Arkansas Blog

Sorry, but I find it hard to imagine any financial advantage that would benefit Melanie Fox personally by being a member of the LRSD school board. In fact, I would bet that her being a current member has cost her more in money, time, and reputation than it has benefitted her.

Granted, it's not as exciting or as news-worhty, but what if we saw the fact that test scores have risen among the majority of Little Rock students as a step in the right direction? Call me crazy, but what if we spent, say, even a tenth of the attention we have on the Brooks/Mitchell debacle, instead on ways to improve the education of our growing population of Hispanic students in the LRSD? Can you imagine a society that actually invests as much in "solutions" as it does in "dirt?" - Becki Streett

Maybe its time to start being concern about all our childen's education. Mr. Powers stated May 26, 2007 at the Dunbar Community Center that he hadn't got around to investigation no one but the manority board member.

I such if you dig enough we can find questionable situations on all members.

Hi May, are you a LRSD teacher?

The entire community has observed the Dem-Gaz's relentless hectoring of the majority. We have witnessed the unprecedented actions of those who would rather see the district squander its resources on legal fees than bend themselves to honor the fundamental concept of "majority rule." And we have good reason to believe that some have been positively giddy at the prospect of Dr. Mitchell being exposed to personal tax liability or criminal charges as thanks for her years of doing what she believed was right for the district's children.

No one, then, should be surprised that supporters of the majority do not plan to bring *knives* to a gunfight.

There will be collateral damage.

Nevertheless, I am glad to see Ms. Fox refute the inferences raised against her, and I hope that the bloodletting that is sure to come will be *around* the Board, and not *on* it.

That said, I am amazed that some do not see at least some aspect of a "younegroescanttelluswhattodo" attitude in all of this. Can it be that unparalleled disrespect for a majority vote is merely a coincidence?

To my mind, this is the deal:

Dr. Brooks may be the finest man ever to have set foot right here in River City.

His vision for excellence in urban education may come to fruition elsewhere, and we may all rue the day we let him get away.

But his supporters have been unwisely petulant throughout this affair, and in so doing they have visited harm on the district, race relations in our city, and the children in public schools.

OaZ,
I seriously resent your question to May. There are a few unqualified teachers in LRSD. I worked with some of them who either put personal agendas above the education of children or were unable to educate themselves or anyone else. I doubt they would be posting here anyway. The process to remove a teacher, Arkansas Law, is as difficult as it is to remove a superintendent, except teachers don't have a buyout agreement in their contracts. My suggestion would be that if you want to make a derogatory remark, it not be directed to an individual poster while including all. Social graces, ya know?

Well said, Curious.

TAP as per usual you're right on the mark. I abhor the tactics of the anti-majority. Their tactics are exploding in their faces. I am equally disappointed in the majority's seeming lack of disregard for procedure and policy. The response that others have done it that way in the past doesn't cut it. It is a new day. Brooks is soon to be gone. Time for all to join hands to work for a better future for all children; black, white, yellow and brown. Put aside the "get even" and "gotcha" mentalities, focus on making Little Rock a proud and nationally recognized school district. Focus on helping every child achieve to his or her maximum ability. This is my prayer for tonight.

Becki is correct. Ms. Fox gave each of the schools in her zone a portion of the funds left from her "war chest" in the last school board election. I believe it was over $500 to each school. I truly believe that she will do what is right for the schools and the students. Anyone who believes that she took the job to make money off of the district is barking up the wrong tree.

I think you are right on policy and procedure mouthinfreely.

There is a bright line between the past and the future. The fact that procedures were not followed in the past is relevant to assessing *all* past decisions, whether made by the present majority or a former majority.

But the fact that procedures weren't followed in the past should be *irrelevant* to every decision made from this day forward.

As they used to tell us in Vacation Bible School, "Those who know better, *do* better."

With so much attention focused on the Board and so much at stake, it is time for the LRSB to start turning square corners.

Not one comment about the test scores. Could it be cognitive dissonance which causes an alternate focus?

Could be cognitive dissonance.

Could be that the more immediate, urgent and potentially disastrous issue is a schism on the board and in the community that threatens them both and thus could overshadow all the good that has been accomplished.

Could be that.

Could be we are waiting for the individual school reports to see how many schools are on the improvement list which could put LRSD on the Academic Distress List?

Concerning Mrs Fox's
husband being an executive
for Alltel and she being on the board. Someone please define conflict of interest. And Allttel contract for the LRSD is must more then $6,400.

may,

I understand you being upset about the lowdown (and, in my opinion, race-based) attacks on Dr. Mitchell.

But in my humble opinion if Ms. Fox didn't have anything to do with Alltel *getting* the contract in the first place (because she wasn't on the board back then), and she doesn't have anything to do with Alltel *keeping* the contract (because I'm sure she won't vote on that issue), then I do not believe her board status has helped Alltel or given Alltel any unfair advantage. Therefore it would not be a conflict of interest.

Melanie Fox was quoted in the lstest Democrat Gazette editorial this morning blasting the black school board members dubbed the "Gang of Four." Wonder if that interview was given at the party she hosted with Ben Hussman, whose husband Walter owns the paper (flip to High Profile). As a white West Little Rock parent I am embarrassed at the treatment the black school board members have received. Their crime was to have an opinion that is different from the Foxes and Hussmans of the world. Unfortunately for them they won't be getting an $80 million bonus with the buyout of Alltel as it has been reported that Fox's husband will and they don't have the means to host parties with the newspaper owner's wife. At school board hearings Walter Hussman shows up and sits with the attorney for Brooks (who also happens to be his attorney). The Hussmans children didn't even go to public schools but were sent off to boarding school. The white school board members run in the dark of night or at parties and whine to the newspaper. At any corporation, like Alltel, or any organization the majority rules. I bet if the white school board members had been that majority and wanted to fire Brooks there wouldn't be any flack about it. How sad that we are still stuck in this kind of elitism in the 21st Century. One of the things that makes the public schools my 3 children attend great is their diversity - diversity of students, parents and opinions. Brooks has been fired. It's time to grow up and move on.

WLR - Glad to know you appreciate diversity. None of our board members deserve to be treated badly. Differences aside, they each dedicate a great deal of time to our schools. However, I am not sure that I follow your criticisms of Melanie Fox.

Help me out here. I have yet to hear Fox ever refer to these issues in terms of race. You, on the other hand, use the terms "white" and "black" multiple times in your indictment of her. And while you are certainly correct that her husband is very wealthy (though he did not receive an $80 million bonus), surely someone as enlightened as you would never prejudge anyone based on her socio-economic class? Be careful. Elitism can take many forms.

Becki, the buy out of Alltel isn't complete. The larger bonus associated with that sale won't be paid until after the sale is approved and final. You are right the annual bonus was a mere $4 million.

There are people in our town -- really, really smart people -- who understand that "one vote majority" and "narrow majority" are just a sore loser's ways of saying "majority."

These smart people know that a one-vote majority can send a convicted criminal to the gas chamber or save his life. They know that a one-vote majority will probably save or end a woman's right to an abortion in this country.

Yet they refuse to accept the will of the majority concerning Dr. Brooks. Egged on by the local newspaper, they regularly flaunt their disrespect for the majority,

Even reasonable people who do not see race in every issue have come to conclude that these smart people are *in this case* refusing to accept the will of the majority simply because *this* majority happens to consist of people whose skin is black.

I know Mr. Kurrus and do not doubt his good will. I am willing to assume that the hearts of Mr. Berkley and Ms. Fox are in the right place.

The time has come for the these folks to give the children of Little Rock a wonderful gift of a lesson in civics.

The time has come for them to say: "I believe that a legal vote, on a legal subject, to take legal action, should be decided by the will of the majority. I believe this even when I disagree with the majority. I do not agree with those who have taken extraordinary steps to defeat the will of the majority that happens to be made up of black people. I disavow their tactics and purpose."

We are waiting.

Some posters on this blog are making a big leap to tie the "minority" board to the Hussman line of thinking. I imagine if you polled Fox, Berkley and Kurrus all would tell you they are ready to move beyond the Brooks employment issue. I am confident none of them found joy from reading todays editorial. And WLR Parent to set the record straight, Fox was not quoted in the editorial this morning. She was quoted in a story earlier in the week. Her quote was in reference to the role Corey Thomas played in her deposition. She stated that he actively participated. I don't se how that can be construed as anything but her recollection of fact. She didn't say Thomas was white or black, rich or poor just that he actively participated in the deposition. Now we can all judge on our own whether that and his office location ties him to John Walker or not. But to take a swipe at Fox for her socio economic status is not much different than attacking her on her gender or race. Let's drop the references to race, gender or socio economic status. If you want to criticize a member for a vote or non vote, fire away but let's rise above the personal assaults.

The power to disassociate from the DemGaz position, the power to move on from Dr. Brooks's dismissal, the power to disavow the actions of those who are going to tear this community apart even while they make a martyr of Dr. Mitchell, and the power to show that *their* motives are not race-based, rests entirely in the hands of Messrs. Kurrus and Berkley, and Ms. Fox.

All they have to do is issue a statement to wipe away any sign of tacit approval of the acts of the "younegroescanttelluswhattodo" crowd.

The children are waiting for their civics lesson. The community is waiting for a chance to heal.

Good point, TAP. But, what does "smart" or "race" have to do with any of this? Why use such broad brush strokes in an effort to simplify a complex issue?

Sending Brantley the LRSD's latest test scores or questioning the purpose of one of Walker's associates, in NO WAY mean that Melanie Fox refuses to accept the will of the majority.

At this point, discourse is paramount. Otherwise, what is the average person to do? Accept blindly that:
#1 Brooks deserves to be fired with cause,

#2 Mitchell has illegally accepted funds from the LRSD,

#3 The CTA, Walter Hussman, Heights' moms, and Walker each have personal vendettas to take over the LRSD and subsequenlty the world?

I would argue that the minority has accepted that Brook's tenure is soon to end. However, their fight for the buying-out of his contract (rather than firing-with-cause) was one worth waging, and an excellent "civics" lesson for our children.

Just because Bush received the majority of the electoral votes (the second time around anyway) does NOT mean that his actions should not be questioned or challenged.

From what I understand, the job of an elected representative in our country consists of listening to and working towards the will of his/her constintuency.

Becki,

I assume that Ms. Fox *does* accept the will of the majority. I assume that, unlike the editorial writers of the Dem-Gaz, she doesn't think it's helpful to continue to refer to the majority by a derisive nickname.

I assume that Ms. Fox knows, like the rest of Little Rock knows, that whether or not Dr. Mitchell broke the rules, the *only* reason records where scoured and the point was brought up was to punish her for disagreeing on Dr. Brooks, and to destroy her capacity to disagree in the future.

The fight to prevent Dr. Brooks for being fired with cause ended some time ago. Yet the DemGaz published one of its longest editorials of the year today attacking the majority all over again. Does Ms. Fox agree or disagree with that?

I agree with you on the job of an elected representative. Ms. Fox, Mr. Kurrus, and Mr. Berkley listened to their constituents and fought hard and well for them. They lost. Under those circumstances, the job of an elected representative is to comply with the vote of a legal majority.

What we would like to know, from the mouths of the minority members and not that of an articulate, empassioned and honest supporter like you is--

Are they holding on like the DemGaz? Are they secretly willing to support those who would go to court to block the will of the majority? Are they in support of the all-out war *started* by those who dug out something on Dr. Mitchell, so that every time Ms. Fox attends a party or partakes of the perfectly honorable right to enjoy her family's success, there is an FOI request?

We'd like to know. And the silence isn't comforting.

This is what "smart" has to do with it: If the editorial writers at the DemGaz and their kind were too dumb to understand that important issues are decided by "narrow" majorities every day, we could all chalk up their continued resistance to ignorance.

Since ignorance is not the reason for *some* refusing to accept the will of the majority, we are left to consider whether a disrespect for the majority's skin color is the reason.

After all, even Mr. Gore knew there was a time to drop things and move on. He might still be fighting the 2000 election today, but for the good of the country, he let it go.

The DemGaz could take a lesson from Mr. Gore.

TAP - I think Fox signaled her desire to move beyond the Brooks employment issue by asking questions regarding the process for hiring an interim supe. I haven't asked each of the LRSB members, but I would bet most if not all are ready to take the next step. Why don't you email or call Fox and ask her if she supports the "mothers" lawsuit? I have, she told me no. Moving on....I encourage all in the community to get involved and give input to the LRSB on the hiring of a permanent supe. We need a healer. Think Vic Snyder would be interested in school administration?

P.S. If we want to give our children a civics lesson I encourage three actions; letters to the editor raising hell about the language used in ADG editorials regarding the LRSB, drop your newspaper subscription, and encourage advertisers to stop spending money with ADG. That would be a good lesson in activism.

I fear that, in light of the DemGaz's continuous attempts to roil the waters of reconciliation, the situation is more grave than some understand. It may be that the time for signals is past.

The DemGaz mocks the majority every chance it gets. Mr. Powers came to this blog virtually clapping his hands with glee at the thought that Dr. Mitchell perhaps did not report all her income to tax authorities. The mothers have not abandoned their attempt to thwart the majority.

I assume Ms. Fox is ready to move on. Since I don't own Alltel stock and I see no conflict of interest, I see no reason to criticize her family's success -- may they enjoy it in happiness and good health.

But here is the thing: If the DemGaz is going to re-light the fuse of conflict every time it starts to fizzle out, then signals and solitary e-mail responses will not avert disaster.

TAP - I guess I just don't understand why you think any LRSB board member should respond to hate spewing DemGaz editorialists. Surely you don't think Dr. Mitchell should respond to the attacks? In the same vein I don't think it would be wise for Fox, Curry, Kurrus or any of the others to engage the DemGaz. It will just give the paper another opportunity to spew their divisive rhetoric. Now, you and I should let them have it through letters to the editor.

mouthinfreely,

I promise you that the mocking, contemptuous, and bitter tone of today's editorial was perceived by 8 out of 10 African-American readers as a racist tirade.

Blood is boiling across our city tonight; I wager that dozens of prayers for Dr. Mitchell were offered up from the pulpits of black churches today.

They need not mention the DemGaz by name, but I hope and pray the minority board members will find a way to distance themselves from this hateful and irresponsible tirade that has drawn the community one step closer to open race war on the school board.

Letters to the editor won't help. Those who were sickened by the edittorial alreadly know where they stand and where the DemGaz editorialists stand.

People need to know where Mr. Kurrus, Mr. Berkley, and Ms. Fox stand regarding tactics of hatred and contempt.

I agree the editorial was mean spirited and racially insensitive. It will do nothing but heighten community tension. With that said, I think it would be a mistake for any of the board members to acknowledge or respond to the editorial. The LRSB should lead by action, not by engaging racially insensitive editorialists. The LRSB should close ranks and get about the business of hiring a new supe and creating school programs that will educate our children and prepare them for the world outside the classroom. Their actions will speak much louder than words in response to an ill conceived editorial.

mouthnfreely;

Now that my blood has gone from boiling to a slow simmer, I begin to think you are right.

One thing though; I never called for a direct response to the editiorial (see suggested statement above), but only a statement disavowing the "tactics and purpose" of nameless persons who refused to accept the majority's decision.

TAP - I get what you're saying, I just don't see how the LRSB pulls it off without seeming to be reactive. You and I have both said often that words matter so I am not totally discounting the value of a statement but I also see how it could exacerbate the situation. Tough call. My best advice to the LRSB is get to work. Show us through your actions that you can make decisions that are in the best interest of the community.