Want to Remove Your School Board? They Have an App for That!

(click for story, petition and the law on board removal)

Okay, so they don't really have an App for removing your school board ... but there is a petition.  

Click here for the petition and please inform people you know on Facebook or email who may be able to sign as well.  

Nancy Jester, "For what it’s worth, if the board cannot agree to a drastically new approach to the delivery of education and governance of our district, the board should be removed." 

http://whatsupwiththat.nancyjester.com/2013/01/12/change-the-game/#comment-1019

It is unfamiliar territory, to be sure, but we have little or no other options unless we are willing to just take more of the same abuse.  We must unite to at least try this option because SOMEONE must stop the criminals from stealing our money and harming our children.  If the Governor cannot do it, we are truly running out of options and soon after that, we will also run out of money.  

To get more familiar with the law that is in effect right now, we've copied it for your review below.  And, please take note that the second portion of the hearing will take place on Feb. 21, 2013.  We hope that the hearing will be the final extension allowed by the state BOE before taking a decisive action to help save our accreditation.  

Thank you for staying involved and demanding a higher level of accountability at your school!  It's not just our money or our kids that we are talking about.  This is our future and we cannot sit by and watch as it gets robbed.  -- GTCO-ATL

Georgia State Law for the Removal of Public School Board Members Under Certain Circumstances:

Notes:  Certain portions of text highlighted for emphasis.  As always, GTCO-ATL comments appear in red.  And, one subsection was omitted as it was postdated for 2011 and does not apply to the current circumstances.

§ 20-2-73. Suspension and removal of local school board members under certain circumstances(a) (1) Notwithstanding Code Section 20-2-54.1 or any other provisions of law to the contrary, if a local school system or school is placed on the level of accreditation immediately preceding loss of accreditation (aka, Probation) for school board governance related reasons  (aka, the School Board's fault) by one or more accrediting agencies included in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) of Code Section 20-3-519, the State Board of Education shall conduct a hearing in not less than ten days nor more than 30 days and recommend to the Governor whether to suspend all eligible members of the local board of education with pay. 

If the State Board of Education makes such recommendation, the Governor may, in his or her discretion, suspend all eligible members of the local board of education with pay and, in consultation with the State Board of Education, appoint temporary replacement members who shall be otherwise qualified to serve as members of such board.(b) Any local board of education member suspended under this Code section may petition the Governor for reinstatement no earlier than 30 days following suspension and no later than 60 days following suspension. In the event that a suspended member does not petition for reinstatement within the allotted time period, his or her suspension shall be converted into permanent removal, (does this mean they are ineligible to run for that office again?) and the temporary replacement member shall become a permanent member and serve out the remainder of the term of the removed member.(do taxpayers have to fund the ousted board members' attorneys if they wish to petition for reinstatement?)

(c) Upon petition for reinstatement by a suspended local board of education member, the Governor or his or her designated agent  (we wonder if Deal will pass this duty along to State Superintendent of Schools Dr. Barge?)  shall conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence relative to whether the local board of education member’s continued service on the local board of education is more likely than not to improve the ability of the local school system or school to retain or reattain its accreditation. (interesting judgment call that is being asked for here.  Similar to the lower standards required in a civil trial vs. criminal trial, but it is clear that the proof of the case for reinstatement must come from the board member's side.)

The appealing member shall be given at least 30 days’ notice prior to such hearing. Such hearing shall be held not later than 90 days after the petition is filed and in accordance with Chapter 13 of Title 50, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act,” except that the individual conducting the hearing shall have the power to call witnesses and request documents on his or her own initiative. For purposes of said chapter and any hearing conducted pursuant to this Code section, the Governor shall be considered the agency, and the Attorney General or his or her designee shall represent the interests of the Governor in the hearing. 

If it is determined that it is more likely than not that the local board of education member’s continued service on the local board of education improves the ability of the local school system or school to retain or reattain its accreditation, the member shall be immediately reinstated; otherwise, the member shall be permanently removed, and the temporary replacement member shall become a permanent member and serve out the remainder of the term of the removed member or until the next general election which is at least six months after the member was permanently removed, whichever is sooner. (Nov. 2014 our entire board is up for re-election per a prior state law that was also recently passed. New terms would begin in Jan. 2015.)  Judicial review of any such decision shall be in accordance with Chapter 13 of Title 50. 

(d) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall apply to a local school system or school which is placed on the level of accreditation immediately preceding loss of accreditation on or after April 20, 2011.

(e) This Code section shall apply to all local board of education members, regardless of when they were elected or appointed.  

Trouble Ahead?

To keep up with the slippery scoundrels running our school system, you have to try to think like they do.  Nothing they do is ever above board, so you have to consider the very real possibility that everything happening right now that appears to be working in the favor of the citizens may actually be part of a larger plan.  We've seen it before, and will likely see it again, a plan to fool the taxpayers and  protect the network of friends and family.  It's likely being mapped out right now by some very motivated individuals and their highly paid legal team(s).

This last line (e) in the law on school board removal refers to the Code applying to all board of education members.  

(e) This Code section shall apply to all local board of education members, regardless of when they were elected or appointed.  

This one line is something that, for us, is a very troubling problem.  And, remember, we have been right on the money so far with every prediction we have made in the past year and a half.  We have become pretty good at figuring out what these guys are up to and how they are manipulating others as they go.

So, this line in the law is troubling to us because when we first read the law, this line was written differently.  It originally was written to only affect the members of the board from the time the law was written going forward.  We would need to look it up, but it was a 2010 or 2011 effective date. We remember reading it because we immediately alerted several people we knew about the "scam" as we saw it that appeared to be taking place.  If not a scam, then certainally it was a "loop hole" that could cause problems for those of us who have been hoping to help call out the corruption and end the battles on the board that are harming communities everywhere in Dekalb.    UPDATE:  See this link for the wording of the law that states:  (e) This Code section shall apply only to local board of education members elected or appointed on or after July 1, 2010. 

State hearing on hold for now.  It resumes on Feb. 21, 2013.

Sometimes You Just Can't Seem to Win for Losing

The state somehow passed a bill that changed our local school board election in 2012 from Nov. to July, even though our district maps were still being debated.  This whole process was not explained and actually could have harmed the Democratic candidates since it was the Presidential Primary in which there was no run-off for the President on the Democrats' side.  

Strange as it may sound, when we went to the polls during that election, we were offered any ballot of our choice as it did not matter which side you identified with, you could participate in either group's primary.  Does this happen everywhere or just in DeKalb?

Anyway... at the time, we thought that the law would not help us in our desire to see the worst board members removed from office.  It would not apply to those who were, in our opinion, the biggest offenders of the public's trust:  Womack, Walker, Cunningham, Bowen and Copelin-Wood.

But, we must have seen a variation on the final bill because we later read the version posted about that states it does apply to the entire board regardless of when they took office.  Can they do that?  The argument about whether or not you can go back in time to address a contract was something we were told we could not do with a cell tower ban.  The ban could not change the contracts already signed, according to Rep. Karla Drenner.

In other words, we have something in the constitution of Georgia that says you cannot impose a rule or sanction upon people for things they did before the law was written.  Do you think the board's legal team already knows this and is already working on the appeal before the Governor has even reached a decision?

Is this legal?

AND ... GTCO-ATL followers, that COULD mean that the highly paid legal team funded by our tax dollars actually came up with this whole scheme to protect the very board members that the public has been trying to run out:  Walker, Cunninham, Copelin-Wood.  (We would have added Bowen and Womack to this list, but they are no longer on the board thanks to the voters in the case of Womack and thanks to Bowen for stepping down, for now.)

Could the fact that our board chairman answered a basic question wrong and was caught sleeping at the hearing be an act in order to get the board removed intentionally?  Could Cunningham's appearnce and reports of illness have been contrived to make him appear less astute or articulate than normal?  Could Copelin-Wood have been any more pathetic in appearance as she leaned on the podium and snored while in the audience?   She even yelled at a parent in the ladies' room, apparently unable to control herself.  

Was McMahan's eye rolls and Orson's failure to disclose his former positions in regard to school deals and PACS have also been related to a willful desire to be kicked off the board.  If so, what do they know that we don't know?  All of the new board members admitted to having attended none of the training they should have.  All of them entered schools before the start of their terms and behaved in much the same way as they always do.  

Could all of this bad behavior in front of the state board, actually be a big performance of a lifetime designed to get themselves kicked off?  Perhaps they have reason to believe that their tenure would be honored and their status would get them a "free pass" to try again.  

To make matters worse, the state House of Representatives also passed a law to reduce the board from nine to seven, so when Nov. 2014 rolls around, we could see the return of:  Bowen and Womack.  They are keeping a low profile now because they are currently off the board, but they would still be free to run for re-election as would McChesney, who has started his own blog as a citizen to offer commentary on the current board's situation.   

Don't count them out

And, don't count the newly elected members out.  If they can win reinstatement, then they are right back on the board after a few short months of a break: McMahon, Orson and Johnson.)  If Womack does not have the desire to run again (as he has stated he was ready to retire already and should have done so a decade ago), then McMahan, Orson, Johnson (all part of the current system and way of doing thing) would be added to the winners upon appeal: Walker, Cunninham, Copelan-Wood.  That would leave out Speaks as her district will be dissolved anyway.  (Walker would have to run against Edler, if Edler convinces the Gov. to reinstate her which is highly unlikely especially since she is battling cancer).  

That would only leave Jester's district, which has been widely reporting that Womack has maintained his residence and business in for more than the allotted timeframe needed to run for the position there.  Or, perhaps Tom Bowen has moved and will have fulfilled the one year residency by the time elections roll around.  Or, Dunwoody may be able to start it's own school system by that time if they gain more public support and get the state constitution changed.  

More webs being weaved ahead

However this process ends, there are webs being weaved throughout it that have little or nothing to do with our children, our teachers and those who believe that their rights are being protected by their government.  We will continue to follow the course of action and keep you informed the best we can.  

As long as there are people willing to stand up for what is right, we may be able to take back the systems that our country was built upon to ensure our children have a safe world waiting for them when they grow up.