Clearly the FIX is in. As in the process is FIXED and as a result the inadequate public education Math Fiasco will NOT be fixed by the current OSPI directed Math Instructional Materials Review etc.
Background: MY LEGAL COMPLAINT is HERE
My Original Request For INFORMATION is HERE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Wilson,
Given your position of OSPI Compliance Officer please respond to the attached letter of 5-28-2008 in regard to:
I have an action filed in Superior Court. I require documents to make a case. The IMR process is well under way. Meetings that should have been public were not. The selection process documents are now still not being provided. I have yet to receive a reasonable estimate time-line as to when access to documents will be provided as required by law (five business days have elapsed).
Sincerely,
Danaher M. Dempsey
--------------------------------------------
Ms. Wilson, 5-28-2008
I am not a lawyer. You being the Public Disclosure Officer of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction could perhaps clarify for me as to exactly how you are in compliance with your responsibilities under RCW 42.56.520, which requires prompt responses. Excerpts from 42.56.520 follow:
Responses to requests for public records shall be made promptly by agencies, ... Within five business days of receiving a public record request, an agency, … (2) acknowledging that the agency, … has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the agency, … will require to respond to the request; … Additional time required to respond to a request may be based upon the need to clarify the intent of the request, to locate and assemble the information requested, ….. Agencies, … shall establish mechanisms for the most prompt possible review of decisions denying inspection.
----------
A summary of our communications follows:
Dear Ms. Wilson, (Sent Friday May 16, 2008 10:45 PM)
On April 24, 2008 I filed in Thurston County Superior Court a "COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF", requesting that OSPI and the SBE follow the Law.
Please immediately supply the information I am requesting below.
(I list 4 of the 8 numbered items from the request below)
………………..
1. The applications for the Instructional Materials Review Team and the Professional Development Facilitators.
2. The rating criteria for the Instructional Materials Review Team members and the Professional Development Facilitators.
3. The score sheets for each of the Instructional Materials Review Team applicants and the Professional Development Facilitators applicants.
4. The final list of the Instructional Materials Review Team members and the Professional Development Facilitators.
………..
In addition I am particularly interested in how the 22 Members of the Instructional Materials Review Criteria panel were selected. I would also like to know why the public was not informed prior to April 25, 2008 that these 22 individuals would meet on that date and produce draft #1 of the instructional materials review criteria document, which will be finalized in one more meeting and then this criteria will be used to select the math materials that will be recommended by the State.
Please give my request your highest priority, as it will be used in my legal action asking for injunctive relief, which seeks to have OSPI and the SBE follow the Laws of the State of Washington.
Susan Wilson
Mr. Dempsey:
This e-mail confirms receipt of your public records request under RCW 42.56. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) received your request by e-mail on May 16, 2008 and it has been logged as 08-0100. I will be in contact with you on or before May 27, 2008 regarding availability of the documents you are requesting.
Mr. Dempsey, Sent Tuesday May 27, 2008
OSPI has reviewed your request for information regarding the statewide math curriculum adoption process. Due to the heavy workload in May and June, plus the critical deadlines associated with the math trainings and events, the program office will need to use a phased approach to provide you with documents responsive to your request.
(My complaint for injunctive relief requiring OSPI and SBE to follow the law goes to court in July. This delaying is unacceptable.)
We are working on a timetable and I will get back with you the by early next week with an estimation of when selected documents will be available for your review.
Thank you and I look forward to working with you.
Susan Wilson --- Public Disclosure Officer
------------------------------
End of email summaries
------------------------------
Although I am not a Lawyer, it appears to me that you are in violation of the Law.
The Law clearly states:
Within five business days of receiving a public record request, an agency, … (2) acknowledging that the agency, … has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the agency, … will require to respond to the request.
You received my request and stated you would contact me on May 27th, 2008. Which you did fulfilling the responsibility of responding by responding on the fifth business day after receiving my request.
You did NOT provide me with a reasonable estimate of the time the agency, … will require to respond to the request. Instead you provided me with the following statement:
“We are working on a timetable and I will get back with you by early next week with an estimation of when selected documents will be available for your review”.
It appears that you are lengthening the time to respond from 5 business days to perhaps 10 or more business days. At this time I have no idea as to the time that OSPI is going to take to actually allow me access to the requested documents. Under RCW 42.56.520, I should have been notified of this by May 27, 2008.
It looks to me that you are delaying and not in compliance with the law. I originally requested several items. I believed all of them would be easy to access.
I believe that requested items #1 through #4 are particularly easy to find and provide access to. My additional requests after item #8 appear to require simply an explanation from Ms. Jessica Vavrus or perhaps the contractor Ms. Porsche Everson. I restate those for clarification purposes here:
----
I am particularly interested in how the 22 Members of the Instructional Materials Review Criteria panel were selected. I would also like to know why the public was not informed prior to April 25, 2008 that these 22 individuals would meet on that date and produce draft #1 of the instructional materials review criteria document, which will be finalized in one more meeting and then this criteria will be used to select the math materials that will be recommended by the State.
----
My action filed in Thurston County Superior County involves OSPI’s failure to follow laws. One of my contentions was that by advancing the time line OSPI and the SBE were unable to fulfill certain requirements of the law.
Your communications thus far seem to validate this contention in yet another way.
So far your argument appears a lest partially to be:
So sorry, we are busy with the rapid time-lines that we need to operate under so we are unable to provide you the information you request rapidly.
I have an action filed in Superior Court. I require documents to make a case. The IMR process is well under way. Meetings that should have been public were not. The selection process documents are now still not being provided. I have yet to receive a reasonable estimate time-line as to when access to documents will be provided as required by law (five business days have elapsed).
Sincerely,
Danaher M. Dempsey, Jr.
----------------------------
The title of the law is
RCW 42.56.520
Prompt responses required.
Who could have imagined that title "Prompt Responses Required" given the above actions by OSPI's Compliance Officer Ms. Wilson?
4 comments:
Nice work - its the process that's so interesting plus OSPI's response. Those little rascals.
This was on Yahoo - a clear vindication.
Instead of effective government, Americans were subjected to a "permanent campaign" that was "all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage," McClellan writes in a book stunning for its harsh criticism of Bush. "Presidential initiatives from health care programs to foreign invasions are regularly devised, named, timed and launched with one eye (or both eyes) on the electoral calendar."
The spokesman's book is called "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."
Really nice title of
The spokesman's book is called "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."
It that DC or Washington State??
With Dr T Bergeson in charge not much difference that I can see.
Dan
Give 'em hell, Dan! You are throwing SPI into a frenzy. By the by, S.Wilson isn't rreeally a public disclosure officer. Well, at least not full time. She is (and has always been) the Executive Assistant to the Chief Information Officer. That's information as in information technology, not public information.
Post a Comment