It struck me, as I awoke today at 5:30am, that some things involved with the charter school lawsuit against Christina and the Delaware DOE, that the charters were well aware of a simple fact.
Christina did not pass two referenda in 2015. As a result, their funding from Christina was going to be less per student than what it had been last year. With referendum, it doesn’t really kick in until the next school year. You still have to get the taxes from the people. So they were all warned. They knew their payments would be less. This is why Greg Meece became desperate, searching for needles in a haystack. Anything to get mo money. It’s kind of like a scientific experiment. You want to turn air into gold. You know it won’t work, but you keep trying. So Meece began his journey last winter, looking for anything to justify his school getting more money.
He had help. Of that I am nearly certain. Someone had to give him something to look for. Whether he searched out that person or they came to him is a matter of debate. Meece also knew he had big financial issues coming up if he didn’t get that money. This school year was the year his long-held dream came to fruition: a K-12 school. His students would finally become seniors. But if he was getting less per student, who would pay for these rising costs to run NCS?
Out of all the 15 charter schools who filed suit, NCS has the most to gain. But do you want to know who will most likely get the most money, if they should prevail? Saul Ewing LLP. The attorneys always make out like bandits!
Another thing struck me. I’ve been very hard on David Blowman through all this. But if the Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education is the one that sends the charter bills to the districts, and Blowman was attempting to make some type of course correction from previous years, then who was the one sending the prior charter bills? Last winter, David Blowman and Karen Field-Rogers switched places at the Delaware Dept. of Education. Blowman used to be the Deputy Secretary of Education. Field-Rogers was the Assistant Deputy. Which means she was the one sending the charter bills to the districts all those years. Or at the very least, signing off on them. I’m sure I could go back years and years on this, all the way back to 2008 which seems to be this critical flashpoint for the charters. I’m sure there were others. Under that theory, if Christina submitted exclusions to the DOE and the DOE signed off on them, the case against Christina is gone. This is all on the DOE, not Christina. Legally, it doesn’t matter if the DOE should or shouldn’t have approved those exclusions, the simple fact remains that they did.
Here is another one. Godowsky didn’t know about this until after the charter bills went out. So why is Godowsky named in the lawsuit? He inherited another DOE employee’s mess. But Godowsky’s job, as per Delaware law, is to either change the formula or have it remain the same, by September 1st of each year. The local funding formula did not change. Because e=mc² no matter what the variables are in each part. So Godowsky didn’t change the formula after September 1st, he changed the amount based on the already existing formula which he didn’t even know about until after it was done to begin with. There is a huge difference. I know, I’m defending the Delaware Secretary of Education here, but I do believe in fairness.
But here is the kicker. If the charters win, they stand to get a bucketload of money, right? Which would cause Christina to most likely seek another referendum. Which would give the charters even more money based on the court-approved decision with the exclusions. But if Christina lost that referendum, the charters would get less money the next year (like what happened to them this year based on the 2015 failed referenda). Or, if they put Christina into such a financial pickle the State of Delaware had to bail them out, they would then be relying on getting funding from the same entity they sued. But if the Christina School District went bankrupt, and the state took them over or converted the whole district to charter schools, and the state only gives so much to each district or charter, what would happen to the 15 charters share of local funding if the local district isn’t there anymore? They would wind up with less money. Or even better yet, if WEIC goes through and the Christina Wilmington schools convert over to Red Clay before this goes to court, would they then have to include Red Clay in the suit even though Red Clay’s local funding to charters is different? I don’t think they thought this through long-term. I can’t believe the “charter school Don” as Kilroy puts it even took this case.
If their “smoking gun” is what I think it is…good luck with that one 15 charters! Meanwhile, the wheels on the bus go round and round…
The Season Of Myths 
Charters still come out ahead. You are correct in that they scrambled to make up this year’s shortfall. If they win, (which even this early looks unlikely unless they find a judge already prejudiced in their favor who has already determined his verdict for them) but, if they do… they gain $7 million. Next year this recently passed referendum goes into effect and they get part of that increase plus the new exclusions as well, if they win… This continues on forever… So they will still gain money if they win this suit…
But lawsuits are not determined by who will win. They are determined by what is right. And courts have historically ruled that the voters trump everything else in this country when it comes to law.
So policy determined by the voters, ie in this case money to only be spent on 4 certain things… to be heisted and given to charters because of political connections AND NOTHING ELSE, probably won’t see the light of day in an honest incorruptible court system… In a dishonest, corrupt court system, however… all bets are off…
LikeLike
“But Godowsky’s job, as per Delaware law, is to either change the formula or have it remain the same, by September 1st of each year.” ~ Kevin Ohlandt
100% wrong on this one, Kevin. You should carefully read the section a few times.
14 Del. C. § 509(d):
“The Department of Education shall annually CALCULATE the local cost per student expended by each school district for each type of student for the year immediately preceding BASED ON A FORMULA SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (e) of this section, adjusted by a factor necessary to fund the charter school on a basis reasonably equivalent to the current year local cost per student, which factor shall be established in the annual Appropriations Act. The Department shall annually certify each local district’s local cost per student expenditure by September 1 of each year.” (emphasis mine in quotes throughout this post)
“Godowsky’s job” is NOT to change the formula. it’s already been SET FORTH in sub (e) of the chapter. The issue here is whether or not the proper exclusions have been entered in the one factor of the formula, defined as “any other local expenditures deemed by the Secretary of Education to be inappropriate for inclusion for the purpose of this chapter.” 14 Del. C. § 509(e).
So the first question here is: did the Secretary of Education (or his/her staff under his/her auspices) validly deem millions of dollars requested by Christina School District to be excluded from the formula to be “inappropriate for inclusion [in the formula set forth] for the purpose of [the] chapter?” I posit that this question must be presented to the judicial branch since “sub e” is somewhat ambiguous. At least ambiguous enough to have the executive branch changing its mind on what qualifies under sub e’s fifth exclusion category two times in thirteen months. That’s just how the three branches are supposed to work.
The question is not whether he, as part of the executive branch, validly changed a formula which has been set forth by the legislative branch. (Perhaps a picture of School House Rock would be more appropriate as a header for this post, since your reasoning violates one of the most basic principles of US government. Just a suggestion. I’m not trying to be insulting.)
The second question raises from the facts that the last sentence of section 509 “sub d” reads. “The Department shall annually certify each local district’s local cost per student expenditure by September 1 of each year” and that THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION did just that, but later “undid” it.
So, can the Secretary of Education invalidate a district’s local cost per student expenditure CERTIFICATION that was timely issued, by issuing a second certification after the time limit set forth in the statute? This question is important. Needless to say, whether or not his second certification is the most appropriate for “the purpose of the statute” becomes irrelevant, if that September 1 deadline has any meaning whatsoever. It stands to reason that the deadline is in the statute for a reason and that it should be obeyed and enforced. Again another question for the Court of Chancery to analyze.
Kavips, there are no prejudiced Judicial Officers in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. All are brilliant and all are incredibly fair. Also, none would render a decision that they know would likely be overturned by the Delaware Supreme Court. They just don’t that happening.
LikeLike
I would like to think (and again, I will fully state I am not an attorney nor am I getting this information from an attorney) that since the certification approved by the DOE was NOT seen at all by Godowsky and he found out about it AFTER the bills went out, which caused a bit of an uproar when a certain blogger posted it on the last Friday of August (going into Labor Day weekend), that Godowsky was ill-prepared to render a judgment on it without all the facts since he found out about it either that Thursday or Friday. As you may recall, the person who would have certified those bills was on vacation until 9/1. That will play a key part in all this. But either way, DOE at fault, Christina is not. So if I were the 15 charters I would drop Christina out of the lawsuit.
LikeLike
Another way to look at it is, DOE is at fault, but it’s not the charter schools’ fault, so they should demand that they are not the ones to bear the burden of the DOE’s attempt to ignore a statutory deadline.
I think your operating under the assumption that enforcing the timely certification has a negative impact on CSD. But allowing the untimely certification doesn’t have a negative impact on the charter schools. I know you will always take the side of anyone who holds a position against charter schools (as is evident in your new-found support of Sec. Godowsky). But that doesn’t mean you get to ignore the reality that their was reliance by the charter schools on the timely certification, which they use to create their annual budgets.
LikeLike
Charters are also required to follow the law with posting board agendas and their monthly financial statements in a timely fashion. Should they have lawsuits filed against them when they fail to comply? Are the 15 charters so stuck on that September 1st deadline that they fail to remember their own faults?
LikeLike
Kevin, your argument about posting agendas and financial statements by certain dates has nothing to do with the issue regarding the validity of CSD’s fifth category exclusions. It also has nothing to do with the validity of a post-statute-date certification “uncertifying” a timely issued certification.
In a sense, I’m happy that this completely unrelated rebuttal might somehow mean that you are conceding error on the issues before the Court and the subject of your “The Peculiarities of the Charter School Lawsuit” article.
Again, I think your passion against charter schools in general is blurring your reasoning on this matter. Are you seriously implying that because charter schools have missed posting deadlines that promote transparency and accountability (I’m taking your word that they have), the DOE is allowed to disregard statutory limits and legislated formulas that are designed to create a fair funding scheme for schools?
LikeLike
Before I reply, you can’t trap me. Don’t try to put me in an “either/or” situation trying to stump me. What I’m saying is the charters have gall to try to enforce a “deadline” or “specific date” when collectively, as a whole, they grant dates about as much weight as a dead snail. They have gotten better at it, but still have a ways to go. The funding formula is written in two parts of Delaware state code, so I’ll have to look at which one you are looking at. My “passion” against charters (never heard it quite like that before, made me chuckle). Bottom line, I’m saying Godowsky didn’t even know about the change in formula until well AFTER the bills went out. He got the heat for it so he changed his mind so sue him (oh, they are). But seriously, why NOW for the lawsuit? Why not wait until AFTER the election? Or wait until the General Assembly comes back so everyone can work it out? If the DOE was the ONLY one to figure out the formula, why sue Christina? The DOE determined which exclusions would have been allowable (for the 16-17 school year). They also approved any prior exclusions that Christina submitted. I can’t think of ANY scenario where Christina is at fault here.
LikeLike
“Before I reply, you can’t trap me. Don’t try to put me in an ‘either/or’ situation trying to stump me. What I’m saying is the charters have gall to try to enforce a ‘deadline’ or ‘specific date’ when collectively, as a whole, they grant dates about as much weight as a dead snail. They have gotten better at it, but still have a ways to go.” ~ Kevin Ohlandt
Kevin, I’m not trying to stump you. I am just bringing your assertions to their logical conclusions. Would I be right if I asserted that you regard all, each and every deadline as equal in terms of importance in meeting them and severity and type of punishment for violations of said deadlines?
Not posting the agenda by the required seven days prior to the meeting is not the same as not meeting a deadline to give fifteen charter schools the data they absolutely need to meet their obligation of proposing a budget for the school year. Moreover, they need the Certification by September 1 to actually enter into contracts for services or goods that will improve the educational experience for their students during that year. That’s why that September 1 deadline is so much more important than the seven days prior to meeting deadline. Moreover, in this case the Department DID meet the deadline. The problem is that they want a “do-over” after the deadline.
The requirement to post an agenda seven days prior to the day of the meeting the agenda is for is important for transparency and accountability (SUPER IMPORTANT). It provides an opportunity to the public to view the agenda and decide if any issues they are interested in are scheduled for discussion or action. Posting the agenda six (or less) days before the meeting doesn’t deprive anyone of much. In fact, the Open Meetings Statute reads:
“the agenda shall be subject to change to include additional items including executive sessions or the deletion of items INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC BODY’S MEETING.”
29 Del. C. §10004(e)(2) (emphasis mine).
The chapter continues to read:
“When the agenda is not available as of the time of the initial posting of the public notice it shall be added to the notice AT LEAST 6 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF SAID MEETING, and the reasons for the delay in posting shall be briefly set forth on the agenda.”
29 Del. C. §10004(e)(5) (emphasis mine).
In the full context of section 10004, it doesn’t seem as if legislature intended the agenda posted seven days prior to the meeting deadline to be crucial for the purpose of ensuring transparency and accountability. You have to do it in seven days, unless you write in a note on the agenda about why you couldn’t do it before the seven days. Then you can do it six hours before the meeting. Oh Yeah, you can go into executive session without having to post it on the agenda, if you want.
Nevertheless, it is a law. So the appropriate course of legal action is to file a Complaint with the Attorney General’s office. I know you know this, because you recently (summer of 2016) filed a Complaint with the AG’s office because Gateway Lab School committed a procedural violation of section 10004. I agree with you. They violated both 29 Del. C. § 10004(b) AND 29 Del. C. § 10004(c)!
The AG’s office will decide what should be done if a violation is committed. I’m not sure what became of your Gateway Complaint. But I’m guessing there wasn’t much harm in what they did, because they posted how the board voted, by individual director in the very minutes you discovered their violation. The whole purpose of the vote taking place in the public meeting is so the public can see how each director voted. They disclosed that in their minutes. Your Complaint was moot. But I applaud you for exercising your right to engage in available legal recourse when you see a violation of law.
“Bottom line, I’m saying Godowsky didn’t even know about the change in formula until well AFTER the bills went out.” ~ Kevin Ohlandt
Kevin, this is irrelevant. The Secretary of Education gets to delegate the Certification of the Local Cost Per Student Expenditure. If you remember, 14 Del. C. § 509(d) reads:
“THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION shall annually calculate the local cost per student expended by each school district… THE DEPARTMENT shall annually certify each local district’s local cost per student expenditure by September 1 of each year.”
Words are very important in statutes. It doesn’t say “The Secretary of Education shall.” That means Blowman, Godowsky or anyone in the Department (who had the responsibility to do so, as understood within the Department) could make the calculation AND issue the LCPS Certification.
“He got the heat for it so he changed his mind so sue him (oh, they are). But seriously, why NOW for the lawsuit? Why not wait until AFTER the election? Or wait until the General Assembly comes back so everyone can work it out?” ~ Kevin Ohlandt
Yes. The Secretary of Education has to be included in the lawsuit because the issue involves his department’s actions. The lawsuit must be filed now because the charter schools and the parents of the children suing don’t want to get the millions of dollars they feel are unjustly kept from their kids after it’s too late to utilize it during this school year.
“If the DOE was the ONLY one to figure out the formula, why sue Christina? The DOE determined which exclusions would have been allowable (for the 16-17 school year). They also approved any prior exclusions that Christina submitted. I can’t think of ANY scenario where Christina is at fault here.” ~ Kevin Ohlandt
Christina has to be sued because they are holding on to money over which they might not have a legal right to be holding. Not necessarily because they are at fault (although discovery may reveal that they are somehow liable), but because they have legal title over something they may not have equitable title over.
Kevin, when you filled out your 2016 Delaware Capital School District Board of Education Questionnaire, you answered the following question the following way:
10. What are your views on allocating education funding in your district so that the money follows the child?
“I am in support of this if it is done correctly and the funds truly follow the child. We need to be mindful that these funds would go specifically towards additional support and not towards capital or district costs, but true academic support for the child in need” ~Kevin Ohlandt
That’s why these schools are suing. They think that Christina and the DOE are not doing it correctly. Think of the impossible position you are putting the charter schools in this lawsuit with your rhetorical questions. Who you say is at fault, doesn’t have the money that the charter schools say belongs to them. And who has the money, you say has no fault. Suppose a homeless man steals your most valuable possession and gives it to another man who has no reason to believe it is stolen. You find out what happens and I say, “hey, Kev. You’re screwed buddy. The homeless guy doesn’t have a penny to his name and the guy who has your property did nothing wrong. He merely accepted a gift.” It doesn’t sound all that fair in that context, right?
LikeLike
Good points John, but the determining factor will be if my possession the homeless guy stole from me belonged to me in the first place. As you cited what I wrote in the Capital questionnaire, I indicated the part about “capital and district costs”. If Christina sets up a program specific to their district, that is not in place in the charters they send money to, should the charters get their share of that? I don’t believe they should. If, from what I heard from many NCS parents when this started over a month ago, that NCS parents supported the referendum for Christina earlier this year, they were supporting certain funds going towards certain things. The guy the homeless guy (the DOE) gave the gift too (Christina) would want to hold onto that gift because they knew the referendum results were certified by the Dept. of Elections. The people voted, and Christina won (not by a huge margin, but a win nonetheless). The people who the gift originally belonged to should have known this. While it is an analogy, I would say the most important “possession” would be the students, not the money that follows the student.
LikeLike
I just want to clear up a little misinformation that John Doe is offering. He writes “Oh Yeah, you can go into executive session without having to post it on the agenda, if you want.” Technically not true. Based on previously AG opinions going back years, school boards are really required to post a statement on their agendas such as this “The board reserves the right to vote to enter into executive session during the meeting.” But, no one really goes after that when a school board fails to include such a statement – because we all know it’s a procedural error and while the AG may find for the complainant there really is no way to mitigate it. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
So here’s the problem that the charter schools have that I’m sure you can appreciate based your last reply. Not just because you have common sense, but because you value transparency and accountability. You value it so much that you filed a Complaint with the AG citing a violation of a rule meant to insure transparency, despite the fact that the transparency was still achieved by another mechanism. THE CHARTERS HAVE HAD NO TRANSPARENCY WHATSOEVER regarding those district specific costs.
Here’s CSD’s CFO’s blatant admission to the News Journal that the charters have had no transparency in respect to the fifth category exclusions:
“[The charter schools] call me and they ask: can you explain to me what’s in this category of district specific exclusions. I refer them back to the Department of Education. They get frustrated with that because the Department of Education in the past has said to them, well you need to ask the district.” ~ Robert Silber
Yet another reason for the charters to ask the Court for help. If no one will give them the information needed to make sure certain students aren’t being inadequately funded, a lawsuit will give them the discovery tools to get that information.
The analysis of who the possession belongs to has never been transparent as it should be.
LikeLike
If the Department is the one that approved the exclusions, then I believe they would be legally bind to provide those exclusions. Could Silber have provided those exclusions? Sure. Is he legally obligated to? I would tend to doubt that. If an entity relies (partly) on funding from an apparatus (the district) but those funds are sent through another apparatus (the state), the state should be the ones to filter what they are getting and what they aren’t based on what they approve. Of that I’m sure we can agree. You have obviously done your homework on me, so I give you kudos for that. I have, however, filed a few complaints with the AG, so you may want to be a bit more specific! 😉
LikeLike
I was talking about the summer 2016 Complaint you filed against Gateway Lab for not moving out of executive session before taking the vote on the matter discussed in executive session. The reason for the vote in public is so the public is aware of which directors voted yes, which directors voted no, which directors were absent and which directors abstained. This information was made available in the meeting minutes they posted on their website. Therefore, the section 10004 violation was harmless. Yet you exercised your legal right to file a Complaint. I’m not criticizing you for that. I’m not criticizing you for anything. In fact if half the parents in Delaware were 1/20 as involved and engaged as you are, our education system would be the best in the country.
I’m just a little perplexed by the fact that you can’t understand how the charter schools would file a Complaint after this funding fiasco. Just one good reason to file is that they’ve been kept in the dark in regard to those exclusions for years now. Regardless of who’s at fault for that, don’t you think one positive outcome of the lawsuit is that those exclusions will be brought to light for everyone to see? Or don’t you care, so long as Christina gets to keep the money (whether legally entitled to it or not)?
You asked why the lawsuit has to be filed now, to which I mentioned the time sensitivity regarding funding for this year. Additionally, don’t you think that after eight or so years of being denied access to that exclusions information, it’s sort-of been long enough?
LikeLike
This is the part I don’t get though. If there are exclusions, to which the charters are well aware, why did it take them so long to figure it out? I know they have been asking the DOE about them for years and years, but what was it about THIS year that the DOE finally took a look at it? Now you may laugh at this, but I always assumed the big-time charters (like NCS) said Boo and the DOE said Hoo. Was it because Blowman and Field-Rogers switched roles and Blowman used to be in charge of the charters that the situation was brought to light on the DOE’s end? Where the DOE took action at Greg Meece, Joanne Schlossberg and Stephen Dressel’s suggestion? That is the only thing that makes any possible sense to me. I knew the charters would do something, and I suspected the course of action they took to be what they would ultimately do. I just wish everything had been fully transparent from the get-go and the DOE wasn’t playing cagey with all this. That could have avoided a lot of what has gone down since. It is rare that there are positive outcomes in a lawsuit except for the winner.
LikeLike
Have you ever heard about confirmation bias? It’s what keeps intelligent people believing in mediums and faith healers. The facts you sometimes cite as support against a charter school’s or charter schools’ position(s) is sometimes more supportive to their position than damaging.
You know that the DOE has been ignoring charter school requests for exclusion information for years, but your problem is with what kind of surreptitious goings-on triggered a change causing the DOE to “finally look at it.” Then you suggest that Meece and company must have used their undue influence with DOE to make them so quickly (about 8 years) look into the matter?! Sounds insane when put that way, right?
You know what is fishy? How can the executive branch of a state government do exactly what legislature has empowered them to do through the legislative process mandated by the Delaware Constitution, by the statutory deadline to do so, later change their timely constitutional Certification, by writing a letter to legislature after the statute date? Oh! And they express in the letter that they are only changing their Certification, because of political pressure, but next year, they really mean it! From what’s going on, I’d say that Adrzejewski and Silber are the ones that I would want lobbying on my behalf.
LikeLike
Yeah, but here’s the kicker John. You cited the part of title 14, which is the same in both paragraph 408 and paragraph 509. As part of that, the department comes up with the amount minus this minus that and so on. Part of that minus part is from the Secretary of Education… “minus any other local expenditures deemed by the Secretary of Education to be inappropriate for inclusion for the purpose of this chapter.” So, once upon a time in Delaware, a Secretary of Education signed off on those inclusions. That’s the big chief saying “those exclusions are appropriate.” Where the DOE made their fatal mistake with all this was taking out the exclusions and not having the current Secretary sign off on excluding those exclusions. Therefore, the DOE went OVER the Secretary’s authority in taking out the exclusions without his knowledge. And then they sent the charter bills out. Godowsky found out AFTER they sent them out the exclusions were taken out. Just because there was a different Secretary that signed off on them to begin with doesn’t change the power of that signature to begin with. Can we chalk this up to severe incompetence at the DOE? Absolutely! But that is the point I am making with Godowsky. Lord knows he and I don’t agree on much, but in this issue, naming him in the suit is somewhat foolish. Without his blessing to change the exclusion amounts in the charter bills, the Finance area of the DOE made a foolish mistake. Is that the charter’s fault? Probably not. I don’t know how much pressure any of them may have been putting on the DOE to change the amount of exclusions. But at the end of the day, Blowman or whoever is in charge in that area should have gone to Godowsky. Or, Godowsky was lying about not knowing before the charter bills went out to the districts. But I would tend to doubt that. He wasn’t included on any of the emails. In fact, if you read my article with the Kowalko information he obtained from the DOE, Godowsky doesn’t even appear on any emails until September 9th. Granted, he obviously knew about it by then, but I believe the evidence would suggest Godowsky’s claim he wasn’t aware of this change. Why would the finance dept. of the DOE, knowing this would most likely cause a major uproar, not notify the Secretary of Education? That seems, once again, very foolish. Good luck with the lawsuit!
To read the emails, please go here: https://exceptionaldelaware.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/greg-meece-kendall-massett-and-bill-manning-how-the-lawsuit-against-christina-and-the-delaware-doe-happened/
LikeLike
And actually, Gateway had their minutes wrong and changed it after I filed the complaint. That is a key difference. And that FOIA complaint hasn’t been released yet, so how is that you know about it?
LikeLike
I was going by the Minutes you posted in the blog post regarding your filing the Complaint.
Kevin, you’re missing the entire point that the September deadline was met by the DDOE as required by statute. Also, you seem to think that the Actual Secretary cannot delegate to his staff to do things on his behalf.
“Therefore, the DOE went OVER the Secretary’s authority in taking out the exclusions without his knowledge. And then they sent the charter bills out.” ~Kevin Ohlandt
Taking out the exclusion?! Is that how you see it? Kevin, every year the Districts have to present the desired exclusions for that year and every year “The Secretary” has to deem whether or not they are appropriate for exclusion from the LCPS calculation. It’s not that once the Secretary allows an exclusion it is automatically excluded for subsequent years until they are “taken out” by another or the same secretary.
“But at the end of the day, Blowman or whoever is in charge in that area should have gone to Godowsky.” ~Kevin Ohlandt
WAIT!!! How about Godowsky not knowing that there was a September 1 deadline for him to get these exclusions approved so the Department can issue the Certification. Why wasn’t Godowsky asking, “hey where the hell are those exclusion requests from the districts so I can deem them appropriate or inappropriate?!”
Are you saying Godowsky gave a standing order that Christina’s exclusions were to be approved when submitted? Are you saying that Blowman and the Department were wrong in actually looking at the exclusions and deeming some inappropriate for inclusion for “the purpose of the act,” under the auspices of the Secretary? I mean that’s the only way that your scenario makes sense: Godowsky checked out of the process and before doing so, must have said, “whatever CSD wants for an exclusion, they get. I don’t need to see anything. Just issue the Certification by September 1.” And now he’s a victim of insubordinate employees, in your mind?
You just uncovered something HUGE! Godowsky gave the order to give the Certification without him having to even look at the exclusions submitted or even think about the LCPS until after September 1!
I was going to write about service of process and not leaving out potential parties in litigation to avoid having to amend your Complaint if discovery reveals another liable entity/individual in my response to your disapproval of Godowsky being a named defendant. But you just made me realize that there is no way he isn’t culpable for deciding to either give a standing order to approve all of CSD’s exclusions without question or delegating the exclusion approval to Blowman and that buckling under political pressure after Blowman does exactly as instructed and wanting to undo the Certification after the statute date.
LikeLike
Don’t try to twist this around John. You know exactly what you are doing here. I never said anything about Godowsky giving an order. It’s painfully obvious he wasn’t aware this exclusion process was even going on. That would be on Blowman, who was doing this. I don’t know if that was a system set up by Murpy, Lowery, or Woodruff, but there also haven’t been any changes to the formula per se, to my knowledge. And no, changing the exclusions is not the same thing as changing the formula, no matter how you try to slice that pie. This is all supposition on your part. State code doesn’t state “the secretary or his designated party” can do this in terms of okaying or not okaying exclusions. If Blowman or whomever chose not to bring any of this information to Godowsky, how would he even know it was going on? Until the proverbial shit hit the fan and it hit him like a ton of bricks. But answer me this: when was the last time, aside from this year, anyone at the DOE even questioned these exclusions, to your knowledge?
LikeLike
Who approved the exclusions in all the years prior to this year?
LikeLike
MAE:
It isn’t misinformation…here is that part of the statute again:
“the agenda shall be subject to change to include additional items including executive sessions or the deletion of items INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC BODY’S MEETING.”
29 Del. C. §10004(e)(2) (emphasis mine).
Therefore, if the board wants to go into an executive session that was not on the agenda (which arises at the time of the public body’s meeting) the board may do so. I’m not saying they can knowingly leave an executive session off the agenda at the time of posting. Just that they have the liberty to go into executive session during the meeting, even if it’s not on the agenda.
Please read the statute carefully several times, if you don’t understand this.
LikeLike
Yes, but those executive sessions have to be for a discernible purpose. It can’t, and shouldn’t be, for any item that is considered for public session.
LikeLike
Yes. But your missing the point. You file Complaints over untimely posting of agendas and critizize the 15 charter schools for filing a Complaint over untimely Certification of district LCPS expenditure.
See how you don’t take the plank out of your own eye?
LikeLike
Why can’t I reply to the actual questions anymore?
LikeLike
I’m confused…
LikeLike
“If Blowman or whomever chose not to bring any of this information to Godowsky, how would he even know it was going on?” ~ Kevin Ohlandt
Ummmm. How about because he’s the Secretary of Education and, as you say, the statute makes it his duty to make the determinations regarding the exclusions? Are you saying it’s not his responsibility to know what his job entails?
LikeLike
Why don’t you ask Godowsky himself. I can’t speak for him. You seem hellbent on determining me wrong on every facet of this lawsuit. Either you are privy to information I’m not or you are guesstimating on things you think happened. I’m not the one on the witness stand. I don’t know everything. How about you, with all your infinite knowledge, stop hiding behind a fake alias and step up and be your own person!
LikeLike
“I can’t speak for him. You seem hellbent on determining me wrong on every facet of this lawsuit. Either you are privy to information I’m not or you are guesstimating on things you think happened. ” ~ Kevin Ohlandt
I’m not privy to anything that isn’t available to the public. As far as guesstimating goes, that’s all your original post is. However, my conclusions are a lot closer to applying logic to the facts and your conclusions seem to be pure guesses based on your relentless hatred of charter schools.
This fervor of yours is what would keep any sane person from revealing their identity when merely pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Who would want to be the target of your “dedication?”
Case in point: You’re only defending Godowsky, because he is on the other side of the “V” on this one. Think about it…you take legal recourse when charter schools violate transparency procedural rules (like Gateway Lab), but insist that charter schools are doing something wrong when they take legal recourse seeking transparency regarding about eight years of exclusions that determine about one third of their funding for their students. How does this inconsistent behavior not scream of unreasonableness and blind hatred?
For the record, any school-aged child(ren) that I may or may not have go or have gone to traditional district schools (not Christina School District). I’m just fascinated by your rationalizations and compartmentalizing of issues. You should start a church, since you base all your beliefs on the faithful doctrine that charter schools are the evil that is wrong with the world. I don’t think charter schools are good. I don’t think charter schools are bad. I do believe that all charter schools fall on a spectrum from fabulous to horrible and in between. Just like traditional district schools. Maybe that’s why I can’t drink the same Kool-Aid you chug on a daily basis.
LikeLike