Congratulations to President Barack O'Bama on his historic moment. His inaugral speech hit mixed notes in my mind, I'll point to two.

In my mind, this is the most interesting passage of the speech (which had no "zingers" like "fear itself" or "ask not"):

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

There's a definitely an element of the diversity and multi-cultural "speak" in this, but I'm drawn to the way it is not written. It is not written as an attack on America's past, but as a recognition of the past as perhaps a proof that the "other old hatreds" (Arab-Israeli conflict, the religious battle lines that dominate foreign affairs, and simpler, smaller hatreds that dot the world) can be overcome. His line "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" is certainly hopeful and could be construed in a conservative and individualistic light, but it is unclear where O'Bama would deviate the tribalist policies many in his party support or how he intends to get us there.

Here's the second:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The first sentence is interesting in that while it seems to be an attempt to change the paradigm debate on "big v. small government" to "effective government." But if the question is "whether it works" and the answer is "no" much more often than it is yes, will we truly see the programs end? Of course, the reason small-government conservatives are for small government is not just for the sake of liberty - it is because we believe, more often than not, bigger government doesn't work. He's set himself up for a test here - does government work? Will Barack O'Bama's version of government work? If it does not, then we must "hold to account" the leader. If he fails to "spend wisely", to "reform bad habits", or most importantly do business "in the light of day" - he must be held accountable. As a fervent believer in open records and meetings, I wish him the best of luck in increasing government transparency - if that is what he means. And if he "spends wisely" and does those things, he'll be hard to beat.

That is the test he should be held to in 2012!

We're moving our reporting of the Howell School e-mail FOIA lawsuit over to OutsideLansing.com, even though it began here 17 months ago, since it fits that topical site better. But for those of you following it - the Livingston Circuit Court ruled in favor of us and the schools over the Michigan Education Association. There's plenty to follow, so stay tuned.

Christine Barry of Blogging for Michigan (BFM) reports on how she hired us to be a surrogate FOIA requester to the Shiawassee County Sheriff's department.  The local news - the Argus - seems to be taking recognition of the value of the local story. We have no opinion on whether the Sheriff's actions were inappropriate, but have no problem helping anyone get public records to draw conclusions for themselves. But the questions Barry asked were specific, and specific enough to get good FOIA results. And the response of the Sheriff publicly in the newspapers suggests some nerve was touched.

Sometimes the "surrogate FOIA" is an appropriate tool for credibility reasons, and will get a job done faster than other methods.  If you need similar work, contact us.

Cross-posted at OutsideLansing.com.

The Howell Public Schools has witnessed its third school board resignation in six months. In addition to the two elected seats in May, that means that the majority of the board will be completely new by the time the next selection is made.

Howell is clearly a district in turmoil. Zarko Research met (and indeed communicated with) for the first time on Monday evening Howell's notorious Vicki Fyke, at a Duncan Hunter speech here in Oakland County we were covering for OaklandPolitics.com. Fyke informed us of Doug Norton's retirement, and attributed part of the cause of that to Zarko Research FOIA work. Nonetheless, we would disagree with that interpretation and suspect Norton's reasons were broader. The ZR FOIA simply wasn't that important and at best only exposes conditions in the district, not creates them. Clearly the district has issues that are affecting a whole range of people, and our reporting can not be a driving force behind that. Here's Howell's press release yesterday:

The Board of Education of Howell Public Schools announces a second Board Member vacancy, effective October 11, 2007.

Parties interested in applying for this unexpired Board Member term should do so at the Board of Education Office located at 411 North Highlander Way, Howell, Michigan.

PLEASE NOTE: Anyone who showed interest in the seat made vacant by Mary Jo Dymond’s resignation, MUST RESUBMIT A LETTER OF INTEREST for filling the vacancy left by Susan Drazic’s resignation.

In order to apply, interested parties must submit a brief letter of intent or Interest in Board Vacancy Form, in hard copy, (no emails or faxes will be accepted) at the Board of Education Office no later than 3:00 PM on Tuesday, October 16, 2007. Material received after this deadline will effectively disqualify the late candidate from being considered by the board on October 22, 2007.

When the letter is submitted, each party will be provided with a more detailed set of qualifying questions which should be completed and returned in hard copy (no emails or faxes will be accepted) to the Board Office no later than 11:00 AM on Friday, October 19, 2007. Materials received after this deadline will effectively disqualify the late candidate from being considered by the board on October 22, 2007.

Qualifying candidates will be screened and interviewed in person at a Regular Board of Education Meeting set for Monday, October 22, 2007, at 7:00 PM.

During the interview process, each candidate should be prepared to give a brief oral statement. The board will then do its evaluation and decide on the appointment.

The candidate appointed, as early as October 22, 2007, will serve only the unexpired term until the point of the upcoming School Board Election currently scheduled for May 6, 2008.

Philip Westmoreland, President

Howell Board of Education

UPDATE: RepublicanMichigander, a former Howell resident, has excellent ongoing coverage of the issue. 17 people applied for the first seat, and no doubt most will double up for the second. Fyke is among them, apparently.

The folks at State Sunshine and Open Records blog, also operators of the fabulous "WikiFOIA," have posted their interview of me here. The interview gets into some of my ancient past FOIA history - something I don't go into much detail on here. I recommend reading their other interviews though and using the wiki tool -- the breadth of advice on FOIA there is astonishing and only likely to expand.

Zarko Research was at Pontiac High School taping a political rally last night. We found this sign to be a particularly ironic thing to see at a school.

In addition to questions raised by a Pontiac city councilman about alleged "threats" made to stop Pontiac school from hosting a political event (the Councilman referred me to his wife, who refused to answer after a political operative told her who he thought I worked for, which ironically isn't true), the sign was about the most interesting thing we saw in a boring three hours. The meeting, advertised as a "Town Hall", was an orchestrated rally. No "Town Hall" style questions were asked, the audience was all partisan and given pre-fabricated "convention-style" signs saying "IMPEACH", and the 5 person panel a hand-picked, lopsided panel all advocating for an anti-war position. When I was asked by an activist/operative from the other side why certain Congressmen (Knollenberg or McCotter) "didn't show up," I clarified that I didn't know what the representatives' thoughts were but asked why Senator Levin didn't show up (answer: how interesting that Carl Levin, who voted to approve money for the war and is also up for re-election, wasn't "invited") and suggested that the event's rules and organization were so biased as to make such an idea ridiculous. This wasn't a "TownHall," as citizens of the 9th District (I am such a citizen) weren't welcome to ask questions and get response -- Bruce Fealk, its organizer, refused (again) to "give me a quote on [my] camera" when I started asking him questions -- I asked him how it was any different from him expecting answers to questions when he barrages into offices and camps out at private homes, but he just walked away. If Fealk really wanted to reach the public and persuade people from both sides of the aisle, he'd take all opportunities to answer questions (and to both Skinner and Peters' credit, they answered questions!).

Finally, I asked Nancy Skinner one question. Is she running. Her response is that she's not in or out and nothing is official yet. For those of you on the Republican-side "itching" for a Democratic primary, I've never been of the opinion that one side should care about whether the other has a primary or not. It's like sports playoffs - if you win too early sometimes the "rest" is good, sometimes the "rest" causes you to lose momentum (Tigers, 2006). Sometimes the "work" of playing into extra games both "steels" you (Piston', 2004) and sometimes it "drains" you (Pistons, in 2005). At best, Skinner adds unpredictability to the race and maybe slightly drains Peters (or even wins), at worst, she could help the Democrats. But it doesn't change the fact that there's a general election in November.

Gary Peters, who didn't give a speech like Skinner, was only available in the lobby afterwards. A Peters operative quickly pointed me out, suggesting I was there as an operative (which simply isn't true, although I have past ties with Knollenberg's son, I do not work for them currently, and am simply an interested 9th District citizen at this point, just as Nancy Skinner claimed of Bruce Fealk in her speech when she asserted that he wasn't paid for his activism). As he walked by, I asked Mr. Peters what his thoughts on the proposed racinos issue was, a reasonable question that I actually have an interest in hearing about from a perspective other than his race for Congress. His response as he walked by hurriedly was that due to Proposal 1 (2004), the people would have to vote on any such expansion and he left it at that.

The sign and councilman's comments prompted this letter and Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Pontiac's superintendent:

Dear Mr. Calvin C. Cupidore, Jr.:

I was at the Pontiac High School last night videotaping a political rally. I took the attached photo of a sign apparently directed toward students.

It is misspelled. It's amazing to me that hundreds of teachers would walk by this and not see to it that it was corrected. Not only does such a sign (errantly) teach students by example, it is embarrassing to find at a school district. I would hope you correct the situation forthwith.

As to the political rally, pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, I request all records related to or that document any threats or communications with the district regarding the rally. A city council person claimed in a speech that threats had been made to stop the rally. Additionally, I request a copy of the contract between the rally organizers and district to lease the space, the school policy on leasing space for non-school purposes, and any check and invoice related to that contract. Finally, I request any e-mail or other communication which you or other administrators, or any member of the school board, received or sent on the topics of the rally, the war in Iraq, or any political candidate for office over the last two months.

Thank you for your time. Documents may be faxed to the number below, and email returned here.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

Eastern Michigan University Regent Jim Stapleton told WJR's Frank Beckmann this morning that they chose to fire EMU President John Fallon that they fired him Sunday to prevent him from using "an EMU forum," the Monday Regents meeting, as a forum to "attack the university." Furthermore, Fallon apparently sent emails or communications to the Regents suggesting his unhappiness - mostly revolving around a situation where the EMU Department of Public Safety (DPS) had allegedly covered up the existence of a dormitory murder. It is unknown clearly who and how many leaders knew of the cover-up.

Aside from the shocking murder cover-up, which may or may not have been simple bureaucracy-in-(non)-motion, Stapleton's explanation for the firing is absurd, hints at a violation of the Open Meetings Act, and reflects the overall attitude of leadership that lead to the larger international scandal that has erupted.

And international explosion it is. The Guardian Unlimited in the United Kingdom picks it up here (AP wire), the New York Times, the Detroit Free Press, and numerous other sources. Here the AP-Guardian piece:

The president, John Fallon, confirmed that he was fired Sunday evening by a unanimous vote of the Board of Regents, The Ann Arbor News reported in its Monday editions. Board secretary Jackie Kurtz on Monday confirmed the firing to The Associated Press.

Fallon told the newspaper that his termination letter was delivered Sunday night and did not state a reason for his firing. The letter said the board had voted unanimously to terminate his employment contract effective Sunday - two years after his five-year contract took effect.

``As a citizen, I am disappointed in this hastily called meeting, without any opportunity to be present or to respond,'' Fallon told the newspaper. ``I have a story to tell and intend to tell it.''

Look, it's not like firing him in a secret vote is going to stop him from speaking, or even speaking at an "EMU forum", since all he would need to do is attend the next meeting and speak in public comments. Let him have his out - and if he insults the board, obviously the relationship can't continue, then fire him. Give the public an opportunity to participate in the debate. This is why we have an Open Meeting Act, guys (and ladies).

The New York Times report pushes a bit deeper:

“We are committed to regaining the trust of all E.M.U. stakeholders, and all of the people of the great state of Michigan,” the board’s chairman, Thomas Sidlik, told about 200 people who jammed the regents’ meeting room today. “This board will not tolerate anyone who sabotages the educational mission of this university by participating in these destructive behavior patterns.”

Since Mr. Taylor was arrested and charged, Dr. Fallon has maintained that he was unaware of the crime and acted to the best of his ability. He was not specifically cited for wrongdoing in either of the reports but has been the primary target of parents’ and faculty members’ outrage.

The departures of Mr. Vick and Ms. Hall were agreed upon several weeks ago but not revealed until today. The board decided to terminate Dr. Fallon during a Sunday meeting by telephone after learning that he “may have been contemplating additional action that would have further damaged this university,” said James F. Stapleton, a board member who led the university’s efforts to investigate the handling of Ms. Dickinson’s death.

Mr. Stapleton declined to elaborate on his comment, saying that Dr. Fallon would probably make a public statement in the coming days. Dr. Fallon did not respond to messages left Monday at his university-owned home, which he has 60 days to vacate. The evening before his termination was announced, Dr. Fallon told The Ann Arbor News, “I have a story to tell and intend to tell it.”

Mr. Sidlik said in an interview, “There was a general falling apart of the relationship over the last few days.”

Dr. Fallon is the university’s second consecutive president to leave abruptly amid a scandal. His predecessor, Samuel Kirkpatrick, resigned in 2004 after it was revealed that the university paid $6 million — $2.5 million more than it had said publicly — to build a new home for him on campus.

All the elements of a culture of secrecy from the top down are there. And the elements of violation of the Open Meetings Act. And finally, note the suggestion in the comments section of the Chronicle of Higher Education story that the firing had motivations that went deeper - to the contract with the union Fallon recently negotiated.

ZR is probing this story further, as it represents a confluence of several issues.

Through my trusty "FOIA subscription" (FOIA confers a right to receive all regularly created future issuances of public records) to the Michigan Civil Rights Commission's press releases, I received this gem of arrogance from this afternoon. Before you start crying at contradictions, follow me through the next page teaser.

For Release: June 29, 2007

Contacts:
Trevor Coleman, Director of Communications Harold Core, Public Information Officer
Detroit: 313-456-3790 Lansing: 517-373-8787 Lansing: 517-241-3986

Michigan Department of Civil Rights Responds To Supreme Court Ruling

Read more »

The Lansing State Journal apparently is taking a world of criticism from State of Michigan employees for publishing a database of all 53,000 employees. The employees somehow feel their names should be excluded from the list and that the LSJ has violated their privacy. Here a media law student, Jane Briggs-Bunting, defends the LSJ, the LSJ defends itself, while here and here they are attacked and news story on the criticism, as they are in numerous letters to the editor.

This is just public employee whining, and while, in some cases these employees may be sincere in that they "feel hurt", LSJ has done nothing wrong. Part of democracy sometimes includes people, particularly government employees, accepting the consequences of their choices. Working for government is a choice, and the people are entitled to know who works for them, not just the job titles. Of course, one of the choices is whether to work for government. Many employees say they have "sacrificed" private sector opportunities to do so - perhaps they have, but if its too great a sacrifice then they should go into the private sector where 1) they have less legal right to complain about what their boss does 2) they might or might not make more money or benefits. While LSJ's subscriber base has a large number of government employees who live in Lansing, it is paramount that LSJ stand up for what is right despite the pressure it is facing. If it doesn't, it won't matter - someone else will publish it in their stead.

It has been said that there is no possible use to the public for the names us than "prurient" interest or to create dissent against government employee salaries and neighborhood jealously. So what? Even if the public is morbidly curious, or especially if it creates a concern about overpaid salaries, that is the public's choice and right. The public can decide for itself if the salaries are too high. For example, Zarko Research has been working on publishing a similar list for the 38,000 University of Michigan employees, with names. The top thousand employees salaries are simply offensive. Those officials should be exposed, with names, and how does one "draw the line" between which names should be disclosed and not disclosed, other than simply publishing them all. Sure, the janitors and teaching assistants are unpaid, but they themselves can use the collective and individual information for a strong public purpose - knowing whether they are paid according to relative worth and lobbying for fair pay (note, the public employees of the State also benefit in that way). Such information can be used to guarantee or prove racial or gender discrimination cases, another benefit to the individual employees. Finally, only with name linkages can a researcher or citizen cross-check campaign finance donations to the list and know how his government employees are lobbying his own government for whatever purposes. These linkages would allow one to find "out-of-place" patterns, such as patterns of low-paid employees making large donations to candidates (say a janitor donating the $3400 to the Governor).

Sure, individual government employees may not at first glance like their name and job title being published, but in the long-run its better for both the public and the individuals that we don't literally have a secret government. Who works for government and how much they make is among the most basic facts of government. If we can't know that, we might as well scrap FOIA and OMA and forget about democracy.

A google news search shows that no mainstream media outlet appears to have covered the change public comments policy at today's University of Michigan Board of Regents meeting. ZR chastises the media for its complicitly - although the public comments doesn't affect a media right (speaking is typically not done by the media), any assault on access rights is bound to come back and later hurt the media.

The Detroit Free Press first look at the Board meeting was this positive look at the two race-neutral scholarships the Board adopted to comply with Proposal 2. No doubt this was newsworthy, but as a capsule of the meeting woefully incomplete (both the stadium controversy and the Open Meetings Act issue must). It is possible we'll see more detailed analysis in the slower non-wire news cycle.

But in searching for open meetings issues, we found this interesting, now two-week old piece, about guess who? The MEA and a quorum of school board members illegally meeting in March over a teacher complaint.

Four Ypsilanti school board members violated the Michigan Open Meetings Act when they attended a March 8 meeting of teachers and staff who complained about then- High School Principal Layne Hunt, according to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office.

Criminal charges, however, will not be filed, Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller said in a memo released Wednesday to The News. Hiller wrote there is not enough evidence to prove that Amy Doyle, Andy Fanta, Cameron Getto, and Tom Reiber intended to violate the state law.

Hiller's nine-page memo dated June 5, stemmed from a meeting the board members attended at the Michigan Education Association's office on Carpenter Road in Pittsfield Township. Doyle and Getto have since resigned from the board. After much controversy at the high school, Hunt resigned as principal March 28.

It's nice to know a County Prosecutor got involved (that's one of the great things about the OMA, they do have that discretion although we rarely see it used), and that the ultimate outcome was two board members doing the right thing and resigning. Here, the MEA used its own offices, not to subvert FOIA but rather OMA. It's unknown as to whether Principal Hunt should or shouldn't have resigned, but its clear the pressure was on him, to the point of illegal secret meetings.

UPDATE on Ypsilanti secret meeting.

This Ypsilanti Courier piece gives us far more detail on the issue of the secret meeting:

Washtenaw County Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Steven Hiller ruled last week that a March 8 meeting with Ypsilanti High School teachers and staff who had concerns and complaints about then-principal Layne Hunt was in violation of the law.

Hiller said he would not prosecute the matter, however, because he could not prove there was intent to commit the violation.

In a nine-page memo, Hiller outlined the case against the four trustees, Amy Doyle, Andrew Fanta, Cameron Getto and Thomas Reiber, who attended the meeting after a communications snafu. Doyle and Getto have since resigned from the board.

Hiller then concluded the board members had broken the law by deliberating on the issue of firing Dr. Hunt. If the trustees deliberated and/or made a decision regarding the issue, the meeting would have been a violation of the OMA because no notification was given and no minutes were taken.

But, attendees at the meeting insist the session was for information-gathering only and no deliberations or discussions were held.

"It was for information-gathering purposes only," insists Kelly Powers, president of the Ypsilanti Education Association. "That's what they [the trustees] said at the beginning of the meeting and that's what happened. They listened and took notes."

Big things come in small packages. One of the great things about little newspapers is they cover their local stories in better detail than the regional newspapers we are all accustomed to seeing. And the internet finally picks most of them up now.

You have to love that Orwellian spin coming from Kelly Powers, of the YEA (Ypsilanti Education Assocation). "Information-gathering purposes only". "Deliberations" on the other-hand is a pretty big thing to define. I suggest that if you gather information - or prostrate yourself in front of a union leadership group who is feeing it you your daily dose - you are deliberating (perhaps in a non-meaningful way, but ... ). Deliberating is the act of working toward a decision. Collecting information is a vital and integral component of working toward that decision. The difference that YEA alleges is superficial.

The reason we have an open meetings act is so that no "special" (interest) sub-set of the population has secret access to our public official in the decision-making process. The Michigan Education Association, NEA, and its satellites (HEA, YEA, etc), fight long and hard for their special privileges and access. And whether its unions or corporations, it's time to say no more.

In this in-depth report by the Sam Adams Alliance, a group that appears to be regionally-based out of Chicago, ZR is interviewed. This is one of those non-traditional sources that allows a greater interview depth, something we'd love to see more of from the mainstream media (whatever happened to the formal "interview-style" publication - even magazines have moved away from it?).

Regardless, since the interview was long, I have a couple of small quibbles or clarifications. For example:

The MEA, according to Zarko, did not relish the prospect of losing the Howell School System as a customer. "The MEA makes $400,000,000 in profit every year by selling health insurance plans to Michigan school districts, so naturally its leaders were upset by the Howell system's moves toward choosing another provider," says Zarko.

The interviewer gets it almost exactly right here, although I don't recall saying an exact number there. I believe I said it was hundreds of millions, and when asked for clarification, said some estimates suggested up to $400 million could be saved with the MESSA-system acting as a middle-man.

Additionally:

After sifting through and analyzing those couple hundred e-mails, Zarko started publishing them to his website. "When you use taxpayer resources to attempt to change the outcome of an election or bargaining process, that's illegal and improper," says Zarko. He then sent out a press release summarizing the information to the Howell system's press list.

My initial press release clearly stated that it was potentially illegal given the right circumstances, and certainly improper. I'm not a lawyer, and not certain their actions, most of which I have not yet seen email regarding, were illegal. I am certain they were improper.

Everything else seems to hit the nail on the head, and for those of you (even my opponents) with an interest in my process and method, this interview gives you some insight. I recommend that more citizens use this and other methods of keeping our government accountable.

I conclude with:

Zarko's last tip is not to be put off track by people who prefer secrecy over openness. "One of the MEA's objections is that I have an ideological bent against unions. That's not true. I do have an ideological bent against abuse of taxpayer funds, plain and simple."

The Livingston Argus is reporting through "sources" that the secret deal between the Howell Education Association and the school bargaining team representatives essentially saves the district nothing.

Sometime soon — perhaps next Monday night — the Howell school board will vote to ratify a three-year contract with its teachers.

As with most such contracts, the details won't be revealed to the public until after the labor agreement is approved.

But if there is truth to the rumors that have leaked out about the contract, we have to wonder why the board waited a full year before signing this deal. In the final analysis, it doesn't appear that the district gained much by digging in its heels.

According to a number of off-the-record sources, there are several key parts of the contract:

# The expensive MESSA-administered health insurance remains.

# Teachers, who up until now have paid nothing toward their premiums, will now be assessed a modest amount: $600 retroactively for the year just ending and $750 for next year.

# Raises are small — a percent or less for the first two years of the contract. But remember that the majority of teachers also receive experience — or step — increments, which means their pay will increase by about 5 percent a year.

If these contract features are true — no board, administration or union spokespeople will comment — then the management in Howell schools has decided not to take a hard line in negotiations. That's too bad. For if there were ever a time to hang tough, this was it.

Zarko Research suspects the Argus is correct, although we have no way of verifying it and it may or may not be a rumor that is being spread for some other reason.

While ZR doesn't advocate a "hard line," it believes fair (obviously that has hugely variant meaning) concessions should have been made on both sides and that the Board should stand on principle, and this appears to be a one-sided deal as the Argus recognizes. If the Board was right in February and there was a budget crisis necessitating its February actions, then reverting to and accepting a pre-February offer by the union proves the Board either lied then or is lying now about the fundamental fiscal position of the school. Either it had the money then to accommodate the union's requests, or it didn't. Either the future fiscal crisis of exploding health care costs is serious, or it isn't.

This is a great reason why all collective bargaining agreements should be public. Indeed, not just the final agreement, but make the meetings open. While FOIA might seem a fruitful way of getting at it, case law on the issue is confusing and FOIA would allow enough of a delay through its normal response time that it wouldn't be productive in most cases anyway. The legislature must act to reform the Open Meetings Act and FOIA to prevent this kind of secrecy. The public has a right to advance consideration of any proposed final contracts - we're not even talking about events pre-dating the final agreement here. Indeed, the entire collective bargaining process should be subject to open meetings. When you negotiate with the taxpayer for money, the taxpayer should be able to watch. Period. It's simple. It's obvious.

Someone blinked - but the School Board can still stand up for what is right.

The Detroit News editorial board has chimed in on the Michigan Education Association's ridiculous argument that the actions of union-official teachers on public time should generally be exempt from FOIA.

And they hit the nail on the head. The editorial title says it all: "If taxpayers pay for it, they should see it." And the money shot:

"A private group like the MEA is entitled to keep secrets, but not on public property. If it can afford to be one of the state's most generous lobbying outfits, it can afford to make sure that officers of its locals conduct business on their own computers."

And as to Doug Norton's arguments that I have "an ideological bent" against unions - aside from its absurdity (I grew up in a two union-parent household) - it's "irrelevant." FOIA applies to even those the Michigan Education Association dislikes, as the News points out. If the Freedom of Information Act only applied to those without "ideological bents," it would, of course, apply to no human being. Zarko Research has never claimed to be a non-editorializing news source. And while I struggle to present well-documented and tight original source evidence as often as possible, conclusions are drawn - and my history and potential biases are out-in-the open right here on this site.

And so much for Doug Norton's "friendly lawsuit" statement. Raymond Davis, Howell Public School's attorney seems to put that bold spin (I'm being generous this morning) to rest.

Gina Damron reports on this dirtyness in my own neighboring town of Troy.

The case against a 62-year-old Oakland Township man — who sparked a phone and online relationship with a 14-year-old girl from Minnesota — was bound over to Oakland County Circuit Court today from 52-3 District Court in Rochester Hills.

Carlos Wheatley, a fifth-grade elementary school teacher and soccer coach, is charged with multiple felony counts for allegedly having phone sex and online communications with the teen, whom he met in an adult Internet chat room last summer. ... He was a teacher at Troy Union Elementary and a coach of Troy High School's boys varsity soccer team. Wheatley was put on paid status with the Troy School District and has been directed not to come back to school.

Wheatley remains jailed on a $100,000 bond.

While Wheatley looks like he'll get his day in court without the cover of secrecy, readers of this blog may recall the Michigan Education Association (MEA) defense of Brian Beckham when he surprisingly resigned on January 8, 2007 from the Zeeland Public Schools. The MEA filed a "reverse FOIA" lawsuit against that district on behalf of Beckham after the Grand Rapids Press FOIA'd Beckham's personnel file. They argued that whatever Beckham did shouldn't be revealed because it would damage his reputation and that because he resigned while the school's "investigation" was in process, a little known provision of an employee-privacy statute over-rode FOIA. They got an Ottawa County judge to agree and the Grand Rapids Press wasn't willing to do further battle, so the file went away. While the evidence in Beckham's case was clear that he didn't engage in criminal activity, the remnants of the files showed that he had did something in abuse of his computer privileges. Unfortunately, all that's left is imagination regarding Beckham's actual action, and while it wasn't criminal he resigned instantly.

This is yet another reason why secrecy is bad. If I were Beckham I wouldn't want the speculation that will forever exist to remain (unless of course it was really bad). If his actions weren't criminal, then there really are only a few logical possibilities. And the MEA's disgusting involvement in that "reverse FOIA", while different in mechanics in their attempt to quash ZR research, is evidence of a pattern.

Lisa Roose-Church reports in the Livingston Argus that Howell teachers voted, and are now taking a week to count theit vote, on the collective bargaining agreement signed the night of the election.

This is the same Howell teachers' union that sued Howell Schools the day before the election in a reverse FOIA lawsuit to stop Zarko Research from reporting on their activities (or stop us from doing the research to do meaningful reporting). ZR has now intervened in that litigation, and will report on it as appropriate. But why would it take a week to count 500 votes? Who controls those ballots? Sounds like union politics straight out of an old Hoffa movie. Does the union gain from delay in counting the vote so that the bargaining agreement remains secret longer (the school won't release the agreement until it is ratified)?

Howell Education Association officials are still counting the Howell Public School district's 492 teachers' votes to determine if the teachers ratified their three-year tentative agreement reached earlier this month during a mediation session with Howell Public Schools.

Marybeth Roose, the Howell district's director of community education and communications, said Monday night after the Board of Education meeting that a final tally was not available, but district officials are "hopeful."

HEA President Doug Norton said the union hopes to have a final tally within the week. Once that is done the union's board of directors must approve the deal before it goes before the full Board of Education.

Norton said he expects the union board to set a special-called meeting in "the next few days" to deal with the matter and he hopes the school board will vote on the contract at its June meeting.

Norton declined to provide details on the proposed contract, which reportedly allows teachers to keep their union-affiliated health benefits with a contribution of $600 the first year, $750 the second and a tiered contingency plan in the third year.

Pay raises reportedly include a 0.5 percent retroactive raise, since they have been working without a contract since July 1, 2006; a 1 percent raise for next school year; and a 2.25 percent hike in the third year.

Norton told the school board at its May 14 meeting that the contract has concessions that the union didn't believe it would have to make. He declined Monday to be more specific.

"We all had to take stock and allow tough compromises," he said May 14, adding that the district and union must not "mutually address issues" facing the district.

"We are ready to do just that," Norton noted.