Arkansas Blog

We need all the documentations.

Unbelievable! The letter absolutely cripples the chances of moving forward in a positive manner post Brooks hearing. It is time for both sides to put aside the "gotchas", this is no boxing match. Time to focus on providing quality education to all the students of LRSD. Stop the petty politics.

She should resign for the second paragraph, and not because of, "insure."

>>when the Chamber of Commerce and its allies make a run this September<<

Why the long wait. Does Little Rock have no recall provisions?

Excellent news reporting Max.
Im sure you expect no bylines or acknowledgement from the leadin paper.

ARK. BLOG: No recall procedure. And, I don't favor it anyway. I think the majority is well within its rights to remove a superintendent it can't work with, though it has made a total disaster of it. And voters who don't like that can replace the members responsible if they disagree. That's how the system works.

Three listed have nothing to worry about - Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, and Watson. They were all fired in the "reorganization" but then miraculously rehired.

Some say a deal was cut between the old school board - Babbs, Sadie, and Watson were given jobs in exchange for all the other firings - 3 high school principals (Smith, Buck, and Norman), and others from elementary and middle schools.

If anyone should have never been rehired it would be Babbs, Mitchell, and Watson. Have you ever spoken to any of them?? Words come out of their mouths, but you have no idea what they are saying. I can get more out of a conversation with my cat than any one of them.

What an utter cluster**** this has become! The national media are going to flay Little Rock without mercy, and we deserve it. This action by Katherine Mitchell is deplorable. If board members are subject to recall, she should be removed from the board as soon as legally possible.

This is getting better and better.

Is there a recall option to remove elected school board officials?

So there's not recall. Too bad. I can't vote against Katherine Mitchell, but I can give money to candidates who will promise to put her back into the minority and to those who will run against her when her position is up for a vote. Let's hear from the AT Blog readers who want to defend this action.

WTF? Mitchell of all people should remember an earlier ill-fated educator "purge" handed down by the Little Rock School Board during her "lost year" of high school. Now the DG won't shut up about it, Griffin Smith loves to talk about the purge.

Looks as if we are all getting an edjumacation. It is enough to make one want to move to Conway, or put the kids in a private school. I know, the friends of public education are in forever. Those of us who have tried to stay supportive are considering our options. The loser of course is the LRSD. The power plays and the politics will not improve education in Little Rock. Like my mother said about the turkey, "stick a fork in it, it's done". Oh, by the way, The more public exposure Dr. Mitchell gets, the clearer it becomes that she is only half prepared to wage this war of wits she has started. Kinda like Bush and Iraq.

I for one am going to pop some corn and sit back to watch the show. This should be entertaining.

On a more serious note.

This could be the bone headed move that might leave an opening for one of the current majority to have an excuse to step away from Mitchell and look toward the third way of mediation and be the new leader of the board rather than just a follower off the cliff from which Mitchell clearly jumped.

These are excerpts from the LRSD Board Policies regarding, "School Board Member Code of Conduct."

"Board members may state personal positions as long as they make it clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the Board or the District. The Board speaks only through its resolutions."

"When interacting with staff, Board members are expected to be cognizant of their role as policy makers, in contrast with the role of administrators as managers of the school system."

Honestly, how different is this from when a company reorganizes after changing CEO's and President's? When new principals come in they are allowed to "choose their staff". Matter of fact, Brooks was allowed to do this also. Babbs, Mitchell, Watson and Glasgow could retire tomorrow; they all have 30+ years. And in some ways we all know they were warned, to make it seem fair to really warn the ones Brooks hired. Hattabaugh deserves to go for his biased, inappropriate statements to teachers and staff. Mittiga is a truck driver, not an educator. He sends out email's for Brooks, sometimes missing parts of what happened in board meetings. You should have seen the one from Thursday, it was "skinny". Milhollen wrote the unauthorized checks for Dr. Brooks, that's a no brainer. Hartz created and signed several unauthorized contracts to pay people, including Lisa Black at the LR Pub. Ed. Foundation for "clerical support" ! Ever wondered why LRSD contracts haven't been posted since 2004? Dr. Roberts is inept, an ineffective communicator, implements programs that she can't explain and has a nasty attitude to boot!
As far as all this accused bungling by the board, let's look at some language in board policy for the Superintendent's Job Responsibilites:
"The superintendent will be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board (CEO)
"Maintains communication with Board, staff, students and community"
"Maintains a highly qualified,dedicated and effective staff"
For these reason's alone he could have his contract terminated.
Let's look at this step by step:
They voted to terminate his contract. They also voted to allow him to have a public hearing, if he requested it, upon receiving the written causes for his termination. He received those causes Thursday night. It was in the best interest of the LRSD, not to have him working after receiving this, so according to his contract, he was suspended, with pay, until he has a hearing that he obviously requested.
Nothing clumsy about that, now is it?
Furthermore, if he had any brains, he would resign, pick his effective date and find a job before his resume' is scarred. A good leader knows when to back away, especially if he see's the destruction his presence is causing.
As far as the mediation, maybe the fact that one side chose the mediator is why 2 parties abstained.

Its all starting to unfold, personally I'm waiting on the BIG BOMB, what they gave him in that letter to tell him why he was up for non-renewal.

Somewhere in my pea brain, there is a deadline for notification of non-renewal. Teachers must be notified by May 1. Now, I don't know if that is State policy or Board policy or common practice, but during my lengthy employment in the LRSD, May 1 was the date for Intent of Return to Duty as well as the notification of non-renewal. Teachers have already received their notifications. My first year with the district, I was hired mid-year. Ergo, I received one of THOSE letters for non-renewal. It was sent certified mail from the President of the Board of Education. While I cried many a tear at that time, I was placed in a different position after all the involuntary transfer teachers were placed. During the infamous reorganization, the same procedure was followed - or was supposed to be.
This seems to be more than a conundrum. My problem is not with the letter, the way, or time it was delivered. I am fairly confident about the May 1 date. My problem is with a unilateral decision, or what can be perceived as a unilateral decision, made by ANY member on the school board.
From a now "outsider", I don't see any of this confusion being race related. What I see is a downright explosive situation developing because outside interference, i.e. Hussman, The Foundation for Public Education, the U of A, and the Walton Foundation circumvented standard district policy and lots of folk are tired of it.
Max, I agree with you. Dr. Brooks isn't smart enough to figure all of this out or realize he is a pawn in this situation. I will not defend Dr. Brooks. I have witnessed his tirades, heard him make derogatory, hateful remarks to employees and principals. A good leader, like a good parent, should set an example of what is desired instead of a "Do as I say do, not as I do" method of leadership.
I would have been fired on the spot if I had behaved in the same unprofessional manner as the Superintendent and Mr. Hattabaugh, with just cause. How do you think this will play out?

In 1959, three segregationist LRSD board members were removed through a recall election after they fired over 40 teachers and administrators without due process. Surely the process still exists.

Curious,
Yes, it is May 1. I just wonder how any of this positively impacts student learning? What do you think?

Although "Love my job...." makes several good points, one still has to be aware of the climate of public perception. I am reminded of the satirical comment of some "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

Hussman and his pen pals, the business community dynamic, and those committees of outraged parents who love Roy Brooks may not have the board majority from which to run school affairs as they wish, BUT they have a loud and strong voice to proclaim their criticisms of any missteps, mistakes, or misdeeds they perceive.
Possibly corporations handle dismissals and employee shuffles like this, but that doesn't mean it's how the school board should run their business and affairs.
In judging Mitchell's actions, much has been said that should not have been said (the letter and possibly choosing to fire Brooks for cause rather than releasing him from his contract) and much has not been said that should have been said (giving a detailed list of Brooks' transgressions and explaining them).
Thank goodness this mess has little effect on what transpires within the classroom. Still, I think I'll just go have another beer, watch some AETN, read a good book, get a good night's rest, and try not to wonder what might have been if Mitchell had been less clumsy in handling this problem.
God, the Democrat Gazette editorial writer is going to explode tomorrow. I have only two words for Mitchell:

Damage control!

Oh yes and its part of the state's teacher fair dismissal act. Which those 9 people would fall under. People are funny, if they had just fired them, it would have been something said. They try to follow protocol and everyone jumps on their case. Be for real.
Non-tenuered, mid year, grant funded and temporary teachers go through this every year.
Be careful how quickly we jump on the bandwagon and make comments. Dr. Mitchell was doing her job. Honestly, we don't know if she agreed to it or not, she signs everything since she is board president!

Hey, Love My Job...,

You do not seriously want to be goverened by the same rules that apply to private business concerns. Teachers should stay out of the political frays; you disclose to many weaknesses.

At the risk of invoking Jake's wrath, I have to wonder about the quotes that have been given in relation to the actual wording of Dr. Mitchell's letter. My reading of this letter, and of course I may be mistaken, is that it is a strongly worded threat.

"... refrain from taking any action that would undermine the charges against Dr. Brooks or otherwise harm the LRSD"

Doesn't this imply that anyone who stands up for Dr. Brooks is in danger of losing his/her job because standing up for him undermines the goals of the district?

Although my viewing of Thursday night's meeting obviously differed from that of others who regularly post on these blogs, I've tried to delay my opinion on the "issue" until the FACTS were presented. This letter will just add fuel to the fire of those who believe Dr. Brooks is the victim of a vendetta (and I'm not one of those -- I just dislike seeing people on both sides shoot themselves in the foot because it makes everyone in the LRSD look like idiots).

Jake - I'm with you, except I'm having a "shaken" martini and a rerun of HBO's "Tudors." Gotta love Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

Anyway, Katherine Mitchell is either a modern day Henry XIII and Brooks' and his ilk the Catholic church, or she has decided that she may as well go out with a blaze of glory. What do you think?

>>ARK. BLOG: No recall procedure. And, I don't favor it anyway.<<

I wasn't mouthing in favor of a recall but seems to this casual observer, given Hussleman's disposition and how much his gang stands to lose, something would be in the works much sooner than the next election. I think state codes must allow for a recall.
Better have one of our legal eagles log in on that one.
_

"I just wonder how any of this positively impacts student learning? What do you think?"

Love My Job,
I worked through many, many supers in LRSD. The only impact might be a little more gossip in the teachers' lounge. From experience, when a teacher walks into the classroom, it is all business to prepare students with skills that will last a lifetime. He/She may be a capable Educator (most I worked with were outstanding) or may not (and everyoine in the building knows who THEY are). Each child, parent, teacher, and administrator brings strengths and weaknesses with them. The key is to celebrate the strengths and remediate the weaknesses. If remediation proves to be unsuccessful due to the inability of the student, parent, teacher, or administrator to comprehend or comply, then there are consequences. We are finally beginning to see this concept in the sport arenas.Teachers have tried for years enforce the criteria. Whatcha think?

The most bothersome thing about this is the way Mitchell continues to act unilaterally at times, bypassing discussions with the rest of the board. I think Mitchell is out of control at this point, as someone else suggested she seems to be intoxicated by the power.

This thing is getting ugly, really ugly, and I bet it drags out. Brooks will try to drag things out until the board majority flips, which may be when Daugherty's seat is up for grabs.

I just wish there was someone in the middle, someone impartial to get some dialogue going. Mitchell is the worst leader as she's the most polarized of the seven.

Sqwheel
1. I quoted the policies already in place. So some genius long ago decided those words not me. Check out thier website. Section C of Board Policy
2. You are just as naive as all the rest who think teachers should stay out of the fray. All the fray affects our livelihood, our day to day operations as well as the kids we teach that all the "politicians" seem to have forgotten about.
Maybe if our voice had been respected and utilized we wouldn't be in this mess. The teacher is the biggest change agent in the classroom and yet we have been villified and victimized by the previous board and thier superintendent.

I just see this as a well needed transfer, so we can get down to business.

"If remediation proves to be unsuccessful due to the inability of the student, parent, teacher, or administrator to comprehend or comply, then there are consequences."

Curious,
You hit the nail on the head. Except in this arena, no one wins. The inequity will continue, but teachers will keep teaching. But the machine is failing as a whole and now we are all accountable. What we need is some open, honest dialouge and no consequences for constructive criticism. For the kids.

"But the implicit threat is clear enough."

Max,
Is it a threat or a reminder that legal issues are tied into this and tampering with thngs that may be considered evidence, such as records, databases, statistics, etc?
Couriers are notorious for catching people when they are home, isn't that why we hire them?
Yes, this is policy, to notify employees that they could not have their contracts renewed for the next year. The board knows that so they didn't have to be notified. It isn't an agenda issue, nor is it "discussable", its policy and procedure in most Arkansas School Districts.
Just wanted you to know :-)

Aporkalypse,
Daugherty is well-respected in his district. He makes every effort to reach out to kids, parents, and administrators. I think the real race will be Zone 4. I am personally sorry that it isn't Berkley's spot up for re-election.

Sqwheel,
Golly Gee, that's what teachers were told by the Super and he even tried to make it a Board Policy back at the first of the year, before the election. I wonder who put that bee in his bonnet? I may be retired, but I will support the right of each individual to speak their piece.

Hi BeckiS,

You'll never let me live down the martini gaff....sheesh!

I think you meant Henry VIII.....Henry XIII was a Duke of Bavaria. It does have similarities with those days of yore when the ecclesiastical throne and the royal thrones battled for power. Roy is being excommunicated, the country is in turmoil, and it is "The Winter of Our Discontent."

Love my job.... has been giving the strongest arguments for Mitchell's course of action and, as I read her input, I just wish Mitchell was as rational sounding and expressive. I gave the letter a second look and all seems in accord with policy about notification as indicated by LoveMyJob's account of policy and procedures.
However.....what is the purpose of mentioning the Brooks issue and "undermining" the district? That is what twists the purpose of the letter into something possibly different from what you describe as just normal S.O.P.

Just a bit of advice from the old days: the crowd does not like a sloppy execution. It gives the impression of inept cruelty.

I am not certain if the May 1st law applies to administrators, however I can not see how anyone on the list could be surprised by the letter. If it does apply then Dr. Mitchell did the legally correct thing and if it doesn't she gave them fair warning that they might need to look for employment elsewhere. Either way I am certain that the mention of all the Floridians being on the list is cause for celebration among the teachers of LRSD. How fast can moving vans be arranged? As for the the "long time employees of LRSD" just remember the Bible says you reap what you sow. Some on the list have been playing both sides for a long time and it is time they got their comeupance. There will be few tears in the buildings if this "esteemed" group is removed along with their "fearless" leader.

It amazes me how Hussman, the Chamber boys, the Wal Mart Foundation, and other supporters of merit pay believe that it is great because we should run school districts like a business, but are shocked that the upper management staff would be asked to leave along with their fired CEO. Either the district is a business or it isn't. Brooks should have been suspended the night of the original vote because who in their right mind would leave an on-the-way-out leader in place to do more damage? Oh I forgot - Berkley, Fox & Kurrus would because they are "business" people.

Ooops, Hi LRmom,

You needn't worry about my wrath tonight. You covered the issue well and as fair as anyone can be with all the confusion we're seeing and hearing. I do get sharp tongued at times but am quick to forgive and forget.
You pinpoint the line in the letter that most concerns me. As I mentioned earlier, it will be the crux of criticism against Mitchell on the matter. You argue the point well in showing the unfairness it commits in implying an employee would do anything to "undermine" the charges against Brooks much less "harm" LRSD.

I am surprised that some of the people on the list would even be remotely suspected of such actions. It certainly begs for more explanation.

Take BeckiS's advice: it's time to find something else to do for a while; something less aggravating and egregious.

Like "shaking" up a martini?!

an apple martini with a shot of apple cognac...shaken of course

I re-read the letter Jake. The secretary who typed it needs a few lessons in English grammar and typing. Now I am beginning to wonder if the letter is for real. This is getting stranger and stranger.

Jake - Oops, you're right - I meant Henry the 8th!!! Can you tell that I had already sipped from the "fountain" when I wrote that?!!? I wonder what the fine is for BWI.

Love my - If your teaching is anything like your taste in drinks, sign me up for one of your classes! :)

C.K. Yonwood said, "If it does apply then Dr. Mitchell did the legally correct thing and if it doesn't she gave them fair warning that they might need to look for employment elsewhere."

Katherine Mitchell has no legal authority to notify anyone about anything but the date, time and place of the next board meeting.

Do you really not understand that she is acting completely outside of the scope of her authority, or are you just missing that fundamental point caught up in the heat of the moment?

She is only allowed to act on official board resolutions, those that came out of a leagally called meeting.

The AR Sch Brds Assoc. Handbook has a very comprehensible description of the legal duties and responsibilities of board members:

"No individual board member has any power or authority .. .

Keep in mind that boards are [public] corporate bodies, meaning that they can act only as a group. No single board member has the right to make any decision for the rest of the board. The only time board members have any legal power to transact any sort of business is when they meet together in a legally convened session.

Members could be personally liable if they exceed their authority as a board member or otherwise act illegally, such as by slandering a .administrator.

Punitive damages may be assessed only for "willful, wanton, or malicious" conduct by a board member.

Lawsuits have been brought and damages awarded over such illegal actions as dismissing personnel without due process .
"

This is not the playground where mean girls rule; this is serious business ... livelihoods, reputations, families...

"Willful, wanton, or malicious" would seem to cover it, unless "wanton" doesn't cover, "stupid."

Well put, Ones. I guarantee that the majority of the board did NOT sanction such a letter in a "legally convened session."

Can anyone out there refute what Ones posted? If not, do those of you who agree with firing Brooks worry that his traansgressions might just be outshadowed by those of Mitchell?

No tears will flow for anyone on the list, especially his Florida entourage. If their jobs are in jeopardy, then she did the proper/legal thing. I believe teachers have to be alerted prior to May 1st if their contracts are not going to be renewed. So, what is the big deal? I don't trust those on the board who support Brooks, and I certainly don't embrace the slanted, biased trash reported in the DG. However, this madness needs to stop---on all sides.

honestone says: "If their jobs are in jeopardy, then she did the proper/legal thing. I believe teachers have to be alerted prior to May 1st if their contracts are not going to be renewed. So, what is the big deal? "

Look up

Katherine Mitchell has no legal authority to notify anyone about anything but the date, time and place of the next board meeting.

Do you really not understand that she is acting completely outside of the scope of her authority, or are you just missing that fundamental point caught up in the heat of the moment?

She is only allowed to act on official board resolutions, those that came out of a leagally called meeting.

The AR Sch Brds Assoc. Handbook has a very comprehensible description of the legal duties and responsibilities of board members:

"No individual board member has any power or authority .. .

Keep in mind that boards are [public] corporate bodies, meaning that they can act only as a group. No single board member has the right to make any decision for the rest of the board. The only time board members have any legal power to transact any sort of business is when they meet together in a legally convened session.

Members could be personally liable if they exceed their authority as a board member or otherwise act illegally, such as by slandering a .administrator.

Punitive damages may be assessed only for "willful, wanton, or malicious" conduct by a board member.

Lawsuits have been brought and damages awarded over such illegal actions as dismissing personnel without due process .
"

This is not the playground where mean girls rule; this is serious business ... livelihoods, reputations, families...

Think I'll get out my crayons and work on my Mother's Day card. My inner child needs a break from this madness.

Night all......

About the May 1 deadline:
It is a DEADLINE. A teacher could not be notified that, "sometime after May 1, we might decide to fire your." The decision and notification must be made before May 1.

About administrative positions:
This isn't the same as a teacher contract. An adminstrator could be given a non-adminstrative position at any time.

Who removes an adminstrator?
With the exception of the superintendent, who would be removed by the board, this would be the superintendent's call.

Is this likely to happen before May 1?
Not by my calendar. Unless a new superintendent is in place before May 1. (The clock is running out on that one.)

And who could put a new superintendent in. NOT K.M.! That would have to occur during a meeting of the Board.

Hone - Did you read what her "notification" said?

She sent these letters out before notifying other board members of them, yet wrote:

"To insure the stability of the district during this time, we ask that you refrain from taking any action that would undermine the charges against Dr. Brooks or otherwise harm the LRSD."

Does her presidency now entitle her to use the imperial "we?" If not, to whom exactly is she referring when she writes it?

You don't trust those on the board who trust Brooks, yet you see no problem with this?!!?

Whoa, folks. Administrators ARE teachers, or are supposed to be, unless they are employed by a district in their field of expertise as "support" personnel and are certified in their field. What do I mean? Milholland is a CPA, Hartz in HR, Heller is an attorney. The only two persons on the list who are NOT Certified Teachesr in LRSD are Milholland and Mittiga.
Does anyone know if the SB President is considered the "Acting Superintendent" if there are suspension/termination actions for the current superintendent?

Administrators do not have to be teachers ... and g0od thing, because the skill sets are somewhat different. Some teachers become wonderful administrators; but not necessarily.

Arkansas law does not require admiistrators to have the traditional classroom teacher background. Arkansas recognizes the business nature of running a public corporate body and allows for alternative certification and such.

As to the idea that Katherine Mitchell might become the defacto administrator of the LRSD by nature of her position as school board president, that isn't a concept provided for in AR statutes.

The board's (as far as decisions, there are no members, there is only a collective body) duties are exclusively legislative. They make policy. They have no role in enacting policy, thus, they are ineligible to function as administrators,,kind of a local level "seperation of powers" concept.

Arkansas law does not require admiistrators to have the traditional classroom teacher background. Arkansas recognizes the business nature of running a public corporate body and allows for alternative certification and such.

I know about alternative certification, OAZ, the final result is still Certified Teacher. I do not believe that there is any program from the ADE that will grant a Supervisor's License w/o teaching experience unless it is for a support position such as HR, Financial Resources, etc. and they must hold a valid license in their field. Could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

It is interesting to note that all of a sudden no one is denying that they are taking sides. This situation has become so polarized until I don't think most people even realize that they are almost forced to take some position. I have my thoughts, but rather than take sides, I would like to pose some questions and offer some mild commentary.

I. Where does the Friday Law firm's accountability begin for having not delivered the letter of charges to Dr. Brooks by now? They are paid 1.5 million dollars a year to do what? How hard is it to for a law firm the size of Friday to carry out its duty to deliver a simple letter to the Superintendent? Once the board voted to pursue cause to fire Dr. Brooks, is it not the responsibility of its legal counsel to perform the function of preparing and delivering the letter to Dr. Brooks? Why is Dr. Mitchell, who is not paid to perform this function, being blamed for the negligent behavior of the Friday Law Firm? Could it be that the Friday Law Firm has a list of clients that are opposed to the board's recent actions? Are there conflicts of interest that may be at the root of the Friday Law Firm's behavior?

II. What action did Dr. Mitchell take? Did she fire anyone? Did she exercise any action that requires a vote by the board? Is the letter merely a formality inherently related to action already voted upon by the board? Is Dr. Mitchell empowered by board policy to carry out such action as described on the blog? What board policy has been violated and why? Is she carrying out the responsibility of the board president?

In reading this letter, I do not see one time where anyone is told they are fired, will be fired, or will lose their job during the coming school year. I do see where the letter clearly sets forth what has occurred, that there are some options for people to consider, and it spells out the current situation as well as the position of the board. Whether the board is split or not, when the majority of the board votes, it is the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL BOARD. It always has been and always will be that way unless we change the majority rule system in this country. I think for people to act as though the board is somehow functioning differently than it has in the past is insane. I would be willing to bet my life that if this was the board from last year, we would not even be having this discussion. For people out here to act like they don't remember the dismissive, disrespectful, and abusive behavior of the previous board's majority members towards the community and teachers is unfair and down right hypocritical

You know when I think back to Brock and Rose calling teachers a horse's ass and telling people they would be walked out of the administration building like criminals, I don't remember any public outcry about that by people on the blog! Wow that was how many years ago- oh that's right, just a few months ago right?

Dr. Mitchell, Mr. Armstrong, Mrs. Curry, Mr. Daugherty John Walker, Katherine Wright Knight, Please stop this insanity. You KNOW you do not have the authority to do this. You KNOW lawyers already had to set you straight in public at the last board meeting. How embarrasing for you! You KNOW this letter was not necessary. You KNOW you should have let the other board members know about it. You KNOW you acted out of turn otherwise you would have taken the common courtesy to let the ENTIRE board members know. HOW DARE YOU ask them not to challenge you. Where did you get the idea that you are the sole authority here? John Walker?? Did he tell you this? If so you follow a fool off of fool's hill. I wish you luck in that journey. You will need it!

My my, this topic is hotter than HDN, Prewett, and Hog fuball.
I'm learning much.
_

It's amazing to me that some commentators still don't seem to get what is crucial to this discussion.

You don't fire somebody justly without providing a reason for doing so. When the person being fired is public, the reasons for that firing should be open to public examination and discussion.

It harms a whole culture when these dynamics like this are allowed to go on and on, with no one challenging them: behind-the-scenes character assassination of public figures being booted out; lack of public meetings with public evidence and public input when such decisions are made; personality-driven power contests that run roughshod over decency and sunshine practices.

I've said it before: I have met Dr. Brooks and was not impressed by him. I know Dr. Mitchell personally and am even less impressed with her. The white power structure that continues to pull the strings in our state, pitting black contingent against black contingent, is even less impressive to me.

There may well be persuasive reasons to terminate Brooks. If so, they should be out on the table. If protecting his privacy is a serious consideration, then the wise path would be to buy out his contract and tell the public that the reasons can't be disclosed.

Not only is Dr. Mitchell behaving unethically here, she is damaging a whole state by turning her private vendetta into a ritual of public humiliation for her enemy.

Arkansans should be concerned about this, because these kinds of slur and stab tactics, which are all too common in our state, deprive us of the opportunity for sane, considered, public discussions of important issues (race is one of them) that have to be negotiated in public ways, if we're to become a culture that will attract creative, thoughtful people.

Curious said: I know about alternative certification, OAZ, the final result is still Certified Teacher.

OAZ: Curious, I had not thought about it that way.You are not mistaken, I am.

Spillingthebeans---excellent observations. When Rose, Brock, Kurrus, Berkley and Strickland were the majority, you did not see the business community challenging their authority. Since there is a black majority, everything appears to be illegal or someone is pursuing a personal vendetta. I guess this is the place I should chuckle, huh? We reap that which we sow. Brooks is reaping the harvest of the corruption he has sown since arriving in LR. Sandi Becker's name should be added to the list; he is the internal auditor for the district. He has to be aware of Brooks' clandestine dealings. Wow, and Becker is a minister, too; go figure. In Brooks' various tirades, he tell the public the LRSD is a business and it should be run as such; I guess, if left unchecked, he will run it into the ground. I will send Dr. MItchell an email later on today and will encourage her to pursue criminal charges against Brooks and the others if there is sufficient grounds. Mitchell is apparently exposing and uncovering some 'sacred' territory---that is the reason she is being attacked. Bring it all to the light and let the chips fall where they may.

Spillingthebeans---excellent observations. When Rose, Brock, Kurrus, Berkley and Strickland were the majority, you did not see the business community challenging their authority. Since there is a black majority, everything appears to be illegal or someone is pursuing a personal vendetta. I guess this is the place I should chuckle, huh? We reap that which we sow. Brooks is reaping the harvest of the corruption he has sown since arriving in LR. Sandi Becker's name should be added to the list; he is the internal auditor for the district. He has to be aware of Brooks' clandestine dealings. Wow, and Becker is a minister, too; go figure. In Brooks' various tirades, he tells the public the LRSD is a business and it should be run as such; I guess, if left unchecked, he will run it into the ground. I will send Dr. MItchell an email later on today and will encourage her to pursue criminal charges against Brooks and the others if there is sufficient grounds. Mitchell is apparently exposing and uncovering some 'sacred' territory---that is the reason she is being attacked. Bring it all to the light and let the chips fall where they may.

A local news segment on NPR this morning reported that the letters sent Friday night were to sent to meet the May 1 deadline mentioned by several people on this thread. I have reread the letter, and I find absolutely nothing that indicates that the letter was sent to meet this deadline. The only message contained in this totally unprofessional letter was, "I'm gonna get you, sucker." I believe that Katherine Mitchell has decided to use her position as president of the board to exact revenge. Her actions are a disgrace and an embarrassment, and she should have the good grace to resign. And the actions in question are those of Katherine Mitchell, not Roy Brooks. I believe Roy Brooks should be replaced, but that is an entirely different issue, one completely separate from the letter sent by Katherine Mitchell.

To all the ones crying revenge:
How is someone who is acting in the best interest of the children of the district acting in revenge? Just because people have been around ( Babbs, Mitchell,Glasgow and Watson) doesn't mean they have been doing what's right or even doing a good job! These same people have been shuffled around the district for years, as it has had this slow decline to nowhere. They have been shmoozed by vendors( to the point where teachers who choose textbooks can't get or keep gifts (books, software, etc) that could be used as instructional resources. They were some of the worst principals and had to be shuffled downtown to minimized their mess!

Its obvious that some people don't know how to play fair. LRSDTeacher, I hope you don't yell at your students like you just blog yelled at us.
Those of you yelling revenge, how is someone being vengeful, when the statement was made that she was cleaning house at the last board meeting.
And rightly she should. Do you realize that for 7 years the students in the LRSD at most schools from k-9 did not have science or math textbooks? THey had kits and workbooks. And then we wonder about lack of performance! Those 2 classes teach a child to THINK. But Rene' Carson got a grant from NSF for millions of dollars and there went good, solid teaching. And if it wasn't for the science benchmarks we would still have 10th graders who don't know what an atom is!

Do you know that only certain schools ( ones with higher white populations) have reading books for children K-5 and the rest only have them for 4-5?

These decisions and more were made by these people you all are now crying victim for.

Dr. Mitchell is doing what must be done to turn this district around and is it easy? No.
Is it nice? Not always. But it must happen if our children will be given half a chance to be successful.

As far as people we will ill afford to lose. Max, unless they move out of their precious heights, hillcrest and WLR homes, they have to pay taxes and have no choice how they are used. The problem is people with money like to control their money and in this instance ( oh sorry its just the LOCAL GOVERNMENT) they can't. They can't believe their money is used without their input.

Has anyone ever though that if we get equity in funds and resources at all the schools, then all the schools wll be achieving and that will attract people to our city and district?

Just a thought...

Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?

Thanks to information supplied by stump in a thread earlier this week, we know that 3,220 voters in Hillcrest and the Heights (region 3) came out to vote in the school board election last year. The numbers in other regions were anemic in comparison to region 3.

One more thing and then I'm off to church....
When we finally get the list of wrongs, how many of you will have egg on your face?

I know somethings you don't know ;-)

Just hope you will apologize and we can come together for our kids...

I think the more reasonable people on this blog realize that the facts have not been made public (I think one or two of the school board members also referenced lack of factual information). However, the public portion of the meetings, along with the public actions, documents (like Dr. Mitchell's recent letter) and quotes are causing the major problems with taking sides. I have to believe that when/if the three boad members in the minority are shown facts that support the innuendo (if they exist), they will do the right and honorable thing. I keep wondering how so many say they are privy to certain facts, and yet those who will make the decision are kept in the dark.

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 ghastly overstep of authority seems to be escalating. And most likely subsequent unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars for continuing legal services will continue if situation is not reigned in by reasonable taxpayers.
..................
.................

A.C.A. 6-13-619
(a)(1) The board of directors shall hold regular monthly meetings during the school term and shall meet on call of the president or secretary or any three (3) members of the board of directors or when petitiond to do so by a petition in writing signed by fifty (50) electors in the school district . 50

It could be that the people who received the letter from Katherine Mitchell deserve to be dismissed, or tarred and feathered, or drawn and quartered in the public square. That still doesn't excuse the Mitchell letter, and it cannot be argued that the Mitchell letter meets the test of being a letter meeting the May 1 requirement, if such a letter is, indeed, required for these employees.

OK, I have read the letter again and again trying to understand all the viewpoints already presented in this forum. I have some questions:
Where does it say these folks are fired? It says their position MAY change. Mine said, "Your contract with Little Rock School District will be non-renewed for the ??##%% school year." Dates would give away my age, so I omitted those ;)
The reasons for notification are stated.
If the Superintendent refused to send out the letters, then should the letters have been sent by an Associate Superintendent? Those are some of the folks listed.
So, does the trail of responsibility for notification go up or down?
The letter doesn't even say that Brooks will be fired.
If the letters are deemed invalid, then are all the letters sent to teachers also invalid?
I am so confused!

Arkansas Code (the law) is so clear about whose responsibility it is to notify teachers that a recommendation for nonrenewal is forthcoming that I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it.
......
......
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.
.....
.....

In a related vein,

Logan v. Rosa (1983) :647 SW2d 469, 278 Ark, 561, is an interesting Arkansas case that dealt with the constitutional issues of a Superintendent's property and liberty rights.

14th amendment due process is tied to the loss of liberty (freedom to .freedom from) or property (something of value) tights. The Supreme Court has defined liberty to include severe stigmatization of reputation and property as having a legitimate claim of entitlement.

Here is the eerily similar history. From Logan v. Rosa, "On January 12, 1981 the board voted 4-2 to renew the superintendent's contract. Members Baxter and Logan dissented. The new two year contract was signed on February 5, 1981. It was to run from July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1983. In the March 1981 school elections two of the members who had voted to renew the superintendent's contract were replaced with new members."

In the Logan case, the superintendent alleged that the school board had spread personally damaging information to a local newspaper, as well as an allegation of one board member had joined the board primarily to get rid of the superintendent.

The trial court found for the superintendent, and the State Supreme Court affirmed that decision. :647 SW2d 469, 278 Ark, 561,

In the Logan case, the courts ruled for the Superintendent based largely on it's finding that the Board had both damaged the Superintendent's reputation and that they had acted vengefully.

The fatal flaw is intemperate behavior that is intended to embarrass or humiliate and driven by any measure of vengefulness or that could be construed to be a form of retribution.

I am afraid that we, the taxpayer, will now pay for the foolishness of a few board members.

"In the Logan case, the superintendent alleged that the school board had spread personally damaging information to a local newspaper, as well as an allegation of one board member had joined the board primarily to get rid of the superintendent."

OAZ,
I can see how information provided by the School Board to a local paper regarding personnel issues could be cause for suit. What I don't see is how leaked info in LRSD could be held against the majority of the board since Max admitted that his source was not one of those members. It seems to me that the district might have cause of action against a board member who provided the information OR the recipient of the letter who provided the letter to the AT or DG for revealing personnel issues.

"The fatal flaw is intemperate behavior that is intended to embarrass or humiliate and driven by any measure of vengefulness or that could be construed to be a form of retribution."
As the official charges against Dr. Brooks have not been made public, I fail to see how any "intemperate behavior" has been evidenced. According to an earlier posting, the board has the right to hire and fire a superintendent. In my non-legalese retirement, it seems to me that this brouhaha is more of an extreme difference of opinion about the direction in which the district should be going, as well as, the atmosphere of animosity that has been generated by the actions of the superintendent since his arrival.
What I still don't understand is that if the superintendent has been recommended for suspension and firing with cause/s yet unrevealed, then whose job is it to comply with State regulations? If there are not clear rules of chain of command in these issues, then who is ASSUMED responsible?

Dear Love My Job and Love My Students,

I hope you're not teaching civics! Or ethics, for that matter.

You say, "When we finally get the list of wrongs, how many of you will have egg on your face?

I know somethings you don't know."

There shouldn't be a "finally" here. The cards should have been out on the table long ago, for public inspection. This is a public issue, involving a public figure, and the effects of the process that is going on have all kinds of spillover consequences for the public.

Firing people shouldn't be based on "I know something you don't know"--particularly not when the person being fired is a public figure.

I have watched, close-up, a similar firing in Little Rock a decade or so ago, and the consequences were ugly, ugly, uglier--and harmful in the extreme for the non-profit that engaged in this behavior.

Same dynamics: slanders and slurs shared in closed board meetings; when the public, including clients served by the non-profit, asked to be allowed to attend board meetings and voice their opinions, they were shut out. The person being targeted was fired, rather than being placed in a remedial process in which he could have been allowed to address his ostensible performance shortcomings.

The organization eventually folded, and those who mounted the witch hunt were the ones who ended up with egg on their faces. The "something they knew that no one else knew" didn't exist. It was slander. The non-profit eventually had to buy out the contract of the person they sought to fire, to avoid facing a lawsuit.

There may be bona fide reasons for firing Brooks, or there may not. But how this is being done is WRONG. This pattern of "I know something you don't know" and closed meetings is harmful to all of us.

It needs to stop. It makes us a laughingstock to communities that have more respect for public disclosure of information and public discussion of issues important to us all.

Question for Love my job and my students......

You speak about inequity in the schools. How is the funding for schools determined? Don't they receive a specific dollar amount per student? Do you know if each school receives the same dollar amount per s