CHAPMAN AND EKEBERG DO NOT WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU

Check out Chapman and Ekeberg’s websites. Ekeberg has made it clear on his website that the members of this community are not a part of his District 15 TEAM, and both of their websites make it clear that they do not want the public asking them any questions about their campaign: there is no email, phone, or other contact information for them on either website. To his credit, the third member of this troika, Dave Seiffert, does have contact information on his website. And of course, the Vote 1-3-5 website supporting Sriram, Herr and Iannuzelli has contact information.

Check out the websites here:

http://www.electjimekeberg.org

http://www.electjerrychapman.org

http://www.electdaveseiffert.com

http://www.vote135.org/

NEW VIDEO ON DISTRICT 15 ELECTION – DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN

Here is a link to a new video that was sent to me today

Enjoy!

CHAPMAN NEEDS TO GO

I can’t very well criticize Chapman’s minions without taking a shot at the King himself. The reasons the Daily Herald gives for annointing Chapman are, to me, the very reasons why he should not be re-elected: he is “a former school superintendent with a long resume of community leadership”. As to the first qualification, does being the former superintendent of District 211, who led that District down a path of deficit spending and borrowing millions of dollars make him the best candidate in District 15? Does the fact that he has a long resume of community leadership entitle him to yet another public leadership role? What about his leadership role as president of the school board since 2008, during which time the District has approved employee contracts it cannot afford, attempting to issue $27 million in bonds it could not afford, spent $10,000 on attorneys fees to defend his role in “editing” board meeting minutes, and approving a $5,000 trip to San Francisco at a time the district is contemplating budget cuts? What kind of leadership has Chapman provided the District in the past? And why would this community want Chapman’s brand of leadership to continue? The Daily Herald has clearly lost its way.

Read the Herald endorsement here:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110316/discuss/703169847/

COMMUNITY NOT A PART OF THE EKEBERG “TEAM”

I paid a visit to Jim Ekeberg’s election website and I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see that Dr. Ekeberg does not consider the community to be a part of his “team”, which he defines as follows:

TEACHERS
EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT STAFF
ADMINISTRATION
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

And yet the Daily Herald views Ekeberg as having “solid insights into the needs of the district”. Maybe they meant to say “district employees”. Oh well, I guess all of us hardworking taxpayers will just have to get used to sitting on the sidelines, watching the pros play the education game, because clearly there is no room on the “team” for us. We just get to keep paying for it.

A CLOSER LOOK AT DAVE SEIFFERT’S “INDEPENDENT SPIRIT”

I would love to have been a fly on the wall at the Daily Herald editorial board meeting to witness the “independent spirit” and “fresh ideas” that Dave Seiffert apparently displayed. You wouldn’t know such a thing existed from the responses he gave to the Herald’s candidate questionnaire, which can be viewed here:

Here are some excerpts, which show that Seiffert is more concerned about listening to the Administration’s needs than to the community:

“Would listen to the Administration and evaluate their recommendations…

We would have to listen to Administration …

Listening to the Administration to give their recommendations…

There may need to be some difficult decisions, but we need to communicate those to the constiuents that are represented and get a feel from them….”

(please note: spelling errors were made by candidate)

Yes, I can see why the Herald was wowed by Seiffert’s “Independent Spirit” and “fresh ideas”.

DAILY HERALD ENDORSES CHAPMAN, EKEBERG, SEIFFERT

The Daily Herald has retreated from its temporary position as champion of the taxpayer and advocate for open, transparent school board governance, by endorsing Chapmand Ekeberg and Seiffert.

As recently as last October, the daily Herald urged voters to vote “No” to the $27 million bond issue, stating “the whole project seemed like a rush job to cash in on federal dollars”. Back in July, the editorial board scolded the school board for signing a deal with former Superintendent Dan Lukich which contained a gag order, going so far as to write “It’s the taxpayers who are left gagging.” Yes, indeed, we are all left gagging today by the Herald’s incredibly stupid, hypocritical endorsement of the very people who brought us the ill-conceived bond issue and the secret Lukich deal.

Apparently the Daily Herald editorial board just fell off the turnip truck on the way into the big city from Podunk IL, (it’s a good thing too, because they could never survive in the big city) and they believe that Chapman and Ekeberg are born again fiscal conservatives who “share the challengers’ sense of urgency on financial matters and many of their best ideas on the district’s educational needs”. More accurately, Chapman and Ekeberg are pretending to share that sense of urgency, pretending to be serious about re-opening the teacher’s union contract, and pretending to care about what our kids learn in school. Remember, Chapman and Ekeberg voted against making strengthening the curriculum a core goal of our district. I think they voted “aye” to “ensuring that every member thinks the same thoughts, votes the same way as Chapman, and keeps their mouths shut in public” as a core District 15 goal. As for Dave Seiffert, the man can’t construct a simple grammatically correct sentence (see his Daily Herald candidate profile) – but then I suppose he will fit right in with a crew that doesn’t care about curriculum.

Maybe the Herald wants to keep the incumbents in power so that they can scold them in future editorials, make themselves look like champions of open government, and sell more newspapers. I can’t think of any other reason why the Herald would endorse the very people who are dragging District 15 into financial ruin. Can you?

Read the full endorsement here:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110316/discuss/703169847/

CHAPMAN AND EKEBERG “FORGET” $31,000 UNION CONTRIBUTIONS IN 2007

Maybe they are just getting old and forgetful, or maybe they just don’t want to remember, but it appears the Jerry Chapman and Jim Ekeberg have conveniently forgotten that they received over $31,000 in Union contributions in the 2007 school board election. When asked at a TOPPER candidate forum whether they had ever received contributions from the unions, Chapman mumbled something about possibly the union “did a mailing” for the friends of Bokor Chapman Ekeberg committe>

Well, let me refresh your recollection:

$3,000 from the ESPA
$2,000 from the SEIU
$1,000 from the NW Coalition for Quality Education which initially received said $1,000 from the teacher’s union
$3,500 from the Classroom Teachers Council PLUS
over $22,000 in “in-kind” contributions that were made on behalf of Bokor Chapman Ekeberg, including $1,000 paid to that venerable election law attorney Jim Nally.
Here are some more details:

$1,887.63 to obtain a copy of a “voter file”
$487.76 for photocopies
$780.00 for postage (ah, this is the “mailer”!)
$624.00 for more postage
$1,000 to Attorney Jim Nally
$17,000 to Morrissey public Affairs (they crafted the phone script for the political calls that were made by the teachers in the run-up to the election)

Bokor Chapman Ekeberg D-2 from 2007

Forget for a moment about the inherent conflict of interest in acceptin campaign donations from the same unions that you will be negotiating contracts with if you are elected. Do we really want to re-elect board members who can’t remember receiving more than $31,000 from the unions in a single election? People that forgetful should be at home tending their gardens, not pretending to be stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars.

BOARD APPOINTS CHAPMAN ALLY TO FILL VACANT BLOOM SEAT

After interviewing 14 candidates over a period of six hours last Saturday, the majority of the District 15 school board “deliberated” less than 5 minutes and chose current candidate Dave Sieffert to fill the seat left vacant by Mark Bloom’s abrupt departure. Full disclosure: I was one of the applicants for the position, but unlike the other 13, I knew that I had absolutely zero chance of being chosen for the seat.

The whole thing stinks, from the careful timing of Mark Bloom’s departure so that his vacant seat could be filled only by appointment, and not in the April election, to the pre-arranged and agreed upon choice of Dave Sieffert. If you have ever wondered why the board majority of Chapman, Bokor, Ekeberg and Babcock never discuss anything in a public meeting, it’s because they don’t have to – they have it all figured out in advance. Or I should say that Chapman has it all figured out and everybody else votes the way he does.

But the icing on the cake is the fact that Dave Sieffert will be sworn in as a board member next week, so that he can get a head start on voting the way Chapman tells him to vote, AND he will stay on the April ballot, siphoning votes away from more worthy, more independent candidates. If he is elected in April, he intends to resign his two year seat, so that the board can re-fill it. Look for Sieffert’s name on a “Chapman, Ekeberg, Sieffert” campaign sign, coming soon to a District 15 employee’s lawn near you! Just remember, it’s all about keeping the board stacked with members who don’t bat an eye at giving District 15 employees 5% pay increases when revenue is capped at 0.1%

DISTRICT 15 ATTORNEY EXONERATES CHAPMAN IN ALLEGED MINUTES TAMPERING

Ok, well that was no surprise. You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, and District 15 feeds Mike Loizzi about $20,000 in legal fees every month. And those emails that were doctored up to remove Chapman’s name as the instigator of the scheme to put words into Sue Quinns’ mouth? That was just something the board secretary decided to do on her own. Tsk tsk tsk. I hope you all detect the heavy sarcasm. I happen to like the board secretary and I fell for her, being one of King Chapman’s minions.

DISTRICT 15 ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED CHAPMAN MINUTE TAMPERING

The Daily Herald today reports that the District 15 school board voted to have the District’s attorney, Mike Loizzi of Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn, investigate whether Gerald Chapman tampered with the March 10, 2010 minutes. Some board members and District residents are unhappy that a $265 per hour attorney whose firm makes approximately $20,000 per month on District 15 legal issues, has been called in to waste taxpayer dollars on this issue. But the Board policy clearly states that if there is an allegation of an ethics violation, in the absence of an appointed Ethics Officer (and one has never been appointed in District 15) the District’s attorneys shall investigate the allegations.

In the Herald article Chapman blames Board Secretary June Becker for instigating the changes to the minutes, but a review of the emails, which were previously obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, clearly show that Chapman was in charge (as always). The first email on the subject was sent at 9:37 am on April 6 2010 by June Becker to Merilee McCracken (former Asst. Superintendent for Business). June wrote:

“Hello,
While reviewing the minutes from the last board meeting, Dr. Chapman requested that a specific value be place (sic) where I have indicated in red. When amending the motion, Dr. Quinn had indicated it to be “debt limit as set by law (1 1/2%) going forward.” Could you please help me with that amount?
Thank you!
June”

Merilee McCracken suggested that Jun Becker email Liz Hennessy, the representative from William Blair, the bond company. At 10:16 am Ms. Hennessy responded

“HI June and Merilee,
I did not recall an amount specified in her amendment. I believe her motion was to restrict the proceeds to capital use and not to allow refunding only.”

Ms. Becker them reviewed the video of the March 10 meeting and came back with this email at 11:34:

“Upon reviewing the video Dr. Quinn said the following ‘not to issue working cash bonds but to restrict it to capital bonds up to whatever our debt limit is as set by the law, the 1.5%, going forward.’

Our Board President, Dr. Chapman would prefer an amount there, however I am not sure if that amount was available at the time of the meeting. He believes an amount was recommended.”

Liz Hennessy replied at 11:43:
“Hi June,
Sue Quinn asked how much could they issue without any refunding and I said I would have to get back to her. She asked if a fair estimate was 1/2 or 1/3 of the amount proposed and I said most likely. Options I and II that I sent as a follow up show amounts between $4M-$6M with no refunding. I hope that helps,
Liz”

Finally, at 1:35 Ms. Becker emailed Dr. Chapman, forwarded him the chain of emails, stating “I was unable to ascertain the specific amount of the limit of the debt limit by law (1 1/2%), perhaps different language can be used in the minutes?”

Oddly – in the chain of emails that Ms. Becker sent to Dr. Chapman, the 11:35 email from June Becker to Liz Hennessy was altered as follows (alterations are in boldface): “We would prefer a dollar amount there, however I am not sure if that amount was available at the time of the meeting. I believe an amount was recommended.”

Who altered the emails and why?