Arkansas Blog

Was this before or after they were sent?

Be interesting to see the ramifications around the state if this goes to court. Less interested in this particular case than the many other public bodies that routinely discuss business offline before bringing it back to the public eye.

The anti-Mitchell faction has enough resources to take this to trial.

ARK. BLOG: But what will they sue over? You generally sue under FOI over improper meetings to set aside official actions reached illegally. There's no action at issue here. No one has been fired. However, the question does raise anew the issue of outside-of-public-hearing communications between board members. Anybody who thinks this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time all over Arkansas needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

Disclaimer: I took this straight from KARK's website, so the mistakes are their's, not mine.

"KARK 4 News spoke with Dr. Mitchell several times by phone Saturday evening and at one point she was coming to our studios for an interview, but later her son called to tell us she could not make it because she in a conference. However, she did tell us her letter was not meant to be threatening, but a notice of what could come."

So now why are we debating her motives? We should be staying posted for the hearing this week.

"Be interesting to see the ramifications around the state if this goes to court."

Sorry Stump, but the "rest of the state"
cares little about this situation in Little Rock. We have our own school districts, our own school boards, our own problems to deal with that get scant notice from the central Arkansas media. For most of the state and all this hoopla in LR it is just simply ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Yes, the rest of the state is too preoccupied with a case of utmost importance: Taxpayer vs. Hog.

ARK BLOG: "Anybody who thinks this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time all over Arkansas needs to wake up and smell the coffee."

Surely Baker, Melanie, and Larry never speak privately.

It is of importance to the rest of the state, because Little Rock represents Arkansas to the world outside Arkansas. Sad, but true. Central High is likely the defining event for modern perceptions of our state. The clusterf*** there has cost us billions.

"It is of importance to the rest of the state, because Little Rock represents Arkansas to the world outside Arkansas"

Hardly. That 's wishful thinking. Central Arkansas is no longer the catalyst for Arkansas. It shifted long, long ago, to the chagrin of many in Central Arkansas. Can you say "Wal Mart"? There's the representative of Arkansas outside Arkansas.

Cato, You are wrong. No matter where in the world I have travelled the first thing people ask me when they find I am from Arkasnas is "do I know Central High?" That moment in history is the cruicible within which all of Arkansas is contained. WalMart is merely IN Arkansas, Central High IS Arkansas.

This is no surprise with Dr. Katherine Mitchell. She is an evil woman with a vendetta. She made it crystal clear that she voted against Dr. Brooks and has been working to undermine him since day one.

If anyone should resign its Dr. Mitchell. While she is the board President, she has no right to act as a dictator and make decisions on behalf of the board. She has no right to have letters delivered to Dr. Brook's administrators. To have the threatening letters sent out late Friday night (11pm) is extremely unprofessional. Dr. Mitchell is an embarrassment.

Dr. Mitchell seems to be motivated to screw up the LRSD in order to get back under federal control. Is she working with John Walker to boost his case? Dr. Mitchell is a witch who needs to go.

Daugherty says the letter takes no action, but the last paragraph of the letter starts "If you disagree with this action..." What action is to be disagreed with in 30 days if no action is taken? But if action is taken, then shouldn't the board have taken a vote?

Love My,

Not following your point regarding KARK story. Explain please. My big question about the letter is who is she referring to when using "we"? Did she speak with other board members about the letter prior to it being sent or did she act unilateraly?

Katherine Mitchell is evil, a witch even, Severus? Isn't that just a bit strong? Incompetent? Sure. Corrupted a bit by power? Perhaps. Motivated by personal vendettas over "respect?" Very, very likely. But evil? Come on. She hasn't killed or even maimed anyone, and I don't think that screwing Roy Brooks (and he's certainly helped her with that task by being unduly abrasive and combative) rises quite to the level of evil dictator.

I certainly favor pointing out that Mitchell has her flaws, as do all the others involved in both sides of this imbroglio. Cashiering the entire board might not be a bad idea as elections roll around over the next several years. But the personal insults are, quite frankly, pointless.

ARK. BLOG: Amen.

Janus, I'm not disputing the impact of Central on Arkansas's image. But it happened 50 years ago. Much has happened since then. Large portions of the world's population that could identify Central are now in their graves and most young people of the world don't even know what Arkansas is or where it is. But they do know Wal Mart and Bentonville and WM's impact on their own local areas....all over the planet. Most people in our country and on this planet can't identify George Wallace, Bull Connor, Rosie Parks, The Black Panthers, Malcom X, George Lincoln Rockwell, Sirhan Sirhan, Charles Manson, or Twiggy.

And furthermore, most don't even care.

Mitchell abuses her power, disrespects minority members of the board? That's OK, white folks did it to her.

Mitchell writes a threatening letter that violates state law? That's OK, Daugherty says it took no action.

Mitchell gives LR another national black eye? That's OK, happens everyday, everywhere.

Mitchell is incompetent, attempts illegal actions, is corrupted by power? That's OK, different rules apply, she's black.

Cato,

Agreed that the rest of the state is more concerned about their own districts; something about all politics being local.

But, because of our current funding formula you pay for schools across Arkansas and the LRSD consumes a lot of those dollars.

And the question of meetings outside the public eye is relevant to any area of the state including Wal-tonville. I seem to remember a little tiff regarding an election commission in Benton county. Although I'm sure they operate above board at all times we can't all be that lucky.

A reader who isn't registered sends this comment re the Mitchell letters:

"Someone needs to stand back and re--read the law. The people, that they made such a big deal of staff firing when Brooks came into office, continued to collect their old salaary for a year after their demotion/move/change because HE DIDN'T NOTIFY THEM IN WRITING BY MAY 1ST THAT THEIR JOBS MIGHT NOT BE THERE. Every teacher with any experience knows about the May 1st deadline if they are planning to cut your position or make any change that affects your job or pay level. The letters are pro-forma. Most are sent and no action occurs because there is no changes made. THE LAW, I.E., THE LETTERS, FINANCIALLY PROTECT THE DISTRICT."

It's not the letter itself that is so problematic. The problems are question surrounding questions about the unilateral nature of it, the threat that might be interpreted from it, the literal eleventh hour nature of it, and last but maybe more important who did and did not receive it.

Mitchell could have handled this a number of other ways that wouldn't have created the same uproar.

Anybody able to list similar level administrators who didn't get the letters. I'd be interested in names and titles.

With regard to Stump's request for the names of similar level administrators who did not receive letters, I can name one--Barbara Barnes, the director of special education does not appear to be on the list. According to this page on the LRSD site--http://tinyurl.com/22hbby--Barnes would be on the same level of the hierarcy as Dennis Glasgow and Linda Watson, each of whom received letters (note that Karen DeJarnette is listed on the page, too).

As for Barnes, it's a real pity that someone hasn't fired her long ago. I've dealt with her department regularly because of a disabled child, and they are routinely unhelpful and unnecessarily combative over even the smallest request for information or accommodations. That department stands special education on its head--rather than trying to help a child get needed services, the department tries everything it can to deny them.

Anyone have any idea why Barnes escaped without getting one of those nasty letters? I'm curious as to theories.

Hierarchy. Damned typing.

Gaddis,
Mrs. Barnes answers directly to Dr. Roberts.

Superintendent Files Lawsuit Against Board Members

Embattled Little Rock Schools Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks filed a federal lawsuit Monday against the school board's president and another member, accusing them of sending staffers a "threatening letter" to squelch their testimony at an upcoming disciplinary hearing.

Brooks' lawsuit asks for an injunction and damages over Katherine Mitchell's actions, as well as those by school board member Robert M- Daugherty. The lawsuit says Mitchell's "recent unauthorized and unlawful actions have created a substantial likelihood of intimidating witnesses who may be in a position to provide favorable testimony to Doctor Brooks in the event of any hearing."

The lawsuit also describes Mitchell's actions as witness intimidation.

Mitchell and Daugherty could not be immediately reached for comment.

The letters by Mitchell, delivered this weekend by couriers to nine administrators, warned the staffers that as their positions now report to Brooks, their jobs "may change during the next contract year should a new superintendent be selected."

The letter also asked the staffers to refrain from taking any action that would undermine the charges against Brooks or otherwise harm the school district.

The school board voted 4-3 last week to suspend Brooks' contract. The board, which has four black members and three white members, has consistently split along racial lines in support of Brooks, who is black. The black members have pushed for Brooks' dismissal, while the white members have supported the superintendent.

Earlier this month, the board approved an independent hearing for Brooks, the beginning of a process that could lead to the superintendent's dismissal.

The above is from KTHV.

"Mrs. Barnes answers directly to Dr. Roberts."--Curious

Right. According to the page I cited above, so do Glasgow and Watson, both of whom got the letters. My question is why a supervisor and two of the four people who report directly to her received letters while two others did not. What's the distinction that saves Barnes and DeJarnette but puts Glasgow and Watson in jeopardy? After all, if you look at the letter, one of the stated reasons for the possible job action is to allow a new superintendent to bring in his/her own people for these jobs. Wouldn't the same rationale apply to Barnes and DeJarnette (assuming, of course, that the stated rationale is the only rationale, which is quite an assumption at this point given all the apparent machinations)?

Brooks Files Lawsuit Against LRSD Board Members
Monday April 30, 2007 4:13pm
from KATV

LRSD Administrators Receive Threatening LetterLRSD Superintendent Faces Second Hearing
Little Rock (AP) - Embattled Little Rock Schools Superintendent Roy Brooks filed a federal lawsuit Monday against the school board's president and another member, accusing them of sending staffers a "threatening letter" to squelch their testimony at an upcoming disciplinary hearing.

Brooks' lawsuit asks for an injunction and damages over Katherine Mitchell's actions, as well as those by school board member Robert M. Daugherty.

The lawsuit says Mitchell's "recent unauthorized and unlawful actions have created a substantial likelihood of intimidating witnesses who may be in a position to provide favorable testimony to Doctor Brooks in the event of any hearing."

The lawsuit also describes Mitchell's actions as witness intimidation. Mitchell and Daugherty could not be immediately reached for comment.

The letters by Mitchell, delivered this weekend by couriers to nine administrators, warned the staffers that as their positions now report to Brooks, their jobs "may change during the next contract year should a new superintendent be selected."

The letter also asked the staffers to refrain from taking any action that would undermine the charges against Brooks or otherwise harm the school district.

The school board voted 4-3 last week to suspend Brooks' contract. The board, which has four black members and three white members, has consistently split along racial lines in support of Brooks, who is black. The black members have pushed for Brooks' dismissal, while the white members have supported the superintendent.

Earlier this month, the board approved an independent hearing for Brooks--the beginning of a process that could lead to the superintendent's dismissal.

The letter, if it really was sent to meet the May 1 deadline, should have included a statement making it clear that this letter was the official required notification. That the implied threat should not have been included is obvious to everyone but Katherine Mitchell.

"Central Arkansas is no longer the catalyst for Arkansas. It shifted long, long ago, to the chagrin of many in Central Arkansas. Can you say "Wal Mart"? There's the representative of Arkansas outside Arkansas."

80% of people outside of Arkansas are unaware that there is any place in Arkansas aside from Little Rock. Most seem to think that LR is where the UA is located and while some know where WM is headquartered, most would have no idea. Most people associated Arkansas with Clinton. Even in Texas people don't know much about Arkansas aside from Little Rock, Clinton, "Hot Springs is supposed to be a pretty place" and the Razorbacks.

"However, she did tell us her letter was not meant to be threatening, but a notice of what could come."

Mouth in- the point was she said it wasn't a threat. Was it messy, yes. Was it premature, no given the point of notifying before May 1. SHould its purpose have been state clearer, YES! Was it necessary, yes, but ask me it was nice.

A countersuit.... how intelligent is that! He's like roaches, he won't go away!!

"But, because of our current funding formula you pay for schools across Arkansas and the LRSD consumes a lot of those dollars."

Yes, I know, Stump. LRSD has been eating our school budget lunch for a long, long time. But if it weren't in Central Arkansas it would hardly get any ink. Over here in our part of the state we have had a college board made up of elected trustees fire a top echelon administrator, ou elelctedr mayor has fired a police chief, our quorum court created a special position for a county employee fired by the newly seated county judge and there's not a single drop of ink spent on any regional or state publication. Don't tell us outside of central Arkansas that news isn't what you make of it.

"80% of people outside of Arkansas are unaware that there is any place in Arkansas aside from Little Rock. "

I doubt that aporkalypse. Get away from Central Arkansas, go to Nortwest Arkansas Regional Airport in the Bentonville/Fayetteville/Springdale area and spend a few days just observing who flies in and who flies out. You might change your perspective of the geographical shift in our state as to decision makers, etc. I think I can throw this is: when Houston Dale Nutt is fired in the upcoming months it won't be the Central Arkansas influence that will do it but rather the NW Arkansas influence. Count on it.

And.......no, I don't live in NW Arkansas and I am not a native of that area. Just a realist who visits often in that region for sporting events, educational events, social event and for recreational events.

Love My,

Guess we'll see how the Court interprets her motive. I still don't understand the authority she acted under. As I understand board policy, a vote of the LRSB should have been taken before the letter was issued. The unilateral action violated board policy. And one last question, why was the letter delivered Friday night? It could have just as easily been delivered today....before the May 1 deadline. Real sloppy.

A.C.A. 6-17-1506. Contract renewal - Notice of nonrenewal - Rescission.
(a)(1) By May 1 of the contract year, the teacher is notified by the school superintendent that the superintendent is recommending that the teacher's contract not be renewed.
.......
(b)(1) Termination, nonrenewal, or suspension shall be only upon the recommendation of the superintendent.
.......
(B) The notice of recommended nonrenewal of a teacher shall include a ststement of the reasons for the recommendation, setting forth the reasons in separately numbered paragraphs so that a reasonable teacher can prepare a defense.
..................

This is not about board policy or intent. It is about law.

To use an argument that Mitchell had the letter delivered Friday night because she thought it would meet the legal requirements of A.C.A. 6-17-1506, and therefore her good intentions will substitute for the legally required procedure, and immunize her from penalty is like telling a court, "When I got the speeding ticket, I was hurrying to get to court on another matter and I was making sure I was present and not held in contempt, therefore, I will not acknowledge the speeding ticket as legitimate." I know you have no other argument but "her intent was good". You can repeat this argument over and over and over, but it will not be accepted as logical.