Sunday, November 14, 2010

Summary of the possible Forgery in Seattle Schools $800,000 New Tech contract approval

Summary of the possible Forgery:
Essential background:
On 1-29-2010 the Superintendent received two memos from Eric M. Anderson, a Gates Data Fellow, in the Seattle Schools' Research, Evaluation, and Assessment division. Dr. Anderson is a real statistician and knows statistics well.

One of his two memos was more complete than the other. It analyzed 8 schools that someone else had given him to analyze. This memo was forwarded to the School Board on 2-02-2010. I shall refer to it as the Authentic Memo.

The other memo was not sent to the School Board. I refer to it as the Draft Memo, as it was less complete and was not sent to the school board.

The Superintendent claimed to have written the Action Report of 3-12-2010 using the Authentic Memo but this was untrue. She used the Draft Memo and thus deceived the Public and perhaps the Board as well.

RCW 9A.60.010 Definitions
The following definitions and the definitions of RCW 9A.56.010 are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Written instrument" means: (a) Any paper, document, or other instrument containing written or printed matter or its equivalent; or (b) any access device, token, stamp, seal, badge, trademark, or other evidence or symbol of value, right, privilege, or identification;

(2) "Complete written instrument" means one which is fully drawn with respect to every essential feature thereof;

(3) "Incomplete written instrument" means one which contains some matter by way of content or authentication but which requires additional matter in order to render it a complete written instrument;

(4) To "falsely make" a written instrument means to make or draw a complete or incomplete written instrument which purports to be authentic, but which is not authentic either because the ostensible maker is fictitious or because, if real, he did not authorize the making or drawing thereof;

(5) To "falsely complete" a written instrument means to transform an incomplete written instrument into a complete one by adding or inserting matter, without the authority of anyone entitled to grant it;

(6) To "falsely alter" a written instrument means to change, without authorization by anyone entitled to grant it, a written instrument, whether complete or incomplete, by means of erasure, obliteration, deletion, insertion of new matter, transposition of matter, or in any other manner;

(7) "Forged instrument" means a written instrument which has been falsely made, completed, or altered.

RCW 9A.60.020 Forgery
(1) A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to injure or defraud:

(a) He falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument or;

(b) He possesses, utters, offers, disposes of, or puts off as true a written instrument which he knows to be forged.


The Action Report of 3-12-2010 stated that it was based on a memo sent to the School Board on 1-29-2010. There was no memo sent to the Board on 1-29-2010. The only Eric M. Anderson memo sent to the Board was on 2-02-2010, which contained 8 schools and the paragraph:

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.

The Superintendent did not use that memo sent to the School Board. She used an earlier Draft Memo that was never sent to the School Board to write the action report statements on page two of the report. The evidence submitted to the Court to satisfy RCW 28A 645.020 (RCW 28A 645.020 requires the complete transcipt of evidence used by the Board to make an appealed decision to be submitted to the court within 20 days of the appeal filing and that filing is to be certified to be correct) included the Draft Memo, on which the Action Report was based, masquerading as the memo sent to the Board.

The reason for the substitution of Draft Memo in place of Authentic Memo is likely because an $800,000 bid was being sought without competitive bidding and if the authentic original memo had been used to construct the Action Report, the public and the Board would have been fully aware that the product and/or service for which a "sole-source" purchase was sought was clearly a substandard product and/or service.

In addition, Eric M. Anderson was provided a list of schools by someone on which to base his analysis. This list did not include established New Tech Schools: Welby in Colorado or BizTech in Portland, which are extremely poor performers.
Also only 10 of 41 New Tech schools were STEM focused and none of the six schools in California were STEM schools. The memos apparently assume that all NTN schools are STEM focused when only 25% are STEM focused. The original Action Report used on 2-3-10 (in a contract approval abandoned by the District as the action report failed to match the approved contract) incorrectly stated that 2/3 of NTN schools were STEM focused.

Here is the

Initial Brief filed on October 25, 2010
in the appeal of the NTN contract approved by a vote of 4-3 on April 7, 2010, with Directors Carr, Martin-Morris, Sundquist, and Maier voting for approval. Directors DeBell, Smith-Blum, and Patu voted against NTN contract approval.

Linked here is: Public records request confirming that the "Draft Memo" used by Dr. Goodloe-Johnson in constructing the Action Report of 3-12-2010 was NEVER sent to the Board.

Authentic Anderson Memo LINK HERE

Draft Memo that masqueraded as original LINK HERE

It appears that the Superintendent and perhaps her Chief Academic Officer
under RCW 9A.60.020 on Forgery
(1) Are likely guilty of forgery as, with intent to defraud,

(a) one or both of them perhaps falsely made, a written instrument: the School Board Action Report of March 12, 2010, by using a memo other than the memo sent to the School Board.

This forged report likely facilitated the purchase of an $800,000 contract for services, which had been portrayed incorrectly by that School Board Action Report.


Additionally, the Superintendent, in failing to properly quote what are the most damning parts of the Anderson Memo forwarded to the Board, seems to be guilty of violating RCW 9A.76.175.

RCW 9A.76.175 Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

It is the Superintendent's duty to make truthful, complete statements to her supervisors (the Directors), and a crime to make false, misleading statements to same.


Anonymous said...

This is a good example Goodloe-Johnson's unethical operations and misrepresention of facts. The School Board members who voted to extend her contract should be removed along with her and Enfield.

dan dempsey said...


To take out four of the 5 directors that voted to extend MGJ's contract.

Recall Sufficiency Hearing is on for Thursday Nov. 18 at 3:00 PM.

We will need lots of help to gather 32,000 signatures if we get a recall petition approved by the court.