Denver Public Schools botching school honcho search - the failed reform board

DPS , $3 billion in the red, scandal-ridden, can not also get its act together to place Tom Boasberg's carefully picked follower, Susana Cordova, with her straight financial problems of interests with charter schools, in the superintendent's job.

This procedure will take place in 3 stages:

* Phase 1 will occur via Oct. 15 and also culminate with the recommended application due day.

* Stage 2 will certainly occur between Oct. 15 as well as Nov. 26, during which time, prospect meetings will certainly occur.

* Stage 3 follows with 2 turning point dates: on Nov. 26, finalist( s) will certainly be introduced and also on Dec. 10, the superintendent will be chosen.

*

Well, not specifically ...

The District has actually pressed back its ever-changing timeline for the third time.

Here's what the neighborhood desired:

We seek an individual that symbolizes the complying with credentials:

* ● Most importantly, an instructor.

* ● The Superintendent needs to reside in Denver and their school-aged children have to participate in Denver Public institutions.

* ● We want a "Transformer" not a radical. This is an private with demonstrated success in changing colleges in a comparable area. Likewise, a college leader who will certainly eliminate choice to make sure excellent quality institutions are recognized in every community.

* ● The next DPS Superintendent should have NO dispute of interest with charter college funders, Democrats For Education And Learning Reform (DFER), or any type of DFER associates.

* ● The Superintendent has to commit to complete economic transparency: meaning an exterior, line by line audit of DPS financials.

* ● The brand-new Superintendent has to have a " Corrective Justice" technique to self-control. This consists of: getting rid of Student Source Officers, finishing to absolutely no resistance policies, addressing the institution to jail pipeline, and also giving wraparound services, consisting of: suitable Special Education and learning solutions, psychological health and wellness solutions, and also counselors.

Our brand-new Superintendent has to respect all our teachers. We need a Superintendent that, as a leader:.

* ● Is committed to having certified, licensed teachers in the classroom.

* ● Has actually demonstrated success in branching out the staff in their school district via the employment, employing and also retention of teachers as well as school leaders of shade.

* ● Has a tested performance history in boosting cultural expertise in their faculty and staff, and also in their very own pedagogy.

* ● Has formerly led with a commitment to collaborative technique and power sharing.

* ● Will certainly end high stakes screening, to ensure that our teachers can really educate.

* ● The Superintendent must focus on communication as a leadership method to improve transparency, community interaction, and coordination across all the stakeholders to whom they are responsible. The Superintendent ought to have an Open Door plan, and be an comprehensive leader that strolls the halls of the colleges and also gets in touch with trainees, teachers and parents. In enhancement to the credentials desired in our next Superintendent, OVOS brings the adhering to needs relating to neighborhood input in the Superintendent search and also option procedure:.

* ● We expect openness and also disclosure of the HR search firm and the selection procedure.

* ● OVOS, in collaboration with a union of diverse neighborhood participants, will submit our own candidates for consideration.

* ● The process for Area input have to be outlined from beginning to end, in its totality.

* ● OVOS, in cooperation with various other community groups, will certainly create a Area Rubric to submit to DPS and also the search firm, for usage in analyzing candidates.

* ● It is important to have neighborhood representation on the option committee included: trainees, parents, teachers, union reps, neighborhood coordinators, a agent from each of the 5 areas, and also a college agent.

* ● Prospects must go on a listening scenic tour to every of the 5 Denver districts and engage in real dialogue with the area.

Bottom line: Radicals intend to steal the direction of the district before the citizens deny the board following autumn.

Denver Public Schools will certainly remain to lose top quality prospects since the procedure has been exposed to be dishonest.

#fliptheboard2019

Littwin: As Perlmutter and friends take a swing at Pelosi, they're missing the big picture

As an aged anarchist at heart (the anti-hierarchy kind, not the throw-bottles-through-storefront-windows kind), I understand the revolt against the assumption that Nancy Pelosi will once again assume the role of speaker of the House. 

It's not good for Pelosi and her septuagenarian leadership team of Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn, or any team for that matter, to run a small-d democratic party for nearly two decades. You need new blood, new points of view, different ways to fight ever-changing battles, generational and racial and ethnic and gender diversity, a pathway for new leaders, and mostly, you need to face up to the danger of investing too much power for too long in any one person or group.

That said, it's hard for me to think of anything more politically misguided than for the Democratic centrist rebels in the House (with our own Ed Perlmutter among its leaders) to try to kick Pelosi out now.

In 2016, when Perlmutter did nominate Tim Ryan to run against Pelosi, that might have been a good time to change leadership - a new team, though in the minority, to go up against a new president.

Maybe 2020 will be a good time - when a Democrat could reclaim the presidency and maybe even restore our democracy.

Now is a precarious time, an almost certainly counterproductive time, a time far too important to risk the chance of failure or to toss in someone who needs to learn/grow on the job.

In his winning campaign against Mike Coffman, Jason Crow promised to vote for someone other than Pelosi as speaker. That's what you do when you're running against a popular incumbent and Republicans are spending millions in your district and across the country - as they have for years - caricaturing Pelosi as a radical and extreme San Francisco liberal.

But why Perlmutter is leading this fight is beyond me. In a statement, he said, "I am grateful for Nancy Pelosi's leadership and many contributions to our caucus but I have advocated for a change in leadership since 2016 because I think it's time for a new perspective and someone who represents the change Americans just voted for across the country."

And yet, he doesn't have a candidate to back. He's not running himself. What he is doing, in my view, is completely missing the point. (I talked to his spokeswoman the other day, but Perlmutter was, as they say, unavailable.)

Democrats kept telling us, as politicians tend to do, that this was the most important midterm election in our lifetimes. Donald Trump, in typically Trumpian fashion, said no one had even thought about midterm elections until Trump was the focus of one because, of course, it has to be about him. But I agree with the notion that this election was unusually important and that if Democrats had failed to win back the House, it could have foretold a disaster for the nation. 

Given that and given that hardly any Democrats deny that Pelosi has been an effective leader and, in her time as speaker, a historic figure, I'm puzzled, at minimum, about the timing of the rebellion.

The worst reason - the absolute worst reason - to dump Pelosi is that Republicans don't like her. I mean, the idea that Pelosi is uniquely an albatross for Democratic candidates is absurd. Yes, her approval ratings are brutally low (29 percent in a Gallup poll last month), but better than Mitch McConnell's (24 percent). If it weren't Pelosi being demonized, it would be someone else. Anyone else. Demonizing Democrats, particularly Democratic women, is what Republicans have long done and what Trump specializes in. Clinton, Pelosi, Waters, Warren, whoever. Besides which, in 2020 the election will not be about the House speaker, no matter who it is. It will be about Trump vs. the Democratic nominee. Pocahontas, Crooked Cory, Crazy Bernie, Sleepy Joe and on and on and on.

And then there's this: The rebellious House Dems have yet to identify anyone who could do a better job taking on Trump. Rep. Marcia Fudge says she is considering a run. She could be a great speaker; she could be a terrible speaker. I have no idea, and I assume Jason Crow has no idea either. Newly elected Joe Neguse, when asked about Pelosi, wisely noted that he had just arrived in Washington. Diana DeGette, meanwhile, is running against Clyburn for majority whip, a race in which she is a considered a long shot.

For context, Democrats should look at the difference between Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the ineffectual Senate minority leader, in dealing with Trump. Pelosi has the brains, the experience and the guts not only to counter Trump but also to take on the Machiavellian McConnell in the Senate. As David Axelrod noted the other day in praising Pelosi's political ability, Pelosi played the key role in rescuing Obamacare when Democrats lost the 60th vote in the Senate. 

The coming session will be among the trickiest Democrats have ever faced. There's the impeachment question, of course, which is a terrible idea unless Bob Mueller's investigation or a House committee delivers a bombshell that convinces a significant majority of people - those who voted for him and against him - that Trump must go now. Pelosi not only knows the difference, she knows the politics. House Democrats will have to navigate that place between being McConnell-like obstructionists and finding places to compromise (no wall, though; whatever else, no wall) if Trump and/or McConnell are ready.

If I were one of the House rebels, I'd try to work a deal with Pelosi, who doesn't yet have the votes even if she claims she does. She needs a majority of the House, which means she can lose very few Democrats, to win the job. I'd try to convince Pelosi to dump Hoyer and Clyburn and make sure that Pelosi agrees her time as leader is coming to an end. Meanwhile, elect leaders to work with Pelosi who are reflective of the new class of representatives and those who elected them - as Fudge says, more black, more brown, more youthful, more female - and would be ready themselves to succeed Pelosi.

It may be hardball politics, but that's the way Pelosi has always played it. Which is why Democrats can't afford to lose her now.

The post Littwin: As Perlmutter and friends take a swing at Pelosi, they're missing the big picture appeared first on The Colorado Independent.

Littwin: As Perlmutter and friends take a swing at Pelosi, they're missing the big picture

As an aged anarchist at heart (the anti-hierarchy kind, not the throw-bottles-through-storefront-windows kind), I understand the revolt against the assumption that Nancy Pelosi will once again assume the role of speaker of the House. 

It's not good for Pelosi and her septuagenarian leadership team of Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn, or any team for that matter, to run a small-d democratic party for nearly two decades. You need new blood, new points of view, different ways to fight ever-changing battles, generational and racial and ethnic and gender diversity, a pathway for new leaders, and mostly, you need to face up to the danger of investing too much power for too long in any one person or group.

That said, it's hard for me to think of anything more politically misguided than for the Democratic centrist rebels in the House (with our own Ed Perlmutter among its leaders) to try to kick Pelosi out now.

In 2016, when Perlmutter did nominate Tim Ryan to run against Pelosi, that might have been a good time to change leadership - a new team, though in the minority, to go up against a new president.

Maybe 2020 will be a good time - when a Democrat could reclaim the presidency and maybe even restore our democracy.

Now is a precarious time, an almost certainly counterproductive time, a time far too important to risk the chance of failure or to toss in someone who needs to learn/grow on the job.

In his winning campaign against Mike Coffman, Jason Crow promised to vote for someone other than Pelosi as speaker. That's what you do when you're running against a popular incumbent and Republicans are spending millions in your district and across the country - as they have for years - caricaturing Pelosi as a radical and extreme San Francisco liberal.

But why Perlmutter is leading this fight is beyond me. In a statement, he said, "I am grateful for Nancy Pelosi's leadership and many contributions to our caucus but I have advocated for a change in leadership since 2016 because I think it's time for a new perspective and someone who represents the change Americans just voted for across the country."

And yet, he doesn't have a candidate to back. He's not running himself. What he is doing, in my view, is completely missing the point. (I talked to his spokeswoman the other day, but Perlmutter was, as they say, unavailable.)

Democrats kept telling us, as politicians tend to do, that this was the most important midterm election in our lifetimes. Donald Trump, in typically Trumpian fashion, said no one had even thought about midterm elections until Trump was the focus of one because, of course, it has to be about him. But I agree with the notion that this election was unusually important and that if Democrats had failed to win back the House, it could have foretold a disaster for the nation. 

Given that and given that hardly any Democrats deny that Pelosi has been an effective leader and, in her time as speaker, a historic figure, I'm puzzled, at minimum, about the timing of the rebellion.

The worst reason - the absolute worst reason - to dump Pelosi is that Republicans don't like her. I mean, the idea that Pelosi is uniquely an albatross for Democratic candidates is absurd. Yes, her approval ratings are brutally low (29 percent in a Gallup poll last month), but better than Mitch McConnell's (24 percent). If it weren't Pelosi being demonized, it would be someone else. Anyone else. Demonizing Democrats, particularly Democratic women, is what Republicans have long done and what Trump specializes in. Clinton, Pelosi, Waters, Warren, whoever. Besides which, in 2020 the election will not be about the House speaker, no matter who it is. It will be about Trump vs. the Democratic nominee. Pocahontas, Crooked Cory, Crazy Bernie, Sleepy Joe and on and on and on.

And then there's this: The rebellious House Dems have yet to identify anyone who could do a better job taking on Trump. Rep. Marcia Fudge says she is considering a run. She could be a great speaker; she could be a terrible speaker. I have no idea, and I assume Jason Crow has no idea either. Newly elected Joe Neguse, when asked about Pelosi, wisely noted that he had just arrived in Washington. Diana DeGette, meanwhile, is running against Clyburn for majority whip, a race in which she is a considered a long shot.

For context, Democrats should look at the difference between Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the ineffectual Senate minority leader, in dealing with Trump. Pelosi has the brains, the experience and the guts not only to counter Trump but also to take on the Machiavellian McConnell in the Senate. As David Axelrod noted the other day in praising Pelosi's political ability, Pelosi played the key role in rescuing Obamacare when Democrats lost the 60th vote in the Senate. 

The coming session will be among the trickiest Democrats have ever faced. There's the impeachment question, of course, which is a terrible idea unless Bob Mueller's investigation or a House committee delivers a bombshell that convinces a significant majority of people - those who voted for him and against him - that Trump must go now. Pelosi not only knows the difference, she knows the politics. House Democrats will have to navigate that place between being McConnell-like obstructionists and finding places to compromise (no wall, though; whatever else, no wall) if Trump and/or McConnell are ready.

If I were one of the House rebels, I'd try to work a deal with Pelosi, who doesn't yet have the votes even if she claims she does. She needs a majority of the House, which means she can lose very few Democrats, to win the job. I'd try to convince Pelosi to dump Hoyer and Clyburn and make sure that Pelosi agrees her time as leader is coming to an end. Meanwhile, elect leaders to work with Pelosi who are reflective of the new class of representatives and those who elected them - as Fudge says, more black, more brown, more youthful, more female - and would be ready themselves to succeed Pelosi.

It may be hardball politics, but that's the way Pelosi has always played it. Which is why Democrats can't afford to lose her now.

The post Littwin: As Perlmutter and friends take a swing at Pelosi, they're missing the big picture appeared first on The Colorado Independent.

Film fest an eclectic, inspiring showcase

When most people see red carpets, they're on television and full of recognizable faces from the worlds of entertainment or sports. Most of us will never get to walk one, have our photos taken and

Littwin: In case Trump missed it, the Dem victories in Colorado were huger than huge

Pick your adjective to describe the Democratic tsunami in Colorado Tuesday - huge, monumental, colossal, ginormous  - and I promise I can top it.

This wasn't just your ordinary crush-the-opposition victory for the Democrats. This was very possibly the greatest election night ever for Democrats in Colorado.

Yes, ever.

There was 1974, the Watergate year, the Gary Hart year. And 2006 was pretty startling, the year when Republicans, who were dominating Colorado politics, first saw their hold on the state begin to slip. And now this night. This night. 

This was a night when Jared Polis took the stage to loud speakers blaring Dylan's "Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call," and no one in the room seemed to doubt that the times really were a-changin'.

"If (Phil) Weiser wins, it may be the biggest Democratic election night of my lifetime," Alan Salazar told me. I figured Salazar, Michael Hancock's chief of staff and a long-time Dem strategist who has worked for nearly every notable Colorado Dem, would know.

And, of course, Weiser did win the race for attorney general over George Brauchler. And Democrats swept all the down-ballot races. Those offices - secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general - typically go to Republicans in Colorado, nearly as reliably as the governor's seat goes to Democrats.

Then I bumped into Mike Johnston - it was that kind of night - who told me he had been talking about this very thing with Roy Romer.

"Roy told me he couldn't remember a time when Democrats held all the constitutional statewide offices and both houses of the legislature," Johnston said. "And he's 90."

Actually, it apparently did happen in 1936, 1916 and 1912, but you get the idea.

So now the question is whether Colorado, the ultimate swing state, is still a purple state. The obvious answer, in the short term, would be no. I mean, how much more blue can you get? But the real answer is, well, it's complicated.

I think if there's anything we've learned in Colorado politics this campaign season, it's that we no longer fit neatly into the red vs. blue dynamic. We're not alone there, as we saw Democrats take back the U.S. House in a rebuke of Trump, but in Colorado, we are now clearly a Trumpist orange vs. blue state.

And so the Dems' big night went, with Trumpism the clear loser.

It wasn't just the Jared Polis victory that put Republicans on their heels. He was heavily favored, after all.  It was the enormity of everything else that happened.

Democrats took back the state Senate to control both houses of the legislature and give Polis a path forward for much of his agenda. Jason Crow crushed the forever-uncrushable Mike Coffman to win the 6th Congressional District seat. And Joe Neguse became the first African-American to represent Colorado in Congress, taking Polis' old seat. 

Polis ran a very effective campaign. Yes, he had the money, so much money, but he used it well. He undercut Stapleton's too-radical, too-extreme argument by refusing to seem too radical or too extreme. But it's hard to see what Republicans could have done to stop him, short of seceding from TrumpWorld. According to the AP VoteCast exit poll, Trump's approval rating in Colorado is way underwater at 42-to-58 percent.

Give Republicans some credit. They did manage to nominate an establishment candidate for governor in Stapleton. No Dan Maes. No Tom Tancredo. But it didn't matter. Stapleton wasn't a good campaigner, and the odds were stacked against him in any case, particularly once he embraced Trump and Tancredo during the primary election. By the final week, Polis was calling Stapleton "Trump's yes man," just to be sure he had clinched the deal. 

That leaves the Republicans with Cory Gardner as a U.S. senator and the only Republican to hold statewide office. When Gardner won four years ago, beating incumbent Mark Udall, it seemed that he had invented a way forward for Republicans in Colorado. Now, he's the last line of defense. And in 2020, when he presumably runs for re-election, he'll be running on the same ticket as Trump. 

And it's worse than that. Gardner is tied to the hip to Republican leadership in the Senate. And Republican leadership fully endorses whatever madness and ugliness Trump promotes. Gardner may be a very clever politician, but it's hard to see any way he can rid himself of Trump by 2020. Coffman tried desperately and was clobbered for his troubles.

And Democrats will be hot for Gardner's Senate seat.  I mentioned Mike Johnston earlier. He's likely to run for the nomination, and even though he finished third in the Democratic primary for governor, he came out of the race in very good shape. And then there's the Hickenlooper question. My guess is that Hick's quest for the presidency is, to be kind, a long shot and that, when he comes home, Democrats will be pushing him for a showdown against Gardner. 

But that's for another day.

For this day, there's Jared Polis, who is, of course, the state's first openly gay governor. It's a big deal and it's not a big deal, which says good things about Colorado. Polis' sexuality was never a factor in the race. And maybe the best moment of the Democrats' wild night was when Polis introduced his husband, Marlon Reis, as the "first First Man of Colorado."

At the introduction, the crowd at the victory party went more than slightly nuts. And no wonder. It affirmed the notion that Colorado, despite its shameful Amendment 2 anti-gay past, is a far different state now. And more than that, this election showed Colorado's complete rejection of Trumpworld, that dark place in which a president closes out his midterm campaign with words of fear, hostility and bigotry. Blue, purple, orange or whatever, Coloradans weren't listening.

The post Littwin: In case Trump missed it, the Dem victories in Colorado were huger than huge appeared first on The Colorado Independent.

Guest Post: Two approaches to getting big money out of politics

Since the US Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United, corporations and the wealthy have increased their political contributions exponentially. We're seeing the effect of that decision here in Colorado as the oil and gas industry pours more than $30 million into this election cycle and too many of our state-level elected officials feel beholden to the fracking industry.

In the 2015 municipal election contributions to candidates totaled more than $4.6 million, with 26 percent of donations coming from corporations and Political Action Committees (PACS). City residents across the political spectrum agree - our campaign finance system is broken. As campaigns become more about who can raise the most money and not about who has the best ideas, big money is drowning out residents' voices, blocking access to our elected officials, and causing paralysis in government. It's time to get big money out of our politics.

Denver voters have the opportunity to vote on two measures on the ballot November meant to limit the corrosive effect of money in politics. One is an innovative proposal that gives voters more equal weight in elections. The other is a wolf in sheep's clothing, disguised as a reform measure but actually a license to flood elections with even more money.

Question 2E - the Democracy for the People Initiative - on the ballot in Denver is a citizen-initiated measure, unanimously referred to the ballot by Denver City Council. The goal of the referred measure is to rid politics and our elections of the corrupting influence of big money. It bans corporations from donating directly to campaigns in Denver, like they are currently banned on the state and federal level, while maintaining the newly passed requirements on disclosing dark money spent in elections. It lowers the city's relatively high campaign contribution limits to be on the scale of Colorado's more reasonable statewide limits.

The most exciting part of measure 2E is that it creates a publicly financed campaign system by providing 9-to-1 matching funds for small-dollar donations ($50 and less) to candidates who opt not to accept any PAC money in their campaigns.

Common Cause and the Working Families Party strongly believe that elected officials should act only in the best interests of their constituents regardless of who their donors are. 2E would rein in the undue influence of large contributors and make our city electeds more responsive to their constituents. We want every voice in the community to be heard, not just the voices with wealth or influence. In addition to reducing the corrupting influence of money in politics, programs like these around the country have increased voter turnout and civic engagement in communities of color. Running for office no longer means needing to have great wealth or connections to wealth. Without money as a barrier, more diverse candidates run and get elected, including more young people, women, and people of color. And with public financing, our governing institutions reflect their communities, passing the kind of laws that prioritize the public interest over the special interests.

While 2E offers Denver the opportunity for real improvement, Amendment 75, a statewide initiative supported by dark money, is disguised as campaign finance reform but actually gives more power to the wealthy. The measure proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to increase campaign contribution limits when a candidate loans, contributes, or directs more than $1 million to his or her own campaign. It would allow all candidates in these elections to collect five times the level of individual contributions currently allowed. The solution to too much money in politics is not more money in politics.

To combat the anti-democratic effects of Citizens United, we need comprehensive reform that includes public financing of elections. Measures like Denver's Referred Question 2E are progress towards a more inclusive democracy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy and the well connected.

 

Carlos Valverde is the state director for the Colorado Working Families Party. Amanda Gonzalez is the executive director for Colorado Common Cause.

The Colorado Independent occasionally runs guest posts from government officials, local experts and concerned citizens on a variety of topics. These posts are meant to provide diverse perspectives and do not represent the views of The Independent. To pitch a guest post, please contact tips@coloradoindependent.com or visit our submission page. 

The post Guest Post: Two approaches to getting big money out of politics appeared first on The Colorado Independent.

Colorado voter turnout at 33%; enthusiasm up for Ds, down for Rs

About a third of active registered Colorado voters have cast ballots as of this morning, the secretary of state reported.

With five days to go until Election Day, Democrats and Republicans have cast nearly the same amount of ballots, while unaffiliated voters - the state's largest voter pool - are lagging behind both major parties.

Of the 1.1 million votes received so far, 382,028 came from Republicans, 381,411 came from Democrats and 324,363 came from unaffiliated voters. Libertarians have cast 8,482 ballots so far, while Green Party members have cast 2,178.

The secretary of state has released daily ballot-count reports every working day since Oct. 24, and on all but one of those days Republicans have held a slight lead over Democrats in ballots returned.

The Boulder County-based polling firm Magellan Strategies reported today that Republicans are about 50,000 returned ballots behind their 2014 pace, while Democrats are about 45,000 returned ballots ahead of their 2014 pace.

"The enthusiasm gap in favor of Democrats still holds," Magellan's report reads, "especially when looking at these ballot returns in comparison to 2014. And Unaffiliated voters are voting at level never before seen in a midterm election in Colorado. Whether this means voters are just returning their ballots earlier, or whether there will a significant bump in the final turnout numbers, remains to be seen."

The reports have also consistently shown a massive gap in turnout between younger and older voters. As of Thursday's report, a total of 221,596 ballots had been returned by voters between the ages of 18 and 40. Voters 61 and older had cast a total of 522,437 as of the latest report.

While the gulf in turnout by age remains significant, it's narrowing gradually; Monday's report showed people 61 and older out-voting people 18-40 by a three-to-one margin, while Thursday's report showed a 2.35-to-one margin.

People between the ages of 41 and 60 have returned 356,657 ballots, today's report showed.

Here's the breakdown as of Nov. 1 of Colorado's early ballot returns in the 2018 General Election, per the secretary of state:

 

 

The post Colorado voter turnout at 33%; enthusiasm up for Ds, down for Rs appeared first on The Colorado Independent.