Opponents of N.O. schools facilities tax millage on December 6 ballot, file lawsuit

24th November 2014   ·   0 Comments

By Kari Dequine Harden
Contributing Writer

With a freshly filed lawsuit and a suspiciously cancelled board meeting, controversy surrounding a vote on a proposition to repurpose a schools facilities tax millage continues to grow in advance of the December 6 election.

There is one fundamental point that the opponents of proposition stress: It’s not about funding schools.

“This bill was written for the protection and preservation of the Recovery School District, not for the preservation of school buildings,” said education activist Rev. Willie Calhoun, Jr.

The proposition, under Act 543, would take millions of dollars out of the hands of the locally elected Orleans Parish School Board and put it into the hands of the state-run and unelected Recovery School District (RSD), as well as increase the management role of individual charter school operators.

Act 543 was introduced by New Orleans State Rep. Walter Leger.

The 5-mill tax is estimated to bring in about $15 million annually, and would last for 10 years. The original millage approved by voters in 1995 and is not set to expire until 2021.

Originally designed to leave the city after five years, the bill cements a role for the RSD in New Orleans for another ten years.

It’s an easy fix, Calhoun said. “All you have to do is leave the RSD out of it.”

The RSD was created to be temporary – not to entrench itself in the city at the expense of taxpayers for the indefinite future, Calhoun argues.

RSD Superintendent Patrick Dobard used to say that evidence of success was “working myself out of a job.” But it doesn’t appear that he or his staff is going to be giving up their six-figure salaries any time soon.

“The RSD has redefined its purpose from academic recovery to now a facility management group,” Calhoun said. The RSD no longer operates a single school in the city. All have been either closed or handed over to private charter operators. “They have to come back in another way so they can exist in New Orleans.”

Opponents argue that there is a better way to ensure facility maintenance, and that there is no rush in pushing something through in an off-season election. They also argue that the language of the proposition – which doesn’t even mention the RSD – is misleading.

Supporters paint a picture of an urgent and dire need to keep the buildings from falling into a state of disrepair.

The advertising now scattered across the city suggest that a “no” vote is a vote against children. Gi­ant banners feature smiling children giving a thumbs up, and yard signs with check marks next to boxes labeled “students” and “schools.”

But it’s not just misleading, said attorney Willie Zanders.

According to a lawsuit filed Nov. 20 by Zanders, the placement and funding of many of the pro-Act 543 banners is also illegal and in violation of multiple state laws.

Zanders filed a lawsuit against the OPSB and the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools (LAPCS) on behalf of members of the community organization Justice and Beyond.

The named defendants are OPSB Interim Superintendent Stan Smith and LAPCS Executive Director Caroline Roemer Shirley. The named plaintiffs are Deirdre Lewis and Brandon Dorrington.

Attached to Zanders’ lawsuit is a string of emails discussing getting the bill on the December ballot between Interim Superintendent Stan Smith and Holly Reid, executive director of policy for the RSD. Also included in the discussion Zanders argues, are people with vested interests – RSD “architect” Leslie Jacobs, and Caroline Roemer Shirley, the executive director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools (LAPCS). Roemer Shirley is also the sister of Chas Roemer, the president of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Not included are any of the publicly elected board members

Act 534 means more money for the RSD, and more money to be directly managed by charter operators.

According to the lawsuit: “An internal power point presentation showed that the RSD will receive most of the $150 million generated by the tax and “interest free loans” will be made to charter school operators. Even more troubling is the fact that each campus, and NOT THE ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, would have an account managed by the Charter School Operator and the Recovery School District.”

Thus, the opponents argue, no public accountability for public dollars.

And on the use of public buildings to promote the passage of the bill, “It is illegal what they are doing and they should know better,” Zanders said.

Louisiana law states: “Notwith­standing any other provision of law to the contrary, political campaign signs shall not be erected, displayed, or posted on any publicly owned property or right of way.”

The lawsuit seeks the immediate removal of the signs. A hearing is set for the morning of November 25.

There was additional public outcry heard last week after the OPSB announced that their November 18 board meeting was cancelled due to a lack of quorum.

The four members who were unable to attend were the same four members who vote in favor of putting the millage proposition on the Dec. 6 ballot: Nolan Marshall, Jr., Woody Koppel, Seth Bloom, and Sarah Usdin.

“I think that they are taking away our privilege to discuss a very important millage,” Calhoun said in a press release. “I understand Mr. Marshall’s absence and submit my condolences to him and his family. But as it relates to the other three board members, I think this is another subterfuge to stop people from getting the truth about the millage and to raise questions about the questionable advertisements of the millage on public school facilities. The community is not getting due process, our voices are not being heard in board meetings, and the truth is being hidden from the public.”

Board Vice-President Sarah Usdin said that she spoke to Marshall and learned that his mother had passed away, and because there was nothing pressing on the agenda that required a vote. She said a decision was therefore made to cancel the meeting.

But board member Ira Thomas said that he was not consulted by Usdin or Marshall regarding a decision to cancel the meeting.

Thomas said he only received notification that the meeting would be cancelled because of the unavailability of four board members. He said he knew that Marshall would not be there because of a death in the family, and that board member Bloom had been ill.

Thomas also takes issue with Usdin’s claim that there was nothing pressing on the agenda. Thomas said there was an item to discuss the December 6 millage proposition banners on public buildings.

On November 14, board member Leslie Ellison wrote a letter to Dobard expressing concern about the banners on school board property, stating, “no public funds are to be utilized to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate proposition.” Ellison continues: “While the banners I’ve seen may not directly advocate for the December 6 proposition, the inference and the intended purpose of the banner are absolutely clear. . . I ask that any and all such banners (or any other display or literature) be immediately removed from School Board Property.”

Thomas said that in additional to the legalities, because the board was divided 4-3 to put the proposition on the ballot, it was not representative of the board to use school buildings to promote the legislation.

Of Usdin’s decision to not attend the meeting, Thomas said, “I saw it as a maneuver on the part of the vice-president to avoid a conversation about our opposition to the millage.”

Usdin, who voted in favor of putting the bill on the December ballot, said that she views the measure as a “wonderful opportunity to preserve a community asset without a tax increase.” Usdin calls the legislation “governance agnostic,” and said she does believe that there is sufficient oversight and accountability.

The new law represents the joint partnership of the OPSB and RSD, Usdin said. “We’ve committed to working together.”

As the father of three children who attended public schools, Zanders said his position aside from the lawsuit is that “I want all school facilities to be first class and properly managed. But the money should go to the OPSB to be managed. Not the RSD, because the voters did not bring the RSD into New Orleans. We don’t want the RSD in the city anymore.”

Zanders also points to the $1.8 billion in federal dollars allocated for school facilities following Hurricane Katrina. A long-term maintenance plan incorporating that money ought to be in place, Zanders said, with any additional funding plan put transparently before voters in coming years.

“The RSD has no accountability to voters in this city,” Calhoun said, also pointing to a nearly decade-long history of tension and distrust between the community and the RSD. “There’s no reason for them to have control over the buildings,” Calhoun said. The new law requires the RSD to create its own facilities office in addition to an OPSB facilities office. “Why do we need two offices?” Calhoun asked. “It makes no sense to me.” Calhoun said that if the OPSB members don’t want to do their job of managing facilities, then they should leave the board.

But the inclusion of the RSD isn’t the only problem for Calhoun and other opponents.

The bill goes to further increase the autonomy of the charter operators, allowing them to conduct the public bid process. However there is no public oversight for the unelected, self-appointed charter boards, and there have long been concerns about a lack of transparency about how the boards spend taxpayer money.

Many of the organizations – regardless of student numbers – have top-heavy and well-compensated administrations.

Calhoun said he doesn’t believe the six-figure salaries are sustainable, especially as philanthropic dollars dwindle.

Not a single charter operator has elected to return to public oversight under the OPSB.

Calhoun said it is also a problem that the bill allocates money based on student numbers, not on facility needs. This leaves the door open for inequity, he said. A school with greater needs could be given less money because they have a smaller student body.

“This is about profit,” Calhoun said. “This is not about educating children or the preservation of buildings. This is about money.”

This article originally published in the November 24, 2014 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.