Janet Roberts- Business Administrator

Earlier this week, I was made aware that Business Administrator Janet Roberts is overstepping her statutory bounds and in the process is disrespecting Horizonte Alternative High School’s site based decisions and challenging the authority of the Board of Education. I am calling upon newly hired Superintendent Cunningham to put Roberts in check and to immediately rectify this foolishness!

BACKGROUND
“In 1994, then-Horizonte Principal James Andersen and his wife, Shannon, along with Ric and Janet Harnsberger, physicians and University of Utah professors, established the Horizonte Scholarship Fund…For nearly 20 years, the Horizonte Scholarship Fund has provided as many as 60 scholarships each year, with individual awards ranging from $500 to $2,000, for a total of up to $57,000.”  [1]

In 2011, the following report was given to the Board of Education:

“The Horizonte Scholarship fund will award $80,000 in scholarships this year. Horizonte thanks Kimball Young for his hard work in securing twenty-four $1,500 scholarships for Horizonte graduates from the Eccles Foundation. SLCC received two grants to support Horizonte graduates with transition to college. Fifty seniors and 75 juniors will receive intensive counseling in an effort to prepare first generation college students for success.” [2]

SITE BASED DECISION
In 2014 – Horizonte’s School Improvement Council and School Community Council decided to hire a full-time person to facilitate a student’s transition from Horizonte to continuing education due to the following: [3]

 “Every year, Horizonte Instruction and Training Center, an alternative high school in Salt Lake City awards college scholarships to dozens of graduates. And every year, many of those scholarships go unused. A new partnership between Horizonte and Salt Lake Community College helps grads stay the course and enroll in college, despite the obstacles.”  [4]

Another article at that times stated:

“An alternative high school has partnered with Salt Lake Community College to offer a multiple-week “bridge” class aimed at helping students with the transition to higher education…”The goal is to help them navigate the process and orient them to the rigors of college and give them a little taste of the environment,” said Kimball Young, a member of the Horizonte Scholarship Fund board of directors…The Horizonte Scholarship Fund awarded roughly $70,000 in aid to 47 students this year, with a focus on those from low-income families, he said. But Young said the bridge program is about more than just helping students with the costs of college. He said the program is intended to familiarize students with higher education as they approach the end of their high school education. “It’s not just a problem of affordability,” Young said. “It’s a problem of navigation, comfort, familiarity and ownership, so to speak, feeling like you’re part of something that is going to be rewarding for you when you graduate.” [5]

BOARD AUTHORITY
To that end, the District published a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Graduate Advisor Service and in September of 2014, published the following letter of intent:

“This letter is notification that it is the intent of the Salt Lake City School District to select Kimball Young as the single responsive and responsible respondent. As a result, the District will enter into a contract with Kimball Young to provide Graduate Advisor Services at Horizonte High School.”

The District then entered into a contractual agreement with Kimball Young to act as Horizonte’s Graduate Advisor Services. [6]

The Board of Education approved the funding for this contract on September 16, 2014, for the 2014-15 school year. [7]

Prior to being hired full-time, Mr. Young was working in a limited capacity as a volunteer with the Horizonte Scholarship program. Mr. Young tells his own story:

“I was introduced to Horizonte a decade ago.  The Salt Lake City Rotary Club annually awards college scholarships to graduating seniors of all four city high schools.  As a Rotarian, I volunteered for the Horizonte selection.  Over the years I’ve interviewed I have been deeply impressed by these amazing, determined, resilient, mostly minority, young men and women, some new parents, who realize that college education or post high school training is the exit from intergenerational poverty and the door to their American Dream…

Cancer and work related set-backs altered my life.  As I recovered my health and discovered some new pursuits, I continued on my own, to raise scholarship funds for these worthy but needy Horizonte graduates. …Secondly, education will break their chain of poverty.  They are first generation college students. Without education these students dream of, they are poverty bound.  No greater cause or campaign could I coordinate, build, and help perpetuate.   My life’s skills are uniquely situated to successfully assist.  My cumulative know-how and professional experience can help.   I invite your consideration and participation.” [8]

The following year, the Board authorized the $48,000.00 payment for the second year of the contract between Horizonte and Kimball Young for Graduate Advisor Services for the 2015-16 school year. [9]

Later that year, the Board of Education received the following report:

“Ms. Holmdahl said many of the students who graduate from Horizonte and move on to college are often the first in their families to do so. Horizonte offers a College Bridge class in partnership with Salt Lake Community College, to help prepare students for college, take advantage of scholarships, register for classes, and develop goals. Kimball Young, College/Career Transition Specialist.  [10]

Last month, the Board authorized the payment of $48,000.00 for the contract services between Horizonte and Kimball Young for Graduate Advisor Services for the 2016-17 School year. [11]

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR
Earlier this week I was advised that Business Administrator Janet Roberts severed the contract between Kimball Young and Horizonte High School. The reason given is that the District is going to replace Kimball Young with a Community Scholarship Advisor. [12] The job posting states that this is a part-time job with no benefits. Apparently, The Business Administrator did this without notifying the Superintendent or the Board of Education. [13]

The Business Administrator is to “be custodian of all district funds, be responsible and accountable for all money received and disbursed, and keep accurate records of all revenues received and their sources;” and to “countersign with the president of the board all warrants and claims against the district as well as other legal documents approved by the board…” [14]

The Business Administrator is not the Human Resources Director and neither is she an educator. Ms. Roberts is appointed by the Board of Education and does not have the authority to override a site based decision. Ms. Roberts is a subordinate of the Board and must obediently carryout the official acts of the Board who are elected to represent the interests of the community.

CONCLUSION
I have called upon Superintendent Cunningham to rectify this situation and instruct the Business Administrator to perform her statutory duties and resume payments to Kimball Young for his contractual services.[15]

Anyone who has worked with Mr. Young or benefited from his services will readily testify that a part-time (or full-time for that matter) person will not even come close to matching the skill set that Mr. Young brings to this position.

We all need to ensure that we continue the vision of former Principal James Anderson:

“James has made Horizonte a touchstone and an icon for our community, and he knows that the success of Horizonte is because of the support the Salt Lake School Board, administration and community have given in putting students first. James leaves knowing his legacy will live on: a place where learning and individuals are cherished.” [16]

2nd GRAMA Appeal Letter

12 September 2016

HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Janet Roberts, Business Administrator
℅ Salt Lake City School District
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Re: 2^nd GRAMA Notice of Appeal: Gang Prevention Expenditures

Dear Ms. Roberts,
Acting under the authority of my elected office, and in my official capacity as a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education, I submit the following appeal on behalf of the residents of Salt Lake City, District 2. [1]

Pursuant to Utah Government Records Management Act – please accept this: GRAMA NOTICE OF APPEAL in your capacity as the district’s chief administrative officer. [2]

BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2016 – At the regularly scheduled Board meeting, I specifically requested that the Board look at student, police, community and gang intervention in a comprehensive manner within the context of budget development. [3]

On May 16, 2016 – I met with Superintendent Cunningham and among other issues advised her of my concern for the manner in which District personnel were misappropriating state funding allocated to the District for gang prevention and intervention.

On May 17, 2016 –During a regularly scheduled Board meeting, I renewed my request for financial information on the gang prevention and for at-risk students. [4]

On June 7, 2016 – Prior to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board commencing, I once again asked you in your capacity of the Board’s Business Administrator, for information on gang funding as well as clarification on a $20,000.00 expenditure for the Salt Lake Area Gang Project.

You consulted with Larry Madden who claimed to not have any information on the expenditure, but would check with one of his subordinates and get back to me. [5]

On June 21, 2016 – During the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board, I once again, raised the issue of the status of the District’s gang intervention program. The Board president spoke to my request with a commitment to have the information provided to me. You spoke to my concern and advised me that it was a grant from the state and you signed off on it, although you would not provide me any information in response to my questions. In that same meeting I asked about the details of RDA expenditures. I was told that the information I requested, would be provided.

On July 12, 2016– I sent Superintendent Cunningham an email renewing my request for information on the finances of the District for at-risk students. I in part stated the following:

On May 6, 2016 –Superintendent Withers sent me the following information; “Enhancements for At-Risk Students (EARS) Resources”.

Our EARS funding peaked at $5,051,765 in 2008-09 and totals $2,463,967 for the current year (2015-16).

The following programs in the General Fund receive EARS allocations:

Board Distributed Student Achievement Funds (elementary);

Program 1013-District Achievement Testing;

Program 1016-AVID/Equity; program 4255-MESA;

Program 4261-Truant Student;

Program 4266-ALS Services; and,

Program 4267-ESL Endorsement.

The EARS resources also help fund the 7.0 FTE used to support high school English as a Second Language (ESL) classes.”

I went on to advise Superintendent Cunningham:

All that is doing, is telling me that the funding is being scattered among these categories. This does not tell me what this funding is being used for. I would like to know the specific expenditures that EARS money is being used for in terms of amount of monies and their purpose. I cannot make an informed decision on funding if I do not have a clear picture on how the District is utilizing this particular category of state funding.

A couple of months ago, I asked Janet R. what was the $20,000.00, expenditure for Salt Lake Area Gang Project Inc. in the May 3, 2016 – Purchase report was used for. Janet referred the question to Larry M. who confirmed that Misty S. spent the money. Someone was going to get back to me on what exactly that money was used for.

I am also wanting to see a copy of the Gang Prevention application that was submitted to the State Office of Education. I am being told that Colors of Success is being eliminated from the District.

If that is true, then I submit that this District is placing the community in danger if we are eliminating this type of gang intervention program.

I have also asked for a break down on how the District is funding transportation with school buses. Earlier this year Barbra K. attempted to cancel a school bus that serves students attending Clayton Middle School. I am of the opinion that bus routes and their funding are the purview of the Board not a District administrator.

I would also like to know the total amount of RDA funding that the District receives and where that money is being spent. 

Is there a place to know where Title I funding is being spent? I continue to receive complaints from employees that Title I monies are being spent inappropriately. Can you provide me a break down on how and where Title I money is being expended throughout the District?  

I would also like to know what funding the District plans to put forward towards the University of Virginia turn around program during the 2016-2017 school year. What is the source of that funding? 

Finally, I want to ensure that the Board has been informed about all available funding. Last year we were told of the need to raise taxes by 1.5 Million and then in late November we are told of an additional ongoing 2 million dollars available in the budget. 

It is imperative that all information about revenue be disclosed to the Board during the budget process and prior to the Truth in Taxation hearing, not afterwards. [6]

On July 18, 2016– I once again met with Superintendent Cunningham and among other issues renewed my request for information on the status of at-risk student funding. In that meeting, I renewed my request for information on the finances of the District. I also renewed my objection to personnel changes occurring without Board approval. I also renewed my request for an updated organization chart of the District administration and departments.

On July 29, 2016 – I received a copy of the Gang Prevention and Intervention proposal signed and submitted to the State Office of Education by you and Chief Operations Officer, Larry Madden, back in May of this year.[7] The proposal confirmed what I was being told, that you and Chief Madden did indeed eliminate Colors of Success as the District’s gang intervention program. In my correspondence to the Superintendent I asked the following:

“…from a procurement standpoint, [8] can you please advise me what process Administrator Roberts and Chief Madden followed in order to utilize the services of a teacher from East High and her program, Technique for Tough Times in place of Color of Success? My records indicate that Colors of Success is the District’s designated “Sole Provider” [9] for Gang Prevention programs within the District? [10]

I have as of yet to receive a response from the Superintendent.

On July 31, 2016 – I sent Superintendent Cunningham correspondence that she acknowledged receiving, yet as of this writing, has not responded to my requests in that email. I here renew one of them:

In light of the fact that I have received multiple reports of administrators utilizing District resources in order to generate income for their private sector business, I would request copies of all “conflict of interest” declared by employees of the District as required by state statute: “An employee shall declare a potential conflict of interest…”[11]

On August 2, 2016 – During a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board, I once again renewed my request for details on the finances of the District and a current organizational chart of the departments and personnel on the District level. [12]

On August 3, 2016 – I did receive scant information (four pages) on Title I expenditures. However, it is not to the level of detail that I require in order to make decisions on the finances of the District. [13]

On August 25, 2016 – I submitted a GRAMA request to Superintendent Cunningham, “formally” requesting information on the finances of the District, which I had previously “informally” requested but had not yet received. [14]

On September 2, 2016 – After receiving no response from Superintendent Cunningham, which under GRAMA is considered a denial, I sent a GRAMA appeal to your attention. [15]

Later that day, I did receive a response to my initial GRAMA request from the Superintendent’s attorney, Kristina Kindl, who advised me that I would be provided the requested information upon payment of $337.50.

On September 10, 2016 – I received a certified letter from you stating that my appeal was “moot” because you were asserting that attorney Kindle’s (Superintendent’s legal counsel) reply to my email was within the specified timeline under GRAMA. I don’t agree with your math, nevertheless, I am submitting yet another GRAMA appeal in the form of this correspondence. In your rejection letter, you duplicitously admonish me as follows:

…Please keep in mind that as an elected board member, you can request district information through the informal process provided for in Board Policy B-1: Board of Education Legal Status, Responsibilities, and Ethics.

This Policy outlines the process through which board members can receive information necessary for the performance of their elected duties, and receive such information free of charge, and may, if appropriate, provide you with information that is not available to the general public. ^[16]

You will note that I have documented numerous instances that I did indeed “request district information through the informal process” which includes negative responses from you.

On September 12, 2016 – I am submitting this GRAMA Denial Appeal to you, in your capacity as the Chief Administrative Officer of the District as prescribed in GRAMA.

APPEAL
I am appealing Superintendent Cunningham’s decision to charge me $337.50. for information on the finances of the District as my “legal rights are directly implicated by the information in the records” that I am requesting[17] as I am a duly elected member of the Board of Education. [18] Current Utah law states that local Board members are elected by a vote of the people.  ^[19] The law further states the following:

“…an elected member of a local school board serves and represents the residents of the local school board member’s district, and that service and representation may not be restricted or impaired by the local school board member’s membership on, or obligations to, the local school board.” ^[20]

Among other responsibilities state statue endows a local Board of Education with the following responsibilities: ^[21]

Implement training programs for school administrators, including basic management training, best practices in instructional methods, budget training, staff management, managing for learning results and continuous improvement, and how to help every child achieve optimal learning in core academics.

• Local school boards shall spend minimum school program funds for programs and activities for which the State Board of Education has established minimum standards or rules under Section 53A-1-402.

• Each school board shall adopt and implement a comprehensive emergency response plan to prevent and combat violence in its public schools, on school grounds, on its school vehicles, and in connection with school-related activities or events.

• A board shall do all other things necessary for the maintenance, prosperity, and success of the schools and the promotion of education.
  

Additionally, the Board of Education Handbook^[22], which has the force of policy states the following:  

The powers and mandatory duties of the Board of Education are defined in the Utah Code and State Board of Education Rule. They are divided among executive, legislative, and quasi-judicial responsibilities, as follows:

Executive
1. Select and appoint the Superintendent of Schools.
2. Select and appoint the Business Administrator.
3. Continuously appraise the educational and administrative management of the school system, through the evaluation of the superintendent and business administrator.
4. Periodically adopt a multi-year strategic plan. In the Salt Lake City School District this is called the Student Achievement Plan.
5. Communicate and meet with community members, staff, and students, both to receive feedback and communicate board views on educational issues.
6. Approve collective bargaining agreements.

Legislative
1. Develop, adopt, and interpret policies.
2. Adopt operating and capital budgets.
3. Approve curriculum guides and courses of study.
4. Establish school boundaries.
5. Advance a legislative agenda.
6. Advise and approve decisions on facility, procurement, and financial matters as necessary.
7. Authorize legal settlements.

Quasi-Judicial

1. Decide appeals of the superintendent’s administrative decisions.

Moreover, Utah law places school Superintendents and Business Administrators in a subordinate position to the local Board of Education. ^[23] Speaking of the Superintendent and Business Administrator, current Board policy^[24] states the following:

“The board expects these appointed officers to work together, with district employees and members of the board, to promote student learning.

The board further expects that the business administrator and superintendent will exemplify the highest standards of professional competence and ethical conduct…The board expects the superintendent to discharge all of his or her statutory duties and to consult with and inform the board about school operations and problems in timely, accurate, and appropriate ways. …The superintendent is accountable to the board for his or her performance.”

SHAME ON YOU AND SUPERINTENDENT CUNNINGHAM!
In spite of the statutory authority of the Board and the subordinated position of that you and Superintendent Cunningham occupy in relation to my elected office; I have had to resort to submitting GRAMA request in order to obtain information needed to carryout the duties assigned to me by the State Legislature and given to me by my neighbors at the ballot box. In denying me information on the finances of the District the two of you have effectively silenced the voice of the citizens in District 2.

I would surmise that you will find no other local elected official in the state of Utah that is forced to submit GRAMA requests in order to obtain information from the very agency that the elected official oversees. Yet in this case, newly hire hired Superintendent Cunningham has denied my verbal and written request for information and has now denied my GRAMA request in the form of charging me a $337.50 for the information I am seeking.

As you are aware, during my first year of serving on the Board of Education, I submitted a GRAMA request and received the following clarification from the late John E. Robson of Fabian, Attorneys At Law. At the time, Mr. Robson was serving as the attorney to the Board of Education. In part he stated the following:

“…As you know a GRAMA request only entitles a person to inspect and obtain copies of public documents.  It does not entitle a person to documents that are protected or private.  … However, in your position as a Board member you have the ability to review protected and private information as long there is a valid educational or business reason to do so. 

Thus, the District wants to provide to you all of the information you might need to carry out your responsibilities…As a board member you have the same duty as the District to make sure that you do not disclose protected or private information…” [25]

Subsequent GRAMA responses from the Superintendent personal attorney used the following language:

“…as I have done in my prior responses to your GRAMA requests, you have been provided with both public and protected information. Obviously as a board member you are entitled to view documents not available to the general public, but all protected information that is being provided to you as a board member must be kept and maintained in a confidential manner.” ^[26]

Additionally, here is the language in a GRAMA response I received late last year:

“As we have discussed, because you are a member of the Salt Lake City School District Board of Education, your access to documents is not the same as the general public’s access. Due to your position as a board member, you are being provided with certain draft documents which are responsive to your request…Accordingly, I am providing you with two distinct sets of documents; one set comprises the documents I would provide to the requesting members of the public, and the other set contains confidential information, including private and protected information, which you are entitled to view based on your position as a board member. As always, all private and protected information that is being provided to you as a board member must be kept and maintained in a confidential manner and must not be disclosed.” ^[27]

Clearly, the Superintendent’s attorney, acknowledged my elected office and recognized that my access to records is different from that of the “general public”, yet in this instance, I am to be assessed a fee of $337.50 in order to view the records about the finances of the District.

While a local school board member is not mentioned in GRAMA, I do believe that the exceptions provided in §63G-2-206 apply to me in terms of what I am seeking i.e.

“…request the record in relation to the Legislature’s [local board member] duties including: preparation in review of a [board policy and] legislative proposal or legislation; appropriations [local school budget] or an investigation or review…” ^[28]

GRAMA does allow for the “sharing” of “private, controlled, or a protected record” ^[29] between governmental entities; where is the logic in denying the request of an elected member of the governing body over one of those governmental agencies?

In conclusion, I am embarrassed that as a duly elected member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education, I am having to expend an inordinate amount of time and energy in an effort to receive information on the most basic aspects of this school district. In requiring me to ask for request information in multiple venues and formats, you and the Superintendent have displayed distain for elected officials, which stands as a blatant example and symbol of everything that is wrong with public education in the state of Utah.

Accordingly, GRAMA encourages agencies to fulfill a records request without charge.[30]

Based on Utah Code §63g -2-203 (4a), I am appealing the fee of $337.50 that has been assessed and I am requesting a waiver of copy costs because releasing the records primarily benefits the public rather than a person as the “person” requesting the information is a duly elected member of the governing body [31] of the government agency and therefore “entitled by law to inspect the record”.

Equally persuasive, the Utah Legislature has established that “an elected member of a local school board serves and represents the residents of the local school board member’s district, and that service and representation may not be restricted or impaired by the local school board member’s membership on, or obligations to, the local school board.” [32]

I have sent a courtesy copy of this appeal to the State Auditor. I have sent a courtesy copy to my state Senator and the Senate President as they are in the process of reviewing a local elected official’s ability to obtain information from the very agency over which that elected official has governing authority.
Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

09/12/16 GRAMA Denial Appeal in PDF

09/08/16 Roberts Response

09/02/16 Attorney Kindl Response w/Invoice

09/02/16 First GRAMA Appeal

08/25/16 GRAMA REQUEST

SLCPD Case Number 14-172664

03 October 2014

HAND DELIVERED
Salt Lake City Police Department
Public Safety Building
475 South 300 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104

Re: Providing False Information to Law Enforcement Officers

Dear SLCPD,

I have reason to believe that on March 6, 2014, Janet Roberts, Business Administrator for the Salt Lake City School District, knowingly gave or caused to be given false information to a peace officer which is a violation of Utah Code 76-8-506: Providing False Information to Law Enforcement Officer.

According to SLCPD Offense Report 14-37341, Janet Roberts summoned Officer K. Olsen to her office in order to report Child Nutrition Manager Shirley Canham as a suspect in financial criminal activity.

According to the report, Janet Roberts informed Officer Olsen that Ms. Shirley Canham was shuffling lunch money between parent/student accounts.

The report also states that Janet Roberts reported that

“…fruit and milk lunch is given if a student is unable to pay for lunch or if the account is negative .Uintah had given out 1138 Fruit and Milk lunches since the beginning of the year. The rest of the schools have only given out approx. 200 for the year”.

The police report goes on to state that Officer Olsen used this information on May 21, 2014 when he interrogated Ms. Shirley Canham at the police station:

“We then asked her about the Fruit and Milk lunches (free lunches) and why there were so many at Uintah (over 1100) and why the rest of the schools in the district were around 200?”

The information provided to Officer Olsen by Janet Roberts was false.

Meadowlark Elementary School had 1,053 Fruit and Milk lunches recorded for the same time period, Wasatch Elementary recorded 657 for the same time period (See: Report of Special and Independent Investigation to the Board of Education of the Salt Lake City School District –Prepared by Thompson Ostler & Olsen Attorneys at Law p 13).

Moreover, Janet Roberts failed to inform Officer Olsen that the principal at Uintah Elementary school:

“…had established a clear policy with Ms. Canham at the beginning of the school year that no student would ever be denied a complete lunch and provided a fruit and milk…” (See: Report of Special and Independent Investigation to the Board of Education of the Salt Lake City School District –Prepared by Thompson Ostler & Olsen Attorneys at Law p 6).

Additionally, Janet Roberts failed to inform Officer Olsen that Meadowlark Elementary School had a high number of Fruit and Milk for the same reason:

“We have been informed that Meadowlark had a high number of fruit and milk because the Principal had directed the Nutrition Manager to just hit “fruit & milk” [button] until parents could fill out a Free and Reduced Lunch form. Given the high percentage of free and reduced lunch indicated, we determined that Meadowlark was unlike Uintah.” (See: Report of Special and Independent Investigation to the Board of Education of the Salt Lake City School District –Prepared by Thompson Ostler & Olsen Attorneys at Law p 13).

Furthermore, Janet Roberts failed to inform Officer Olsen that Wasatch Elementary School had a high number of Fruit and Milk for the same reason:

“In our interview with her, Principal Miller stated that she had a policy that no child would ever go without a lunch.” (See: Report of Special and Independent Investigation to the Board of Education of the Salt Lake City School District –Prepared by Thompson Ostler & Olsen Attorneys at Law p 10).

The interrogation question to Ms. Shirley Canham was based on false information given to the police by Janet Roberts:

“We then asked her about the Fruit and Milk lunches (free lunches) and why there were so many at Uintah (over 1100) and why the rest of the schools in the district were around 200?”

In fact, almost a full month prior to Janet Roberts involving the police department, the Superintendent sated the following at the February 4, 2014, School Board meeting:

“The boards two employees [Superintendent & Business Administrator] did make a unilateral decision last Wednesday the first moment we were informed that all of this was taking place and that unilateral decision was that no student would ever have his food taken from them again in this district…sorry if that appears to be overly assertive but advocating for young people is our primary mission, children will always come first… ”

The minutes of that meeting reflect the following:

“Superintendent Withers restated that no student would ever have food taken from them again in the district.”

Here we see the Superintendent aligning himself and Janet Roberts with the practice of giving every child a full lunch even if their account is in a negative balance.

Yet, when Janet Roberts presented this already established practice to the police officer being carried out by Ms. Shirley Canham, it is labeled as “free lunches”, “fraud” and “embezzlement”.  The fact of the matter is, pushing the Fruit and Milk button and giving students a full meal was the common practice among child nutrition managers and principals throughout the school district. Yet, Janet Roberts presented this practice to the police, as exceptional to Ms. Shirley Canham and as an indication of illegal behavior.

Janet Roberts is appointed by the Salt Lake City Board of Education (Utah Code 53A-3-302).

One of her responsibilities by virtue of state statue is to “be custodian of all district funds, be responsible and accountable for all money received and disbursed, and keep accurate records of all revenues received and their sources” (Utah Code 53A-3-303 (2).

The School Board had reason to question Janet Roberts’s ability to carry out the duties of her office. At the March 4, 2014, Board meeting the Board of Education instructed Janet Roberts to hire the external accounting firm, Squire & Company to review the financial activities at Uintah Elementary School Lunchroom. The minutes of that school board meeting reflect the following:

“…consensus was made in light of the feelings of distrust, questions that have been raised, and issues surfaced as a result of the [internal] investigation, that an outside investigation would provide validity to the findings”.

Since obtaining the police report on September 26, 2014, I have (twice) asked Janet Roberts via email why she called the police three days after the Board of Education instructed her to hire the accounting firm Squire & Co. to conduct a review of Uintah Elementary School lunchroom finances. I have also asked why she gave the police false information on March 6, 2014. Janet Roberts has refused to answer. Sadly, Janet Roberts manipulated the Salt Lake City Police Department into making Ms. Shirley Canham feel like she was a criminal for following the established practice of the Salt Lake City School District. This manipulation was a contributing factor Ms. Shirley Canham resigning her position with the Salt Lake City School District.

Sincerely,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

cc: The Honorable Sim Gill, Salt Lake County District Attorney 

Link to PDF Version of Letter

On February 10, 2014, I sent an email to Business Administrator Janet Roberts, asking for a copy of the contract that the District has with the Payments Plus Company.

Janet replied that there is none and instead sends me a copy of the Request for Proposal. I then asked her for a signed copy of the RFP and she states that there is none:

PDF Link:Gmail -MyPaymentsPlus

I then sent a GRAMA request to the Superintendent on February 14, 2014:

PDF Link to my GRAMA Request

The District responds to my GRAMA request on February 24, 2014. I was not at all surprised to find that contrary to Janet Robert’s earlier assertions, there was indeed a signed RFP and signed contract.

PDF Link to District’s GRAMA Response

Here are the PDF links to the information that was sent. This is only the public information:

BusinessClaimConfidentiality3pages

Batch1

Batch2_Redacted

THERE is a document titled: Horizon REDACTED - it will not upload - I will need to see what the issue is. If you are reading this blog and it is not yet posted, you can email me and I will send it as an attachment.It is a 460 page document, I may need to break down in parts. My email is donMiguelSLC@gmail.com

Education Task Force

PDF Link: Recommendation Letter

Blog Link: Superintendent Response to Michael Clara Recommendations

TEXT OF LETTER:

20 November 2013

DELIVERED: United States Postal Service
The Honorable Rebecca D. Lockhart
Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives
1413 S. 1710 E.
Provo, Utah 84606

Re: Clara Recommendations

Dear Speaker Lockhart,

On several occasions this past year, Salt Lake City School District, superintendent Withers has expressed his disdain over the formation and work of the Legislative Education Task Force.[1] I want you to know that I do not share his contempt.

Unlike the superintendent, I applaud the great work that has been done. As a new school board member, I have learned so much about the educational landscape in Utah, by either participating, attending or listening in to each of the Task Force meetings over the past few months.

I have also enjoyed in depth and stimulating conversations with members of the Task Force on ways to improve the educational outcomes of our most vulnerable students.

To that end, I would like to offer the following recommendations for your review and consideration. I will list them below and then elaborate on them under the heading of draft recommendations recently published by the Task Force. I will outline and explain my recommendations in this letter and send you the supporting documentation in a follow up packet.

Michael Clara Recommendations to the Legislative Education Task Force:

       I.            Require Title I schools to have a fulltime parental outreach worker.

    II.            Require Title I schools to have a fulltime counselor or social worker.

 III.            Require local school boards to allow a committee of parents and staff to participate in the interview and hiring process of a new school principal.

  IV.            Require local school boards to conduct at minimum, an annual standardized evaluation of the superintendent and business administrator.

    V.            Require local school boards to use the proper and legal geographic terminology on ballots and other material when referring to their elected office. 

  VI.            Prohibit the superintendent and business administrator from withholding information from school board members and require that they must provide accurate and reliable information/data in order for school board members to make informed decisions & votes on behalf of their constituents.

In proposing these recommendations, I believe that anyone one of them could be tailored to only apply to districts of a certain size. These recommendations stem from my own observations as a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education.

Require Title I Schools to Have a Fulltime Parental Outreach Worker

DRAFT EDUCATION TASK FORCE REPORT -p 3 (Nov 20, 2013):

Parent outreach – Parent outreach strategies may include: 1) calling or visiting parents of students who are falling behind and eliciting their help; 2) regular weekly or monthly communications or newsletters; and 3) daily access to library books to be read at home.

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Commitment to Family Engagement

Addressing at-risk issues with parents and students

I often hear teachers in my neighborhood express their frustration in the lack of parental involvement. I hear parents express their dismay at how unfriendly school staff are towards them.

By way of illustration, when school started this year I had several parents contact me and explain that they had reached several obstacles in registering their child for school. For some of them, I would make a phone call to the school to determine how I could help the parents obtain the needed information. For others, I would call someone else in the school and asked them to help the parents navigate the system. Because of the nature of the excuse given for not registering their child, I asked three different parents (two at one school) to return to the school the following day and ask to speak to the principal. I advised them, when you speak to the principal, say the following: “I spoke to my neighbor Michael Clara about this problem, he told me to come to you and that you would help me get my child registered in school”.

Each parent reported to me that there was an immediate change in attitude and that the obstacle to enrollment quickly dissolved. One neighbor was so impressed that she brought me a dozen tamales to express her gratitude. She went on to tell me that it was a very frustrating experience and she did not understand why the people at the school were so short and rude with her. She was nevertheless grateful that her child was now attending school and that the staff was now friendly with her.

Tears well up in my eyes as I relate these incidents to you. It irritates me to no end that my neighbors are treated so roughly by school staff. Then we wonder why there is a lack of parental involvement in some schools?

Based on current research[2] and best practices that I have observed, I would suggest that the following concepts could be implemented by the parental involvement specialist:

1. 1.       Build on the cultural values of the student’s families
2. 2.      Stress Personal Contact with Parents
3. 3.      Foster Communication with Parents
4. 4.      Create a Warm Environment for Parents
5. 5.      Facilitate Structural Accommodations for Parental Involvement

The schools in my community that have high parental involvement have a specialist that is devoted to that task (i.e. Mountainview Elementary, Rosepark Elementary, and Glendale Middle). Without question, parental involvement is an important way to serve the needs of both school and children. I can attest to the fact that the vast majority of parents in my community want to assist their children academically and socially and want to strengthen the relationship between home and school. They just need to be taught how.  Having a fulltime parental outreach person on campus will go a long way in overcoming the lack of parental involvement and at the same time encourage parental accountability. This person is there to educate school personnel and parents alike on how to engage with each other in positive ways.

I recommend that the Task Force follow the Title I guidelines in insisting that the schools with the most at risk student population have a fulltime outreach person on campus that can teach parents how to connect the school life with the home. I prefer this concept over measure that are more punitive towards parents that have not had the benefit of good parenting role models. 

Require Title I Schools to Have a Fulltime Counselor or Social Worker

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 6 (Nov 20, 2013):

Create an infrastructure to force agencies to work together to address factors outside the classroom that affect student achievement so that a teacher does not have to perform the role of a social worker.

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Commitment to Family Engagement

Addressing at-risk issues with parents and students

One of the leading factors of teachers leaving Title I schools in my community is the added burden placed on them to address the out of the class room risk factors that a student brings into the school.

The Salt Lake City School District has demonstrated the value of having a fulltime counselor or social worker on campus that deals with mental and physical health issues and helps coordinate the solving or eliminating the out of the classroom risk factors that a child brings into the school  (i.e. Edison Elementary, Mountain view Elementary, Rosepark Elementary).

Same holds true as in the previous explanation, this person can help lighten the burden that a teacher in a Title I schools deals with. This was one of the solutions proposed as a result of the complaint I filed in February of this year with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR). [3]

The article quotes me as stating the following:

After talking to more than 20 educators, Clara said he wants to discuss four solutions:

• Include the community and teachers in interviews with future principals, who have the biggest impact on staffing. This is done at some schools, but not consistently, Clara said.

• Extend the one-year provisional contracts for new teachers to three years, with a provision to dismiss after two years.

• Hire earlier in the spring, to be in sync rather than behind other districts.

• To help support teachers, provide low-income schools with additional counselors and family-involvement specialists.

Having this additional staff person (councilor, family specialist etc…) on hand to deal with these factors will go a long way in unburdening teachers in Title I schools. This in turn will provided the much needed adult stability that is currently lacking in many of the schools in my community.

I recommend that the Task Force endorse the concept of a fulltime counselor at Title I schools so that the out of the classrooms factors does not fall to academic teachers. 

Require Local School Boards to Allow a Committee of Parents and Staff to Participate in the Interview and Hiring Process of a New School Principal

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 3 (Nov 20, 2013):

School principal – An effective principal is instrumental in creating a culture where all students are expected to succeed. An effective principal puts systems in place that create accountability for teachers and students and, to the extent possible, make parents accountable for their children’s learning. Those systems involve an extensive sharing of data.

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Highly Trained and Empowered Principals

Commitment to Family Engagement

On February 26, 2013, I filed a compliant with the OCR expressing my concern about the high rate of teacher turnover that was occurring in Title I schools in my community. [4] In that complaint I stated the following:

“Equal educational opportunity requires that the quality of schooling provided to students be similar across schools. In particular, it would require that students in high poverty schools have access to teachers and principals of similar quality to those in schools serving more advantaged students.”

I am including a photograph of me standing with a group of parents at a recent School Community Council meeting[5]. I am not going to mention the school name because I want to say that many of the students that attend this school are about as poor as one can be in Salt Lake City.

Yet these parents care about their children’s education. This particular principal goes to great strides to ensure that there is active parental participation. Back-to-school night was standing room only at this particular school.

I rode the bus to this meeting. As the bus was traveling down the street, I saw parents walking hand in hand with their children, on bikes, scooters, skate board, taxi, bus etc…This particular principal has created the type of school climate where parental engagement is welcomed, taught and expected.

I left that meeting and walked over to a neighboring school and there were hardly any parents in attendance. Same neighborhood, same demographics, just a different principal with a different attitude that sets the tone for the other adults in the school and the surrounding community.

Current law is designed to give a community power over their public schools and how and who operates them. We have “bastardized” the current system to the point that it is so dysfunctional that it is almost void of public influence. The current bureaucracy in my district seems disconnected from the lives of teachers and students, uniformed about what is going on in their own system and reluctant to accept any responsibility for the current dismal situation.

At the July 9, 2013, Salt Lake City School Board meeting, I challenged the superintendent because he was hiring school principals without bringing the names to the school board for final approval. I explained to the superintendent that state law required board approval. [6] Superintendent Wither’s replied “as a board member that is not your role”. [7]

Other school board members, averaging a decade of service jumped in and agreed with his false conclusion. The board president stated that we would refer the matter to our school board attorney, John Robson who was not in attendance.

At our August 6, 2013, School Board meeting, attorney Robson stated in no uncertain terms that it is the authority of the school board to approve all those hired in the district.

There has been a pervasive pattern and practice in our district where the superintendent has placed poor performing principals in the schools within my community. This immediately causes the exodus of the most experienced teachers from schools that need them the most.

We currently have a principal that tells the teachers he/she does not want to be in a “poor school” etc. These teachers in turn tell the parents who then come and tell me.

We have another principal that decided he/she did not like the professional development that they and the school had to participate in. This principal gets the superintendent to transfer them to another westside school.

Yet another principal who expresses a desire to not be in a westside school has turned the school culture upside down, this particular school and everyone in it are in a downward spiral. Just this past Saturday, I had two parents come to my home and report that at this particular school, children of color are not allowed to check out books from the school library because they have demonstrated that they “do not know how to take care of things”, yet Caucasian students are allowed to check out books. The parents reported to me that they have tested the practice of this policy and are certain that it is in place based on what their children and neighboring children have reported. At this point I do not know how real or perceived this report is.

The superintendent is indifferent to the concerns expressed by me, teachers and parents alike. In schools that have an active and vocal parent group, the superintendent allows for the formation of a committee consisting of parents, community members, and staff. They will actually interview principal candidates that have submitted an application. Over a series of several meetings which include interviewing the candidates they will then send three finalist to the superintendent for his approval. The final step would then be approval by the board of education.

I recommend that the Task Force support some form of this process for all schools. At the very least it ensures that Title I Schools are receiving a principal that wants to be there, not one that is forced. Moreover, the process I just described allows for the highest order of site based decision making to occur from the local level all the way up to the elected officials in the local school system.

Require Local School Boards to Conduct at Minimum, an Annual Standardized Evaluation of the Superintendent and Business Administrator

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 5 (Nov 20, 2013):

Governance: Concern was expressed that local school boards, and Utah School Board Association training for local school board members, discourage individual local school board members from vigorously advocating for a local school board member’s constituency.

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 6 (Nov 20, 2013):

Recommendations: Consider legislation to clarify the role of local school board members as advocates for their constituents

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Meaningful Teacher Evaluation

School Specific Professional Development of Teachers and             Administrators

Execution and Input of Standards and Benchmarks

Three days prior to the October 15, 2013, School Board meeting I received notification that the meeting was starting earlier than its usual time. I sent an email to the board president asking why the meeting was starting earlier. The board president replied, “Because we are evaluating the superintendent”.

I objected to the evaluation occurring without prior notice.[8] I stated the following in a letter to the board president:

This letter is to inform you that I will be voting against going into closed session this afternoon for the purposes of evaluating the superintendent. I was only made aware this past Saturday that the evaluation would take place this afternoon.

Moreover, the superintendent is in breach of his contract, as it clearly states: ”Annually, at least 30 days prior to the time for his evaluation, SUPERINTENDENT shall advise the BOARD of its obligation to evaluate him no later than October31”

While I am prohibited from discussing what did occur in our closed door session on that day, I will state that in response to my question as to the evaluation process, the board president informed me of the following via email (prior to the meeting):

“I was going to request that each board member bring with them …two things both Janet and McKell do well and two things which need improvement.  Then we narrow down from the fourteen into commonalities”

Are you kidding me!!!! I must confess, that this is one of the few times in my life that I thought I was going to blow a gasket. I was stunned when I read the email.

I thought to myself: Why not evaluate teachers and principals in this same fashion? I submit that the mentality that allows this type of evaluation has its roots in the indoctrination that USBA gives to all school board members. [9] In the school board orientation training, the PowerPoint slides state the following in reference to how school board members should treat the superintendent:

• Know your job and don’t interfere with the administration’s

• Understand that the superintendent is practicing a career-a highly complex one for which he or she has prepared with formal training and in most cases, years of progressive experience
• Communicate disagreements in private. If you wish to discuss an action of the superintendent that think was improper, do so in private
• Support the superintendent. If someone complains to you about the superintendent, listen but don’t agree
• Know your superintendent. Be sensitive to the superintendent’s likes and dislikes, what the superintendent expects of you and the rest of the board, and what the superintendent needs 

I recommend that the state of Utah follow the lead of states like Massachusetts and include superintendents in the state mandated educator’s evaluation process. [10]

I submit, it is somewhat hypocritical to standardize evaluations for teachers and principals and not require standardized accountability of our superintendents and business administrators. [11]

The manner in which the Salt Lake City School Board conducted the superintendent’s evaluation last month, was in my opinion a betrayal of the public trust.

The superintendent is hired by the board to run the district, and the board is elected by the community to see that the district runs well. More than just another district employee, the superintendent represents to the board the sum total of the organization, so system accountability comes with the title. The school board, for its part, is positioned between the community and its schools to provide that accountability function.

I am convinced that a fair, comprehensive, well-implemented superintendent evaluation can improve the quality of the schools and the success of the students. Accountability in the form of superintendent evaluation is arguably the board’s most important function.

I respectfully urge the Task Force to add superintendents and business administrators to Utah’s educator’s evaluation process. This will go a long way in helping school boards meet their responsibility to their communities, who expect the board to exercise appropriate oversight.

Require Local School Boards to Use the Proper and Legal Geographic Terminology on Voting Ballots and Other Material When Referring to Their Elected Office

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 5 (Nov 20, 2013):

Governance: Concern was expressed that local school boards, and Utah School Board Association training for local school board members, discourage individual local school board members from vigorously advocating for a local school board member’s constituency.

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 6 (Nov 20, 2013):

Recommendations: Consider legislation to clarify the role of local school board members as advocates for their constituents

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Commitment to Family Engagement

When I ran for school board during the 2012 election cycle, confusion arose when the sample ballots were published as they had me listed as a candidate for Precinct 2 as opposed to being the candidate for District 2.

As you are aware, redistricting had just occurred and all voters were now in new voting precincts. The numbering system in Salt Lake City starts off with the single digit precincts in Salt Lake City’s westside. While campaigning for school board, many residents erroneously concluded they could not vote for me because they were not in voting Precinct 2.

Voting Precinct 2 is one of 11 voting precincts in my ‘school board district’.

After speaking to Carol Leer at USOE, Mark Thomas at the Lt. Governors Office, SLC City Attorney, SL County Attorney etc.. I was able to determine that according to state law, the ballot should have me listed as the candidate for District 2.[12]

The Salt Lake County Clerk would not change the ballots because she said that she was following the instructions of the superintendent. The superintendent and school board president were unsympathetic to the confusion that the misuse of the terminology was causing in my community.

The Lt. Governor’s office stated that although the geographic area on the ballot was incorrect, this was nevertheless a local issue and they could not compel compliance.

Current state law reads as follows:

20A-14-201.   Boards of education — School board districts — Creation — Reapportionment.

(1) (a) The county legislative body, for local school districts whose boundaries encompass more than a single municipality, and the municipal legislative body, for school districts contained completely within a municipality, shall divide the local school district into local school board districts as required under Subsection 20A-14-202(1)(a).

Current election code reads as follows:

20A-5-303.   Establishing, dividing, abolishing, and changing voting precincts — Common polling places — Combined voting precincts.

(1)     (a) After receiving recommendations from the county clerk, the county legislative body may establish, divide, abolish, and change voting precincts.

(2)      (a) The county legislative body shall alter or divide voting precincts so that each voting precinct contains not more than 1,250 active voters.

I was able to determine that the geographic area for a school board member was referred to as a PRECINCT for many years.

In 1994 HB 84 was passed and changed the terminology to what we read in current Utah code. Specifically that several “voting precincts” comprise a “district” that an elected official represents.

The superintendent and school board president refused to change the terminology to comport themselves to current state law and at the same time clear up confusion with voters in my community. They stated in so many words that there was no penalty for not following the current law.

It defies reason why school districts are okay with promoting voter confusion and suffer no penalty for ignoring current Utah code.

To that end, during the 2013 legislative session, Representative Brian King was kind enough to open a bill file on this issue in an effort to bring clarity to the voters. I had a couple of discussions with legislative research and it was determined that it would be difficult to create a law stating that you have to follow another law.

It was decided that a resolution would be the best course of action. It was titled: Geographic Divisions of School Districts and later changed to Local School Board Members’ District. We ran out of time in the 2013 general session for this resolution to be considered.

I spoke to Representative King earlier this week and he expressed his support and willingness to propose this resolution in the 2014 general session.

I would ask that the Task Force review the merits of this resolution and encourage its advancement and ultimate passage.  

Prohibit the Superintendent and Business Administrator From Withholding Information from School Board Members and Require That They Must Provide Accurate and Reliable Information/Data in Order for School Board Members to Make Informed
Decisions & Votes on Behalf of their Constituents

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 5 (Nov 20, 2013):

Governance: Concern was expressed that local school boards, and Utah School Board Association training for local school board members, discourage individual local school board members from vigorously advocating for a local school board member’s constituency.

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 6 (Nov 20, 2013):

Recommendations: Consider legislation to clarify the role of local school board members as advocates for their constituents

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: School-Specific Professional Development of Teachers and     dddddddddddddddAdministrators

Commitment to Family Engagement

Addressing At-Risk Issues with Parents and Students

I believe that the proper application of local school board power would change the face of education in the communities that they serve.  This would happen through the positive and appropriate policymaking, equitable and targeted resource allocation and transparent accountability for all stakeholders.

I have been serving on the Salt Lake City School Board for a little under a year. During that period of time I have witnessed the district bureaucracy play a shell game of policy deception with members of the board of education. The bureaucracy is allowed to consistently  set the stage for the degradation of civic discourse and at the same time erode the capacity for collective critical thinking on the part of members of the school board.

While I can cite multiple examples, I will present three by way of illustration.

In the spring of this year the school district started the budget process that would culminate in the school board voting on a budget in June and then voting to raise taxes in August of this year.

In the August school board meeting I voted against raising taxes, Salt Lake Tribune reporter Ray Parker who was present at the meeting, reported the following:

“I am voting against the proposed tax increase … in large part because there was never any clear reason presented to require an increase,” Clara wrote in an open letter, which he passed out during Tuesday’s meeting.

“The information presented by the business administrator was contradictory and inconsistent throughout the budget process. The business administrator either refused or was unable to answer budget questions with any amount of clarity.”

Clara gave an example involving a program called Enhancement for Accelerated Students. In his letter, Clara wrote district officials said the program lost $255,676 and would need to be made up in the tax increase.

Clara disagreed.

“In the previous budget cycle, the state gave the Salt Lake City School District $204,620 for the Enhancement for Accelerated Students program,” Clara wrote. “In the current budget cycle, the state is giving the district $205,638, which is as you can see, an increase from the previous year. Not a ‘shortfall’ as we have been led to believe.

“Yet, our business administrator is telling us that this program is $255,676 short this year because of the Legislature’s failure to ‘fully fund growth’ and a ‘WPU [weighted pupil unit] shortfall.’ ”

Clara had another issue. In a postscript, Clara wrote: “I am also troubled by the fact that this year, the school board awarded a 6 percent increase to the superintendent and voted to give our employees a meager 1 percent increase. In an effort to rectify this disparity, I proposed an amended [sic] to the budget in our June meeting that was voted down.”

After Clara mentioned the 6 percent increase at the meeting, Superintendent McKell Withers said, “That is not true.”

Clara wanted to debate the point but was cut off when member Laurel Heath Young “called for the question,” and all debate was stopped, and the vote taken. [13]

Not only were we misinformed and misdirected throughout this budget process, in this particular meeting the superintendent actually ordered the board president to cut off all discussion when I was explaining my NO VOTE on raising taxes. When I objected and asserted a “point of order” to the board president, the business administrator was trying to get the police officer to escort me out of the board meeting.

I am of the opinion that the superintendent and the business administrator should not have that much power. Nor should they be able to exercise any type of authority over school board members. Yet they control members of the board by withholding information about district finances and student and teacher data.

More recently, we had an RDA issue come before the school board and again I was denied requested financial information that I needed in order to make an informed vote on behalf of my neighbors.

I sent a letter to the board president declaring that I would VOTE NO on the RDA issue due to the fact that the business administrator refused to answer my questions about district finances surrounding this issue. [14]

I stated the following in that letter, which bears repeating:

As a school board member I am entitled to the information that I ask for in order to fulfill my fiduciary responsibilities to my community. I would betray the trust that my neighbors placed in me, if I vote to divert school property tax dollars in order to receive pass through funding that I have not been clearly told how that is being spent.

It also concerns me that during this past budget cycle we were told that the district could not meet our budget due to the “legislature’s failure to fully fund growth” and a “WPU shortfall”.

Yet I find that our district seems to be awash in cash. We recently discovered that the district had half a million dollars to pay a matching grant. We were recently told that there is money to hire a full-time attorney. Now I am being told that we receive close to five million dollars from Salt Lake City RDA.

As I mentioned in a previous meeting, it is like pulling teeth to obtain information on the budget and direct questions about finances are consistently sidestepped. It seems that the only way to learn about the school budget is to stumble upon it. This is unacceptable!

My neighbors have given me the power to act on their behalf by virtue of the November 2012, election. The state legislature has given me the authority over district finances by virtue of state law, yet I am regularly denied or delayed requested information. Denying me financial information of the district is an insult to my community and I would submit, contrary to state law.

The final example that I will cite has to do with the iSchool program. On August 2, 2013, the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story about Newman Elementary in the Salt Lake City School District, being awarded a technology grant that would require the Salt Lake City School District to pay close to half a million dollars to participate in the program. [15]

Several neighbors called me to inquire how the district could afford this program after the district declared that taxes had to be raised just to keep existing programs. I also received calls from other educators asking why this particular school was chosen over others etc…

I began to run the bureaucratic school district gantlet in an effort to obtain the answers to the questions that were directed towards me.

In the mean time I was able to discover that this matching grant stemmed from SB 284- Educational Technology Amendment. I noted the following language in the law:

“a school within a school district,
with approval of the local school board…
may submit an application to the State Board of Education
to participate in the program” [16]

When I asked the business administrator via email to tell me when did our school board approve the district’s participation in this program? I received the following reply:

“It was anticipated that approval by our school board would happen when the approval for funds were included in the purchasing report”

Wow! She is saying that this was going to come to the school board on a purchasing report on the consent agenda. Never mind the fact that the law clearly states that school board approval must be obtained BEFORE an application is even submitted.

I eventually had to submit two GRAMA requests in order to ascertain how this decision was made and where the funds were coming from.

Business administrator, Janet Roberts advised me via email that I would not receive the requested information prior to the next school board meeting (two weeks away) as requested because “a need for an expedited response has not been demonstrated”.

While I support the concept of whole-school technology deployment. I cannot, however, abide a bureaucracy that consistently exhibits a disdain for the powers and authority of the duly elected institution of the local school board.

If the problem in the Salt Lake City public school system (at the highest levels of management) was just incompetence, we would be immeasurably better off.

Local school district governance is unique to America. Nowhere else in the world is education governed by locally elected school boards. Indeed school boards are “the crucible of democracy”. Local school elections in America provide the closest example of democracy for the American people.

One researcher stated: “..Boards are so disconnected from the schoolhouse and citizen involvement in board elections so minimal that they have become obsolete mechanisms of democracy and have little, if any influence on student achievement”[17] If this statement is true, I submit that it occurred because local school board have allowed the school bureaucracy to nibble away their authority and purpose of existence.

I would recommend that the Task Force seriously consider a way to bolster the authority of school board members so that they are not at the mercy of an out of control school bureaucracy. I am convinced that local school boards can make more effective use of education dollars if appropriately informed on the particulars of school finances.

In closing, I want to reiterate that local school boards are agents of the state and derive their authority from the state government. Therefore it is in my opinion appropriate that the state legislature would implement laws to help local school boards make course corrections in public education.

Not only do state legislatures have the authority to address a wide range of problems, both inside and outside the schools, but new and innovative measures, such as stronger accountability systems almost always emanate from them.

Moreover, legislatures have enjoyed some notable success. During the 1990’s, Texas and North Carolina were generally recognized as the states that had done most to improve student achievement among poor and ethnic minority students. Lawsuits, court-ordered remedies, and significantly increased spending had little or nothing to do with their success. Instead, the credit was largely due to accountability and other innovative measures originating in the state legislatures.[18]

I continue to have a growing sense that real, long-lasting change in our education system is urgent, indispensable and possible!

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára

Board Member, District 2

P.S. “In Education, the time we waste today, is a lifetime wasted tomorrow (LBJ)

cc: President Niederhauser
Senator Reid
Senator Stephenson
Senator Osmond
Senator Urquhart
Representative Hughes
Representative King

Enclosures