Interesting story in the Denver Post today about Denver school board member Andrea Merida having received $5,000 over the past couple of months as a consultant to Andrew Romanoff’s campaign for U.S. Senate.
The story is sure to generate a lot of buzz, or as much as anything can generate in mid-July with Tom Tancredo stealing the political headlines. Some people will jump to the conclusion that Merida has been raising questions about the Michael Bennet-led refinancing of the Denver Public Schools pension debt because she was paid to do so.
Even though I disagree with Merida on a lot of issues, I’m sure this isn’t the case. Why? She seems to relish political slugfests, and would have raised these issues if she weren’t being paid. In fact, she and two board colleagues started their assault on the pension issue in March, and her first payment from Romanoff was in May.
UPDATE (original post continues after this paragraph). I have heard this morning from people on both sides of the pension issue — Romanoff and Bennet supporters alike. They take issue with what I wrote. All feel that Merida crossed a line here. And here’s what they said that has changed my mind. Although she first brought this up as a Romanoff partisan, but an unpaid one, she continued to press the pension issue after she went on Romanoff’s payroll. She should at the very least have revealed this so that the public and her colleagues could judge whether there was a conflict of interest involved. So I’m crossing out the line below that says she did not cross an ethical line. She may well have done so.
So yes, it smells a bit funny and feels unseemly, but in my mind does not cross an ethical line. It does make the Post look foolish for having run a guest column by Merida on Tuesday that criticized recent statements by Bennet and DPS board member Theresa Peña, Bennet’s unpaid campaign treasurer. Mike Booth’s excellent story in the Post today mans up and mentions the column. And to be fair, the whisper campaign about Merida’s financial ties to Romanoff began in the wake of her column. But still…
This incident is the latest sad piece of evidence that the Denver school board, which until recently had been less tainted by politics than most big-city districts, has devolved since last November’s election into just another urban school board. That’s the real, and depressing, lesson from this story.
Popularity: 50% [?]
I agree.
Depressing?
That’s it, alright.
“She should at the very least have revealed this so that the public and her colleagues could judge whether there was a conflict of interest involved.”
Now you’re probably going to tell me there is no tooth fairy, the Shroud of Turin is a fake, and we will never, ever place effective and credible members on the Denver school board to lead disadvantaged children into educational prosperity. Sigh, it was a nice dream while it lasted.
Here’s the latest reason why big city school boards should be eliminated. For more check out Matt Millers great article a few years back in the Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/01/first-kill-all-the-school-boards/6579/.
Big city school board members are often more focused on their political trajectories than leading/managing the district. While Merida crossed a major conflict of interest threshold, hardly “immaterial” by not disclosing her financial relationship with the Romanoff campaign, I believe Pena should not have agreed to be Bennet’s Treasurer as a sitting DPS Board member. Pena’s breach is much less serious because of her transparency and the volunteer nature of the job, but it is still a serious problem in terms of her role overseeing the district.
This all makes Denver look ever more like San Diego, LA and Detroit. It will interesting to see what the board does when CSAP scores come out in the next month. I suspect it will quickly devolve to partisan bickering over who’s to blame or praise rather than a deeper inquiry into what’s working or not.
I say it’s time to get serious about Denver mayoral control and yes I know it will require a constitutional change. Denver kids deserve better.
It is bizarre to believe that by placing the school district under mayoral control, that it will then be free of politics. Absolutely bizarre.
It would make more sense to make the position of superintendent an elected position.
Yesterday I drove past a vocal Romanoff supporter standing on a busy Colorado Blvd. street corner waving a large and seemingly heavy homemade sign declaring Romanoff the “peoples candidate.” I assumed this was in response to recent polls showing Bennet in the lead via polls and recent articles attributing Mr. Romanoff’s lack of funding. Clearly the Bennet campaign first salvo into negative politics, a stated response to the Romanoff ads playing on TV crossed my mind as well, frankly disappointed that two quality leaders in our state would go this route. I now wonder what this woman may be thinking, (It most assuredly was not Ms. Merida waving that sign), as am I, knowing that funds had gone to a “political consultant.” (Ms. Merida lists only these careers on her personal web site administrative assistant, internet marketing specialist and currently has a fashion-based internet marketing business. I wonder, was her attack on DPS refinancing a flag wave, “you who” to Mr. Romanoff, knowing that Ms. Kaplan, who has had his back from the get go, and who does not need $5,000.00 would lead that charge on questioning refinancing of pensions, (long after previously signing off on it), keeping the public from her. (Ms. Merida). My main concern is Mr. Romanoff as a candidate. . .who I have found to be very politically, as well as generally smart. . .wondering how he did not know this would come out and bite him, as it should. For a good meal I would have told him this was a crazy idea! Where was Ms. Kaplan in all this? She is smart, savvy and has demonstrated political strategy in past. . .she must have warned Mr. Romanoff. . . I just don’t get it!
Yet my favorite board of education story is the amount of money current Colorado congressman Jared Polis spent in his first state BOD race. The story goes he dropped a cool million of personal cash and his opponent less then $10,000.00. Mr. Polis won by, if my old memory is correct, by 150 votes! At least it was his own money!
And then there is Tom Tancredo! Mr. Hickenlooper can keep his cash in his pocket now and help with the State budget!
Perhaps Romanoff is the “people’s candidate” because he relates more to the concerns of average folks than does Bennet. The response by Bennet to Romanoff’s ad highlighting Bennet’s primary campaign funding sources, only highlights even more Bennet’s reliance and dependence on Wall St. bankers and other large corporations. Of more significance, is that Bennet and Tom Boasberg, current DPS superintendent, purchased derivatives as insurance for the district’s employee pension plan. The debt incurred by that purchase compelled that DPS merge into PERA as a separate unit. Independent evaluations calculate that the pension fund could become insolvent in the next 30 years. Denver and Colorado taxpayers would be stuck with the bill. But the bankers from whom the derivatives were bought have already made millions. Think maybe they used some their earnings as contributions to Bennet’s campaign?
Ms. Roll, we don’t have to “make the superintendent an elected position,” it is already supposed to be one according to the state constitution.
Seems that we have elected leaders focused on tasks that they weren’t elected to do. We didn’t elect them to use the board room as a campaign pulpit for their friend. I applaud those who haven’t and I am really disappointed by those who have. I respect anyone who chooses to serve, but not those who use a position of service to advance a personal agenda while disregarding the needs of the very people they are to serve. That’s not service, that’s selfish. They were elected to govern and to oversee the district for the good of our children. Do that. We desperately need that to be done with excellence. Oh, mayoral control is the answer…..maybe! We MIGHT end up with better representatives but it wouldn’t get the politics out of the board room; it may increase them. Mayoral control is not the silver bullet. You put a lot of confidence in the Mayor and that requires him or her to first embrace the priority of educating all children and then to appoint people who will do the job well and not simply appoint people to satisfy personal political debts. People, especially parents, need to pay attention and understand the importance of school board elections. Parents and community need to be educated about the role of the board and how important the board is in shaping policies and overseeing practices that can yield or prevent success for all children. As parents and as concerned community we can’t be asleep at the wheel when it comes to making decisions that impact OUR children. Until mayoral control or some other change happens, the election of board members to serve us and our children falls on us. We have to do a better job of electing the right people and holding them accountable once elected. If this behavior is disturbing to you by an elected board member, email boxes should be full and voicemails should be unable to receive additional messages. Elected leaders must hear from those who elected them. BOARD MEMBERS: Check your politics at the door and remember your elected purpose. Govern/oversee for the good of all children in DPS. If you can’t do that….do DPS parents and students a favor and resign. The DPS board room and service on the board isn’t about (shouldn’t be about) politics, it’s about a greater purpose: ensuring that all children in DPS are educated in a great school and prepared to seize great opportunities in college, career, and in life. We deserve better. Our children deserve better. No exceptions. My two cents.
Mr. Jones, Your two cents is worth a whole lot! That was well stated. But admonishing everyone as to our individual and collective responsibilities doesn’t guarantee that that anything will change.
Ms. Hansen: I am unfamiliar with the provision in the state constitution establishing the superintendent’s office as any elected one. Do you have the citation? Thank you.
Ever since Romanoff came to my school and responded to my questions with the ignorance of a political hack, his actions continue to confirm that he is anything but the people’s candidate. Bennet has his problems but he is less the slick pol than Romanoff.
While I agree the school board issue is huge, perhaps we just demote it to an advisory level of impact and pull as much of the politics out of it as possible.
JJ, if you believe that Romanoff is the slick candidate, you ought to learn what Bennet and his staff have been trying to conceal from public view. For example, in 2006 the Harvard Civil Rights Project issued a study, “Denver Public Schools: Resegregation, Latino Style.” The study revealed the increasing segregation and isolation of Latino students from white students. That’s important because other studies (e.g., Dr. Kenneth Clark’s study of effects of segregation on African American children) show that segregation harms the individual students being segregated and the greater community. Yet, despite the evidence cited in the Harvard study, Bennet and his successor as DPS superintendent, Tom Boasberg, ignored its existence and to date, still do so. How’s that for slick? Further, while I can’t speak to Romanoff’s visit to your school, it was his tour of the state’s schools that led directly to legislation he sponsored that brought some critical financial relief to existing school buildings, etc.
“Admonishing everyone as to our individual and collective responsibilities doesn’t guarantee that that anything will change.” Joanne you are right. Calling people to do the right thing yields change only if people respond; yet I think we must continue to admonish people. We must continue to educate people with the facts about how things should work, and what elected officials are responsible for, what we are responsible for and the importance of all of us being held accountable for the outcomes. When I ran for the DPS Board I was blown away by the lack of knowledge that people had about the functions and impacts of the Board. There were people who have been employees of DPS for years (decades) and they didn’t know how important the board was. Therefore their level of concern for who served on the board was not what it should have been. We have to continue to educate, because not everyone knows how it works or how it should work. We must continue to admonish people to take responsibility with the hope that folks will listen and get off the sidelines and begin to demand and drive the necessary improvements that often are hindered by people who just want to be politicians, not a servant to or representative of the people. I think even if we elect a Superintendent we still will have to deal with the same issues of an elected board. We have to do a better job of electing people who want to serve and lead for the right reasons; people focused on the purpose of the position for which they are seeking, not the potential for personal gain.
Mayoral control is no silver bullet but it can help. You can count on politics being part of urban education regardless of the structures but it would help to have governance structures that incentivise those in charge to be responsible for results. The current structure holds the superintendent responsible (often with unfair expectations hence the churn of sups with elected boards) but board members are mostly held harmless. Ever heard of a big urban school board member not getting reelected for a district’s poor performance?
School board members tend to win or lose for a myriad of other reasons rarely connected to their performance managing the district. Not to mention the fact school board members are unpaid volunteer jobs even though they manage budgets and systems often bigger and more complicated than a city. I applaud those that are able to find the time, energy and courage to do it well.
Few of us could be big urban school board members without a supportive well paid partner, a vow of poverty, a trust fund or a very community minded employer unless of course you see it as stepping stone to other paid political positions and are willing to make a short term sacrifice for long term gain.
Mayoral control in Chicago, NY and DC has contributed (along with good superintendents, senior staff and plans) to those districts making great progress in short order. Education becomes almost as important as snow removal, recall Bloomberg’s recent reelection. It will be interesting to follow the upcoming DC mayoral election, schools are likely to play a big role. There’s no doubt a bad mayor can lead to poor schools but when mayors are responsible for schools they tend to focus more on fixing then visiting them. Districts like Seattle, San Diego, LA and many others are often slowed down or stopped by dysfunctional school boards while the mayors are left to worry about the cops and parks.
What are you talking about Edward? What does this have to be with being a slick pol? The economic segregation report from Harvard now UCLA is a public report here http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/special-education/denver-public-schools-resegregation-latino-style/?searchterm=denver DPS didn’t and couldn’t hide it. Alan commissioned it when he was at Piton. It is true that no DPS sups have focused much on economic integration as a academic improvement strategy but not sure what that has to do with being a sneaky politician.
I agree with Van, Edward. Your comment is nonsensical and irrelevant to the topic at hand. Stop trying to change the subject. This is about the ethics of a school board member taking money from a political candidate and keeping it quiet while pursuing issues that she hopes make that candidate’s opponent look bad.
Briefly, on your pet topic, I commissioned the study you keep mentioning. It has very little if anything to do with Michael Bennet. It’s about DPS’ record since busing ended. Every superintendent since 1996 has all but ignored integration as a school reform strategy. And no one has tried to cover up the study, which actually didn’t have all that much new information in it, much to my disappointment.
The point is that Bennet’s ignorance of the report contributes to the increasing segregation of Latino students and that fact doesn’t become a topic of public discussion as it should be. At no time during his tenure as DPS superintendent, did he acknowledge this trend. As the superintendent of a major public school system, shouldn’t he know that and act upon it? He did not and, I believe, that reflects either upon his sense of ethics or his competence.
“Nonsensical” and “irrelevant” are terms used in arrogance when one fails to connect the dots, Mr. Gottlieb. If the topic is ethics, then Bennet’s conduct as superintendent is relevant, especially as it relates to the increasing segregation of Latino students or any group of students. I’m not changing the subject. This subject and others relating to Bennet’s tenure as superintendent have mostly been kept from public view except on the internet. I’m aware you commissioned the study and that makes me wonder why, if you know the results, you haven’t made the connection between this period of history and what occurred 40 years ago that culminated in the Keys case and the court order that forced the integration of DPS. Join the fight against further segregation!
Portion of state constitution, Art IX, including Lexis Nexis editorial comment, quoted here verbatim:
“Section 6. County superintendent of schools. There may be a county superintendent of schools in each county, whose term of office shall be four years, and whose duties, qualifications, and compensation shall be prescribed by law.
The provisions of section 8 of article XIV of this constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, the office of county superintendent of schools may be abolished by any county if the question of the abolishment of said office is first submitted, at a general election, to a vote of the qualified electors of said county and approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon. In any county so voting in favor of such abolishment, the office of county superintendent of schools and the term of office of any incumbent in said county shall terminate on June 30 following.”
Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 55. L. 64: Entire section amended, p. 840.
Editor’s note: Because there are currently no county superintendents of schools, the requirement that such person be elected was stricken in section 8 of article XIV as obsolete in senate concurrent resolution 00-005.”
——-
This was undoubtedly the result of Boards’ inability to “adequately control” elected superintendents so they began to hire them instead, we can see how well this is working out: politically-vested volunteers running multi-million-dollar public entities.
What’s interesting to me about this is that “someone” decided over time that there would be no filling of the offices — but “nobody” voted on abolishing the elected positions either. Eventually the mandate for them died as part of a “clean up” ballot provision, babies in the bathwater.
Would like you to know that I have admired your public commentary and (if I’m not mistaken?) appearances before the Board for several years and somewhat more secretly engaged in similar acts of inquiry and sometimes rather pointed critique, just fyi.
Eventually I brought suit against DPS questioning various constitutional & statutory issues including the extent to which school districts are “state educational institutions” for purposes of civil service constitutional text, citing the foregoing intended and unenforced limitation on the powers of Boards — but wouldn’t recommend it for anyone! nor pretend it is something I have not regretted ever since, as one of those “I can’t believe I did that” sorts of things.
It’s a little hard to say how many fewer wrinkles I’d have at this point if these sorts of forums had been available in 2001. Since media sources do not necessarily air all the facts, it was very difficult “back then” to find the community of alerted (alarmed?) citizens that comprises what I believe to be the only hope for the K-12+ populace. Even if there is disagreement on these pages — maybe especially if — at least our voices are no longer just so many falling trees in an abandoned forest.
PS, please, call me Kathy! I only married into that Hansen thing, I’m a Gates instead. (Alas, no — not “A” Gates, just “a Gates.”)
Mr. Vernon, please let me point out that an elected and **compensated** person acting under the statutes of the state would theoretically enjoy a term of office free of “interference” by the Board in regard to the operation and management of a school district. It is clear from other constitutional text that Board members are to control and select merely the “programs of instruction” pertinent to their respective districts.