Showing posts with label ALEC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ALEC. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

11 Alive News Exposes Georgia's Ties to ALEC and Cell Phone Lobbyists



An Atlanta TV station just aired one of the best takedowns of the secretive nature of ALEC we've ever seen:
Posted by Media Matters for America on Friday, May 22, 2015
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

ALEC is at it Again!

The telecom companies and ALEC are up to their old tricks in the Georgia legislature again: they’re pushing a bill for higher cell towers with less local government control over height or siting. Do you want one next to you without even an opportunity for a local government hearing?
Here’s what ACCG says about HB 176, renamed from ‘Advanced Broadband Collocation Act’ to ‘Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development (BILD) Act’:  
HB 176 passed a House Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Sub-Committee on Thursday. Representatives from ACCG, Cobb County, Gwinnett County, GMA and several cities expressed concerns on the impact this legislation will have on local cell tower siting ordinances. This bill significantly preempts local governments in reviewing and approving applications for both the modification of existing cell towers and structures (collocation) and the construction of new cell towers and structures local communities. As HB 176 is the top priority of the wireless industry this session and is being backed by many other influential groups including the Americans for Prosperity and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, it has very strong momentum. 
Please have your county commissioner review the bill and inform your House members of any negative implications it has on your local zoning, land use or tower/equipment application review processes. This legislation will likely be heard on the House floor soon.
Guess who’s chair of the Energy, Utilities & Telecommunications SubCommittee? Don Parsons, who’s also a co-sponsor of both HB 176 and the anti-municipal-broadband HB 282. And guess what else he’s a member of: the ALEC Telecommunications Committee.
Here’s a summary of reasons to oppose HB 176 by Georgia Planning Association. Here’s a similar list from Georgia Municipal Association.
There’s still time to write or call your legislator to stop HB 176, the bad cell tower siting bill, and the anti-municipal-broadband HB 282.
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, October 15, 2012

Charter Schools: Dialogue Between Dumb, Greedy and Corrupt

Virtual Charter Schools? What the Amendment is Not Telling You.
(click headline to read more...)
 
Is this what you were expecting from the charter school amendment?

From The Tucker Patch:  http://tucker.patch.com
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 12:25 am
 
 
Are there really charter schools that can operate on only the state's portion of the funding?
Who are these people and what kind of schools are they wanting to open here? 
 
Changing the state constitution is a big request. Before we vote on Nov. 6, let's make sure we know exactly what is at stake. 
 
Here's one possible scenario:

Interesting to see that the only locations that voted slightly in favor of cell towers on school grounds appear to be the only places not receiving them. What do they know that the rest of us don't?Is this what you were expecting from the charter school amendment?"Gee, I wonder how we can start a charter school without a building or enough money to pay lots of teachers," says nonexistent person #1.

"Yeah, and the 13 other charter schools, dozen or so magnet and theme schools, IB program schools, technological schools and neighborhood schools are just not enough. By golly, I need another choice," says fictitious person #2.

"I have a solution," says slick dressed K-12 or "Connections Academy" or "Other New Online School" sales and marketing representative.

"Wow, you look really smart," responds bozo actor #1.

"That's because I am," says the K-12 associate with his General American dialect so as to not give any clue to the fact that he is from out of state, or even another country.

"Have you considered a virtual charter school? Here are some fancy pamphlets I just so happen to have on this high gloss, heavy weighted paper stock, so you know you can trust what is typeset onto its pages."

"Yeah, we thought about that," says well paid spokesmodel #2, "but our local board of education will never approve something like that. We tried and tried to get them to approve a school with a promise of less than 50% graduation rate and a high drop-out after less than a year attendance, but they didn't like that idea. And they have really low standards."

"We can appeal to the state board of education, but they keep telling us we are broke and need to close schools, not start new ones. I'm guessing they wouldn't overturn the decision."

"Looks like we're stuck with the multiple options to choose from that we already have now. Plus, all the church-based schools and community schools. We are in the Bible Belt, after all."

"Don't forget about the private schools, honey. And the home school options," says the Man #1.

"Oh yeah, that's right. We have those options, too. Plus a state run online school and a local cyber-academy."

"Awwwww.... that's too bad," says Mr. K-12 man. "I have an idea for a virtual charter school that I need to sell to someone stupid. I thought you might want to try convincing a bunch of parents who don't know any better and like the idea of free laptops to sign their kids up! Their moms or dads will likely be expected to stay home with them, of course."

"What makes your school better than others?"

"We were first."

"Oh."

(awkward silence)

"And we have better graduation rates than other online schools, but not as good as brick-and-mortar schools."

"Uh-huh."

(Man #1 and Woman #2 start to walk away. But then..)

"Say, did I mention that we make millions and millions in profit? And we hardly cost the school district a thing?" says desperate salesman from K-12. "As long as I can keep signing the suckers, errr... I mean, kids....up, we can keep hiding the actual churn rate of our attendance and bragging about our annual enrollment increases. The more I sell, the more money for me and my bosses."
"Wow, you must be rich!"

"Yes, but don't worry about that. Besides, I have to watch out for some pesky lawsuits coming from New Mexico and Virginia. Oh, and Florida, too, I think."

"Awwww, you poor, misunderstood salesman. It's tough out there, isn't it? Here, let me count how much money you might have in that wallet for me and my friend here. We might be able to help you out," says greedy snake in the grass #1.

"What's your idea, Jim Bob?" says idiot actress #2.

"Well, the way I see it, we can help each other," says paid actor #1. "I have this friend who is in the state legislature. You know, the people who make the laws n' stuff. I will tell him the problems with the local school board and ask if he can help me start a virtual charter school."

"Once he hears about all the money, he'll surely say yes!" says doll face #2.

"Right! And then he can pass a law that says that some kind of a fake, made-up, overpaid board of people can approve our virtual school. Then we can hire Mr. K-12 here to run it for us and we won't have to worry about things like walls, ceilings, or teachers. We won't need libraries, or a football team or even books.  Think of how cheap this could be!"

"Then how will the kids learn?" says suddenly concerned accomplice #2.

"Who cares? Didn't you hear the man say he make lots of money?" says childless man #1.

"Yeah, but... I don't...."

"If we get the state to appoint a board and let them approve schools, then we can probably get a bunch of money, too!! You know, just like they promised the PTAs that kept quiet about the cell towers. Come to think of it, what ever happened with all that ... "

"But the kids..."

"Ma'am, don't worry about the kids. They will be fine. If they do not keep up, we have friends in the private prison industry who will be happy to take them in. They also make lots of money. Not your kids, of course. Other kids. Ones you won't even see because the school is online, remember??" says drooling K-12 representative as he gets out the contracts.

"Oh, I see. But, won't this take money away from the other schools?"

"Yes, some of it, but we will take a lot of the kids away, too. So, that local group of elected folks will actually have fewer kids to pretend to be educating, until ours start dropping out, of course, and returning to their local schools. But we will have the funds up front. That's all that really matters to us. See, It's a win, win!"

"Except for the kids...."

"Yeah, yeah, the kids," says the man #1 as he signs the contract. "There's always THAT, but ... think of all the money! As soon as the plan gets rolling, you will have enough to put your kids in any private school you want, so who cares what happens to the charter after that? We'll be long gone before anyone notices that the drop-out rates are alarming, some of the teachers aren't certified, some classes have as many as 400 students in them at once, the money goes out of state to help a business stay out of Chapter 11, the people can't threaten to vote for a new board since they were appointed, or that the kids are only using their computers to play games and cyber-bully their friends. And, if one gets lost, dropped or stolen, their parents have to reimburse us for 3X what it cost us. Remember, this is GEORGIA. We're #49th in the nation for education. There is no way the people here would ever think of all of the possible outcomes. They are all stupid."

"Wow, honey, you are a genius."

"Yeah, I went to community college for a year before I dropped out."

"Do you think the people in Georgia might vote NO to Amendment 1162 on Nov. 6?"

"Not a chance. Remember, Mr. K-12 is putting lots of money into the advertising. And people here will believe ANYTHING with a fancy slogan. Remember 'Untie Atlanta'? Oh wait... well, that was different... this will be different. It's for the kids."

"Okay, if you say so. Thank you Mr. K-12!"

"Don't thank me. Thank your legislators for joining The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, so they can further the profit-generating ideas of big businesses like mine instead of protecting the rights of the people like they were elected to do. You can read about them here."

"And, we can thank our uninformed, easily misled or generally apathetic voters for not showing up at the polls even for a Presidential election," says smug man #1 counting his money.

"Yes, and thank you to K-12 and Connections Academy, T-mobile, ATT and all those sneaky little people behind the scenes who have quietly been laying the infrastructure to make this all possible while they thought we were not paying attention," says woman #2 as she books her plane ticket to Hawaii.

"Thanks are in order all the way around," says man in new leadership position of heading up a charter school for the kids #1. I can now say that I helped bring two great ideas together - profiting off the low achievement and lack of parental involvement in my community and a way to use technology to give the appearance of real education to an entirely new generation of families."

"And, by piggybacking off the national obsession with charter schools, we can use the good reputation of that phrase to trick voters into approving HR 1162 on Nov. 6. Funny how a country can be at war protecting freedom while at home they are willing to just give their rights away."

"Funny?"

"Well, not funny ha-ha. More like funny / sad."
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Location: DeKalb, GA, USA

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

EPA Accused of Conducting Experiments on Humans



Lawmaker wants probe of EPA experiments on humans

Sen. James Inhofe, seen here testifying on Capitol Hill in 2011,
wants Congressional hearings following a lawsuit alleging that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted illegal
human experiments, including some on health-impaired subjects. (AP)
(click headline for more ...)

(Reproduced in part) 
Credit:  
Published October 05, 2012
FoxNews.com

A powerful lawmaker is calling for Senate hearings following a lawsuit charging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted illegal human experiments, including some that exposed asthmatic patients to known carcinogens.

( ... )

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called it “extremely disturbing” that EPA scientists may have exposed people with conditions such as asthma and a syndrome that puts them at higher risk for heart disease and strokes to concentrated, high levels of substances like fine particulate matter and diesel exhaust. The allegations first surfaced after Steve Milloy, an author and publisher of JunkScience.com, learned of the experiments through Freedom of Information Act requests.  Milloy's subsequent report led to the lawsuit and now Inhofe's call for hearings.

"Indeed, the EPA may be criminally liable for its conduct.”  - Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla


( ... )

Milloy said records show tests conducted on 41 people exposed them to airborne particulates from diesel truck exhausts at levels 135 times the mean exposure in the United States, increasing their risk of immediate death by 10 percent.

“The law and the rules that the EPA has violated, they’re not just technical, trivial regulations they ran afoul of,” Milloy, who compared the research to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and to those conducted in Nazi Germany, told FoxNews.com. “These are among the most sacrosanct federal regulations in that they are protecting human subjects in medical experiments.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/05/lawmaker-wants-hearings-following-lawsuit-on-illegal-experiments-by-epa/#ixzz28qtLD7ds

GTCO-ATL Commentary: 
How this EPA Story Relates to Cell Phone Towers on School Grounds

Placing cell phone towers on the grounds where children play, right outside the window of the public classrooms where they learn for hours and hours each day is becoming an "only in America" phenomenon. And, we do not mean that in a good way.  There are very few places other than the U.S. that profits when people get sick.  There is no incentive for our government, run largely by the influence of the private sector big wigs, to ensure our safety.  It's all relative to who can make how much and how important the issue is to their bottom line. 

There is a lot of money to be made by the entire telecommunications industry if they can extend the reach of their wireless networks to 24/7 access to us in our homes.  And now there is even a private education sector that wants its hands on our money and will go to great lengths to do that, including the "urging" of our local and state politicans to "persuade" them to push through legislation and policies or sign agreements that will help them get their leg in the door to our schools and our children.  Education is just a product to them.  A means to an end.  And, cell towers are just a minor complication - something that needs a "workaround."  Teachers are just expensive "necessary evils" or an obstacle to profit.  Children are looked at as numbers or indicators toward success or failure toward the one and only goal:  to profit.


In DeKalb County, like other parts of the U.S., cell phone towers were selected for schools with poor or disabled populations, or ones that serve minority or immigrant children.  It's been said that the basically unregulated, out of control proliferation of towers and the consumer demand for phones and devices with more and more services at faster and faster speeds is fueling a massive human experiment like none other.  But, is this an intentional experiment using our children as guinea pigs?  If the EPA is guilty of using humans as experiment targets for research on one occassion, how do we know they are not doing that here?

Other countries that may have started out with this same practice of putting cell phone towers next to homes or schools have since reversed themselves and are actually removing towers voluntarily or by threat of legal action. In the cases of wi-fi service inside the classrooms, other countries including the UK, India, Germany and Canada are learning a painful and expenive lesson - electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a real condition that affects about 3% of any population. Children are no exception. With great effort to make their schools wireless, it took an eqaully great and expensive effort to convert them to fiber optics, the next best thing in terms of speed and data protection.

While it may look good on paper, wireless is not worth a child's health or risking their young life when we are already aware of the dangers and reported illnesses that occur after some individuals spend a significant portion of their day exposed to wireless signals.

Please consider the article above and consider whether or not you will address the matter of a transparent government with your board member or the public.  There is much in the news today about our county and whenever a public official is asked about cutbacks or downfalls in the quality education of our children, it is blamed on the economy. Yet, "the economy" does not appear to be hurting any of them and WE are the ones paying their salaries.

So, unless things change, we cannot justify voting for anything just because "they" (state and local politicians) want us to.  In fact, we plan to do the exact opposite.  Let these folks who are running our county into the ground feel the pain of a reduction in their budget.  Let them learn that they are expected to do the people's work, not the work of big business seeking to take advantage of all Americans, and certainally not when the EPA cannot be trusted to make clear decisions in matters involving the health of our children, loved ones and ourselves.

Don't Give Up Your Local Control


VOTE NO to the local bill on a new way of approving charter schools in DeKalb.  This bill is not about charter schools.  It is about giving over our local control to determine our own future to an appointed board with a political bias.  This bill has a hidden agenda to funnel your tax dollars out of the state of Georgia and into the business of providing online education.

And, contact your state representatives to tell them you support The Cell Phone Right to Know Act (H.R. 6358) introduced by Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich on the national level.  It calls for warning labels on cell phones that clearly shows the amount of radiation the device emits.  It also seeks to change the portion of the FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996 that will not allow health or envirnomental factors to be determining factors for denial of a tower by a local zoning or planning authority.
Posted by No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The Devil is in The Detail (How the Cell Tower Votes Shine a Light on DeKalb's "Corridor of Corruption")

Wonder exactly how the cell tower vote shook out and whether or not your own community said they were for or against the idea of cell towers at schools? 

Read more by clicking the headline for the full story. 

On July 31, 2012 Georgia voters took to the polls in the election primaries. In Dekalb County, a question popped up on the ballot with little explanation:

"Should the local, charter or independent school system of Dekalb County place or operate a telecommunications tower on any elementary, middle or high school property?"

The phrase, "The Devil is in the Detail," refers to a catch or mysterious element hidden in the details.[1]

While opponents  of cell towers on school grounds were happy when the outcome was a strong 62% of voters saying "NO," GTCO-ATL was wondering if there was more we could learn from the data.  So, we dug a little deeper. 

From the start, we were critical of the validity of any data that might come from this question. First, it was asking too many things at once which is a common error people make when they are not properly trained in survey data analysis or proper question techniques.  We tried to alert those who were responsible for the question, Rep. Karla Drenner and Rep. Chuck Sims, but they did not respond. We then asked Gov. Deal to not sign the referendum as it was vague, not necessary and did not come from the people. He signed it anyway.

So, we determined that even though it might not go our way, at least it would tell us a few things that could be beneficial.

  1. First, any area that answered yes, or even close, could be an area that is uninformed of the dangers and problems a cell tower could bring. We could focus more effort with our PR there.
  2. Second, if we felt there were areas well informed that still said yes, we might be able to see specifically where corruption was influencing the voters.  Why wouldn't we think a yes could be a sincere, honest vote? Because we have been at this for more than a year and have never met anyone who has thought it was a good idea. Even those who like to debate us on the blogs will not take a pro-cell tower stance.
  3. The third thing we thought we would learn would be where these "rural" Dekalb areas actually are located where Mr. Cunningham said they "welcomed the towers." Going by the way things appeared in the media, the South regions wanted the towers and money, while the North was leading the protests against them.  What we expected was to see strong opposition regardless of the location.

But, oddly enough, here is how the vote shook out:


(click chart to enlarge)

Here are some questions we had:
  • Are these areas (highlighted in yellow) actually ignorant of the dangers of cell towers?
  • Is the difference of just a few percentage points even enough statistically to be concerned about or is it safe to say that overall the entire county was against the idea of placing cell towers on the public school grounds?
  • Should the school board inform T-mobile about the few areas that skewed slightly in favor of cell towers so they can be the ones to receive them?
  • Is there a chance that the very few areas that skewed in favor of the towers had some sort of "inside information" to reassure them that they would not actually be the ones to receive the towers? 
  • Are the areas of the county that were not selected for tower placements not going to receive the cooresponding technology either? 
  • What is the purpose of a "non-binding advisory referendum" anyway?  Why did state legislators create this alternative to the total ban on towers that the citizens wanted?
  • What did they expect to do with the results of this referendum?
  • But, who are we advising?  Who will listen? 
  • Who will actually do something with these results?
  • If no one is going to act upon this ballot question and it will not influence (or "advise") anyone in a decision-making capacity, then why did taxpayers have to pay for it? 
  • Why did we even have to take our time and resources to educate people about the question, and its poor wording, if the outcome was for no viable purpose? 
  • Or, as we suggested originally, was this question created for someone else?  Someone OTHER than the citizens?  Perhaps if the results would have gone in the favor of the towers, they would have used the results.  If that is the case, then shouldn't THOSE PEOPLE (or businesses) be the ones who should have paid for it?  Not the voters of DeKalb County. 
  • Were we really successful in stopping the towers? 
  • Is the school board aware that the contracts have expired?
  • Why won't our School Board or our county CEO tell us anything?

We may never know for sure, but we plotted the districts marked in yellow, above, on a map of the voting precincts.  After studying the areas and their relationship to each other, here's what we saw. 
 
(We are working to get a scanned version of this map
uploaded here for you.  Check back soon.)

WHERE WERE THE YES VOTES?

  1. A small number of Dunwoody communities, and a

  2. A small portion of the Lakeside or Emory-Lavista "Corridor" of schools.  

Note:  Almost all areas in favor were ITP, or "Inside the Perimeter."


WHO COULD THEY BE?

Of course this is all speculation on our part, but there could actually be four types of "yes" votes in these areas:

  1. Voters who are completely unaware of the issue (just like we once were before this started)
  2. Voters who think tower radiation is harmless for children and therefore our public land should be leased to T-mobile without concern (we have not actually met anyone like this, have you?)
  3. Voters who have been told to vote yes (by an employer or friend) and do so because they do not have a personal, vested interest in the outcome.
  4. Voters who have spoken to their board member, believe they will not be receiving a cell tower and therefore they do not care if a tower goes up somewhere else.
Note:  It is important to note that none of the areas (in the chart in yellow) actually had a cell tower going up near them. 

Of course we have no way of knowing why people voted the way they did.  We cannot go back and review the votes to ask follow-up questions.  And, people who were unaware of the issue had no way of selecting "I don't know" or "unaware" as their response.  These are just a few of the reasons we asked the Governor to veto this bill, but he went ahead and signed it.

Dunwoody

Those who voted in the Dunwoody area may have done so because they were not faced with this issue at their local schools.  Dunwoody did not have any of their schools on the original or reduced list for cell towers.  Does this mean they do not get the technology, either? 

If cell towers are actually a means for distributing the material of a virtual charter school, did certain folks in Dunwoody already know about this concept?  They have been advocating on the School Watch Blog for separate school districts.  So, have they been promised a way that they can make this happen in return for supporting the cell tower idea? 

Do we have a case of ignorant, but financially well-off, neighborhoods where they do not follow school news?  Or is this a case of yet another area of DeKalb selling someone else's neighborhood out when offered something they want for themselves? 

Lakeside / Fernbank and the Emory-Lavista Corridor


That leaves only a few districts that were either divided in their responses or barely tipped the scales in favor of towers on school grounds. But, with the exception of Lakeside High School, these areas were not facing the possibility of a tower at their own neighborhood school, at least not according to our Open Records Requests to see their contracts. 

So, Lakeside High area again emerges as one sticking out like a sore thumb. The school that reportedly initiated the request to their district representative, Paul Womack, who in turn brought the item to the Budget, Finance and Audit Committee while he was the chairman. Lakeside High School wants a tower, and the money of 12 towers so the Vallhalla Group can "finish the dream."   And the rest of us must endure all the baggage that it means to get roped into this issue while they sit back and smile.

In the Oct. 1 meeting agenda, a donation was accepted to finish the Lakeside construction for an outdoor eating area.  Yes, you read that correctly....

Did people really just vote "yes" to radiating other people's children for 30 years in exchange for an outdoor pavilion so their kids can get a little sun while they eat their non-free, non-reduced priced lunches?  Tell us that is not what is happening here? 

Then again, Lakeside has so many towers in a four mile radius, one more could not have possible been what made the difference, could it?

It appears that everything is proceeding according to plan.   But, who's plan is this??


Protests Come From the "North" (But the Public Votes Yes?)

"South" Board Members Vote Yes, but the Public Votes NO? 

Don't you find it interesting that we saw bigger than life protests coming from the areas where many people voted to be in favor?  AND, at the other end of the county, in the areas where we were told they "welcomed the towers," we saw the largest portion of people who voted against it? 

Have you figured out that things are not always as they seem here in DeKalb? 

And, many board members publically stated that they would have voted differently if they knew then what they know now.  See our story on this subject, here.

The cell towerss are a great lesson in not judging a book by its cover.  Rather, we should be judging our school books by the fact that they will soon not have any covers, just screens.  Hell, we don't even have librarians any longer! 
 
Most important:  Most People in Most Places Across the County Said NO CELL TOWERS AT OUR SCHOOLS.  And, for those of us who agree, if it is not a good idea for my school, then it is not a good idea for any school!

But, these are just a few of the ideas we came up with.  We would love to hear what you think.  Email us at sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com and let us know!

We did it once, now let's do it again! 

Vote NO on the charter school ammendment this November!  This is NOT about charter schools!  It is about creating virtual schools under a sneaky initiative put forth by corporations seeking new ways to profit, NOT about our children or parental choice.

VOTE NO to changing the state's constitution! 

NO MORE CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORITIES!

Don't GIVE AWAY our power!  Let's Take it BACK! 

What can we do instead?  Start looking for well-qualified people to run for the School Board in the next election!  WE can do this if we keep working together!  Stick up for your beliefs!  Inform your neighbors!  Talk about what is happening so that others will not have to suffer the same thing happening to them! 

See you at the upcoming meetings!  (see our meetings page) Ask Questions!  Remain Alert!  Do not Trust those in power who have something to gain from you.  Seek advice only from those uninterested third parties or people whom you trust before acting upon anything you see or hear in this school system.   
 
 
For more info, watch "The United States of ALEC" here:  http://billmoyers.com/



 VOTE NO TO CHARTER SCHOOLS! 

It is time to STOP FEEDING THE BEAST!
  1. ^ a b c d Titelman, Gregory, Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings, Random House Reference, March 5, 1996p
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 23, 2012

The "No's" Are Stacking Up Against the Charter School Ammendment

Background:  At GTCO-ATL, we are wary of the charter school ammendment as well as the push to support it.  While we had still not formed our own opinon, some pretty hefty opposition came forward, most notably from the state Superintendent, Dr. John Barge. 
As we looked into the role of ALEC, most from what we learned on the website www.alecexposed.org, we found that a similar model bill was created by ALEC in their education task force.  The ALEC committee includes the private company (not a Georgia business) K-12 which already handles the students in the state of Georgia who have opted for a home-school, online program alternative.  It is also co-chaired by David Cascas, a Republican from Gwinett County who is in the state House of Representatives. 
As a reminder, ALEC is not a governmental group.  They claim to be a charity that does not lobby, but rather is a social organization with members of congress as well as corporate executives who wish to spend their down time toether.  In reality, these groups meet, develop model legislation that support the business initiatives and cut the voters out of the loop completely.  The state representatives and senators take the model bills back to their states and try to pass them.  It is their objective to privative education.  In other words, they want to take as many of our tax dollars and divert them toward private companies that will profit, by their stated objectives and entire reason for existence.  As the trend has been lately, that means those private companies will pay out big bonuses to their top executives and CEOs and not create new jobs or reinvest the money into the local economy.  In fact K-12 has absolutely no reason to invest in our local economy as they are not even based in Georgia.  They are based in Baltimore, Maryland.  Maryland is currently listed as one of the richest states in the U.S.
So, how does the charter school bill play into this scenario? 
Well, if we give the state the power to set up charter schools, the first one they will set up will likely be a virtual school that will be run by K-12.  So, that's fewer teachers employed here and more money to the bottom line of a Maryland business with a CEO who already makes a half a million dollars a year.  If the virtual charter does better than our current schools, then more students will likely be sent there, either from home or by watching classes on TV in school with a lower salary employee, not necessarily a teacher, watching over them. 
Our money will leave DeKalb, take a short stop at the state for a little payoff, and then exit to Maryland.  How will that help our local economy?  It won't.  How will that impact our neighborhood schools?  It will likely result in closing many of them.  What harms property values?  Closed, abandoned schools would definitely be on the top of that list.  So would cell towers.  But, if your school system is headed toward state control, state charters and virtual learning, the first step would be a cell tower so that the kids can turn in their homework while using their laptops or tablets to connect to the school intranet. 
We've wondered for a long time if the cell towers were about more than money.  If they were only for the money, then the people making the deal would have tried harder to get a better deal.  What T-mobile agreed to pay is less than they normally pay in commercial areas and we're actually helping them avoid paying their property tax.  If anything, they should be paying our schools a lot more!  So, if it is not for the money, as Paul Womack insisted in a public meeting last September, and it is for the coverage, then why does the school system care about cell tower coverage? 
If those things sound like they might be related to one another to you, as they do to us, then we suggest that you consider a "NO" vote on the charter ammendment.  We do not need more hands on our money or more schools trying to grab funding when our existing schools are failing.  We need to get back to basics, elect quality board members and stop spending money that we simply do not have.  Children need role models, mentors and help learning from real people.  They have plenty of time to play with their gadgets and talk on their cell phones, if they have them.  While in school, they need to be focused on learning, the same thing our school system leaders seem to forget they should focus on as well.
With that in mind, here is a recent posting from our friends at the Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter organization in DeKalb County, one of our most trusted partners in the cell tower opposition.  Knowing that they feel the same way we do only enforces our belief that this ammendment requires serious consideration and is most likely a bad idea.  If you feel differently, we invite you to please comment in our feedback section so we can evaluate both sides to this debate.
 
 
Summary of Unhappy Taxpayer and Voters' Position
on the Charter School Ammendment  Proposed for the State of Georgia.
Chime in with Your Vote in the November Election!
On August 14, 2012, State School Superintendent Dr. John Barge (R ) released a statement about the constitutional amendment (HR1162) on charter schools due to be voted on November 6th and he stated the following:
“I fully support the continued creation of high quality charter schools for Georgia’s students, but after careful consideration of what is best for all of Georgia’s students, I have decided to take a position in opposition to the constitutional amendment that will be on the November 6 ballot.
Until all of our public school students are in school for a full 180-day school year, until essential services like student transportation and student support can return to effective levels, and until teachers regain jobs with full pay for a full school year, we should not redirect one more dollar away from Georgia’s local school districts – much less an additional $430 million in state funds, which is what it would cost to add seven new state charter schools per year over the next five years (the annual average of the Charter Commission that would be revived if the amendment passes).
I cannot support the creation of a new and costly state bureaucracy that takes away local control of schools and unnecessarily duplicates the good work already being done by local districts, the Georgia Department of Education, and the state Board of Education. What’s more, this constitutional amendment would direct taxpayer dollars into the pockets of out-of-state, for-profit charter school companies whose schools perform no better than traditional public schools and locally approved charter schools (and worse, in some cases).”
If the Republican State Superintendent John Barge has decided to take a position in opposition to the Constitutional amendment (HR1162), why are our elected officials claiming that no money will be redirected from our local school systems. There are a large number of school systems demanding additional state funding for their local school system (such as DeKalb County); yet, the state has not provided additional funding. The state of Georgia has extra money to finance an additional commission to oversee the charter schools?
 Where is the money and who will pay the bill?
The voters will decide whether the state or the local school boards will have the ultimate authority to approve charter schools on November 6th. The serious question boiled down to local control vs. state control. Why? The Georgia Charter Commission members will be appointed by Governor Nathan Deal (R ). If the referendum passes, the Georgia Charter Commission will make the final decision on charter schools instead of the local school boards or State Board of Education.
Why should DeKalb County parents and taxpayers care?
DeKalb County has a long history of being a donor county. Over $100 million dollars were removed from our school district since 2006 under the Quality Basic Education (QBE) formula (better known as local 5-mill share) and redistributed to school districts throughout the state. Despite serious budget shortfalls, teachers with pay cuts and furlough days, as well as school teachers and personnel working without a pay raise for over five years, the state wants the taxpayers and voters to believe they can locate over $430 million dollars to fully fund the Georgia Charter Commission without causing any harm to the funding sources of local school systems. Once again, where’s the money to fund the $430 million dollar price tag for the Georgia Charter Commission?
Year Local 5-Mill Share (QBE) State Revenue Received
2011 129.0 323.3
2010 117.4 352.7
2009 120.1 357.0
2008 112.4 387.9
2007 107.4 383.8
2006 101.9 326.6
 What are our elected officials saying about HR1162?
State Representative Rahn Mayo held an informative discussion at the Community Achievement Center on August 21st on the issue of charter schools. Several questions were asked concerning the funding of the Georgia Charter Commission (HR1162). However, no answer was given to explain where the $430 million dollars would come from to finance the re-established agency (if referendum passes Nov. 6). We must also remember that if $430 million dollars is located, how will we address the funding shortage local school districts are presently having with the QBE formula?
There was not one DeKalb County Board of Education member on the panel; however, there were two members to attend the meeting – Jay Cunningham and Donna Elder. Representative Mayo had a member from the Henry County Board of Education on the panel and a long supporter of charter schools, Representative Alisha Morgan. Representative Morgan reassured everyone that no money from local school systems will be used to finance the Georgia Charter Commission. Once again we asked, “Where will the $430 million come from?”
We also asked about the $100+ million already removed from DeKalb County School System. Would the money for the charter schools come from funding under the QBE formula or another funding source? We have yet to receive an answer. However, we have included a link to Rep. Mayo statement on charter schools in support of HR 1162: http://youtu.be/-2yOVltgU6c and Rep. Morgan statement: http://youtu.be/JMfe9DBLFXw
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Georgia Legislators with ALEC Ties


From the website:  www.ALECexposed.com these are some facts about ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council.  These are the folks who believe big corporations should have the same rights as citizens and that our elected officials should pass legislation to protect them, not us.  And, they can get them to do just that  - for a price.








About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

(click article headline for full story)

Legislator who has cut ties to ALEC:  Georgia
  • Sen. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta) - In a statement to the citizens’ action group Better Georgia on April 17, 2012, Orrock denounced ALEC, calling it “radical,” “dangerous” and accused it of “impeding democracy.”[1]
“As a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council for several years, having joined ALEC with the primary goal of better understanding the corporate-dominated organization, I know first-hand that ALEC is not the innocuous organization it claims to be,” Orrock said.[1]
 
References
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 David Ferguson, Georgia lawmaker quits ALEC, calls it ‘radical’ group with ‘dangerous agenda’, Raw Story, April 17, 2012, accessed April 2012

Legislators currently with ties to ALEC:  Georgia

House of Representatives

(Gwinnett - Lilburn) He serves on the following committees for the Georgia State Assembly: Appropriations, Economic Development and Tourism (Vice Chairman), Education and Rules.[1]

Casas is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and on their Education Task Force, as of July 2011 (the same month as the cell tower vote in DeKalb County by our Board of Education).
 
He won the ALEC 2008 Legislator of the Year Award.[2][3]
Jan Jones is an elected state representative in the U.S. state of Georgia. She serves in the Georgia assembly, which meets in the Capitol building in Atlanta. Her constituents include some of the northern Atlanta suburbs in Georgia's 46th district including parts of Milton and parts of Roswell and Alpharetta. She is a Republican and is currently the majority Speaker Pro Tempore. While in the legislature, she has focused on several initiatives, most notably spearheading the creation of two north Fulton county cities, Milton and Johns Creek.  Outside the legislature, Representative Jones is a former marketing executive. While at HBO, she served as a marketing director for 6 years and as an auditor and analyst for 2 years.

Senate

First elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1998, Fran Millar is presently serving those in his district through membership on several House committees. He holds membership in the Health and Human Services, Rules, and Economic Development and Tourism Committees.  
 Millar is also presently serving as the Vice Chairman of the Education Committee.  In past years, Millar served as the Treasurer of the DeKalb Delegation.
Senator John Albers (born 1972), a Republican, represents Georgia District 56 in the State Senate. State Senate district 56 is located in North Fulton County and Southeast Cherokee County covering all of Roswell and Mountain Park and parts of the cities of: Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, Alpharetta, Milton and Woodstock, Georgia.

Former Legislators

References
  1. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Sourcebook, annual organizational publication, 1995
  2. ↑ Mark Hatfield, About Mark, state senate campaign website, accessed July 23, 2012
  3. ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 American Legislative Exchange Council, Letter to Robert C. Byrd and Nancy Pelosi RE: Federal health reform efforts, June 24, 2009
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 American Legislative Exchange Council, "ALEC State Chairmen, organization website, accessed April 2012
  5. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Communications and Technology Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  6. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, International and Federal Relations Task Force meeting and Federal Relations Working Group, meeting agenda and materials, August 4, 2011, on file with CMD
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 American Legislative Exchange Council, "Solutions for the States," 38th Annual Meeting agenda, on file with CMD, August 3-6, 2011
  8. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force Membership Directory, August 2010, obtained and released by Common Cause
  9. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Education Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  10. ↑ organizational member spreadsheet, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  11. ↑ organizational member spreadsheet, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 American Legislative Exchange Council, organizational task force membership directory, June 30, 2011, p. 31, obtained and released by Common Cause April 2012
  13. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, [http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/tax_35-daymailing_stfs2011_updated%20Ohio.pdf – Full Name and Address], Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  14. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Health and Human Services Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  15. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, International Relations Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  16. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, International Relations Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  17. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, International Relations Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 American Legislative Exchange Council, Public Safety & Elections Task Force 2011 Spring Task Force Summit April 29, 2011 Minutes, organizational document, June 30, 2011, p. 5, obtained and released by Common Cause April 2012
  19. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Public Safety Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  20. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Health and Human Services Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  21. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Health and Human Services Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  22. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Membership Directory, December 2010, obtained and released by Common Cause
  23. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Membership Directory, December 2010, obtained and released by Common Cause
  24. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Health and Human Services Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  25. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Education Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  26. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Education Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  27. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, organizational task force membership directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  28. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, organizational task force membership directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  29. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, organizational task force membership directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  30. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Education Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  31. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Membership Directory, December 2010, obtained and released by Common Cause
  32. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Membership Directory, December 2010, obtained and released by Common Cause
  33. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, International Relations Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  34. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Communications and Technology Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  35. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Communications and Technology Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 American Legislative Exchange Council, Letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid, RE: the EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, March 10, 2010
  37. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, State Chairmen, document exposed by the Center for Media and Democracy, July 13, 2011
  38. ↑ DonBalfour.com, Meet Don, accessed March 19, 2012.
  39. ↑ member spreadsheet, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  40. ↑ member spreadsheet, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  41. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Health and Human Services Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  42. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Health and Human Services Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  43. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Membership Directory, December 2010, obtained and released by Common Cause
  44. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Education Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  45. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Communications and Technology Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  46. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Communications and Technology Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  47. ↑ David Ferguson, Georgia lawmaker quits ALEC, calls it ‘radical’ group with ‘dangerous agenda’, Raw Story, April 17, 2012, accessed April 2012
  48. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, [http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/tax_35-daymailing_stfs2011_updated%20Ohio.pdf – Full Name and Address], Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  49. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Director – Full Name and Address, organizational task force membership directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  50. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Director – Full Name and Address, organizational task force membership directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  51. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Education Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  52. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, International Relations Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  53. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, International Relations Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
  54. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Inside ALEC, organizational newsletter, June 2012, on file with CMD
  55. ↑ State of Georgia. Congressman Tom Graves. Government website. Accessed August 8, 2011.
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)