Little Rock School District Attorney Responds to My Inquiry of...the Little Rock School Board? (Then I to Him/Them)

Chris Heller, attorney for the Little Rock School District, sent me the following, which he sent to members of the Little Rock School Board regarding my inquiry as to board's policy on supporting/opposing proposed legislation.

Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:32 PM

Board Members and Dr Holmes - On February 24, I reported to the LR Regional Chamber of Commerce in the morning, and to the LRSD Board in the evening, that the best course of action for LRSD to take in response to the 2010 census and Ark Code Ann 6-13-631 would be to make only the changes necessary to comply with the "one person, one vote" principle of the Constitution and not to make any changes which would jeapordize LRSD's compliance with the Voting Rights Act. I also advised that only those members whose terms end in 2012, and not the entire Board, would be required to stand for election that year. My advice was based on the following facts:

1. The LRSD election zones were established by federal court order in 1986 after the annexation of territory from PCSSD. The federal court held that the zones complied with the Voting Rights Act (I don't know why the Chamber thinks the zones were established by LRSD in 1994);

2. We won a Voting Rights case which challenged our rezoning following the 1990 census in part because we made minimal changes to the court approved zones (Judge Wright's opinion came in 1993 and the Eighth Circuit affirmed in 1995); 

3. Following the 2000 census we made only the changes necessary to comply with "one person, one vote" and there was no challenge to the new zones. Only those board members whose terms expired in 2002 stood for election that year;

4.  Because of LRSD's compliance with the Voting Rights Act, Arkansas law does not require that all board positions be filled by election in 2012.

Last Friday, each of you received from the LR Chamber the attached "Call to Action". The Chamber urged its members to support HB 2140, which would do primarily  two things; 1) require a district-wide election in 2011 to determine how LRSD (and other districts in the state) would be zoned (7 single member zones, 5 single member zones or 5 single member zones with 2 at large members); and 2)  require that "all positions" on the board "shall be up for election" in 2012. Setting aside the question of whether it makes sense to displace school board members around the state who were just elected to three, four or five year terms, and the question of whether a group which wants to change election zones should simply work to elect board members who feel the same way, HB 2140 could have created significant voting rights and equal protection issues for LRSD. To illustrate, the case against LRSD under HB 2140 might make the following points:

1. LRSD's use of seven single member zones for school board elections was established by federal court order and complied with the Voting Rights Act. There was no need to change it.

2. A few years ago, LRSD elected a majority African American board for the first time in its history.

3. 2010 census numbers show that four of the seven current LRSD board zones contain more than 60% African American population.

4. At large election zones have been recognized in Voting Rights cases as a device to diminish African American voting strength.

5. The combination of changing to a 5/2 election scheme and replacing all current board members could have the result, if not the purpose, of eliminating the African American majority on the LRSD board. 

In short, HB 2140 would have caused significant disruption in LRSD (how much confidence could a superintendent candidate place in things he or she is told by board members who would be gone the following year?) and other districts, and would have created within LRSD the potential for legal problems which otherwise would not exist. After speaking with Dr Holmes, who shared my view that most, if not all, LRSD board members would be against HB 2140, I decided to work against the bill.  Notwithstanding the Chamber's "Call to Action", which made it clear that the Chamber had the bill, it was not available on the General Assembly website for days afterward.  Mark Hudson, the House Ed staff member who distributes such biils, did not have a copy on Friday (see attached Hudson email). I finally got a copy from Rep. Hyde on Saturday before the Tuesday vote (see attached Hyde email). The House Education Committee did not get a copy until just before they were asked to vote on it ( you can watch the March 22 House Ed meeting - afternoon session -  at arkansashouse.org ).

Even though I had previously talked with Mr Newton about my view that the entire LRSD board would not be "up for election" in 2012, and later said the same thing at a LR Chamber meeting, his effort to be "deliberately public and transparent" did not include contacting me about HB 2140 or sending me a copy of it. Mr Newton wonders whether John Walker and I were "working in concert to oppose the bill". For the record, I did not work in concert with Mr Walker and had no idea that he planned to testify against the bill, although I'm glad he did  CH

PS - I'm going to send a copy of this email to Mr Newton.

He did, so I responded to him and the board.

Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Mr. Heller and Members of the Little Rock School Board,

I regret that my simple inquiry as to the board's policy on supporting/opposing proposed legislation may have cost the district any additional legal fees. As with most organizations - public, private and nonprofit, I thought the district would have a clear, written policy on the matter.

I'm still awaiting that answer.

As he wrote he would, Mr. Heller kindly shared with me his response email to you regarding "Gary Newton, LR Chamber and HB 2140."

First, I believe a little perspective is in order. As a private citizen, I started down this road less than a month ago with a proposed Public School District Accountability Act, which in my opinion, would empower the people in the governance of their public school districts. The proposed act featured five initiatives, including 1) recall of school board members, 2) changing school election date from September to the General, 3) giving the people, not incumbent school boards, the power to determine how they will be represented in a zoned district, 4) following the February 8, 2011 directive of Arkansas School Board Association to hold all new elections following redrawing of zones based on the 2010 census, and 5) posting of qualifications, responsibilities and filing requirements of school board candidates/members on local school district and Arkansas Department of Education websites.

Representative Barry Hyde had already filed a bill (HB 1551) on recall and I was fortunate that he agreed to also sponsor 2 (but to the Primary instead of the Genera), 3 and 4.

Ultimately, after amendments, only 2, 3 and 4 survived. Two (under HB 1551) was referred to interim study, and 3 and 4 (under HB 2140) was unanimously sent to interim study by the House Committee on Education, which effectively killed the time-sensitive measure.

In other words, every one of my citizen-initiated measures were resoundingly defeated at the legislature. Obviously, I'm not very good at this.

I addressed many, if not all, of the issues raised by Mr. Heller regarding HB 2140 in my previous correspondence with you and Mr. Walker. So, there is no point in further beating this decidedly dead horse, unless you would like further explanation on any issue.

If I read Mr. Heller's recommendation correctly, the issue at hand is now whether or not you will abide by the directive issued in the February 8, 2011 Memorandum from Dan Farley, Executive Director of the Arkansas School Board Association (ASBA). If you have not read it, I've provided a link. The memo was drafted by the ASBA as a result of several meetings hosted by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and including the Governor's office, the Attorney General's office, the Secretary of State's office, and the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators (AAEA), all of whom I have cc'd on this email.

Both in reading this memorandum sent to school board members, superintendents and co-op directors and in talking with Mr. Farely in person, these are not recommendations, but instructions for what zoned districts "must do to meet the obligations of state and federal law."

The instructions do not exempt any district in the state, including the Little Rock School District.

It's apparent that I, as a citizen of the district, disagree with Mr. Heller's recommendation. I believe that it runs counter to "one person, one vote" if any person is represented by a school board member for whom they did not have the opportunity to vote.

However, if you wish to follow Mr. Heller's recommendations, I urge you to publicly make your best case to the people of the district and to the ASBA, ADE, Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State and AAEA.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gary Newton

John Walker Responds to My Inquiry of...the Little Rock Rock School Board? (Then I to Him/Them)

I heard from one board member, Jody Carreiro (Zone 4) after my inquiry, but received no definitive answer from the full board and/or its spokesperson regarding the district's policy on taking positions on proposed legislation.

I did, however, receive the following from Representative John Walker, whom I referenced but did not include in my email to the board.

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Dear Mr. Newton:

I am informed that you believe that I "recklessly or deliberately mischaracterize[d] [you], [your] motive and [your] initiated bill."  I understand that you also suggest that Mr. Heller and I were working in concert to oppose your bill. Because I respect parents and citizens in this city, I write this reply on my own behalf to you:

1) I was not informed that you were the progenitor of HB 1551 and HB 2140. 

2) I did not know you but came to learn that you worked for the Chamber of Commerce.  You informed me that this was not true.

3) I had informed the committee that I wanted to speak against the Hyde bills. I did likewise with Representative Hyde. He indicated to me that he may pull the bills and on that representation, I did not come to the session until I was informed that he was running them anyway. Undoubtedly, you insisted on them having been run when they were.

4) I am not aware of any advocacy from you regarding school elections nor have I received any information that would allow the conclusion that you have reached out to me and individuals concerned about board elections with whom I have worked for the past five years. Had you done so, I would have welcomed your discussions even though we probably would not agree because of my unalterable position that the children in greatest need of good education and good facilities are at the top of the priority list for having their needs remedied.  

5) Since I don't know you personally, I could not mischaracterize you on the basis of factual information.  It was my understanding that you were e pluribus unum with respect to prioritizing new construction in west Little Rock near the new Roberts school rather than where the bulk of free and reduced lunch children reside, i.e., central, south and southwest Little Rock.

6) Mr. Heller and I did not work in concert to oppose the bill. He and I share a few things in common such as wanting good education for our children but he and I have clashed over the demographic parameters of this school district's redistricting. 

Finally, I am sure you are aware that I am a Legislator, that you know who I am and that I am fiercely protected of the interests of disadvantaged children, especially those who were disfavored by the school district's contemptable disregard of the promised use of the last bond money voted upon by the citizens of the community.  Rather than strengthen the disadvantaged schools as promised in the bond issue, the district used those funds to build Roberts and then to open it essentially as a school for affluent upper income children of a different race.          

  

If you ever want to call me, my phone numbers are 374-3758 and 240-7429.  I welcome you efforts to strengthen the schools of Little Rock so that every school can become equal in reality as well as perception.

Sincerely,

John W. Walker

This is my initial response to Mr. Walker:

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Mr. Walker,

I am on vacation with my family, but will respond in full to your email and each of your points at a later time.

Meanwhile, I don't know if they record the committee, but I'll check to see if there is a transcript.

In your appearance before the committee, you characterized my actions as those of a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, that the bill was about dissatisfaction with the racial make-up of the board, and that it was all about getting a new middle school in West Little Rock. All are false.

Afterward, I personally challenged your characterizations as false, and you said you called me. I said you didn't. You said you left a message. I said you didn't. You said you spoke to my assistant. I asked who. And after a moment, you said Jay Chesshir. I told you Mr. Chesshir is my employer.

I understand you had a lengthy conversation with him on Monday regarding the bill, even though he nor the Chamber initiated it.

The only rational explanation I could find for your words were reckless or deliberate. I'll gladly welcome your description as to why you misled or misspoke to your colleagues.

Please know, despite our rough start, I appreciate your reaching out to me and look forward to working with anyone advocating for the immediate education of all students.

I believe the current state of our public education is the greatest local/state emergency of our times, requiring immediate triage to ensure all students are fully served.

I am anxious to work with anyone who shares that urgency.

Sincerely,

Gary Newton

Then, on Saturday, I responded in full.

Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Mr. Walker,

As promised, here is my full response to your email of March 23rd. I've cc'd members of the Little Rock School Board because you did.

Mr. Walker
I am informed that you believe that I "recklessly or deliberately mischaracterize[d] [you], [your] motive and [your] initiated bill."  I understand that you also suggest that Mr. Heller and I were working in concert to oppose your bill. Because I respect parents and citizens in this city, I write this reply on my own behalf to you:

Gary
I did not suggest that Mr. Heller and you were working in concert to oppose the bill. I wondered, so I asked so I would know the facts, instead of reaching and acting on an incorrect conclusion.

Mr. Walker

1) I was not informed that you were the progenitor of  HB 1551 and HB 2140.

Gary

On March 8th and again on March 11th, I wrote you (johnwalkeratty@aol.com), along with your 99 fellow legislators, seeking your co-sponsorship, support or neutrality on HB 2140. I also asked that if you were opposed, you would share your concerns with me so I could address them publicly. You never responded.

Mr. Walker

2) I did not know you but came to learn that you worked for the Chamber of Commerce.  You informed me that this was not true.

Gary

I addressed this in my previous correspondence. I did not inform you that I did not work for the Chamber of Commerce. I informed you that I was not representing the Chamber in my actions and that Jay Chesshir (president and CEO) is not my assistant, as you described, but my employer.

Folks will believe what they want, but if Mr. Adams can speak for himself and not Arkansas Children's Hospital or Dr. Mitchell for herself and not Philander Smith College, I, as a citizen and father, should be afforded the same consideration.

Mr. Walker

3) I had informed the committee that I wanted to speak against the Hyde bills. I did likewise with Representative Hyde. He indicated to me that he may pull the bills and on that representation, I did not come to the session until I was informed that he was running them anyway. Undoubtedly, you insisted on them having been run when they were.

Gary

One bill, HB 1551, which would have changed the school election date from low voter turnout September to the more inclusive Primary, was pulled for study. While that was not my preference, as a citizen, I had/have no power to insist on anything. As for HB 2140, I simply shared with Representative Hyde that if it were pulled, we would not have another chance to address the issue until the next census in 2020. While I am pleased he chose not to pull it, I regret that it did not get an up or down vote on Do Pass or Do Not Pass. In my opinion, sending a time-sensitive bill to interim study allowed committee members to not go on the record with their positions.

Mr. Walker

4) I am not aware of any advocacy from you regarding school elections nor have I received any information that would allow the conclusion that you have reached out to me and individuals concerned about board elections with whom I have worked for the past five years. Had you done so, I would have welcomed your discussions even though we probably would not agree because of my unalterable position that the children in greatest need of good education and good facilities are at the top of the priority list for having their needs remedied.

Gary

See No. 1 above. I first began posting, emailing and seeking legislative sponsors for a proposed Public School District Accountability Act on March 1st. When I was led to a sponsor (Representative Hyde) who was already down the road with one of the five proposed measures (recall) and willing to include three more, I wrote you and your fellow legislators. When legislators, not including you, responded that they were opposed, I did my best to address their concerns. When I found opposition on advocacy groups' websites, as I did with the Arkansas Education Association, I engaged their leadership, as I did with Rich Nagel and Donna Morey of the AEA.

As for not reaching out to "[you] (even though I did twice) and individuals concerned about board elections with whom [you] have worked for the past five years," here's what I wrote the board: "Over the past few weeks, I have been deliberately public and transparent in my advocacy for these and other measures. I've reached out to opposed groups and individuals in attempts to address concerns, recognizing that most folks have the ends in common, even when disagreeing on the means."

It was not my intent, nor my responsibility to reach out to everyone who could potentially oppose my proposed legislation, but rather to respond to those I knew were opposed. My goal was to pass two bills. My time was better spent seeking support than opposition.

Mr. Walker

5) Since I don't know you personally, I could not mischaracterize you on the basis of factual information.  It was my understanding that you were e pluribus unum with respect to prioritizing new construction in west Little Rock near the new Roberts school rather than where the bulk of free and reduced lunch children reside, i.e., central, south and southwest Little Rock.

Gary

You did not mischaracterize me, my motives or my bill on the basis of factual information. You did so, in your own words, based on your understanding, which was flawed.

Just because one has an understanding does not make one's understanding factual.

I am "e pluribus unum" - from many, one - with all students of the district, particularly those with no advocates.

Mr. Walker

6) Mr. Heller and I did not work in concert to oppose the bill. He and I share a few things in common such as wanting good education for our children but he and I have clashed over the demographic parameters of this school district's redistricting.

Gary

Good to know. Again, that's why I asked the board, instead of jumping to conclusions.

Mr. Walker

Finally, I am sure you are aware that I am a Legislator, that you know who I am and that I am fiercely protected of the interests of disadvantaged children, especially those who were disfavored by the school district's contemptable (sic) disregard of the promised use of the last bond money voted upon by the citizens of the community.  Rather than strengthen the disadvantaged schools as promised in the bond issue, the district used those funds to build Roberts and then to open it essentially as a school for affluent upper income children of a different race.

Gary

Yes, I know you are a legislator. That's why I wrote you. Twice.

With 40% (over 10,000) of Little Rock School District students deemed not proficient in math, literacy and/or science, I do not see anyone of influence fiercely protective of their interests. Rather, I do see a fierce protection of the elected offices of incumbent school board members and district employees, to the detriment of those they are entrusted to serve.

Mr. Walker 

If you ever want to call me, my phone numbers are 374-3758 and 240-7429.  I welcome you efforts to strengthen the schools of Little Rock so that every school can become equal in reality as well as perception.

Gary

Considering that the only two communication experiences I have had with you - 1) your spoken words before your fellow legislators regarding HB 2140, and 2) your email to me and copied to the Little Rock School District Board - were riddled with inaccuracies, I would prefer to conduct any communication in writing so our words have proper back-up. Beyond that, I would welcome the opportunity to debate you and/or anyone else in the public forum of your choosing regarding the most urgent and immediate needs of the district.

In fact, last weekend, I concluded a lengthy exchange with Arkansas Times' Editor Max Brantley with the following:

"The people need honest discussion instead of preaching to respective choirs. That is why I challenge you and the Arkansas Times to join with El Latino, Hols! Arkansas, Stand! News, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and any other interested media in the district to host a series of community conversations (in all zones in the district) on how to best serve all our students. Not a town hall, but a real debate among those leaders advocating for specific change and those committed to continuation of the current system. I'll be your first volunteer."

I hope you'll be the second.

Sincerely,

Gary Newton

Little Rock School District Policy on Taking Positions on Proposed Legislation

The morning after HB 2140 was unanimously effectively killed by the House Committee on Education, I wrote members of the Little Rock School Board inquiring as to the district's policy on supporting or opposing prospective legislation.

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Members of the Board,

Yesterday, I, a citizen and parent of your district, had two ultimately unsuccessful bills before the House Committee on Education, both sponsored by Representative Barry Hyde.

HB 1551 would have changed school elections from the by design low voter turnout September to the more inclusive Primary election and comparable date in non-primary years. That bill was pulled for study

HB 2140 would have empowered the people in zoned school districts, not incumbent school boards, to determine how they will be represented. The committee unanimously voted to send it to interim study, effectively killing it.

From what I recall from the sign-up sheet, Chris Heller, identifying himself as attorney for the Little Rock School District, was signed up to speak against one or both bills.

When and how was Mr. Heller given authority by the board to oppose one or both bills? If he has standing authority to oppose or support prospective legislation, what are the parameters by which he is authorized to make that determination?

Over the past few weeks, I have been deliberately public and transparent in my advocacy for these and other measures. I've reached out to opposed groups and individuals in attempts to address concerns, recognizing that most folks have the ends in common, even when disagreeing on the means.

When initially asked by the chairman, no one in the audience rose to speak against 2140. When asked again later in the discussion, Representative John Walker, who had since entered the room, spoke in opposition.

Representative Walker, who does not know me and never discussed the bill with me, proceeded to recklessly or deliberately mischaracterize me, my motives, and my initiated bill.

I understand. All seems fair in politics. However, I had to wonder if Mr. Heller and Mr. Walker were working in concert to oppose the bill, and if so, by what board authority was Mr. Heller acting.

I'll look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Gary Newton

Public School Lobby – 1, Students – 0

Leading into yesterday’s meeting of the House Committee on Education, lobbyists and representatives of self-interest groups worked their networks to defeat HB 2140, sponsored by Representative Barry Hyde.

Under the guise of representing education, government and equality, these agents of no-change argued against altering their cozy, insider system which holds adults' elected offices and employment more important than the students they are entrusted to serve.

HB 2140 would have empowered the people, not incumbent school board members whose positions are at stake, to determine how the people will be represented in zoned districts.

No more. No less.

During discussion, some members pressured the sponsor to pull the bill down so they wouldn’t have to go on record. He courageously resisted.

The only person to speak against 2140 was Representative John Walker, who mischaracterized the bill, its citizen initiator, and the motivations behind it. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, Mr. Walker used the opportunity to tout his own proposed legislation which would lock all zoned school districts into seven zones, regardless of the will the respective school boards. Current law provides three options – five zones, seven zones or five zones and two at-large.

Even though members knew the issue was time sensitive because of the requirements of the decennial census, the committee voted unanimously to relegate it to the legislative equivalent of Siberia – interim study.

Members of the House Committee on Education need have asked only one question: "What's best for all students?"

The answer should have been their only guide.

But once again, Public School Lobby – 1, Students – 0. Game's not over, but the clock is running out.

HB 2140, 1551 All About Putting Students First

On Tuesday, March 22nd, at 10:00 am in Room 138 of the Arkansas State Capitol, lobbyists and supporters of self-interest groups representing adults will pack the House Committee on Education to defeat HB 1551 and HB2140, sponsored by Representative Barry Hyde.

In the name of representing the best interests of public education, these agents of no-change will argue against altering their cozy, insider system which has facilitated the decline of public education for students.

Those tens of thousands of students who are being denied their futures by a system which holds adults' elected offices and employment more important than the students they are entrusted to serve will have no group advocates - just motivated parents and citizens and the collective conscience of the committee.

Only one relevant question should be asked: How will these bills help or hurt students?

HB 1551 will change the school election date from the by-design low voter turnout September, dominated by the very groups who will rail against change, to the more inclusive and democratic Primary.

HB 2140 will empower the people, not incumbent school boards, to determine how the people will be represented in zoned districts.

No more. No less.

I believe the state of our public education system is the greatest emergency of our times, requiring immediate triage to ensure that all students, at the very least, read at or above grade level.

Those fighting change think we're doing just fine.

The majority of people, through deliberate disengagement and disenfranchisement by those with the most to lose from transparency and an empowered electorate, seem resigned to the trending fate of public education.

Last year, 40% of Little Rock School District students - over 10,000 - were deemed not proficient in math, literacy and/or science. And yet, only 1.6% of registered voters cast ballots in the school election.

And for those who assuage themselves by considering this just a Little Rock problem, I challenge them to check their respective districts' benchmark scores. It is unconscionable that any student is moved through and out of the system without, at the very least, being proficient in math, literacy and science. 

HB 1551 and 2140, while small steps, are at least steps in the right direction to better engage all people in the performance of their public schools.

Ronald Reagan asked, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

Dr. Phil asks, "How's that working for you?"

Members of the House Committee on Education should ask, "What's best for all students?"

May the answer be their guide.

The Brantley-Newton Back and Forth

Here's the verbatim email exchange Arkansas Times Editor Max Brantley and I have had over the past few days. Because of the volume and rapidity of our exchanges, some of these may seem out of order, but you'll get the idea.

Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Gary
Bill's at office, which I just left. Will get over there tomorrow and send them to you. Don't know why they're not yet posted, but I've been checking frequently. Thanks for the prompt reply, and I'll respond in full tomorrow.

Thanks,
Gary

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Gary
Here are the amendments. Note the legal description of the primary in 1551 is confusing. The law considers the primary to be the date run-off elections are held (I'm guessing because that's when the final decisions are made). Most people think of the primary as the first election three weeks earlier.

For the record, my wish was (and remains) to move the school election to the general, but this was at least a move in the right direction.

More to follow...

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:49 PM

My initial answer to his email, posted as My Response to Max Brantley's.

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Max
I presume you know now that you gave me bad info on the amendments. They were not avlbl to public.

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Gary
What bad information? I said they've not been online, and I don't know why. I got copies after the committee meeting from Rep. Hyde because I asked for them. That's what I sent to you.

If I could get them, you could too. I just tried harder.

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Max
A little rock lawyer asked the committee staff for them friday afternoon based on your note that they had been distributed to committee and they said no copy was available for the public. IN other words, still secret.

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Gary
Secret means their absence is intentional, which it is not. I am not a legislator, so I don't know how they roll over there. All I know is that I saw Representative Hyde pass the amended 1551 out in committee. Questions were raised concerning the confusing date, and the bill was ultimately tabled until Tuesday. 2140 was not brought up. It was a lengthy agenda which was not completed.

As I've now repeated, I asked for and received copies of the amendments from Representative Hyde after the committee meeting. Your LR lawyer could have done the same instead of simply stopping with the first answer.

But since you remain invested in the "secret" description, please report that when asked, the bills' citizen originator provided the "secret" bills to you..all deep throat style.

It'll add to the intrigue.
 
Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:31 PM
 
Gary
Also, if you're really opposed to the bills, come to the committee and speak against them on Tuesday.

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Max
the amendments are not available to the public. that's the bottom line.

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Max
To be clear, the lawyer went to the staff of the committee and they said the amendment was not available to the public.

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Max
As for Tuesday, I'll let others fight the election date issue. I think changing LR, a majority black district, from ward to at-large representation is constiutionally flawed and will fail eventually if not in committee Tuesday. You still haven't told me why you favor at-large options for school board representation. and, if you don't, why the law needs changing. the record is that at-large seats, which are more expensive to contest, reflect the wishes of -- guess who?.


Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Gary
Then he should have gone to the sponsor. He obviously didn't want to see it that badly.

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Max
To me, it's a secret if a member of the public alerted to the existence of something to be voted on at the Capitol can't get a copy of it. I described your legislation in the first note I wrote about it. I've offered your defense. I continue to wait for an explanation for the theory of how at-large board seats are necessary and good for children.
 
Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:21 PM
 
Max
ps -- by their very nature, shell bills are stealth legislating until facts are revealed. the closer to unveiling that the details are revealed, the more they deserve to be characterized as stealthy and secretive. the fact that you and favored insiders are aware of the details don't make the facts less shadowy for the 99.999 percent who don't.
 
Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Max
is the sponsor always on hand at the capitol, with copies of the legislation. hell, man, you didn't have it when i first requested it. that's utter bullshit.

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Gary
Speaking of which, you just utterly stepped in it. Check our email exchange. I offered to share the amended bills first, and you accepted late Friday after I was driving home. I immediately replied that they were at the office and I would get them to you the next day. I made a special trip to the office, scanned them and sent them. You're hard to help. How about a "thank you" for making your job easier?

Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:23 PM
 
Max
learning about your government is not a damn scavenger hunt. it should be straightforward. you call a paid full-time staffer for information, you get the information. or else people are free to view the situation as I and the lawyer who sought the info see it.
 
Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:33 PM
 
Gary
Sorry, but that's not the issue. 2140 is about the people's right to decide which of the legal, Voting Rights Act compliant, zone choices they will use to govern their zoned school districts. I say the people should decide. You say the incumbent board. We'll see which the Committee chooses on Tuesday.
 
Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Gary
I consider them procrastinated legislation, for those who have to make a filing deadline, but don't yet have their bill(s) drafted. I'm sure they're also used as you described, but I assure you, not this time.

I'm completely transparent about the genesis. I can break the exact timeline if you wish. How can I be a "favored insider" to myself?

I reached out to your publisher before your post, then immediately to you after. I've offered to publicly debate anyone or any group opposed. I sent you the bills. What more can I do? How about a benefit of the doubt?


Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:25 AM

Max
I do thank you. And you helped me. My point was only that the general public then and still remains without similar access to info.

Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:26 AM

Max
Your refusal to discuss this speaks volumes

Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Gary
Max,

Over the past two days, I've written volumes. In every instance, I've stayed with the issues at hand.

I am working diligently to make real change in a district that is failing thousands of students every day. In all our communications, you have offered no suggestions for improving the lot of these students.

I invited you to testify before the committee. You declined. I have repeatedly challenged you to debate in the public forum of your choosing. You have not accepted. I believe the people should determine how they're represented at the school board. You think incumbent school board members should tell the people how they will be represented. I believe in making it as easy to vote in school elections as it is in any other. You dismiss those who don't vote in school elections as "a bunch of disinterested, not very intelligent people."

40% of the students tested in the Little Rock School District were deemed not proficient in math, literacy and science, which equates to over 10,000 students.

I believe we're in the greatest community emergency of our times. You don't seem to sense the urgency.

I went into this knowing reasonable people will disagree on the means. I can't fathom that anyone would defend the current ends.

I reached out to you, not so much to provide facts to your accusations, but to engage your audience in a thoughtful debate on how to put students first in our district.

The people need honest discussion instead of preaching to respective choirs. That is why I challenge you and the Arkansas Times to join with El Latino, Hola! Arkansas, Stand! News, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and any other interested media in the district to host a series of community conversations (in all zones in the district) on how to best serve all our students. Not a town hall, but a real debate among those leaders advocating for specific change and those committed to continuation of the current system. I'll be your first volunteer.

Thank you for your consideration, and I'll look forward to working with you on a series of groundbreaking and bridge building events. As always,

My best,
Gary

Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Max
You'll be wholly honest the minute you discuss why you want method of board selection changed. I look forward to your testimony on that point.

Gary to Readers
How many ways do I have to write it? The people, not the incumbent school board, should decide how the people will be represented. It seems that reading difficulty is not just a problem in the public schools, but also in the editor's office of the Arkansas Times.

Understand, Mr. Brantley is not a reporter or a change agent. His role is to be sensational and stir up his followers. Kind of a local Glen Beck for a tired, anachronistic dogma.

Meanwhile, the Little Rock Public School District, by its own reported benchmark exams, is failing 40% (over 10,000) of its students every year. That is not only devastating to lives, families and futures, but the present and future of Little Rock as a community. Disagree with my suggested means, but get busy with some of your own.

Criticizing the motives of those of us who are attempting triage for what we consider to be the community emergency of our times and defending the performance of the $350 million failing district will only benefit those adults whose jobs and elected offices are at stake.

In the words of Little Rock School Board Member Charles Armstrong at the last board meeting, "Wake up, Little Rock!"

My Response to Max Brantley's

Max

I'm happy to hear some background. Of course, the information came in the Chamber newsletter with its imprimatur so I don't think it's wrong to characterize it as a Chamber position, despite the origins.

Gary
Please note, I will not defend the Chamber, as I am not a spokesman for the organization. This is my initiative as a citizen and father.

Your title alone, LR Chamber plans school takeover, reads as though these were Chamber bills. The text that follows doesn't deal with the merits, but focuses on the motives of your imaginary puppet masters ("Good Suit Club," "Walton money"). Dig deeper. Ask Speaker Pro Tem Pierce who brought these measures forward. Ask Representative Hyde. Ask Representative Webb. Ask Representative Edwards. Ask Representative Wren. Ask Representative Kerr. Ask Senator Johnson. I shared my layman's text to all and asked them to sponsor. I approached Speaker Pro Tem Pierce first because he carried a school election date change bill in the last session. He led me to Representative Hyde because he had already filed a bill on recall of board members. While I've received encouragement and/or support from all I mentioned, it was Representative Hyde who stepped up to sponsor the bills, and for that I am deeply grateful.

I've also not hidden at all on these issues, as I have emailed and posted constantly since I first proposed the measures. I just don't have a very broad audience, thus your only finding out when sent the article of the Chamber's support.

My original proposal was a Public School District Accountability Act, which featured five measures: 1) Provision of recall of board members; 2) Change of school election date to General, 3) Rights of people to determine how their district will be zoned, 4) Requirement that districts follow February 8, 2011 directive of Arkansas School Board Association regarding redrawing of zones after census and holding all new elections, and 5) Posting of school board qualifications, responsibilities and rules for election on every local school district website as well as the Arkansas Department of Education. It took this motivated father of average intelligence days of digging to get answers to those simple questions. No wonder the people are disengaged.

I was ultimately only able to get 2 (HB 1551), 3 and 4 (HB 2140) sponsored and filed by the deadline.

Certainly, we can disagree on the merits. And while I seek (and welcome all support), I am not controlled (willingly or unwittingly) by anyone or any group. I understand conspiracy theorists may never accept that, but those who know me know my truth.

Max

Alan sent me your letter last week. I told him to respond that we always welcomed letters to the editor, though it's best if they were limited to 250 words.  I'll accept guest columns, but I have room to run them very rarely, which makes it hard to open the door wide, particularly to a regularly series. But I'm happy to consider anything you want to offer.

Gary
I'll follow these directions and submit for fair consideration.

Max

There are many things on which I'd be happy to discuss and debate in your note -- but just let me say first that citing turnout for an unopposed seat isn't particularly persuasive. There was only one contested seat and no millage in the last LR election. Voter turnout is meaningless in such a situation. We've seen some pretty good turnouts in a couple of hotly contested elections, including one in which the chamber took a deep interest.

Gary
Still, 1.6%? That's 3,651 out of 224,109 registered votes in Pulaski County. In the hotly contested Nellums/Daugherty race, only 644 total votes were cast. There are no records online for the 2009 election, as all those races were uncontested. However, in 2008, with two contested races in Little Rock, only 1,420 people voted, 563 in Zone 5 and 857 in Zone 1.

"Pretty good" is in the eyes of the beholder. In primary and general elections, we make it as easy as possible for folks to vote: 1) early voting, 2) many polling places, 3) other "magnet" races. For schools, we have none of that, which makes the elections dominated by the interest groups with the most to gain from a disenfranchised and disengaged electorate.

I'm not convinced that elected boards are the best way to deliver world-class public education to all students. But that's the system we have, so we have to make the best of it.

Source: http://www.votepulaski.net/results.htm

Max

There's a long history to a separate date for school elections in Arkansas. I'm not really committed one way or another, but I do know there's been a long line of attempts to change it, most often from people who think it would make it easier to defeat tax increases.

Gary
I'm the son of a 33-year superintendent of a rural school district. Our neighbors in Mountain Home, where he was principal, were retirees from Chicago who moved there for, among other things, the low taxes. So I am well versed in the philosophy behind low voter turnout increasing the odds of passing millages.

My argument would be, as in any election, if a district relies on low voter turnout, it is not effectively making its case to the people, which further diminishes public attention/investment in the public schools. It might work in the short-term, but the long-term disinterest and apathy by the larger population are devastating to a public district.

Property owners have left and are leaving the Little Rock School District in droves. In my view, increasing the participation would be the only way to increase the odds of ever passing a millage in Little Rock. Nobody is going to vote to increase their taxes to support a system from which they fell disengaged, disenfranchised or disinterested.

My kids have nine more years in the district. You better believe I'm all about well funded, effective schools.

Max

It is impossible for me to understand how direct representation is a bad thing. We need look no farther than the City Board and how the at-large seats have been controlled to understand that. I simply see no good that could come from moving to that system for electing school board members. John Walker argues, and I think he's right, that the at-large seats in school elections end up having a discriminatory impact and tend to be unconstitutional as applied.

Gary
Letting an incumbent school board determine how the people will be represented is akin to letting a city council determine if it will be City Manager or Mayor Council. Or the legislature deciding it will no longer be bicameral. The people, not those whose positions are at stake, should determine how they will be represented.

With all due respect to your and Mr. Walker's opinion, Arkansas law and the Voting Rights Act provide three options for zoned districts (those with 10% or more minority population) - 1) five zones, 2) seven zones, or 3) five zones and two at-large. I'll save the argument as to which is better after it is determined who will make that decision.

Max

I applaud your interest in children. How changing the date of school elections or the zones from which board members are elected would benefit them is lost on me. In Little Rock particularly, you'll be playing with fire on school elections. Thanks to the Chamber and others' incessant criticism, an already troubled system is held in ever lower esteem, oftentimes without good reason in my opinion. We need not hold millage elections here for a decade or so if they are contested on the primary ballot, I'm afraid to say.

Gary
I truly believe most everybody has the ends in common - world-class education and experience for all students. It's just those pesky means where we differ. Forget esteem, look at the results. The Little Rock School District is in an emergency, while the leadership and people are in perpetual denial. While the district and Arkansas Department of Education trumpet trending gains, 40% (over 10,000) of our Little Rock students annually are deemed not proficient in math, literacy and science. Our students need immediate triage to make sure, at the very least, all are reading at grade level. What we're doing is not working, and tinkering around the edges has not produced results.

No community can be consistently competitive globally without a high performing public school system. The models are out there. We know it can be done. But while the board and community are fiddling, Rome is burning. I'm simply trying to take a macro approach to macro problems.

While I understand parents with blinders on when it comes to their own children, what about those kids with no advocates? For years, in the name of equity, the district has protected the public offices and employment of adults, while every year, over 10,000 of our most vulnerable are denied the very education which will empower them to participate in the world's widening meritocracy. Their futures are being sacrificed for adults' present.

Max

Nobody is prohibited from voting in school elections. Pulaski County Special voters have demonstrated quite clearly through the years that they know how to get to the polls on special elections, both to defeat the millage and toss out school board members they don't like. Blaming it on the date of the election seems to me to pretty broadly indict the voters. And to infer from that that there might some benefit in having a bunch of disinterested, not very intelligent people making the voting decisions in elections in which more vote out of habit or greater interest in one race or the other.

Gary
I addressed moving the election date earlier. The broad numbers (or percentages) over the last school elections don't support your assertion.

Which is more indicting of the voters, my support for more representative democracy or your stereotyping the 98.4% of registered voters in Pulaski County who did not vote in the last school election as "a bunch disinterested, not very intelligent people making the voting decisions in elections in which more vote out of habit or greater interest in one race or the other?"

That smacks of the elitism about which you rail.

I recognize your job is not to report, but to, with your opinions, be a provacateur. And for that you have a strong following. My wish is that we all break out of our preconceived notions and dogma and be real progressives on what I believe is the greatest issue facing our community.

This discussion is important, worthy and time sensitive. Please accept my invitation to broaden it in the public forum of your choosing instead of our simply picking apart each other's writings.

As always, thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gary