Forgery: the SPS Action Report forNew Tech Network $800,000 contract

Dear Sgt. Charles of the Seattle Police,

The following information will support my charge of forgery in decision making in the Seattle Public Schools. The Superintendent Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson and the Chief Academic Officer produced an Action Report on March 12, 2010. This Action Report was introduced at the Seattle School Board meeting on March 17, 2010. It was based on a document masquerading as the original.

On Feb. 3, 2010, without intelligently applying any relevant data or common sense the Superintendent's proposal was approved by the Board for an $800,000 contract that did not match the action report. Upon the filing of an appeal on March 5, 2010, the Superintendent and the Board did a "nevermind" .... and introduced the NTN contract with a new Action Report, this one was based on a forged document. This NTN contract was approved by the Board on April 7, 2010.

Subsequently another appeal was filed and eventually the forgery discovered.

Here is the "Original Action Report" that was abandoned after appeal filed in Superior Court.

Here is the contract that the Board approved on Feb. 3, 2010 that did not match the above linked Action Report.


Action Report of March 12, 2010 introduced on March 17, 2010 the Board approved the contract on April 7, 2010.

Letter in which I received the Original Anderson Memo on which the Action Report was supposedly based.

The document that the SPS submitted to the Court that masqueraded as the original Anderson Memo.

---
Legal Affairs Officer Joy Stevens wrote:

The email from Susan Enfield to the School Board Directors with two attachments (January 29, 2010 memo from Eric M. Anderson to Dr. Goodloe-Johnson regarding Standards-based achievement results for New Technology Network (NTN) schools, and February 1,2010 memo from Dr. Susan Enfield and Michael Tolley to the School Board Directors regarding Comparisons between NTN, Project Lead the Way and other STEM Models) sent on February 2, 2010 at 7:31 AM

· The two attachments to the February 2, 2010 email as listed above (attached separately in case you had difficulty opening them)

· The January 29, 2010 memo from Eric M. Anderson to Dr. Goodloe-Johnson regarding
Standards-based achievement results for New Technology Network (NTN) schools that I sent to Dan Dempsey on March 16, 2010 in response to his request

You will note that the final version of the January 29, 2010 memo from Eric M. Anderson that I sent Dan Dempsey on March 16, 2010 is the exact same version that was sent to the School Board Directors on February 2, 2010. Any other versions of that memo would be draft versions created prior to finalization.

Please let me know if you have any questions or would like anything else.
Best regards,

Joy Stevens
Joy A. Stevens
Sr. Legal Assistant/Public Records Officer
General Counsel's Office
Seattle Public Schools
206-252-0117

-----

Note this version submitted to the court is missing the original's last paragraph:

The “Forgery” occurred in that the memo version used to write the Action Report and submitted as evidence to the court was NOT the memo sent to the Board. The memo MGJ used appears to be an earlier draft version. The memo used by MGJ was a less than complete version that omitted several important components of the Original Memo sent to the School Board on 2-2-10.

Among these significant differences was the omission of the entire last paragraph from the original Eric Anderson memo:

"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. (Bold and underline added)

How could a board member defend a vote for a non-competitive bid contract of $800,000 with that piece of evidence in the Action Report?

More importantly:

“How could the District successfully defend an appeal in Superior Court if the appellants used that piece of evidence?”

It appears that Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson and Chief Academic Officer Enfield had a solution.

Solution: Do not use that memo, but claim it was used, and then exclude it from the evidence provided to the court.

Here is CAO Enfield's May 20, 2010 documentation to the court in submitting the evidence. See page 3 and notice this submission contains "no certification" that this information is correct. The information provided to the court is not correct as it does not contain the memo Dr. Eric Anderson sent to the School Board.

-----

We eventually dropped the NTN legal appeal when we found out that the State Attorney General and the State Auditor will not act on actions that are in current litigation.

It has been a most bizarre series of events trying to get any accountability from anyone in investigating this Class C Felony Forgery issue.

RCW 28A 645.020 has requirements that the SPS Board continually fails to follow when appeals of their decisions are filed.

RCW 28A 645.020 states:
"Within twenty days of service of the notice of appeal, the school board, at its expense, or the school official, at such official's expense, shall file the complete transcript of the evidence and the papers and exhibits relating to the decision for which a complaint has been filed. Such filings shall be certified to be correct.

===============
Seven days after the Superintendent submitted the Action Report of March 12, 2010, she had little knowledge of much in regard to evidence on which the Action Report was based. LOOK HERE.

Here is a report from Dr. Eric Anderson on "The Correlates of High Achieving Schools", which the Superintendent and Board routinely ignore.

==============

Additionally Director Sunquist facilitated the approval of this $800,000 contract by stating that the school he visited in California, New Tech Sacramento, had an apparently high graduation rate. I had provided him statistics showing that the first two cohorts of graduates from NT Sacramento had graduation rates of 37% and 44% and yet he voted for the NTN Contract.

Additionally Director Martin-Morris stated that he was for the NTN contract in voting for the NTN contract on 2-3-2010 because of information he had about success at New Tech Hillsdale in Durham, NC. I provided then him with information that NT Hillsdale was in the lowest 19% of NC Schools. He ignored the relevant data, did not respond, and approved the NTN contract again on April 7, 2010, without comment.

==========

The above information is correct to the best of my knowledge. Should you need additional information, I can likely supply it. Please ask the King County Prosecutor to investigate this forgery.

Sincerely,

Danaher M. Dempsey, Jr.