Charter schools amendment battle moves to court Wednesday. And Olens under fire for selective targeting of amendment foes.
Updated at 11 a.m.
The battle over the charter schools amendment escalated yesterday when attorney Glenn Delk, a longtime champion of vouchers and choice, filed a a lawsuit charging that Georgia school districts were illegally using taxpayer resources to oppose the amendment.
It will be interesting to see how the court responds given how many government officials and entities campaigned for the defeated TSPLOST. (It’s also interesting to note how much political activity and money are going into this charter schools amendment battle.)
Delk had already challenged the legality of even John Barge, the elected Republican school chief in Georgia, taking a public stand on the amendment via his office at the state Department of Education.
As the charter schools amendment battle has heated up, Attorney General Sam Olens issued a warning letter saying that a public agency — which would cover the executive and legislative branches of state government — should not use public funds to try to influence the outcome of a referendum.
It also raises the question — sidestepped by the Attorney General’s office when I asked last week – whether the Georgia Charter Schools Association, a trade group underwritten by tax dollars via school membership fees — also cannot lobby for the amendment.
The exact wording of the AG’s response to me: In the context of associations, our letter made clear that government entities cannot lobby voters indirectly through associations that are essentially extensions of the government entities. Whether a particular association is essentially an extension of a government entity is a fact-specific question that we can’t answer in the abstract.
But the governor and the Legislature often try to influence outcomes of votes in very open fashion. Gov. Nathan Deal and many lawmakers pushed hard for TSPLOST. Governors and General Assembly leaders don’t write and send their own press statements. Their paid staffers handle those details. Nor do governors gas up their own cars and drive to press conferences.
There are often tax dollars at work when a top elected official takes a public stand in the hopes of influencing the outcome of a referendum. It will be interesting to see whether Olens presses this position in the future as he could have a full-time job writing letters telling elected officials they can’t use their office resources to influence outcomes.
My colleague Jim Galloway just posted on whether Olens is selectively targeting charter amendment opponents and ignoring the lobbying for proponents, including Nathan Deal.
Democrats have now demanded that Olens apply the same measure to Gov. Nathan Deal, an advocate of the proposed constitutional amendment to give the state another avenue through which to create charter schools – over the objections of local systems.
From a letter sent to Olens by Mike Berlon, chairman of the state Democratic party:
Based upon your legal conclusion, the actions of the Governor are clearly in violation of the law. Consequently, we are formally requesting that your office take immediate action against the Governor to ensure the proper enforcement …. It doesn’t seem reasonable or fair that the application of your opinion would not extend to the Executive branch of the government.”
Berlon noted that, on the governor’s official website, press releases are posted here and here in which Deal endorses the measure.
Back to charter schools:
The suit, filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, alleges they and “the rest of the Education Empire are engaged in a coordinated campaign and conspiracy.”
Lawyers for the districts and Glenn Delk, the Atlanta attorney representing those filing suit, are scheduled to appear before a judge Wednesday afternoon. The judge has been asked to order the districts to stop engaging in political activity with taxpayer resources and “to disseminate factual information prepared by the plaintiffs.”
Instead of the typical ‘no comment’ offered in legal cases, Fulton County Schools Superintendent Robert Avossa reiterated his position that his district did nothing wrong in posting question-and-answer material about the amendment on its website. That information remains on the district’s site, and Delk’s clients claim it is misleading and openly anti-amendment.
Avossa said parents have questions about the proposed amendment, which, if approved by voters in November, would guarantee the state’s power to authorize charter schools and establish a commission to consider applications for them.
“I get so many questions on this,” Avossa said. “We decided to put a Q-and-A together. Let’s answer the questions.”
Jeannie “Sis” Henry, executive director of the Georgia School Boards Association, said board members will not be intimidated into dropping their opposition. “This is no conspiracy,” Henry said. “This is not the Evil Empire. These are educators, and they’re opposed to this.”
Monday’s filing disclosed Delk’s clients, whom he previously declined to identify. They include Rae Anne Harkness, a charter school parent in DeKalb County; Kelley O’Bryan Gary, chairman of the Jackson County Republican Party; and Rich Thompson, founder and chief executive officer of 100Dads, a charter school parent group that supports school choice.
The charter school fight splits largely along party lines, with many Democrats opposing the amendment as a potential funding threat to traditional public schools and many Republicans supporting it as an alternative to parents whose children attend failing traditional public schools.
There are notable exceptions, including Georgia Schools Superintendent John Barge, a Republican who angered many in his party by coming out against the amendment. In announcing his opposition, Barge released a 29-point statement, parts of which some districts have used in relaying information about the amendment to parents.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
92 comments Add your comment
CharterStarter, Too
October 10th, 2012
1:16 am
@ Ron – lawsuits can be avoided when people use prudence and STOP when they are given a warning. They are pushing to see how far they can go. Citizens are tired of the abuse of power and utter disregard for the law, or even what is simply right and ethical.
CharterStarter, Too
October 10th, 2012
1:16 am
@ Ron – lawsuits can be avoided when people use prudence and STOP when they are given a warning. They are pushing to see how far they can go. Citizens are tired of the abuse of power and utter disregard for the law, or even what is simply right and ethical.
CharterStarter, Too
October 10th, 2012
1:21 am
@ Ron – I can’t find that posting on the open position, but the GCSA website says members get free postings and non members can pay $75 to post. Not sure you have much of a case there.
Ron F.
October 10th, 2012
1:35 am
“The difference between GSBA and GCSA with regard to this amendment campaign is that the pro-charter side has been advocated, legally, by the Brighter Georgia Education Coalition, not by GCSA”
Dr. Henson: correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t GCSA a member of BGEC? It’s on the website as such. Now, if GCSA is paying for that membership, then shouldn’t BGEC also be bound by state law since it is receiving state funds via the membership of GCSA? Now I don’t see anything on the website that indicates any direct campaigning for the amendement, but I did read an article where Jerri Nims Rooker with BGEC was quoted by a local paper speaking about support for the amendment and plans for an upcoming public forum, so it would seem they are. I don’t know enough about GCSA to know if they pay a membership fee of any sort to be part of BGEC, but it would be worth finding out about if they are to be allowed to continue working to support the amendment.
Ron F.
October 10th, 2012
1:49 am
“Citizens are tired of the abuse of power and utter disregard for the law, or even what is simply right and ethical”
And yet we somehow elected a governor who left the US Congress in the wake of ethics charges, so I don’t think there’s much concern about that unless it’s the ethics of your opposition. Somehow I don’t think too many of them were or are very savvy about ethics when it comes to government officials. The concern is more about party lines.
I’m not saying any public school entity is right for doing it, and I think most probably got the warning loud and clear. So why not sue those particular individuals/organizations where they have printed, videotaped, or online irrefutable proof of wrongdoing? I’ve heard of but haven’t seen any letters or fliers. Why sue every school system in the state? Talk about overkill. That’s nothing but a publicity stunt and we all know it. All Delk wants is what the governor wants, and that’s to keep a lid on this until November 6th, and this court case should manage to take up a fair amount of the time between now and then. Seems more likely the governor is tired of people calling the power brokers in the state house for what they are, and pointing out the all too obvious power this will give a group the governor, lt. governor, and house speaker will appoint. Talk about abuse of power and lack of concern for what’s ethical and right….the governor alone should know all about it from personal experience avoiding getting in trouble for it.
Grizz
October 10th, 2012
7:32 am
@ChartersStarter, Too
I believe you are incorrect in this statement:
“The SBOE, will be the final authority on any schools that open (as it was pre-Commission when this was not contested) and the state will continue to fund schools approved.”
It is my understanding that if the Amendment is approved, there will be no requirement to apply to a local board or appeal to the SBOE. Rather, a group or even one individual could apply to the new charter school board to make their case, completely bypassing the current procedures.
MAY
October 10th, 2012
9:00 am
I read a comment on this blog or another from a dad who went to an evening art project function at his daughter’s school. While there he received vote no literature and told to vote no. I heard a music teacher call into a radio show where he explained that the music educator’s association has been sending email every few days to coach them on how to tell their parents to vote no. He said they were also willing to attend any fall concert to talk to parents.
The proponents of the charter school amendment don’t have this overarching network. The charter school movement is still young and what was described as ‘the empire’ yesterday is Goliath. EVERYONE says it’s not about charter schools but it is. There are 180 school systems with less than 15 offering a bricks & mortar independent charter school. Most of the school boards in Georgia have a rubber stamp with the word Denied ready to mar every charter application. This lawsuit is an attempt to allow both sides to speak to voters fairly.
MAY
October 10th, 2012
9:05 am
@Grizz
The local school board must approve or deny any charter school application (not multi district like the virtual schools). If denied, the applicants can go to the commission. No local board or community should be ’surprised’ by the approval of a school. If the GA school boards step up and approve quality applications, we could actually see a commission go a year without approving anything. They only approved 16 out of nearly 60 the first time around.
Tony Childers
October 10th, 2012
9:13 am
This lawsuit represents an unprecedented attack on the free speech rights of teachers and school leaders. When have we ever had a proposition that struck at the very core of what we do as educators? This lawsuit attempts to silence us even as we carry out our jobs. It is our job to advocate for public education. How ludicrous is it to tell us we can’t do our job?
jezel
October 10th, 2012
9:26 am
If the charter school amendment passes….how much money will traditional schools be out of. Does anyone have a projection?
Ron F.
October 10th, 2012
9:32 am
“The proponents of the charter school amendment don’t have this overarching network.”
MAY: you should visit some of the charter school organization websites, and see the pamphlets, etc. they have available. The Brighter Georgia Education Coalition and Georgia Charter Schools Association are two mentioned in this thread. BGEC has among its members national organizations with money and political clout. Plus, there has been much discussion here and elsewhere about the money that has come from out of state to fund campaigning and lobbying for the amendment. They have an overarching network, and it arches far and wide. This is well beyond just a state issue now. BGEC has also hired interns whose job is to go about the state visiting churches, chambers of commerce, and other public forums to promote charter schools. They are working quite hard and seem to have some influential backing in their work. They’ve hardly been left mute on the sidelines of this debate. And again, this isn’t about the schools, many of which are quite popular and successful. It’s about state authority to create and fund schools when it doesn’t have enough in the budget to maintain state government as it is, let alone fully fund its legally obligated funding to current schools.
Grizz
October 10th, 2012
10:51 am
@May
Your post above is what our current law is – that is, charter applicants go to their local board first; if denied, then to the state. I do not believe that this would apply if the amendment is passed – that is, charter applicants could just skip local and state applications and go straight to the new (non-elected) board.
DeKalb Inside Out
October 10th, 2012
11:22 am
I’ve been trying to research some exact facts and keep coming back around to
Nancy Jester’s Charter School Facts Page. She’s an advocate for the amendment, but her IT people pride themselves on accurate information. Email Ms Jester if you find any inaccuracies.
Grizz
From Ms Jester’s Charter School Referendum Facts
The state would be able to only consider authorizing charter school applicants that have a defined attendance zone after the respective school system(s) denied the application, offering an appeal as an alternate authorizer. Charter schools with a statewide attendance zone would be allowed to apply directly to the state for authorization, such as a virtual charter school.
Ron F.
October 10th, 2012
11:58 am
Ms. Jester’s page is informative, and obviously pro-amendment. As a state elected official, receiving some payment from the state, should she be allowed to maintian such a page? How is her website funded? Because it is pro-amendment in nature, I guess it’s okay.
Ron F.
October 10th, 2012
11:59 am
I should say “locally” elected official as a BOE member. My brain and my fingers don’t always connect fast enough. As a BOE member, should she be allowed to post information that might influence a vote for or against the amendment?
3schoolkids
October 10th, 2012
12:59 pm
@Ron F: Don’t apologize, the network of non-profits and membership organizations working to promote the charter referendum is astounding and not an accidental coincidence. If you do a little googling of the names involved in the lawsuits and the names of the donors in the campaign disclosures you will see what I’m talking about. Glenn Delk himself heavily involved in the subsidized private and charter movement for 20 years was CEO of Citizens for Better Public Schools, a non profit dissolved just 2 weeks before he sent his letter to Sam Olens. Ironic that he uses the term “Education Empire” when there is a “Charter Education Empire” that the nationwide movement of charter schools has created.
3schoolkids
October 10th, 2012
1:13 pm
Mrs. Jester’s website does reference the language regarding who can authorize restricted versus statewide attendance zones. However, it fails to recognize that multiple district startup charters must only apply to the district in which the school will be physically located. In rural counties that cannot sustain one charter in a district this nuance will be very important as startup charters will most likely cross district lines. I’m sure there will be much financial strategizing involved and given the funding mechanisms in place, there will be no incentive to get local approval. Once denied the petitioner can go to the State Charter Commission and even if they are at first denied, they can revise their charter and apply again. This happened quite frequently under the old commission.
Am I the only one who thinks it interesting that the top candidate for the Lottery CEO job’s husband sat on the very committee tasked in the mid 90s with revamping k12 funding formula in Georgia? Did it ever happen?
Grizz
October 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
@ DeKalb I/O
Veeeeeeeeery interesting:
“Charter schools with a statewide attendance zone would be allowed to apply directly to the state for authorization, such as a virtual charter school.”
As I read this, it would allow on-line instruction since that would be state wide. However, what would stop a brick and mortar school from accepting applications from any student in the state and bypass the local and state boards? Anything?
Ron F.
October 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
3schoolkids: Delk is a well-known character. I’m not surprised he “dissolved” CBPS. No sense getting caught standing in the mud as you sling it….but it’s still on his shoe soles and leaves prints alllll over the carpet at the Capitol. I have to admit I’m impressed by all the “coalitions” and “associations” out there supporting the charter movement that are managing to keep the paper trail just shy of the line so they can bash anyone against the amendment with such a frivolous lawsuit.
And what gets me riled up is that noone has yet to answer one of my fundamental questions/concerns in this debate. Why should we trust the three top leaders of state government to do anything fairly in regards to education when they and the entire legislature have, very openly, refused to follow their own state law mandated funding formula for existing schools for decades? Answers are few…except for a lawsuit meant to create an almost absolute gag order on opposition to the amendment.
DeKalb Inside Out
October 10th, 2012
1:27 pm
Ron.
She is definitely pro amendment, but she works with a lot of people to make sure she gets out accurate information. NancyJester.com and her facebook page are all considered personal. The county obviously doesn’t pay for it.
Grizz.
Good question. I don’t know what or who determines the attendance zones. Over the years charter schools have tried to cherry pick their attendance zones. So, seems like that should all be nailed down by now.
DeKalb Teacher
October 10th, 2012
1:34 pm
I’m with Ron!
Traditional public schools would do better with more money. I mean a lot more than fully funded, because our numbers were bad even when we were fully funded.
3schoolkids
October 10th, 2012
1:46 pm
What Georgia Legislator’s election tactics included sending PTA parents to a coincidental PTA meeting clothed in candidate Tshirts on election day (where the school is also an election location)?
Give you one guess.
There is nothing like burning your bridges. Quite ironic that the Georgia PTA has come out against the referendum.
Ron F.
October 10th, 2012
5:19 pm
Here’s a good question that just hit me: Who’s putting up the funds for this lawsuit? I doubt the venerable Glenn Delk is doing it pro bono, what with all the defendants to serve and paperwork to do. And I doubt a handful of parents could scrape together enough to sue the entire public school system of the state.
Grizz
October 10th, 2012
6:10 pm
@DeKalb Teacher
Spoke a couple of days ago with our superintendent, Alvin Wilbanks and was rather surprised to learn that Gwinnet now has 2,000 fewer teachers than five years ago…. and our enrollment hasn’t shrunk – it’s grown. I do believe 2nd grade math could figure this one out. So, let’s all give thanks to our elected Republicans in government for the wonderful job they’ve been doing. [/sarcasm]
3schoolkids
October 10th, 2012
7:42 pm
@Ron F. look closely and you will see this is not just any group of disgruntled parents.
Ron F.
October 10th, 2012
8:10 pm
3schoolkids: enlighten me, please. I haven’t had time to look them up.
CharterStarter, Too
October 10th, 2012
11:20 pm
@ Ron – the hearing was for an injunction – they have apparently not pursued goin to trial…yet. An injunction is very simply a formal STOP the illegal activity. Nthe districts can avoid suit (and the expense) by following the law going forward. It is as simple as that.
@ Grizz- I am not incorrect. Please read 797, starting with line 94. http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/127650.pdf
CharterStarter, Too
October 10th, 2012
11:28 pm
@ Tony Childers in Carrollton (who just passed a resolution DESPITE the AG’s ruling)…
If you are supposed to be advocating for public education, then why aren’t you advocating for these charters – THEY are public schools, too, trying very hard to educate kids and meet the Ned’s of parents.
@ jewel – zero. See 797, starting with line 317. http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/127650.pdf
Dr. Monica Henson
October 10th, 2012
11:30 pm
Ron, I agree that AFP and SF are not nonpartisan, but they are certainly bipartisan. Many Democrats for Education Reform, including me, support much of SF’s agenda.
I’m reasonably sure that BGEC purchases advertising space from GCSA, as do many organizations. I wouldn’t have a problem with Vote Smart purchasing advertising space on a district website. My beef is with districts posting Vote Smart information, and not just because substantial portions of the info is inaccurate.
CharterStarter, Too
October 10th, 2012
11:31 pm
@ Grizz. Mwrong again – charters must petition the local districts first. See 797, lines 166-185.
Dr. Monica Henson
October 10th, 2012
11:33 pm
I believe that membership in BGEC is free of charge. I do know that McKenna, Long & Aldridge have been longtime legal counsel to GCSA and have guided GCSA’s actions so as to stay within the law on advocacy and use of state tax funds that come to them via charter school institutional memberships. That’s just good common sense. I wonder why GSBA’s counsel hasn’t provided similar guidance to its client? You’d think they can afford competent attorneys and would follow their advice.
3schoolkids
October 10th, 2012
11:34 pm
Ron F.
Charter school parents who are also: self proclaimed committee chair of Georgia’s Voice For Educational Choice-yet another nonprofit pro amendment group, the Jackson County GOP Chair, the Founder of 100Dads, an arm of the Georgia Parent Advocacy Network (affiliated with the Georgia Charter Schools Association), and a Lawrenceville businessman/contributor to Libertarian and Conservative causes.
The day the Olens letter came out yet another non-profit registered with the state, Georgia Public School Families for Amendment One. Registered by a paralegal for a Virginia campaign policy law firm with no officers listed, address is a UPS store p.o. box in Athens. It is on the media.ethics.ga.gov website but is so new there is no financial data reported yet. I’m guessing the bulk of their funding doesn’t come from public school families.
Dr. Monica Henson
October 10th, 2012
11:37 pm
Tony Childers, how is it the exercise of individual free speech rights for a school administrator or board of education member to use taxpayer-funded resources, during the work day in the scope of their responsibilities, to advocate against the amendment? There is nothing in the law preventing them from advocating on their own time and their own dime–the lawsuit is about preventing the abuse and misuse of school resources to advocate.
CharterStarter, Too
October 10th, 2012
11:43 pm
@ DeKalb Teacher – if what you and Ron believe is true, then why are the highest funded schools in the state (at approx. $15k) the lowest achieving. Moreover, why are charters, operating at about 75% of the districts on average outperforming their districts.
The problem is not the money received. The problem (in large part)…weak boards, bloated central admin,both which are out of touch with the needs of their communities, the unique needs of each school, and lack proper oversight, leadership that empowers teachers, parents, AND kids, and fiscal stewardship.
CharterStarter, Too
October 10th, 2012
11:47 pm
@ Dr. henson – let me speculate on why the GSBA attorneys (who represent about 2/3 of our district boards) doesn’t give them that same advice that would protect them legally and ethically…
IF these districts DO get sued, who profits? If your guess is Harben and Hartley… BAZINGA!
CharterStarter, Too
October 10th, 2012
11:54 pm
Apologies for the typos – I am on my IPad and clearly going too quickly.
@ Grizz – you can’t have a statewide attendance zone if you can’t demonstrate that you can practically serve the students. You would, in effect, be denying them entry based on geography, which is illegal.
Ron F.
October 11th, 2012
12:25 am
Dr. Henson: so how does BGEC function financially then? They have to be getting money from somewhere and I’m just curious where. I think we should be aware of where funding is coming from on both sides of this debate to be fair.
Dr. Monica Henson
October 11th, 2012
10:24 am
Ron, BGEC operates on private donations, which are reported in detail as required by law. I am a donor to BGEC as an individual using my own funds. GA law allows any school employee to do the same for supporting any advocacy organization, as long as it’s done as an individual using their own funds and not in their capacity as a school employee using school funds. Any district BOE member or school employee can donate to Vote Smart in that manner.
I post a lot of pro-charter information on my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts, for example. But I do it after hours on my home computer, and I don’t post that information on my school’s FB and Twitter accounts. I got this advice directly from McKenna, Long & Aldrige at a BGEC information session that I attended after work on my own time.
Dr. Monica Henson
October 11th, 2012
10:26 am
The vast majority of BGEC’s donations are from corporations, not from individuals. And most of those corporations are not based in Georgia exclusively. The issue of school choice is a national one, and many deep-pocketed supporters of school choice are willing to make contributions to similar campaigns in several states to try to help pass ballot initiatives favorable to school choice. The NEA and AFT, do the same. They raise most of their funds from dues from members and forced “agency fees” from non-members in unionized states rather than from private donations, though.
Ron F.
October 11th, 2012
10:42 am
Thank your for the information, Dr. Henson. I ask because I want to know as much as possible about both sides of this issue, and who’s pushing what. I know full well there are politically or financially influential groups and corporations pushing one way or the other. At this point, I think all the noise has become deafening and far too negative, and I’ll be glad when election day is done.
I know I’ve been critical and quizzical, but understand I have learned a lot and my view of charter schools has grown and changed a LOT. I honestly didn’t know enough before this year, and I see the issue much differently now. There are schools out there on both sides of this issue working very, very hard to succeed. My issue isn’t with the type of school, it’s with the state government. If you read my last post last night on the thread about the court ruling, you’ll understand my frustration with this entire thing. I hope your school succeeds- it is an option that I think will be good for the group of kids whose needs it meets. I hope what you’re doing will continue to push entrenched schools/districts to find innovations that can be implemented in existing public schools. I hope, when this vote is behind us, that we can all sit down together and get past the divisive politics that have formed on either side of this. Your passion and tenacity are admirable, and I enjoy the debates we’ve had. Keep at it, and keep in mind that while our methods differ, we have a common goal in wanting better for our kids.
Dr. Monica Henson
October 11th, 2012
2:44 pm
Right back atcha, Ron!
Grizz
October 11th, 2012
3:45 pm
@CharterStarterToo
“@ Grizz – you can’t have a statewide attendance zone if you can’t demonstrate that you can practically serve the students. You would, in effect, be denying them entry based on geography, which is illegal.”
Oh, shucks – that’s easy – just set up some dorms for the kids to stay in if they’re “not from around there”. And who’s to say that parents wouldn’t travel 50 or more miles to take their kids to a better school? If you have any links to any present laws which state your position, I’d like for you to post them. I might learn some more.
BTW – as I was typing this, I got a call from young man urging me to vote yes for “better schools”. I told him he was poorly informed about the amendment and offered to educate him. Apparently he didn’t have the time.