PubDef.net - St. Louis' Best Political Blog

2 Boards, 2 Meetings, 1 District [Updated]

By Antonio D. French

Filed Monday, June 18, 2007 at 9:03 AM

On Tuesday, both boards of the St. Louis Public Schools will meet. The elected board meets in the morning for a closed meeting on legal matters. The appointed board meets in the evening for public comments. Presumably, the superintendent will be at both.

Oh, so this is what stability looks like.

Perhaps it's true that we anarchists here in St. Louis wouldn't even know a stable school district if we saw it. Because from my way of thinking, I would have thought that an organization with two dueling board of directors would be more chaotic, not less.

From my contaminated city resident logic, I would have thought a superintendent might find it more difficult to operate with two different bodies looking over her shoulder.

I would have voted that having a board appointed by politicians ADDS politics to the situation, not take it away. (Good thing I didn't get to vote.)

I would have thought it would have been a terrible idea to have a board made up of only three people, meaning no two of them can ever speak privately about education issues without violating the state Sunshine Law.

But obviously I would have been wrong. I mean, the editors at the Post-Dispatch feel so strongly that the state takeover was a positive thing, that I must have been mistaken.

Starting off with a no-bid contract to an out of town law firm doesn't just finally allow non-St. Louis businesses to get a taste of our half-billion dollar honey pot. That's just the cynic in me.

Finally being in control of a St. Louis government, without actually having to live here, isn't a Republican's midnight fantasy. Again, that's just that northside paranoia talking.

"The state knows best. The state knows best. The state knows best." I'll just have to keep saying those words over and over to myself and hope I will be cured of my distrustful, backwards way of thinking.

UPDATE: Jake Wagman of the Post-Dispatch observed on his blog today what we noted back in November of last year: St. Louis is now the only city in America than controls neither its police or its public schools.

"If Slay and O'Brien get their way," we wrote at the time, "it would put St. Louis City residents in the very unique position of being perhaps the only city population in America with no control over either its own police force or its own public schools."

Click here to read that November 2006 editorial.

Click here to read our January response to the Post's endorsement of St. Louis' remarkable disenfranchisement.

Labels: Editorial, Schools

Link to this story

45 Comments:

Anonymous said...

The idea that democracy rules is clearly outdated and not respected in big MO, especially in St Louis. The state is your father, your mother, your advisor, your confidant, your great hope,...

6/18/2007 9:48 AM

Quick question about the dueling school boards, not being snarky, but who can sign checks? I really don't know.

Those without check-signing authority will have a hard time convincing people that the non-check signers are the ones in control.

Doug Duckworth said...

The State can't manage itself. They will not do any better with the SLPS. Besides, I doubt rural republicans see the success of St. Louis as a priority, or in their best interest. The more people that move here, the less votes and jobs within their own districts. Why would they want to see us succeed?

6/18/2007 9:54 AM

State knows best? The majority of the new transitional school board is comprised of City residents appointed by City officials elected by City voters. So it seems locals know best.

6/18/2007 9:58 AM

Antonio D. French said...

Anonymous, one person is now in charge of St. Louis Public Schools. That person was selected by the governor and does not live in the City of St. Louis.

He is a nice enough fellow and, I believe, wants to do the right thing as he sees it.

But whatever he wants to do, he only needs the vote of one other person on the board to do it.

Don't fool yourself, Rick is the new czar of the city schools.

6/18/2007 10:39 AM

Star Jones said...

I blame Slay and Veronica O'Brien for their meddling that created this fiasco!If Slay ever runs again for political office (hopefully not)St. Louisians will remember his his destruction of SLPS and if St. Louisians are looking for insurance,they will know which State Farm agency to avoid like poison ivy!

6/18/2007 10:59 AM

People complained that Shrewsbury didn't operate his firm in the City. Ironic that an exurban McMansion developer is now in charge of the SLPS.

6/18/2007 11:16 AM

Antonio: Don't despair...

The problem with brilliantly conceived evil plots made by brilliant, evil people is that they must be carried out by lesser minions who very often prove too incompetent, selfish, greedy and opportunistic to make the plan succeed. Occasionally, the lesser minions even develop conscience and thwart the whole thing. Either way, the angels are always with the children.

6/18/2007 11:25 AM

kjoe said...

Antonio, I have been saying a lot of these same things for a long time. Blunt has appointed 3 people to the state board, as well as Ms Smith who was not allowed. Peter herschends has been there since Ashcroft appointed him in 1991, and the amount of money he provides for republican agendas is enormous. It is voucher city on that state board now.

There has been a terrible failure among professional educators in other parts of Missouri to pay attention to serious erosion of the foundations of support for public education from the state board, and it is likely to become worse.

I was very surprised at the judge's ruling, but his history seems to indicate he is a fair man. You would know more than I do about Gaines, but like the judge Callahan, he does have a history of fighting for protection of voters' rights.

Bourisaw seems a force to be reckoned with. At Fox, redneck opponents brought 23 charges against her---by the time they were done after she brought countercharges, all charges against her were dropped, and they paid her 3 years salary to go away.

She was hired to get info together and actually deal with Floyd Irons, and the pd---critical of boards which did not do that---criticized the action and people like McClellan still rail against her because of how she got the job.
The tone of criticism against her at the pd has eased since Bertelson announced she was stepping down---the editorial staff at the pd seems to be in some disarray of thir own.

After being recruited and supported by O'Brien, she had to step over one land mine after another---and now she has the two board thing to finesse.

Just another day at the office for her.

6/18/2007 12:17 PM

Ironic that the electeds have the closed meeting, while the appointeds welcome public comments.

6/18/2007 1:59 PM

"Starting off with a no-bid contract to an out of town law firm doesn't just finally allow non-St. Louis businesses to get a taste of our half-billion dollar honey pot."

Just about says it all with that sentence. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. But, that's what it is all about.

6/18/2007 2:10 PM

It was called to my attention that "something" posting under the name of Star Jones has made reference to my company name on this blog. It appears that "it" is suggesting people not do business with the Veronica and/or company.

I encourage the owner of this blog and those making such slanderous comments towards buisness consult with your attorney.

Thank you,

Veronica O'Brien
tsvmo@aol.com

6/18/2007 2:12 PM

sounds like star jones has been working with JC. Maybe Veronica should look up how he sued and won when people talked about his family.
After all that was the only way JC could pay to feed the family.

6/18/2007 2:15 PM

kojoe review your facts. bourisaw had charges against her with proof. the case was settle out of court when she show how evil she was and lied, video, recorded falsified documents.
she counter sued for sexual harassment when she knew she had lost. Try talking to the police and the people of Arnold. They ran her out of town.

6/18/2007 2:29 PM

I have talked to a lot of people from Arnold, including teachers from Fox.

Apparently different ones than you did.

I am sorry they lied to me.

6/18/2007 2:51 PM

Tom Leith said...

> On Tuesday, both boards of the
> St. Louis Public Schools will
> meet.

I have a legal/political question.

Have we got a Transitional School Board in charge of the St. Louis Public School District, or have we got a Transitional School District with a different identity?

As best I can tell, the latter is what we've got, and the St. Louis Public School District to which board members were elected no longer exists — it has been dissolved by the authority that created it, and replaced with an entirely new entity which may coincidentally bear the same name (or may not, I'm not sure).

So, how is it? Are there two boards or one board?

t

6/18/2007 2:58 PM

Tom,
I remember reading/hearing something about a Transitional "District" as opposed to a Transitional "Board". The Advisory Committee report (Dr. Danforth's report to Kent King) recommended a Transitional Board.

Does anybody else remember where that came from?

There is quite a difference isn't there?

Also, an Anon. way back asked about WHO SIGNS CHECKS? Good question! That would seem to be a big test of authority to me.

6/18/2007 3:46 PM

Tom,

Is it not the obligation of the District to serve the needs of the students/teachers/staff, allocate funds, texts and services? Is it not the duty of the Board to see that these needs are met?

If this is true, how does the appointed TransBoard interface with the ELECTED Board for the better running of the District?

W

6/18/2007 3:52 PM

kojoe just facts not talk.

6/18/2007 4:01 PM

I'm pretty sure the State Appointed board is the one that has the check signing authority now. The "elected" board will still serve supposedly as an "advisory board" to the "appointed board"...

I could have it wrong, but that's how I understand it.

OK everyone confused now?

6/18/2007 4:51 PM

Anonymous said...
kojoe just facts not talk.

6/18/2007 4:01 PM

Fox Schools Prepare for Holy War
Published the week of September 13-19, 2000
By Ray Hartmann
Published: September 13, 2000

This is the same Fox school board -- heretofore obscure -- that stumbled its way into big news in June by firing Superintendent Diana Bourisaw just months after extending her contract for three years and then changing its mind and trying to buy her out of it. After Bourisaw went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with charges of gender and religious discrimination, a media circus ensued, with public hearings at which district officials looked none too swift.

The board got clobbered, settling with Bourisaw for $373,000 (including $30,000 in legal fees), with the embarrassing footnotes that (a) it bounced the settlement check to her (as "account closed"); (b) Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon told the board his office is investigating it for alleged violations of state open-meetings law; (c) a group known as Fox-CAN (Fox Citizen Action Now) is circulating petitions calling for Auditor Claire McCaskill to jump into the fray; and (d) there's an awful lot of interest in the next school-board election.

lster--

Women News

Bourisaw Joins Coordinating Board of Education

Gov. Bob Holden has appointed Diana Bourisaw of Imperial to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education.

Bourisaw is a state supervisor for the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, overseeing state accreditation reviews and providing technical assistance for 37 urban, suburban and rural school districts. She served as superintendent of the Fox C-6 School District in Arnold from 1996-2000, and was area superintendent of the Sacramento City Unified School District in California from 1994-96.

Bourisaw holds bachelor's and master's degrees from Northeast Missouri State University (now Truman State University) and earned her doctorate at Iowa State University. Her term runs through June 27, 2006.

this part kind of jumped out at me---"overseeing state accreditation reviews and providing technical assistance for 37 urban, suburban and rural school districts."

Pat Robertson would take issue with Hartmann's article.

6/18/2007 5:12 PM

okay kjoewhere are the factst. are you a bourisaw fan. go write a song and sing it to someone that cares.

6/18/2007 6:40 PM

Yes, it should jump out at you. They say the gov was not fond of her and kicked her off the board. Apparently she keep trouble going on the board.

6/18/2007 6:43 PM

Same old anonymous bloggers, your attacks are getting boring.

6/18/2007 7:28 PM

I can no longer argue with the ironclad logic and cold hard verifiable facts of the anonymouses.

I was wrong. Bourisaw has had it easy the last year. Both boards should fire her.

One board could hire Creg Williams, and the other could hire Roberti.

6/18/2007 7:47 PM

Tom Leith asked---

I have a legal/political question.

Have we got a Transitional School Board in charge of the St. Louis Public School District, or have we got a Transitional School District with a different identity?

As best I can tell, the latter is what we've got, and the St. Louis Public School District to which board members were elected no longer exists — it has been dissolved by the authority that created it, and replaced with an entirely new entity which may coincidentally bear the same name (or may not, I'm not sure

This used to be the story---don't know if it has changed. It was from the slps in March-----

Missouri law gives the State Board of Education the authority to intervene in the governing of St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) by creating a “transitional school district.” The State Board did reinstitute the “transitional school district” in February. As a result of that State Board action, the District was to have a three-member advisory panel appointed by the mayor, the president of the Board of Aldermen, and our elected school board. If the District becomes unaccredited effective June 15, then the three-member board will become the governing body overseeing the school system. The member who would have been appointed by our elected school board would be replaced by someone selected by the governor.

What about the elected board?

The elected board will remain intact but will have no governing authority. School board elections will continue as required by law.

6/18/2007 8:22 PM

Election will continue. Just like the last election, who in their right mind would run? No one.
As for the check book the elected board would be fools to use the money. Sounds like jail time to me. Let us hope they go away or else it could be really difficult for them.

6/19/2007 12:34 AM

Bourisaw is toast. First the Arnold board, then the SLPS board and next the Sullivan board. In each case she has had a problem working with people. Yes it is true she was kicked off the state board. The SLPS board deserves to be gone for hiring her.

6/19/2007 12:37 AM

What is interesting is that there has only been two board members that have said the methods used were not working. Everyone seems to act like they are perfect and without fault. I bet these two get to sleep well since they owned up to the truth. That says a lot.
The Purdy crew looks like power hungry fools that make everthing abouth there future. Try learning something from these two. Now your superintendent has turned on you. Did not take her long at all.

6/19/2007 12:43 AM

Last several anonymouses (As if we don't know who it is!), try going to bed earlier and sober and you just might make sense. Stop accusing others of slandering you when that is all you ever do on this blog.

6/19/2007 8:10 AM

KJOE, thanks. The press release almost answers the question. It seems to me leaving the elected board intact and continuing to elect a "powerless" board for the indefinite future seems harmful to the goal of stability. Hmmmmmm.

t

6/19/2007 8:25 AM

Anonymous said...
Last several anonymouses (As if we don't know who it is!), try going to bed earlier and sober and you just might make sense. Stop accusing others of slandering you when that is all you ever do on this blog.

6/19/2007 8:10 AM

So nasty. How sad you are. May you find peace.

6/19/2007 9:16 AM

I wonder when the "Annointed" Board will start meeting on SLPS property instead of the Science Center. Do they have to pay to rent that space?

6/19/2007 9:54 AM

I cant believe there ins't outrage across this state regarding this take over. The same people singing the praise of the take over are the same ones that send their kids to the private schools and didn't vote in the last election. THE SCHOOL BOARD WAS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE if there were issues with a member remove that member in the proper way. This is just like a child pouting until he gets his way so I guess Slay was turning blue when the state gave the go ahead.

And the same guy that was turning blue got the school district taken away from the voters but now is crying give me my police department back (good luck with that) maybe if enough people turn blue we can get the state to side step the voters and take over the mayors office

6/19/2007 10:19 AM

Tom Leith said...
KJOE, thanks. The press release almost answers the question. It seems to me leaving the elected board intact and continuing to elect a "powerless" board for the indefinite future seems harmful to the goal of stability. Hmmmmmm.

I kind of disagree. If Blunt is not re-elected, and the unlikely coattails of Jay Nixon drag a few more democrats into legislature, there is no telling what they might decide to do.

The 6 year thing might be changed to 2---in jefferson City---a lot of times, it seems like they make up the rules as they go along.

The Danforth thing set up by Slay supposedly had no governing power---but it made recommendations which were followed----who thought up their recommendations in the first place seems to have been Blunt and Slay----

I do not know who would want to run for a board without power---but it will still be an advisory position---keeping an eye on those with the actual power.

6/19/2007 10:51 AM

kjoe, do you have a job or is your job to keep this blog going? because without you they would not have anything to talk anout.

6/19/2007 1:08 PM

I did write Antonio a short note, offering to dial it down, if he thought I was posting too much.

I have an unusual job situation---I have always been a musician, and I still play my saxophones and sometimes my piano and I sing----I work four hours a night doing karaoke and dance music, with my own instruments contributing to the din. For some reason, people who are decades younger than I am show up night after night.

This site has been so much fun, that I am going to send antonio a check--not a huge one--but if we all chip in it might help.

Sometimes I jam with Anita Rosamond---I asked one woman who looked a lot like Veronica if she followed the stories about the slps----she said, no, not very much. It was not Veronica.

I read all the stories about St. Louis needing a blues museum---they cannot even come to terms with Chuck and Ike---I guess someone will do it some day and leave them out.

I digress. I guess that is what my life is all about. Digressions.

6/19/2007 4:37 PM

> keeping an eye on those with
> the actual power.

I can't imagine this will be permitted, except in the same way the press keep an eye on those with the actual power. And I can't imagine their advice will have any more weight than the advice you, Doug, Jim, Star, Antionio, two anonymouses (or is that anonymi?) and I might get together and offer. It seems to me the elected board has no special status in the transitional district because they're the board of a different district — the one with no assets, staff, students, or funding. But its hard for me to tell just what the legal structure is.

t

6/19/2007 4:55 PM

I predict Sullivan will reach out to the old board---telling them that although he wishes the legal stuff would be dropped, he values their knowledge and deication, and hopes they will offer their input----------knowing that to him, their input would be pretty much the way tom described it.

6/19/2007 5:02 PM

Ariel said...

The transitional board has established a website:
www.sab-stl.com
It contains a link to a state document about the transitional board's duties and authority. Number 12 leapt out at me...

"12. The transitional school district in any city not within a county shall be dissolved on July 1, 2008, unless the state board determines, prior to that date, that it is necessary for the transitional district to continue to accomplish the purposes for which it was created. The state board of education may cause the termination of the transitional school district at any time upon a determination that the transitional district has accomplished the purposes for which it was established and is no longer needed. The state board of education may cause the reestablishment of the transitional school district at any time upon a determination that it is necessary for the transitional district to be reestablished to accomplish the purposes established in this section. The state board of education shall provide notice to the governor and general assembly of the termination or reestablishment of the transitional school district and the termination or reestablishment shall become effective thirty days following such determination..."

Note the July 1, 2008 termination date. I understand this to mean that the transitional district has authority for only about one year and then will be dissolved unless it is reestablished by the state board with notice given to the governor and general assembly.

This opens up a different perspective. How will the state board determine the status of the school district in July 2008? Will there be an accreditation review every year? What if the district meets accreditation criteria by next year? What if the general assembly does not agree that another reestablishment needs to take place?

It's all very vague, but it creates a lot of reason for the elected board to stay involved and active.

6/19/2007 10:52 PM

kjoe thanks for answering the question. Did not think you would. You sound like an okay fellow. You saw a woman that looked like Veronica O'Brien? Was she married? No matter what they say about Veronica O'Brien she sure is one good looking woman witha a great body. Keep your postings going.

6/19/2007 11:41 PM

Ariel, I have always seen a catch 22 with this legislation.

The 2006-2007 board lost their power---mainly because they could not prove the things done by their predecessors with Roberti and Williams were up to snuff. I do not know of anything the board which included downs and Jones had responsibility for being examined by the state.

So, if the 3 man board can prove that the 2006-2007 board made adequate progress, and get the schools reaccredited----which should be a primary goal----then they would lose their power.

So the best way for the 3 man board to keep their power is to continue to have things fall apart.

The legislation really is stupid---maybe that is why the elected board thinks they have a chance in court.

6/20/2007 1:30 AM

RE: "So the best way for the 3 man board to keep their power is to continue to have things fall apart."

This seems to be the general rule for nearly everything the government (federal, state and local) does these days. Set up boards, plans and programs to "deal" with some serious issue, but set up those things to perpetuate the problems so that those in power stay in power.

No Child Left Behind leaves behind the most needy children while proclaiming its concern for them. The city's use of urban renewal programs destroys blighted communities while proclaiming its concern for them. Why should it be any different for the state to proclaim its concern for the children of St. Louis and at the same time create conditions that will keep the schools in disarray?

I will say one positive thing. Roberti & Co. tried, Williams & Co. tried, Slay has tried for years...but the schools have never sunk to the level of disarray that was planned for them. The state had to resort to rule-changes and deception to disaccredit the district. There are problems in any urban district, but St. Louis has proven itself to be stronger than most. Bent but not broken, persecuted but not destroyed, I have every confidence my colleagues, students and I will not be crushed by this crew either.

What many do not seem to understand is that St. Louis teachers LOVE these children, and will find ways to help them, and the remarkable, resilient chidren of St. Louis will find ways to learn, no matter what stupid plans power-brokers put in place to tie our hands. Where there is LOVE, all things are possible.

What is sad is, what might we be capable of without these ignorant games?

6/20/2007 8:05 AM

There is a big elephant in the living room of the city of
St. Louis, regarding the school take over. Our city officials know the motivations for this state takeover and are complicit in this bid to control a hige pot of money from the Waltons. Yes, our school district is about to be owned by Walmart. The Walmart family has given billions to urban school districts across the nation. They are proponents of charter and privatization of schools, including universities. Indeed, they have their own fleet of charter schools that operate in various cities. It's all about the benjamin's; the city and ultimately the state wants to control that money. Once again Walmart uses it's money to change the landscape of some section of our country. The greed of our elected officials will be our country's downfall. Sadly this move is not about the kids. The kids lose again.

6/21/2007 12:05 PM

<< Home