For those of you who follow my miscellaneous national and topical interests like signature-gathering, and Ward Connerly's SuperTuesday, you'll also know that I follow First Amendment questions of whatever type. The Paul Jacob story hits all three. Connerly is helping a group in Oklahoma collect signatures as I write. Signature-gathering difficulties there are driven largely by politics - and although the people of Oklahoma are quite rational, their Attorney General and special interests seem to have figured out that out and realize they must hamstring the people.

Enter Paul Jacob. Like him or hate him and his efforts, he helped a group in 2005 in Oklahoma collect signatures for a version of TABOR (taxpayer rights initiative). Taxpayer initiatives are serious challenges to government and special interests because when taxpayers can say no and turn the spigot off - special interests and the "governmental class" (the army of people working for the government get to vote, and self-lobby, too) get mad. Mad enough to put people who threaten them in jail.

So, when Democrat Attorney General Drew Edmonson told a grand jury to indict Jacob earlier this year, they jumped. Grand juries would indict cinder block if told to, and even under the best circumstances, a grand jury indictment is under a standard of evidence that there is simply enough evidence to warrant a trial - not that anyone is guilty. Regardless, the indictment was for "conspiracy" to "defraud the state", a stretch of that charge based on the underlying crime of ... coordinating signature-gatherers who did not intend to live in Oklahoma forever. That is, using "out-of-state" signature gatherers invalidates a signature in Oklahoma (nowhere in the Oklahoma code however, could I find a law criminalizing out-of-state gathering, merely the AG interpretation that residency means someone must intend to live in Oklahoma forever). From the non-crime of not knowing exactly where one might live in a few years, and two years following the Oklahoma state court's "referee" refusal to place TABOR on the 2006 ballot, the AG indicted 3 petition drive leaders (with no indictments for any criminal circulator below them, another hard piece of logic to follow). Now clearly this all contrived to make all signature-gathering of any type more difficult, and to plant the fear of criminal prosecution in the hearts of petition-drive leaders.

But the AG made a technical mistake in his grand jury indictment, and misused the multi-county nature of that body, so he had to drop the charges. Yesterday, he reissued the charges under his own office's direct power of prosecution, and is going full-steam ahead.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, or libertarian (I guess if you're authoritarian, you should support the AG), you should take note of this case. It's about control and power. It's about suppressing speech and petitioning. Sure, reasonable rules can invalidate bad or petitions created in error - and although there is probably no compelling interest in state residency requirements even if there were, this case is one of ambiguity in law being used as a blunt hammer to quash dissidents. Even if you are an opponent of Jacob's views, to remain silent when his speech and petition rights are subverted is to invite the same to happen to you when you disagree with the establishment.

In all, this is probably the most important First Amendment case, and clearly the most important petitioning case to arise from the year 2007. Follow it closely. Prevent it from happening in your state. Blog it if you can. Write a letter to the editor if its relevant. And be careful when you travel through Oklahoma.

If it has to do with signature-gathering (particularly if not inside Michigan where one of my sister-sites will pick it up), its a subject ripe for PP&M. And this one is ripe - Ralph Nader has sued the DNC alleging a vast conspiracy (VLWC) by the Demoncratic National Committee to obstruct his ability to get on the 2004 ballot. Frivolous lawsuits, blockers, bogus challenge-phase assertions. The suit itself details some 90 law firms that participated.

This story, from the site "Ballot-pedia", which is a brilliant use of the wiki concept to map out a small universe of specialized knowledge, details it well and provides links to the original source documents and news stories.

Needless to say, while ZR doesn't normally subscribe to conspiracy arguments because they are too complex and usually not the simplest explanation, there is some validity to this one. The DNC didn't make it a secret that it wanted to keep Nader off the ballot - in fact, it admitted it was trying to do so. And various officials admit to using frivolous legal techniques solely to drain Nader. That's abuse of process, and Nader should recover something for it.

Bill Nowling at Lunchbucket Conservative has been pointing out the ties between Norman Hsu and Michigan's Democratic leaders Debbie Stabenow and Jennifer Granholm.

Democrats have taken a liking to continually beating on the Jack Abramoff scandal that is now a year in the past to point to Republican corruption. But here we have it in spades on the other side, straight from a Ponzi-scheme artist, Norman Hsu. First, Hsu is a bad guy, as the New York Times points out:

According to court records from the case, Mr. Hsu ran a Ponzi scheme that took in cash from dozens of investors and returned profits to some of them before shutting down with more than $1 million missing.

Now Hsu is accused of a political-Ponzi whereby he would act as conduit to evade campaign finance limits.

With RightMichigan also noting the additional money going to Michigan Committees. Stabenow has returned $4200 of the donations to a charity, but apparently hasn't donated remaining $27,000. The Michigan Democratic State Committee apparently accepted $35,000, and Granholm's gubernatorial committee over $13,000.

Obviously, candidates receiving such money aren't necessarily aware of crimes before they become known (bad that our system is such, but reality). But it would be hypocritical to continue railing on 10th degree of separation links to Jack Abramoff, as well.

And its also time to give it all back, ladies, and Mark Brewer.

Most of my Michigan readers are probably aware of former Michigan Lottery Commissioner and Granholm-Appointee Gary Peters and his recent declaration of candidacy to run for 9th District Congressional seat held by Joe Knollenberg. As a matter of full disclosure, I have in the past worked for Marty Knollenberg - Joe's son - but have no current financial relationship with the family. Naturally, as a result of that relationship, I follow the race with a keener interest than ordinary.

An interesting early twist to this race is that Peters initially appeared to do the right thing in the spring when he left his government post in preparation for running for office. But then, almost immediately thereafter, talks of Central Michigan University hiring Peters for a part-time endowed "Griffin Chair", which is an honorary appointment of considerable tradition at CMU, at about $60,000 a year for teaching one class and maintaining a short set of office hours. It's maybe quarter-time work. Peters accepted that position, and as I believe it will become clear over time, he knew he'd be running for US Congress while doing it. So the "right thing" - resigning from a government post to run full-time - became more of the wrong thing for Gary Peters, who actually gets a cush quarter-time appointment to pay his bills while he is still able to devote full-time to his campaign. It's actually a better gig for him than Lottery Commissioner because he'd have had to actually work full-time, and its all on the taxpayer dime. You may agree with Mr. Peters politically, but this whole CMU angle looks trickery and raises taxpayer-funded lobbying/campaigning issues.

Yesterday, I sent this letter to the President, Political Science Chair, and others:

Dear President Rao, Mr. Ringquist, and others:

I write to express serious reserverations over the appointment of Mr. Gary Peters to the Griffin Endowed Chair. While the university has argued the chair is privately endowed, we all certainly know that such appointments are still made by the public body for the equal benefit of students. Once money is given to the university it becomes public money subject to the ethics laws and will of the people of the State. Indeed, the university, like every other university, has an obligation to the taxpayer to seek out private donors to reduce the taxpayer burden. Those donations don't give the university extra flexibility in violating the laws of the State or even stepping outside the bounds of wisdom and fiscal prudence. It is also certain that such money is "fungible," that is, regardless of the source, its existence frees up other money which is most certainly subject to ethical regulations and common-sense.

In this vein, I write to seek your explanation on the appointment of Gary Peters. It is unnecessary for you to reiterate his qualifications. The question is whether the university should knowingly hire someone that it knows will become engaged in a full-time partisan political campaign during the propose tenure of the position. This question has four aspects. First, hiring a person while they are engaged in the campaign constitutes a form of financial support to the candidate, freeing them from the need to engage in additional fundraising (Mr. Peters can legally pay himself a salary from his own campaign, but CMU has now freed him of a large chunk of that burden - indeed, a larger chunk of that burden than anyone would legally be allowed to donate to his opponent). Second, hiring such a person calls into question whether their full-time committment is to their campaign or to students. Third, hiring such a person in the Political Science department, where questions about the campaign are bound to come up, calls into question whether an unbiased presentation, even at the subconscious level, is possible. Fourth, there is a question of whether Mr. Peters was forthright with this department during the hiring process? Most observers believe that Peters made a decision to run shortly after or before leaving his role as Lottery Commissioner. Was the Committee that selected Mr. Peters aware that he was running when it made the decision to hire him?

While it may be the case that faculty members across the country run for elective office during their tenures, it is far more rare that people running for elective office are hired by public universities to teach political science while they are in the midst of seeking office. I think it is vital that the university clarify to the public what its understanding of the relationship was and Mr. Peter's intent was when it made the decision. My request for this clarification does not necessarily imply that anyone, including Mr. Peters, committed wrongdoing here. My request is so that the public be fully informed so that it may judge the situation for itself.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

The Kansas City Star reports on the Missouri Secretary of State's actions to use her raw power to thwart the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative. What stands out on a second glance is how the Secretary of State chose to use "preference" when it suited her and "affirmative action" when it suited her. This inconsistency between paragraphs itself should be a legal downfall (although Courts are political too, and as the Star reports none of the SoS language in previous initiatives has been overturned by the courts, although its unknown how egregious her language writing was).

Carnahan’s office used this language:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

“Ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and

“Allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?”

What's amazing is that Carnahan has found a way to say MoCRI "bans affirmative action" (the "good type" in her opinion as the "designed to" implicates), AND say that MoCRI actually "allows preferential treatment" in her twisted misusing of the federal funding safe haven. She's actually pervertedly used the federal funding clause - one that theoretically protects some affirmative action - to say MoCRI "allows preferential treatment". So there is the foolish inconsistency she should have to explain to a court. If "affirmative action" is supposed to be the operative language that MCRI and MoCRI and other drives allegedly "concealed" from the public, at the least then one would expect that second paragraph to say "allow affirmative action ... to meet federal", rather than "allow preferential treatment." It is this complete inconsistency that makes Carnahan's language so offensively biased and abusive.

Here's MoCRI's submission. Note, the second paragraph is exactly the operative language of the law as it would appear in the Constitution. It would be understandable if the first sentence were somewhat different than proposed(though not inaccurate of Asher in his suggestion), but Asher's proposal opts for precision by copying the language of the proposal rather than interpretation.

Asher’s group had suggested the following language:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state by declaring:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting?”

The unfortunate thing for MoCRI is legal challenges are draining, and courts can be political. Missouri will be an uphill fight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New York Times report pushes a bit deeper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Is this ever ironic. Especially for regular readers of ZR.

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission issued this odd press release on 5-21. Their releases come straight to ZR's inbox:

Civil Rights Department Affirms Right To File Complaints Without Retaliation

Lansing, MI * The Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) released the following statement today in response to a report issued last Wednesday by the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) recommending the suspension of Lansing Judge Beverly Nettles-Nickerson.

“While neither the Commission nor Department has any current involvement or legal interest in the matter involving Judge Nettles-Nickerson, it is imperative to clarify that the legal right of Michigan residents and visitors to file complaints with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights is protected. Both the Elliott-Larsen and Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Acts explicitly provide protection from acts of retaliation for civil rights activity, including filing a complaint with MDCR.

It is our sincere hope that the JTC did not intend to imply that Judge Nettles-Nickerson should be disciplined in any way for exercising her right to file a civil rights complaint if she believed that she was being subjected to illegal discrimination. A suspension for filing an allegation of illegal discrimination would violate state and federal civil rights laws designed to protect those who stand up against discrimination from any acts of retaliation. Such a message from a legal authority would have a chilling effect on the state’s ability to protect persons who legitimately believe they may be victims of illegal discrimination.

While we take no position on the veracity of any fact claimed by any party in this matter, we ask the Judicial Tenure Commission to amend its complaint to clarify that they are not seeking to discipline Judge Nettles-Nickerson for the act of filing her complaint with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and Department.

We further call upon the Supreme Court and any appointed Special Master to clarify that, regardless of what decision they may ultimately reach in this matter, their ruling is in no way predicated upon the protected act of filing a complaint with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights."

I mean, who could be for allowing retaliation against people who file complaints?

But what if the complaint is provably fraud? Whoa. Isn't this the same Commission that chastised the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) for alleged-signature-gathering "fraud" (even as it agreed in March 2007 with the premise of MCRI arguments about the limitations of Proposal 2, thereby contradicting the substance of its previous fraud allegations) and declared that it had the right to investigate such fraud. And if a sitting Judge corruptly abuses the Commission by filing a fraudulent complaint against her cohorts, shouldn't she be disciplined as a result? The Commission "takes no position on the veracity of any fact" claimed by anyone ... yet it takes a position that the complaint is entitled to unlimited deference? If I file a frivolous lawsuit - or commit perjury, I'm going to face a serious set of consequences. So too should someone who abuses the Commission's process, if it is provably the case that it was knowingly abused.

Read more »

The Michigan Education Association (MEA) has filed a so-called "reverse FOIA" lawsuit in Livingston County Circuity Court, Case # 07-22850-CK, against Howell Public Schools in an effort to keep e-mails requests by Zarko Research secret.

A limited selection of these e-mails were published on Friday days after we received a partial response from Howell schools complying with the FOIA request. The court has issued a temporary restraining order while it considers arguments, and the first hearing is expected on Thursday.

ZR opines that the MEA has no basis in FOIA for such a move and that this is a transparent attempt to keep secret public records that are embarrassing to local MEA officials. MEA's very action here - coupled with the incriminating e-mails already released - proves it has much to hide.

Press may contact ZR at 248-930-7766 or by email firstname at first-lastname.com

Links to ZR Howell FOIA work

Howell School FOIA Exposes Union Leaders Use of Taxpayer Resources for Lobbying.

FOIA of E-mails Expose Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying
http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=677&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
More Howell Emails
http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=680&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

In this investigative piece, the Flint Journal takes to task a group of school board candidates in the upcoming May 8, 2007 elections for having missed personal opportunities to vote in the past. By simply checking the qualified voter file maintained by the state, or a city or county clerk's files for local elections, one can come up with this fairly rapidly. Here's the upshot:

They're asking for your vote May 8, but five of 21 candidates for the Board of Education haven't voted in the past five Flint school elections, and five others have cast ballots in only one of them, according to city of Flint records.

None of the candidates voted in all five of the elections; five of them voted in four.

Some candidates with spotty records downplayed their significance; others said voters should take note.

"It's hypocritical to ask someone to vote for you when you don't participate in the democratic process," said candidate A.C. Dumas, among those who voted in four of the five elections.

ZR has a bit of a different take. While there is validity to the criticism that a candidate didn't previously vote, I'll bet many of you didn't even know there were school board elections on May 8, or if you knew, the elections may have been uncontested and it wouldn't be productive to spend your time casting a ballot in a non-competitive election. We suspect the lower voter turnout even among people now running for school board is that they didn't know about - or races weren't competitive enough - for them to vote in previous elections. That's a problem.

These elections are so-called "stealth elections," designed to have maximally low voter turnouts so schools or municipalities can more easily pass their millages and bonds by turning out teacher's unions members. A local election typically costs $10-50K to administer, so multiplied across the state, this would be a superb low-hanging fruit (low hanging in how it would impact government) to work on for consolidation. In 2004, Republicans lead by state Sen. Ruth Johhson thought they had a solution when they limited elections to 4 dates and encouraged localities to move elections to match larger even-year primaries or generals, but only two districts in Oakland County opted for the change. The law did have an effect on ensuring that all spring elections occur on one date (previously not the case), but the real savings haven't been realized. Politically though, this is a high-hanging fruit because unions, municipalities, and school administrators all agree on stealth elections because it increases their power in the lower turnout elections. It's corruption at its best. They have proffered two fake arguments to suggest that we need these unknown, low-turnout elections.

First, is that school board members "need the time to learn the complexity of the school board operations" and electing them in May is the only way to ensure that they come into office in June or July and have a couple months on a board before the school season starts during summer break. The variations on this are that this would "break existing law," (change it, although existing law allows Nov. elections, so school boards can choose it now) require charters to be amended (so what - do it - save the money), or allow current members to serve longer than they were elected for (shorten current terms by 7 months rather than lengthening them by 5). This is so easily solved and even flipped on its head that its laughable - ZR believes it is the first to recommend that schools vote in November for trustee positions and have an extended "Trustee-Elect" term where the members are required to actually sit in the 7 following meetings until June, when they take office. They would actually have more experience under this system. The second type of argument is that schools may need elections for bonds and millages or for unforeseen circumstances. Again, easily solved - aside from the fact that school boards are supposed to plan well-ahead for such things. ZR proposes that all school (and municipalities) elections be held in November of odd years OR August or November of even years, AND schools be given an option to hold their own special elections for millages once per year by special vote anytime they want leasing equipment from their counties (which often resides on school property anyway as they manage local precincts). The real truth of why this hasn't happened yet is that low-turnout elections are more easily controlled by a mobilized force with a vested interest in your tax money. In the meantime, ZR proposes to close the budget delay in school aid payments and make it uniform with the rest of the budget so that schools don't have to take out short-term (weeks sometimes) loans to cover gaps caused by state delays, which itself would save the state money in the long-run. If that happened, schools might actually warm up slightly to such a deal.

We need further consolidation. This legislation could easily be passed - and the time is ripe with the current budget crisis.

Linked here is last month's Court of Appeals decision by Judge's Brian Zahra and Joel Hoekstra slapping down the University of Michigan's obtuseness in denying a FOIA request to the Michigan Federation of Teachers & School Related Personnel (MFT) for the home addresses of U-M employees.

While ZR can't fully sign-on to the purposes the unions had in mind (recruiting members and increasing their collective bargaining, although we recognize their right to do so), U-M has played this home address card, in conjunction with the "It will cost thousands of dollars of our time to remove them" card, to avoid having to respond to FOIAs even seeking other FOIAs. You see, they're afraid someone might be able to study how people FOIA them, and get even better at it. Or learn something else about the operation of government with a different perspective.

And if you think home addresses might be used for junk mail or the like, that business already has access to property records and other means of blanketing you and a can easily accomplish its ends regardless of FOIA. A home address or phone number on a limited number of FOIA requests though would permit a researcher to quickly call the other FOIA requestor and coordinate activity, interview that person for independent news reports, or otherwise ask them about their experiences with the government agency. It is such a highly useful thing to understanding the government that U-M has tried to devise a slip-out by combining the fee charging provision with its invented home-address privacy.

In thwacking U-M, the Court stated:

Further, a home address and telephone number are personal in the sense that they identify a person’s residence and telephone number. However, by themselves, they ordinarily do not reveal “intimate or embarrassing details of an individual’s private life.” Even when a person’s home address and telephone number are considered in relation to “customs, mores, or ordinary views of the community,” the information cannot fairly be characterized as “intimate or embarrassing.” Thus, under Bradley, the home addresses and home telephone numbers of defendant’s employees are not items of personal information for purposes of FOIA because they do not reveal intimate or embarrassing details of an individual’s private life.

Further, based on our review of the relevant case law, we also conclude that there is no authority holding that public employees’ home addresses and telephone numbers are items of personal information for purposes of FOIA. See Tobin v Civil Service Comm, 416 Mich 661, 671; 331 NW2d 184 (1982) and State Employees Ass’n v Dep’t of Management & Budget, 428 Mich 104, 124; 404 NW2d 606 (1987). Although defendant identified several cases that applied the privacy exemption to home addresses, in those cases the plaintiffs sought disclosure of addresses to access other information our Courts deemed personal. See Mager v State, Dept of State Police, 460 Mich 134; 595 NW2d 142 (1999) (registered gun owners); Detroit Free Press, Inc v Department of State Police, 243 Mich App 218; 622 NW2d 313 (2000) (concealed weapon permits); Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State University v Board of Trustees, 190 Mich App 300; 475 NW2d 373 (1991) (philanthropic donors).

In a ridiculous court order that borders on the absurd, an Ottawa County judge has ruled in favor of the Michigan Education Association's (MEA) recent crusade to protect a corrupt former member of its Zeeland Schools union, Brian Beckham. Beckham resigned abruptly in January apparently without obvious cause. Here's his terse letter:

January 8, 2007

TO: Superintendent Feenstra
Board Secretary of Zeeland Public Schools

In order to pursue other career opportunities, I hereby irrevocably resign from any and all further employment with Zeeland Public Schools and its Board of Education, effective January 8,2007. I have enjoyed my association with the Zeeland Public Schools.

Sincerely,
Brian Beckham

The following day, the school wrote this cryptic message to parents:

January 9,2007

Dear Students and Parents:

Today I have to inform you that Mr. Beckham has resigned as a teacher from Zeeland Public Schools for personal reasons. He will not be returning to class. Mr. Beckham regrets he will not be able to work with you any more this year. I know many of you really liked Mr. Beckham, as a teacher and as a person and I am sure this news is a real shock to you.

Ms. Sandy Brewer is the substitute in all of Mr. Beckham's classes. Ms. Brewer has subbed often at Cityside and she knows our kids, our staff, our policies and our curriculum. Ms. Landes is already working closely with her to try to maintain the high quality education the Eagle Team has been known for.

Sincerely,
Jon Voss
Principal

That prompted the Grand Rapids Press to inquire through FOIA in February by requesting Beckham's personnel file. Before the school's record officer could release the records, the MEA sued the school under what is called a "reverse FOIA", citing a little known provision of the Bullard-Plawecki Right to Know Act (a personnel records act) requiring certain "investigatory files" to be destroyed if "no disciplinary action is taken". That provision apparently applies to "criminal" investigations, but the MEA and Beckham's attorney somehow convinced the judge this qualified, and that since the school hadn't taken "disciplinary" action because Beckham resigned before they could fire him, the files must be destroyed. The judge issued his outrageous order on April 9th, and we had already had a FOIA request similar to (but different in some ways) the Grand Rapids Press FOIA by Kym Reinstadler. If indeed the law is such - that a public employee can evade FOIA by resigning - then the law should be changed. A careful reading of the law suggests that might not be so, but the Grand Rapids Press will probably lack the courage to pursue. The judge's order was so ridiculous that he ordered the school shred the material within 14 days, hardly giving anyone a chance to appeal with the normal appeals time frames.

ZR is producing the entire FOIA response here (WARNING: 12MB PDF). Here's all we know about Mr. Beckham's problem:

For Personnel Record of Mr. Brian Beckham

At the time of Mr. Brian Beckham's resignation, Zeeland Public Schools was in the process of investigating whether Mr. Beckham had violated its technology use policy and/or engaged in unprofessional conduct. No final determination was made and the investigation ended without any conclusions being reached due to his resignation.

1/8/2007
Mary Colton

But according to our FOIA request, which sought other FOIA's, it appears that there is other craziness happening at Zeeland Schools. Laurie Jordan, a teacher, was terminated on January 11, 2007, just three days later than Beckham, although there is no evidence of a connection. Advance Newspapers Kristin Churchill made this March FOIA request:

In accordance with the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (PA 442 of 1976), I am formally requesting the following information that I believe is under the control of your agency: Any and all records pertaining to the re-hiring of office aide Laurie Jordan, Including any back pay settlement and the date and reason glven for that settlement.

Here's the shocking and deeply concerning response:

Enclosed you will find copies of the payroll documents pertaining to this matter. There is no written documentation regarding a reason for this settlement which was a verbal agreement between Mrs. Jordan and Superintendent Feenstra.

The payroll document clearly indicates termination, and a later rehiring. It is unfathomable that a rehire - or any hire - could be based on an oral agreement. Something strange is afoot at Zeeland.