I'm not a big fan of the U.N., but found it curious when a google alert came up pointing me to work citing my 1993 honors thesis on military expenditure. The power of the internet. That work has already been cited by the Atlas Foundation (in 2005 I believe) and several other groups, but I'm surprised at the reach & recognition my 1993 paper has received through my simple republication of it on my website.

The original paper was a statistical cross-sectional analysis and meta-analysis of data relating to how third world nations are impacted economically by military expenditure.

The original is in French, but here's the Google translation of the title.

Paper presented at the International Conference organized by ECA and the
CODESRIA sur le thème : CODESRIA on:
« INSTITUTIONS, CULTURE ET CORRUPTION EN AFRIQUE » "INSTITUTIONS, CULTURE AND CORRUPTION IN AFRICA"
Date : 13 - 15 Octobre 2008 Date: 13 - 15 October 2008
Lieu : Centre de Conférence des Nations Unies, Location: Conference Center of the United Nations,
Addis-Abeba, Ethiopie. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press has picked up on our FOIA request & five part series here in this piece. Here's a link to OutsideLansing.com where we take note of Dawson's piece, and part 3 of our series citing the political diversity issue.

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

Cross-posted at Equality Talk.

The power of wiki allows me as a blog writer some new flexibility. Here's a "timeline" of events we've created on the Wiki. It covers literally every event on equality issues you might want to add, although I anticipate it will be more detailed as time goes forward than in the past (a longer term project). The tools allows organization of events, press releases, and news in time.

After the tease, you'll find my analysis of the Fiscal Impact statement from the City of St. Louis. ZR concludes that St. Louis has admitted to quotas and improper violations of federal law.

Read more »

State Senator Mark Schauer (D, Battle Creek) has attacked State Senator Bruce Patterson's (R, Canton) claim that university cost control failure is the main reason for tuition increases. The liberal blogging machine, supported by self-proclaimed journalist and occasional mainstream media freelancer Eric Baerren, is rushing to attack Patterson by flipping truth on its head. Baerren's sources are "reverse engineering" Patterson's numbers and an anonymous "friend" researcher at Central Michigan University.

Central Michigan is now the third university Zarko Research turns its data analysis talents toward CMU by necessity since that is the subject of Baerren's defense. At the bottom is an image (click for fuller readable size) that shows the Excel spreadsheet of the first and last of nine years of CMU spending, using CMU's own budget summaries.

To be fair, we compared CMU to inflation and the legislator and created a final line that assumes the legislative appropriation grew with inflation and compared it to the expenditures. Even if the legislative appropriation outpaced inflation and 100% went to reducing tuition (or any category), tuition would have skyrocketed. And guess what - two conclusions of Zarko Research's U-Michigan and Michigan State analyses are enhanced. Administrative growth accounts for the majority of increases AND AGAIN liberal elite administrators are paying themselves double inflation adjustments while put the rings to their lowly staff (inflation or less depending on adjustments). In fairness, the Michigan legislature (and Governor) have not kept pace with inflation over the last 5 years, and deserve a small amount of the "blame" --- but when you look at these numbers, which factor in a "model" assuming the legislature met the Proposal 5 standard (increase by inflation or 5%, whichever is less -- represented on the bottom line of the sheet), the average tuition increase is barely dented. The numbers say it all - administrative growth, health care, and raw supply overhead are the killers in relative terms.

Wizardkitten fills us in on a Wednesday tirade by Canton's own Bruce Patterson. Patterson's response to Mark Schauer's statement that Republicans in the state Senate are responsible for prompting big tuition hikes at the state's public universities?

It's the fault of universities. She quotes part of his speech:

I venture to say that the problem isn't in the amount of appropriations; it's in the failure of the governing boards of these universities to contain costs. That's why students are suffering tuition hikes of inordinate amounts--a failure to contain costs.

I venture to say that Bruce Patterson is wrong ... very wrong.

Baerren ventures a long ... long way. Let's follow.

The first university on Patterson's list was my own alma mater of CMU, which Patterson cited as having increased faculty compensation by $15,000 per Full Time Equivalent over the last five years. Is this true? I have no idea, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't pull the number out of thin air.

But, the question is what this costs the university. Here, Patterson's facts were surprisingly in short supply. But, thanks to e-mail, we can fill them in by simply contacting the university. The university, as of November of last year, employed 1,105 FTE as faculty (the university employs another 1,513 FTE as staff). By sticking my pointer finger straight forward and pushing some little black buttons on my calculator, I deduced that 728 FTE multiplied by the $15,000 in extra compensation over the last five years equals $16.5 million. Mind you, this isn't something that comes in one big chunk, but was spread over the last five years (and through a couple of faculty contracts). On the other hand, state support for CMU has decreased by roughly $10 million over the last decade, and today -- according to an official I spoke to there -- funding levels are approximately what they were in the late 90s.

In 2003-2004 (which I don't fill in in the chart because of time considerations), there was a one-time $9 million cut from $89 million to $80 million, but that is still higher than the 1999-2000 appropriation ($79M), and it was during the fiscal year following 9/11 and national recession (which never ended in Michigan), and it was actually the decision of Granholm. One should expect that during times of recession everyone has to make concessions. Since 2003, legislative appropriation has stagnated and slightly increased, but at less than inflation. Again, to be expected during a stagnant economy. But it didn't fall 10 million "over the last decade" - if rose $10 million from 2000-2002 (13% in two years) and the legislature took that back during the recession at Granholm's suggestion (there's a nice 2003 CMU press release blaming Granholm, but I don't have the link handy). ZR doesn't blame her for that action - it was necessary and appropriate. But it was a cut of an increase - not a full cut. But even if we adjusted for inflation and gave CMU an inflation-locked increase (exactly as if Proposal 5 of last year existed), it would make a tiny dent in the gross tuition increases - which in raw terms doubled during the 9 years and in average percentage terms adjusted for inflation and a compensating legislative increase, rose at more than 5% annually, and more than 6% annually gross.

But let's follow Baerren and Schauer on their venture of reasoning.

How does this break down, in terms of pay and benefits? If it's just salary increases, CMU's faculty received salary hikes of about $3,000 a year ... which, if this is what has Patterson so exorcised, means he's angry about pay raises that are just a little bit more than COLA increases (this, for a university primarily regarded as a regional teachers college and trying to cultivate a national reputation in advanced nanotechnology research). There are raw numbers, and there is context. Patterson had one, lacked the other.

We'll address this competition thing in a moment, but Baerren is the one devoid of context. It's not the faculty hikes that are the killers - although ZR thinks they are bit high. Look at the image provided - the big increases are the "other/administrators" and the supply costs and, as everyone admits, the killer in benefits. Administrators are fleecing us for more than double the inflation rate consistently - year in and year out. They're also shorting staff and faculty -- this is not about competition in attracting quality nanotech - its about padding the President's pockets and his staff. Proposal 5 doesn't sound so bad in this environment (evil, but lesser of two) - and if we could put a spending growth cap on with it?

If Patterson were including total compensation, to include benefits, then he is also alluding to increases in health insurance. In this regard, the university has taken steps to keep costs down, because during the 90s -- seeing rising health care costs coming down the pike, they started a self insurance program, which has been successful.

Baerren's venture has found the cliff. He has bought into some sales pitch by the university. Benefit growth is the highest of all categories - not successful. Is there probably a grain of truth being exploded into a mountainous lie somewhere in that claim - sure: CMU pobably did do some self-insurance in some program, or it tweaked something else, and their claim a "potential savings" that no one really can measure. But it's clearly facing the same problems everyone else is (and look, health care is soaring, but the market has spawned the greatest innovations in life-saving technology humanity has ever witness and its expensive sci-fi kind of stuff).

Baerren ventures into the land of the hook, line, and sinker. He believes what he's told, like any good reporter would:

The interim vice president of finance told me during an interview last month that the university has been more successful doing this than educational institutions and governments that haven't. In short, they anticipated rising costs, and took steps to mitigate their impact on costs ... the kind of thing meant to bring under control costs Sen. Patterson intoned darkly were out of control.

Judge for yourself. The key question:

There are two questions here ... is this outrageous, and has CMU passed along to its students an unfair share of that burden?

The answer to the first is no. As Wizardkitten notes from a Gongwer article, Michigan university compensation is in line with other Great Lakes universities.

First, all universities suffer from the academic elitist view that they are worth ever escalating amounts with no checks in place from the market (let's bring back those anti-trust lawsuits filed against the Ivies in the 80s and 90s -- and Democrats usually like anti-trust laws but not when it impinges on their constituencies) and with government subsidies providing a "free shock absorber" to prevent market forces from stopping administrative growth. Second, the "in-line" analysis is obsfucated by the fact that universities literally collude in trading their data (through a process called the "Data Exchange")(anti-trust!) and that the "comparative data" from universities is all "in-line" because they try to be "close" to each other. The argument justifying salary explosions is that is "normal" and everyone else is doing it so we must. Classic collusion - although not always "conscious" - the system has built the collusion in, from the top cascading down.

In short, if you want to compete -- and I think we do -- then you need to spend money like you're serious about doing it. And, unless Gongwer is lying to the people of Michigan, the state's universities are doing what they need to do to compete against universities in neighboring states -- quality professors aren't going to work for free, you know (in fact, I know a local chemistry professor involved in nanotechnology research who tells me that he got offers from bigger, more research intensive universities but that he decided to stay at CMU because they offered him better research facilities ... he's also just released the first textbook in an emerging part of chemistry).

Reporter resorts to his friend the "local chemistry professor" in nano-tech. Hard for us to verify or cross-examine and analyze, but its a nice anecdote.

The answer to the second is also no, at least in the case of CMU.

As most of us know, CMU hiked its tuition by 21 percent this year, and the compensation costs for their faculty have risen by $15,000 per over the last five years. In fact, for all of the universities Patterson cited, only the University of Michigan -- Ann Arbor campus' faculty costs have increased more (and, why, I wonder, would a university competing for students with Ivy League students see its faculty salaries increase faster than everyone else?). Clearly, CMU's administration is screwing its students, and clearly the Board of Trustees -- appointed by the governor -- are guilty of lax oversight.

Not so fast there, Sparky. CMU's tuition hike of 21 percent is the only tuition hike its freshmen class will see. That is, unless some of them go on the Bluto plan and stay undergraduates for seven years, their tuition will remain what it is this year for their entire careers.

So, what is CMU's 21 percent tuition hike averaged out to four years? About six percent for a student who finishes his or her degree in four years; or five percent for five years. This puts the university, with its $15,000 over five years increase in compensation, close to the bottom rung about impact of their students.

He can't even get the basic division right here - but what guarantee is there of no additional hike? And the real measure is not what the hike is for the 2008 freshman amortized - its what the hike is for the 2009 freshman - which could be 30% if the school chose.

The flip side of this is that CMU plans to make another $1.39 million in cuts come October. Where is this money coming from? Well, the state took money away from the university it said it was going to give it, which has put CMU's budget out of whack.

Chump change, but Baerren even admits its not a "cut", its a reduction of an increase that the state "said it was going to give". So much for the reform-type of cuts.

They're waiting for school to start and professors to return to classes before making the cuts[non-increases], because for some silly reason university officials think that professors should have a say in whether or not proposed cuts[non-increases] will ultimately hurt[not pad] their ability to attract and retain quality students and faculty.

Finally, as a quality journalist, Eric has eliminated the ability of his critics like Zarko Research from commenting on his website, and endorses Michigan Liberal's similar censorship. If we could comment, we might be able to at least correct a few of his factual errors - there probably not intentional, but they're negligent.

Zarko Research again provides insight into the vaunted, but bloated, University of Michigan.

Like the ZR analysis of Michigan State University salary database trends over the last two years when it asked for a 9.6% tuition hike last week, ZR has been collecting U-M databases. An analysis of five year trend data provides a clear insight into why U-M tuition rates explode. There are 38,000 employees at U-M - and 3500 of them make more than 100K annually, a number itself that has an impressive growth rate.

The engorging is top-heavy - an outlandish growth rate among $100,000/year employees, percentage increases in the "Top 1000" by two measurements that are consistently in the 5% range (with a 7.5% average spike, and 20% total spending spike in 2001-2002, reflecting probably a "preparation" for bad times given the strong economy the previous year and the obvious signs of crisis down the road. But there has been no "crisis" for the purses and wallets of U-M bureaucrats, even as the Michigan economy has crashed. They keep churning out nickel increases while the Governor wants to appropriate extra pennies from the plebes to make up the difference.

Education is important. But out-of-check, unaccountable cost increases for top-level administrators do not guarantee any student a fair education. Check the tables yourselves. It's all there - or actually, its' all in Mary Sue Coleman's $600,000 (plus hidden benefits) salary. Imagine if that money went to students instead!

In a time of fiscal crisis, the President of Michigan State University gave herself (or asked and allowed the Board of Trustees to approve) a 25% raise. And the Top 555 employees averaged at least 5.5% raises, while the rest of the school's employees averaged 3% raises. And the school's overall employee based increased, with 2% more total employees hired.

Zarko Research publishes here a listing of the 2005 "Top 555" employees, the 2006 "Top 555" employees, and the entire 11,000 employee database here (WARNING - 2MB in Excel Format), all obtained through the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In our Top 555 listings, we provide a series of statistical analyses to provide context. And the context is shocking when MSU is asking its students and parents to pay 9% more in tuition this year, and blaming it on lack of state legislative appropriation.

But if you think that's rough, wait until we post cross-year analysis of the University of Michigan databases, including its mammoth 38,000 employee structure.

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 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.

This e-mail chain reveals more of the union leadership issues in the Howell school system, along with its paranoid response to a school district request to itemize teaching supplements following the Vicky Fyke book controversy. While it may or may not be the case that such a request put an undue work burden on teachers, one might understand the logical reasons why the district might seek such a list and try to work on ways to reduce that burden, a point well made by yet another rational and professional teacher. That same teacher - in a very professional and jovial tone - also tries to raise an issue of how teachers were under-informed (a point raised by other teachers, despite Norton's attempt to isolate the teacher and claim he's all alone) on the MESSA and insurance issues. Norton's response is to assume that he's being accused of "misleading" teachers on MESSA. His response to the teacher's query on the "slate system" of elections is also quite telling. Norton prefers a "coherent" and smooth leadership. It's unclear whether Norton is opposing the checks and balances system of Constitutional democracy and opposing parties controlling different branches, or supporting the "spoils system" of awarding Executive appointments to the winner of the presidential contest, but it is clear Norton wants his union to all be on the same page. While American democracy is far from perfect - and those "opposing camps" are often in nasty conflict - it is precisely the opposition and melding of opposition in government that creates our "checks and balances" and prevents a monolithic and out-of-control government. On the surface, the Soviet Union seemed pretty harmonious - but the human conflict was just buried, and inefficiency incredible.

3/1/2007
From: Norton, Doug
To: Davenport, Daniel; McDowell, Johnson
cc: Langer, Karen; Schrock, Jason; Carrier, Ryan; Capy, Catherine; Hughey, Jeff; Rowden, Jason

At the last two Board of Director's meetings of the Howell Education Association I have raised the issue about how our HEA Constitution and By-laws requires us to proceed with elections of a slate of officers. I have explained that a member at the 10-12 building has raised a concern about this and that I think we need to consider the issue. You have not been identified, of course. I have explained that our present system originally replaced a system where the president, the secretary, and the treasurer only were elected. In that system the president then appointed the Vice Presidents with the approval of the Board of Directors. At the time of the change it was considered more democratic if the members were aware of who were slated as vice presidents before a vote for president was cast by the membership. This system has been in place for 20+ years.

At each of the Board of Directors meetings referenced above I called upon the Board members to consider whether they think the issue that you bring forward should be considered for action. This would require a vote of the Board in order to develop a proposal and send the proposal to a full membership ratification, since changes in the Constitution and By-Laws require a full membership vote. At the last Board meeting, Karen Langer also raised the issue of whether the Board of Directors should initiate a process to consider a change. I did not make this motion myself because, as with how I feel about the United States system, I think that the members would be ill-served if officers of the association, elected to coherently run the association, were from opposing camps. In my view the election is designed to resolve disputes ahead of time, thus hopefully avoiding internal conflicts within the leadership team that could inhibit its ability to effectively run the association. Despite the clear invitations to consider change, not a single A.R. present has made a motion to consider change in this area. This includes your own A.R.s from the 10-12 building. You are certainly welcome to come and address the Board of Directors on this matter yourself of course.

On your continued implication that you are being mislead on MESSA: I must say to you that you are expressing an opinion held by a very, very small number of members if any beyond yourself [ed note: ZR has identified a number of individuals with professionally stated concerns, although it isn't clear that "mislead" is a term that was ever used]. We will have a General Membership meeting soon where you will have another opportunity to express your opinion to the membership and get its reaction. In the meantime, we continue to seek answers from the district on the facts attached to their proposed health system and although it is deeply troubling how reticent they seem to be to provide those facts, we can clearly see that it has serious flaws. Unlike MESSA, where the members have a long track record to rely upon, this proposed system is relatively untested. Just ask Pinckney teachers how they now feel about the new health care system that they recently accepted to find out about all the hidden flaws that can be confronted to the great detriment of the members.

Hopefully you find this email to be coherent. I understand that you do not always find my communications to be such and about that I am saddened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Davenport, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:23 PM
To: McDowell, Johnson
Cc: Langer, Karen; Schrock, Jason; Carrier, Ryan; Capy, Catherine; Norton, Doug; Hughey, Jeff
Subject: RE: Important message from the HEA Executive Committee

Hi-

I don't know of anyone who was asked to make such an inventory but I imagine it relates to the recent book challenge. I mean, inventorying textbooks certainly isn't in my job description but it isn't out of the question for me to contribute my thought to the process, especially when it benefits the whole district. It is probably to our benefit to start identifying weak spots so we're better able to defend ourselves against attacks that come from our own board!

I've talked to two ARs about the process of selecting representation. I would like to see membership have the opportunity to decide if we want to continue with a straight-ticket system when we feel so poorly represented. I know this isn't an issue until the next time we vote but I'd like to see it addressed. Especially since confidence in the union is waning. The rhetoric in this message is a perfect example of why people at the high school feel poorly represented. That along with the bizarro use of lime green initiatives [ed note: reference to the T-shirts] that we never consented to. It makes us feel like all we have is empty paranoia and no real argument [ed note: this seems to be a great description of the reaction of union leadership to every individual union member's expression of even the slightest concern].

The other issue I still haven't seen addressed is real answers about health benefits. I've said from the beginning that we need to have someone outside of MESSA talk to us about health benefits so we can make an informed decision. Now we'll have to take what we can get. Clearly it would've been better to settle for status quo rather than be strong armed into something else, especially for those of us who make the least.

I'll admit that I feel unrepresented by the union but my only recourse is to continually express my concerns in the hope that it will lead to change. There are only 3 jobs like mine in the district and we'd rather not bargain alone. *grin* [ed note: this hardly seems like an unprofessional way to express concern]

-Dan

p.s. I can't remember if there is another rep I should be including on this. I apologize.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: McDowell, Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:57 AM
To: All HPS Teachers/Principals
Subject: Important message from the HEA Executive Committee

Howell Teachers,

We write this email in great dismay at the recent action by the Director of Curriculum to place a great burden on the already overworked teachers in this District. By now you may have received the recent email from Jeanne Farina regarding the logging and listing by teachers of supplemental materials used in their classroom. If you have not, it is quoted below. Not only does this possibly violate the contractual agreement to not force teachers into non-teaching duties, but it also places a great burden on teachers to perform the District’s work without any fair compensation.

As one elementary teacher wrote:

“If I were to include all materials, including teacher professional books containing worksheets, my classroom library, guided reading library, poetry, read alouds, biography library, videos, maps, posters and anything else I am forgetting, I would have to list close to 1000 items?! This is NOT an exaggeration! I have spent years building a curriculum that the district has failed to provide me-- and now I'm supposed to spend a weekend sending her a list? Perhaps I should send HPS a bill?”

At this time, the Union leadership suggests that you do not use the supplemental materials you have in your classroom until the District devises a plan that does not constitute a hardship for teachers and require teachers to perform non-teaching duties.

If these supplemental materials are those which you have personally purchased, it is suggested that you begin taking these materials home.

If you find that you simply cannot take these materials home because the District has not provided you with any other curriculum to teach, then please make this situation known by emailing Jeanne Farina and the members of the School Board. School Board member’s emails can be found on the District’s website.

If you have supplemental materials in your classroom that the District has purchased, we suggest that you not use them until the District has sent a representative to log and list these materials and have them approved by the Curriculum Council.

Yours in Solidarity,

HEA Executive Committee

Jeanne Farina’s email:

“At our recent principals’ meeting we discussed the need to identify all supplemental materials used by our teachers. Supplemental means – anything used with a group of students to enhance the approved core curriculum.

Please ask your teachers to list these resources on the attached grid. We will compile the lists by grade and subject. The information will be discussed and approved at the next K-12 curriculum meeting. We are compiling these lists for core subjects only, at this time. (E.g. Math, Science, Social Studies, and ELA)

Thank you in advance for your assistance.”

A large part of this story has become the nature and vitriol with which union leaders attacking dues paying average union members that disagree or even offer constructive advice. This e-mail continues to document the nature of those attacks.

But it also brings us back to that "survey" that the Howell Education Association commissioned solely for "PR purposes", as a previous release demonstrated. The survey appears to be straight out of an Orwellian novel - it is written to "require positive responses" and those who responded negatively are chided and told to "opt-out" of the process.

Is this the way union leadership should treat its members?

From: Hughey, Jeff
To: Bessert, Dianne; Forbes, Lindsey; Autrey, Lynette; 'Cameron, Barb'; Elliott, Carol; Langer, Karen; Norton, Doug; Tatman, Dallas

LOL..............YES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bessert, Dianne
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:02 AM
To: Forbes, Lindsey; Autrey, Lynette; 'Cameron, Barb'; Elliott, Carol; Hughey, Jeff; Langer, Karen; Norton, Doug; Tatman, Dallas
Subject: RE: Survey

Just tell him he is out of touch with reality and to contact the mother ship with the ghosts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Forbes, Lindsey
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Autrey, Lynette; Bessert, Dianne; Cameron, Barb; Elliott, Carol; Hughey, Jeff; Langer, Karen; Norton, Doug; Tatman, Dallas
Subject: FW: Survey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Parrish, Doug
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:40 AM
To: Forbes, Lindsey
Subject: RE: Survey

Your choice of words serves only to enflame the issues. Please stop editorializing in releases from the HEA. My dues do not support that kind of an approach to this difficult situation. We want to appear as professional as possible.

Thanks.

Doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Forbes, Lindsey
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:23 AM
Subject: Survey

Dedicated HEA Members,

The initial response to the survey we sent out yesterday has been outstanding as over 100 members have already responded. Thank you. You may view responses by accessing the survey (link provided below) and clicking on "graphical summary" in the toolbar to the left. You will find responses recorded individually. We will compile this data in a spreadsheet in order to provide totals in the near future. If you have not done so already, please respond to this survey no later than Tuesday, March 20th.

In addition, we would like to recognize the fact that this survey in no way identifies all the ways in which HPS teachers demonstrate our commitment to our students. One clear example is the recent effort made by many teachers to make sure that our students continue to have access to works of literature that will enable them to grow. Teachers in this case were clearly putting kids first, even at risk of personal and professional attack.

Finally, a very few members have entered negative numbers in the survey. It is with a sense of optimism (as opposed to naiveté) that we remind you that the way in which the questions are worded requires positive responses. Please be advised that this survey is voluntary and if you choose not to participate, you may "opt out". We would like to re-assure members that the Association values the seemingly countless hours and dollars you continue to contribute despite the district's unwillingness to provide us with a contract that does the same.

[school link removed]

Sincerity and Gratitude,

Crisis Committee

This email exchange again captures the nastiness of how Howell union president Doug Norton treats his own people, attacking him with an "ad hominemn fallacy" argument following a simple question. The teacher - well-versed in logic - points out that just because he quoted a group at odds with the MEA doesn't make their factual claims right or wrong. He then proceeds to ask Norton to back up a factual claim about the law that is left "hanging" and makes it appear as if he may (or may not have - see below) indeed have captured Norton in a flat out lie to his own membership about why the union keeps secrets from its own members.

The message exchange references a web-article (http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8301) by the Mackinac Center linked by one union "association representative" who stands up for one of his employees because she wanted to know what the school had offered at that point. Norton tells his members that it is illegal for him to reveal the offer - but since other states open meetings acts appear to require negotiations be fully open (and I'll note that while Michigan's Open Meetings Act and FOIA might allow closure in certain highly regulated situations, its not clear either require it) it would certainly seem to not be a federally-regulated Unfair Labor Practice. ZR certainly does not know the law on that matter - but would reiterate Mr. Carrier's challenge to the union to tell us (union members and the public) what it is (cite the statute or case history specifically). Whatever the law, the internal secrecy and nastiness caused by the secrecy almost proves the Mackinac Center points in the article:

The adversarial and political nature of the collective bargaining process frequently distorts or stifles communication among key groups in a school district.

That "adversarial ... nature" is even within the union. The article recommends a completely transparent negotiations process ... an interesting idea that should be looked at.

Again, Norton savages his own member for the uber-sin of mentioning something the Mackinac Center wrote, but Norton's attack earns the intellectual razor of logic the teacher returns to him proving that he is worthy of being a teacher (and maybe a better union president, since he listens and stands up for others, rather than slapping them down upon disagreement). The puzzle that is starting to take shape is of an out-of-control, disrespectful union leadership. Even if it would be an ULP to disclose the offer - why criticize your members for asking?

RE: Members letter draft 03-13-07
From: Carrier, Ryan
To: Norton, Doug; Capy, Catherine; Hughey, Jeff; Langer, Karen; Rowden, Jason
cc: Schrock, Jason

it might be helpful if you could point us, ARs, in a direction to get an answer...

OR (please) answer this question to end the discussion:

Is there a law that states, "union representation is NOT allowed to discuss offers with its membership" ?

OR is this a practice that the MEA has developed in the best interest of its membership?

I am NOT hurt by the connotation of your replies. I just want a credible source of hard information...I believe a fact is a fact, no matter the source.

Example: I read on a certain non-reputable blog that Doug Norton was the president of the HEA.

I'm disappointed by the tone of our email conversations; hence, from this point forward I will only communicate in person...I do NOT want my words interpreted negatively.

Respectfully,
Ryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Norton, Doug
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Capy, Catherine; Hughey, Jeff; Carrier, Ryan; Langer, Karen; Rowden, Jason
Cc: Schrock, Jason
Subject: RE: Members letter draft 03-13-07

10-12 A.R.s

It is hard for me to believe that we have Associatiom .Rep.s that actually think that the Mackinac Center is a credible source of hard information when even the media identifies them as a right wing think tank or worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Capy, Catherine
Sent: Thu 3/8/2007 12:58 PM
To: Hughey, Jeff; Carrier, Ryan; Langer, Karen; Sebestyen, Jennifer; Rowden, Jason; Norton, Doug
Cc: Schrock, Jason
Subject: RE: Members letter draft 03-13-07

I read the article...Wendy's not in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hughey, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:57 PM
To: Carrier, Ryan; Langer, Karen; Sebestyen, Jennifer; Rowden, Jason; Norton, Doug
Cc: Schrock, Jason; Capy, Catherine
Subject: RE: Members letter draft 03-13-07

Is this the Mackinac Center article with Wendy Day blasting Public Education?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carrier, Ryan
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:18 PM
To: Langer, Karen; Sebestyen, Jennifer; Rowden, Jason; Norton, Doug; Hughey, Jeff
Cc: Schrock, Jason; Capy, Catherine
Subject: RE: Members letter draft 03-13-07

I'm not certain that this is the case in Michigan according to this article. I'm still researching; however, I would direct those interested to read for yourselves....

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8301

Sincerely,
Ryan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Langer, Karen
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:30 AM
To: Sebestyen, Jennifer; Rowden, Jason; Norton, Doug; Hughey, Jeff
Cc: Schrock, Jason; Carrier, Ryan; Capy, Catherine
Subject: RE: Members letter draft 03-13-07

Jennifer,

It is considered an Unfair Labor Practice for us to share the district's proposal before it is TA'd.

Thank you for your understanding and patience.

Karen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sebestyen, Jennifer
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:23 AM
To: Rowden, Jason; Norton, Doug; Hughey, Jeff; Langer, Karen
Cc: Schrock, Jason; Carrier, Ryan; Capy, Catherine
Subject: RE: Members letter draft 03-13-07

Thanks for your response, Jason.

Doug, I would still like to know what the district is offering.

Jen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rowden, Jason
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Sebestyen, Jennifer; Norton, Doug
Cc: Schrock, Jason; Carrier, Ryan; Capy, Catherine
Subject: RE: Members letter draft 03-13-07

I can honestly say that I don't know. If teachers have questions about bargaining they should contact a bargaining team member directly. I will list the ones from the HS below. If teachers have questions/concerns regarding our currently enforced contract, then AR's are here for your convenience.

(HS)Bargaining Team Members: Doug Norton, Jeff Hughey, Karen Langer....

Hope this helps.

Jason
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sebestyen, Jennifer
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:09 AM
To: Norton, Doug
Cc: Schrock, Jason; Rowden, Jason; Carrier, Ryan; Capy, Catherine
Subject: RE: Members letter draft 03-13-07

Good morning. Thanks for the update. I would like to know what the district is offering us.
Thanks,
Jen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please see the important update from bargaining!

What does the average union member reading these exchanges make of all this? It's almost painful to read and ZR has deeply considered whether certain things (like the names of courageous people - like Ryan Carrier - behaving professionally) shouldn't be published as a matter of editorial discretion (for example, ZR is completely avoiding trivial "frivolous" uses of e-mail like discussions of sports games, etc., because some of that give and take, while still a use of public time for personal use, is neither "newsworthy" [though still public records since using the public email system is taxfunded] nor "abusive"), and it is certainly painful to watch "the sliming" of otherwise great teachers because they don't lockstep (and they are probably otherwise loyal believers in the idea of the union!!) to the union bosses whims and think independently. But sunlight and the light of day are the best disinfectants for everyone and it is clear that is necessary here.

And while I've never met Ryan Carrier and have no idea what his politics or inclinations are - I want this guy teaching future generations. And its clear he's not alone - previous e-mails I've published show at least two other teachers taking the heat - often behind their backs. And that's just the one's we know about and just those who've spoken up at all in any way.

Secrecy is a generally destructive force. Why again is the MEA suing for secrecy?

Was it to protect the average teacher? Or union leadership from the average teacher?

Here are several news reports on yesterday's "show cause" (to temporarily continue the temporary restraining order, an issue not under dispute) hearing in Livingston County Circuit Court. ZR won't comment on the hearing details until more legal analysis is done, but the stories provide some flavor of the hearing.

Livingston Press, May 11, 2007
Detroit News, May 11, 2007
Detroit News, May 10, 2007, News Briefs.
Livingston Press, May 8, 2007

www.whmi.com - pasted here because there is no direct link:

MEA Granted Injunction To Prevent E-Mail Release
News Photo5/8/07 - A temporary restraining order has been signed by Livingston County Circuit Court Judge Stanley Latreille that prevents Howell Public Schools from releasing more e-mails by leaders and members of the teacher’s union. Some of the e-mails had been released to political consultant Chetly Zarko last week through the Freedom of Information Act. He says they indicated a pattern of union members misusing district time and resources. Union President Doug Norton told WHMI that Zarko’s conclusions were erroneous and part of an effort to disrupt ongoing negotiations for a new contract. Zarko said a second batch of e-mails would further prove his point. However, the Michigan Education Association asked for the injunction saying that the e-mails were exempt from public release because they contained information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege. A hearing in the case has been set for Thursday. (JK)

Consultant Accuses Howell Teachers Union Of Misconduct
News Photo5/8/07 - The head of the Howell Education Association is vehemently disputing the allegations of an Oakland County-based political consultant that the teachers union is improperly using school time and resources in the course of their efforts to secure a new contract. Chetly Zarko (left) heads up Zarko Research and previously served as Director of Media Relations for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or Proposal 2, which prohibited affirmative action in the public arena. Using the Freedom of Information Act, he obtained the e-mails of union leaders and members from the accounts they used with Howell Public Schools. He cited several examples he says indicate that teachers were using school copiers for union business and planned to utilize parent addresses from homeroom teachers to send out union information. However, HEA President Doug Norton says that Zarko has completely mischaracterized the e-mails and makes assumptions that are wrong. He says one e-mail example Zarko provided in which a teacher says they’ll run off copies after school assumes the teacher used school copiers when in fact they used copiers that belonged to the union. Norton says Zarko’s accusations were timed to affect Tuesday's school board elections as well as their ongoing negotiations for a new contract. Zarko says that another batch of e-mails will be released after today’s election that will further illustrate his contentions. Norton, who says Zarko is an outside agitator whose real target is the Michigan Education Association, counters that many of those e-mails concern parent-teacher communications that never should have been released. (JK)

ZR notes that in its press release, we never focused on the photocopier issue, and challenged the fact that the flier was passed out on teacher time at a parent-teacher conference, which is the critical (and far more offensive than a few photocopies) abuse of trust. While the copier quote does suggest a possibility of misuse of copiers, our language NEVER said it proved anything of that nature. What has been proved, from day one, is misuse of the email system (which, according to law, is no different than paper records), and secondaritly, misuse of time and special access (to parents) granted by the nature of the teaching position. The copier issue is a strawman. The remainder of the personal attacks are obviously irrelevant, false, and ad hominen.