Last night, six Directors of Seattle Public Schools voted to approve a proposed contract with TFA
It appears that in last night's vote on the TFA contract, six directors have knowingly and intentionally decided to make a decision that violates state law RCW 28A.320.015 and the federal law known as No Child Left Behind (i.e., the 2002 re-enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act).
Under state law, this is cause for a recall petition.
Explication of the above assertion.
Due to legal analyses provided by [two non-lawyer parents], the Directors were well-informed prior to their vote that the proposed contract is in all likelihood in violation of the NCLB.
Note that Subsection 2 of RCW 28A.320.015 provides the following:
"The board of directors shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public written and oral comment and consideration of the comment by the board of directors."
If a court would interpret a Board's decision to approve a contract as being covered by Subsection 2 of RCW 28A.320.015, and considering that Ms. Sias sent her first legal analysis to the board on it is reasonable to presume, for the sake of arguments in a court of law, that the director's had indeed read, understood, and taken into consideration that analysis.
Here is a list of the emails that I sent to the Directors, and which contained legal analysis and/or attempted to make clear to Directors that the contract violated federal law, and would put Title 1 funding in jeopardy. The dates of these emails, and the content, shows clearly the Directors received the advisory and analysis soon enough to give it due consideration.
1. From: joan@m---t.org Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:31 AM Subject: Applicability of Renee v. Duncan to SPS To: "DeBell, Michael" <michael.debell@seattleschools.org>, schoolboard@seattleschools.org Attachment: RCW & WAC on teacher cert.rtf (application/rtf) 61.00K
2. From: joan@m---t.org Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:19 AM Subject: Putting Title 1 funding in jeopardy To: "DeBell, Michael" michael.debell@seattleschools.org
3. from <joan@m---.org> Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM Subject: TFA contract: Please ask your legal dept. to review this analysis To: "DeBell, Michael" <michael.debell@seattleschools.org> cc: schoolboard@seattleschools.org, nrtreat@seattleschools.org, jcerqui@seattleschools.org,
In the third email, I indicated that this was my third and most succinct attempt to outline the legal arguments against the contract. I asked the board to include the email in the board's administrative record, and I asked the Board to have the legal department review my analysis.
I note that as per my request, Director Smith-Blum asked Board secretary Joan Dingfield to see that the 2nd email listed above is included in the adminstrative record for the Board. That means that this email must have formed part of the Board's transcript of evidence for the TFA contract decisions
In reference to the first email listed above, I received an email at 7:45 am on the morning of the vote with this message.: "Thanks Joan, have asked Noel Treat to address. ksb" Noel Treat is a lawyer employed by the District.
As I understand, a district lawyer made three arguments orally before the Board at last night's legislative session.
1. Even if Ms. --- and Ms. ---- are correct, and the contract is therefore in violation of NCLB (due to TFA recruit's not meeting the NCLB's definition of "highly qualified teacher"), it is unlikely that the U.S. Secretary of Education would withhold Title 1 funding for such violation;
2. The U.S. Secretary of Education is expected to appeal the Ninth Circuit Court decision (Renee v. Duncan); if the appeal succeeds, then Ms. ---'s and M. -'s argument that the limited conditional certificate is not a "full state certification" becomes moot, in which case the contract will no longer be in violation of the court's interpretation of Federal Law.
3. The lawyer disagrees in the first place with Ms. --'s' and Ms. ---'s assertion that a Limited Conditional (teaching) Certificate (such as would likely be issued to all TFA recruits) does not meet the state's definition of "fuill state certification."
Given the strength of Ms. ---'s' legal analysis in particular, on the question of whether under state law a limited conditional certificate amounts to full state certification, and the weakness of the District lawyer's counter-argument, we can dismiss the third argument.
We have a situation in which six public officials have knowingly and intentionally decided to make a scoff-law decision.
State law RCW 28A.320.015 is applicable to this situation. (This law is quoted in full below.)
RCW 28A.320.015 says, in effect, that the Board must NOT write policy and exercise their power in a way that conflicts with law.
It appears that in last night's vote on the TFA contract, six public officials have knowingly and intentionally decided to make a decisions that violates state law RCW 28A.320.015. Such behavior is ground for recall. RCW 29A.56.110. [quoted below]
Case law has established that a recall petition lacks legal sufficiency if a public official who violated a state law did so without knowledge and intent. This last-resort basis for dismissing a recall petition will not hold in the present situation for the six directors who voted in favor of the TFA contract.
Quotations of cited state law.
RCW 28A.320.015 School boards of directors — Powers — Notice of adoption of policy.
A. Pertinent Clauses
(1) The board of directors of each school district may exercise the following:
(a) The broad discretionary power to determine and adopt written policies not in conflict with other law ....
(b) Such powers as are expressly authorized by law; and
(c) Such powers as are necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.
B. Full Quotation
(1) The board of directors of each school district may exercise the following:
(a) The broad discretionary power to determine and adopt written policies not in conflict with other law that provide for the development and implementation of programs, activities, services, or practices that the board determines will:
(i) Promote the education and daily physical activity of kindergarten through twelfth grade students in the public schools; or
(ii) Promote the effective, efficient, or safe management and operation of the school district;
(b) Such powers as are expressly authorized by law; and
(c) Such powers as are necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.
(2) Before adopting a policy under subsection (1)(a) of this section, the school district board of directors shall comply with the notice requirements of the open public meetings act, chapter 42.30 RCW, and shall in addition include in that notice a statement that sets forth or reasonably describes the proposed policy. The board of directors shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public written and oral comment and consideration of the comment by the board of directors.
RCW 29A.56.110 Initiating proceedings — Statement — Contents — Verification — Definitions.
Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.
For the purposes of this chapter:
(1) "Misfeasance" or "malfeasance" in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;
(a) Additionally, "misfeasance" in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and
(b) Additionally, "malfeasance" in office means the commission of an unlawful act;
(2) "Violation of the oath of office" means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.
No comments:
Post a Comment