Want to have your name removed from a petition?

Greetings Jackie,

I have answered your statements below. Thanks for the chance to further clarify.

Please let me know if I can help any further.

Best wishes,

Kent

ASSERTION:“During a recent discussion, one board member made the statement “we don’t have to have this district run by committee, we pay people a lot of frigin money to do this.” He was talking about the work of community volunteers.”
• FACT: This is the only comment that can be specifically tied to me as an individual. This comment was related to a matter that the Long Range Planning Committee had already addressed and a Board member would not approve a list of capital projects until they had heard from the LRPC committee chair who basically said (a week later) that they had no additional input on the list.

Vialpando: So what the LRPC agreed a week later, community involvement is crucial to the success of a school district and should be encouraged at every step of the way.
Clawson: Jackie then let’s do away with central admin and professionals in general. If you find such little value, or feel that you cannot trust the work product that they put forward without looking over their shoulder then we truly at an impasse. These are people who should allow us to know what is going on, and give us the opportunity to review the what and whys, but in the end if we hold up every little choice that they make because a committee only meets once a month then how efficient is that. By the way what is the MLO committees position on the fields at VRHS, not the MLO Chairperson’s position, the actual committee. Here you have an actual responsibility and opportunity to practice what you preach, but instead we hear from the MLO as to her priorities. I guess the difference is that you value community management, where I tend to side with community oversite.

ASSERTION: The Board operates in a secretive and non-transparent manner:

• FACT: D-49 is one of the only School Districts in the state of Colorado to post it’s check register online for full and open public viewing. Additionally Clawson requested that the information be presented in a spreadsheet so that it could be sorted and evaluated as users felt interested.

Vialpando: The check register was available on line a few years ago and the only reason it is now online again is the insistence of vocal community members. Also there are several districts in the state that have their check register on line. Why so many executive session? Why can’t mill levy monies be talked about in public?

Clawson: First I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge that we are not as unwilling to take input from community members as is later indicated. Ironically, it was not just community members, but community members who are highly critical of the current Board, such as yourself. There are several Districts that came online AFTER we did it, mainly because they felt that pending legislation was going to make them do it by mandate. There is a reason that D-49 was asked to participate in the committee process that would have required that ALL Districts, because we were already doing it. I am glad to see that others have come online and give their local community to review the process. Why so many executive sessions? Because we are a fast growing school district that wants to establish contractual guidelines for various subjects from buildings/ development to determining if water intrusions into our builds are the fault of God or consultants. Why can’t the mill levy monies be talked about in public? Because our bond council is afraid that any comment that they make will be take, twisted, turned, and attacked as some ill considered exercise in political maneuvering. The statute provides the right for Legal Council, regardless of how benign to be given in executive session. This group does not want to have their words misquoted and taken out of context. I wonder where they would get that impression.

ASSERTION: "The Board is currently being sued by the Gazette over an Open Records Act request. At issue is another Executive Session, and instead of just allowing an independent judge to review the tapes and issue a ruling, they are fighting it and costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal fees."

• FACT: I agreed with the fight for 2 reasons; a.) I thought that we were within the bounds because the discussions were related to individual employees and positions, b.) the next reason is because I didn’t want the information that was related to specific employees, particularly those with poor performance, to be released in a manner that it could impact them at a later date if somebody was searching to hire them.

Vialpando: The fact is that you or Dave never objected to having an executive session in the first place. This is just one time you were caught, how about other executive sessions? Because you are not sure of the Sunshine law is no excuse.

Clawson: The fact of the matter is that many within the administration have valid concerns that are protected by the executive privilege. At the time we were terminating a superintendent, we were working to address $600,000 retraction in State funding, and a portion of that included specific personnel. I guess the difference is that I would rather people be treated with respect and not have to demean or lessen the role that they play in the organization, but some people would rather that because an individual works for our school District that they should have their professional service called into question in a VERY public forum.

ASSERTION: Certain Board members refuse to respond to community members, either by email or phone. They do not feel the need to communicate with the community.

• FACT: All board members either list their home or personal cellular phone numbers on the District web site http://www.d49.org/co/boe/Pages/MeetYourBoard.aspx Granted some of us are better at returning email than others, but we make ourselves available in various formats and locations.
• FACT: Two Board members even maintain blogs and post answers to constituent’s questions.

Vialpando: Why not have town hall meetings so constituents can ask the tough questions on record?

Clawson: Sounds good, but if you actually want to have tough questions SOLVED why don’t you just ask me? Instead you would rather get your ‘comments on the record’ so that you can point to them when you run for the Board AGAIN.

ASSERTION: They have approved a budget where Reserve funds (one time monies) were used to pay salaries, resulting in the non-renewal of several personnel for the 2009/2010 school year and dramatically drawing down the Reserve Fund.

• FACT our reserve funds are over 3 times the TABOR requirements. Half of the positions released for 2009-10 fiscal year were single year assignments to quicken the efforts of our Learning Services as they worked to develop curriculum maps so that parents can understand where their child should be in their academic experience (i.e. should they be reading, doing basic math concepts, etc). These will truly empower parents to take a role in where their child is performing and allow them to know when to ask for help. The other half of these positions were reduced as the District had to reposition itself after the State took back appropriated money resulting in over $600,000 being taken back in January (half way through our school year). There is expected to $1.2 million taken back this fiscal year, but at least we can budget for it instead of having to scramble at the last minute. Right now there is a fund setup specifically for this likelihood. The Board directed the Administration to keep these cuts away from the classroom at all cost and we were successful. Other Districts had to lay off teachers and increase class size.
• FACT: The General Fund Reserve has not dropped below this level during the incumbency of Martin and Clawson.
• FACT: Dave Martin helped bring developers to contribute a development fee for each house built. These funds have been used to add 300 seats of student capacity in the new VRHS, without any taxpayer funds.

Vialpando: One time monies should never be used on salaries, if you are lucky enough to have one time monies that should have been used for construction projects or one time money projects. So when you said that you had to let go of 13 position at central office, I guess the plan all along was to let some of those people go so the grim financial outlook that you have painted for D49 community members was a lie?

Clawson: Where do you come up with the idea that one time monies should NEVER be spent for salaries? I am sad to see that the hallmark of a Vialpando administration would be to have lots of construction projects, and poor academics. One time monies SHOULD be spent to for projects and assets that are educationally significant and only need funded once (such as accelerating curriculum development so that enhancements are hitting the classroom 3 years sooner). You will notice that the number of personnel cuts for positions that were normally ONGOING salary lines equal right at $600,000, the rest were single year assignments, but I guess would rather that they had been construction workers instead of teacher. I guess we just have different priorities.

ASSERTION: Established a Long Range Planning Committee over 2 years ago, but has yet to approve a Long Range Strategic Plan to guide the future of the District.

• FACT: The Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) has been tasked with FACILITY planning and has implemented projects related to the relief of overcrowding at Sand Creek and Sky View.
• FACT: This committee brought forth its initial facility plan on November 2007, an updated plan in November 2008, and will probably bring forth another in November 2009.
• FACT: The LRPC is currently involved with a full scale assessment focused on increasing the efficiency and of all school buildings boundaries and the way that they feed into the middle and high schools.

Vialpando: Fixing short term problems should not be the task of a LRPC. Maybe that is why they cannot get any long range planning done?

Clawson: Not analyzing short term issues in the context of long range planning would be completely irresponsible. Otherwise they may be working on a framework that a short term Band-aid negates and dismantles. I guess that you would rather a committee work on something for the sheer joy that it brings, instead of meaningful results. Unfortunately I feel that the people who serve on our committees should be allowed to make meaningful contributions to the overall mission of the District, not just keep a seat warm. It seems sad that a Vialpando tenure would have a HUGE disconnect between the current challenges until they reach the beginning of what you feel should be the Long Range horizon which would inevitably change the needs of the Long Range plan.

ASSERTION: It identifies purchases of a grill, popcorn maker, laptops and training.

• FACT: Boards approve budgets, not operational purchases. We rely on year to date spending reports that we receive to understand where purchases are at and if they are in line with expectations. FYI The superintendent who made these purchases no longer works for the District.

Vialpando: So are you saying when you attended the training at the Broadmoor you had no idea who was paying for that? Also you had no idea that the laptops were not just free gifts to you? The Board has its own budget that has been overspent by 35%, did you not know that either? Lack of knowledge does not give you a free ride; it is your job to know.

Clawson: I am saying that there are lots of budgets that are spent in the operation of the district. There are funds that purchase computers, there are budgets that account for professional development, and there are funds that have been historically attributed to the Board such as ALL legal expenses including regular contract review, review and assembly of CORA requests and many other topics. You will notice that the Board budget has been adjusted for the very concern that you identify.

ASSERTION: At a recent board meeting, two board members walked out of the room while a community member was speaking.

• FACT: The community member had used up the allotted time for her open forum statement, and would not finish up her statement. Additionally you should know that Director Martin was not present, and I stayed in the room and was later thanked by the individual for doing so.

Vialpando: Continually the BOE picks who they will objectively listen to and who they will disregard, I have seen you tune out on many occasions or make rude comments after a speaker has spoke.

Clawson: Again with ‘Board’ discontent (I am the one under recall NOT the BOARD) and baseless generalities. Call me on at the time when it happens, you might find that what you thought was tuning out has been misinterpreted. Ask Alex and Ellen who have both called me out at the time of observed apparent offenses and allowed me to clarify the situation before they went off and told everyone that I ‘tune out on many occasions or make rude comments after a speaker has spoke’. Ironically in both of the above mentioned it was because I had made what I thought were comforting smiles at the speaker (Alex and Elaine). Alex took it as being as you have implied arrogant or otherwise. Ellen had seen me doing it what Elaine was giving a very emotional comment before the Board and had thought that I was being a snot and reveling in her pain (ironically when I talked to Elaine later she had not felt that I had any ill intent and saw it for what it was). In both cases I was able to clarify my intent and now when Alex talks she understands that I am not acting as a ‘Cheshire Cat’ and Ellen is equally kind.

ASSERTION: “At another meeting, a community member came to discuss the issue of their student and when they did not get any help from the board, they stormed out of the room and one board member condescendingly stated, “Oh Well.”

• FACT: We can’t discuss individual student issues, particularly in a public setting. The process was explained that she needed to contact the administration and work with them to address the issue. She blew up at the Board and told us that what we explained was not acceptable and that she was going to sue us.

Vialpando: I think you have forgotten who is important in this situation, the kids!! Parents get very emotional over their kids and often lose sight of anything else. It took courage and persistence to stand up in front of a group of people and ask for help, to be shot down and then sent away with an “oh well” in inexcusable for any BOE. We lose many at risk kids because of that attitude.

Clawson: Also to ignore the suggestions that are put forth and use threats to get your way are equally detrimental to the child. To allow your pride to overcome what you think is the ‘correct’ outcome. Could the situation have done without the ‘Oh well’ comment? Definitely, but again you are associating the actions of others who are NOT currently under recall attack and trying to cast it as such.

ASSERTION: “Because of Board actions there has been a high turnover at Central Office.”

• FACT: There have been a number of positions created within the central office and a number of people have been hired and reorganized. Have there been people leave? Yes. Because of the Board? Maybe, but I have not been told that by anyone associated with the individuals, but of course they could be lying to me, but I try to not make that characterization about people without some sort of facts to back it up. Most of the people that I know who have “turned over” in the central office either took other positions within the District. Not to be accused of spinning, this assessment does not include the people who were nonrenewed last month.

Vialpando: There have been two high level positions that have been vacated for a different district. Have you sat down and had a frank discussion with those two people? Have you tried to investigate what is going on? Talk to employees in other districts and see if D49 is a place they want to work? I think that the view you have is very one sided.

Clawson: Actually yes I have on all accounts. One person has a young family and has determined that the demands that are currently expected are taking to much time away from his family, in addition to other contributing factors that are not appropriate to discuss in a public venue. This same person has actually complimented me and given me very kind comments of support for stands that I have taken in his behalf and ironically against many of the accusations of the recall committee. The other individual in question has a great opportunity to be among students again which he truly loves. He has the chance to preside over one of the top performing schools in the State, make similar money and has his summers off again, (can you really blame him for taking this chance?) In both cases I have asked directly if there was an ‘intimidation and fear’ of the Board that helped precipitate their decision and they have told me no. They say that it is demanding sometimes, and that there are personalities that are easier to work with than others, but they have said that they don’t feel intimidated or afraid. I am fortunate that I have a relationship with both of them and can ask for a Frank and Honest answer, and I believe them both to have given me true answers. As to the final question the desire to work in D-49 has been shown to me on numerous occasions as people interview, as I visit schools, and as I have visited with new staff. One example was a PE teacher who was new in the District last year. She had been a teacher for half a year in another school District and said that when the chance to come to D-49 presented itself she was excited. As a matter of fact she said that when they called to offer the position she accepted it immediately. They asked if she wanted any time to think about it and she said, “No WAY” She said at the other school she new lunch personnel, in her time in D-49 (this was at a Back To School Night) she had met with her counterparts in the school feeder (elementary to high) and the other elementary PE personnel. She said that in the other District the teachers would criticize her because she allowed the students a chance to choose their warm-up activity. Here she felt right at home.

ASSERTION: “The Board has created an atmosphere of fear amongst teachers and staff and they don’t feel like they can openly attend board meetings or offer up suggestions.”

• FACT: I am regularly approached by teachers and administrators with questions and critique. Could they be afraid or not representative of the whole? Sure. Again I am limited by my experience, but the statement itself is difficult to prove because it is self limiting. If they do fear, then they don’t talk to me, but if they don’t talk to me I don’t know why they are afraid. Do you think that it is comfortable explaining why we have got rid of a superintendent after 10 months on the job? But people ask and they still work for the District.

Vialpando: As you well know jobs are hard to come by in this economy, employees are very fearful of their jobs and would never express that to the people that seem to have control of their positions. If you had respect for the employees you would stop trying to see who is fearful and start trying to improve the environment.

Clawson: I would agree with this statement, but I have been having these communications with others BEFORE jobs were so hard to come by, and before I was in ‘control’ of their position.

ASSERTION: “Two (2) Superintendents hired in as permanent replacements and five (5) other interim Superintendents in 6 years show a clear pattern of instability in the District.”

• FACT: I was involved in the hiring (and firing) of A superintendent. FYI the District had 3 interim superintendent, the recent 2 were “acting Superintendents” meaning that they were internal personnel who stepped up and did a great job. There were 2 in the 5 months since this all began because the first started to have some health issues and wanted to shift back to his original duties to gain more time with his young family. Now to prevent queasiness, 2 superintendent in 6 years does seem like a lot, even when the average tenure for a superintendent nationwide is 3-5 years.

Vialpando: Even the PDK audit said that there has been too much turn over in D49. This is not just an accusation it is a fact.

Clawson: I will concede this to a point, but when you use sensationalized numbers you are detract from your own credibility. I am not afraid of anything in the PDK audit. These items are exactly why you have an audit. It is also why I asked to have it posted. The administration had been waiting for the auditing firm to present a better copy so that the file would not be large and cumbersome. I asked them to at least put the large and cumbersome up until we had the other.

ASSERTION: “Has not established plans for easing overcrowding in the District (The majority of the school buildings are at or over capacity. Skyview MS is built for 900 students and will have an enrollment of over 1300 next year)”

• FACT: The Long Range Planning Committee is currently in the process of evaluating boundaries for buildings and they all work together. The hope is to reduce some inefficiencies that currently exist, such as kids that get on the bus across from Remington Elementary to go to Springs Ranch elementary instead of walking to Remington. Will Sky View still be crowded? Yes, and we will likely go out for a bond in 2010 specifically to address this school and others. Currently it would be tough to get community support for a bond to relieve overcrowding at SVMS since we are only using 75% of Vista Ridge, and have space opening up at Sand Creek.

Vialpando: Was it a surprise that SVMS was over crowded? Why was this not looked at sooner? Maybe some of the reserve funds that were spent on salary could have been used to help this situation?

Clawson: No it was not a surprise. The surprise came when we went from a estimated number one year ago that put the cost at $60,000 to over a quarter of a million to move them this year. We were going to move the Pods at SCHS to SVMS. These are Pods that had been emptied as a result of student relief from the opening of VRHS. When the updated numbers came the LRPC and the Board at over four times the cost we reassessed our response and are now looking at the utilization of all of our buildings.

ASSERTION: “Currently conducting a Superintendent Search that according to experts is being done at the wrong time, is being conducted too fast, and without any true community input.”

• FACT: we have had more community comments and participation related to the candidates that were reviewed for this position than we did last time when it was conducted at the “right” time. We turned away a state level Assistant Commissioner for Education. We had more candidates apply than we did when did it the “right” time. We are ending up with a superintendent that was Tulsa’s go to guy and has a track record to prove it. Which begs the question is early Spring really the “right” time to hire? Shouldn’t they be working in their District?

Vialpando: Does that mean that the experts are wrong? Why not wait until Nov after the election and then select a superintendent? That is what they did last time, what was different this time?

Clawson: Only time will tell, because we would have to fill it with an interm which is basically the same as the process currently underway, and we had a great candidate pool and were able to select an exceptional leader. During the whole search we always maintained the opportunity to pull the plug and do exactly as you suggested, fortunately we did not have to.

ASSERTION: “The Board has banned a community member from speaking at Open Forum because of comments they made after a Board Meeting was adjourned.”

• FACT: This is true, but again context matters. After a meeting an individual made a disparaging remark to a Board member. Our policies are very clear that this is not to be permitted in the District buildings, regardless of the target, and the policy does not make an allowance for time. This community member has never sent an apology. Has never asked for consideration of the matter from the full Board, and has never chose to use the other methods that allow for community participation (i.e. email, fax, etc.).

Vialpando: I'm sure lots of people say things about the Board on their way out of a meeting, not everyone that has ever said anything negative has been banned. There is such a thing as freedom of speech.

Clawson: There is also a policy that prohibits “Profanity or verbally abusive language” (Policy KFA) while on District owned property.

ASSERTION: “The Board has established an Open Forum policy that limits true community involvement and interaction.”

• FACT: The Board of Education meets once a month to do the business of the District. There are things that can only be done when we meet as a quorum and while we value community participation Open Forum is not the best avenue for it. The best avenue is to give us a call or send us an email. Then we can engage in a dialogue. If I engaged everyone that I wanted to during the Open Forum, we would all be there all night. As it sits the Board usually leaves at about 1:00-2:00 a.m. The open forum is for people to get their comments “on the record”. I would prefer that people send an email and asked to have it entered into the record, but it is what it is. Ideally community members would come up and talk to me after the meeting or during the breaks, or arrange to meet at some other time. In the end I guess it depends on what you want to accomplish, if you want to be on record then use the open forum. If you want dialogue communicate with me.

Vialpando: Why not have town hall meetings or be available at other district functions so there are many opportunities to address you? Why not have it on record in the spirit of transparency this should be encouraged.

Clawson: Why not come visit with the Board at the Various Back to school nights or the Showcase of Schools where I had a table setup with banner expressing who we are. That accounted for about 4 conversations last school year, but others had the chance if they wanted to take advantage of it. Again with having it on the record, but I agree. Another you could do if you just want to ‘get it on the record’ is email it to the Board and the Board Secretary and ask to have it included in the record.

ASSERTION: “Without input from the District Advisory & Accountability Committee (DAAC), the board rewrote the bylaws for the committee without any input from the members, per Robert’s Rules of Order.”

• FACT: The bylaws were rewritten to bring them into conformance with guidance from the Colorado Department of Education. At the time there were a handful of school of our 21 schools (to avoid any ailment, 21 includes Charter Public Schools as well) represented on the committee. Unfortunately I am not an expert on Roberts Rules, and therefore cannot confirm or deny this accusation. In 3 public meetings the policy change was discussed among the Board, who is ultimately the author of bylaws and charges established for the various District committees, and besides individuals who didn’t like the idea, Robert’s Rules were never brought up.

Vialpando: Again just because you are unaware if Roberts Rules of Order (which you should know being part of a BOE) does not give you the right to claim innocence.

Clawson: Roberts Rules of Order applies only where there is not a policy (which you should know by asserting such a thorough understanding of Roberts Rules). Therefore Policy BDF (which was updated in 2000), which states “… Board-appointed advisory committees, both districtwide and at the school level, shall function within organizational frameworks approved by the Board. A staff member or members will be assigned to each group to help it develop an appropriate constitution and/or by-laws, carry out its functions and coordinate its work with other advisory and staff groups...” makes this discussion point null and void.

ASSERTION: “On one occasion the board tried to hold a short notice board meeting at a board member’s house.”

• FACT: I wasn’t on the Board at the time.

Vialpando: You are correct, you were not on the board at that time, but since the fact sheet addressed both you and Dave, this is related to Dave.

Clawson: Thanks for the clarification, unfortunately it was made here and not on the recall sheet.

ASSERTION: “The Board has dismissed two Superintendents in the last 4 years at a cost to the taxpayers of over $500K ($290K buyout for Dr. Hull; $46K buyout for Grant Schmidt; $45K for the Woodmoor Group Executive Search firm; $51K for Board Legal Fees for the months of January, February and March 2009 to address the Grant Schmidt issue; $65K for Legal expenses for April for the Board Attorney and a Labor Law firm to address the Grant Schmidt issue; and an unspecified amount for moving expenses and other associated costs).

• FACT: Though I was not on the Board for Dr. Hull, and the Woodmoore Group was already retained, I am culpable for the others allegations.

Vialpando: Again you are correct, so for all but $45K you are culpable

Clawson: Again thank you, but I am culpable for $110K because I allowed the legal fees when we should have just exercised the terms in the contract which allowed for the Board to hear the relevant complaints and terminate immediately. I allowed us to work for an equitable outcome when I should have fought for the outcome that was easiest and most beneficial for the District instead of allowing for matters beyond the terms of the contract, and for this I apologize.

If you wish to take advantage of this option I encourage you to fill out the letter at http://www.kentclawson.com/sites/default/files/withdrawalrequest.doc Contact Liz Olsen at (719) 520-6222 lizolson@elpasoco.com If you don't want to pay for the stamp contact me and we will deliver them for you.

You are so gracious and dilusional all wrapped up in one. Do you honestly think it was an accident that almost 4000 people put their names on a recall format for you? Take a walk over to your local Starbucks and smell the coffee.