At the ACSB January 12 organizational meeting, politically left-leaning member Eric Strucko—recently a champion of process and corruption reform—nominated Buyaki for chair. Establishment darling, Diantha McKeel, then nominated current board leader, Steve Koleszar, for another term.

The vote for Buyaki was 2-5, with only Buyaki and Strucko voting “yes.” “Republican” chameleons Pam Moynihan and Barbara Mouly sided with progressives Koleszar, McKeel and Ned Gallaway to seal Buyaki’s fate. The vote for Koleszar’s renewed chairmanship was a 5-2 mirror of the previous tally.

Listen to the shocking ACSB roll call votes on board leadership nominations:

For vice chair, Strucko again nominated Buyaki, while immediately thereafter Gallaway put forward McKeel. Buyaki received his own vote along with those of Mouly and Strucko. When asked for her vote on Buyaki, Moynihan paused for nearly six seconds before saying “no.” She was joined in dissent by McKeel, Koleszar, and Gallaway. The same 5-2 majority that supported Koleszar for chair subsequently elected McKeel as the ACSB vice chair.

Under Koleszar’s leadership, the Albemarle County School Board and Administration have been criticized for several high-profile bumblings: Kid Pan Alley’s student indoctrination; 111 missing laptop computers;  a controversial $2 million computer software system; a “block scheduling” debacle; and a wayward athletic director, amongst other recent scandals. None of these has been satisfactorily resolved, and the public largely seems to have lost faith in the board’s ability to capably manage the Division.

Koleszar, McKeel and Gallaway’s support for institutional status quo is not surprising, as they are closely aligned with Albemarle County’s liberal education and political establishments.

Strucko, to his credit and through his votes, has shown himself to be fiercely independent—more interested in competence and transparency than in politics.

Mouly and Moynihan, however, sought Republican support in recent elections. Their unexplained votes for continuing liberal ACSB (mis)management may leave previously supportive Albemarle County Republicans scratching their heads; and the turn-votes certainly will ensure that the board’s only reliable reformers continue to play defense rather than offense in the year ahead.

Crozetians and Western Albemarleans awoke to welcomed news on December 8, 2011, as the Crozet Gazette and Charlottesville Daily Newspaper reported that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors had voted to direct county staff to send out an RFP, or request for proposal, to build the new Crozet Library.

A part of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL)—which is the public regional library that serves the City of Charlottesville, and the counties of Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson—the Crozet Library has been in need of expansion for quite some time: the building, which is a former train station in downtown Crozet, is so small that when the library takes inventory of newly released books, staff has to remove an older book from the stacks to make space.  Additionally, in late 2011 the fire marshal determined that no more than 50 people should safely occupy the Crozet Library at any given time.  Library programs, such as lectures, routinely draw crowds of over 50 patrons, so some events have had to be held at the neighboring Crozet Elementary School on Crozet Avenue.

The creation of a new home for the Crozet Library has been on the backburner for years, as the newly designated Library Avenue just south of downtown Crozet has lay vacant for the past two years.  Conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists who are upset with the performance of our area public schools and the graduates they are producing should consider lending their support to the JMRL and become library advocates for the following reasons.

First, libraries are overall cost effective and spend far less of taxpayers’ money than the government schools.  For example, depending on what number you look at, the total operating budget for the JMRL is around 6 million dollars per year.  Contrast this to the annual operating budget of the Charlottesville City Schools alone at 69 million dollars, and it is easy to see that libraries are feeding much, much less from the public trough and display greater efficiency for it: in Charlottesville, the average core per-pupil spending is 16,141 dollars per pupil, per year.  This ranks among the highest in the state, yet math and reading scores are serially lagging.  The cost per person who patronizes the library is far less than that, and considering the population it serves, the JMRL is actually among the most heavily used public libraries in America.  Circulation data support this claim.

Also, librarianship as a profession is very rewarding, but is not known for being extremely well-paying, and instances of librarians and library workers milking the system are few and far between.  Contrast this with some public school administrators in central offices who routinely draw six-figure salaries and have little to show for it.

Second, there are far fewer opportunities for socialist indoctrination of area youth in the public libraries.  This community has in recent years unearthed controversies in the public schools, such as the recent Kid Pan Alley episode, and when a high school teacher was caught on camera saying that America should “convert” to socialism!

Here is a more general example: it is a common belief that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal pulled America out of the Great Depression.  This is what students in high school American History courses by and large “learn” through their reading and instruction.  In reality, this enlargement of the public sector prolonged the misery of the Depression; had the federal government followed a free market direction, the economy would have returned to pre-1929 output in a few to several years.  Due to FDR’s expansionist policies, the Depression did not end until the Second World War.  Teachers may mean well, but they and the history textbooks their school districts adopt do not tell the truth about the New Deal.

I graduated from a public high school in Virginia seven years ago, and it was only afterward when I, as an adult, was able to read up on the Great Depression and American History on my own, using books of my own choosing, rather than the choosing of a group of teachers.  The availability of choice and competition in the free market is far better than a one-size-fits-all textbook.  The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library is a great place to learn about American history by considering a variety of books, not the one book that is given the stamp of approval by public schools.  The library is probably the only place in town where you are guaranteed to find copies of the left-leaning A People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, and its conservative counterpart, A Patriot’s History of the United States, by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.  It is through our public libraries that some citizens are replacing their indoctrination with an education.

Third, the JMRL boasts a voluminous selection of items that circulate to patrons.  The selection and diversity of items greatly outnumbers even the largest bookstores.  I am aware of libertarian arguments that government should not be competing with the private sector, and frankly, I am sympathetic to libertarian concerns and am willing to listen.  I enjoy patronizing large bookstores such as Barnes & Noble as well as small mom and pop used bookshops. However, I also know that there is more or less a free market in this country – it’s not perfect, but free enterprise is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice.  Private booksellers do not seem to have the same selection as public libraries, either because the free market will not allow it, or because private booksellers are unwilling to stock their shelves with the same ferocity.  Public libraries are more likely to possess rare, out of print books that private bookstores do not carry.  This makes visiting the public or university library nearly mandatory for those conducting serious research.

Liberals and progressives praise libraries because they see them as institutions that support democracy, and because libraries are cultural “equalizers.” It is because of public libraries, they argue, that even the poorest among us can have access to books.  Frankly, I am happy that they are happy; however, I have no interest in “spreading the wealth around.”  I have always felt that President Obama has not spent enough time in libraries, and has spent too much time “community organizing.”  I am advocating for public libraries for a different reason, because they are a better and cheaper tool for learning than are public schools.  Thomas Jefferson said that he could not live without books, and a society that is going to march toward freedom and liberty needs to be knowledgeable and well-educated.  I recommend that conservatives and libertarians “grow. learn. connect.” at their library, and I hope you will join me in a library near you!

Note: The author is a Charlottesville resident who works as a library support specialist with the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library.  He has taught math at a public school and has ran for School Board.  Opinions expressed here are his own, and do not necessarily reflect an official position of the JMRL.

Schilling Show Exclusive: Click to play Part of the 99 as sung by Ms. Murray’s 3^rd grade class

Initially, after becoming embroiled in a national school-indoctrination scandal, KPA along with Albemarle County School Administration insisted that the children in Ms. Murray’s third-grade classroom at Woodbrook Elementary wrote all of the lyrics to the controversial song themselves.

Phrases like, “Then the bubble burst” and “Though I lost my yacht and plane” raised suspicions that such lines likely were beyond the intellectual purview of contemporary eight-year-olds enrolled in a government school.

Still, in a January 3 Daily Progress story on the controversy, the group’s Executive Director, Pat Rogers said that KPA’s “sole mission has been and continues to be to inspire and empower children to work together to become creators of their own music.” [emphasis added]

Rogers also denied any political influence of children by KPA facilitators:

“Kid Pan Alley does not promote nor condone any personal or political agenda.”

In the same article, Albemarle County Schools’ spokesman Phil Giaramita stood by the apolitical claims of KPA:

“There’s no question in my mind that [Kid Pan Alley is] firmly committed to teaching kids, and they are not interested in a political agenda.”

The paper’s story continues with supportive remarks from Albemarle County School Board chair, Steve Koleszar, who confirmed his belief that the lyrics in dispute were, in fact, the sole composition of Woodbrook third graders:

“Sometimes, when kids are writing things, they say things that are controversial. I don’t think we need to be censoring what the kids are writing.”

And, in a January 3 Schilling Show debate with J. Christian Adams, Koleszar doubled down on his authorship claims:

“You have underestimate the breadth and knowledge of experience that children have these days when they have cable TV, uh, when they listen to the news, they are up on current events, you underestimate what our kids can do.” [sic]

Today’s KPA press release tells a different story.

In the dispatch, KPA’s Founder and Artistic Director, Paul Reisler, “takes full responsibility for the songwriting process that resulted in the song titled ‘Part of the 99.’”

The release confirms Reisler’s political and lyrical contributions to the song:

“Reisler acknowledges that he should have avoided the introduction of these phrases into the songwriting process.” [emphasis added]

And, KPA’s claim to be a politically unbiased organization has been debunked by newsbusters.org, who detail the left leaning politics of several “Alley” board members and leaders.

Aside from Koleszar, the majority of the board has been strangely silent on the Kid Pan Alley controversy, with the exception of newly elected Jason Buyaki, who during the Schilling Show debate called in to express his concern over the situation.

It remains to be seen when or if Albemarle County Schools’ administration will issue a statement acknowledging the falsehoods promulgated in previous communications regarding Kid Pan Alley vis a vis the charges of student indoctrination and songwriting process manipulation.

Read full transcription of lyrics from Kid Pan Alley’s “Part of the 99”

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percent

I used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
I Lost my pride
I Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percentI used to be sad now I’m satisfied
Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
I don’t need it all
I’m happy to be part of the 99.

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percent
They’re the 1 percent
They’re the 1 percent

Also participating in the discussion was Albemarle County School Board member Jason Buyaki who called in to take issue with the song’s lyrics, which he says promote “a sense of mediocrity,”  violate “Albemarle County [Schools] core mission statement,” and do not further “excellence in our schools….”

Listen to the explosive interview (original air date January 3, 2012):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcY_skp8Bjg

Lyrics to Part of the 99:

Some people have it all,
but they don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied

Yes-  they are the 1 percent
I used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
Lost my pride
Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99
I used to be sad now I’m satisfied
Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
Cause I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
Don’t need it all
I’m happy to be part of the 99.

The following is a paper I discovered amongst keepsakes of my parents. It was written for a middle school assignment 35 years ago, in the Albemarle County School System. I was given an A+++ at the time. Given the recent Kid Pan Alley “99%” controversy at Albemarle County’s Woodbrook Elementary School

The Magnificent History of the The United States
by Hank Martin

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” –Abraham Lincoln

Upon that proposition, this great land of liberty was founded, and to this day, the persecuted and the weary, look upon our shores with eyes of hope. Let us tell then, the story of this great land, the story of America.

In the beginning, when the freedom of man was but a vision in the hearts of a few, the Pilgrims came to our shores, that they might find a land where God could be worshipped according to a man’s own conscience. Where a man might govern himself, and live in peace and understanding with his fellow man. After they had prayed, they rolled up their sleeves and went to work. The building of America had begun. By the year 1630, thousands of immigrants had followed the paths of freedom, to land in Boston Harbor, in Massachusetts. Yes, the colonies were growing. It seemed a fit and proper time to give thanks to Almighty God. The colonists raised their voices in jubilation.

The new settlements prospered, it appeared that everything was going to be all right, until, the hard won personal rights were pierced with a proclamation. Taxes! Taxes! Taxes without representation! A despised and hated tyranny of the old world, reaching out to the new. Protests! Protests! The answer came swiftly. Soldiers of the king, thundered through the streets in the night. They sought after those considered enemies of the crown. But in a meeting at St. Johns Church, Patrick Henry exclaimed, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”  His speech lighted the torch of liberty.  Soon, the angry colonists were burning the very goods upon which the unjust taxes had been levied. Disguised as Indians, they threw bales of tea into Boston Harbor. The die had been cast. The continental congress met in grave session. The result of that meeting?

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.

One of the greatest of human documents was forged in the fire of patriotic fervor. It proclaimed these truths as self-evident. That all men were created equal. That they are endowed by their creator  with certain unalienable rights. That among these are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In those ringing notes of liberty, as rang out by the liberty bell, a new flag was formed, when Betsy Ross made a new banner of red, white and blue, with thirteen stars, each star a state, and the great battles began.  Under Captain John Paul Jones, the American navy fought on. At Valley Forge, the great strength of George Washington held the army together.  The years of the war were long dark days in the history of our country. Then Washington joined the forces of Lafayette at Yorktown, and a decisive battle was fought. With sudden finality, the war was over. Again the Liberty bell rang out the news. By the grace of God, we had won. We were a nation!

It was decided that this new nation should have laws by which to govern itself.  The constitution of the United States was written. The states agreed. And to certify that these new laws would work for the people, there was added to it, the Bill of Rights.  Freedom of worship. Freeedom of speech, of the press. The right of assembly. James Madison put it this way:

“In approving this Bill of Rights, we have executed the will of the people.”

A mighty lot had been accomplished up to now; we had our freedom, our nation, and our first president, George Washington. In the years that followed, the great era of exploration began. Virginia’s own Thomas Jefferson regarded the maps of the day, and he had an idea about all of that land west of the Mississippi. The French agreed to sell the Louisiana territory to the United States for approximately four cents per acre. With fitting and proper ceremony, the Stars and Stripes were hoisted over the vast and fertile land.

The war of 1812 burst upon our shores with brisk and sudden fury.  A test by fire for so young a nation.   But Andrew Jackson was there, with his homespun men of the backwoods.  In Baltimore Harbor, the guns of Ft. McHenry blazed defiantly.  It was here, that Francis Scott Key, watching the battle through the night, wrote a song which he called, “The Star Spangled Banner.” In two years, the war came to an end, and Francis Scott key was a good prophet, our flag was still there.  We still had our nation, and now we had a song for our people to sing. Our national anthem.

It then seemed expedient to consider all those people who lived with us as our good neighbors in this hemisphere. And to give warning to foreign powers and foreign aggressors, for that time, and ever after. James Monroe read the text to John Quincy Adams:

We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety.

The Monroe Doctrine was a bulwark to further protect the principles upon which this country was founded. Thus ensued the great era of expansion.

In the Mexican campaign, Texas was won. Then we acquired the vast territories of California and Oregon. From California, the cry of GOLD! Was heard around the world. From every way the wind blows, adventurers raced to the prosperous bonanza.  But again, storm clouds were gathering over our republic, as the northern and southern states of our union, took issue with the direction our government was heading. Cries of Secession were heralded, as unjust northern tariffs were placed southern businesses, and other attempts to subvert individual states rights were promoted. The union was no longer united. Southern forces were manipulated into firing upon Ft. Sumter. This was no war of foreign aggression. Both Northern and Southern Forces believed their cause to be just.  Ultimately, the N

Northern forces would win, but there was little celebration by either side, just a sigh of relief that the struggle had come to an end.

Now began the great era of reconstruction and development. Lumbering prairie schooners rolled over the plains. Lusty bustling western towns sprang up in hundreds of places.  A huffing puffing symbol of technological progress marked a new trail with timbers and black smoke.  Long, spike settled rails now spanned the continent.  The iron horse had now brought together, the east and the west.  The conquest of the mountains, and the deserts and the prairies was concluded. But the age of hatreds of the old world were again reaching out, to embroil us in conflict.

The U.S.S. Maine was sunk in a Cuban Harbor. Teddy Roosevelt and his rough riders charged up San Juan Hill.  In one of the shortest wars in American history, Teddy said goodbye to his men and, fulfilling his destiny, became President of the United States. He never ceased fighting for what he believed to be right.

The twentieth century was growing up when Woodrow Wilson became president, but his years in office were overshadowed by that great human sacrifice known as World War One.  Soon after his second term commenced, the policy of “hands off” could no longer be tolerated. The war message was read in congress on April 2, 1917. Two million American men crossed the ocean, to invade the invader. Many battlefields and many townsfolk knew of their courage. And finally, when the strange hush of peace sprouted forth, they went home.  Some were laid forever in Flanders Field.  And we believed that war was a war to end war.

So we started to build. Bigger than ever before. AMERICA! Rising in miraculous monuments of stone and steel.  The tallest buildings in the world. Bridges expanding to cross whatever body of water we anted to cross. Mighty dams bringing new life to arid waste lands, and electric power to the rural countryside. Millions of miles of roads and highways. Oil derricks crowning the arteries of black flowing gold. Farmers plowing with tractors. Cities a symphony of automobiles.  Yet, in all of our prosperity, we failed to heed the venomous voice that was slithering across Europe. We watched again, as Hitler and Tojo ignited another conflagration amongst  the nations of the old world. Thus we had conscription, a peace time draft. But no one really believed it would happen again. That belief was rudely shattered on a Sunday morning in Pearl Harbor. Under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s admimistration, the minds and hearts were quickly united against the tyrannical forces of the axis powers, and to work together as one, until that moment when the despots of tyranny were destroyed.

Such industry as the world has never seen sprang to life. Shoulder to shoulder, the workers of America banned together on the home front. Twenty four hours everyday, the factories filled the sky with the smoke and fire of defiance. Ringing steel and grinding wheels. Hammers and anvils, welding machines, made up the war time sounds of freedom at home.

Over vast areas of far away waters, our armed forces challenged the enemy.  One by one, we moved through the islands of the pacific. The pace was heartbreaking. Never before had a series of invasions been made so far from home. As landing craft chugged forth to deposit their cargos of brave and determined men, our planes blasted the enemy from their secret hideouts, and shot their planes from the sky. The great battles at sea held a proud and honored place in our history.  Admiral Nimitz was there, with his ships and men. It was an all American team, made up of the Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the Marines.

In distant Africa, our men were fighting side by side with the British and the French. In Italy, we were battling the hated hordes of Mussolini.  In Germany, the spirits of the captive Jew’s in the concentration camps heard the ever increasing roars of our bombers. The war was coming back to the enemy now.  Hitler had said “No Bomb will ever drop on German soil!” But they were falling like rain and like thunder. Then, one early morning on the English Channel, a great secret was made know to all. Invasion. The landing on Omaha beach was a masterpiece of coordination and precision, taking us into fortress Europe on that stretch of sand.

In the months that followed, the irresistible might of our armed forces grew more evident each day.  They swept across France, driving the enemy before them.  Our planes, like avenging eagles, blasted the Luftwaffe out of the sky, or shattered enemy planes on the airfields, far within the German border. Everything within the evil Reich that moved was halted.  Day by day, the land forces drove steadily to the Rhine. General Patton reached the river with his Third Army, and moved on. Our great military leaders, Marshall, Arnold, Eisenhower, pushed our troops forward to the final phase of the conflict.  In a narrow corner of West Berlin, what was left of a once arrogant German army was put to rout. When we entered Berlin, it was a shambles of broken walls. More than eighty percent of the once great city lay in ruins. A monument to the egotistical ravings of a madman.

With the surrender of Germany, we turned  our unified attention and might to the pacific, where the lines of battle were now close to the shores of Japan. Not long after, the B-29 bomber “Enola Gay” took off from the sands of Okinawa, carrying within it a bomb, the likes of which, man had never before conceived.  As the widening circle of death extended out over Hiroshima, the atomic age was written into the history books of man.  A second atomic bomb was dropped, and within a week, the Japanese surrendered. General Douglas MacArthur accepted the surrender from the Japanese emissaries, on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri, in Tokyo Bay.  And so ended the Second World War. As before, the soldiers and sailors came home, or slept forever in a foreign land.

The question now, what should be done, what could be done, to protect ourselves from man’s inhumanity to man?  The United Nations charter was signed in San Francisco. But in the months and years to follow, we came to understand the meaning of a new kind of war. The cold war. We were forced to recognize that in some parts of the world, hate and oppression are still malignant. Therefore, the Atlantic pact was signed by President Truman. And the representatives of twelve nations. A pledge of mutual defense against any aggressor who would break the peace.

Today in America, we still hold to the principles upon which our nation was founded. We have numerous altars of all religions. We are still governed by the same constitution our founding fathers created for us. The Bill of Rights is still working for the people. We think, we speak, we act, freely. However, we are ever mindful that our rights must never be misused as a mask for treason. We are a bigger, a stronger, a greater America, than ever before.  We have been victorious in six bitter wars in defense of our birthright. Let those who would destroy us, read our history well and take warning.  It is written in the blood of our heroes that freedom shall not perish from the earth.

After attending a few sporting events at Albemarle High School (AHS) this fall and parking in the main lot in front of the building, I noted that during many events, driveways leading back to the athletic fields were filled up with illegally parked cars—many stationed directly within clearly marked handicapped parking spaces and designated emergency fire lanes.

Having heard about how AHS rigorously enforces certain rules—but not others—concerning guests’ use of school grounds, I became concerned as to what would happen if a fire broke out in the eastern end of the AHS main building during one of these sporting events. Wouldn’t fire trucks have difficulty timely accessing critical fire hydrant locations blocked by these illegally parked cars?  Wouldn’t rescue vehicles be delayed in providing life-saving services by having to navigate artificially narrowed drives and wheel stretchers in-between the tightly parked automobiles?

Further, I wondered, why does AHS allow non-handicapped people to illegally park in assigned handicapped zones?  What happens to students, their parents and guests who actually are handicapped? Where are they to park?

I was going to contact AHS directly to ask these questions, until, after taking these pictures, I saw both an Albemarle Police Department (APD) vehicle and an AHS Maintenance Department vehicle parked in the immediate vicinity during a time of multiple and obvious infractions. It is clear to me that both the APD and AHS know exactly what is going on, but for some reason choose to ignore these serious violations.

I think this situation is outrageous, especially given the fact that AHS vigorously enforces other, less important “rules” concerning guests utilizing school property.

Taxpayers, athletic participants, handicapped individuals, families, and fire/rescue personnel all are being cheated by Albemarle County’s lax parking enforcement policies. Who will pay the price in the event of a catastrophic fire or other emergency at Albemarle High School?

Administrators, Supervisors, School Board members, police, coaches and other authority figures: you are on notice! Do not wait for tragedy in order to act. Enforce your laws equally and fairly, and there will be no regrets.

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

Almost worse than the concept of vote-purchasing with “free” government food, is that the monies expended for this boondoggle are siphoned from the city’s Capital Improvements Program, which is described as follows:

The Capital Improvement Program Fund (CIP) provides funding for streets, public buildings, land and other capital assets, which generally have a useful life of 5 years or more and cost more than $50,000. City Council, in their Adopted Budget Guidelines, has set a policy to allocate an amount no less than 3% of the General Fund budget for capital improvements.

The bizarre proposal for misappropriation of public “capital” tax dollars to sponsor neighborhood “celebrations” was brought forward last fall by Neighborhood Development Services Director, Jim Tolbert. In a pitch to City Council, Tolbert described his vision for the program:

Also, included would be funding for neighborhood based events and celebrations and for capacity building initiatives to help increase participation in neighborhoods or to get information out to help citizens become more involved in our government. We would anticipate that most grant requests would be between $250 and $5,000. [emphasis added]

Sensing opportunity to buy—with taxpayer dollars—additional votes for Democrats in upcoming elections as well as to increase general affection towards government, Tolbert’s scheme unanimously was approved by council through the body’s consent agenda.

The bureaucracy involved in gaining grant approval is mindboggling, requiring a convoluted seven-page process explanation and untold staff hours in submission review, evaluation, and scoring.

In keeping with the city’s Marxist sustainability agenda, brownie points are awarded to applications that promote delineated “Sustainability Values”:

• Project contributes to environmental health or our ability to effectively address climate change.
• Project will have a positive effect on the local economy and minimizes costs to the community, now and over the long term.
• Project supports responsible stewardship of public resources.
• Project contributes to social equity by meeting basic needs, benefiting vulnerable populations, promoting community safety and cultural awareness, or building community relationships and neighborhood cohesion.

Flummery aside, in spite of the stringent application process, profligacy is rampant in the solicitation and awarding of Neighborhood Grant funds. An evaluation of the Greenbrier Neighborhood Association’s (GNA) application to fund an October 9 Neighborhood Social, shows five tubs of ice cream (12.5 gallons) to be purchased at a cost of $300.00, or $24.00 per gallon. Several local grocery stores offer ice cream at less than $5.00 per gallon, a savings of nearly 80% over the city-paid price. And in the spirit of benevolence, Charlottesville City Government agreed to pick up the cost of a “bounce house” in order to enliven the soiree, even though the neighborhood’s application listed that expense as being covered by their association as a grant “match.” All told, this neighborhood’s “free” ice cream social set back Charlottesville taxpayers a cold $716—that’s $237 more than was requested by GNA. Predictably, the grant was approved (and possibly aggrandized) by Tolbert’s Neighborhood Development Services Department.

All of this is taking place concurrent with a Charlottesville School Board discussion on permanently banning ice cream from division grounds in order to combat a childhood “obesity epidemic.” So, while on the one hand, the State (city government) plies youth (and adults) with free ice cream at a neighborhood soiree (ironically held at Greenbrier Elementary), on the other hand, the State (city schools)—under funding governance and supposed oversight of Charlottesville City Hall— is classifying the frozen concoction as a dangerous substance not to be served on school property.

In a city with widespread crumbling infrastructure and millions in unmet capital needs—both exacerbated by years of executive mismanagement—it makes little sense to hand out capital improvement funds as if they were…ice cream. That is, of course, unless the city is Charlottesville, the mayor is Norrishood, and the governing body is totally devoid of common sense.

The picture, which shows Dr. Jeck and his wife in their bathing suits, was considered inappropriate by several parents who contacted The Schilling Show after substantive response was dodged in conversations with Dr. Jeck, himself.

On Tuesday evening, September 27 a parent submitted the following comment to the Superintendent:

I find your picture of you and your wife on the beach to be both inappropriate as well as unprofessional. As a member of FBLA through the Greene County Technical Education Center, my senior being the President I learned a great deal about what is and is not considered to be appropriate. This picture was one of the very first things I learned is considered to be inappropriate and as unprofessional especially of someone in your position. While in attendance at Emory & Henry College, I was taught that if I was to have any kind of picture publicly posted that was of me alone, or with anyone else wearing inappropriate or an inadequate amount of clothing that I would be removed from the Education Department. This being said, it seems to me that you have violated a number of ethical issues with this picture through your involvement with both children and as a business professional. I would also like you to know that through my training of child safety in a number of different work environments that people who post pictures of themselves of this nature are to be avoided and carefully watched as they pose a potential threat to the well being and safety of children. Unless you would like to be viewed as unprofessional and as a potential threat to children especially those that you are supposed to be working to protect and assist through their education then I would suggest you remove this picture. I hope that is has given you one a greater understanding for what should and should not be posted to a public business oriented website, and two the kind of message that you are sending out to other people by posting such inappropriate images of yourself as this one.

The following morning, Dr. Jeck responded:

I am sorry you feel this way.

Regards,

Dave Jeck

Another citizen inquired about the propriety of the photo:

Pictures on school websites should be tasteful, respectful, and appropriate for all viewers.  Pictures of the head of the school division should follow these rules always and without exception. In other words no pictures of faculty or students partially clothed should be posted. Hope to see this removed immediately. Thank you!

Dr. Jeck stood his ground, insisting that the picture would stay:

Thank you for your email. I will not be changing the picture.

Today, however, the controversial picture was changed, replaced with one seemingly more appropriate. While Dr. Jeck’s photographic overexposure has been digitally corrected, his negative responses to parents’ concerns stand in stark contrast to examples of good governance. A refocus of the Superintendent’s communication standards would be in good order.

See the before and after pictures of Dr. David Jeck on the Greene County Public Schools web site:

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

Censor Sherlock Holmes, are they kidding?  The School Board is poised to ban Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study In Scarlet.  The Nazi’s burned books, is that next?  Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings.  I can see it now; soon nothing will be available for our children to read.  Just because one Albemarle County parent did not want her sixth grader, or any other student for that matter, to read the terrible connotations made in the novel, it will be removed from classes unless we act to stop this group of zealots.  Tell us, who are the parents making this claim?  We have a right to know.

As an active and heavily involved Mormon, I’m deeply embarrassed by this action and deeply ashamed that any Mormon parent would ask for this book to be banned.  I think it is a wonderful opportunity for teaching students about controversial viewpoints in classical literature, of which they will be exposed to over the course of their education.  We can’t let this happen. When are the citizens of this country going to respect the Constitutional rights that we have been given?

School Board Chairman, Steve Koleszar was part of the committee that recommended the book be removed.  But we aren’t even told anything about the others deciding the future of our schools.  Just who is on the committee?  Surely they’re not “anonymous”.  Rather than embrace a teaching opportunity, these parents would rather ignore history.

I’m embarrassed by the ignorance expressed by both the parents and the committee; banning books is not the answer.

The words above, even the title, are not mine.  But after reading them, do we need to find out more about these out of control book burning zealots?  Should we demand they show their faces?  Should we approach the only known person on the committee, School Board Chairman Steve Kolezar, and demand answers?  No.

Despite being quoted as a committee member Steve Koleszar wasn’t there.[i] There was no discussion of banning books.  Despite some peoples imagined frenzy, there were no calls for mob justice, no anger, no hidden agendas; there was not even a raised voice in the committee meeting that day.  I know because I was a member of that review committee.  My name is Jim Stern and I was there.  Much of what has been reported is inaccurate and all of it is incomplete; most public comments are even less a reflection of reality.

I hoped the opening paragraphs would catch your attention. But the words above are not mine and come from many sources.[ii] Sentences are combined to read as if written by one person but are the comments of many different people from local news reports, newspaper articles, blogs and the comments people have posted in response.[iii]

Most people in our community are likely unaware, unconcerned or apathetic to the School Board’s vote this Thursday on the future of A Study in Scarlet; others loudly voice opinions on the matter.  Local citizens on the right accuse the committee of impinging on the Constitution and forgetting freedom while those on the left compare us to past book banners and burners. Some local Mormons and a vast majority of the Mormon community outside of Charlottesville do not support the Mormon complainant and express firm, but polite concerns. They worry the Mormon complainant will cause harm to their community not just because they could be labeled as ‘book banners’ but realizing that shielding students may lead to ‘repeating the past’.

I can state with confidence that what has happened in the process of reviewing Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet should cause no alarm.   I am proud of the committee and both the complainant and the teacher who presented their positions on the text.

The committee did the right thing within the confines of our abilities.  That being said, I realize making the right decision is the not the entire story and the committee did not make the best decision.  I am confident that The School Board will make follow the committees lead and are unlikely to reach to achieve the best solution.  Let me explain and I hope together the entire community can come together, support and implement the best decision.

First, the committee was led by Dr. Haas and several other ACPS educators and community members.  One complainant presented the case for removal from the 6^th grade reading list, with a friend there for support who spoke little, if at all.  One teacher presented the case to retain the text on the 6^th grade reading list.  [iv]

We identified several problems as a committee, but only two are worth noting.  Years ago, the educator who approved this text was not as thorough as the Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) process required then and now. If the process in place had been followed to the letter back then, I think it would have prevented what has happened now, but there was no malice or agenda.  Secondly, ACPS staff interactions with the student of the complainant (not by the teacher who addressed the committee) were guided by the best of intentions but were not what we would desire in our diverse and accepting school system.  But no blame should be assigned.  Without a comprehensive lesson plan that provided the required knowledge of the treatment of Mormons in this book, adequate guidance was unavailable.

The committee recommended the book be removed from the classroom and remain off the reading list until an adequate lesson plan is developed and in place.  We also stated clearly the book will remain in middle and high school libraries with unfettered student access. It was the lack of the comprehensive lesson plan that compelled this conclusion.

The parent who filed the complaint was well prepared, articulate and reasonable.  She was passionate about her faith and clearly acted on behalf of a child she loved dearly.  The teacher who spoke in response was just as well prepared, articulate and reasonable.  She was passionate about the novel, Sherlock Holmes and her students and clearly acted on behalf of a love of student knowledge.  And all discussion was held without a moment of contention during the entire meeting.

The committee did not ‘ban’ the book and never discussed such an action because the complainant  did not ask for the book to be banned.  Her compliant specifically stated she thought the book was appropriate for high school students. Everyone in and out of the Mormon community expressing fears over this book review does not realize the expert detail of the complainant’s presentation and that she started from the position that no book should be kept from our students.

ACPS does not shy away from tough material but the committee is not in a position to create and implement comprehensive lesson plans.  Faced with hurting the Mormon student and community it was the RIGHT decision to recommend removal from the reading list.

But it was clearly not the BEST decision either.

We hurt one teacher deeply.  The teacher who spoke to the committee loved teaching students this material.  We also hurt all the students who will not get to read this book under her tutelage. We talk about teaching tolerance and understanding but are we willing to do the work required to use this opportunity to demonstrate we stand behind our words?

The committee’s decision means that we will not allow students to read the book with the guidance of a teacher, but we will allow the same student to read the book with no guidance at all.

The BEST solution would be to join together as a community and commit to having this text available to teachers that want to use it by writing the needed comprehensive lesson plans.  Individually, a comprehensive lesson plan cannot be created by the committee, by ACPS, or by the Mormon community.  Alone it is impossible.  But it could be done together.  The entire text contains only a handful of sentences that are an issue.  Still the job would be difficult, but no more so than other texts.  Many controversial texts are already in the hands of our students because of the difficult work done by others before us who did what was required to stop books from moving from the classroom to library shelf and forgotten.

The best solution is not within the reach of the committee or the School Board.  The BEST solution requires us to step up to the task of creating a comprehensive lesson plan.  I believe the parent and teacher that presented to the committee would be among the first to sign on to help.  There must be others willing to save Sherlock Holmes.  But in addition to mystery we can teach values with a proper lesson plan.  There is great power in learning that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle realized later in life that he needed to apologize for his actions and that the Mormons responded with forgiveness.

What happens from here is not under the control of a nameless and faceless committee.  It depends on the face in the mirror. Do you see a face willing to let Sherlock Holmes’ first appearance in text disappear from classrooms just to sidestep difficult issues?  Will you be one of the voices that criticizes the committee and School Board, rather than to get personally involved?   A Study In Scarlet will not be removed from the library shelf but it will sit their moldering unless together we explore the more difficult path.  From Charlottesville to Utah, many argue the book is not ‘good enough’ to expend effort on saving when other Doyle books are available.  The value of a piece of literature may not just be in the text itself.  Greater value may be in the dialogue it compels.  So many Mormon voices have pointed out that if we remove A Study In Scarlet from the classroom, we have squandered the opportunity to teach something special to our students, regardless of religion.

I am hope someone sees a face in the mirror of someone who has been called upon to save this piece of literature, bring communities together and set an example for our students and children that will be remembered throughout their lives.

Sincerely,

Jim Stern (parent of four ACPS children, each an avid and contemplative reader)

End Notes:

I hope no one reads this in haste.  Even if I have a similar viewpoint, nothing in the opening three paragraphs should be taken as my words, feelings or opinion or attributed to me.  The remainder contains my thoughts and mine alone.  I believe that everyone on the committee either would agree with the majority of my comments, but I do not represent my comments as created or approved by the committee.

While Charlottesville Democrats attempt to muster city support of the Accords’ implementation in Albemarle County, another subversive group has surfaced to further the Marxist, population control, and anti-property-rights agenda.

The Albemarle Responsible Citizens’ Alliance (ARCA)—headed by Progressive ringleaders Sally Thomas and Waldo Jaquith—defends the Accords as benign , merely reflecting the will of everyday people to ensure future communal “health”:

The Sustainability Accords being decried by the Tea Party were developed by a group of local citizens from the six localities of the district—a “diverse group of farmers, business people, foresters, environmentalists, developers and elected officials” who were charged with creating a vision for “a future where our economic, human, social, and environmental health are assured.” Over a period of four years, the group developed a mission statement, with goals, objectives, indicators and benchmarks, through a public process with forums and working groups. The Accords were presented to the public on June 16, 1998, were signed by citizens and local elected officials, and included as part of the comprehensive plans both Albemarle and Charlottesville.

Both Thomas and Jaquith are directly or philosophically aligned with the fanatical, zero-population-growth, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), and ARCA appears to be nothing more than a palatable, public front-end for ASAP’s extreme no-growth advocacy efforts.

ARCA and the Charlottesville Democrats also have friends working on the inside: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors members Ann Mallek (chair) and Dennis Rooker. Both repeatedly have expressed support for the 1998 Sustainability Accords, with Rooker publicly referring to conservative Accord skeptics as government “infiltrators.”

When confronted, Sustainability Accords advocates often refer to relatively complaisant aspects of the document: transportation alternatives, water quality, wildlife protection, etc.

But when parsed even mildly, the 1998 Sustainability Accords are far more sinister.

The primary Sustainability issue addressed in the document is “management” of “Human Population.” The Accords suggest government intervention in:

• Population growth
• Population distribution by racial, ethnic, age, education, income, and employment status
• Population “dynamics,” including human fertility

“Human Basic Needs” also are slated for proposed intercession. The Accords seek government guarantees for community members’:

• Adequate daily nutrition
• Adequate clothing
• Adequate housing
• Optimal health
• Realization of “full potential” through education
• Adequate and affordable transportation access
• Employment that offers just compensation, fulfillment, and opportunities for advancement

The Accords seek government involvement in community “Values and Ethics” by:

• Ensuring “equitable sharing” of societal “benefits and costs”
• Creating conditions that promote a “healthy balance” of “wealth, power, and privilege”
• Insinuating government-approved conflict resolution tools into private disputes
• Encouraging public and private “institutions” to evaluate “ethical responsibilities”
• Manipulating local media and schools into promotion of the Sustainability agenda

The Accords authorize government to promote its own growth and power via:

• Advocacy of community organizing
• Encouragement of individuals’ “full involvement” in government
• Re-education in areas of “self-sacrifice” and “self-restraint”
• Increased availability of “government services”
• Implementation and continuation of “progressive” and “equitable” taxation schemes (N.B. Progressive taxation is a plank of the Communist Manifesto)

The 1998 Sustainability Accords also seek to:

• Monitor and evaluate personal “savings” levels (i.e. individuals’ money in the bank)
• Enhance citizens’ economic “understanding”
• Micro-manage types and sizes of locally operating businesses
• Obtain full government control over the size, “appropriate” scale, location, use, recreational aspects, and interconnectability of all new development
• Promote alternative transportation systems that are “non-polluting” (i.e. bicycle and pedestrian) at the expense of personal automobile travel
• Provide “free” public Internet access
• Mandate expensive “green” building techniques and construction materials
• Control the economic, environmental, social, and political “interdependence” (relationship) between local urban and rural areas
• Achieve “international marketing” of local forest and agricultural products
• Promote consumption of local products at the expense of free markets, through government subsidy and market manipulation
• Increase government control over private lands through promotion of publicly financed “conservation easements”
• Equate the value of plant and animal life with that of human life (N.B. The preservation of unborn humans is not considered an element of human sustainability in the 1998 Sustainability Accords.)

Thirteen years later, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)— lead applicant in the  $1,000,000 HUD grant—on their web site has “sanitized” and summarized the 1998 Sustainability Accords as follows:

The 1998 Sustainability Accords are both a first step and a final product. The fifteen statements were distilled from a far larger set of objectives and concerns, using two criteria: the urgency or immediacy surrounding the objective and the degree to which it is related to the other objectives. Highest priority was assigned to those objectives for which reliable, factual information could be obtained. These data allow for the measurement of trends, either toward or away from sustainability.

• Encourage and maintain strong ties between the region’s urban and rural areas
• Strive for a size and distribute the human population in ways that preserve vital resources
• Retain the natural habitat
• Ensure water quality and quantity are sufficient to support people and ecosystems
• Optimize the use and re-use of developed land and promote clustering
• Promote appropriate scale for land uses
• Retain farm and forest land
• Develop attractive and economical transportation alternatives
• Conserve energy
• Provide educational and employment opportunities
• Increase individual participation in neighborhoods and communities

This beneficent description is a far cry from the insidious planks of the source. Interestingly, the TJPDC does not provide a link to the original Accords from this page, which is entitled, “The 1998 Sustainability Accords.”

Supervisor Rooker and others Accords defenders deceptively have pointed to this version of the Sustainability Accords as the foundation for future regional “planning,” ignoring the actual document upon which the HUD grant was premised.

Perhaps as frightening as the Accords, themselves, is the Charlottesville Region Sustainability Implementation Plan —designed to facilitate full implementation of the 1998 Sustainability Accords through the $1,000,000 HUD grant.

The Implementation Plan calls for:

• Unified code and ordinance changes for Albemarle County and Charlottesville to further the referenced Sustainability goals
• Incorporation of Sustainability strategies into local government comprehensive plans and the Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan
• Development of “systems for changing behavior on the part of individuals and institutions”
• Dispersion of poverty
• Focus on “socioeconomic inequity”
• “Shifting demand” from automobile travel to transit, bike, and pedestrian travel
• Unifying land use and transportation goals for Albemarle County and Charlottesville
• Economic development that provides jobs for “individuals with average levels of education”
• Formation of a Regional Transit Authority
• Reduction of “green house” gasses
• Official government acknowledgement of man-made climate change “science”
• Sustainable adaptation to man-made climate change (i.e. global warming)
• Taxpayer subsidized energy retrofits for housing and business
• Recommendations to reduce transportation and housing “access barriers” for children and seniors (intergenerational Sustainability)
• Development and implementation of Sustainable strategies for housing
• Taxpayer funded “affordable housing” subsidies
• Wide-spread changes in land use
• Reduced emphasis on traffic congestion mitigation and improving road safety
• Measurement of personal vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Government limitations on VMT and personal automobile use
• Avoidance of “undue” impacts on individual property rights

The ten-page Soviet-style implementation manifesto emphasizes government-induced “behavior change” for local citizens, businesses, and organizations—the words, “behavior” and “behavior change” referenced 21 times throughout. The behavior change process is given special emphasis in the Implementation Plan:

Task #5: Plan for Behavior Change Processes

Changing behavior in favor of sustainability on the part of both individuals and organizations is a critical component of actually implementing sustainability. Long term, permanent sustainability requires changes to the processes that shape the built environment. But the built environment changes very slowly. In the short term the most immediate gains in sustainability can be achieved by changing behaviors on the part of individuals and organizations. It is expected that as part of this project, a few key behaviors will be identified that, if changed, would greatly benefit the overall sustainability of the Charlottesville/Albemarle metropolitan area. This task is designed to prepare a plan for the process that would need to be put in place to bring about those changes in behavior.

In short, the 1998 Sustainability Accords (and the 2011 Implementation Plan) are pure poison.

Proponents can wrap them in a sustainable bow.

They can conceal them with sustainable lipstick.

They can characterize them as sustainable principles of “equity” and “justice.”

Still, they are poison.

The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, in conjunction with its Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville partners, is conspiring to commit a massive fraud. The TJPDC’s proposed implementation of the 1998 Sustainability Accords is a direct assault on the liberties of its own citizens. The inherent threat to property rights—the foundation of Constitutional freedoms—is real and acknowledged. Citizens must not relinquish God-given, Constitutionally protected rights to elected and appointed big-Government authoritarians, no matter how nicely they ask or what they promise in return.

In the wake of the Albemarle Truth in Taxation Alliance’s discovery that Barnes and other Albemarle County Athletic Directors had entered into secret, unauthorized “exclusivity agreements” with athletic apparel vendors, Albemarle County School Board members requested copies of the “contracts” from school administration. Weeks later, while board members still were waiting for the solicited information, The Schilling Show issued the following FOIA request to Maury Brown, Communications Coordinator for Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS):

From: Rob Schilling
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:06 AM
To: Maury Brown
Subject: FOIA Request: Albemarle County Schools’ AD Exclusivity Agreements

Hi Maury,

Can you please provide me with copies of Albemarle County High Schools’ Athletic Program Directors’ signed ‘exclusivity agreements’ with sporting apparel and equipment companies for the current year and the three previous years?

Thanks very much for your assistance.

Later that same day, copies of the contracts for each of Albemarle County’s three high schools were sent to The Schilling Show, provided to the School Board, and released to the media.

Of particular interest was the Monticello High School agreement, which appeared to provide far greater benefit to Athletic Director (AD) Fitzgerald Barnes than did the corresponding contracts from the other Albemarle County high schools and their counterpart ADs. Notably, the copy of the contract provided by Barnes was not signed.

Shortly thereafter, The Schilling Show submitted a FOIA follow up noting that the original request had been for “signed” copies of the agreements:

From: Rob Schilling
Sent: Wed 4/20/2011 5:01 AM
To: Maury Brown
Subject: Re: FULFILLING FOIA Request: Albemarle County Schools’ AD Exclusivity Agreements

Hi Maury,

Hope your day is off to a good start.

Just wanted to follow up with you on my April 14 FOIA. The original request was for:

“copies of Albemarle County High Schools’ Athletic Program Directors’ signed ‘exclusivity agreements’ with sporting apparel and equipment companies for the current year and the three previous years?”

I am in receipt of one year’s worth of agreements, but these are not fully executed. Are there fully or partially signed versions of the contracts you sent me?

Also, I had requested the current year plus three previous years. Are there agreements for previous years? When may I anticipate copies of those?

I appreciate your help in completing the fulfillment of my request within the legal time frame.

Brown responded that the agreements released to the public were the ones provided by the Athletic Directors in response to the FOIA request:

From: “Maury Brown”
Date: April 20, 2011 09:40:53 AM EDT
To: “Rob Schilling”
Subject: RE: FULFILLING FOIA Request: Albemarle County Schools’ AD Exclusivity Agreements

Rob:

I sent you all three high schools’ agreements. Did you only receive one? One file was a PDF, one a TIFF (scan) and one a Word document. If you do not have (or are unable to open) the others, I will be happy to resend.

The agreements are multi-year agreements and thus cover the timeframe you requested. Albemarle and Western Albemarle High did not have a previous agreement; this was the first one they entered into.

I will check into whether there are other versions of the agreement other than the ones I sent you; however I can tell you those were the versions provided by the athletic directors and then provided to the school board last Thursday. [Emphasis added.]

Two days later, Maury Brown confirmed that a second inquiry had been made of the division’s high school Athletic Directors, and that no other versions (i.e. signed copies) of the contracts were in “possession” of ACPS:

From: “Maury Brown”
Date: April 22, 2011 03:02:34 PM EDT
To: Rob Schilling
Subject: Your questions about the athletic agreements

Good afternoon, Rob:

I wanted to get back with you about your questions regarding the athletic agreements that we made available to you under your FOIA request.

The WAHS agreement is signed by Steve Heon, the athletic director at WAHS.

We have made another inquiry of our athletic directors and the contracts that we provided to you are the only ones that we have in our possession at Albemarle County Public Schools. It is my understanding that Downtown Athletic does have a copy of the WAHS agreement with both parties’ signatures, but the language of the agreement is identical to the one we submitted to you. We are aware that the agreements we have in our possession are not fully executed, and they are void as a matter of law. In any future educational partnerships with vendors we will ensure that all contracts receive the required legal and administrative review.

At this point we are not aware of any written agreement between UnderArmour and Monticello High School that existed prior to the one that we sent you beginning on March 10.  However, we are continuing to review our contract practices with our administrators and would need to confirm this information. [Emphasis added.]

A third FOIA request was sent to ACPS on April 27, 2011 requesting copies of correspondence to or from Fitzgerald Barnes regarding the “exclusivity agreements.” On May 9, 2011 the request was fulfilled:

From: “Maury Brown”
Date: May 9, 2011 08:56:14 AM EDT
To: Rob Schilling
Subject: FOIA response

Good morning, Rob:

Attached please find the documents to or from Fitz Barnes related to the provision of athletic apparel to the coaches/school under the agreement with UnderArmour for the dates you requested.

There is no charge for this request. Thank you for your patience while we coordinated gathering the documents.

Buried deep within one of several multi-page .PDF documents supplied in response to the third FOIA was a troubling document: a copy of the “exclusivity agreement” between Monticello High School and Under Armour, Inc,  signed on May 14 (or 24), 2010 by Fitzgerald Barnes! (click here for a signed copy of the contract)

This, after Albemarle County Public Schools Communications Coordinator Brown stated that no such document was provided by Mr. Barnes (or was in ACPS’ possession) after two very specific requests.

This, after Maury Brown reiterated that the contracts were “void as a matter of law” because they were not “fully executed.”

But, the contract was fully executed, by Monticello High School Athletic Director, Fitzgerald Barnes. He simply refused to provide the executed document to his ACPS superiors, including the Albemarle County School Board, who initially had requested the information, many weeks prior.

But Barnes’ troubles don’t end there. The Under Armour, Inc. contract concludes with the following request:

“Please indicate your acceptance of this agreement by having an authorized representative of Monticello High School sign below and return this letter to us.”

Barnes signed the contract, but according to ACPS statements on the incident, he was not authorized to do so. And, ACPS indicated that neither the Albemarle County School Board nor ACPS administration (including Monticello High School Principal, Catherine Worley; and division Superintendent, Pamela Moran) were aware of such contracts.

While ACPS administration and the majority of the Albemarle School Board apparently believe that the entire issue has been resolved and that no wrongdoing has been committed, many questions remain.

• Was Fitzgerald Barnes authorized to sign the Under Armour, Inc. “exclusivity agreement”?
• If not, what are the division’s policies on misrepresentation and employees’ unauthorized signatures on contracts that potentially legally bind the division?
• Why did Fitzgerald Barnes mislead his superiors in ACPS administration by telling them that he was not in possession of an executed agreement, when in fact, he was?
• What is the division’s policy on employees who violate multiple FOIA requests by refusing to provide specific information?
• Can ACPS unilaterally void a contract signed by a division employee acting as an agent for the schools?

These questions and many others have been festering, without reply, for too long. The Schilling Show and a multitude of concerned Albemarle County citizens are waiting for straightforward and complete answers.

There has been much debate and discussion recently, regarding the definition of liberalism and conservatism. It would seem that many would choose to accept the current Roget’s Thesaurus definition of both, self-evident in it’s employ in the current media dialogue, and media spun sound bites. However, being “Old School”, I find that as a conservative, defining my socio-political ideology falls in line with the following definition:

Conservatism: The practice of preserving what is established; disposition to oppose change in established institutions and methods.  This definition taken from the Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition.

As I comprehend this definition, it very accurately explains my thought processes and disciplines, which dictate the manner in which I have endeavored to live my life. As a conservative, I cherish and defend the founding documents that created this nation of “WE THE PEOPLE”. This, our great experiment, our American Republic. Those foundational documents that serve as the ideological pillars of our nation, prescribed and set forth by our founding fathers in the form of The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Writings that affirm the idea that rights are given to man by God, the Creator Himself, and confirmed to each and every human being, by the shed blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, at Calvary.

Accordingly, as a conservative, I defend free expression, in speech, the press, and assembly. A right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Additionally, as a conservative, I insist upon due process and protection of the individual from excesses and abuses of law enforcement. In particular, I, as a conservative, oppose “unreasonable searches and seizures” (The Fourth Amendment), double jeopardy, and self incrimination (The Fifth Amendment), and “cruel and unusual punishment, of which I do not consider the death penalty as such, (The Eighth Amendment).  In addition, as a conservative, I believe in “the right to a speedy and public trial” and the right to confront accusers and “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” (The Sixth Amendment). That having been said, I oppose the willful abuse of those rights, which distorts our judicial system. I oppose extraneous procedures that retard, at considerable taxpayer expense, the quick actions of pronounced judgments, allowing criminals to waste time, money and human energy, in petty appeals, etc. I am opposed to allowing the perversion of the system that no longer renders “Justice” blind, but allows her a peak under the blindfold, making true the old axiom of “He, who has the gold, makes the rules.” I oppose the seeming distortion of the system that creates an environment where the victim seems to possess far fewer rights than the criminal. A system that wastes taxpayer dollars, warehousing child molesters, rapists, and murderers’, rather than eradicating them from our system through the death penalty.

While recognizing the many doctrinal differences amongst religions, as a conservative, I endorse those historically proven and recorded “traditional values” that have been inculcated by the Judeo-Christian religion. The religion of revealed truth, which served as the primary philosophy and inspired the vast majority of the founders to create this nation. The Judeo-Christian faith that has produced an atmosphere of tolerance, mercy, charity, compassion, moderation, and peacemaking, which has allowed for the safe haven of all other religions to exist in this country,  as in no other anywhere in the world.

My conservative position also applies to my attitude of economics. As a conservative I understand and believe in the free market and free enterprise system. I therefore possess tremendous disdain for “government interference” in the corporate economic world.  I prefer “free enterprise” over monopolies; however, I do not favor the rights of business owners to be subjugated to the historically corrupt power appropriated to governmental agencies, at local, state and most certainly, federal levels, which feel themselves charged with “leveling the playing field.” Too many times, the enforcement of “equal opportunity” mutates into the activity of attempting to coerce “equal outcome.” There can not nor should there exist, the notion of an umbrella of “Equivalent Success” in the free market environment. Success will be determined by “WE THE PEOPLE” voting with our pocket books. If the product or service is found to be of value, then “WE THE PEOPLE” will continue to fund its operation. If the service is not of value, then “WE THE PEOPLE” will not pay for it. The market will speak for itself, and no individual, corporation or even government, is ever to big to fail.

As a conservative, I believe in maximum personal liberty, but that liberty ceases upon the infringement of another’s. I believe that the notion of personal liberty is protected by the rule of law. That being through the right to vote, which is the “consent of the governed”, and by legitimate popular government, again whose laws are based upon the precepts of the Judeo-Christian philosophy, and whose laws are not in violation of, nor attempting to render legal decisions on matters out of the realm of human authority.

As a conservative, I am opposed to the use of taxpayer funds, to propagate policies and programs that are in direct opposition to the commonly ideals of the Judeo-Christian ethics regarding the sanctity of innocent unborn life, as well as those activities which would serve to undermine or attempt to redefine such time honored traditions as marriage and family.

As a conservative, I am naturally and profoundly suspicious of the philosophical idea and current exercise in the notion of “big government”. I understandably am highly desirous of the institution of separation of powers, as designed by our founder’s. A system created to provide the required checks and balances that keep our Republic as a governmental system and body created to represent the interests of the public rather than campaign contributors, and lobbyists, and one that restrains government assaults upon the personal liberties of “WE THE PEOPLE” as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Therefore accordingly, while as a conservative, I believe in the notion, that it is not the business of government to promote any particular religion, I equally believe that government can not use it’s legislative or judicial power to obstruct any one particular religion, the subjugation of one being by default, the promotion of all others, or to interfere in the private lives of citizens.

As a conservative, I believe that it is the function of the various courts of our judicial system, to interpret established law with due regard for legal precedent, based upon the original intent of the Constitution.

As a conservative, I expect the simple yet required discipline of responsibility and accountability. This applies to persons, to corporations, institutions, and most certainly, to government. There can be no exceptions allowed for “well-placed individuals” (e.g., Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, etc), or firms (The Federal Reserve, Lehman Brothers, General Motors), or governing administrations (ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc).

As a conservative, I believe in the idea of national sovereignty, and the active protection and projection thereof. I support the idea of secure boarders, able to identify, apprehend, and remove from our soil, all those who are here illegally. I am opposed to the abuse of constitutional amendments which allow for illegal aliens access to our socio-economic infrastructure, by simply giving birth on American soil. I support the rights of all citizens who have obeyed and complied with the laws regarding American citizenship, but wish to see all others who are not in compliance treated as the criminal outlaws that they are. National sovereignty also demands the need for national independence from other countries for the material needs of our citizens. I therefore am in favor of taking any and all actions required, to utilize the available resources to which the United States has at its disposal. I am in favor of eradicating the various governmental policies which currently render impotent, our ability to be energy self-sufficient. I am in favor of the exploration, location, and harnessing of natural resources such as coal, natural gas, and oil. I am in favor of the design and construction of nuclear power facilities which will continue to allow for the majority of American families to have access to the energy they require for the heating, cooling and carrying on the activity of living, in their homes.

As a conservative, I am cognitively aware of time, and my position, as well as the position of my generation within its realm. I am aware of and appreciative of history. I am acutely aware of those generations upon whose shoulders I stand. Those men whose blood was spilled in order to grant me the blessings of liberty in which I have had the opportunity to live, and which imparts me the awesome and transcendent responsibility I have to bestow those same ideals and opportunities, to future generations. Therefore, as a conservative, I can not support the idea of the instruction of anti-Americanism that has taken root in too many of our public institutions of education. I am naturally diametrically opposed to budget deficits, and other unconstitutional policies, which will have dire consequences for our progeny. Those activities and ideologies currently being exercised, that foresee the mortgaging and perverting of the future for the “millions yet unborn” that will follow me, which will find them existing in a nation so unlike the one we have heretofore enjoyed, that their only exposure to it, will be through history texts and oral recitations of the few still alive who can recall it.

I believe this to be a more complete definition, which this is a far more detailed and representative definition of “Conservative” and better explains the spirit that currently propels the many who now find themselves actively engaged in the political system that is our Republic.