JonNarcisse.com

When I ran for office I said I would focus on getting parents involved, fiscal and academic accountability and fighting for all the children of this district. I’ve kept my word.

I also said I would serve as a conduit for information about our school district to the public. I’ve done that, too. I’ve knocked on doors, held listening posts, held one-on-one meetings, dropped in on civic groups and labor unions, met with business leaders and local officials and used print and electronic media, including weekly radio and television appearances, to get the word out.

Our Charge As Board Members
On September 18, 2007, I was sworn in as a member of the Des Moines Independent Community School District Board of Directors. Series 200 Code 220 titled “Powers and Duties of the Board” clearly spells out our charge as Directors: The Board of Directors has three major responsibilities: legislative, executive, and evaluative. In its legislative role, the board shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the district, its students, its employees, and its property, and shall adopt general goals and policies within that jurisdiction. The board shall delegate executive responsibilities to a superintendent hired and supervised by the board. In its evaluative role, the board will review and determine, on an ongoing basis, whether the administration and programs of the district are being conducted in an economical, efficient and effective manner.
My focus as a Director is to get our district to where it operates in an economical, efficient and effective manner.

The Money
In 2005-06 the Des Moines School District spent $354,622,444. In 2006-07 the District’s expenditures jumped to $394,722,492; a $40,100,048 increase in spending. In 2007-08 it is estimated the District will spend $416,979,336 or $62,356,892 more than we spent in 2005-06. Over a two year period that is an $102,456,940 increase in spending.
The District spent $48,735,000 on facilities acquisition and construction in 2007-08. It will spend $23,040,000 in 2008-09. That is a reduction of $25,695,000. At the same time our proposed budget will experience a net increase in revenues of $8,689,884 and, for the first time, officially surpass the $400 million mark. Our 2007-08 budget revenues were $396,444,955. Our projected 2008-09 budget revenues are $405,134,839. Our debt service as a District was $1,141,536 in 2005-06, it jumped to $4,247,762 in 2006-07; $5,888,238 in 2007-08; and a proposed $6,326,648 in 2008-09. It is also important to note that while our fund balance grew in 2005-06 and 2006-07 by $15,147,049 it was depleted by $20,534,381 in 2007-08.

Separate And Unequal
Des Moines consists of two separate and unequal Districts. While an adequate level of funding is spent on a small, affluent and thriving group of students represented primarily by the Central Academy track the needs of the overwhelming majority of our students are not adequately met.

As a District we have made a large investment in the Central Academy track. For example we just purchased the Wallace-Homestead Building for $4.5 million, $2 million more than the assessed market value, and will have that facility operational for the Central Academy students by August of 2008 at great taxpayer expense. The building will have state-of-the-art technology, 21st Century security and the best of what our district believes it has to offer, including the International Baccalaureate program. We found the money to fund these programs.

Meanwhile, despite the massive increase in spending the past two years, only one of our nearly 50 elementary and middle schools will has a full-time librarian. Building level safety at most of our schools will not match what the Central Academy students, the Walnut students or our Central Administrators get. Students in two dozen schools will not have their basic infrastructure needs addressed through the local option tax project. Infact, not only will these students not get the state-of-the-art technology Central Academy students are getting, their schools’ rot, mold, and leaking roof concerns will not be addressed. Some of our students are being taught out of closets; we have teachers teaching from carts; some of our toilet facilities are primitive; we even have classrooms missing door knobs yet we found money for moving the Central Administration into plush downtown offices.

In the past two years there has been a significant increase in administrative costs. In 2005-06 the District spent $16,642,315 on Building Administration. That figure will be $18,837,695 in 2008-09. In 2005-06 the District spent $7,824,493 on Business and Central Administration. That figure jumped to $10,254,130 in 2006-07 and will be $10,294,565 in 2008-09. In 2005-06 the District spent $18,899,945 on Non-Instructional Expenditures which does not include areas like transportation and plant operation and maintenance. That figure will be $20,158,663 in 2008-09. But what is most “curious” is the increase in a category that was created in 2007-08 titled “Other Financing Uses.” In 2005-06 and 2006-07 nothing was expended in this category. In 2007-08 $30,900 was expended in this category. In the 2008-09 budget it sky rockets to $11,679,273; that’s an increase of $11,648,373.

The Numbers
Since Dr. Witherspoon’s departure at the end of the 2005-06 school year we have seen two things take place in this District - a hundred million in additional spending and a massive academic decline.
This past year alone, according to the Iowa Department of Education our graduation rate experienced a double digit plummet. On February 18, 2008, Dr. Sebring’s academic report documented that we have lost ground in eight of nine 4th, 8th and 11th grade reading, math and science proficiency categories on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Iowa Test of Education Development.

Had we received raw data, as we did during the Wegenke and Witherspoon years, these figures may have even been more alarming. Instead we only received a general aggregated summary. Despite the lack of indepth reporting, the numbers still documented a serious decline in academic achievement this past year.
According to the Iowa Department of Education’s February Academic Report, only Clinton and Davenport had worse dropout rates than Des Moines and only Council Bluffs had a worse graduation rate than Des Moines. Earlier this school year the Johns Hopkins National Study named 60% of Des Moines’ high schools Dropout Factories. This past year our 11th graders declined in every category on the Iowa Test of Education Development with less than 60% of our juniors testing competent in reading, math or science - the worse outcome in the District’s history of taking the test. Des Moines also ranked 331 out of 341 Iowa Districts in 4th and 8th grade reading and math proficiency.
The state also documented very serious concerns in the areas of expulsions and suspensions. While the Des Moines District has 6.46% of the state’s enrolled K-12 students it had, in the category of “All Removal Types”:

• 11.46% of Iowa’s students removed for drug usage;
• 71.43% of Iowa’s students removed for alcohol and drug usage;
• 19.21% of Iowa’s students removed for weapons;
• 13.54% of Iowa’s students removed for fighting;
• 11.49% of Iowa’s students removed for disruptive behavior;
• 13.10% of Iowa’s students removed for property charges; and
• 18.71% of Iowa’s students removed for violence.

In our evaluative role, the board is supposed to review and determine, on an ongoing basis, whether the administration and programs of the district are being conducted in an economical, efficient and effective manner. Timely and accurate data is essential to performing this task. Unfortunately the ability to access timely, accurate and relevant data such as attendance data has been aggressively obstructed by both the Administration and a majority of the Board. A prime example has been the request for data on how many of our students are in violation of our District’s attendance policy. In October data was requested regarding this issue after reports surfaced that between 600 to 800 students at one high school alone were already in violation of our attendance policy. We are approaching April and that data has never been provided.
Another report indicated 1,100 calls had been made to police from another high school and 150 arrests had been made at that school. I have requested either confirmation or a refutation to this report but have received neither. If these numbers are true, however, we should be very concerned about both the numbers and what the stories behind those numbers are.

Structural Flaws
Beyond the academic data the fiscal and physical condition of the District is dubious. Due to gross mis-management of the local option tax project, beginning with how the District engaged the public, the goodwill of the voters and taxpayers has been squandered. While Ankeny passed an $83 million bond last year and Waukee passed a $70 million bond earlier this month the Des Moines District can neither propose a bond to fund much needed projects nor count on support for renewal of the Local Option Tax June 30, 2010.

In the State Auditor’s report regarding the Des Moines School District, released March 1, 2007, several grave concerns were raised regarding foundational matters of the governance of the District around the local option tax project. For example on page 13 the report states: “The Board’s lack of knowledge...does not relieve it of its fiduciary responsibilities.” Another example found on page 15 states: “The District did not comply with Iowa Code or District policies.”
The report actually had to explain the importance of minutes to the District in the document, for example, on page 19. On page 20 the report exposed the District’s failure to comply with Chapters 279.35 and 279.36 of the Code of Iowa. The report even addressed, on page 21, the District’s failure to comply with the Code of Iowa regarding the District’s Bills reporting.

Of course one of my serious concerns about the governance of the District is our bill approval process and the public’s timely access to this information. Our District’s official bill approval process is for one member to look at the bills and the other six members are then expected to approve them sight unseen. This was the very process that resulted in the CIETC scandal, board members approving payments without reviewing them. Exposure of this process led to national reform measures for non-profits and governmental entities. Unfortunately, the Des Moines District maintains this very risky method of bill approval. Another very troubling matter is the giveaway of scarce District resources. In the State Auditor’s report the question is raised why the District passed on the two highest bidders for the Rice Field sale ultimately awarding the property to “Rice Development Partners” which is in part owned, as the report states on page 18, by the brother of “the husband of Board Member Connie Boesen.” On page 19 the report further states due to the lack of a viable public rationale for this decision “In a period of budgetary constraints, the public purpose of accepting $100,000 less than the highest offer should be adequately documented.”

Fiduciary Failures
Fast forward to October 2, 2007; the Board not only failed to adequately explain why it rejected an offer of $100,000 more than the winning bid but it gave the Rice Development Partners an additional $130,000 despite the property being purchased “as is” with a provision that no money would be put into the development of the property. On December 18, 2007, the District purchased 1912 Grand Avenue - the Wallace Homestead Building - for $4.5 million dollars despite the current market value being assessed and published at under $2.5 million. The owner paid less than $2.5 million in 2004 for the property. His speculation did not work out. As a District we were in a position of strength. The owner was having to spend money on taxes and insurance while no viable commercial options existed for the use of the property due to the glut in office space available on Grand Avenue and elsewhere, and the over saturation of downtown housing. There was also no real interest in acquiring that property by an entity needing tens of thousands of square feet. There were no other buyers than the Des Moines District. We had cash in hand and that cash was going to soon disappear. Yet our District paid $2 million more than the current assessed value of the property at a time when the local real estate market was in free fall.

Lack Of Monitoring
Most egregious has been our failure as a District to adequately monitor staff and vendor relationships. The taxpayers have paid a premium for this shortcoming. Most troubling to me is our lack of a paper trail monitoring our vendor relationships, especially the Taylor Ohde Kitchell $20 million management deal. Not only haven’t we monitored specifics of staff activity despite being billed on an hourly basis by Taylor Ohde Kitchell but we’ve even paid the company, on a monthly basis, for Crystal Clear Water and mobile phones. The fact we have been paying for items like this without even questions being raised causes concern. What has the Local Option Tax Oversight Committee been doing all this time? What has the Polk County Tax Payers Association been doing? What has the District’s audit committee, that gave Taylor Ohde Kitchell on March 7, 2008, the thumbs up, been doing? What has the District Administration been doing? What has the Board been doing?

Doug Ohde, who is paid more by the District than even our Superintendent, billed the District $19,200 for 160 hours of work in September of 2007. There were only 19 working days with the Labor Day Holiday. Did we pay his vacation? Did he work overtime or evenings that month? What did he do for those 160 hours considering he has staff overseeing each project? And why are we using local option tax dollars to pay his company for items like Crystal Clear Water and mobile phones?

At a time when the District can’t afford door knobs, toilet seats or to replace rot and mold; at a time when we are giving students extra credit to bring dry erase markers and tissue to school; should we really be using local option tax dollars to pay for Crystal Clear Water and mobile phones for a company that has a $20 million management contract with us?

The Legislative Charge
Code 220 states: “In its legislative role, the board shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the district, its students, its employees, and its property, and shall adopt general goals and policies within that jurisdiction.”
Chief amongst our legislative duties is the role of policy maker. On November 20, 2007, the Board adopted a policy governance model that creates a dual system for this district. On the one hand we have adopted a method of policy governance that has no foundation in the state code but is based on a “new age” doctrine called policy governance.
As new board members we were not provided a copy of our 100 through 800 series Policies and Procedures. Instead we were given a copy of “Boards That Make A Difference: A New Design For Leadership In Nonprofit And Public Organizations” by an organizational guru named John Carver. The front cover endorsement is from Sir Adrian Cadbury with other international figures embracing the model.

The following was the motion, as reported in our minutes, that adopted this internationally acclaimed governance model: “Strong moved...that the policies pertaining to the governance process, management limitations and board management delegation be adopted. It is further moved that they become the sole body of policies by which the school board governs.”
The problem is our District is subject to the Code of Iowa not the theories and teachings of internationalists.
To cover our bases our District’s attorney made it clear that we will maintain our 100 through 800 series policies and procedures. If you go to our District’s webite: www.dmps.k12.ia.and click on policies and procedures it will direct you to our 100 through 800 series. Questions about our operating under two sets of rules have not been adequately addressed by our Board nor the Administration and in our meetings it is the Code of Carver, not the Code of Iowa that is most often referenced.

What our 100 through 800 series does do that our new policy governance doesn’t do is include items, required by state code, to be in the policies and procedures of school districts. Series 200 Code 221 titled “Establishment of Board Policies and Administrative Procedures” clearly states “The board shall review policies at least every three years to ensure relevance to current circumstances and compliance with federal and state laws, rules and regulations and court decisions.” It also states “The administration shall develop administrative procedures to implement board policies. The superintendent shall report proposed administrative procedures and amendments to the Board of Directors prior to implementation. All administrative procedures shall be in written form and shall be maintained in a uniform and unified manner, and shall be subject to review by the Board of Directors.”

A History Of Negligence
State code requires a review and update of policies and procedures at least every five years.
A thorough examination of our policies and procedures demonstrates years of neglect and a systematic relinquishing of our “Powers and Duties” as Directors. In some instances the Directors have not updated key policies or procedures for more than a decade. In some instances key items have not been updated in fifteen years. The failure to comply with our Series 200 Code 221 policy and state code is a profound abdication of our sworn Duties and has contributed to both the climate and condition of this District. Establishing policies and sanctioning procedures for the economical, efficient and effective implementation of those policies and procedures is essential to performing our sworn Duties as Directors.
The Des Moines School Board has failed this charge. Furthermore, Series 400 Code 400 titled “Guiding Principles” states: The Superintendent of Schools...is directly responsible to its Board of Directors for the enforcement of all provisions of the law relating to the school system under the charge of the board.

Of equal importance is that we have not demonstrated we have a viable mechanism to comply with the timely modification of essential policies and procedures. For example, the question has been raised about our failure to comply with the state’s new anti-bullying legislation as a Board. We also have had District staff change policy despite policy being the “sole jurisdiction” of the Board of Directors. This action warrants further investigation but on the surface would appear to be a grevious violation of the code.

The Boards’ failure to maintain current policies and procedures creates potential liabilities for the District at a time when resources are alleged to be scarce. We have no more sacred charge as board members than making policy and maintaining current policies and procedures. The failure to do so is without excuse.
The question now before us is this a mere case of abdication or does this ongoing failure rise to the level of negligence, dereliction of duty and malfeasance of office?

Where Do We Go From Here?
The Des Moines School District, the Board, the Administration, and our key committees like the Local Option Oversight and Audit committees have failed to adequately address the serious accountability concerns not only facing this district but mounting rapidly.

Last Thursday I met with Mr. Bill Angrick and a representative of The Office of Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman. I found the meeting very encouraging and feel a clear course of action is now before us. The time has come for the Governor’s Office and key legislative oversight committees to intervene. The CIETC scandal rocked this community yet it pales in comparision to the potential waste, fraud and abuse within the Des Moines School District over the past decade. It is also time to have the State Auditor conduct a full and thorough examination of Des Moines School District finances over the past decade beginning with the local option tax project and the Taylor Ohde Kitchell contract. We cannot do business as a District ought to be able to because trust has been savaged. Non-stop advocacy for passage of a statewide sales tax has taken place because without the legislature bailing the District out the penny tax revenues flowing to the Des Moines School District will dry up in 2010 with little hope of replacing these funds. The remedy is not a statewide sales tax, however, but District wide reform. Real accountability and quality education are the answers. Anything short of that will be a continued betrayal of our taxpayers and citizens.

Respectfully submitted;

Jonathan R. Narcisse, Director
Des Moines Independent Community School District

To Phone:
515-280-8092 (H) or 515-770-1218 (C)

To Email:
jon_narcisse@yahoo.com