Thursday, November 18, 2010

Those seeking recall
respond to Directors' declarations
but the petition for recall
is ruled insufficient.

Here are the Declarations of each director on 11-16-2010 or 11-17-2010 that were submitted on 11-17-2010:
Maier :: Carr :: Martin-Morris :: Sundquist

Here are the Responses, to the above four declarations, submitted by Ms. Anderson and Ms. Martin, who sought the recall:
Maier :: Carr :: Martin-Morris :: Sundquist

There may be typos etc. as there were only 24 hours to turn this around. Directors submitted on Nov 17, not November 15 as originally required. Anderson and Martin made Nov 15 filings as required. Anderson and Martin's responses to directors' declarations were submitted at the court hearing on Nov. 18th at 3:00 p.m.


Result = Anderson and Martin lost as they failed to show any director intended to violate a law.

There were legal violations taking place but those seeking recall failed to show intent.

Officer I was unaware I was driving 80 mph. Isn't 80 mph the speed limit in this county. --------- No intention and no awareness. What officer would argue with that?

Most every officer would issue a citation given that response from a driver, but that violation would be insufficient to "Recall" a Driver is my guess. Note recall applies to only elected officials.

Thanks to Directors submitting individual declarations on Nov. 17 to the court. There is even more evidence that points to how poorly each of those four directors do their job.


It is quite apparent that these directors consider lots of opinions but fail to evaluate facts and thereby do not produce evidence based decisions.

Of particular interest is that the directors apparently failed to notice the large amount of information that Mr. Dempsey submitted that was non math related.

Mr Maier wrote: (beginning at page 3 line 25)

Mr. Dempsey expressed his opinion that the District should not approve a contract with NTN because in his view the NTN model was not an effective way to teach math [Evidence is of little interest to most directors]. Mr. Dempsey's emails provided some standardized testing relating data in math from a number of NTN schools that he claimed supported his view. I considered the information and opinions submitted by Mr. Dempsey and others before I voted to approve the NTN contract. The services that were to be provided through NTN's Program [sic: should be Project] Based Learning approach were much broader than just the subject of math instruction.

It is clear that Director Maier fails to evaluate evidence or read my emails. What evidence did Mr. Maier use to make his decision to vote for the NTN contract?

(1) There was extensive evidence submitted to Director Maier that concerned poor results at established NTN schools in non-math subjects.

(2) Mr. Maier focuses on opinions. Where is the data to contradict the evidence I and others presented?

(3) Where is Mr. Maier's judgment on the evidence submitted to him? A broad dismissal by way of "data that he claimed supported his view" lacks a judgment from Mr. Maier on the data.

(4) Since in #7 of his declaration, Mr. Maier is confused about San Diego, for there is no NTN school there. So Directors could not have visited it and he is incorrect in believing that I submitted only data related to math, how does he make decisions?

(5) On 2-3-10 Director Maier stated the the NTN contract was about Project Based Learning and that alone would be sufficient for his vote.

(6) It seems likely NTN was just another "Arbitrary and Capricious" approval by a 4-3 vote. This time it involved tampering with evidence and the production of a forged document.

Judge Inveen ruled the petition insufficient for recall but thanked the Activists for bringing issues to light that would otherwise be buried from Public View.

The equivalent of the "Golden Apple" for Martin & Anderson from Judge Inveen,
while Maier et al. deserve Schrammies.

Note the Board did it again on 11-17-10 with the approval of TfA .... based on happy fairy-tales and total disregard of evidence.

The representative for the directors at the recall hearing, Lawrence Ransom, stated that the directors were being abused by a stream of litigation. Kathleen Martin responded that the directors continually abuse their constituents with their failure to make evidence based decisions. ....humm... looks like more litigation is likely as the directors just refuse to use evidence and continue making "arbitrary and capricious" decisions.

-- Dan

No comments: