By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, August 31, 2007 at 12:57 PM
In a press release sent out today, St. Louis Public Schools Superintendent Diana Bourisaw says CEO Rick Sullivan is still running the district. Labels: Media_Watch, Schools
"Rick Sullivan’s appointment to the Special Administrative Board remains in effect," said Bourisaw. "Reports indicating that Governor Blunt withdrew Mr. Sullivan’s appointment are unfounded. The district will continue with business as usual."
Unfounded? Not really.
Below is a copy of the letter, signed by Governor Matt Blunt, withdrawing Sullivan's nomination.
Click images to enlarge
The question that now remains is whether the Special Administrative Board will have to re-elect Sullivan as President of the Board following Blunt's expected re-appointment of the Chesterfield real estate developer in the coming days.
UPDATE: St. Louis Public Schools says it ain't so. The Post-Dispatch says it ain't so. Both are wrong.
Both Rick Sullivan and Derio Gambaro have indeed been withdrawn. This is a fact. Read the letter for yourself above.
Before the next meeting of the Special Administrative Board of St. Louis Public Schools (and after the Missouri Senate has adjourned again till January), Sullivan will most likely be re-appointed by Blunt through a letter sent to the Senate. This is the process.
In the meantime, Sullivan cannot legally vote, hire, fire, sign contracts, or anything else. No matter what PR people or the "Daily-Disappointment" says.
29 Comments:
No wonder the Post Dispatch continues to pretend this story did not happen, or if it did, it did not really mean anything.
On most issues, it is opposed to Governor Blunt. But after spending a year worshipping Mr. Slay and his continuing agenda to privatize education, they cannot say much about Sullivan, because they do not know what to think about him.
They dutifully demonized Diana Bourisaw, yet now, she seems supportive of, and supported by, the is he, or isn't he, CEO of the mighty takeover board they helped create. They must be puzzled about the lack of democrat senatorial sponsors for both Sullivan and Gambaro.
Giegerich cannot report the news---1. Blunt really did withdraw the names, 2. Blunt really did reappoint them, 3. Bourisaw apparently sent out a press release that is wrong, 4.no one really seems to know what will happen in January with regard to confirmation, 5. no one knows whether this will affect the judge in the elected board vs sab case, 6 it is not real clear just what Bourisaw was bragging about, to whom, for what reason in Jefferson City, 7. if it was anything about the proposed texas-can charter vs. the programs she thought were better in her letter to Kent King, they have not thought much about that.
Giegerich cannot follow up on the facts of the story broken by Antonio back on August 19th, because the PD editorial board, which seems every bit in as much disarray as the slps elected school board has been-----cannot tell him what to emphasize and avoid talking about. They have not yet figured it all out.
By the way, any word on the average daily attendance at slps for 2006-2007, compared to 2005-2006?
8/31/2007 4:43 PM
Diana Bourisaw has proven to the world a long time ago that she does not know what the truth looks like.
If Blunt reappoints Sullivan it will make Sullivan and Blunt look like fools. I can't imagine things will change much by Jan. Besides who is going to follow Sullivan's lead after it has been made clear he can't be approved by the senate. Also, something dramatic would have to happen to him appointed in Jan.
Why not just put someone on the SAB that may gain approval.
P.S. DID SOMEONE TRY READING BLUNT'S LETTER TO BOURISAW?
8/31/2007 5:12 PM
Good question kjoe what were the 1st days numbers?? I saw Sullivan on the news saying he didn't want to get hung up on numbers. Isn't that one of the big issues all boards in the past were hammered about by the Post and tv news?? I guess a Czar does not have to answer to any one and only puts out what he wants while the so-called new media in this town lets him do what ever he wants.
8/31/2007 5:48 PM
I find Veronica's response interesting, whether i agree with her or not. I am wondering what Joan Bray's reluctance would be tp sponsor Sullivan---and what Mayor Slay thinks about the whole thing.
One thing is for sure---if Veronica is right----then the PD is really missing a significant story---they will stumble in better late than never, i guess.
Blunt wrote a letter to Bourisaw? That sounds like some sort of story.
On the attendance numbers---I fault the pd more than sullivan. The first day numbers are not nearly as important as the average daily attendance over a significant period of time. They just make a better headline.
8/31/2007 6:43 PM
As a Journalism Teacher I have to say you hit a media homerun this time Mr. French. I wonder why
the Post-Dispatch can't find this
story?
8/31/2007 6:44 PM
The P-D reports that Sullivan and Gambaro remain in their positions.
Dr. Bourisaw, it turns out, was correct.
9/01/2007 3:04 PM
So, does the Post Dispatch offer any information regarding what will happen in January? Any insights about whether either one will suffer the same fate as Donayle Whitmore Smith? Any quotes from the senators who declined to sponsor them?
If Blunt did not have a reason to withdraw them---he would not have withdrawn them---even for 24 hours.
9/01/2007 4:09 PM
Mannies instead of Giegerich---that's ok---it is state politics.
It was comical to read.
"A spokeswoman for Gov. Matt Blunt said this afternoon that earlier accounts, generally on blogs, were inaccurate in their assertions that the governor had withdrawn the nominations"
what does generally on blogs mean? Mostly on blogs but in some newspapers? A bunch of other blogs besides pubdef.net?
"the two senators in question — Joan Bray and Jeff Smith – had declined to sponsor them."
God forbid they ask either senator why?
Weak, clumsy attempt at damage control over being scooped.
9/01/2007 4:40 PM
^ "The P-D reports that Sullivan and Gambaro remain in their positions. Dr. Bourisaw, it turns out, was correct."
No. The Post-Dispatch has it wrong.
Rick Sullivan and Derio Gambaro have been withdrawn. For the time being, neither hold positions on their respective boards. They have no authority to make decisions, cast votes, or execute orders.
The Governor must — and will— reappoint these two men for them to be able to do those things again. PubDef will be the first to post a copy of that re-appointment letter when the Governor sends it to the Senate, probably next week.
9/02/2007 8:16 AM
I would urge the SAB to not try to act upon anything right now unless it is by a 2-0 vote. (I guess our vice-president is in charge). Thank you state board of education and their lackeys in st. louis for all of this "stability".
9/02/2007 10:20 AM
I read the letter that was posted on this blog. It mentions the withdrawal of Sullivan as CEO of the transitional school district, but I didn't see any withdrawal of his appointment to the SAB.
What support do you have for the statement that Sullivan cannot hold his position on the SAB? Isn't the CEO the transitional school district of the and the member the SAB two separate positions?
9/02/2007 1:40 PM
Typo in my message. I meant to write "Isn't the CEO of the transitional school district and the member the SAB two separate positions?" That is what I get for writing very early in the morning.
9/02/2007 1:48 PM
No, Ernest, they are not separate. The Governor's appointee is the CEO. The Mayor and Pres. of Board of Aldermen each appoint an SAB member, but only the Governor appoints the CEO. So if the Governor withdraws his appointee, he withdraws the CEO. He can't appoint "just" a member as the statute is written.
9/02/2007 2:42 PM
on March 22, 2007:
As expected, the State Board of Education today revoked the accreditation of the St. Louis City School District. The action triggered the creation of a Transitional School Board. Under state law, the Governor appoints one of the three board members, who also serves as the district’s chief executive.
"Aren't the CEO of the transitional school district and the member (of)the SAB two separate positions?"
Nice try.
9/02/2007 2:43 PM
If your parsing of words would hold up----then state law would require his membership on the board to have been rejected by the senate.
9/02/2007 2:46 PM
I admit being confused by the July 20 entry "A 'CZAR' IS BORN". I had thought that the president of the board had been appointed the chief executive officer of the district. Apparently, it is the other way around.
9/02/2007 5:04 PM
Ernest,
CEO (presently former CEO) Sullivan became President with his own motion and vote (along with the vote of Melanie Adams) a couple of months ago at an SAB meeting. (Sorry, can't remember if Gaines voted yes or abstained or something)
There was an objection by Richard Gaines as to whether it was appropriate for Mr. Sullivan to present his own motions but it went nowhere. (Sullivan proceeded to make another motion right after)
If I read it correctly, this is where the "Czar is Born" thing originated. (the point some made was Sullivan was presenting himself to become all powerful...therefore, a Czar)
Does that sound about right everybody?
9/02/2007 5:30 PM
As I understand it, there are three things Sullivan is, because of the confusing nature of the law creating the sab.
Rick Sullivan was appointed member and ceo by the governor. The mayor can appoint a member, and so can the president of the board of aldermen, but neither of those members can be ceo. (they could, however, be elected board president).Another title was added to Sullivan's collection---president of the sab.
The board now has two members, who, as far as I know, face no hurdles to remain members. The board has a third member, who is ceo, and board president---whose status is in limbo. He will be reappointed ceo-member---it is not clear to me whether he will need to be re-elected as board president.
It is not clear to me, just how the duties are defined for 1. the ceo. 2. the board president. 3. the superintendent.
Sincew there is a board, with a president, then do Bourisaw's and Sullivan's ceo powers ever overlap?
I would be surprised if Callahan did anything to re-instate the elected board---but I would not be sh0ocked if he said---the law creating the sab is so badly written, with confusing definitions of powers, (and ill-defined legislative oversite), that it needs to be thrown out.
9/02/2007 7:22 PM
PubDef posts a letter from the governor withdrawing the names of Sullivan and Gambaro from consideration by the Senate. PubDef, but no one else, concludes that means that Sullivan can no longer serve.
The P-D, quoting the governor's office, notes that the governor says that Sullivan, who remains his interim nominee, will serve subject to Senate confirmation. Bourisaw says the same thing.
Purdy, Downs, their lawyers, and the other two members of the SAB don't seem to notice PubDef's point.
News from blogs? Not always, thanks.
9/03/2007 3:51 PM
"PubDef, but no one else, concludes that means that Sullivan can no longer serve."
I flipped a coin. Heads, I bang my head against a concrete wall for the next few minutes, tails I respond to what you said.
august 19th---
But as the state legislature reconvenes this week, there is growing speculation that Blunt will withdraw Sullivan from the CEO post to avoid his senate rejection and reappoint him again after the special session.
it happened.
aug 31---
The question that now remains is whether the Special Administrative Board will have to re-elect Sullivan as President of the Board following Blunt's expected re-appointment of the Chesterfield real estate developer in the coming days.
Antonio never, ever concluded that Sullivan can no longer serve. He has said all along that Blunt will probably reappoint him, in which case he can serve.
Now, if Sullivan can serve without being reappointed by Blunt, then Antonio would be wrong.
He has said there is a question about whether he would have to be re-elected president of the board---after being reappointed---Gaines opposed him---perhaps you are sure that there is no question about this.
If Bray had sponsored him, and the senate had confirmed him, there would be no story. That did not happen---it raised questions about what must happen in January, especially in light of what happened with D.W. Smith---so the story is exactly as Antonio has reported it---several days ahead of other media---which seems to be the REAL problem.
9/03/2007 5:13 PM
Anon at 3:51. If the governor has withdrawn the appointee's name...by what authority does Mr. Sullivan have the right to be CEO and president of the st. louis appointed school board?
(I understand the probable brief interruption of his authority)
9/03/2007 5:47 PM
The need to replace Sullivan. He is not doing a thing. The district has no respect for him. Who is Bourisaw to jump in and speak for Blunt. She needs to go so we can all have a fresh start.
9/04/2007 3:42 PM
The Post did not want the story to get out because this not look good for their side. They are finally finding out that it is not so easy to ba a board member with a screwed up superintendent in a screwed up system. The old board did more than the new one.
9/04/2007 3:45 PM
If you want good fair reporting then you will need more than one newspaper on town. This whole process makes us all look bad.
So what are we doing for the children that started school too early and can't attend due to buildings that are not air condtioned?
We need an SAB board and/or and elected board that is not full of "free agents".
What about the front page story today in the Post on education?
Lastly, I am worried about us all as we should be writing about this on the Post blog not Pubdef. Think the Post is worried?
9/04/2007 3:51 PM
Screw the post. The more they twist things either by one-sided reporting or no reporting at all (and the more people rely on other ways of getting news) the earlier their demise. The post can't die fast enough for me because they can't be trusted.
9/04/2007 7:32 PM
What do you mean by "free agents?"
9/04/2007 9:19 PM
SORRY I FORGOT TO SIGN THE ENTRY SPEAKING OF "FREE AGENTS".
"Free Agents" are those that are out for themselves. We need independent thinkers on a elected board but the agendas need to be the same.
Veronica
9/04/2007 11:24 PM
SORRY I FORGOT TO SIGN THE ENTRY SPEAKING OF "FREE AGENTS".
"Free Agents" are those that are out for themselves. We need independent thinkers on a elected board but the agendas need to be the same.
Veronica
9/04/2007 11:25 PM
seems clear here but who would let a little thing like the law get in the way of a political coup or the news -
Missouri Constitution
Article IV Section 51
APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS
Appointments, how made--failure to confirm, effect of.
Section 51. The appointment of all members of administrative boards and commissions and of all department and division heads, as provided by law, shall be made by the governor. All members of administrative boards and commissions, all department and division heads and all other officials appointed by the governor shall be made only by and with the advice and consent of the senate. The authority to act of any person whose appointment requires the advice and consent of the senate shall commence, if the senate is in session, upon receiving the advice and consent of the senate. If the senate is not in session, the authority to act shall commence immediately upon appointment by the governor but shall terminate if the advice and consent of the senate is not given within thirty days after the senate has convened in regular or special session. If the senate fails to give its advice and consent to any appointee, that person shall not be reappointed by the governor to the same office or position.
9/05/2007 3:52 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home