Arkansas Blog

According to a report from Fox 16 News, Mr. Powers was unsuccessful in his attempt to gain signatures at Dunbar Community Center tonight. So, I am sure he, Scott Wallace and the gang will turn up the heat on Dr. MItchell.

In the words of the reknown decider, "Bring 'em on." Mr. Powers underestimated his audience and their priorties. Futhermore, he needs Afro-American culture 101. "Picnic" when offered by a non-Afro-American is a imflammatory term. By an overwhelming majority, he was told that student achievement and equitable education are the prioties in the Afro-American and Latino communities.

I caught the brief segment where Beverly White was interviewed after the meeting; she is an awesome lady on so many levels. An invitation should be extended to her to serve as interim-superintendent, if she would accept. Dr. White should have remained with the district--she was another person who was concerned about all students in the district.

Please give a little more background on Dr. White.

What was the purpose of the meeting tonight? Who was behind it?

To honestone'

I attended the meeting at the Dunbar Community Center tonight, looking at the people that were with Mr. Powers, I think he's very unsuccessful with his organization.

There were about fifteen people with him and they left before the meeting was over, since it wasn't going in there favor.

I wonder is there going to be a large article in the Arkansas DG tomorrow?

May-----I could not make the meeting last night but was interested in the results. There should be transparency and accountability from all public officials, so I am not opposed to his mission; however, there is something not right about Mr. Powers. Mr. Powers exudes the same aura as Dick Cheney----and that is not a compliment.

Max, you use the analogy of Huckabee paying back his campaign. A better analogy of course is if the Huckster took money from the state in a contract while being Governor. e.g if he had a contract to deliver weight loss speeches to state employees. Obviously, this more in line which her actions.

Him taking money from his own campaign only cheats his contributors and is not a state action in the sense of taxpayer dollars being utlized as such.

However, all that being said, I think more details should be shared before the accusers throw stones. I'm sure there is more to this story.

ARK. BLOG: My comparison with Huckabee was only to the portion of the complaint against Mitchell concerning her failure to disclose the income on the statement of financial interest, not to the payment itself.

Bob Powers should have known better than to enter the black widow's territory.

Perhaps Dr. Mitchell should have recused herself from participating in the training given that the LRSD's name was on the checks she received. I'm not saying that what she did was wrong, but the appearance doesn't look good.

I'm here live blogging. If you've got a question, I'll try to relay it. Add a comment here, or at my live blogging entry by clicking my name.

By the way, Severus, is Katherine Mitchell actually widowed? If so, I think Elizabeth Edwards has a mesage for you--click my name to see it.

Severus--
If Mr. Powers' mission is sincere, then he did the appropriate thing: enter the zone Dr. Mitchell repesents and present his case and extend the olive branch. However, his group, in all honesty, will not be embraced by those in the black community. The line of communication has been disconnected by the overt signals of racism. For those who continue to support public education, I wish some kind of consensus can be reached.

I did go to the Dunbar Community Center on my own accord. I knew what I was getting into. No matter what I did, I knew the audience was going extremely partisan - I just underestimated the animosity of the few people in the audience who were intent on cause malicious and pointed disruptions. I gave out the leaflets for the picnic and I did research the word and posted it in a newsletter. Does this mean that a Caucasian person saying picnic to an African-American is inflammatory but it is okay for the NAACP to hold their own picnics? And they do call them picnics. What is the difference?

The comment by Commoner that I needed Afro-American culture 101, he is correct. Why does he think I went to Dunbar when not one African-American has attened any of the previous meetings not only in west Little Rock, but central Little Rock as well? In order to try and enlist the African-American contingency, we had to go there.

Was I afraid, you bet. When the lady told me that if I thought the Atlanta riots were bad, they would be nothing compared to the Little Rock riot that would erupt if Mitchell is removed from the school board. I think I had a right to have some degree of concern.

In regard to not getting any signatures on the petition, there were people in the audience who prevented others from signing it. I didn't get any signatures not from lack of want, but because fear of retribution from people of their own culture. One very brave older lady tried to get the petition but she too was intercepted.

I was also upset by some of the comments of Charles Armstrong. You as well as I heard him say that the board cannot follow the policies all of the time. That didn't make any sense with me. If you didn't follow all of the policies all the time then why have policies. There were other things he said that were blatant untruths but because of the atmosphere, there was no way I was going to respond to him. Not only would it have ended up with more contention but would have been unproductive.

In regard to exuding the same aura as Dick Cheney, I resent that remark. At least I can be easily found. Dick Cheney has replaced Waldo in the "Where's Waldo" posters.

Everyone knows my name, I have published by email address on this blog unlike honestone or tap and some of the others. It is much easier to say things behind the scenes but another to be out front. Am I brave, not really. I'm just fed up with all of the blind talk and uninformed blogging by some of these people. They are more adept at grammar, inciting unrest and raising presumptions than in fact. I try to deal with the facts and there is nothing on my web site that isn't backed by documentation.

It was slydog who made the original comment regarding my divorce. It was picked up by Mike Daugherty in an attempt to demean me. But after all, he did call me an idiot. I am sure there are those who would agree, but he is a public official and should have better judgement.

In regard to the Democrat Gazette, I don't go to them, they come to me just like the radio and TV stations. Only once has the press been invited to a press conference and they had the option to come or not. The DG also has that choice. The Arkansas Times has yet to talk to me. Why, I don't know. If it is the belief that by me not talking to them discredits me, I would say the converse is true. With so much coming from this blog and Max, why hasn't anyone from the AT asked me for an interview? I would be glad to talk to them as long as they can keep the editorial comments out of the interview. I have had to correct the DG because of some editorial insertions. What these readers do not understand is that neither me nor the LRSDParents.org take a stand on the position of Dr. Brooks but I am sure that there will be someone out there who will try to spin the truth and say we do. I did try to post all of the comments by parents in regard to Dr. Brooks, there just were very few negative comments in the FOIA. I invite anyone to do the same and find out for themselves! As yet, I have not heard anything contradicting what I have put out. I would appreciate it if someone could please find something I may have overlooked. I would post it in a New York (not Times) minutes. We neither recommend he be retained or terminated nor have we ever. However, that is not the perception which reigns so much as the truth in this environment.

ARK. BLOG: Bob, your memory isn't so good. Have you forgotten our phone call and my original post about your website, the first time you were mentioned in the media? You have also shut off comments on your blog when they didn't run the way you wished. I guess you forgot that, too. I know you are only about truth.

Troy A. Price
troy72227@sbcglobal.net

And personally, LRSD Parent, I thought the comments concerning your personal life were way, way out of line.

I also thought getting into a discussion about that would only cause the comments to be repeated and hardened.

And LRSD Parent, I do not agree with your group's tactics or lack of respect for Board decisions, but I certainly do not agree with the urban legend that the 17th Century french phrase "picnic" originated with an outing at which picnickers would "pick a nigger to lynch."

That said, one who is aware that some do credit the latter origin does counsel second thought on future origins.

Click TAP for the snopes.com lowdown on "picnic."

The attacks on Dr. Mitchell -- which anyone can see are unprecedented, even if one agrees that they are based in truth -- probably have made her *invincible* in her zone for years to come.

JohnAArkansawyer, thank you for posting a link to Ann Coulter's encounter with Elizabeth Edwards.

That "dialogue" (a non-dialogue, since Coulter shouted banalities throughout it) is appropriate to the topic at hand. It's appropriate for a number of reasons.

First of all, we haven't created safe civic spaces to have the kind of issues-based (as opposed to personalities-based) dialogues we need to become a healthier community.

Second, if I'm reading the reports about Dr. Mitchell's pay for courses taught at Philander Smith College correctly, it was the College itself who placed her in the untenable position of receiving pay for courses that benefit LRSD, while she chaired the board of LRSD.

Which doesn't excuse her one whit from failing to read her contract and noting the conflict of interest....

Still, I keep thinking, throughout this whole debacle, of Ann Coulter's atrocious appearance at Philander Smith at the invitation of Dr. Kimbrough. And I think of a comment he made on his presidential blog after Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, in which he referrred to Coulter and said he'd wait to see how this one played out.

Our city and state have a lot of fault lines, and race is only one among them. Dr. Kimbrough's shoulder-shrug response re: his "friend's" use of the f- word is in contrast to his musings some weeks later about the Don Imus affair.

To be a healthier culture, we need open, civil conversation--of the kind Elizabeth Edwards is promoting in that video to which you linked us. That requires getting beyond the name-calling, or excusing anyone who calls names for whatever reason.

It also means, on the part of the movers and shakers in Arkansas, more frank avowal of their own interests in the various "interest groups" who compete for a fraction of respect, while the movers and shakers pull the strings behind the scenes.

Thanks, Max. I didn't know that the blog wasn't working right. I'll fix that, I think. I don't really know how it works and had trouble from the begining. However, I don't know why you assumed I shut off the comments on the blog because it wasn't going the way I wanted? You have the same problem as many others do in the fact that you assume way too much and you always come back with something that gives the perception I am always doing something wrong. I respect your opinion but I don't respect your assumptions. You don't like the DG, you don't like Hussman. You don't like a lot of things - get over it (these are assumptions). I used to have the upmost respect for you. But then I used to have the upmost respect for Dr. Mitchell, too! I don't make assumptions about what she did.

Your memory is better than mine so please post what it is I said to you - after all, I did forget, you know.

The media saying that me and the organization are Brooks supporters? Yes they did and I have had to call in several times to correct them. I take no stand on Dr. Brooks' situation. That is a done deal and I have moved on. One TV station even dropped one of their stories after I had to correct them. They said that people could find out information about the Mothers for Progress by logging onto our web site. We are separate groups. I did not join in the law suit either. I do talk to them but I have also talked to other organizations.

I'm tired of the media getting things wrong, including you! But then, it wouldn't sell would it, if it didn't come out the way you would like it to to promote more agitation. If you want a comparison, blogs are virtual Jerry Springer shows. A smiggen of truth, a lot of assumption and even more gratuitous fighting by people we don't know. Now that's what I call a public service.

Not once have you given any credence to our organization. There are members from both sides of the Brooks issue in LRSDParents.org. They criticize me with straight forward and frank talk through their emails. I respond and apologize where I am wrong but hold my ground where I think I may be right! It's called "frank conversation". The thing about it is that we are both listening and are both talking. That's more than I can say about this blog - the reaction I get is I'm wrong and your right. Not very productive. I went to Mitchell's area (Dunbar Community Center) in an attempt to cross bridges, not to burn them. You gave our organization no credit. Neither did a lot of your bloggers.

ARK. BLOG: Bob, again, I know you must have forgotten because you are all about truth. But you said yourself you were stopping comments in the early going because, I think your words were, more or less, "this is not a blog. It's about posting factual information." This was when critiics of you and your position began posting. Stop being disingenuous. Investigating and criticizing the people with whom you disagree is a perfectly legitimate tactic. Just don't claim it's something else.

Just curious. My last submission to the blog appears to have not made it. I'll try again.

You are assuming that I am disingenuous (not sincere). What makes you think that I am not sincere about my efforts. Do you think that I was either stupid or ignorant for going into Mitchell's area to talk to that neighborhood? Just exactly what do I have to do to prove I am sincere? Is there anything on LRSDParents.org regarding any of the allegations on Dr Mitchell which is an assumption? What I didn't want to happen on the blog was things like slydog posted. That was the intent and maybe you misunderstood.

Like I said, I used to have the upmost respect for you. When we talked I listened and I left the Brooks' situation behind and moved on as you suggested. It is not that I don't like Mitchell, I don't like what she did! The board is supposed to follow the rules. By not doing so is a bad example for all others in the district. What is worse is that even Charles Armstrongs espouses that they can't be expected to follow the rules all of the time! Does this mean that if the policy gets in the way to simply disregard it? Which rule? Obviously suspension of the rules as specified by board policy is one of the victims. So is policy BCA (code of conduct) and several others.

In regard to who is the custodian of the money for the non-traditional licensure - what is the spirit of the Arkansas Code 6-24-105? Does this mean that LRSD employees are Federal employees becasue the money comes from the Federal Government for deseg and LRSD is simply the custodian of that money. Can you imagine the can of worms if any grant to LRSD means that anyone can be compensated without any measure of policy? I think we have already gone through that discussion resulting the Act 1599 of 2001 - Ethics in Education.

Did you mention that I looked at all of the other members and Dr. Brooks? Mike Daugherty reimbursed his wife's travel and that was the only thing I found wrong on his account. Ms. Curry did rent a car in San Francisco in which she owes the difference between the cost of public transportation and the rental. But I believe that was simply a mistake and I am sure she will correct it if she hasn't already. What about Charles Armstrong - he reconciled his travel within a week! These were the only three irregularities I could find. If you or anybody else doesn't trust me, the FOIA the LRSD yourself!

LRSParent----have you investigated the allegations levied at Brooks? What about Mark Millohen's dealings? What have you discovered about Baker, Melanine and Larry? Just asking, not trying to imply anything--thanks.

It amazes me that people think elected "public servents" should be above criticism and accountabiltiy. Why is it that anyone who demands that accountability is deemed an "enemy" and a rabble rouser? I wish more people could see that race is more of a smokescreen in these issues than anything else. Yes, racism is a reality, but the major players in the LRSD use race for a smokescreen, to blur the real issues. I guess it does'nt even really matter anymore if the allegations against Brooks were true. They never gave Brooks or the public the opportunity to address those allegations. But if anyone is curious about those allegations........just remember they were some of the same allegations lodged against Katherine Mitchell years ago when she was a college president.....and if my memory serves me....led to her dismissal as president of that college? Has anyone ever heard of projection? And oh yeah.......there was possibly a bit of truth to the allegation that Dr. Brooks "harassed and threatened" certain principals? For the really curious........why dont' you take a look at those principals and see why Brooks wanted them gone.......and maybe in the process you will learn the real reasons that Mitchell and Company wanted him gone. The rabbit hole is deeper than most people want to know........but hey.......most people really are afraid of the truth.

It amazes me that people think elected "public servents" should be above criticism and accountabiltiy. Why is it that anyone who demands that accountability is deemed an "enemy" and a rabble rouser? I wish more people could see that race is more of a smokescreen in these issues than anything else. Yes, racism is a reality, but the major players in the LRSD use race for a smokescreen, to blur the real issues. I guess it does'nt even really matter anymore if the allegations against Brooks were true. They never gave Brooks or the public the opportunity to address those allegations. But if anyone is curious about those allegations........just remember they were some of the same allegations lodged against Katherine Mitchell years ago when she was a college president.....and if my memory serves me....led to her dismissal as president of that college? Has anyone ever heard of projection? And oh yeah.......there was possibly a bit of truth to the allegation that Dr. Brooks "harassed and threatened" certain principals? For the really curious........why dont' you take a look at those principals and see why Brooks wanted them gone.......and maybe in the process you will learn the real reasons that Mitchell and Company wanted him gone. The rabbit hole is deeper than most people want to know........but hey.......most people really are afraid of the truth.