Corvallis City Council Ward 6

From the GT:

Ward 6 Candidates Joel Hirsch and John Detweiler and Ward 1 incumbent Bill York and challenger Mark O’Brien took questions from the G-T’s editorial board and the audience.

When asked about which city services might be at risk if the council was asked to make cuts in lean budget times, Detweiler suggested Parks and Recreation as a potential place to start.

“I don’t know why the city is in the recreation business,” he said. “I’ve never needed it. I don’t know why I’d want it.” [emphasis added]

Hirsch couldn’t have disagreed more.

“Parks and Recreation is not only a valuable service, with as much as it costs to register a (softball) team, it’s also a good business for the city,” he said.

Good grief. Logically, the problem here is that Detweiler's not on the City Council to represent his own personal wants and needs; he's on it to represent those of his constituents, and I bet more than a few of them like having Parks and Rec. Plus, you know, it's Corvallis. I can't imagine this town without a vibrant Parks and Rec program.

Then there's the sheer silliness of this comment:

When asked about the current council’s tendency to enact resolutions pertaining to national issues, such as the recent council support for a U.S. Department of Peace, the Ward 6 difference was black and white.

Detweiler said such resolutions were “a waste of time.”

“It’s a feel-good thing and there’s a lot more to governing the city than making people feel good,” he said.

Hirsch disagreed.

“I think part of governing the city is helping people to feel good,” he said.

I agree with Hirsch, and this also makes me miss Stewart Wershow, just a little. Click here to see a ward map, and if you live in that area, please vote for someone besides Detweiler.

I'm lucky - I live in Ward 5, which is represented by the awesome Mike Beilstein, who happened to be walking the neighborhood a day or two after I move with voter registration cards. Convenient, that.

DH News Story on CARES

From the DH:

LEBANON — Petitioners seeking the recall of two Lebanon School Board members have drawn criticism for what some call aggressive tactics.

In a separate development, the organization seeking the recall says it now has enough signatures to qualify the recall question for a special election.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the aggressiveness of the paid signature gatherers is certainly news. On the other, the DH has barely seemed to cover the petition effort.

Combine that with my distrust of Hering, and Moody's record, and I have the sneaking suspicion that the reason this story happened was Hering - who has also written at least one editorial decrying the recall effort.

Don't get me wrong; what Moody wrote is news, plain and simple. But the story reads to me like the angle was intended to be the complaints against the paid signature gatherers and she managed to sneak the status of the recall effort in.

This is all supposition on my part, of course.... but like I said, I distrust Hering.

Oregon's awesome initiative system

Check out the initiatives that have already made it on the ballot for the upcoming election (via the Register-Guard):

The five initiatives already approved would create mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain theft, forgery and drug crimes;

Crap - mandatory minimums are and have always been a terrible idea.

exempt property owners from obtaining building permits for improvements valued under $35,000;

Sketchy - I'm a proponent of land-use planning, as land-use planning has proven to be at least somewhat good for the environment, and this smells like an effort to undercut that on the bizarre grounds that private property rights are sacred instead of merely existing because we all collectively choose to abide by them.

prohibit unions and others from using “public resource” funds for political purposes;

Crap - specifically put there to weaken the ability of unions to speak in the political realm. Don't get me wrong; I think money and politics need a quick and painful divorce, but this, being unilateral, would lead to an increase in the power of corporations, which I oppose. Also, I think it's sponsored by Bill Sizemore, who is a mortal enemy of unions and the public good.

prohibit teaching public school students in a language other than English for more than two years;

Short-sighted, racist crap. I don't think I need to say any more; even Hering is against this one, it's so obviously a bad idea. Come to think of it, it's a lot like cutting off federal funding to underperforming schools, like in No Child Left Educated Behind.

and would allow Oregon taxpayers to make federal income taxes fully deductible on state returns.

This is explicitly designed to starve the state of funds on the simplistic grounds that government = bad. I believe it's a Bill Sizemore initiative. Therefore: crap!

... don't get me wrong. Governments do stupid shit all the time; certainly I've been known to criticize all levels of government, from D.C. down to *cough* local school boards. But Sizemore's whole schtick is to starve the Oregon government of funds so it can't maintain the level of services it currently provides - and there's to be no replacement. Clearly, this is problematic, as it leaves a lot of people out in the cold.

What, you think the free market is going to solve that problem? Buddy, you must be outta your frackin' mind if you still believe that after that last several decades.

Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum, a moderate California Democrat, advocates taking a default position of "no" on all initiatives. For the first time, I'm inclined to join him. This year's crop of initiatives makes the entire system look like it's merely a conduit for moneyed, corporate interests to buy ballot measures.

A Very Strange Thought

Rick Alexander is the John McCain of the LCSD School Board: He's got a short temper, no idea what's going on, and his supporters view all questions as personal attacks.

Inspired by Monday's board meeting (especially the part about the bond measure and the Construction Excise Tax) and this.

Is that all we are?

One of the subtexts of many of the comments regarding the ongoing brouhaha in the Lebanon Community School District is the fact that since it's a small town, the same names - and relationships - keep appearing. For many, this is often seen as a sign of conspiracy.

I want to steal a point made by my friend Michael Faris (you'll have to scroll down quite a bit to find it):

To focus solely on the instructor-student relationship serves to hide the various other ways that we are in relation to each other: residents of Corvallis, residents of Oregon, residents of the United States of America, members of various marginalized or non-marginalized groups. It also neglects that I am an alum of Oregon State University and have an investment as an alum and a former member of the student body. The claim that this could harm student-teacher relations also neglects that it could help student-teacher relations in some situations.

The context is different, but I think the underlying point is remarkably similar: We all have multiple aspects to our identity, to who we are. Furthermore, these multiple aspects can be mistakenly understood as being in conflict or being at odds, or illegitimate in some situations.

I raise this as a response to the commenter who made the point that Linda Darling is both the new business manager and has played a minor part in the ongoing recall effort.

My response: So what?

The reason I have that response? See Michael's comment. In other words - and this is especially true in a small community - people's jobs do not preclude them from having opinions or beliefs about their employer or the community. It is not shocking, or a conspiracy, that someone like Linda Darling (or Tre Kennedy) would hold the views they have. Their relationships with others or positions in the community don't necessarily preclude their holding those views, or provide evidence of a conspiracy. As Michael makes clear (albeit by extension), the people that work in the LCSD, who may work for or with Jim Robinson, are also members of the community, and as such, have the right to be active in the community as members of the community, not just as school district employees or coworkers of others. We should not begrudge them that.

Lebanon Recall Expands to Include Alexander, Wineteer

From the DH:

LEBANON — The political action committee pursuing a recall of Lebanon School Board member Debi Shimmin has expanded its efforts to include board members Rick Alexander and Josh Wineteer.

Representatives with the Lebanon Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Education System, or CARES, filed the additional recall petitions for Alexander and Wineteer on June 5 with the Linn County Elections Office.

It's stated in the article that the disappearance of Sprenger from the board was a motivating factor, and that makes sense.

Also as stated in the article, if the recall succeeds, the Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD will be appointing three new members.

My initial reaction: This actually might make the recall less likely to succeed, as people are going to wary of what they perceive as outsiders picking board members. It also might generate more backlash, as the recall will now cover over half the board.

That said, if it succeeds, we might get more professional board members if the ESD picks them.

Also, it is an understandable response to Sprenger's resignation; I wouldn't necessarily want the remaining four to pick her replacement, either. Kennedy was right that Sprenger was a calming factor.

Maybe more later, but I have a lot of graduation stuff to deal with this weekend.

Why Shimmin?

LT has a good explanation of why one might want to see Shimmin recalled. I'm posting it here because it's buried in a larger comment over there:

In other words, if Debi had voted in favor of the Sand Ridge amendment (which we don't think Kennedy favors as a policy matter) AFTER learning the financial consequences, listening to the advice of the district's lawyer and making appropriate revisions, and explaining to the public why this was the best decision for the district as a whole, Kennedy would not like the decision, but he would not oppose the decision as bad board behavior. LT holds to the same standard.

We do not believe that recalls of elected officials is appropriate
based on disagreement with policy. We think that recall is appropriate when the elected official is not meeting the minimum standards for prudent behavior, particularly when the behavior damages the people who are supposed to be protected by the official.

We think that Debi has crossed the boundary into imprudent behavior to the extent that the public has the right to throw her out of office. We think that, not because we disagree with her decisions, but because we disagree with the WAY she makes decisions.

I agree with that explanation. It's about where I stand - it's not the policy so much as the process. Not the outcome of the votes, but the path used to get there. Again, I think Shimmin could be a good board member under different circumstances (namely, without Alexander or Wineteer around), but as of right now, she's certainly struggling.

Finally, we should all remember that while she did run for the position, she was walking into a huge mess. This situation is complex, complicated, has a long history, and isn't anywhere near being resolved. In some ways, Shimmin is at the mercy of a lot of different forces at play.

My two cents on the Shimmin recall

Honestly? I'm not terribly surprised it's happening.

And I could go either way on its value. I think I have said before that I think Shimmin could be a good board member with a little more experience and time to reflect (and without Alexander and Wineteer around).

Politically, I think this is a smart move on the part of CARES. Let's look at some assumptions and relevant facts:

1) Alexander and Wineteer seem unlikely to survive the next election. Mounting a recall effort for more than one person would be significantly harder than for just Shimmin. Simply running candidates for the open seats seems the smart move.

2) Shimmin has a lot longer left in her term than either Alexander or Wineteer. CARES gets the most bang for their buck this way.

3) A recall is actually risky. If it fails, I can't see Shimmin, Wineteer and Alexander (and their supporters) being anything but emboldened. Considerably. Personally, I don't want a bolder Rick Alexander.

I had more, but they've escaped me for the moment. Bottom line: Not a bad move on the part of CARES, but not without risk. I'm certainly to see what happens.

Anyone else got a take on this they'd like to share? Leave yours in the comments.

Recall initiated against Lebanon school board member

Wow. Talk about your Friday afternoon info dump:

The Lebanon Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Education System (CARES) announced Friday that it will initiate a recall of Lebanon School Board member Debi Shimmin.

“The members of CARES and this community feel betrayed by Ms. Shimmin. She has broken almost every promise she made during her campaign," said CARES president John Kennedy. "Her votes have been consistently irresponsible and potentially unlawful and will ultimately lead to more litigation against the Lebanon School District. We feel we have no choice - Ms. Shimmin must go before more damage is done.”

More later.

Lebanon School Board Rips Hole in Fabric of Universe, Shrugs Shoulders and Walks Away

Word is filtering in that this was one of the worst board meetings ever. This is getting really fucking old:

Members of the Lebanon School Board decided by majority Monday that they have waited too long for a new contract for Sand Ridge Charter School but not long enough to hire assistant principals for Lebanon High School.

Board members voted 3-2 to continue the district's current contract with People Involved in Education, the private organization that runs the charter school, with a 10-item list of amendments as proposed by Vice Chairman Josh Wineteer.

...

Chairwoman Sherrie Sprenger and board member Chris Fisher urged the three to wait until they could read the proposal - first unveiled at the meeting - and have it vetted by the district's attorney. Both protested being asked to vote on something with potentially far-reaching consequences virtually sight unseen.

Hm. I bet Rick and Debi had seen Josh's amendments beforehand. I would not be surprised if Jay Jackson and Paul Meadowbrook had seen them, especially Jackson.

This is starting to remind me of the early Bush Administration: So focused on ramming their agenda through, so convinced of their own brilliance and rightness they fail to notice, don't care, or assume it's not really a problem that they're leaving a trail of wreckage in their path. A few years later, the damage done will start to become evident - but the people responsible will either be long gone or pretend it's not even a problem.

Oh - the hypocrisy thing. Note that one of the problems with the board's passage of the PIE amendments was the fact that no one has any idea what the financial ramifications are.

In that light, check this out:

But Alexander and Shimmin said they prefer to wait until more budget information is available before making administrative hiring decisions.

Using two rationales that are diametrically opposed to each other in the same meeting? That's disrespectful to everyone in the room - at the least, board members could act on a principle that's not some combination of "f*ck Jim Robinson" and "Go PIE!" because the latter principle is clearly on display: PIE wants more money? OK! LHS wants to hire two new administrators instead of three? Gotta wait and see if there's money available...

Speaking of the "f*ck Jim Robinson" principle:

Robinson reminded board members that, by contract, personnel decisions are his responsibility and called the lack of action "micromanagement." Wineteer countered that the board's majority vote in March to not renew Robinson's contract indicate the board wishes to guide the district itself.

Really, Josh? Really? I mean, it's not a surprise - however, you must be really clueless to come out and say it. While I support citizen experts and the value of relevant practical experience (not just formal education or training), the current board - ironically, with the possible exception of Springer - has neither.

In the reading I've done, local control has been increasingly cited as the reason the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the world in education; after all, it's one of the big differences between the U.S. and most other industrialized nations. The LCSD board is not doing anything to disprove that notion.

Oh, and based on that last comment by Josh, it seems like Robinson can sue the board for breach of contract. Again.

I'm tired. I'm sure there's more - LT will certainly be posting on this, and the Express story will be posted Wednesday.

Just when you get lulled into a false sense of sanity...

Patronage, Bush-style

Jeebus.

And anyone who's thinking that "but Democrats do it too" is some kind of defense or otherwise in any way excuses this, please stop. I'm not interested in defending ANYONE who pulls shit like that. It's incredibly immoral no matter who does it.

To put it another way: The federal government decided that aid to people in a disaster zone should be based on some of the beliefs of the people involved.

Steve Novick Gets Slashdotted

He'll be interviewed, but I'm not sure what the difference is:

Not many candidates for the U.S. Senate are 4'9" tall and only have one hand. But Oregon Democrat Steve Novick qualifies on both counts -- and uses them as pluses in his TV ads. Like this one, where he shows why he's the best beer-drinking partner among all the candidates. Or this one, where it's obvious why he's for "the little guy." Also, as far as we know, he's the only candidate this year for any major office who has his own brand of beer. And his online campaign manager is a major Slashdot junkie, too, which is certainly in his favor. But will humor and oddness get Steve into the Senate? We don't know. So ask him. In fact, ask him anything else you'd like about campaigning and politics. He's promised to respond, and seems like the kind of guy who will give interesting answers, at that. (Please follow Slashdot interview rules, as always.)

[Bizarro World] Sara Gelser's Primary Challenger

I heard this at work today, and, well, see for yourself. From Blue Oregon:

I'll have a full recap on the House races now that filing day has come and gone, but this is just too good to pass up.

There's one name that jumps off the page when you're scrolling through all the filings: Rockne Roll.

What the heck kind of name is that? (Yeah, I know, I'm one to talk about weird names.)

He's the Republican who filed to run against Rep. Sara Gelser down in Corvallis. So, wondering who he was, it's time for a little Google action. Turns out he's a student at Oregon State. He's got bloggers who like him, he edits a right-wing student publication, and likes to blab about his personal life and underage drinking on the internet.

Yes, it's that Rockne Roll, the guy who edits the Liberty, the hate-screed that its supporters think is a newspaper at Oregon State.

Words fail me.

Luckily, laughter does not.

[Politics] A difference of degree, not kind, perhaps, but shocking nonetheless

Holy shit:

Indeed, the modern Alabama G.O.P. doesn’t believe in going into the field the old-fashioned way–by identifying a strong candidate to stand in the district, raising money for a campaign, and contesting the seat on the issues. This approach is entirely too expensive and speculative. The new strategy involves using tax-payer resources to trash political opponents. The U.S. Department of Justice is to conduct criminal investigations, the essence of which is meticulously leaked to the cooperating press in an effort to smear Democratic political figures. A couple of Republicans are being thrown in for good measure, as an imagined defense against the obvious charge of political manipulation. Alice Martin has prepared a dozen or more grand jury subpoenas to sitting legislators.

As this was getting underway, Martin conferred with her staff about a media spectacular. She described a plan to send a platoon of federal marshals, backed up by television media crews, into the Statehouse to serve subpoenas on law-makers on the floor of the legislature. This would be carefully timed just to make the evening news.

I should read Harper's more often.

[LCSD] Interesting Letter to the Editor

From Sunday's DH:

I am writing in response to all of the articles that are currently in the paper regarding PIE and the Lebanon School District.

As an employee of Sand Ridge Charter School (which is operated by PIE) in the Lebanon School District (I hold a valid Oregon teaching license and have a master’s degree in education from Willamette University), I find all of this wrangling confusing. Somewhere we got lost in the stuff and forgot that really what schools are about is educating our children.

Why isn’t anyone asking how Sand Ridge is doing on this front? Are we getting the job done? Are we doing an adequate job, or are we doing an exceptional job?

...

The point I hope to make here is there are problems that are being fought out in the media amongst the higher powers, but down here in the trenches there are some very qualified teachers doing an exceptional job of educating tomorrow’s leaders. Isn’t that what schools are supposed to be about?

Naomi Villmann
Jefferson

Yes.

But it also misses the point: If the contract PIE is operating under is being violated, if PIE is mixing funds it shouldn't, if PIE is failing to complete the administrative tasks it needs to, then PIE is putting all that good work being done at Sand Ridge at risk.

I don't think anyone (especially Robinson, frankly) is losing sight of the classroom here, and while Ms. Villman's letter seems sincere, when I see the "what about the children?" claim thrown out as an argument for ignoring what PIE (not to be confused with Sand Ridge) is doing, I have to wonder: Does the person advancing the argument really think that no one is thinking about the classroom, or is the person advancing the argument in order to draw attention away from the problems created by Jay Jackson or Rick Alexander?

[LCSD] Numb From The Shock

No one said running a school was easy:

In an interview after the meeting, Alexander said, “What we need to do is give the charter school more money so they can hire more office help. They're trying to do too much with too little of funds.”

Welcome to public education, jackass. Now let me find something shiny to distract you before you break anything else...

I wonder if Rick voted for Measure 5?

Hey... is Rick advocating spending more money on central support? It sure sounds like it to me!

Ooohhhh... here's a good one:

Alexander said the superintendent is presenting “hypothetical” concerns as being real problems.

Asked if any of the issues raised in the 95-page document presented to the board on Dec. 3 concerned him, Alexander said he had not yet read the entire presentation.

Uh, Rick? Just because you don't know about them doesn't make them hypothetical. It makes you irresponsible.

He's had, what, 50+ days to read 100 pages? I was reading that much every night for a bit there.... and the Sand Ridge report is much, much easier than Habermas, though they both made me want to cry.

Rick gets all blue-collar on us:

Robinson told PIE leaders that he does not believe they are maintaining written policies required by state and federal laws. Asked which ones, he said it was PIE's responsibility to know what laws they need to follow.

“It bothered me that statement was even made,” Alexander said. “PIE is the subcontractor to the district. Just like on a construction site, the contractor is liable for the subs. To stay out of trouble you want to make sure the subcontractors are aware of all of the rules.”

“It's not the same kind of contract,” Robinson said. “It's between two separate entities. I don't know why they would want us doing that. They've always wanted to stay at arm's length.”

I get that Mr. Alexander was (is?) in construction, so that's where he's going to draw his analogy. But his analogy bombs here: The implication he makes is clearly that the LCSD - the "contractor" - is responsible for the behavior of the charter school - the "subcontractor."

That might be true, to an extent. Certainly the LCSD is liable to suffer along with the PIE schools if the DoE comes down hard. But Rick also implies that following the law is not the responsibility of PIE, and I have a huge problem with that. Parents with children in PIE schools should too.

Alexander, incidentally, also spends a lot of time and energy keeping the LCSD away from PIE's records and internal processes - which, if Alexander is to be believed, the LCSD somehow doesn't need access to in order to ensure (remember, it's the LCSD's responsibility) that PIE is following the law.

He's trying to have his cake and eat it too: All the money, none of the responsibility and none of the blame.

I wouldn't want him working on my house. Let's leave it at that.

[Oregon Politics] State Representative Andy Olson Lays a Stinker

[Note: I am too lazy to format this properly.]

I almost thought this was written by Hasso, it's so far from honest.

Anyway, State Rep. Andy Olson, a Republican, had a column in the DH about the most recent legislative session. He painted it as something of a disaster for Oregonians, but I have issues with his use of language.

Away we go. Olson:

The Oregon Legislature was given a 20 percent increase in revenue last year due to the hard work of Oregonians making our economy strong. That’s $2.4 billion more than state government was expecting. Unfortunately, $2.4 billion was not enough. The majority in the legislature still voted to raise your taxes and fees by over $620 million.

He doesn't say if that's before or after the kicker takes effect. If it's after, then a 20% increase is meaningless. And there's no reason to come down on the increased taxes and fees without knowing what they are unless you are so simpleminded as to think any tax or fee increase, anywhere, is always a bad thing.

Yes, I know that's practically the mantra of the Republican Party, but I would hope that Oregon Repubs would know better.

Olson again:

Even worse, the legislature added $923 million to the backs of Oregon taxpayers in new state debt.

Personally, I don’t like debt, especially when it’s saddled on future generations of Oregonians. The wise and more responsible thing to do is to pay as you go and not use the credit card.

I.... agree with this, at least in principle. I know many economists think that it's a good idea to have a mild debt load, but I disagree.

Moving on:

The legislature also increased the size of state government. There were 1,178 new state employees added to the state payroll.

So? What if these "new" jobs are simply making up for previous cuts due to budget shortfalls? What if they are, say, state cops? This is another example of Olson relying on a simplistic measurement (State government bad! Must shrink! Services? Who needs services?!) to obscure the truth - which is, no matter what the content, going to be more complex and nuanced than Olson suggests.

More Olson:

Just within the last few months, Gov. Kulongoski gave $12 million in pay raises to his political appointees and $20 million in pay raises to smooth sour relations with union employees.

Uh, Andy? A couple of things...

1. The pay increases probably came in one bill, and if that bill passed recently, then you've got no business implying that there were other pay raises ("within the last few months").

2. The dollar amounts are big numbers, but without context - like how long it's been since state employees got pay raises, or how big of a percentage each employee got, or how the raises were distributed, or how many years this set of raises is supposed to account for in the future... you get the idea. Olson is relying on the size of the number and the context to scare people, which, while being standard procedure for Republicans, is shitty politics.

3. Unions? Is this some sort of code word? Am I supposed to see how evil Ted K. is because he doesn't hate unions? Do I even trust Olson at this point enough to believe him about the reason Ted K. gave the raises? No.

4. Notice how state employees are either "unions" or "political appointees"? I wonder if those categories are exhaustive, i.e. they cover all state employees, or if there is another category that also got raises that Olson doesn't care to mention.

Olson:

Sen. Frank Morse introduced SB 1039 to increase oversight of state agencies. The bill passed the House and Senate but was vetoed by Gov. Kulongoski.

Republicans introduced another bill, HB 2550, to hire a legislative auditor to measure the performance of state government. Democrats killed this bill on a party line vote.

Why were these bills killed? What were the contents that made them objectionable? Again, Olson is relying on the idea that anything the Dem Reps or the Dem Governor do must be a bad thing because the people doing it are Democrats, not because the move itself was bad.

More Olson:

Despite record spending, the Legislature failed to fund several important priorities. Nearly seven out of 10 Oregonians want to see additional state police on the road. That’s why I sponsored HB 3535, which would have provided 24/7 Oregon State Police coverage without raising your taxes.

Despite bipartisan support, Democrat leadership kept this legislation locked up in committee.

Is it possible that the Dems passed a different bill relating to state police? Reading Olson, we'd never find out.

AO:

Democrats also stripped general fund dollars from Oregon Project Independence, which allows seniors to receive care in their own homes.

But did they fund it another way? The wording of the sentence - picking out general fund dollars as opposed to saying "decreased funding" - suggests that's the case. Bad Andy.

Yet More Olson:

They also shut down and de-funded the bipartisan “Big Look” Committee that worked to update our antiquated land use laws.

Why? Maybe there was a good reason to do so. Maybe they replaced them with something else. Or maybe Olson's right to condemn the Dems for doing this - but we'd never know because he doesn't tell the whole truth on anything else, so we have no reason to believe him here.

OK this is the last Olson:

Thanks to uncontrolled spending, reckless borrowing and misplaced priorities, 2007 was a year Oregonians would rather forget. Better days are yet to come.

Nice. Close with a statement designed to look like truth but built on a few hundred words of lies, so say nothing of the fact that 2007 was hard for Oregon Republicans because Oregon Dems were very successful.

I think this piece by Olson is a carefully-written piece of propaganda, probably actually authored by an aide or at least a team of folks that included Olson. The wording is very precise, designed to get straight at Olson's perceived base of support by appealing to conservative hot topics. It's also an insult to honesty.

Commenter Barefoot gets at something interesting:

When this paper accepts a purely partisan piece such as this, regardless of the party, I would like to see the counterpart from another similarly ranked elected official (in this case, a Democrat state representative) run simultaneously.

I call this concept "Equal Time".

Equal Time is no longer a legal requirement as far as I know (thanks to Ronald Reagan), but it should be - or it should be replaced by something better.

Alas.

[LCSD] Good Thing Winter Break is Almost Over...

... because my blood pressure just went back to pre-break levels.

From a story in the DH today regarding the possibility of the LCSD busing Sand Ridge students:

PIE has asked for busing in the past, but the district wasn’t willing, Jackson said. His request now is prompted by a Dec. 26 letter from City Manager John Hitt, which said the city has concerns about traffic caused by the school’s South Main Road campus and asking if PIE would look into busing.

Oregon law states charter schools are responsible for transporting their students, but also says sponsoring school districts must treat transportation for charter students “in the same manner as students attending nonchartered public schools.” Districts are not required to add buses or routes for charter schools.

What that means, said Cindy Hunt, legal affairs coordinator for the Oregon Department of Education, is charter kids can ride district buses but the district is not required to provide buses specifically for them.

Jackson said his reading of the law is that the district is responsible for Sand Ridge’s transportation.

“All I’m trying to do is bring the language of the contract in line with what the statute provides,” he said.

Superintendent Jim Robinson said Lebanon is following the law. If Lebanon provides busing to Sand Ridge, he said, “There would be definite financial and staffing impacts, as well as issues of the buses, whether we have a sufficient fleet.”

Let's take this apart a little, shall we?

The quote from Cindy Hunt makes clear the intent and effect of the law: That charter schools can essentially ride for free on existing district routes - but not that districts are required to change their routes or develop charter school-specific routes.

And this makes sense; the marginal cost for charter students to piggyback is negligible, but there is a substantial cost for the district to bus charter kids specifically. Robinson's quote backs that up (notice he does not rule out having the LCSD bus Sand Ridge students, just that he notes the cost - this could be suggestive of the district's position on the issue come negotiation time).

From this premise, I can see it being reasonable that PIE pay for any busing services above and beyond existing routes. After all, while Robinson has stated he wants to see Sand Ridge survive, he can't simply give them money that otherwise belongs to (and is needed in) the LCSD.

Sadly, I don't think that's what Jay Jackson has in mind. His "reading" of the law suggests that he wants the LCSD to essentially pick up the tab for busing the Sand Ridge students.

I thought Jay Jackson was an attorney. Either his reading is flat-out wrong, or he's lying again and has consciously chosen a reading that is transparently bullshit. I almost don't care which one it is, because both make him look like an opportunistic weasel.

I'm going to say the same thing here that LT has been saying for months: How is it right that Jackson keeps asking for the district to divert money from other areas to pay for Sand Ridge? Shouldn't PIE have to budget for this sort of thing?

How is it that Jackson gets to keep lying to the press without the press calling him on it? [And I get that having the information in the story that proves Jackson wrong is a form of calling him on it, but I want something more substantial: If Jackson is lying, and the reporter knows it, then the reporter should be able to say that in the story. It is the truth, after all.]

Well?

U.S. Senate Candidate Steve Novick

I have not been following this race as much as I should have, I feel, but the more I hear the more I like Novick. From this profile (via Blue Oregon):

A 44-year-old attorney (he was the lead counsel on the Love Canal case), with a long track record as a liberal activist in Oregon state politics, Novick delivers a straight shot of idealism. “I was raised to believe that we can’t tolerate a society that only works for white people, rich people, or straight people,” he says to the gathering. “We should only accept a society that works for everyone.”

That's impressive for a Democrat... and a helluva lot better than Gordon Smith.

Recent News Stories about the LCSD, PIE, Sand Ridge, etc.

I've been lax (read: working almost full time during the last few weeks of my job) in posting about Lebanon news stories and events lately, so I'm just going to do a summary post of all the recent stuff. Commentary, of course, is included at no extra charge...

1. Sand Ridge Administrator not licensed with state

I don't really feel the need to comment a lot on this, besides to note that this sort of thing should be beyond the pale, and arguably grounds for dismissal. Or, at the least, grounds for not inviting the nice Mr. Jackson back as an administrator for Sand Ridge after this year.

And don't give me any "he didn't know" crap. He was supposedly the principal of the school last year, and he surely had a hand in hiring at least one administrator for a PIE school - both of which mean he knew better.

Then there is the Lance Ferrarro issue:

Lance Ferraro, a teacher at Sand Ridge last year, said Jackson has ignored his requests for forms required by the state of Michigan.

Ferraro returned to Michigan early this summer to care for his father who suffers from heart problems and mother who has lost both breasts to cancer.

That crosses the line from uncaring and sloppy to mean - and unprofessional (no matter Jackson's reasoning). If I'm a PIE parent.... or teacher.... I'm wondering how this happened and whether or not I'm going to face the same problem in the future.

2. Superindent Briefs Chamber of Commerce on Lebanon Education

Based on this story, I think the presentation that was given was probably pretty good. At the least, Robinson, Kelley and Zarate are trying to get the LCSD to change the way education happens in Lebanon to be more in line with the realities of the world. The fact that people seem to be interested in shooting the messenger because they don't like the message (or the style in which it's being delivered) is not good.

Kelley says it perfectly:

“We're not measuring the right things in the classroom,” Kelley told the chamber. “It's not right to stuff their heads with facts. We've got to start teaching processes.”

Amen to that. Big changes are coming down the pike in education, and Robinson and Co. are doing their best to adapt and adopt national trends and changing policy orientations to the local environment. Sometimes they are not successful, it's true - but they are trying, and rather than sabotage their efforts, I think it would be far more useful to collaborate. To steer the ship to a new course rather than sink it, in other words.

3. Lebanon blogs target charter school chairman

I thought I'd have something to say as soon as this story came out, what with it being sort of about this blog and all. I was a little surprised when I didn't.

I do have a few things to say now, however.

Put simply, I think this story should never have run. I failed to see that, as written, the story was newsworthy.

Given the subject matter, the DH could have taken two angles: Either a) that Jackson's disciplinary history was newsworthy in and of itself, in which case there was little to no reason to mention the blogs at all; or b) that the fact that said history was reported on two local blogs was newsworthy. If the latter, then the focus should have been on the blogs' revealing of the history - and the blogs certainly should have been named and/or quoted and/or linked to in the story.

So which one is it? For me, the answer is, oddly enough, tied up in the issue of anonymous sources - and Hasso Hering's stated dislike of anonymous bloggers.

Given that the headline accuses "Lebanon" bloggers of going after Jackson (which, from my perspective, is false, since I am not blogging from Lebanon - and while the reporter knows that, I know she does not always write headlines), I'd say the answer is obviously (b), that the supposed justification for the story is the take of Rhetorical Wasteland and LT. But if that's the case, how did Jennifer Moody not end up even naming the two blogs listed in the headline?

My guess is simple: Someone - probably Hering - edited any mention of the blog names or URLs out of the story. It fits too well with his calling anonymous bloggers 'cowards'.

In other words, good journalism practices (in this case, naming the sources/justifications for the story) ran square up against Hering's dislike of anonymous bloggers... and his dislike won out, to journalism's loss.

I don't blame Jennifer Moody, the story's author, for any of this; I know she possesses all the relevant information (my blog name, etc.).

I think the DH needs an ombudsperson/public editor - and yes, I am available.

Full disclosure: Moody contacted me about the story and I essentially declined to comment on the record. If that led to the way the story turned out, I am sorry... but I don't think that had anything to do with it. Surely LT was contacted and had something to say.