It appears that Mr. Brewster never tires of being wrong when it comes to Seattle Public Schools. He has been wrong about the District every time he has written about it before and he is wrong again.

For a guy who wants to project unity and stability on the school board to attract strong candidates for the superintendent job, Mr. Brewster sure does relish the opportunity to publicize any dis-unity and instability - even if he has to invent it. His article works at cross purposes to his stated intention.

His presentation of the facts is also wrong. The proposed Board-Superintendent Relationship Procedure is only a clarification of the current policy. Funny how he neglected to mention that the elements of this procedure are already in place. Here is the current policy: http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Policies/Board/series1000/1620.pdf

The existing policy already sets the boundaries. The new procedure mostly repeats them.

I'm not sure how Mr. Brewster could describe the two board members who "had given Supt. Maria Goodloe-Johnson considerable lattitude (sic)" as "stalwart". Most of the rest of us would describe them as "negligent". Mr. Brewster doesn't seem to remember how their hands-off style, complete with the refusal to perform any management oversight or enforce any policies worked out.

Of course, Mr. Brewster also wrote that Dr. Goodloe-Johnson "departed the post under a cloud". She didn't depart. She got thrown out on her ass by that "stalwart" majority that Mr. Brewster loved so well.

Leaving out pertinent facts is only one way that Mr. Brewster tells half-truths. He also indulges in the worst kind of loaded language.

"political maneuvering", "skirmish", and "board meddling" all appear in the first paragraph alone. There is also the "surprise" election, "deluging the staff", "aggressive independence", "unstable executive committee", and more. Every story from Mr. Brewster is like a class in propaganda and yellow journalism.

Then there are the things that Mr. Brewster simply invented in the absence of any facts:

"It's this kind of aggressive independence that apparently prompted Interim Supt. Susan Enfield to withdraw from the competition for a new permanent superintendent." Mr. Brewster has absolutely no evidence to support this contention and Dr. Enfield has specifically said it is not true. But it's too good a myth for Mr. Brewster to leave alone. It fits his pre-built frame of reference too well for any facts to dissuade him.

He invented the idea that the executive committee is unstable.

He invented the idea that the old board majority favored naming Dr. Enfield as the superintendent. They certainly had ample opportunity to do so, but they chose not to.

Other than himself, who is feeling the "buyer's remorse" that Mr. Brewster references? Mr. Brewster reports that the aggressively independent members of the board now form a majority. So who does he think is going to rein them in? A forceful minority, I suppose. That would be fine with Mr. Brewster. We all know that he is anti-democratic. He regards public processes as messy and a waste of time.

Finally, he writes "some of the bold steps taken in the past five years need to get digested" when, in truth, some of the steps taken in the past five years need to get reversed.

I'm guessing, David, that you have never regarded yourself as an object of ridicule. But this screed is so ridiculous that it approaches the Frank Blethen level.

Let's begin, please, with "proposed new procedural rules meant to limit board meddling with the next superintendent's prerogatives." Has it not sunk into your head yet that the superintendent answers to the ELECTED board, is supervised by the board, and is responsible to the board? Apparently not, because nothing you write on this subject appears to reflect this fact. What you call "meddling" is the board practicing the oversight that we elected it to practice. It is part of the American system of checks and balances.

Then we have "Riding on the outcome of this debate could be the willingness of good candidates to apply for the post." Oh? The only "good candidates" are those who insist on being top-down authoritarians, like (ptui!) Maria Goodloe-Johnson? Well speaking as one taxpayer and recent SPS parent, I would prefer that that type of "good candidate" give Seattle a very wide berth.

In other words, a "CEO type" is the very last type of school superintendent I and tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, of Seattleites are looking for, no matter how misty-eyed you might get at the thought. "Public servant" is more what I had in mind.

You state further: "It's this kind of aggressive independence that apparently prompted Interim Supt. Susan Enfield to withdraw from the competition for a new permanent superintendent."

Even your use of the lame disclaimer "apparently" doesn't help. This is the mantra that the reformies have spun ever since Enfield announced, as if "Omigod, if we exercise oversight, we'll never have a good superintendent again and WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE!"

I notice that we have not yet heard this from Enfield herself, and until we do, who can blame any one of us for taking it with at least a container load full of salt? If it is in fact the case, then we are well rid of Enfield, if she considers her self immune from, or somehow entitled to be insulated from, oversight by a board that we elected specifically to provide that oversight.

Then there's "some of whom such as the newly elected Sharon Peaslee have been making statements about wanting much more board say over normally delegated matters, including personnel decisions, and have been deluging the staff with requests for information."

Well DUH! We elected Sharon and Marty precisely to quiz Enfield, and her successor, about "personnel decisions." Or maybe you want the next super to hire more like Bree Dusseault, who mucked up the Ingraham situation so badly that it caused a parent revolt? You can bet I want the board to put thumbs down on any more Broadies and Gatesies. You can take it to the bank.

"Goodloe-Johnson, who departed the post under a cloud due to a minority-contracting scandal, had a leadership style that gave short shrift to community concerns and to those who differed with her."

No, you blockhead, it wasn't her "style." It was the SUBSTANCE of what she did. Do I have to go through the whole list? Is it something you can just brush off as "style?"

You're out of touch, David, or you're being willfully obtuse, or you're spinning this story like a spinning top, hoping that your readers will see you as some kind of "voice of reason." But this train has left the station, and you're still waiting for it.

There's more, to be sure, but I'll leave it to others.

As for DeBell, his re-election comes up in 2013, and if by now he doesn't know what the board's role is, maybe we'll elect him to a seat on the sidelines, like we did for Sundquist and Maier. Have a nice day.

David's comments are "right on". Michael DeBell is to be congratulated for trying to formulate appropriate governance policy for the Seattle School Board. The Board (as in any board/CEO situation)has specific responsibilities. The members are elected to establish policy and maintain fiscal integrity. Their ONE personnel responsibility is to hire and fire the Superintendent. Micromanaging is NOT the Board responsibility. If individual members feel the Superintendent has not complied with established policy or has failed in her/his duties or not responded to their concerns, the Superintendent can and should be replaced. We have only to look to other districts and to other organizations where boards have meddled in internal affairs to find a completely "messed up" system and confusion and dislocation for organizational employees (including teachers). Oversight is one thing; Board members pretending that they are mini-Superintendents is another. Hopefully, the new Board members and those who are not supportive of Michael's initiative will see their folly and realize that we must put our children first and stop the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in now.

Jon Bridge

Have never seen you at a board meeting or committee meeting David. Sorry, but hanging out with The Alliance for Education set (some of whom mistakenly think they are the school board) and having Crosscut subsist on handouts from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which also mistakenly seems to think it should own this district, appears to have given you a mistaken impression that you understand Seattle Public Schools.

In short, David, please stop writing opinion pieces based on your cocktail hour conversations and side conversations. It doesn't help your credibility as a journalist.

And it isn't just you. Crosscut's interns and your pals have at least a year's worth of factually incorrect stories to their "credit" on this site. At least The Seattle Times finally hired a reporter who does more than rewrite education press releases. You could follow suit, or perhaps find something else to write about. Either would be better than this dreck.

The responses from coolpapa, ivan and DistrictWatcher illustrate why we will never have an effective School District until we abolish the School Board and have the Superintendent report to the Mayor with oversight from the City Council. Why would any decent candidate want to work under the dysfunctional group we have managed to elect to the School Board? We are almost guaranteed that the next Superintendent will be from a underrepresented minority of some sort and their most important skill will be a very good grasp of politics.

Commenter Jon Bridge is apparently unaware that state law allows school boards to intervene on matters of principal hiring/firing.

In addition, Jon Bridge, a longtime advocate for public education in Seattle, burned most (all?)of his goodwill at the end of last year when he was exposed via a public disclosure request to be counseling Supt. Enfield that "teachers don't matter" when it comes to their opinion on policymaking such as bringing controversial Teach for America to Seattle. But apparently his advocacy does matter. Oh the hubris.

Furthermore, Jon Bridge, an Alliance for Education board member, refused to so much as meet with challengers in the last Seattle school board election. Apparently he had predetermined that since they didn't come from his business circle they were Bad News. No doubt this is why he is eager to limit any influence they may have as a member of the board.

Hahahaha, David_Smith, you make me laugh. Maria Goodloe-Johnson was EXACTLY the kind of superintendent you wanted, and she had EXACTLY the kind of board you wanted. How did that turn out for you?

Maybe graft, corruption, rigging of data, appointing and rewarding cronies, conflicts of interest, and closing perfectly functional schools is your cup of tea. Maybe you'd just rather have the Brewsters and Jon Bridges and Bill Gateses of the world run everything.

Well I wouldn't. We live in a democracy, what's left of it, and what you want is a technocratic corporate oligarchy. Not on my watch, bubba.

The superintendent should report to the mayor? I just about spit coffee through my nose at that one. I'd rather let my daughter date Ted Bundy than let Mike McGinn have anything to do with our public schools! Maybe you want to rethink that little pearl.

David Brewster wrote, "Some of the bold steps taken in the past five years need to get digested."

David, could you elaborate on what those bold steps are? The biggest I see was closing schools in 2009 only to badly need capacity only two years later in 2011. While that was certainly a bold step and does need to be digested, it hardly was a good move and will be very expensive to fix. Was there something else you meant by bold steps?

I am deeply saddened by this piece. It is full of innuendo and falsehoods. The biggest one is why Dr. Enfield is leaving. She has NEVER publicly stated why and indeed has said it wasn't about the election results. Unless Mr. Brewster is saying she told him otherwise, it's guesswork on his part and DeBell's.

Why Mr. Brewster continues to disparge the work of Directors Patu and Smith-Blum, I don't know. I, in fact, WAS at this meeting where this policy was discussed and it was a great example of 5 Board members working together to find the best collaborative wording. (And as CoolPapa said, this policy was NOT just invented; it's been in the policy manual for quite awhile.)

The district is slightly behind on looking for a new superintendent and you can thank Dr. Enfield for that. First she said she wouldn't participate in a superintendent search. Then the previous Board, to their credit, said they would wait for the election results so any new members could participate in the search. Then, Dr. Enfield waited more time and THEN said she was leaving. She certainly did take her time.

And as for Mr. Bridge, he is the one famously said wrote to Dr. Enfield in an e-mail, "Melissa and the teachers don't matter at all with the vast majority of voters." I don't really care what Mr. Bridge's opinion is of me but to dismiss our entire teaching corps as not having any value to public discourse is shameful.

I have no idea why Mr. Brewster would want to divide this Board up. The new members have been on the job about 3 months. I see no divide; I see people attempting to getting to know one another and work together as a team. That I never see anyone who writes for Crosscut at Board meetings or committee meetings (except me) would seem to tell you that the information put forth is second-hand.

As a long-time district watcher and activist, I think this district is on the cusp of something great. But it's busybody nonsense like this piece that make life difficult for Board and Superintendent alike. It's costly distractions like putting forth charter legislation when the voters have already said no THREE times.

Less stirring the pot, more solutions.

Mr. Jon Bridge wrote:

--
"Micromanaging is NOT the Board responsibility."
--

The State Auditor's office in repeated findings has stressed that "Management and Oversight" is the Board's responsibility. Apparently Mr. Bridge found repeated findings from the SAO to be"OK", for he now rails against a move toward accountability as "MICROMANAGING".

Susan Enfield continued the academic weakness plans of MGJ's strategic plan. The plans goals were not even close to being met. Enfield wanted a time extension, while she continued covering for a k-12 math disaster which the former CAO continued to support.

Enfield and "Her Board" ignored the requirements of state law WAC 181-79A-231 that required a careful review of all other options to "Teach for America" corps member before conditional certificates are requested.

Teach for America .... What an absurd plan for "Closing achievement gaps" yet the Board approved the Enfield request to authorize her to request conditional certificates for TFA corps members, while knowing full well that no "careful review" of all options for closing achievements gaps had taken place.

Apparently ignoring WAC 181-79A-231 would be viewed as a "good management practice" by Jon Bridges. The authorizations for conditional certification requests were supported on three separate occasions with the votes of 6 Board members DeBell, Smith-Blum, Martin-Morris, Carr, Maier, and Sundquist.

Looks like the voters .... may be moving for the kind of management the SAO is looking for .... as the voters replaced the two least able directors with two interested in Management.

After a decade of school district dysfunction, it's common sense that we would want increased scrutiny of district personnel and policies from board members. That's their job, and it's a job the board has not performed in the last four years.

Mr. Brewster seems to be advocating for more of the same dysfunction. For him and Jon Bridge the choice seems is a stark black and white between on the one hand, amateurish neighborhood activists intent on wreaking havoc or, on the other, cool, competent professionals who know what's best because, you know, they just do. They're one of us. Well it's the "professional" that have brought us all the dysfunction in the last ten years.

Let's give this "new majority" a chance to find a third way. We all might be surprised to learn they bear little resemblance to the stereotype the "professionals" are projecting. Maybe this new board will deliver the good sense and probity that has been so lacking from those who are so convinced they know better.

Ivan, I am advocating getting rid of the School Board not saying that I liked the previous one.

I also allude in my post to the fact that the next Superintendent will likely be from a minority. Maria Goodloe-Johnson was hired in a search in which School Board politics pretty well mandated from the outset that we were going to have an African American woman. Why would I like that?

Please read people's posts before making responses.

Well I oppose getting rid of the school board, and I will bet you that mine is the majority position, by far.

And the only ones who will continue suffer from decades of School Board ineptitude are the kids in the schools.

Now you're just talking nonsense. One whole hell of a lot of kids are getting a high quality education in Seattle Public Schools, and it's just plain fraudulent, and manifestly dishonest, to define an entire school system by its weakest links.

When you address the multiple layers of bureaucracy at the Stanford Center, I might take your criticism seriously. The elected school board structure of governance is hardly the most pressing issue we face.

The best reform would be to switch things around and have an elected superintendent and an appointed board.

An elected superintendent would assure us of four years of consistent leadership (better than the national urban average) and, if that leadership is approved, potentially eight years, twelve years, or more. That's stability.

Electing the superintendent would also put the accountability together with the responsibility. Right now the superintendent is not accountable to the public, only to the Board. The Board has the accountability to the public, but has little responsibility for the management of the District.

An appointed board would have no question of their role relative to an elected superintendent. They would be auditors, not leaders. They would only serve to confirm that the superintendent has complied with policies and the law. Ivan is right. The board has a duty to oversee management of the district, but when they fulfill that duty they get accused of micro-managing. Folks like Mr. Brewster and Mr. Bridge don't want the board to fulfill any role at all. They want a completely inert board, such as the one we had from 2008 - 2011. That board never took any steps to oversee management, but they never assured compliance with policy or law either.

David, your argument is specious. Having the MAYOR control schools would IMPROVE school board performance? Are you joking? Someone torn between myriad tasks and who puts his/her political appointees in place to run a system has NO shot of improving education for kids in the classroom in Seattle.

Not to mention that political appointees undermine the idea of democratic governance of public schools.

I'm sure the business set loves the idea of a mayor running the schools. All the easier to gather campaign $$$ and control the direction of a district.

The downtown chamber of commerce and the leadership of the Alliance for Education can float this idea all they want, but they will get squashed if they ever make a serious play to change the system. Because they live in a 1 percent vacuum and in Seattle, like it or leave it, the 99 percenters are onto their anti-democratic public school governance push.

No thanks and no way. Not in Seattle. Not now, not ever.

Funny how quick people are to point out bad teachers and bad school board directors but are so slow to point out bad principals and bad school district administrators. The management class appears completely free of any responsibility for outcomes, unless they are good. Mr. Brewster doesn't want the democratically elected Board who has ultimate responsibility for everything in the district to "micro-manage" the superintendent - a superintendent who only has authority which has been delegated to her by that board and which can be taken back by that board. Yet Mr. Brewster doesn't seem to mind when that superintendent tries to micro-manage principals and teachers.

I think Mr. Brewster's credibility would rise considerably if he would, just once, find some fault with an administrator. He could take a free shot at Dr. Goodloe-Johnson since she isn't even here anymore. Oddly, he seems to think that her halo is still intact.

Could Mr. Smith please provide a few examples of the school board's dysfunction? I just want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing.

The level of personal attacks on school subjects like this is extreme. It has the effect, perhaps desired, of making commenters who disagree with the major attackers reluctant to voice their views, since their motives are immediately subject to attack. These are important issues; make your points and go easy on the abuse!

Observation from one who simply observes: (1) the Seattle School Board seems more about politics than education for children and (2) why any reputable candidate would apply for the Superintendent's position is beyond me.

Mr. Brewster, tone down your own personal attacks.

I'm seeing a pattern here from Mr. Brewster. It appears he's using Tea Party or Mitch McConnell tactics on the new board, doing all he can to a) blame them for as much of the trouble that preceded them as possible, giving the old board he liked a free pass, and b) employing hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric to portray the new board members -all TWO of them - as irrational, reckless meddlers with no hope of ever succeeding in resolving problems currently facing the district. Is this not exactly the same tactic employed by those who hated Obama and promised from day one to "do everything [they] can to make sure he was a one-term president?

Brewster is deeming (and he hopes dooming) the two democratically elected board members as hopeless failures from day one, and it appears the Alliance's Jon Bridge is like-minded. Regardless of their goals, Brewster and his ilk are orchestrating a campaign to cripple the new board before it can accomplish anything, instead of accepting the reality that many in the public do not share their views on governance and desperately want this new board to function and succeed.

As a parent of two in SPS, I like what I've seen so far with this board, and I am happy to be rid of two board members who showed far too little critical thinking and independence during their tenures, resulting in terribly overcrowded schools, a failing math curriculum, and too much anti-teachers union scapegoating instead of acting responsibly and making tough decisions.

Put down the Tea Party/McConnell Playbook, Mr. Brewster, and give this Board a chance. Your ill-informed axe grinding portrays you as a disgruntled fool and a poor sport. You especially should value and respect the need for actual evidence in order to convict.

Questioning badly researched stories is abuse? Pointing out the backroom manueverings of civic players (Bridge) is abuse? Better that those with the power of publishing a "news" source or the power of hobnobbing with city leaders go unexamined? Nope.

You used to be a rebel Brewster. Remember the day when YOU were an activist who raised questions instead of spouting the Business Party Line?

Apparently not.

And talking about information found in a Freedom of Information Request (Jon Bridge dismissing the Seattle corps of teachers' opinions) is not abuse. It is the distribution of news. Pertinent (and troubling) News like you used to get excited about breaking back in the day.

Today this sort of Seattle education news is broken in only 3 places: KUOW, The Seattle Times and the SaveSeattleSchools blog. The state auditor, while not a news provider, has also had plenty of extremely critical things to say about the governance of the district under the board you liked so much and the "stewardship" of Maria Goodloe-Johnson.

The Jon Bridge story has been published and much-discussed on the SaveSeattleSchools blog in past months, FWIW.

Crosscut has contributed no breaking news during any of this cycle. Just some opinion pieces and a couple of factually wrong stories.

Don't confuse well-deserved criticism with abuse.

Mr. Brewster, this is an opinion piece but you personally attack the integrity of at least 3 School Board members without any proof.

You cannot have it both ways.

David, all you have done, ever since Marty McLaren and Sharon Peaslee were elected, is discredit them, demean them, dismiss them, and write them off as "activists" and "insurgents." You never once have given them credit for having connected enough with the voters to unseat the two entrenched incumbents whom you supported.

It might not be abusive in your mind, but it is pretty evident that your contempt, and lack of respect, for them is pretty thinly disguised.

I know Sharon and Marty, having talked about issues with them and having campaigned for them. They are not crazy-eyed bomb-throwing fanatics. They are smart, dedicated, committed people who wouldn't scare a pack or rabbits.

If you think (as most of us do) that these are important issues, suppose you sit down with them and have a nice long chat about education in Seattle Public Schools. Maybe then your attitude toward them, and their goals, might be different.

Personal attacks?

Mr. Brewster: You and your ilk are advocating positions which many parents believe, with good reason, will be harmful to the educations of our children. In short: You are messing with our kids, Mr. Brewster, and we don't like it. My kids have already been negatively affected by bad, overtly political decisions from the prior board.

Care to join me some evening for a session of Discovery Math with my two kids? Didn't think so.

There's a lot for parents to be upset at the prior board for, Mr. Brewster, and many of us are holding out hope that this board will emerge as truly balanced and representative of the community, which the last board wasn't. That you cannot restrain yourself from unwarranted criticisms based on scant, if any, evidence at this time reveals your own "personal" sour grapes.

In light of this, it's a bit ironic to complain about "personal attacks" in the extreme" isn't it?

Don't confuse personal attacks with land-mines you should know lie in the field you are choosing to plow through.

Wow. Everyone sounds so angry, pissed off, and self-righteous. With dialogue like this, what qualified candidate would even want to be Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools?

Oh come off it Gordon. Ever follow public school politics in any other big city? What goes on here is small potatoes indeed. New York? LA? Chicago? Philadelphia? DC? School politics in those cities are virtual war zones compared to here.

People are angry because public education is the life blood of our democracy and our society, and because these are our kids, and our grandkids, and our nieces and nephews, and our neighbors' kids. Surely you must understand that it's personal for those reasons, as it damn well ought to be.

I dunno, Ivan. My kids went to John Hay and they seem to have turned out ok so far. Why would you think that the issue isn't personal to everyone?

I generally take Seattle's online education chatter with a grain of salt, but this story, and the subsequent attaboy comment from Jon Bridge, finds me indignant, no downright angry, and thus this post.

I was not happy with the previous Seattle School board. I thought they overlooked and offered no guiding solutions for far too much of the bad business practices at SPS central administration. For that reason, I supported 2 challengers and became hands-on involved in one campaign. Which candidate is not germaine to this protest post, as this perspective is mine alone.

I helped this candidate track her outreach efforts...who she had spoken to, who she needed to schedule for coffee, etc. As with any smart candidate, she tried to meet not just with supporters but also with people of varying viewpoints on education, including those she knew were supporting the incumbent. There were 2 commonalities of the meetings: All were, by her accounts, civil/professional in tone. And at the core...everyone, despite their viewpoint, was agreeable to meet in the first place.

In the entire city, over many months, there were only 4 people who refused to meet. There was one staff member and one board member from LEV (no, eduwonks, Chris Korsmo was not an offending party). The other two were...and here is the point and lament of this long comment...David Brewster and Jon Bridge. In their cases, they never acknowledged multiple emails asking for an appointment. The political deep ice brushoff.

It is no problem that Brewster and Bridge to have a joint view of how the board should operate. It is fine that they apparently do not like the style of Smith-Blum, Patu, Peaslee and McLaren.

But for two well-known names in the community - and in Bridge's case specifically in the Seattle education community - to team up on Crosscut to push for a certain direction of SPS governance, while simultaneously privately slamming the door on any chance at a quiet dialogue over the direction of the district, appears to me to be a narrow-minded and frankly uncivil as well as unproductive mindset.

I don't fear for the direction of the district with 2 new board members. Governance in a democracy is messy and if we see some of the mess, oh well. We see it all the time in the mayor/council arena and still, Seattle moves along. What I do fear are civic leaders who appear not to engage in any private conversation (geez, I'm not even hoping for agreement) beyond their own echo chamber. Because that DOES indicate the potential for rocky, divisive times ahead for this district. And that is not just dismaying. It's devastating.

Bravo, Carolyn.

I'm disappointed in the dysfunction Mr. Brewster brings to this city. His writings are less than journalistic quality and seem to reflect the writings of the National Enquirer. It appears Mr. Brewster is hell bent on writing about interpersonal relationships than reporting actual news.

And Mr. Bridge is concerned about a "folly". Yes, I too remember a publically disclosed document. Frankly, I'm glad we have board members that are wanting information and wanting to look behind the curtain.

Perhaps we have public individuals (not board members) that insist on creating and perpetuating dysfunction.

The two new Board members were elected on a platform of asking tough questions and putting away the rubber stamp. Seattle voters are getting what they wanted from them. The staff will just have to get used to sharing information.

"It's this kind of aggressive independence that apparently prompted Interim Supt. Susan Enfield to withdraw from the competition for a new permanent superintendent."

Really? How do you know? What a pompous assumption.

"Buyer's remorse" - I haven't heard any. Think the air might be a little thin up there?

And I know you hate to hear this, but your teaching corps is less united over the direction of the District and Enfield's leadership than you highly-elevated people might think. Of course, we plain folk who reside on the first floor must be clueless.

What's the point of a superintendent? A county can run with an elected group of county commissioners, a city can run without a mayor and just an administrator. Why not give more power to the principles, the PTA, or the teachers. Putting the braintrust into one brain, the superintendent, isn't so smart. Unlike the Pope, the superintendent isn't infallible.

I think this column is relevant as you have a tendency to draw conclusions based less on merit than affiliation, Mr. Brewster: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sabrina-stevens-shupe/the-other-trouble-with-el_b_1215193.html

Oh, and one more thing...

Mr. Bridge notes that "If individual members feel the Superintendent has not complied with established policy or has failed in her/his duties or not responded to their concerns, the Superintendent can and should be replaced." It seems an innocuous or hypothetical rhetorical point, but it isn't. The truth is that the superintendent, like the previous superintendent, has not complied with established policy. Mr. Bridge is actually saying that Dr. Enfield should be fired. That's a long way from offering her a three-year contract.

" he had to accept Blum and Patu as the other members of the unstable executive committee."

Is this what DeBelle thinks? I seriously question my support of him in the presidency position then. Besides, why the hell is he playing this out in the press (or Crosscut in this case), while admonishing the other (new) board members not to do this?

"We are almost guaranteed that the next Superintendent will be from a underrepresented minority of some sort and will have few skills other than a very good grasp of politics"

Editor's Pick?!?! Oh puhleeze! Editor likes racist remarks?

District Watcher,

Is this the Jon Bridge document you spoke of?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73152808/Master-to-minion-Teachers-Don-t-Matter

"But for two well-known names in the community - and in Bridge's case specifically in the Seattle education community - to team up on Crosscut to push for a certain direction of SPS governance, while simultaneously privately slamming the door on any chance at a quiet dialogue over the direction of the district, appears to me to be a narrow-minded and frankly uncivil as well as unproductive mindset"

I completely agree. For this reason, I respectfully ask for the above individuals to take a look at their own style of dysfunction and it's impact on our community. Leave the new board alone and let them work things out between themselves. And remember..no one elected Alliance For Education or J. Bridges.

Usually Mr. Brewster does not participate in the comments following his postings. I wasn't sure if he even read them. With his comment on this one I learn that he has read at least a few of the comments. I'm curious about Mr. Brewster response to their content (as opposed to their tone).

Mr. Brewster, do you see any merit in the statements made about your column? Do you believe that they have any validity at all? I know that you don't have any interest in engaging with those who don't share your perspective, but do you have any interest in providing support to your own un-supported statements?

Your goal here appears to be manufacturing drama. Do you have a legitimate one? If so, then what?

Current school board policy no. 1620 says this about individual board members requests for information from staff:

"Individual Board members shall not request from the Superintendent or staff the preparation of a report or compilation of materials not readily available and involving significant staff time unless the majority of a committee or the Board by motion duly made and adopted shall have approved the preparation of the report or the compilation of material; provided that, the Superintendent may seek review of any such committee request from the Executive Committee before staff begins the work."

Michael DeBell's proposed rewrite of this policy, quoted by Mr. Denny, does not drastically amend this provision. However...

While it might be good policy to discourage board members from excessive or time-consuming requests of staff, it is not good policy to put such "shall not" provisions into board policies. The school district is subject to the public records act (RCW 42.56). If the staff are not forthcoming with information, all a board member has to do is submit, or ask someone else to submit, a public records request. If the board cannot operate on a level that avoids the need for such actions, then it is indeed dysfunctional. Putting "shall not"s into board policy solves nothing.

And please remember, this is what we said when adopting the PRA by initiative in 1972, by a vote of 72% to 28%:

"The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern."

That's called "oversight," and if our school board does not or cannot do it, the voters will keep electing board members who support appropriate accountability by the superintendent and district staff until they do do it.

Toby Thaler

Apology: I meant "Mr. Brewster."

Superintend For America. If you can make a teacher out of a college grad in a few months, add another month, and you have a newly minted superintendent at a bargain price.

Since then a kind of buyers' remorse has been setting in, leading to a desire to rein in the newcomers, to present a more stable picture to candidates for the job, and possibly even to get Enfield to reconsider.

This opinion? fact? piece needs clarification, Mr. Brewster. Is the "buyer's remorse" etc. your take on the situation? DeBell's? staff's? some section of the community?

Then you wrote: "DeBell and others tend to think things are in pretty good shape in the District." Who are "the others?" Board members? Community? Survey results? This is the type of vagueness that gets bloggers slammed. But this site is meant to be more journalism than blog...isn't it?

Also, Blum and Peaslee are not independent. They appear to be co-dependent. That has political ramifications. As with everything else in this piece, getting the details right matter.

I'm sorry, but if calling sleazy insider innuendo sleazy insider innuendo is a "personal attack" I plead guilty as charged.

I'll say this though - the corporate education "reform" cabal sure knows how to take their marching orders.

Ivan called it - Mr. Brewster has achieved Blethen-like depths, here.

Shameful (or is that shameless?)

Oh gawd, I see an ad on this page "High Quality Journalism is a Community Asset. Support Crosscut today!" LMFAO

Frankly, I think it is time to call for a BOYCOTT of those businesses that support this sleazy tabloid and rags like it. Seattle Times, Seattle Weekly - you all would spit in the eye of the electorate who want change in how the big boys try to run our childrens' schools. READ the Elway survey. 81% were happy with Seattle teachers. Roughly a third thought Enfield and the old board were acceptable.

so BACK OFF!

Here's another, more balanced perspective on the same matter.

http://www.saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2012/01/pendulum-problem.html

It's times like this when one wishes that dueling was still allowed. Hyphens at ten paces in Gas Works Park at dawn.

For folks who want to get to the heart of our governance problems in Seattle, I recommend "Who Rules America" by G. Wm. Domhoff, and especially his San Francisco essay: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/local/san_francisco.html It speaks strongly to our situation in Seattle. We are in many ways the S.F. of the north, half a century later.

Under policy 1620..#7, the policy states " Because the Board must act as a single entity, it is a good governance practice for individual Directors to avoid publically expressing opinions about staff members or the Superintendent's personnel decisions".

Director De Belltakes it upon himself to disclose a conversation between himself and the Interim. Director DeBell is quoted as stating the new board was "The Catalyst". Thus, speaking individually, not as a board in relations to the Interim's (staff member) decision.

Under this policy, director DeBell has violated his own policy. Shame on Mr. Brewster for attempting to discredit our elected officials. These type articles will be divisive, and will have reaching and long lasting consequences.

I suggest you stay out of dynamics-and focus on actual news.

By the way..Carolyn suggests you've never had a conversation with Director Peaslee.

Toby said it best. Thank you.

DeBell is a good man, and I have an enormous amount of respect for him. I hope he pulls it together. This type of public humiliation and intimidation of board members can not continue.

Here's an irony. This proposal would have had an easier time of passing if it had not received this ham-handed article of support from Mr. Brewster or the equally clumsy one in the Seattle Times. For folks who purport to give political advice, their statements were shockingly impolitic.

@ Arnold and the rest of readers:

I did not say Peaslee was the candidate shunned by Brewster and Bridge. I intentionally did not include the candidate's name - only that it was one of the challengers. My point remains valid and stronger - and does not embarass the candidate herself - if a name is witheld.

For all I know, this sort of freeze out tactic was applied to more than one campaign. Or maybe it was worse than an intentional freeze out. Perhaps ordinary people trying to make a difference don't even register to the civic-elite types who believe they are the annointed to chart the course of SPS.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Carolyn's comments have me thinking. Mr Brewster, Are you taking the time to speak to all board members? Or, are your articles based on hear-say?

I look forward to your response.