditor's report which clearly showed:
"The School Board members completely failed in their duty to enforce laws and policy and completely failed in their duty to oversee the superintendent."
Directors Patu and Smith-Blum were NOT in office during the period covered by the audit.
Seattle Times coverage here.
From the May 24, 2010 Financial Audit:
"Our audit identified significant deficiencies in controls that adversely affect the District's ability to produce reliable financial statements." pg.27
November 28, 2007 The Board signed
Apparently the State Auditor's Office saw things differently.
Currently we expect to have Recall Petitions available for signatures in mid-September.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)