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.

Whoa, and does he ever.  He accuses this writer's past - and society's continuing - nemesis, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), of "killing our children" (and I can't say that's wrong).
This is why Akindele's Unleashed blog is clearly one of the best in the Michigan blogosphere.

Here's a sample of his powerful critique:

Every now and then I look at what BAMN is doing in the community. Here are a socialist group of bandits that causes more hell than a headache.

First, they were against my friend Ward Connerly and the whole affirmative action thing. Thank God my sister Jennifer Gratz and company won that war. We thought BAMN would go away and crawl back in their cave.

I guess not.

Now, these misfits are having a town hall meeting on solving the crisis of public education in Detroit. [Dec. 6 if you're interested].
...
Again, where is BAMN on these critical issues [charters, parenting, and choice]? Where are those quacks Steve Conn and Heather Miller?
...
BAMN is doing nothing but keeping our children angry. Our children do not need anger. Our children and parents need options.

Having seen the Conn game and Ms. Miller an action, I'm fond of Akindele's use of terms here, even if it is slightly over-the-top. When you incite riots and take your children out of classes for your political machinations and you're a public school teacher, the term "quacks" is has a descriptive truth to it despite its ad hominem nature.

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 Michigan Education Association (MEA), a union of teachers, may have a union of administrators go on strike against it for messing with their retirement benefits. Now if that is an irony among ironies, I don't know what is. Here's a clip from Gongwer on the issue:

M.E.A. FACES POSSIBLE STRIKE
Employees of the Michigan Education Association have been considering a strike after MEA President Iris Salters recommended cutbacks in retirement benefits.

The United Staff Organization, the union representing employees of the MEA and its subsidiaries, said it was committed to bargaining around the clock to have a contract in place by August 31, when the current contract expires.

MEA leadership has proposed reductions in pension benefits and increases in retiree healthcare premiums, but the union's employees balked at the proposal, arguing the MEA has been working to avoid such cuts to teachers and school personnel around the state.

"We find it completely unacceptable that MEA President Salters would propose rollbacks that would gut staff's current retirement plan," said USO president Tom Greene. "Our bleak future becomes their bleak future."

Catch that part about "MEA leadership has proposed reductions in pension benefits and increases in retiree healthcare premiums ... " I wonder if MESSA is their insurance provider? Regardless, and even if necessary, the MEA proposal puts the shoes of the school administrators on their own feet.

I wonder if the MEA lawyers in the HEA/MEA/NEA et al v. Howell Public Schools and Chetly Zarko FOIA lawsuit will go on strike too? We could only be so lucky. Alas, the MEA outsources its legal help.

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

Sometimes a couple of facts come together surprisingly. Hence, ZR takes notice of this New York Sun article from February 21, 2007, quoting Apple's Steve Jobs at an education reform conference. Jay Greene titles the piece simply, "Steve Jobs has guts".

And he certainly does:

"I believe that what's wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way."

The problem with unionization, Mr. Jobs argued, is that it has constrained schools from attracting and retaining the best teachers and from dismissing the less effective ones. This, in turn, deters quality people from seeking to become principals and superintendents. "What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good? Not really great ones because if you're really smart you go, ‘I can't win,'" Mr. Jobs said. He concluded by saying, "This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy."

Wow. That's a shot across the union bow. Consequences:

There is a price to be paid for this kind of frank analysis and Steve Jobs knows it. "Apple just lost some business in this state, I'm sure," Mr. Jobs said. Of course, Apple sells a large portion of its computers to public school systems. By taking a stance against school unionization, Mr. Jobs may lose some school sales for Apple.

Now, with that in mind, ZR has to ask. The "I-Pod for every school student" scandal here in Michigan didn't break until early April. This article was written in late February. How did Jobs convince a pile union-loyalist Democratic lawmakers from Michigan to go for the I-Pod idea? The Michigan Education Association and even MFT/AFT (Michigan Federation of Techers) might ask the same questions if this was on their radar.

ZR came across this from the rather remarkable Citizens for Responsible Spending - 834, a citizen watchdog group that monitors spending in the St. Croix Valley District 834 schools of Minnesota, and has recently focused on the administration's request for a new school when the old one appears perfectly fine. Apparently, Minnesota school bureaucracy is no different than elsewhere. Like all bureaucracies, its about growth and resource accumulation, not necessarily what the legitimate mission of the bureaucracy is in the first place (teaching students, in this case). This is why - when government is necessary or exists in a certain domain there must always be eternal local vigilance in keeping expenditures in check. It's not that the people in government are evil - most are very well motivated and competent. It's that the system is configured to perpetuate itself and there is no natural competition to keep it in check.

In a lengthy article by Jonathan D. Glater and Alan Finder in today's New York Times entitled, "Schools Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some", we find some interesting statements. The story reads like a news analysis infiltrated with opinion, as is clear from its biased title.

First, in California, we have school attorneys that have forgotten where they live. Check this Bayview school general counsel.

David Campos, the general counsel to the school district, said the resegregation was so disappointing that the school board might try to test whether Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion in the recent Supreme Court case left open the possibility of using race if other methods of integration fail.

“We stopped using race at some point,” Mr. Campos said. “And then for a number of years we have tried to use a number of race-neutral factors to achieve racial diversity, which methods haven’t worked. Should the board decide to use race, and they may or may not, we are a very good test case.”

Not only did Mr. Campos forget Proposition 209 would prevent his "test case" from even getting to federal court since it wouldn't be legal under state law, he seems to have the idea that he is entitled to experiment with our taxpayer money, and the quality of schooling students in the district receive (for if the school spends big legal bucks on test cases, it is distracting from and taking resources away from education). Indeed, Campos' belief that he is the arbiter of "test cases" is institutional arrogance. Public officials should generally avoid skirting the law or pushing its boundaries - "test cases" should arise from situations where an error or incidental encroachment is made - not where a public official decides to create a test case. Indeed, this is equivalent to a frivolous filing of a lawsuit, just in a less tangible and noticeable way.

As to the rest of this Times article, look at the title. "Schools Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some". At best, the conclusion is that it "Doesn't Desegregate Enough", not that socio-economic measures actually segregate. Their is pre-existing societal segregation - socio-economic solutions produce much more economic diversity, and are estimated to replace the (alleged) need for roughly 75% of racial diversity programs because of the pre-existing socio-economic racial imbalances. The article sort of recognizes that these are different scales and types of diversity, yet it attacks socio-economic programs for not being perfect (although helping) along one of the dimensions. Maybe socio-economic programs aren't perfect, but they are the best, and most moral, of types of governmental response, if there is to even be a governmental response, to such imbalances.

If perfection were the measure of any program, no program would be acceptable. Indeed, any program that seeks "perfection" is philosophically suspect by itself. Here, the Times and racial-criteria proponents equate "perfection" with "proportional representation". For there is only standard against which to measure "racial diversity" - does it match the relative population levels for that group. The idea that society would configure itself such that every region and school would exactly match that obliviates free choice, and as such is a utopian perfection that is philosophically suspect (and in my world view anti-utopian). Indeed, this is the fundamental hidden flaw of preferentialist-reasoning. Without even touching on its vast internal contradictions (for example, that black self-segregation is good or to be encouraged), it presumes a utopian world-view that is anti-freedom.

I am reminded of another sought-after-perfection from science fiction. "Resistance is futile."

No question Leon Drolet has a knack for a quote. And this is a quote I feel compelled to document:

Leon Drolet, who chaired the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative that backed Proposal 2, praised the court decision, which struck down programs that treat students differently based on their race in order to achieve diversity, he said.

"Too many elites in America have decided that 'diversity' is a god," Drolet said. "And worshippers of this diversity god believe they are exempt from constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Diversity is a good thing, but only when under the rule of equality."

Of course, the comparison of diversity to a religion is not new, but Drolet's symbolism here is right on. The Detroit News story on June 29th which reported this quote also captured some interesting other tidbits. I found it odd that a teacher in an inner-city school would actually say something supportive of race-neutrality (maybe BAMN was wrong about all that fraud):

"The new ruling is disruptive in the pursuit of racial equality and equity," said Mildred Mason, superintendent of Pontiac Public Schools. "This is a clear sign of the nation going backward in resegregating American schools."

Yet others said the ruling was a positive step to eradicate outdated race-driven policies.

"I think race should not be considered whatsoever," said Renay Gamble, a teacher at O.W. Holmes Elementary in Detroit. "I don't think it matters what color skin you have or what culture you have as long as you are an individual that cares about learning."

Give a courage award to Ms. Gamble, who is the angel in this story. As to Superintendent Mason in Pontiac, the ruling hardly has any impact in Michigan, and the rhetoric of "re"-segregation based on this ruling ignores that 40 years of preferences coincided with 40 years of increasing residential and school segregation. While I wouldn't say that preferences caused this trend, its clear that it doesn't solve it.

Finally, two other tidbits.

"It seems as if using race as a determining factor in anything is under attack," said Greg Murray, a spokesman for the Macomb County Ministerial Alliance, a coalition of African-American pastors and community activists.

Murray, who is also board vice president for Mount Clemens Public Schools, called the court's decision a step backward.
...
But Dearborn Public Schools said the new ruling will have minimal, if any, impact there because Dearborn students are allowed to attend any district school as a part of its schools of choice program.

We've heard from Greg Murray before, and this is the most correct thing he's said. Yes, Greg. "Using race as a determining factor in anything is under attack." As it should be.

Interestingly, Dearborn Schools' quote demonstrates the best solution of all. Choice. If students and parents are making the choices, rather than government, its' awfully hard for government to discriminate.

State Representative Marty Knollenberg (R, Troy, Clawson) writes yesterday in the Detroit News this fabulous op-ed. As a matter of full-disclosure, I believe it important to let readers know that Marty is a former client of mine from the 2006 election-cycle, when he was first elected. Rarely do I blog on former individual clients, but this piece is worth highlighting because the overall vision is one of both sharpness in reform and savings and it reflects a tone that should be something that could receive bi-partisan support. I won't say "moderate" tone because I don't believe the reform is moderate - it cuts to the core of failures in our benefits systems - but it is one that objectively answers the **realistic** (sure, the left will throw up insincere and non-realistic obstacles) concerns of current government employees and it thinks in the long-term, rare for legislators today.

This is a solution everyone should get behind, including current employees, and Marty has the courage to apply to himself what he applies to state employees. I include the whole piece because legislators work and write for the people:

Friday, June 29, 2007
Get more money in classroom by reforming health benefits

Michigan ranks 48th in the nation in the amount of school operation dollars actually getting into the classroom. With an average of more than 17 percent of each school district's payroll being spent on retirement, Michigan needs to overhaul the system with the state's best interest in mind.

Under the current retirement system, the state could pay 100 percent of retiree health-care premiums after as few as five years of employment. Imagine a part-time employee drawing lifetime health care coverage after five years on the job.

Our education system is broken. We fight to get enough funding into classrooms while our schools face skyrocketing health care and retirement costs. It is clear, and has been for some time, that we can no longer wait to fix this structural problem. We must take action on necessary reforms now.

Unfortunately, in a recent House Education Committee hearing on reforming school employee retirement health care, some of my colleagues actually argued that if we passed much-needed reforms on retiree health care, we would no longer have anyone willing to work in public schools. I almost fell out of my chair.

While House Democrats were busy talking, the Republican-led Senate approved a legislative package sponsored by Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, that phases in eligibility for retiree health care, closes some of the more egregious loopholes and caps the state's cost at 90 percent of retiree health-care premiums. House Education Chairman Tim Melton, D-Pontiac, introduced this package in the House.

Under the Senate plan and similar House proposals, if you became fully vested after only working 10 years, you would get 30 percent of your health care cost paid for by the state. If you worked 30 years, you could qualify for 90 percent of the premium paid for by the state.

It is time to change retiree health-care benefits for school employees. The common sense reforms reward employees for service much like what the private sector has done.

This is a move state employees made long ago, and one that would save millions of dollars each year. The nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency reported that nearly $300 million would have been saved in 2006 alone if this legislation had been enacted 40 years ago.

Unfortunately, savings wouldn't occur immediately in this legislation because it would affect only new employees hired after the legislation takes effect. It would not affect any current teachers, custodians, food service personnel or bus drivers. This type of long-term thinking will help eliminate future budget crises rather than accounting gimmicks and quick fixes.

The intent of this plan is not to single out school employees. I have introduced similar legislation to reform another lucrative retirement system -- lifetime benefits for lawmakers.

It is simply absurd for the taxpayers to fund lifetime benefits for myself and my colleagues after six short years in the Legislature, the same way it is absurd for the taxpayers to pay for lifetime benefits for school bus drivers after only five years of work. I hope my House colleagues agree with me and support this legislation.

State Rep. Marty Knollenberg, R-Troy, sits on the Michigan House Education Committee.

With a hat tip to Tim Fay at adversity.net, Lloyd Billingsley writes yesterday in Frontpagemag.com about Ward Connerly's proposed amendment to the immigration reform bill to exclude illegals and future immigrants from whatever racial preference benefits are granted (although he'd just as soon prohibit preferences across the board). ZR reported on Connerly's Washington Times' advertisement two weeks ago. Some Connerly quotes:

"This is huge," Connerly told Frontpage. "All this talk of going to the back of the line is B.S.. They would go to the front of the line. The minute they are Americans, they move in front of white males and in some cases white women." Legalized Hispanic immigrants, Connerly says, would also gain privileges over immigrants from nations such as Russia because they would be part of an officially sanctioned “underrepresented minority.”
...
The problem, according to Connerly, lies in "the nexus between illegal immigration and preferences." That issue had not been part of the immigration debate until last Friday, when Connerly published an open letter in the Washington Times, signed by various individuals, some of whom disagree with him on immigration policy per se. Signatories include Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, and civil-rights advocate Joe Hicks.

"This is one of those things that people have not thought through." Connerly said. "A group that has never had the historic discrimination of blacks would be given the status of an underrepresented minority in this country."

Connerly does not find much to like about the Secure Border, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which he considers amnesty, similar to the 1986 measure that granted amnesty to more than five million illegals. Many of them these prior beneficiaries of amnesty, Connerly says, have also become benficiaries of preferences and he sees the potential for repetition.

"My big fear is that we make 12 million all legal and in 10 years we are back in same position with another five million. Illegal immigration will continue. Until you do something about making it impossible to cross border they will come."

That about sums it up. It's obvious that Connerly sees the strategic value of promoting the link of the two, obviously linked, issues. Care should be taken in communicating that a link between immigration and racial preferences 1) isn't necessary, if the simple reform Connerly proposes is adopted 2) that the fight against preferences is, in the long-run, a fight for genuine equality and ultimately will benefit those immigrant groups that will eventually, no doubt, be in the majority. Just as there is now a distinct group favoring preferences for boys over girls in colleges because girls have come to recently dominate undergraduate admissions, there too may come a shift where non-Hispanic whites, soon to be in the minority, will seek favor. But it is in no case, present or future, is preference a good thing. Boys do not "benefit" from an admissions preference - they would only benefit from a better K-12 education system (which perhaps could take into account learning-style differences for both sexes, but it need not apply preference to do that). That's where our focus must be - and preferences are an ultimate distraction and delay in achieving real reform in that area. If we lay the groundwork for equality now, we are laying it permanently.

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."

It's an odd letter to the editor and not clear what article or event its referring to (since it refers to multiple stories), but it refers to the political use of school facilities, even as it is unclear and mystical in other ways. If anyone knows what its about, let ZR know.

Paper's hostile toward schools

My wife suggested that we subscribe to a local newspaper. Since my daughter takes the Daily Press & Argus, I started reading her paper. I became interested in some articles about the Howell Public Schools Board of Education policy on political use of school facilities.

As I read, it became quite obvious that the reporter or editor was adamant about his or her anger over the board's policy and the inconsistent administering of the policy. Even after an apology was made and a willingness to waive the policy was offered by a school administrator, the Daily Press & Argus was still nasty.

I don't know why the newspaper has such a hostile relationship with the Howell school district, but it was quite evident when it had such a negative, immature reaction to a mistake that Howell schools tried to remedy.

The finishing touch by the paper was in the April 23 edition ("Howell school board forum tonight"). The sentence that I am referencing to is that "there's no guarantee school officials won't change their minds." It probably goes without saying that I've changed my mind about subscribing to the Press & Argus.

Don Cowan

Brighton
May 31, 2007

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.