LCSD: A Clarification on Charter Renewal

LT gets at something that's been bugging me all day:

RW faults Jim Robinson for not being familiar with Oregon law enough to know that the charter process has two steps. Here's the way we see it. Contrary to the comments from Josh and Rick, the recommendations were not nine solutions to be applied together, it was nine alternatives, each one a separate solution. (This distortion of the recommendations was either intentional or reflected that they didn't even bother to read or listen to them). There was a reason to consider them as possible solutions at this stage of the renewal process. THE DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS GAVE THE CHARTER TO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. There was sufficient reason, given the abuses of PIE, to elect not to renew the charter with PIE. That option has now been eliminated.

I knew there was some reason Robinson ignored the renewal process statute and kept insisting that the board use the list of recommendations as a jumping-off point - he had to know about the statute, so it wasn't simply a matter of ignorance. (I still want to know why he didn't have a more direct response prepared when Rick kept asking about the 2-step process.)

LT hits it on the head: Some of the options he came up with required that PIE's charter not be renewed. (How did I miss that?!) Given that, automatically renewing the charter, as Rick desired, arbitrarily and unnecessarily removed those options from play.

Instead, Alexander very effectively framed the argument as a choice between renewing the charter right fracking now or not at all. It was - and is - a false choice, as Robinson's recommendations clearly demonstrate, but Alexander sold it quite well.

On the other hand, this does sort of tip the hand of Jay Jackson and PIE as to what they want - freedom from responsibility and oversight.

Is that what Sand Ridge parents want?

Go read LT's post; it has a bit more on the collusion angle than I included.