PETITION WORDING FILLED WITH LIES AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS –
Some are corrected below:
The three recall petitions for three Colorado Jefferson County (Jeffco)Board of Education (BOE) members, and wording on the mail-in ballot are false accusations (lies). You can see their lies printed on the petition and sample ballot:
1. One of the lies on the petition said
The board was trying to censor US History
The truth is that board member Julie Williams proposed a separate citizen curriculum review committee that would report to the board directly what they find when reviewing specific curriculum.
She had read the 2014 AP US Framework and was in contact with people around the country who were protesting the new leftist 2014 AP US History Framework. She proposed this independent curriculum review committee because of the excessive censorship in the 2014 AP US History Framework.
The unions exploded at the proposal of this independent citizen review committee, and acted out their rehearsed false accusations at the October 2, 2014 school board meeting. They screamed “censorship” and used it to “justify” the recall they had been planning since the three board members had been elected in 2013.
The truth is that a district curriculum review committee already existed. What the unions and some district people were afraid of was that the proposed independent community curriculum review committee, that would report directly to the board, would actually expose to the board and to the public the content of curriculum to be taught in the classrooms.
“Censorship” was a fake excuse they used to justify a recall so that they could take back power and keep the public away from curriculum content.
Click here, here, and here to see that Julie Williams’ concern about the 2014 AP US History Framework was justified. There had been pressure from all around the country for the College Board to change the 2014 AP US History Framework.
In response to all the uproar around the country, and their fear of losing their monopoly on advanced placement classes, the College Board did a second AP US History framework in 2015. They claimed it fixed the concerns of their 2014 real censorship in the 2014 AP US History Framework, but they lied. No textbooks would be changed or exams altered to line up with the new revised 2015 AP US History Framework. It is still the same Type #2 education. To learn what Type #1 and Type #2 education are, see Type #1 and Type #2 Education compared on the Home page.
2. Contrary to petition and ballot claims, THE THREE REFORM BOARD MEMBERS SHOW CONSIDERATION – THE MINORITY MEMBERS ARE DISRESPECTFUL
SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THE MOB BEHAVIOR
The superintendent and the democrats on the board should have called off their mob so our school board could have done school district business. The two democrat board members and the former superintendent egged on the bad behavior, never telling the disruptive people to calm down. That was disrespectful to the board members, to decent people in the audience, and to the entire school district that pays the district to get work done at the school board meetings.
In that February 8, 2014 meeting video you can also see how Ken Witt, Julie Williams and John Newkirk maintain a proper demeanor the whole time. I have attended almost every one of the regular monthly school board meetings, and this considerate behavior by the board majority is what you always see at the meetings.
2B. October 2, 2014 school board meeting shows respectful board majority
A video clip from the October 2, 2014 board meeting, 8 months later, again shows the respectful manner that all three majority school board members display at board meetings. It also shows the disrespectful behavior of the two democrat minority board members, and the audience.
At the October 2, 2014 meeting, for a third time, a proposal for a new and separate citizen review committee was discussed. At this third meeting, after discussion, the majority chose to follow some recommendations by Superintendent Dan McMinimee, and expand the existing school district committee to include students and some people from the community and elsewhere.
The three board members also proposed a change and voted to have the old curriculum review committee report directly to the school board rather than to the school district. The two minority members (Jill and Lesley) did not support any of the changes.
Watching the October 2, 2014 video clip, once again you can see it is not the board majority, but the two minority members of the board that are disrespectful. If you go to the 9-minute part of the video clip you can see examples of the hostility and refusal to be considerate demonstrated by minority members Jill Fellman and Lesley Dahlkemper, and the responses of the audience members supporting them.
Jill Fellman, Lesley Dahkemper, and their vocal supporters in the audience keep raising their voices, interfering, pressuring, heckling, booing and making other disruptive noises. The audience also claps when either of the two democrat women are rude to Julie, Ken and John. If you had been there that evening, you would also have seen people in the audience holding up their arms, wiggling their fingers and standing up to show defiance against rules, and to show disrespect for the three majority board members.
2C. This mob behavior by the democrat board members and the unions and their supporters is not unique to these two meetings.
Month after month, ever since immediately after the three majority members were elected, there has been nothing but disrespect shown to the majority school board members and to anyone who agrees with the majority. This disrespect has come from: 1) the minority board members; 2) many union members, including teachers; 3) sadly from students following the examples set by their teachers and following examples from other adults at the school board meetings; 4) many union supporters; 5) parents who believe the lies; 6) some school district officials; and 7) the former superintendent who, as soon as the three board members were elected, announced her resignation to take place June 30th, then changed her mind and went on administrative leave February 21, 2014, abandoning the school district. Not respectful.
The February 2, 2014 video below is just one example of disrespect, rudeness and hatred that are displayed by the audience that repeatedly breaks the rules and makes noise during the meeting.
In this 20-minute video clip you can also see and hear the disrespectful behavior by the democrat minority school board members, Jill Fellman and Lesley Dahlkemper. Notice that the two minority women keep hounding Julie, Ken and John; they comment out of order ignoring Robert’s Rules of Order; they ignore requests by Chairman Ken Witt to maintain order; they ignore what Ken says when he answers their questions; and they ignore (and vote against) the efforts of the majority board members to have the long-existing district curriculum committee be more representative and report directly to the school board.
The two minority members of the board claim there has been no discussion and that all has been done behind closed doors and is happening suddenly. Note: This is the third public board meeting about the curriculum review committee.
2D. See for yourself the two rude minority members of the board.
Below is a raw video of the Jeffco Public Schools Board of Education meeting on Oct. 2, 2014 from 9 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. It shows that Jill and Lesley’s accusations of no discussion and decisions being made “behind closed doors” are false. The video shows the entire public school board discussing the issues in public (at the school board meeting). It also shows that the motion passed, the incorporation of recommendations by Superintendent Dan McMinimee to use the old curriculum review committee and expand membership to include students. No secrets there.
3. Old Curriculum Committee to report directly to the school board
(not to the school district)
In addition to the superintendent’s recommendations, the majority members propose a change and pass it without the support of the two minority members. The change directs the curriculum review committee to no longer report their findings to the school district, but to report the findings directly to the school board.
3A. Summary of minority votes on this issue.
Jill and Lesley, the two minority members on the board, voted against the proposal for more representation on the existing curriculum review committee, and voted against the change to have the old curriculum review committee report directly to the board.
3B. Jill Fellman ridiculously accuses Julie, Ken and John of refusing to compromise.
Minority board member Jill Fellman says the majority doesn’t compromise. She demands that majority member chairman Ken Witt give her examples of compromises they have made on the committee proposal. Ken gives her several examples of their compromises.
3C. Jill and Lesley insist there have been no compromises! But read how Ken, Juile and John incorporate recommendations by the Superintendent.
Even after Ken lists off some of the substantial compromises that incorporated recommendations from the superintendent, Jill then insists that since Dan McMinimee recommended the compromises, they should not be counted as compromises. What is she talking about?!? The three voted to accept the changes. That sounds like compromise to me.
Julie and Lesley keep insisting there have been no compromises (For the record: School board members are not required to compromise on anything, and are certainly not required to compromise on what they strongly believe. We elect board member with the hope they will follow through with what they say they believe when they run for office.)
For the record: When Jill and Lesley (and other democrats) were in the majority on the school board, they didn’t compromise!
3D. Some ways the majority board members changed (compromised) their request for a curriculum review committee:
(Remember, Jill and Lesley insist there were no compromises made by the majority members)
— Julie Williams’ original proposal called for a separate new community curriculum review committee. At Superintendent McMinimee’s request, the majority on the board proposed and voted to use an existing (old) curriculum review committee (even though there are no records of that committee’s past meetings or records of their reports to the district). During the October 2, 2014 meeting, Jill said she had at one time been on the old curriculum review committee, and that during her tenure on the committee the review committee had voted on curriculum review reports that were on the consent agenda. (Did the committee members personally review any curriculum?) There are no records of the votes or even of meetings of that curriculum review committee during Jill’s tenure on the review committee.
— Both the current curriculum review committee and the one proposed by the current board majority, did not include students on the committee. The majority board members proposed and voted to add students to the existing curriculum review committee, as Superintendent McMinimee recommended.
3E. — The majority board members proposed and voted to add more community members to the existing curriculum review committee, as proposed by the superintendent. This was a huge change from the original proposal by board member Julie Williams, who wanted a separate additional curriculum review committee made up of citizens that are not part of the current school district curriculum review committee, and who are not on the payroll of the school district.
3F. One of the changes recommended and passed by the board majority:
— The majority on the board voted to require the curriculum review committee to report directly to the school board, rather than to the school district. They did this so the board would get information directly from the committee in a timely manner, and be able to use the information to help them make better decisions about curriculum.
This was not the first time or the last time that the board minority (Jill and Lesley) refused to pay any attention to facts (the truth) and continued to spread false information and claims, as if what happened never really happened.
This is the same behavior of the people who designed the recall campaign. They have been planning the recall since the majority’s election November 4, 2013. You can even hear “recall” yelled out in the linked school board meeting February 8, 2014 YouTube , and can read the word “recall” in the transcript of the meeting (find it in a word-search of the transcript).
The recall designers refuse to pay any attention to truth. They accuse the three reform board members of things the minority board members are guilty of. They dishonestly stick to their agenda to get rid of the three elected reform school board members so that they can take back their total power and control over the school board.
We need to keep the three board members (Witt, Williams and Newkirk) who have shown dignity and respect even when under attack. Those attacks come during school board meetings, through emails and letters, through the news media, and through persecution of their own school children.
Williams, Witt and Newkirk show respect at the meetings and in their lives.
The three majority school board members were elected for four-year terms to make reforms that they campaigned to do. They should be allowed to continue their work two more years, and finish out their four-year terms, just like any other elected board members in the past.