Connect with us

Guest Columnists

School Board Approves Sentence Contract. Surprise. Surprise.

Larry Lee

Published

on

By Larry Lee

As a rule, state school board meetings are amicable with emotions kept well in check. Not the one today, Sept. 8, 2016.

But given how contentious the selection of a new state superintendent has been over the last couple of months, today should not have surprised anyone. Today was when the board faced approving, or rejecting, a contract for new hire Michael Sentence of Massachusetts. And by the time the gavel fell to adjourn, some tempers grew short and emotions bubbled to the surface.

Governor Bentley chaired the meeting. The first hitch occurred when Vice-Chair Yvette Richardson wanted to add voting on a resolution to the agenda. Her resolution called for a full-scale investigation of the now infamous “smear sheet” campaign against applicant Craig Pouncey, Jefferson County superintendent.

To recount, someone placed an anonymous packet at the seat of each board member at the regular July 12 meeting. This included unsigned allocations that Pouncey received far too much help in 2009 when he did his doctoral dissertation for Samford University. It included copies of emails from state department staff from 2009. (For the record, all of the paperwork and notes from Pouncey’s work on his dissertation are now in several boxes at the state department.)

This info was transmitted to the Ethics Commission, even though it is common knowledge that the agency does not investigate unsigned complaints. On July 15, Hugh Evans, III, general counsel at Ethics sent a letter to Juliana Dean, general counsel at the department of education that they had received the information. Shortly after this, one board member told several legislators that Pouncey would not be considered because of this complaint.

Richardson was unsuccessful in getting her resolution on the agenda as the governor, Matt Brown, Betty Peters, Cynthia McCarty and Mary Scott Hunter voted against it. Those in favor were Richardson, Ella Bell, Jeff Newman and Stephanie Bell.

Public Service Announcement

(There was a board work session after lunch where the investigation resolution was again discussed. Hopefully a resolution will be on the agenda at the Oct. 13 board meeting.)

Next order of business was approval of the contract which calls for a base salary of $198,000 annually and goes through Dec. 31, 2018. (Including various benefits such as a $21,000 per year housing allowance. the package is worth nearly $250,000 annually.)

Since the public is allowed to speak to any agenda item by signing up in advance, seven people were on the list. Having been the first to sign, I was first. Remarks are limited to only two minutes and I had made sure I could have my say in 120 seconds. The governor reminded everyone that comments must pertain to the contract. About 15-20 seconds into my prepared remarks the governor cut me off telling me I had to talk about the contract. I explained that since no one had a copy of the contract, I could not speak to the document specifically.

ADVERTISEMENT

The governor then recessed the meeting until copies could be provided. I was called back to the podium, tossed my prepared remarks and simply said that I thought there were way too many unanswered questions to move forward with the contract.

Six others spoke. Four spoke in opposition, two in support. Senator Gerald Dial pointed out the hiring process has ignored several sections of the Alabama Code and he feels that by going ahead with the contract, the state board is opening itself to legal action.

At this point board members began a discussion of the contract and Mr. Sentance’s qualifications for the position.

On June 27 Sentence sent an email to legal counsel Juliana Dean saying that for “personal issues” he was withdrawing his name from contention. This is where things get murky.

In this AL.com article, Sentence said after withdrawing he got a phone call from general counsel Dean telling him “there was interest from the board for him to put his name back into consideration.” But apparently some board members did not know about this call and wonder how Dean could speak for them.

Member Jeff Newman, former Lamar County school superintendent, stated that it was normal practice when someone withdraws their name from consideration “they are gone and will not be considered for the position they applied for.”

After getting the call from Dean, Sentence left a voice mail to her on June 28 that he wished to remain a candidate. But since the deadline for applying was June 7, some contend that Sentence could not legally re-apply and should not have been considered beyond that point.

In fact, member Ella Bell asked Dean if she had been directed to call Sentence at the direction of member Mary Scott Hunter. Dean did not answer. The governor stated that since the process moved forward without anyone contesting it at that time, the board had “condoned” everything that happened. He spoke of two Alabama Supreme Count decisions that support his contention, however, an attorney friend says these decisions are not germane to the issue of the Sentence hire.

So here we are. We have a new superintendent–and a LOT of unanswered questions about the process.

For instance:

Dr. Steven Paine of West Virginia also withdrew. Did anyone contact him and ask him to reconsider? If not, why was Sentence given special treatment?

Why did the board ignore at least three of the required qualifications they advertised?

Alabama code section 16-4-11 says the state superintendent must be knowledgeable in school administration. Sentence is not. Why was this ignored?

Who sent the anonymous smear sheet to the Ethics Commission and who told them to do so?

How did someone access the state department of education computer system and
retrieve emails from 2009?

As long as these questions and others go unanswered, the taint we now smell will not go away.

Advertisement

Guest Columnists

Opinion | Celebrating the Nineteenth Amendment

Bradley Byrne

Published

on

(STOCK PHOTO)

On August 18, the U.S. will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to our Constitution which guaranteed women’s right to vote.  The women’s suffrage movement in our country began in the 1840s as women abolitionists saw the parallels between the effort to free enslaved Americans and their own desire to vote.  A convention was held in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848 which produced an organized group led by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, among others.

The two movements worked together until women suffragists became angered over the fact the Fifteenth Amendment gave freed slaves the right to vote but didn’t extend that right to women.  Over the next 50 years women suffragists labored to gain the franchise.  One bloc worked to pass a constitutional amendment at the national level while another focused on the individual states.  The Wyoming Territory was the first to give women the right to vote in 1869, followed by the Utah Territory and Idaho.

Momentum built in the 1910s when Washington state, California, Oregon, Arizona, Kansas, the Alaska Territory, Montana, and Nevada gave women the right to vote.  But, states in the East and South were reluctant to do so and the effort to add a constitutional amendment picked up speed.  While Republicans were generally supportive, Democrats weren’t.  President Woodrow Wilson preferred a state by state approach, but suffragist leaders kept up the heat, even sneaking a banner challenging him into his speech to a joint session of Congress.

When the US entered World War I some wanted the suffragists to back off, but they indignantly fought on with the argument that the fight for freedom and democracy in Europe should be paralleled at home with a constitutional amendment enfranchising the one half of the U.S. population denied the right to vote.  By 1918, President Wilson changed his mind.  The House passed the amendment, but the Senate couldn’t get the two thirds required vote even after Wilson took the unprecedented step of addressing them on the Senate floor.

Suffragist pressure finally swayed enough votes to get Senate passage in 1919, and ratification was achieved with Tennessee’s vote on August 18, 1920.  It’s hard to imagine that my two grandmothers, both adult women with families of their own, weren’t allowed to vote until that year.  The Nineteenth Amendment is too often a forgotten part of our history, but I hope we will use this anniversary to remember how important it continues to be.

When I look around Alabama, I see the fruit of the suffragists’ labor.  We have a female governor in Kay Ivey and two female members of Congress, Martha Roby and Terry Sewell.  Women serve as Federal judges, state appellate and court judges, district attorneys, and in the Legislature.  I work with women county commissioners, mayors, and city council members across the First District.  They, each of them, make great contributions to our quality of life and the administration of justice.

My little granddaughter, Ann-Roberts, is a very smart and active girl.  I have no idea what she will do when she grows up, but she’ll be darn good at whatever that is.  Imagine telling her she can’t vote or hold public office.  I can’t.  And, I’m glad my grandmothers finally got to vote.  It took far too long to give it to them.  Let’s remember this important anniversary and the value to all of us of our previous right to vote.

Public Service Announcement

Continue Reading

Economy

Opinion | Alabama’s workers deserve better than McConnell’s inadequate COVID-19 proposal

Bren Riley

Published

on

(STOCK PHOTO)

America is suffering from an unprecedented pandemic and the economic collapse it has created. Nearly three months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the HEROES Act, a comprehensive COVID-19 relief bill. Right now, that bill is sitting untouched on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desk as working people are suffering.

Senator McConnell’s told us to “pause” after the HEROES Act passed, proving he either did not understand how serious this pandemic is or did not care to. Regardless, the McConnell proposal is $2 trillion too short and 73 days too late.

Working people need real relief, not this piecemeal proposal.

For example, Senator McConnell insists he will block any further COVID-19 relief legislation unless it contains a provision that immunizes employers from liability if any working person contracts COVID-19—or God forbid dies from it. We know that now more than ever worker safety should be a top priority, but McConnell continues to put big businesses before people.

Unlike the HEROES Act, Senator Sen. McConnell’s proposal does not call for an OSHA emergency temporary standard. Last week, AL.com reported that out of the 272 state OSHA complaints related to COVID-19 workplace safety, the federal agency conducted just seven on-site inspections. And six out of those seven inspections were the result of a workplace fatality. If Alabama’s experience with COVID-19 in the workplace has taught us anything, it’s that our working people need an enforceable standard now more than ever.

Like every state in the nation, Alabama is suffering from an unemployment crisis. An estimated 7.5 percent of Alabama workers are currently unemployed through no fault of their own. While the HEROES Act would extend federal unemployment benefits, McConnell’s proposal would cut the recently-expired $600 weekly unemployment insurance benefit to just $200. That represents a major drop in the living standards of thousands of families across our state. That money is a lifeline to pay for necessities, including rent, groceries, and prescriptions.

We can’t afford to let anyone fall through the cracks. And recovery down the road requires us to keep working people whole right now. That’s why Alabama’s labor movement has been taking part in a nationwide effort to call on Senator Jones and Senator Shelby to pass the HEROES Act. Across the country, union members and leaders made over 50,000 calls to members of Congress demanding action, and we’re not slowing down until we get a bill that benefits

Public Service Announcement

We all know Alabama is home to great football, incredible food and southern hospitality. But if we go by the number of new cases per million people, Alabama is also currently home to the fourth-worst outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States. The percentage of positive tests is more than 21 percent and rising. We demand and deserve better. Alabama’s working people are acting heroically and resiliently to beat this pandemic, but we cannot do this alone—and the clock is ticking. The Senate needs to pass the HEROES Act to save lives and livelihoods.

Continue Reading

Guest Columnists

Opinion | Comprehensive sex-ed for all can improve people’s health

Annerieke Smaak Daniel

Published

on

(STOCK PHOTO)

Last July, I spoke with Sky H., a 20-yearold who identifies as non-binary and grew up in a very conservative rural town in the Black Belt region of Alabama. In school, Sky received abstinence-only education. Sky told me there was little instruction about sexual and reproductive health besides the basics of reproduction.

After years of pain, Sky was diagnosed at age 18 with endometriosis, a painful disorder that can lead to fertility complications. The condition might have been diagnosed much earlier if they had learned more about their own bodies and reproductive health in school, Sky believed.

Unfortunately, Sky’s experience isn’t unique. Over the past year and a half, I’ve spoken to more than 40 young people from 16 counties throughout Alabama who also didn’t learn about their sexual and reproductive health in school. Like Sky, they missed out on critical information and described the negative impact this had on the choices they made and their health as they grew older.

Schools in Alabama are not required to teach about sexual health but if they do, the State Code mandates a focus on abstinence. The State Code also contains stigmatizing language around same-sex activity and prohibits schools from teaching about sexual health in ways that affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth. This makes it even harder for young people like Sky to get information.

But Alabama is not alone. Sixteen other states in the U.S. also do not mandate sex education in schools. And at least five others have laws stigmatizing samesex activity.

Comprehensive sexuality education can improve health outcomes for young people. It can help them learn about their bodies and how to recognize abnormal gynecological symptoms, steps they can take to prevent and treat sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and other dangers to their health, and where they can go for reproductive health services.

Sex ed can also educate young people about the human papillomavirus (HPV) — the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. — and how to lower their risk of HPV-related cancers through the HPV vaccine.

Public Service Announcement

This information can improve young peoples health and save lives. Yet so few young people in schools throughout Alabama and the U.S. receive it. Instead, like Sky and other Alabama students, many young people receive abstinence-focused education.

These programs withhold critical, science-based information young people need to make safer decisions on their sexual health. They also shame adolescents about their sexuality, often leaving young people uncertain about who they can talk to or where they can go for accurate information about sexual behavior and health.

The problem is both a lack of political will and of adequate funding. Discriminatory property taxes and an inequitable education system leave many school districts in rural and less wealthy regions of Alabama without adequate funding. This means that programs considered optional, like sex ed, often aren’t offered.

ADVERTISEMENT

Alabama, a state with high rates of sexually transmitted infections and cancers related to HPV needs to do more to address historic inequalities and state neglect that have left Black people at a higher risk of poor health outcomes. Mandating comprehensive sexuality education for all of the states schools — and allocating state funding for these programs — would be an important step forward.

Students in underfunded and neglected school districts many of whom are Black and living in poverty — often lose out on access to critical and lifesaving information. It keeps them from being able to make informed and safe decisions and can harm their health. This unequal access to information can create lifelong disadvantages and may contribute to racial disparities in health as young people age into adulthood.

The Black Belt region of Alabama, where Sky is from, has high rates of poverty and poor health outcomes. The Black Belt region also has high rates of sexually transmitted infections and the highest rates of HIV in the state. Yet schools in this rural and marginalized region of the state are persistently underfunded.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought glaring attention to systemic inequalities and racial disparities in health, including in Alabama, where Black people are significantly more likely to die from the virus than white people. Within the United States, we continue to see the disproportionate toll the pandemic has taken on Black people, who are more likely to live in poverty, lack access to health insurance, and suffer from chronic health conditions that put them at a higher risk of adverse health outcomes from the virus.

The pandemic has highlighted the importance of ensuring that everyone has the information, tools, and resources they need to make informed decisions to protect their health. Schools in Alabama — and across the country — should help do that for all young people.

The pandemic is also showing us what happens when discrimination and neglect leave certain people out.

 

Continue Reading

Guest Columnists

Opinion | The “United” States of America. Really?

Larry Lee

Published

on

(STOCK PHOTO)

We’ve all had it pounded in our heads virtually from birth that we live in a united country of 50 different states. Truth is, few things could be farther from the truth. If it were, we would all be pulling in the same direction at the same time, striving for common goals. This has seldom been the case. Even the original 13 colonies had great differences and some were much more interested in pulling away from England than others.

The reason for much of this is pointed out to us in American Nations by Colin Woodard as he paints graphic pictures of the 11 nations that actually comprise the U.S .and how they were settled at different times by different people from different backgrounds.

Certainly, there is no greater indicator of our lack of unity than the current highly fractured and divided response to COVID-19.  Unfortunately, there is no coordinated, 50-state effort to get this pandemic under control. Instead, our national leaders have sent one mixed message after another and left states to individually flop and flounder.

The result?

One thousand deaths a day across this land.

Imagine we were presently losing 1,000 people a day in some foreign war. That each day we were shipping 1,000 caskets back to this country from some distant land.

Would we be as tolerant of ineptitude in such a crisis as we are right now?

Public Service Announcement

Vanity Fair has just reported on how the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, inserted himself into the war against COVID-19. It is not a pretty picture. Nor a useful one.

Back in March Kushner set out to solve the on-going disaster of lack of diagnostic testing. So he brought together a group of largely bankers and billionaires — not public health experts. In spite of their lack of knowledge and willingness to work with others, the group developed a fairly comprehensive plan, that got good reviews from health professionals who saw it. But then the plan, according to someone involved with it, “just went poof into thin air.”

What happened? Politics.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to Vanity Fair, “Most troubling ….was a sentiment ….a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically.  The political folks believed that because it (the virus) was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy.”

“United” States of America? Don’t kid yourself.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement