Thursday, October 21, 2010

The RECALL and the non-competitive bid on an $800,000 contract

On March 16, 2010 I received Dr. Anderson's memo of 1-29-2010, which I requested from Ms. Joy Stevens.

A major problem centers on the fact that The Action Report of 3-12-2010 which formed the basis for the voting on the NTN contract was not based on that memo but rather on a modified version of that memo.

Who changed the memo and why?

The changing of the memo made the NTN contract seem to be more reasonable than it would have been had the original memo been used.

This final paragraph of the original memo was omitted from the Action Report:

"Since the data is mixed, the primary question is whether Seattle Public Schools believes strongly in the research‐based NTN learning model. Success will more than likely depend on the quality of program implementation. Knowing ahead of time that the NTN model does not guarantee strong results only enhances the degree to which the burden falls on the district and the schools to achieve success."

No one could read that paragraph and think that a non-competitive contract was merited for such a product.

Dr. Goodloe-Johnson and Chief Academic Officer Enfield were the persons responsible for the Action Report. The Superintendent apparently sent the modified version of the memo to the school board.
(see "sent" linked Heaton to English email of 3-9-2010)

Directors Martin-Morris, Maier, Sundquist, and Carr approved the contract but never followed the legally required procedures to allow an exemption from competitive bidding.

The District continues to fail to certify that the evidence they provide in an appeal is correct. This continued defiance of RCW 28A 645.020 has thus far been allowed by several King County Superior Court judges. Look where the failure of the court to enforce "Such filings shall be certified to be correct" has led us. How can a winning argument be constructed from evidence provided by the District when such evidence is not certified to be correct?

On 10-21-2010, filings for the recall and discharge of each of the four directors were submitted at the elections office at 1 PM.

Filings made on October 21:
Carr filing
Maier filing
Martin-Morris filing
Sundquist filing

Precisely why I think FRAUD occurred:
Email evidence showing the original request for the memo mentioned in the 3-12-2010 action report, which produced the original memo.

The memo later submitted by the District as evidence was not this memo but rather a version masquerading as the original.

The action report used the modified version of the memo, which did not include the most significant shortcoming in the original memo: "Knowing ahead of time that the NTN model does not guarantee strong results only enhances the degree to which the burden falls on the district and the schools to achieve success."

No one could reasonably believe that non-competitive bidding should be applied to such a product.

The legal requirement for an exemption from non-competitive bidding includes:
(a) Purchases that are clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply;

Why would a product that places the burden on the school district to make it work be purchased rather than being rejected or at least made subject to competitive bidding?

The answer appears to be because central administration wanted it that way.

List of Exhibits index of evidence used in the recall and discharge filings

Exhibits A and B contents

Exhibits C, D and E contents

Exhibits F and G contents

Exhibits H, I, J, and J2 contents

Exhibit K the Anderson Memo and support documentation contents

Exhibits L, M, N, and N2 contents

Exhibits O, P, Q, and R contents

Exhibits S, T, U, V, and W contents

Exhibit X contents


Joan NE said...


Several points.

1. Notwithstanding the Superintendent's failure in her School Board Action Report (SBAR) of 3/12/2010 to quote critically relevant statements from E.A. Anderson's Jan 20 2010 memo, the quoted part was, by itself, damning.

2. There is one more sentence that was omitted from the original memo, and which is quite significant.

Elaborating on my first point:

Arguably "Having a proven track record of success" was the most important product specification for the STEM curriculum package (or whatever to call the package that the CHS STEM Project Design Team was looking for).

Regarding MGJ's SBAR to the School Board, and dated March 12, 2010: I don't see how a reasonable person could conclude from the quoted sections of Mr. Anderson's memo that the NTN product had a "proven track record of success."

The quoted part of the memo included this statement, after all:

"Due in part to the fact that most NTN schools are relatively new, we were not able to discern meaningful longitudinal growth trend results."

Elaborating on my second point:

Here is the full 2nd-to-last paragraph of Eric's orginal memo:

"Instances of relatively weak standards‐based performance cannot be explained without an in‐depth qualitative study, and may have little to do with the NTN program design. For example, it may be that lower performing NTN schools suffer from weak support from their local district or educational agency, or perhaps there are persistent issues with teacher or leadership effectiveness. It’s also possible that implementation of the New Technology program model remains weak or incomplete."

What I wish to point out here is that MGJ's SBAR of 3/12/2010 quoted all BUT THE LAST SENTENCE of this paragraph.

That is, in addition to omitted the full last paragraph of Mr. Anderson's summary, she also omitted this very important statement:

"It’s also possible that implementation of the New Technology program model remains weak or incomplete."

In other words, Mr. Anderson is saying that even what limited success that NTN has produced, cannot necessarily be attributed to the NTN program itself.

The Superintendent and her Chief Academic Officer are showing themselves to be untrustworthy.

How can the Board trust leadership that willfully fails to reveal to the School Board -- in fact, willfully strives to hide -- highly relevant statements of opinion by their own high level staff?

This should be grounds for firing Maria Goodloe-Johnson and Susan Enfield.

Joan NE said...
This comment has been removed by the author.