It was, indeed, a charade!
A Jeffco Business Community Member writes us about the DAC “application” and “selection” process. We agree that this process was terribly flawed and the board didn’t even attempt to meet the statutory requirements. As Ms. Dahlkemper and Ms. Fellman stated, are we drawing names out of a hat or throwing darts to select members? – watch the end of the Board Meeting here to see what happened: http://livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310
Ms Levine and Ms Fritzler:
I applied for membership on the Jeffco District Accountability Committee, and I know my application was submitted online before October 15. On October 23 I received an email from Helen Neal that thanked me for completing the application and that the Board had appointed members on October 15. I was confused as to how the members were chosen as I had had no contact from any of the board or administrative staff to find out more about me and my experience than the application supplied. The application basically asked for name, contact information and whether I was a parent or part of the business community, which is how I applied.
In subsequent emails with Ms. Neal concerning my questions as to how the members were chosen, she finally wrote that Sean Kaiser was appointed as the business member because: “I think some board members knew him by name.”
Why was there even a process, then, of applications for this committee if the board was going to chose someone they knew, and probably already chosen? My application certainly was not given a fair assessment, but the board was not interested in my application, or, then, any other applicant who did not know the board.
Transparency? Openness? Why the charade of the application process as it sounds like they had already determined the committee?
I was looking at this application as an attempt to get involved in the community in an area I have interest and experience in, education. Not being chosen is not the issue; not being considered due to the position already being filled with someone hand-picked by some of the board members, and not having the applications discussed with the entire board are the issues.
I have attached the letter I sent to the board last week after hearing from Ms. Neal. These closed processes are an affront to the community and draws more attention to the lack of transparency and openness of the present board majority.
P. Catherine Te Slaa