A school board member in the Bay Area asked questions about the operations of a private charter school that was up for renewal. The charter CEO didn’t like her questions, and he threatened to sue her for defamation. She took his threats to the American Civil Liberties Union, and it agreed to defend her.
“The ACLU Foundation of Northern California is committed to fighting against spurious legal claims that threaten free speech. Especially when corporations and other powerful entities attempt to strong-arm people who have less resources at their disposal.
“This is exactly what happened to Claudia Rossi, a Bay Area school-board member and trustee, when she raised concerns about a private charter school at a public meeting during which board members were considering renewal of the school’s charter.
“Ms. Rossi’s inquiries were well within the scope of her official duties as a board member and trustee representing the public interest.
“Unfortunately, the charter school’s CEO responded to public criticism by threatening her with a lawsuit. In a threatening letter sent to Ms. Rossi, the CEO claimed her statements were defamatory and demanded she retract them and apologize publicly and in writing.
“This tactic—alleging defamation because one does not appreciate a comment, opinion, or line of questioning—is as prevalent as it is problematic. And it threatens our country’s commitment to open discourse. “
Unfortunately the charter industry tends to resort to bullying tactics to get more public money and have their wishes prevail. For example, when they close their schools and bus their students, staff, and even parents to political rallies, all dressed in matching T-shirts, carrying posters expressing their demands for more money, more autonomy, faster closings of public schools. Any public school that did that would be immediately investigated, and the principal would be fired for engaging in political activities.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
Educate yourself so you recognize an autocratic, arrogant, Corporate Charter School Bully in Action.
There must be more to the story than is presented here. As much as I hate to say it, the letter, without the reasons why the ACLU took the case, does not look wildly out of line although I am not fond of the threat tactic. We need Ms.Rossi’s side of the story. Her case is not presented here. Even though ACLU representation is strong evidence, I would like to know specifically why they took her case. ACLU obviously believes the charter CEO has no legal basis for his claims. Why?
Her arguments are pretty much outlined in the letter sent to Ms. Rossi. She spoke the truth that charter operators take exception t, and they don’t want the truth to go public,
Any small act of kindness you can do in life is worth doing.
ACLU want to be kind with and. Rossi , Why ? I’m don’t know what about you ? You have some clue I mean IQ .
Lloyd Ms.Rossi should know how big it’s my case and ACLU did nothing anyway she got nothing to loss and I loss everything it’s Life isn’t hard to manage when you’ve got nothing to lose.
Seriously
Claudia,
There’s so much wrong about this letter that Frances sent to you.
Here’s one excerpt:
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
VOICES’ Frances Teso:
“Voices’ CMO fees are a) comparable with other County-approved charter schools … ”
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
That’s like saying that …
“Bank robberJohn Dillinger’s bank robbery totals are comparable to Bonnie & Clyde’s totals.”
So Frances is making the argument the County allows wildly and inappropriately large, and other charter CEO’s are also pulling down those salaries, so it must be O.K.?
Duh! That’s the freakin’ problem, Frances! Thanks to County’s approval, Charter CEO’s are all (or almost all) wildly overpaid.
Claudia, that’s the point you were making to Frances, and the point still holds.
As any minister will tell you, comparison of sin in never a defense of sin.
Oh, and Frances, if you’re reading this, I’m going to play teachers and give you a homework assignment
Watch John Oliver’s Charter School segment HERE:
I cannot figure out why charter promoters believe that a system of private contractors with a layer of maagement (the CMO) will cost the same as one public system.
The CMO in the letter says the CMO provides “professional development and legal services” (among other services). Aren’t they just replicating managers over and over again?
They are adding a layer of managers attached to each charter chain. There will inevitably be more managers system-wide.
If the public school system has lawyers or pays legal fees and each CMO has lawyers or contracts out legal fees we can be sure of one thing- they will pay more lawyers, net, system-wide.
They’re running into this fact in charter world. There have now been two studies that suggest that running a privatized system alongside a public system inevitably involves a loss of funding FOR EACH public school student. This had to happen. They cannot lay one system over another system and pay fewer managers. They’re replicating services over and over and over.
Are we really going to do this? Set up two systems and then feign surprise ten years out when it INEVITABLY costs more and less funding reaches students? Because that’s a sure thing. That WILL happen.
They could look at it right now. Take a “portfolio” district and look at how much they are paying for managers- lawyers, CMO execs, the works. Then add that to the managers on the public side. See if the new number is smaller than the prior number. It won’t be.
I don’t think they believe it. If they’re “businessmen” who want schools “run like businesses”, any businessman worth his salt understand the financial benefits of mergers. I can’t believe they’re honestly not applying that logic to schools. They can’t possibly believe that having multiple systems with multiple duplicative personnel would actually save money.
Their “belief” has to be a cover story for their true motive, which is simply to funnel public money into private pockets. The question is why anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size believes the cover story.
Exactly, Dienne. Thus the corporate [“get free public $” agenda] & ed-reformers’ [“choice at any cost” agenda] preference for multiple revenue streams. Build choice schools via new mkt tax cred & run them by corp ‘scholarship’ fund, the lost tax revenue never shows up in the state ed budget. Supplement the per-pupil charter allotment via separate state-level ed budgets, & locals will notice nothing beyond the $/head transferred from tradl public to charter/ voucher school. No wonder it takes a decade to document the obvious: actual per-pupil cost escalates when services are duplicated via 2-&3-tier school systems.
It seems like more people in government are figuring this out now that we have the charter school revolution these past ten or so years. At this point they are seeing the numbers and how they add up or don’t add up. It is a money grab and continues to be so.
There is now a whole group of private sector actors who operate in Ohio solely to run charter schools.
They didn’t exist before ed reform. That’s an add. It will cost something. It’s not free.
They are adding entire adult job descriptions with salaries that are simply tacked onto the existing system costs. Whole office buildings full of adults who have publicly-funded jobs that didn’t exist prior to charter schools. That has to be paid for. And the people who are paying for it right now in Ohio are students who remain in public schools.
That’s not fair. They should not have been designated the sacrifice to achieve ed reform’s ideological goals.
We should tell the truth about what “choice” will cost (more- it will cost more) and then distribute those costs in some equitable way, instead of dumping the entire downside risk on kids who remain in public schools. They are the LAST group who should be paying. They benefit NOT AT ALL from ed reform. Ed reformers don’t add any value to any public school anywhere, yet our kids are picking up the downside risk of this free market experiment. They get nothing out of this deal.
Any small act of kindness you can do in life is worth doing.
Chatters leaders are confusing kindnesses with weaknesses!
I wish you could understand Spanish is hard but not impossible I expose the hugest problem and crimes that Chatters schools are perpetrated against my children’s , then I became the mother Teresa of the city and no one care it’s hard to say that but it’s the true .
I don’t know nothing about but a lot how charters are running here .
Trust me !
If public school employees are “self interested” then why aren’t charter school employees “self interested”?
What is the difference between the CMO who wrote the letter and someone who runs a public school if we’re using the ed reform “self interest” analysis? Why does ed reform assume one is more ethical and noble and self-sacrificing than the other?
How do I know she’s not protecting her publicly-funded job? She’s just intrinsically a better human being because she’s in this club of people who claim some unique moral and ethical high ground?
It’s nonsense. If your “movement” is grounded on the (cynical) idea that everyone is in it for themselves that also has to apply to your contractors or it’s just rank ideological bias.
I’m genuinely interested in the thinking that goes “if we pass public funding thru a contractor it is washed of all that icky and low class self interest and becomes…. pure!”
It’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. Has this been true in the history of government contracting? That public employees are venal and selfish while contractors are self-sacrificing and public spirited? No one outside ed reform believes that. It’s a unique religion, with it’s own set of commandments. It applies no where else.
The Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education has issued a report which warns that, because of their lack of financial accountability to the public “CHARTER SCHOOLS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS POSE A POTENTIAL RISK TO FEDERAL FUNDS, EVEN AS THEY FALL SHORT OF MEETING GOALS” because of financial fraud and the artful skimming of tax money into private pockets, especially hedge fund pockets.
If nothing else is required of charter schools, there is one thing that must be required so that charter schools are accountable to taxpayers and inform taxpayers as to where taxpayer money is actually going when it’s given to charter schools; that one key thing is this: Charter schools must be required to file the SAME detailed, public domain financial reports under penalty of perjury that public schools file.
Charter schools will cry that this is “too burdensome” — yet public schools file such reports. What would the outcry be if public schools were “freed” of this “burden”? Why, the outcry would rattle the very heavens! So, why is it that private charter schools are allowed to get away with taking public tax money and not have to tell the public on an annual basis how those public tax dollars are spent?
Charter schools bill themselves as “public schools”, but Supreme Courts in states like New York, Washington and elsewhere are catching on to the scam and have ruled that charter schools are really private schools because they aren’t accountable to the public because they are run by private boards that aren’t elected by voters and don’t even have to file detailed reports to the public about what they’re doing with the public’s tax money. Of course, if they have to do that, the public and the media will see what the charter school scam is all about, and charter schools will fade away.
Forget every other strategy to stop charter schools: If you can force them to file the SAME detailed, public domain, annual financial reports under penalty of perjury that public schools file — and why not? — the public school industry will dry up and move on to other privatization scams in other areas to divert public money into private pockets.
I think the letter was not written by the person who signed it. Here is why:
The Board Chair’s bio.
Servando Sandoval (Board Chair)
Servando Sandoval is a partner at Pahl & McCay. His areas of practice include Commercial Litigation, Business Litigation, Real Estate, and Labor and Employment Law.
He has extensive experience in all facets of employment law and fair housing laws including counseling clients as to day-to-day employment and housing issues, conducting investigations and defending claims before all Courts and in administrative hearings.
He graduated with honors, cum laude, from UCLA with a degree in Communication Studies with an emphasis in Chicano Studies. He received his Juris Doctor in 1999 from the UCLA School of Law, where he served as Editor for the Chicano-Latino Law Review. He is admitted to practice in the state of California, including the District Courts in and for the Northern and Central Districts of California, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Mr. Sandoval is the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Silicon Valley. Mr. Sandoval also serves on the Board of Directors for the San Jose Day Nursery.
I am a Latina who won a seat on the Santa Clara County Board of Education despite the over 200k the California Charter School Association spent against my campaign. I will continue to fight for our children using my vote and my voice to protect them from profiteering CMOS. Children are not commodities! This threat to sue me and other tactics only expose the true motives of the privatization jaugernaut. Mi voz y mi voto no se venden! My voice and my vote are not for sale! Nuestros hijos tampoco! Neither are our children!
Ojalá que triunfe en su lucha contra los que quieren robar a nuestros hijos de una educación que tienen derecho a obtener.
Como voy a triunfar sin apollo ? Gracias
Usted está haciendo un trabajo excelente , usted está informada sobre todo lo que yo he trabajado para defender el sistema público escolar . Usted debería indagar más acerca de la vida que he tenido yo , usted no ha hecho el trabajo sola , disculpe pero es la verdad . Usted sabe quien soy yo ?
Problemente pueda , si Lloyd Loughouse le habla de mi , quizás Diane podría ayudarla en verdad usted debería estar al tanto de los acontecimientos que han pasado rn está corrupta ciudad .
Es la fuerza de los corruptos que están
aplastando a mi familia y más no puedo explicarle, han sido cuatro años defendiendo la justicia por mi mismo , disculpa Dios ha hecho posible que Lloyd y Diane expusieran lo que yo he expuesto en Worldpress por casi 4 años .
Buenas tardes ! Gracias
ACLU is doing better Job in California , ACLU did not have done nothing help
ACLU has an office here in Dade County Fl I have tried it and over and over the fact is that California it’s have more control over public things as well California fight for civil rights and ACLU back up the law but here is different, because my case it’s a huge compare with this in California, unfortunately I have not the connection that Ms. Rossi. I’m going through this by myself and with God because the whole city is not doing nothing to protect their own children because if I fight for them they should fight with me , it’s the fact that Dade County it’s a hell and California it’s a paradise , is not very hard to understand my message!!!
I am not a lawyer, nor am I a charter supporter, but some of the charter CEO’s rebuttals sound credible. The Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment is considered credible. The letter makes it appear like Rossi just threw out a bunch of “everybody knows” statements with no hard facts to support the claims. If you are going to accuse someone of stealing money from the students, it would be wise to support that assertion with hard facts. What charters may be allowed by law to charge is the real issue. If the charter is acting within the law, how they are confronted becomes important. On the surface the teacher salary issue is also problematic. I assume the ACLU would not have agreed to represent Ms. Rossi without hard facts supporting her claims, and I don’t doubt that the letter was carefully written to put the charter company in the best light. However, this post does not lay out any hard facts that Ms. Rossi used to support her claims. The gist of what Ms. Rossi said may be true, but doesn’t expressing these opinions at a public meeting of the board without presenting the supporting facts leave the board open to litigation?
After writing this critique, I would not blame anyone for wondering whether I support charters. I do not for the simple reason that they are not subject to the same standards of accountability as the public schools and yet still depend on public funding. We cannot afford to fund a burgeoning number of privately controlled, contract schools while we fail to adequately fund the public schools. For the record, I am glad the ACLU finds merit in Ms. Rossi’s case; i just wish more of that case was presented here.