Journal Blog

Cap-and-Trade: The Debate Matters

The following opinion piece by Al Weed of Public Policy Virginia was submitted by that organization. We are not sure it would make it in to The Journal, but thought it might be of interest to readers.

The Senate debate on the Lieberman-Warner bill to reduce carbon emissions was the first serious national recognition of the challenge of climate change.  Al Gore’s Nobel Prize notwithstanding, until an effort to change our energy culture through public policy is made, the US is not even in the game.  It is a sad statement on the readiness of our political leadership that the debate so quickly collapsed.

Sure, this is a bad bill that would have led us down a dead end, delaying a useful national – and global – response for years.  This is time we do not have.  Some have said, however, that this debate could have been a dress rehearsal for serious legislation in the next Congress.  Perhaps we can use elements of the shortened debate to shape truly effective public policy.

With one exception, the best answer to all the objections to cap-and-trade is “revenue neutral carbon fees.”  That exception is that the amount of carbon emitted in the US can be specifically quantified by the emission allowances envisioned in the bill.  Carbon fees probably cannot be tuned so finely.

Corporate executives, academics, economists and investors all agree that carbon fees levied at the source – mine head for coal or well head/ port of entry for petroleum – will be a more effective and equitable way to reduce carbon emissions by raising the cost of all fossil based energy.  It is only politicians, as recently remarked by George Will, who are afraid to have the inevitable rise in energy costs attributed to their taxes.

So, let’s use the debate to enlist public support for policies that will lower carbon emissions, provide long term investment security for renewable energy, and give the US a political and moral basis on which to build a claim to leadership in the global warming battle.

We’ve heard the arguments for cap-and trade: they are the only thing that is politically feasible; at least we are doing something; it worked with other airborne pollutants; and, they’re doing it in Europe.  Carbon taxes are, well, taxes aren’t they?

Suppose we look on carbon taxes not as taxes per se, but as tipping fees.  That is, as the cost of disposing the waste generated from fossil based energy production.  This carbon cost, as a greenhouse gas, we can no longer pass on to future generations.

So now, when objections to the provisions of cap-and-trade are raised, we can answer “carbon tipping fees.”

Cap and trade, so the debate goes, will create a big bureaucracy, with government trying to pick winners and losers.  Carbon tipping fees will permeate throughout our entire economy, letting the free market determine the winners and losers.

The Lieberman-Warner Bill will cost an excessive amount, and result in severe harm to certain segments of society.  Additionally, special interests will bring big bucks to bear on legislators to favor their supporters, either with loopholes or funding.  Carbon tipping fees can be structured to be revenue neutral and fund transitory relief for the pain of high energy costs created for impacted groups, much as food stamps help folks get over high food prices.  Rural dwellers, for example, with no mass transit to rely on, may need subsidies for a period of time.

Cap-and-trade, as a way to reduce carbon emissions, is extremely vulnerable to a down turn in energy costs.  If oil prices drop to $40/barrel who cares that a carbon allowance costs $20 per ton?  Think that can’t happen?  What happens when Iraqi oil comes back on line and world-wide energy costs have created a demand dampening recession?  Carbon tipping fees, however, can be structured to provide a steady increase in energy prices that will ensure a floor under costs that will make the long-term investments in renewable energy a gamble worth taking.

Cap-and-trade’s biggest weakness is that it fails to deal with the global problem of carbon emissions.  Sure, some technical advice would have been provided in the Third World, but pollution from India and China will likely continue unabated as long as they have free access to world markets for their exports.  Moreover, a serious decline in the use of fossil based fuel in the US and Western Europe will only make coal and oil cheaper for other countries, leading to even more overall carbon emissions.  A carbon tipping fee, however, can be added to every imported product based on its carbon component, ensuring that no industry selling to carbon controlling nations gets an advantage.  The revenue from these tipping tariffs, if you will, can be used to provide catch up technology to other nations.

Be sure that there are and will be many other objections raised to the Lieberman-Warner Bill.  As they come up, think “carbon tipping fees” and maybe in the next Congress we will see a willingness to embrace sensible legislation.

Al Weed is the Chairman of Public Policy Virginia.  His e-mail is aweed@ppvir.org.

School Board member Payne Kilbourn provided this information as part of his presentation on overcoming the local press at the School Board meeting on June 11.


King George County School Board Goals for 2006-2007

Accreditation

Continue to improve student achievement, maintain school accreditation and meet the No Child Left Behind AYP, Benchmarks.

Students
Maintain standards for academics, conduct and attendance while meeting the varied needs of all students.

Staff
Recruit, hire and retain a highly qualified staff.

Emphasize the importance of financial accountability, the value of seeking creative means to acquire additional revenue to support public funds and the necessity of finding ways to increase productivity without requiring additional funds.

Community
Assist families new to King George County Public Schools with their transition to the area and continue to enhance public opinion about King George County Public Schools.

Growth
Plan for the anticipated growth in the school division and the realignment of schools.

Planning for the Fiscal Year 10 Budget Cycle

Prepared by:  Payne Kilbourn
King George County School Board Representative
9 June 2008

Background.

     This is my second budget cycle as a member of the board.  Despite in depth review of the school’s needs and a well crafted budget presentation and supporting documents, particularly this last cycle, this board has been unsuccessful in convincing the community and the Board of Supervisors that more funding is required.  I feel this is predicated on a general lack of trust and faith, on the part of a significant number of county residents, in the school administration and the school board.  In short, our budget recommendations won’t get the job done.

Proposal.

     We are blessed with a large number of local residents who have skills, knowledge and experience in running businesses and organizations, and who are willing to volunteer their time to our schools and the community.

     I propose that we engage the community to independently evaluate the school division and to conduct a baseline assessment of school needs that can then be programmed to arrive at a fresh, baseline budget.

     This is supported by existing School policy.  The applicable policy sections are provided separately.  The two that are most appropriate are ACA, Community Involvement in Decision Making, which states, “The board shall involve citizens both as individual and as groups to act as advisors and resource people.”  ABD, Comprehensive Evaluation, offers areas of evaluation that can form the basis of areas for community advisory committees.

     This is a significant undertaking, and committee reports will need to be completed by mid-November of this year to support preparation of the FY10 proposed budget.

     Prior to the committees beginning their work, the school board should update its statement of School Board Goals.

Proposed Committees

1.  General.

     Large committees bring depth, but are ponderous.  Therefore, I recommend committees of 3.  Members should be county residents.  Each should have:
     (1) A parent with a child that has graduated from that school or from the school system.
     (2) A person who does not have children or a person with children who did not attend county schools (grandparents with children in schools are acceptable).
     (3) A person with business or organization management or executive experience.

     Each committee should have two advisors.  One, a teacher, and two, a principal or administrator.

2.  Committees.

     a.  Elementary Curriculum and Instructional Programs.
     b.  Middle School Curriculum and Instructional Programs.
     c.  High School Curriculum and Instruction Programs.
     d.  Special Education Curriculum and Instructional Programs.
     e.  School Personnel (teachers, principals and administrators).
     f.  Buildings, Equipment and Transportation.
     g.  Business Operations and Finances.
     h.  Operations of the School Board.

3.  Committee Tasks.

     a.  Curriculum and Instructional Programs.

    (1) Review and assess existing programs and support levels.
    (2) Identify additional programs and support levels.
    (3) Identify best practices and programs.

     b.  School Personnel (teachers, principals and administrators).
    (1) Assess existing teacher and staffing levels and turnover.
    (2) Identify excesses or shortfalls.
    (3) Evaluate compensation levels (salaries and benefits).

     c.  Buildings, Equipment and Transportation.

    (1) Inspect existing buildings and equipment and identify needs.
    (2) Evaluate the building and equipment operations and maintenance program.
    (3) Evaluate transportation requirements.
    (4) Recommend bus trip travel times and bus safety.

     d.  Business Operations and Finances.

    (1)  Audit current budgeting and accounting practices.
    (2)  Investigate and report on budget execution efficiency.
    (3)  Evaluate school cafeteria business operations.

     e.  Operations of the School Board.

    (1)  Audit School Board compliance with policy and statutory requirements.
    (2)  Recommend practices for improving oversight and management.
    (3)  Evaluate public relations and information distribution.

4.  Schedule.

    July 9:  Discuss Proposal.
                 Begin Soliciting Community Support.
    July 23: Approve Proposal.
                 Issue revised Board Goals.
    August 18: Seat Committees
    August, September, October:  Committees in Session
    November 12: Committees present reports.

Download selected_policies.pdf

Skip Davis weighs in on Paulsen's response

Skip Davis responds to the email exhange between Heath and Nancy Taylor and School Board Chairman Dennis Paulsen:

Heath and Nancy,

Let's put what the Chairman is saying into context. Paulsen claims the underlying reason for the litigation is accountability. He’s right. Accountability by the School Board and its administrators is nonexistent.
Paulsen claims the newly implemented Discipline committee was created with Virginia State School Boards Association guidelines, using other regional school models. He knows the other school models he was given and told to present were not current. Where did he get that data? Was it a trusted source? Did he know it was outdated when he presented it to the board? Does he still have complete confidence in the competence of his source?

Paulsen states their new discipline committee did nothing wrong. Huh? No School Board members were present at the committee hearing and they claim they have not reviewed the recording. How is he able to determine the committee followed procedure and did nothing wrong when a fourth grader can point out the policy violations on the available documents? Has Mr. Paulsen actually read SB policy or is he just repeating what he has been instructed to say?

Paulsen goes on to say how these policies were developed to bring a sense of order and stability to the school campus. Please!  If he was so concerned about stability or safety, he would have helped to adopt a policy that would reduce the number of fights in our schools. Check out YouTube. Our kids are able to have sex in the halls and bathrooms. Check out Myspace, Facebook, YouTube or just ask your kids.

What about the fact classrooms have been left unattended for entire blocks? I assume this is a safety hazard. Even when a class has a substitute, some students end up sending a kid to the hospital for stitches because instead of being taught, they are allowed to throw office supplies around the room until a child’s face is slashed?  I think that kid had to wake the sub to get a pass to the nurse. I wonder when she let them type her “statement” about what happened so they could get rid of the kid who threw the tape. Actually they could do the typing while she was at the hospital getting her face stitched up. They don’t need her to sign it. I guess she’s lucky the administration didn’t find her wandering the halls bleeding profusely without a hall pass, or they would have to type up another statement. Oh goodness.

Does Mr Paulsen know, at any time during a school day, anyone can walk into the school unnoticed?   Students are able to come and go as they please, and the administration can't figure out who is in school, who is not in school or who was late. Drive by anytime of the day and you will see kids wandering around in the parking lot, sitting in their cars or walking down the street. These are not bad kids, they are unsupervised kids.

Note: 2 of the administrators at KGHS have a Masters Degree in Supervision. We should be able to have some confidence in their ability to supervise. Thankfully Mr. Paulsen has complete confidence so we can all relax.

FYI Chairman Paulsen

The judge did not rule on the legality of the committee, he commented on the legality of it, and he also granted the injunction saving the other rulings for the case when it could be heard in full on its merits. He stated the injunction ruling by definition could very well determine the outcome of the entire case. Interesting how the pertinent information is always left out when the School Board makes public comments.

Newsflash:

The School board is not made up of 5 volunteers as Chairman Paulsen states. THEY ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS. They are accountable to the taxpayers.  The Administrators are not volunteers either, we pay them.

The School Board is supposed to supervise their administrators; it is what we elected them to do.

Simply put, the School Board is the boss and the Administration answers to them, not the other way around. The School Board needs to define and lay out their expectations for the Administration, then inspect what they expect. If the Administration fails to meet or exceed expectations, they should be removed and replaced. They have plenty of policies in place to throw out our kids. Surely they have a Code of Conduct for their employees. I would think misleading the board, not producing requested documents, violating school board policy, mismanaging money or presenting flawed illegal policies for approval would be referenced in this code. Maybe the citizens could form a 3 member committee, type up some statements, hold a hearing and clean house.

Finally Mr. Paulsen,  if you are going to keep repeating yourself, making statements to the press, copying your opinions in writing to Phyllis Cook and the Board of Supervisors regurgitating someone else’s excuses, please check your spelling. You are setting a bad example for our students and I’m sure the people directing your words would be embarrassed to see all their words mangled and misspelled. The rest of us just aren’t buying it.

Regards,
Skip Davis

Subject: Re: Return to reason and due process

The following is an email from Heath and Nancy Taylor to School Board Chairman Dennis Paulsen and his response:

Dennis,

As Chairman, you have the responsibility to move this board forward in
a positive direction.

One of the most important attributes of a functional organization is
to hold itself accountable for its actions, acknowledge mistakes,
learn from them, and move forward.  To move forward, the organization
must make those impacted by these actions whole to the maximum extent
possible.  In this case, the organization is an elected body and must
address those concerns of the citizens of King George,  who have
entrusted the board with governing and guiding education in King
George.

The Special Meeting of the School Board tonight provides the
opportunity for the King George County Schools to move in a positive
direction, rather than continue in this quagmire of a closed process
and arbitrary actions, where avoiding openness, covering mistakes,
omissions of fact, partial truths, accountability to no one, are the
norm, have a return to a transparency in all dealings and clarity of
purpose.

So Dennis, please consider the opportunity that one of the paths you
choose to take tonight holds for the future of our county schools in
setting a new direction.

Regards,

Nancy and Heath Taylor

Subject: Re: Return to reason and due process

Heath and Nancy,

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you, I have been out of town
on business for the past two weeks. The current litigation is still ongoing,
so I can't openly discuss the case specifics at this point.

I appreciated your input on the recent turn of events involving the
litigation against the Superintendant and School Board. It is interesting
that you brought up accountability, because I feel accountability is the
very underlying reason that we are in this litigation now. I can assure you
that this School Board's integrity and accountability is firmly intact and I
feel that we are addressing the concerns of all citizens of this county.
Everyone should be held accountable for one's actions. When a student is
found to violate the Student Code of Conduct, then the student has to be
held accountable and receive the appropriate punishment for that violation.
They read and sign the Code of Conduct at the beginning of each year,
holding themselves accountable to follow the rules and regualtions of that
Code or face the penalties for violation. That Code was developed to bring a
sense of order and stability to the school campus, and provide for a safe
environment for all of our children. If we were not to hold the students
accountable for their actions in accordance with the Code, then we would
have kaos in our schools.

The recent court injunction decision was based on the interruptation of
Virginia Law with regards to how the newly implemented Discipline Committee
was created, and was not decided by their execution of our policies and
procedures or whether due process was violated. The Discipline Committe was
created to the Virgina State School Boards Association guidelines and using
other regional school models. The Discipline Committe did nothing wrong in
executing the policies and procedures established by the School Board. As
with any new process or procedure, there is always room for improvement and
this School Board will continue to improve upon all of our policies and
procedures on a regular basis, as we have done for all of the years that I
have served the community as a member of the King George County School
Board.

Closed sessions, especially when dealing with litigation, are a necessary
part of the School Board meeting process and not a way to avoid openness. We
also meet in closed session to address personnel issues for the protection
of personal privacy. We follow the Virginai State School Law rules and
regulations of closed meetings to the letter. I take exception to your
statement that we are responsible for arbitrary actions, covering mistakes,
and ommisions of fact. Telling me that we are providing partial truths is
the same as saying we are all lying to the community. I would like to know
why you perceive the Board to be operating in this manner?

As I said before, we hold ourselves accountable to all the people King
George County. This board is made up of five King George citizens who have
volunteered their time to serve their community. There are no hidden agendas
on this team of professionals. This is a very positive and dynamic school
board, with a diverse range of opinions, thoughts and ideas. We treat each
other with respect and professional courtesy. I am very excited to be a part
of this team because i really feel that we will be able to make many
positive contributions to our county schools. Make no mistake, our purpose
as a board is crystal clear.

Thannks again for your input and don't hesitate to call me if have any
questions or concerns. Please know that my above comments are reflecting my
own opinions and thoughts and I am not speaking for the King George Count
School Board.

R,
Dennis Paulsen

Cody Davis responds to Mr. Thompson

Up until now, The Journal has not omitted the name of Linda and Skip Davis's son because he is a minor. We are sure many people know his name, King George being a small community. But we have left his name out of our coverage anyway.
Now Cody Davis has responded to David Thompson's letter referring to him as a "pothead."

Regarding a recent letter in the Freelance Star by Mr David Thompson

Mr. Thompson must be feeling a little bent about a couple of students being able to march across the stage at their senior graduation because of alleged bad judgment, even though they earned the right to do so.

Mr Thompson said “the potheads will still be on their mama’s couch playing video games while the rest of the class goes to college.” He called us potheads and numbskulls? Apparently Mr Thompson (a former K.G. school board member) can quote a Cheech and Chong movie but I wonder if he can quote the United States Constitution. Let’s refresh, shall we? The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the post-Civil War amendments, (known as the Reconstruction Amendments). It includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, among others. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868. It is perhaps the most significant structural change to the Constitution since the passage of the United States Bill of Rights. (The 1st 10 Amendments: Freedom of the press, religion, the right to bear arms, etc).

Under the fourteenth amendment all U.S citizens are afforded the right to Due Process (this includes high school students).

– Due process of law
The regular administration of the law, according to which no citizen may be denied his or her legal rights and all laws must conform to fundamental, accepted legal principles, as the right of the accused to confront his or her accusers.

Furthermore calling someone a “pothead” or “numbskull” is defamation, and is actionable. Google it Dude!

Cody Davis

Student A

2008 graduate, KGHS

Editor's Note: It has been awhile since I worked as a lawyer, but when I read Mr. Thompson's letter I was stunned that he would refer to the students as "potheads." Besides the fact that getting "caught in a car with marijuana" [Thompson's letter] does not necessarily make one a "pothead", we are still talking about a teenager, a minor. There has been no criminal conviction in Mr. Davis's case and The Journal has already pointed out the flaws in the process that the School Board Discipline Committee followed.

Mr. Davis may have a point when he calls the statement actionable. Public figures and elected officials choose to be high profile. The standard for defamation or libel for public figures and officials is that the statement must be not only untrue but must involve actual malice.

For private figures, and presumably for underage high school students, the standard is that the statement is untrue and that there has been negligence in making the statement.

Once again, the issue is not what the students were charged with. The issue is that the School Board's new policy establishing a Discipline Committee of school administrators does not appear to comply with state law. Regardless of the offense, the students are entitled to due process, and in our opinion, summoning students before a discipline committee that did not even exist when the summonses were mailed and then allowing unsigned statements from unnamed witnesses does not constitute due process.

I guess Cody Davis is learning early about the law and due process.

By the way, Mr. Thompson you are griping that the presence of these students at graduation sullied the event. Who allowed these students to graduate? That would be the very school administrators you thank in your letter.

A series of emails regarding the School Board Discipline Committee

Below is an email thread with questions posed to Superintendent Candace Brown by reporter Phyllis Cook beginning on the morning after the May 28 Circuit Court hearing for a preliminary injunction by Linda Davis against Brown and the School Board, which was granted by the Judge and required the School Board and Brown to re-admit Davis’s son to King George High School for the remainder of the school year, until the case alleging numerous due process violations regarding handling of a discipline incident could be subsequently heard in full and decided by the Circuit Court.

Formatting changes were made to reverse the order of the messages so they can be read from top to bottom, instead of bottom to top as typically appear in email threads.  In addition, electronic signature information, etc., was deleted.  The only editing of the actual messages was to replace the first name of Davis’s son with “XXXX”.
Since the student is a minor, this paper is not publishing his name or the details of the alleged violation of the Code of Conduct.

Under state law, all correspondence between public officials and anyone having to do with public business matters is defined as public documents, including email, unless otherwise exempt under strict exemptions in state law.  No exemptions apply that would keep this correspondence secret in this instance of the Superintendent corresponding with a newspaper reporter.

~ ~ ~

From: Phyllis Cook> 5/29/2008 12:43 PM

Dear Candace -

I'm hearing that parents of students who have had hearings before your Discipline Committee are being called.

In light of the Judge's comments and his ruling in yesterday's hearing, what are you contemplating to address any potential changes to the School Board policies and procedures, and your notification letter (recommendation of the Principal/Supt, alt ed svc available when suspension extended beyond 10 days, etc.) to deal with those students who have already received hearings?

Would double jeopardy apply if they were required to have a second hearing?

= = =

From: Candace Brown Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:23 AM
To: Phyllis Cook

I have been out of the area for several days, thus the delay in my response.
I think you have your answers from others by now.  If not, let me know.

= = =
From: Phyllis Cook> 6/3/2008 8:02 AM

Nope, only heard from Dennis and Payne and neither specifically addressed the questions I posed to you:

I'm hearing that parents of students who have had hearings before your Discipline Committee have been sent letters scheduling repeat hearings before the School Board tomorrow and have also been called and offered options for immediate readmission for their students to school and/or summer school/tutoring.

What are you currently contemplating to address any potential changes to the School Board policies and procedures, and your notification letter (recommendation of the Principal/Supt, alt ed svc available when suspension extended beyond 10 days, etc.) to deal with those students who have already received hearings? 
Would double jeopardy apply if they were required to have a second hearing?

= = =

From: Candace Brown Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:55 AM
To: Phyllis Cook

The School Board will make a decision as to how they plan to proceed.  Mr. Lacy states that double jeopardy does not apply as these are not legal proceedings - they are administrative proceedings.

= = =

From: Phyllis Cook> 6/3/2008 1:45 PM

These questions have to do with actions by you or other administrators since the last SB meeting on May 23:
1.  How many students subject to suspension or expulsion decisions by the Disc Com in April or May were readmitted to school on or after Friday, May 30, 2008?

2.  How many students are scheduled to appear before the School Board tomorrow for discipline hearing do-overs? 

= = =
[*** Note – Brown answered by typing her two answers in capitals into the body of the numbered questions from Cook]
From: Candace Brown Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 7:03 AM
To: Phyllis Cook

These questions have to do with actions by you or other administrators since the last SB meeting on May 23:
1.  How many students subject to suspension or expulsion decisions by the Disc Com in April or May were readmitted to school on or after Friday, May 30, 2008?

[Brown:] OTHER THAN XXXX DAVIS, WE HAVE ONE STUDENT WHO HAS RETURNED TO SCHOOL.

2.  How many students are scheduled to appear before the School Board tomorrow for discipline hearing do-overs? 
[Brown:]   NONE

= = =
From: Phyllis Cook> 6/9/2008 7:23 AM

Candace -
1.) Regarding your response to #1 that you typed in (below using caps):  It is not accurate. 
I have verification from their families that more than one student had been readmitted, in addition to the Davis boy. 
Also, the other senior that was involved in the Davis discipline incident graduated on Saturday.

I have some other questions: 
2.) When was Lacy retained by you to represent yourself and the School Board?
3.) How many do-over hearings had originally been scheduled for June 4 by letters from you and/or Lacy?
4.) Which members of the School Board have met with Lacy and when did those meetings occur?  Who else was present on each occasion?
5.) Which members of the School Board have personally spoken by telephone with Lacy and when did those conversations take place?

I hope you will continue to provide answers as you have done in the past during our long professional relationship.
If your answers are not forthcoming, I will request records under FOIA.   
But as it says within the FOIA law, it is not to be construed to discourage the free discussion by government officials or employees of public matters with the citizens of the Commonwealth.
As you know, the affairs of government are not intended to be conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government.

Thank you. 
= = =

From: Candace Brown Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 8:59 AM
To: Phyllis Cook

I was only aware of two students (one being XXXX Davis) who returned to school.  I have checked with Todd and one additional student did return but not until the next Monday.  If you are asking about readmission but not attendance, all of the students, other than one, unless they graduated (or moved - one has gone to Maryland and one to, we believe, West Virginia) have been readmitted.

Pat Lacy was first contacted on May 15th.  He has had telephone conversations with Mr. Paulsen but I am not sure of the dates other than May 23rd.  He also had a conversation with Mrs. Pardee on May 28th.  I do not know if any of the others have talked with him.

Three hearings, plus XXXX Davis, were originally scheduled for June 4th for students who had appeared before the discipline committee.  One additional letter was given to a parent but the parent declined the hearing.

= = =
From: Phyllis Cook> 6/10/2008 10:21 AM

So - a School Board meeting was scheduled for June 4 and four do-over hearings were scheduled.
When and why were those hearings cancelled? 

= = =
From: Candace Brown Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:32 AM
To: Phyllis Cook

Hearings were canceled on June 3 at the recommendation of counsel.

= = =

From: Phyllis Cook> 6/11/2008 2:29 PM

Candace -

So - the June 4 do-over hearings were scheduled by you on advice of counsel on May 29. 
And then, as you responded below, all of the do-over hearings for June 4 were canceled by you on advice of counsel on June 3.

With the School Board being jerked back and forth by conflicting advice from the attorney about holding re-hearings, it seems imperative that the School Board might feel compelled to meet directly with its attorney to discuss what his next advice is to the School Board regarding defense of the two cases.
Particularly since the consequences, for the most part, have been altered by you from the Disc Com's decisions, and the School Board itself has "clarified" a new  interpretation of one page of policy JGD/JGE and is ignoring the rest of it, along with completely ignoring Policy JGD-R/JGE-R.

Do you expect the School Board will meet directly with its attorney?

= = =

From: Candace Brown  Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:46 PM
To: Phyllis Cook

I ask that you read the letter sent to Mr. and Mrs. Davis dated April 15, 2008 that outlines the decision of the discipline committee and indicate where I have altered their decision other than what was ordered by the judge.  I believe the letter was submitted to the court so now is public information. 

= = =

From: Phyllis Cook> 06/11/08 15:46 PM

Candace - I'm not following.

Are you denying that a week after your April 15 letter you offered and subsequently provided tutoring to the Davis boy and a promise that he would walk and graduate?!
That was testified to in open court on May 28, the same day the Judge made his ruling. 

You also referred to that tutoring you provided in your April 22 letter to the Davis family, which is Plaintiff's Court Exhibit #8 in the case file in the Clerk's office.  There are also numerous emails from Pat Nealon to Mrs. Davis (prior to the Judge's ruling) scheduling the tutoring sessions.

= = =

From: Candace Brown Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:43 PM
To: pcook@crosslink.net

Please remember that I was not present at the hearing. Information coming from that hearing indicated he was given the option of going to summer school, as this is the first year we are hosting summer school, for make-up credit.  This is indicated in the follow-up hearing letter that went out under my name as Mr. Roberts was out of the office for several days. To my knowledge other options were not discussed.  Mrs. Hock typically meets with parents after the hearing to discuss any educational options.  I became involved because Mrs. Davis requested a meeting with me and Mrs. Hock.  Again, typically, I am not part of these meetings.  Mrs. Davis was given a number of options, three I believe for him to meet the requirements he needed to graduate.  These were the same options given to the other senior.  He was never denied participation in graduation by the committee.  The committee stated it would be determined at a later date.  He needed to meet all of the requirements before he could participate.  He, as well as the other senior, met those requirements and both were slated for practice, etc. prior to the ruling on the injunction. 

= = =

Candace -
I know you listened to the tape of the Disc Com hearing, because you previously told me that. 
And you also documented that fact to Mrs. Davis in your April 22 letter to her, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit #8.
I have also listened to it.

Phyllis Cook
= = =

Payne Kilbourn's statement at the June 11 School Board meeting

STATEMENT – Payne Kilbourn, Member, King George County School Board
11 June 2008
I asked the board to add this topic for discussion. It has the provocative title: Overcoming the Local Press to Honestly Inform the County Citizens of the State of the Schools. So some explanation is in order.
Overcoming something means moving past an obstacle or barrier that is an impediment to an objective. The objective of this school board is to provide the level of funding that promotes high quality education for all students. Countless reports and studies agree that, as Alan Gropman wrote in the June 2008 National Defense magazine, “high quality education is absolutely critical to national security.”
This board and the administration are clear that the current level of funding is insufficient for high quality education. I won’t go into detail, because the basis for this claim has been discussed and explained by the administration and the board in the last budget preparation cycle. However, I will say for those who believe that you can’t fix things by throwing money at them, that, all things being equal, I agree. The problem is that the current level of funding is unequal to the basic task at hand.
I personally experienced the hollow military of the mid to late 70’s. It was precipitated by years of defense appropriations that didn’t match rising costs (even though the dollar amount went up every year), resulting in a continuing downward spiral in the capability and performance of the military. It showed that even the most committed leadership and greatest quest for finding efficiencies could not remedy the downward trend. The military wasn’t on the path to recovery until there was a very large increase in defense funding beginning in the early 80’s, and it took five years or more to undo the damage. I believe that is about where our school system is today.
This is my second budget cycle as a member of the board. Despite in depth review of the school’s needs and a well crafted budget presentation and supporting documents, particularly this last cycle, this board has been unsuccessful in convincing the community and the Board of Supervisors that more funding is required.
Before I outline my suggestions for a means for greater success in the next budget cycle, or perhaps even for seeking additional funds for this year’s school session, I want to give you my views on the main reason for our failure.
We failed to overcome the reporting and editorial writing of the King George Journal. Last year, on a personal level, I tried to publicly describe through factual analysis the shortcomings of the level of expenditure. The Journal response was contrarian and discrediting. I spent over an hour with the Journal publisher and
editor and presented the analysis and addressed their views. There was no re-examination.
This year, the board restructured the budget to improve transparency and understanding, and to better couple needs with budget requests, by laying out a base budget and justification for other needs to reach the requisite level of school quality. Throughout the board’s budget deliberations, the Journal did not paint an accurate picture of the budget and its basis. “Other needs” were described as a wish list. The cause of current year budget shortfalls was reported as indicative of mismanagement of funds, even as malfeasance, and was used to cast suspicion on the proposed budget. The Journal stressed the return of unexecuted funds in past years as further indication of a budget that was bloated and mismanaged. The board discussed the relative significance of the amounts, noted the factors affecting budget execution, and put the amounts in context by describing the amount of funds returned by other county branches last year; the Journal report of this only reiterated the unspent school funds from previous years and ignored the rest.
The Journal is the paper of record for this county. It has unrivaled power to influence our fellow citizens. It has used its position to spread its opinion that our school funding is, if not excessive, at least overly generous; its opinion that school funds are mismanaged; its opinion that the budget is poorly executed. These three opinions won’t necessarily be found in a single article. But it is clear to me that the totality of the Journal’s issues stress these three opinions.
Imagine, if you will, that during budget preparation the Journal had advocated for increased school spending based on the needs identified by the administration and based on the arguments and discussions of the board. It would have changed the dynamic in the county and sent an entirely different message to our citizens. Instead, it chose to advocate minimal funding. It chose to stress worst-case tax impacts rather than examine the impact to education of not providing the resources the board recommended.
As Peter Kann noted in his 2006 article “The Power of the Press,” “At its best news informs and enlightens the citizens of a free society and thereby safeguards and strengthens our democracy. At its worst … --the media has potential to erode the public trust on which its own success depends and to corrode the democratic system of which it is so indispensably a part.”
Freedom of the press is an ironclad right. A newspaper can write whatever it wants. I expect that the Journal will continue to exercise its rights and advocate its opinions. This is a reality in King George County. So, as a board, together with the administration, it is incumbent on us, indeed, it is our duty, to find venues in addition to the paper of record for informing the county and for restoring public confidence in this board and the schools

Letter about the Silver-Honaker rezoning

Brian Madison mailed this letter to King George residents:

I am writing you because someone needs to speak out about the unfair, unprofessional actions of three county Supervisors at the May 20th meeting. I am referring to their denial of the request to rezone land at Routes 3 and 301 for the Shiloh Crossing Retail Center.
Supervisor Joe Grzeika, Dale Sisson and James Howard voted to deny the rezoning. James Mullen abstained because of a potential business conflict. Count Board Chairman Cedell Brooks, Jr. voted in favor of the project.
I don't feel that the three supervisors' actions voting against the project represented the opinions of the majority of taxpayers and voters in King George County. By their actions at the meeting, they seemed to have their own personal political agendas, rather than the best interest of county taxpayers, at stake. Here's way.
• King George County is actively seeking new retail development to take the tax burden off property owners. This project is a dream-come-true for our economic development.
• The county has been waiting for years to get more tax-producing commercial development at that corner, one of the busiest intersections in King George. Commercial development makes sense there.
• The applicant previously held a citizen-input meeting and spoke with several community organizations a about the project; the response was overwhelmingly favorable.
• The rezoning was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission.
• Supervisors Grzeika, Sission and Howard don't even represent the district where the project is located, its representative is Chairman Brooks, who voted in favor of the project.
• Neither county staff nor the applicant expected a decision on May 20. The purpose of the meeting was to present the plan and allow interested citizens to voice their opinions.
• At the public hearing that night, opinions were evenly divided.
Despite these facts, within minutes after the public hearing, Supervisors Grzeika, Sisson and Howard pushed through the vote and the rezoning was denied 3-1. County staff and the applicant were never given an opportunity to respond to any of the concerns raised by the public or the three dissenting supervisors.
Is this how we want our elected officials to treat companies interested in investing millions of dollars in King George County? Through their actions, we have lost a great opportunity to save gas, create much-needed local jobs and enjoy the convenience of shopping closer to home. When our tax bills go up, we'll know who to thank.
There's only one way to fix their problem. Either Superivsor Grzeika, Sission and Howard must ask that the project be reconsidered. By law, one of them must ask for tge reconsideration. This would not commit them to voting for the project, but it would give the county staff and the applicant time to address everyone's concerns. This is only fair. Please call, or email them., etc. etc.

Brian Madison
6071 Waugh Point Drive
King George

Compare and Contrast

The decision to hand over discipline hearings to a committee made up of administrators has spawned two lawsuits. But the minutes of the meeting where the policy was adopted are short on details of the discussion

" April 9, 2008 minutes:

Policy JGDlJGE - Student SuspensionlExpulsion
Discussion: The School Board discussed this policy. It was requested that on page 8
a bullet be added that states a decision in writing will be given to the parent.
Motion: Mrs. Allwine moved to approve Policy JGDlJGE as presented with the addition
of the added bullet referenced on page 8 regarding the written notice. Mrs. Parker
seconded. Mrs. Allwine, Mrs. Parker, Mr. Kilbourn, and Mr. Paulsen voted Aye.
Mrs. Pardee voted Nay. The motion passed.
Policy JGD-WJGE-R - Discipline Committee Procedures
Discussion: The School Board discussed this policy and asked for the following
changes: on page 1, last paragraph, add recommended consequences; and on page 2
the last paragraph add a time period of 30 days as to when the Board would be notified
of the decision.
Motion: Mrs. Allwine moved to approve Policy JGD-RIJGE-R as presented with the
two additions as noted on the front page recommended consequences and on the back
page within 30 days to be added to the policy. Mrs. Parker seconded. Mrs. Allwine,
Mrs. Parker, Mr. Kilbourn, and Mr. Paulsen voted Aye. Mrs. Pardee voted Nay. The
motion passed."

Here is a section of the article on the same meeting whick appeared in The Journal.

" At the meeting last week, on April 9, the proposed policies were brought back again.

Several revisions were requested by Pardee, with only some of them penciled in that night, on the fly.

Pardee wanted the process to include the opportunity for appeal to the School Board in all cases. 

But the other four members of the School Board, Dennis Paulsen, Renee Parker, Sherrie Allwine and Payne Kilbourn were not interested in adding that feature.

Instead, the final version calls for the chance to appeal to the Superintendent and the School Board only if the decision by the three-member discipline committee is not unanimous.

After discussing both policies and hearing the suggestions for changes, Paulsen had requested Brown to make the corrections as suggested and bring the policies back to the next meeting, as previously.

But Brown was under the gun to get the policies passed and the discipline committee established.

That’s because, as The Journal had learned, she had already mailed certified letters to the parents of students charged with discipline infractions.

Those letters provided notice of hearings two days later, on Friday, April 11, before a discipline committee that did not yet exist.

So, this time, Brown responded to Paulsen, saying, “You can approve it now with those additions to be made.” Paulsen called for motions."

For comparison here are sections of the minutes from prior meeting where the policy was also discussed.

February 13, 2008 School Board minutes:

Discipline Committee Mr. Paulsen asked for this to be on the Agenda to talk and think about some other avenues with regards to discipline hearing. All five of the School Board members attend the meetings, listen to offenses, and follow the Code of Conduct and make decisions. He feels that it is overall for all five Board members to be on a Disciplinary Committee. He said there are better qualified people to deal with student discipline at a lower level that the Board. He asked if the Board would like to implement a student Disciplinary Committee to hear student problems and implement a process to where those problems come to the Board after an appeal, or an expulsion. He asked the Board to think it about it. After discussion by the Board it was agreed that Mr. Paulsen would work with Dr. Brown to develop a plan and committee. This information will then be brought back to the other Board members for discussion.

March 12, 2008 School Board minutes:

Policy JGD/JGE – Student Suspension/Expulsion The Board discussed the appeal process, the timeline, and wording of bullet #5 and the paragraph immediately following the bullet on Page 7. They asked that the wording in this section be changed to reflect that the appeal must be received within 5 calendar days of the receipt of the written notice of the committee’s decision. It was also requested to change the wording in the last paragraph to read, requested by a member of the Board instead of requested by the Chairman. In addition, the Board discussed Short-Term Suspensions on Page 2 and questioned if the teacher should have the responsibility to suspend students in the absence of the Principal or Assistant Principal. It was the consensus of the Board to leave the wording as is on Page 2. No action was taken. This is to be returned at the next meeting.

Davis respond to David Thompson

Reference to: Letter printed in the Free Lance Star on 6-11-2008 by David Thompson.

Apparently David Thompson is a bit overzealous with a limited amount of information. He has obviously never met the kid he spoke ill about. The kid he spoke about has generously donated more time and talent to different KG County youth organizations than Mr. Thompson could count to (Reckon he learned that from the video games?). Exactly how disconnected is Mr. Thompson?  He must have served on the KG County School Board back when Horace rode to school on a horse.

As far as the message this sent to the Graduating seniors, I believe the seniors should all be informed and understand they have legal rights as citizens of this great country. They should be told there is no such thing as a governing body that is above the law. The standing School Board and especially the slippery School Administration would have you believe different, at least by their actions.

The KG School Board has definitely taken a beating on this issue and many more in the local press. He was right when he said "I guess it sells papers". What he failed to mention is the press will print anything newsworthy. This includes school board and Administration actions, good or bad. Unfortunately the current School Board and Administration haven't given the press anything to write about that would shed a good light on them. I suppose if they would just quit scurrying long enough to do right by the students and parents of King George County, they would finally receive some decent press.

Another interesting note, School Board member Payne Kilbourn stated at a Board meeting he was going to come up with a plan to overcome the press. I wonder if David Thompson, Ex-School Board Member and husband to one of the Superintendent’s employees is part of that plan. I would think the School Board could better spend their time reviewing failed and illegal policies than “Overcoming” the press (Just my opinion).

Skip Davis