Connect with us

Featured Columnists

Analysis: Montgomery intervention failing despite local support

Josh Moon

Published

on

By Josh Moon
Alabama Political Reporter

There is a misconception with the state takeover of Montgomery Public Schools.

Everyone seems to think that MPS officials don’t want it.

That’s untrue.

Board members made it clear this week that even those who are currently actively engaged in an ongoing AEA lawsuit against the intervention are open to it continuing after the resignation last week of Michael Sentance.

Advertisement

And that fact, probably more than any other, is a perfect example of the complicated chore an intervention – especially one in a large district – is, and how poorly Sentance managed the one in Montgomery.

To better understand this, we’ll have to go back to the beginning of the state takeover.

Rumors of the intervention began swirling weeks before it was officially announced, because Sentance – new on the job and needing allies – held a number of one-on-one meetings with Montgomery city officials and other politicos to lobby for support.

The intervention itself was a giant political ploy – a way for Sentance to garner favor from a powerful state school board member – Ella Bell – and simultaneously make a very popular decision.

Because no one was against a state takeover in Montgomery.

School officials in Montgomery wanted it because of the increase in money flowing into the district. Locals wanted it because they ignorantly believe there’s a magic Solve All The Problems button located in the MPS central office that the staff simply isn’t pressing.

But Sentance had a problem: He didn’t have enough staff.

Privately, he and other high-ranking officials in ALSDE told MPS officials that the state department simply didn’t have the personnel to facilitate an actual takeover of the state’s third-largest system.

In order to make it work, Sentance made his first misstep – he cut a deal with MPS board members.

The state would take over the district’s 27 under-performing schools. The MPS board would manage the rest. It would be, Sentance told the board, a “collaborative” takeover.

That move sent the lawyers and lawmakers into a tizzy. They believed – and many of them still believe – that by taking over only a portion of the district, Sentance ran afoul of the law and that the MPS takeover is technically illegal.

That’s important because it gave the MPS board a chip to play.

Essentially, if the takeover ever started to go a way they didn’t like, the MPS board could file suit and challenge its legality.

It started that awry quickly.

A few weeks into the takeover, out of the blue, Sentance announced that he was handing over 10-percent raises to the principals of the 27 under-performing schools.

MPS board members, other principals, lawmakers, city officials and teachers all heavily criticized the decision. And a few days later, Sentance amended it to include all MPS principals – a decision that did little to placate anyone, because those raises came with three-year contract extensions. That meant the intervention teams would be hampered in trying to shuffle those principals around.

While it seems like a minor mistake by Sentance, it’s truly hard to express the importance of that decision, and what a devastating effect it had on Sentance’s support, especially with lawmakers.

From that point forward, his days were numbered.

He lowered that number by signing several high-dollar consulting contracts, and contracts for other services as part of the takeover. Those included two contracts for more than $1.5 million for financial services and training.

Sources told APR last week that the Montgomery board and ALSDE officials plan to work on getting out of those contracts as quickly as possible.

In addition to those contracts, Sentance also hired more than $500,000 in permanent MPS administrators – salaries that MPS would be expected to pay long after the state department left.

Those decisions angered pretty much everyone, but they particularly angered the MPS board – because the board had no say in the matters. And when they raised objections, suddenly, the “collaborative” intervention was dead.

Because Sentance had no choice but to kill it. He was being pressured from all sides, and the people with the most sway – lawmakers and his state school board members – wanted him to stop pretending that the MPS board had a say.

Sentance complied. And then he took it a step too far.

Following the resignation of MPS superintendent Margaret Allen in June, Sentance told the MPS board that he would work with them to select a new superintendent. Then, a few hours later, he appointed Reginald Eggleston as the acting superintendent.

MPS board members felt betrayed, and they were angry. That night, board members mentioned for the first time publicly that they were considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the intervention.

Possibly to avoid that, or to simply avoid other legal issues, Sentance also blocked MPS from hiring a new in-house counsel, leaving the school board and system without a fulltime attorney to handle the numerous legal issues for the district.

And still, other problems continued.

Over the summer, there was a huge bill to clean the schools. There were talks of laying off custodians. There were more hires. An expensive audit resulted in the same old superficial conclusions.

Finally, last week, the MPS board members said they’d had enough. With AEA attorneys leading the way, the board filed suit against the intervention.

It wasn’t a popular decision, and since the MPS board is a favorite punching bag around here, board members have been heavily criticized for making it.

But it’s worth pointing out that the MPS board agreed to this takeover. Board members agreed to work with Sentance and to support him. And for the most part, they have.

They thought they were buying into a collaborative takeover that would see big administrative cuts and thousands of dollars flowing into the schools and classrooms.

Instead, they watched their budget swell, more administrators be added, not a dime go into the schools and their collaboration be denied.

That board has its faults, but this isn’t one of them.

This was the worst school intervention in history conducted by the worst school superintendent in Alabama history. Hopefully, both will be replaced.

Josh Moon is an investigative reporter and featured columnist at the Alabama Political Reporter with years of political reporting experience in Alabama. You can email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter.

Continue Reading

Featured Columnists

Opinion | The BCA mess isn’t difficult to unravel

Josh Moon

Published

on

It’s been a rough week for the Business Council of Alabama.

The top lobbyist group in the state has been decimated by big-name defections. It started with Alabama Power and PowerSouth. Then Regions Bank. Then Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama. And now Protective Life Insurance. And there are strong rumors that Drummond Coal and Thompson Caterpillar are soon to follow.

All of those companies mentioned have expressed concerns — either while announcing their departure or while threatening to leave — over BCA CEO Bill Canary.

They felt Canary wasn’t getting the job done. They wanted him out. They wanted him out now.

The BCA board, led by Perry Hand, tried to block that. For reasons that are both dumb and seemingly personally beneficial to Hand and his company, Volkert Construction.

Advertisement

And now there is debate in political circles over who’s right, who’s wrong and what it all means.

On the first two, there should be no debate. And anyone who is honest and who has spent an hour around the State House over the last two years knows it.

Alabama Power and these other major companies didn’t randomly decide one day that they didn’t like Canary’s suits and wanted him fired. They took a look at the scoreboard. And it clearly showed that Canary was getting killed.

And by that, I mean he had lost his influence in the State House. Most of it he squandered away by using too much stick and not enough carrot when dealing with lawmakers. He tried to bully his way around and such tactics quickly wear thin among grown people.

The companies contributing dues to the BCA do so for one purpose: for that organization to promote their best interest and help push business-friendly ideas in the state Legislature.

That’s the primary benefit of the BCA’s existence.

If the guy the BCA is paying big dollars to push that agenda is so disliked that state lawmakers are voting against BCA-backed legislation just to spite him, that’s what we call a gots-to-go situation.

That was 100-percent taking place with Canary in the State House.

Two years ago, the BCA was shut out on its top-priority bills. This past session, they got one — an unpopular weakening of state ethics laws that likely cost several lawmakers their seats — and lost their biggest.

Privately, Republican lawmakers, who once happily strolled into the building and voted for anything BCA sponsored, were so disenchanted with Canary and BCA that they told me they would vote against anything the organization backed. They were tired of being threatened, they said. And they were tired of Canary telling them what to do instead of working with them.

If you’re Alabama Power or Regions Bank or BCBS, and you’re dumping six figures annually into this association in order to promote your interests at the State House, you can’t have that.

And it’s that simple.

What’s hilarious to me is that there’s now this narrative being pushed on paid political blogs and in paid-for newspaper columns that somehow APCO and these other defecting businesses were too liberal and didn’t share the conservative, pro-business goals of Hand and the BCA.

Lord have mercy. I think I know liberal when I see it. And trust me, APCO, Regions and BCBS ain’t it.

Even if they pushed former Democratic House Speaker Seth Hammett to be the new BCA CEO. That decision, too, boiled down to simple business.

Hammett is the anti-Canary. He’s nice, well respected, well liked and doesn’t even own a stick. Basically, exactly the sort of change the organization needed.

But that’s a moot point now, I suppose. What’s left to consider is where things go from here, and it seems that other BCA defections offer some indication of the future plans.

In addition to top companies, board member Mike Kemp and legal counsel Fournier “Boots” Gale also resigned from BCA this week. Kemp was the chairperson of BCA’s political action committee, PROGRESSPAC.

If the departing companies intended to start a new lobbying group, or join an existing one, those specific members would be fairly important.

Whether that’s the case or not, certainly no one believes that APCO, Regions and BCBS are going to stop pushing their legislative agendas and backing bills that aid their companies and the state’s business climate.

Because just like with the push to remove Canary, the bottom line for them is money.

 

Continue Reading

Featured Columnists

Opinion | The most important election ever

Joey Kennedy

Published

on

Is this the country we want to be? Is this the state we love.

I truly wonder.

We always say there is never an election more important than the one at hand. It’s become a cliché.

But, folks, there’s never been a more important election than the mid-term election this  November. It may be cliché, but it’s absolutely true.

If you are eligible to vote but not registered, get registered now. Don’t keep putting it off.

Advertisement

In the recent Republican and Democratic primaries in Alabama, only 26 percent of registered voters cast ballots.

That means 74 percent of registered voters stayed at home. Even that isn’t a true reflection of voter apathy in Alabama. Many more people in Alabama are eligible to vote, but simply don’t bother to register. Considering eligible voters, Alabama’s turnout is likely well below 25 percent.

Imagine fewer than 25 percent of eligible voters deciding who is going to head their parties’ tickets come November. In the few primary runoffs in July, the turnout likely will be single digits.

There’s no more crucial time for eligible voters to cast their ballots than this year.

Just look at the ongoing horror on our nation’s borders with Mexico. President Trump signed an executive order this week to prevent immigrant families from being split apart, but there’s debate over whether that means a whole lot. Trump only signed the order after tear-inducing descriptions and photos showed the terrible conditions that immigrant children were being housed in. So-called “tender age shelters,” little more than internment camps or prisons for toddlers and babies, was the last straw. Even tough-man Donald Trump couldn’t stand the backlash, so after saying he didn’t have the authority to keep families from being separated, he then signed an executive order ending his own policy of separating families.

Trump folded completely, but he folded on a terrible crisis of his own making.

Trump’s disgusting immigration decisions aren’t his only horrible policies. The assault on health insurance coverage, trade wars with our closest allies, destruction of the Environmental Protection Agency – the list goes on and on.

And on.

The bigger picture, though, is that voters allowed this to happen. More precisely, eligible voters who didn’t bother to register or vote allowed this to happen.

That’s why the cliché is true: There’s never been a more important election than this November’s midterms.

We’re not voting on a president, true, but we are selecting U.S. House members. Sure, Alabama polls overwhelmingly in support of Trump, but that’s not unusual in a state where voters so often go against their own interests.

Let’s not do that this time.

There are many more Democrats than usual running for office in Alabama this year. Get to know them. Learn what they stand for.

There are good Republicans, too, especially in local races.

On the statewide level, not so much, though, especially when compared to their Democratic Party opponents.

At the top, Tuscaloosa Mayor and Democrat Walt Maddox is eminently more qualified than Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, who supported a child molester for the U.S. Senate simply because he was a Republican, and who has refused to debate her opponents.

Go down the list. Remember that the party in charge in Alabama (and in Congress) is a party that wants to keep voter turnout as low as possible. It’s the only way they stay in control.

But to vote, you must be registered. And if you’re registered, you must travel to a polling place to cast your ballot.

Never, ever vote straight ticket. Vote a smart ticket.

Especially this year.

Because there’s never been a more important election.

Joey Kennedy, a Pulitzer Prize winner, writes a column every week for Alabama Political Reporter. Email: [email protected]

 

Continue Reading

Featured Columnists

Opinion | Inside the Statehouse: Judicial races highlighted – June 5 primary

Steve Flowers

Published

on

This is not just a gubernatorial year in the Heart of Dixie.

We have every constitutional office up for election which includes Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Auditor and Agriculture Commissioner.

We also have a good many of the State Judicial races on the ballot. We have nine seats on our State Supreme Court. We have five judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as five seats on the Court of Civil Appeals. All of these judicial posts are held by Republicans. Therefore, it is more than likely safe to assume that the winner of the Republican primary will be elected to a six-year term and can be fitted for their robe, at least by July 17. In fact, Democrats usually do not even field candidates in state judicial races.

Over the past two decades, a prevailing theme has been that women have become favored in state judicial races. In fact, it was safe to say that if you put two candidates on the ballot for a state judicial position, one named John Doe and the other Jane Doe, and neither campaigned or spent any money, Jane Doe would defeat John Doe.

However, for some inexplicable reason, this prevalence reversed itself on June 5, in the Republican primary. In the much-anticipated race for the extremely important Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, position two of the sitting members of the Supreme Court were pitted against each other. 

Advertisement

Justice Lyn Stuart, who is the longest serving member on the State Supreme Court, had moved into the Chief Justice role after the departure of Judge Roy Moore. She was running for Chief Justice for the full six-year term. Justice Tom Parker was Roy Moore’s closest ally and is now the most socially conservative activist on the court. Parker and Moore dip from the same well.

Parker chose to challenge Stuart for Chief Justice. The Lyn Stuart vs Tom Parker contest was billed as one of the Titanic battles of the Primary season. Stuart was the darling of the business community. Parker openly was carrying the banner of the social conservatives. Parker bested Stuart 52 percent to 48 percent. Most of Parker’s financial backing came from plaintiff trial lawyers. Parker does have Democratic opposition from Birmingham attorney, Robert Vance, Jr. However, he should win election in November.

Judge Brad Mendheim was facing two prominent female Circuit judges, Debra Jones of Anniston and Sarah Hicks Stewart of Mobile, for Place 1 on the State Supreme Court. Mendheim has been a longtime popular Circuit Judge in Dothan. He was appointed to this Supreme Court seat by Governor Kay Ivey earlier this year.  Mendheim decisively outdistanced his female opponents by garnering 43 percent of the vote. He is expected to win election to a full six-year term on the high tribunal on July 17.

Another example of the male uprising in the court contests occurred in the race for a seat on the Court of Civil Appeals. Judge Terri Willingham Thomas, who has been on this court since 2006 and has served with distinction, was shockingly defeated by her unknown male opponent, Chad Hanson.

Pickens County Prosecutor Chris McCool forged to the front in the race for a seat on the Court of Criminal Appeals. He led 43 to 35 over Rich Anderson from the Montgomery/River Region.

In the other court races, the candidate who raised the most money and was able to buy some TV time prevailed.

In the State Supreme Court race in Place 4, two Birmingham attorneys, John Bahakel and Jay Mitchell, were pitted against each other. Mitchell significantly outspent Bahaked and won 73 to 27.

Christy Edwards of Montgomery and Michelle Thomason of Baldwin County are headed for a runoff for a seat on the Court of Civil Appeals.

Richard Minor defeated Riggs Walker overwhelmingly 66 to 34 for a seat on the Court of Criminal Appeals. In the seat for Place 3 on the Court of Criminal Appeals there was yet another display of male dominance in the court races. Bill Cole bested Donna Beaulieu 60 to 40. 

On Saturday before the Primary, legendary Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Clement Clay “Bo” Torbert, passed away at 88 in his beloved City of Opelika. His funeral was on Election Day. Judge Torbert served as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for 12 years, 1976 to 1988. He had previously served two terms in the State Senate prior to his election as Chief Justice.

See you next week.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.

Continue Reading

Authors

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Analysis: Montgomery intervention failing despite local support

by Josh Moon Read Time: 5 min
0