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.

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

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."

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.

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

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

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

Wheatley remains jailed on a $100,000 bond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.