Long ago, Sherrie and I lost our first child Bryce before birth. It was devastating at the time (and still is), and we'll never recover, as anyone losing a child knows. Even though we believe our child is waiting for us in Heaven, it doesn't alleviate the pain - and as anyone who has ever lost a child knows, all remedies are sought and considered for a "Mother and Child Reunion".
We never had another child, and that fact alone was very painful, so adopted a second child "Fred" in 2006, along with his little sister "Lilly". Even though Fred was not a real child (he was only a dog), we loved him as though he were a child of our own. We lost Fred in May of 2017, and it was just as devastating as losing a real child... and we now only had Lilly. Saturday, February 23, 2019, at 8:06 AM ... we lost Lilly. She never complained about the pain, except in the waning hours before leaving us... and was always playful. She got really excited when it was time to go to the ranch, as she was a country girl at heart. We know she's not a real child, but loved her and Fred like they were our own.
Many people say that "time heals all wounds" - but don't believe it until you have lost a child. During our time in this world, the heartbreak will always endure...
Monday, February 25, 2019
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
State Equipment - Nonconsumable
Most people understand that state-owned equipment, ie computers, laptops, and even school textbooks must be returned to the state after using. Most government agencies inventory such equipment and non-consumable supplies each year to avoid "gifting" the equipment to individuals and private corporations.
As noted recently in another post, EPIC Virtual Charter Schools inventoried it's state-owned equipment, computers, and other non-consumable items - and tagged more than 8,000 laptop computers as "unrecoverable". As a state sub-agency to the Oklahoma State Department of Education, all public schools are required by law to account for all non-consumable publicly owned equipment such as furniture, computers, textbooks, etc... Any state agency must make a reasonable effort to re-acquire such non-consumable issued equipment, when an employee or client (student) exits the agency (public school).
In knowing the above information, one must wonder if all state and federal laws are being adhered to, in consideration of the "unrecoverable" laptop computers. Especially troublesome is the following conversation between two unrelated EPIC parents, which was recorded on a social media site...
Parent: ... "I wouldn't worry about using your 'LF' for consumables if that's what you want and will use them. I know they have to say you are supposed to return them but of all the people I know that didn't return to Epic literally no one was asked to turn in any consumable and I even specifically asked our teacher and she said, please don't give me your trash 😂".
LF is "Learning Fund" in Epic speak. The parent may not know the difference in "consumable" and non-consumable if he or she believes that Epic officials ...have to say you are supposed to return them. Public school consumables are things that are quickly used up by students - like food, notebook paper, pencils, ink cartridges, etc..., so why would Epic officials say ... you are supposed to return them...? Public school non-consumables are things like furniture, computers, laptops, textbooks, etc. that must be turned in when the student didn't return to Epic. It makes no sense that students are asked to turn in consumables, but are allowed to keep non-consumables such as laptop computers. The "laughing imoji" which concludes the conversation may indicate that the parent knows the difference between "consumable" and "non-consumable" and really means just the opposite. This conversation may be the "smoking gun" as to whether more than 8,000 laptops (public property), worth around $8 million, were stolen... or "illegally gifted" by Epic officials as trash...
As noted recently in another post, EPIC Virtual Charter Schools inventoried it's state-owned equipment, computers, and other non-consumable items - and tagged more than 8,000 laptop computers as "unrecoverable". As a state sub-agency to the Oklahoma State Department of Education, all public schools are required by law to account for all non-consumable publicly owned equipment such as furniture, computers, textbooks, etc... Any state agency must make a reasonable effort to re-acquire such non-consumable issued equipment, when an employee or client (student) exits the agency (public school).
In knowing the above information, one must wonder if all state and federal laws are being adhered to, in consideration of the "unrecoverable" laptop computers. Especially troublesome is the following conversation between two unrelated EPIC parents, which was recorded on a social media site...
Parent: ... "I wouldn't worry about using your 'LF' for consumables if that's what you want and will use them. I know they have to say you are supposed to return them but of all the people I know that didn't return to Epic literally no one was asked to turn in any consumable and I even specifically asked our teacher and she said, please don't give me your trash 😂".
LF is "Learning Fund" in Epic speak. The parent may not know the difference in "consumable" and non-consumable if he or she believes that Epic officials ...have to say you are supposed to return them. Public school consumables are things that are quickly used up by students - like food, notebook paper, pencils, ink cartridges, etc..., so why would Epic officials say ... you are supposed to return them...? Public school non-consumables are things like furniture, computers, laptops, textbooks, etc. that must be turned in when the student didn't return to Epic. It makes no sense that students are asked to turn in consumables, but are allowed to keep non-consumables such as laptop computers. The "laughing imoji" which concludes the conversation may indicate that the parent knows the difference between "consumable" and "non-consumable" and really means just the opposite. This conversation may be the "smoking gun" as to whether more than 8,000 laptops (public property), worth around $8 million, were stolen... or "illegally gifted" by Epic officials as trash...
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Senate Bill 901 - Voucher Expansion
Like many other school voucher bills, Senate Bill 901 expands private acquisition of public funds, thereby shortchanging traditional public schools and students. The passage of this bill ensures that lawmakers retain the right to send public tax dollars to the private institute of their choosing - called "school choice" by voucher supporters. Many people don't understand the motivation behind these voucher bills, for lawmakers who vote "yes". The motivation for many is as old as the world - money. For instance, the Senate Education Committee vote was 10 in favor and 7 against SB 901. Eight of the ten "yes" voters received campaign donations and support from several pro-voucher (school choice) groups and dark money (unidentified pro-voucher funds). The eight highly paid senators included Senator Treat - $4,200, Senator Smalley - $3,000, Senator David - $2,500, Senator Stanislawski - $1,500, Senator Shaw - $1,000, Senator Quinn - $500, Senator Pederson - $500, and Senator Newhouse - $30,000 in dark money support. It is unknown whether or not "more money" influenced their votes, but it is a strange coincidence if it did not...
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Senate Bill 407: An Apologetic YES Vote
In a nutshell, Senate Bill 407 by Senator Dave Rader, R-Tulsa, would expand the annual cap on tax credits available through the Opportunity Scholarship Act from $5 million to $80 million. Tax credits for donations to private schools that fund school vouchers to qualifying students would expand to $40 million and tax credits for donations to "educational improvement organizations" would expand to $40 million.
Senate Bill 407, if approved, would significantly increase the tax credits allowed for donors to non-profits that provide private school vouchers. Tuition tax credits are tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, shifting the burden of funding our public schools to other taxpayers. In just two years' time, Chris, Oklahoma would forego up to $160 million in potential revenue, while education funding in Oklahoma remains more than $1,100 per student behind the regional average - Paul.
Senate Bill 407 passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee on a 15 Yes votes and 7 No votes. While those who voted No have the insight provided above and more, the Yes voters would like to provide more tax dollars to their wealthy friends. One or two of the Yes voters, however, gave other reasons why they voted affirmative. One reason for an affirmative vote was that Senator Rader (the bill's author) said he would change it, in exchange for a Yes vote. Rader then said he would even include public schools as beneficiaries of the tax-credit expansion, in exchange for a Yes vote. The only problem with this change... is the only public schools which would be in for a windfall would be the three privately managed virtual charter schools in Oklahoma and a few brick and mortar charter schools and here's why: Several brick and mortar charter schools such as Carlton Landing were developed by millionaires who have donated heavily to their upstart charters. What better way to get their money back but through tax credits? In addition, the three "privately managed" public virtual charter schools have received "donations" from sponsoring corporations and wealthy millionaires for operational expenses. What better way for corporations to be more profitable than to receive tax credits? Senator Scott and Senator Kidd - Tax credits would not benefit traditional public schools in any way, shape, or form!
The question now becomes: Who benefits from increasing tax credits by 1,600% for the Oklahoma Scholarship Fund? Business Dictionary.com defines a conflict of interest as "A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and ... public interest." In addition, the Business Dictionary uses conflict of interest in a sentence: When a government official has a personal monetary interest in a matter up for a vote, it is best for the official to abstain from voting to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. The fact of the matter is that Senator Julie Daniels: 1) voted "yes" on Senate Bill 407. 2) received $43,000 in dark money support from Stand for Children (a Betsy DeVos pro-voucher group) and Citizens United in 2016. 3) is related to Charlie Daniels, the president of the Oklahoma Scholarship Fund, which will be the recipient of a windfall of tax dollars if SB 407 passes. I don't know if Senator Daniels has a conflict of interest in voting for SB 407, but if it walks like a duck...
It's a fact that all senators and representatives say they support our public school students. It's also a fact that to truly delineate the difference between those who do and those who don't is to watch how they vote. No excuses or explanations needed.
Senate Bill 407, if approved, would significantly increase the tax credits allowed for donors to non-profits that provide private school vouchers. Tuition tax credits are tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, shifting the burden of funding our public schools to other taxpayers. In just two years' time, Chris, Oklahoma would forego up to $160 million in potential revenue, while education funding in Oklahoma remains more than $1,100 per student behind the regional average - Paul.
Senate Bill 407 passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee on a 15 Yes votes and 7 No votes. While those who voted No have the insight provided above and more, the Yes voters would like to provide more tax dollars to their wealthy friends. One or two of the Yes voters, however, gave other reasons why they voted affirmative. One reason for an affirmative vote was that Senator Rader (the bill's author) said he would change it, in exchange for a Yes vote. Rader then said he would even include public schools as beneficiaries of the tax-credit expansion, in exchange for a Yes vote. The only problem with this change... is the only public schools which would be in for a windfall would be the three privately managed virtual charter schools in Oklahoma and a few brick and mortar charter schools and here's why: Several brick and mortar charter schools such as Carlton Landing were developed by millionaires who have donated heavily to their upstart charters. What better way to get their money back but through tax credits? In addition, the three "privately managed" public virtual charter schools have received "donations" from sponsoring corporations and wealthy millionaires for operational expenses. What better way for corporations to be more profitable than to receive tax credits? Senator Scott and Senator Kidd - Tax credits would not benefit traditional public schools in any way, shape, or form!
The question now becomes: Who benefits from increasing tax credits by 1,600% for the Oklahoma Scholarship Fund? Business Dictionary.com defines a conflict of interest as "A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and ... public interest." In addition, the Business Dictionary uses conflict of interest in a sentence: When a government official has a personal monetary interest in a matter up for a vote, it is best for the official to abstain from voting to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. The fact of the matter is that Senator Julie Daniels: 1) voted "yes" on Senate Bill 407. 2) received $43,000 in dark money support from Stand for Children (a Betsy DeVos pro-voucher group) and Citizens United in 2016. 3) is related to Charlie Daniels, the president of the Oklahoma Scholarship Fund, which will be the recipient of a windfall of tax dollars if SB 407 passes. I don't know if Senator Daniels has a conflict of interest in voting for SB 407, but if it walks like a duck...
It's a fact that all senators and representatives say they support our public school students. It's also a fact that to truly delineate the difference between those who do and those who don't is to watch how they vote. No excuses or explanations needed.
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Public Funding for Private Purposes and Private Vendors
A few years ago I attended a meeting in Lindsay, Oklahoma to advocate for improvement of Highway 76 north of Lindsay to Dibble. The 16 mile stretch of roadway is among the most neglected in the state, as no improvements had been made since the early 1950's. It's filled with curves, had no shoulders to speak of - and several people had been killed in accidents due to its neglect. Concerned citizens who used the stretch daily were in attendance, as well as an Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) official and the local State Representative.
The ODOT official answered several questions from those who live along the highway or travel it on a regular basis. His answers centered on the impending improvements scheduled for the dangerous stretch. (Eventually, improvements were made to the first four miles north of Lindsay - but the most dangerous stretch, where most of the accidents occurred, is still neglected.) The local Representative was seemingly concerned about the safety of citizens who use the road, but lamented that there is very little she could do about it - as it is illegal to direct ODOT to repair a state highway or direct public funding to a private road construction company. Everyone in attendance recognized her predicament for providing assistance, as it is both illegal and unethical for a lawmaker to direct public funding to private vendors. By state statute, it is also not lawful for public agencies to "gift" public funds or property to individuals or private vendors. An example of gifting public resources would be if ODOT paved someone's private driveway, or a county road crew provided gravel for a private driveway.
Many citizens live near the road or travel it on a regular basis and pay taxes to keep the highway repaired and maintained. If the taxes paid by all citizens who use the road could get their tax dollars back from ODOT (probably several hundred thousand dollars), and use it to repair the most neglected stretch of highway - the problem could be solved. There is a big problem associated with this way of thinking: Once tax dollars are paid to the state, it becomes public funding which lawmakers appropriate to state agencies such as ODOT. The tax dollars no longer belong to private citizens, but to the public in general. It becomes illegal and unethical for the Oklahoma Legislature to direct public funding to private citizens or spend public funding for private purposes.
An analogy to the State Department of Transportation is another agency, the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE), which must comply with all the same gifting laws as ODOT. In addition to the OSDE, the more than 500 public schools statewide must also comply with all gifting provisions - as they are state subdivisions of the OSDE.
A few (one or two) public schools are evidently above the law... or lawmakers have recently changed the gifting laws, for the direct benefit of their big donors. A case in point would be Epic Virtual Charter School, a public school somewhere in Oklahoma. Epic advertises the fact that enrolled students will receive + or - $1,000 in state appropriated funding, which can be spent for "education" equipment or education activities such as private sports lessons. In addition, students are provided additional state appropriated dollars for "referring" other potential students. Some people believe "referring" is in reality - recruiting. Many Oklahoma taxpayers believe this practice represents illegal state agency gifting, but only a prosecuting attorney would really know.
In addition to the potential illegal gifting of public funds, more illegal gifting evidence has been uncovered... All state agencies are required by law to properly inventory state and federally owned equipment. For a public school, it means that an inventory of textbooks, computers, buses, and all "public owned" equipment should be accounted... and the state agency is accountable. An Oklahoma taxpayer, through an "open records" request - obtained the equipment inventories for all Oklahoma virtual charter schools. Almost all the inventoried equipment consisted of laptop computers. One virtual charter school replied that no equipment inventory is required, since all computers, etc.. are provided by a private vendor (not the state). Another virtual charter school (Epic) provided over 500 pages of laptop computer inventory, for which it is accountable. The inventoried laptops were listed as "active" (currently in use); "dead"; "repairing"; "returned to Epic" (less than ten); or "unrecoverable". A count of "unrecoverable" laptops revealed over 8,000 (cost unknown) were not recovered by the state. It is unknown if the "unrecovered" state-owned laptops were gifted to staff and students or simply not returned, in effect stolen. Many taxpayers believe the recipients of the state-owned laptops believe they own the Epic issued equipment. Only an attorney can answer the question - Were the inventoried "unrecoverable" laptops illegally gifted, or simply stolen?
The ODOT official answered several questions from those who live along the highway or travel it on a regular basis. His answers centered on the impending improvements scheduled for the dangerous stretch. (Eventually, improvements were made to the first four miles north of Lindsay - but the most dangerous stretch, where most of the accidents occurred, is still neglected.) The local Representative was seemingly concerned about the safety of citizens who use the road, but lamented that there is very little she could do about it - as it is illegal to direct ODOT to repair a state highway or direct public funding to a private road construction company. Everyone in attendance recognized her predicament for providing assistance, as it is both illegal and unethical for a lawmaker to direct public funding to private vendors. By state statute, it is also not lawful for public agencies to "gift" public funds or property to individuals or private vendors. An example of gifting public resources would be if ODOT paved someone's private driveway, or a county road crew provided gravel for a private driveway.
Many citizens live near the road or travel it on a regular basis and pay taxes to keep the highway repaired and maintained. If the taxes paid by all citizens who use the road could get their tax dollars back from ODOT (probably several hundred thousand dollars), and use it to repair the most neglected stretch of highway - the problem could be solved. There is a big problem associated with this way of thinking: Once tax dollars are paid to the state, it becomes public funding which lawmakers appropriate to state agencies such as ODOT. The tax dollars no longer belong to private citizens, but to the public in general. It becomes illegal and unethical for the Oklahoma Legislature to direct public funding to private citizens or spend public funding for private purposes.
An analogy to the State Department of Transportation is another agency, the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE), which must comply with all the same gifting laws as ODOT. In addition to the OSDE, the more than 500 public schools statewide must also comply with all gifting provisions - as they are state subdivisions of the OSDE.
A few (one or two) public schools are evidently above the law... or lawmakers have recently changed the gifting laws, for the direct benefit of their big donors. A case in point would be Epic Virtual Charter School, a public school somewhere in Oklahoma. Epic advertises the fact that enrolled students will receive + or - $1,000 in state appropriated funding, which can be spent for "education" equipment or education activities such as private sports lessons. In addition, students are provided additional state appropriated dollars for "referring" other potential students. Some people believe "referring" is in reality - recruiting. Many Oklahoma taxpayers believe this practice represents illegal state agency gifting, but only a prosecuting attorney would really know.
In addition to the potential illegal gifting of public funds, more illegal gifting evidence has been uncovered... All state agencies are required by law to properly inventory state and federally owned equipment. For a public school, it means that an inventory of textbooks, computers, buses, and all "public owned" equipment should be accounted... and the state agency is accountable. An Oklahoma taxpayer, through an "open records" request - obtained the equipment inventories for all Oklahoma virtual charter schools. Almost all the inventoried equipment consisted of laptop computers. One virtual charter school replied that no equipment inventory is required, since all computers, etc.. are provided by a private vendor (not the state). Another virtual charter school (Epic) provided over 500 pages of laptop computer inventory, for which it is accountable. The inventoried laptops were listed as "active" (currently in use); "dead"; "repairing"; "returned to Epic" (less than ten); or "unrecoverable". A count of "unrecoverable" laptops revealed over 8,000 (cost unknown) were not recovered by the state. It is unknown if the "unrecovered" state-owned laptops were gifted to staff and students or simply not returned, in effect stolen. Many taxpayers believe the recipients of the state-owned laptops believe they own the Epic issued equipment. Only an attorney can answer the question - Were the inventoried "unrecoverable" laptops illegally gifted, or simply stolen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)