Monday, June 17, 2013
Facebook Connect
 
This Week's SFR Picks
 
— That’s a Lota Treasure!
In SFR’s new humor column, Forrest Fenn pulls a fast one
— Downs Doings
Sources: FBI has conducted interviews about controversial racino deal
— Cinderella Story
Santa Fe Fuego: America's worst, most lovable baseball team
— Summer Guide 2013
93 Days of Summer; 93 Ways to Enjoy Them
Guides Santa Fe Manual Restaurant Guide Best of Santa Fe Bar & Nightlife Summer Arts

Letter America: Dear Doctor Guy Walksintoabar

Letter America Dear Doctor Guy, My friend recently stopped taking my calls because I’m dating her ex-boyfriend, but they broke up like over two years ago. I don’t know what to do.—Helpless Hottie ... More

Jun 17, 2013 By Robert Wilder Comments 0
 
 
 

 

 
News 06.22.2011 2 Comments

School Board Divided on Comment Snafu

Member regrets not helping speaker

By Wren Abbot
schoolboard6.21

At least two members of the Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education feel that comments from a member of the public were unfairly squelched at last night's meeting.

Board president Barbara Gudwin was quick to shush speaker Cate Moses, who attempted to bring up the question of discrepancies in school district achievement data at the BOE's meeting Tuesday night. Here's a transcript of the beginning of Moses' comment:

CM: The document referred to in tonight’s agenda as 'data analysis audit'—

BG: Excuse me, it was outlined at the beginning of public comments, the session is not for the purposes of any identifiable personnel matters. To the degree that your comments are directed at any employee of the district your comments are not permissible.

CM: I’m merely stating facts. She’s a public employee. I’m going to continue. In this document it is irrefutable that [SFPS Superintendent Bobbie] Gutierrez manipulated SFPS student achievement numbers for the purpose of justifying her contract extension—

BG: You’re out of order, Miss Moses!


At that point, the crowd seemed to turn against Moses, telling her to sit down and attempting to clap over her words. A district employee then hastened to the front of the room to unplug the mic Moses was using. At the conclusion of Moses' comment, Gudwin told the assemblage, "I would like to remind all participants of the public forum we do not discuss personnel issues during public forum."


Board VP Glenn Wikle (who is also Moses' boyfriend) and board member Steven Carrillo both objected to Gudwin's handling of the incident, but Carrillo tells SFR he regrets not standing up more adamantly for Moses.


"I really regret not interjecting when Miss Moses was speaking, to support her right as a speaker during a public forum," Carrillo says. "I regret letting that unfold without having interjected."


Later in the meeting, after Moses had already departed, district counsel Tony Ortiz discussed the public comment policy with the board members to clarify the dispute. Ortiz tells SFR that he didn't witness Moses' comment and can't comment as to whether she violated policies. But he says that rather than a matter of discussing personnel, the issue is more the need to refrain from slander and maintain civility.    


"There are references throughout the school board policies to civility in all interactions—parents, community members," Ortiz says. "Interactions that degrade to personal attacks or abusive language are already barred by general policy...the board doesn't have to permit abusive language or potentially slanderous statements against people in the context of the public comment section of a meeting."


Carrillo tells SFR that if anyone at the meeting wasn't acting with civility, it wasn't Moses.


"With civility one has to ask who was being uncivil," Carrillo says. "Was it the board and was it the audience, or was it Miss Moses? She was really reading a statement of fact that  - I don’t have the text of what she read in front of me right now but I know she was commenting very seriously on how the numbers were calculated and if those numbers were used as a basis for extending the superintendent’s contract. I mean, that’s something that can’t be disputed. So I feel like it was inappropriate for the audience and perhaps even for the board to have tried to squelch her."


Wikle also criticizes the crowd, which was mostly composed of supporters of the Desert Academy-Kaune sale.

"The Desert Academy people treated her very disrespectfully and she wasn’t even talking about Desert Academy," Wikle says.  "Yeah, so they talked about how well-behaved they are as a school, and then look what they were doing. I don’t understand."


Moses tells SFR that she believes the board silenced her so quickly because Gutierrez had received an email she sent out Monday night about the issue she wanted to discuss at the meeting. She says she has a kid in the school district and therefore has a right to speak about her concerns at public forums. She's attended many BOE meetings over the years, she says.


"I've never seen anyone shut down like that," Moses says.


Gudwin didn't immediately return an email seeking comment.


 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 
06.23.2011 at 07:26 | Reply |

Board members Wikle and Carillo along with Cate Moses need to put the proof on the table. They have made very serious allegations against a number of employees at SFPS, but so far it is all hearsay and innuendo. According to Mose's statements on the New Mexican's article she has the proof, which she must have knowledge of due to her relationship with board member Wikle because the general public doesn't have any of this information. It would be nice if they could enlighten the rest of us, because so far we have no idea who, or what to believe. If the accusations are true then why are they not taking immediate action to fire the Superintendent and the other employee supposedly involved. This is playing out like a high school drama, and the public just keeps getting fed scraps of gossip.

 

Cate Moses posted the following on the SFNM...

"Gutierrez falsified student acheivement data in order to justify her contract extension.  I encourage people to  read the document in which she did so, dated 17 Feb. 2011.  She has now admitted doing so, although she blames it on an underling who reportedly is no longer working for her as of yesterday.  Yet she is the one who signed the document, presented it to the board, and used it to justify her contract extension.  In a math miracle, she simply erased (caculated as zero) all student subgroups showing a decrease in proficiency, which left--surprise--a whopping 8% increase, which would be wonderful, if it were true.  The sad thing is that she erased the very students who need our attention the most, those who are falling behind--in order to advance her career.  This is, in my not-so-humble opinion, shameful.   

 
Several of her senior staff members at last night's meetings tried to drown out my presentation of these facts.  What are they afraid of?  A small group of them in the audience repeatedly called me a bit_* and a f_*_ing bit*_, while I was speaking and after, yet they were not reprimanded, and I was the one who was out of order?   "

 

What document is she referring to? I'm sure there are lot's of documents dated Feb. 11, 2011. How is this supposed to help us find the document? She's made very specific allegations, so where is the document? Where is the proof? Who are the senior staff members who called her a bitch? Or was it Desert Academy parents who called her a bitch? If the city papers are going to cover this then do it right. So far you are just playing the role of parrot.

 

06.29.2011 at 02:41

The document really exists.  It was given to former board members on Feb 17 and then given to board members Trujillo and Carrillo later at a public meeting.  My copy came from Supt Gutierrez during a private meeting.

It is a report outlining progress toward board-defined goals for the superintendent.  According to a statement read by Board Member Gudwin during the Feb 17 meeting, progress toward those goals was required in order for the Superintendent's contract to be extended.  One of the goals was showing progress in proficiency on the state standard test.

The document was not _formally_ released to the public.  If you want a copy, ask the superintendent or the district public records office.  The district's attorney has implied I could be charged with sharing confidential information if I give you my copy.  He told me that _after_ I shared it with some other individuals.

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close