Hey WW, where's the beef?
By Kevin Kamberg of Forest Grove, Oregon. Kevin describes himself as a "blogger, craftsman, and single parent, blue collar stiff." Previously, he contributed "Snow Day Rituals?"
Monday evening Willamette Week's website (aka WWire) published a piece written by Beth Slovic claiming that Jeff Merkley Submitted a Charter School Application in 2004. Wednesday she rehashed it as an editorial piece citing her own WWire piece for the street edition of Willamette Week. Let's examine the original WWire piece since the editorial doesn't offer anything new. Her first paragraph quickly reveals her angle,
As the Oregon Education Association prepares to make its crucial endorsement next week in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, WWire has learned candidate Jeff Merkley privately submitted an application in 2004 for his own child to enroll in a charter school.
As Slovic notes, the upcoming OEA endorsement is a crucial one for both Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick. And, being the award winning journalist that she is, she will obviously have solidly sourced such a stunning claim before making it, right?
News that Merkley, then the House Minority Leader, wanted to get his elementary-school-age son Jonathan into a charter school comes from Rob Kremer, a leading charter school supporter who saw Merkley’s application to the Arthur Academy, a Portland-based charter school that was to have opened in fall 2004 but was delayed until 2005. (Because of that delay, none of the original applications, including Merkley's, were processed, according to Kremer.)
Rob Kremer is an interesting guy! He is serial charter school founder, including the Arthur Academy (one of four such), on and off opponent of the OEA and all-around "Who's Who" in Oregon right-wing circles. A quick check with OpenSecrets.org reveals that he has only ever given money to Republicans. Among Kremer's creds are his conservative blog, where he confirms that he is Slovic's apparently sole source, being the founder of the Conservative Majority Project and Host of the right-wing talk radio show called Kremer & Abrams. All in all it seems pretty clear that Rob Kremer probably has a whole sack full of axes to grind when it comes to Jeff Merkley and just about every other progressive Democrat in Oregon. But that reality alone doesn't negate hard evidence or multi-sourced information.
I don't see anything in either of Beth Slovic's pieces about a second source supporting Rob Kremer's assertion. The closest thing to it is an assertion in the piece that Merkley's spokesman Matt Cantor "did not deny" the allegation. But of course the failure to deny doesn't constitute a "confirmation" by any stretch of the imagination. But down in the comments of the WWire piece she states, "Kremer told me something. I asked the Merkley campaign. His spokesman confirmed it. Funny how that works."
Yes, funny how that works. Except that nowhere in the piece does it say that Merkley's spokesman "confirmed" Kremer's allegation. Which leaves a series of unanswered questions. Such as: Why didn't Beth Slovic include a copy of the application in either of her stories? Why didn't she reference or even quote what it said on the alleged application? Does the alleged application even exist? If so, where is it? Has Slovic personally seen it? And where is her second source? Surely she didn't just take Rob Kremer's word for it!
What does Rob Kremer get out of this? Is he connected to the Gordon Smith campaign? I don't see anything overtly connecting Kremer directly to Smith.
But it is noteworthy that Oregon Republicans haven't ever attacked Senate candidate Steve Novick, but have repeatedly attacked Senate candidate Jeff Merkley.
It's particularly noteworthy in light of what Kremer said on his blog when Novick announced for the Senate race.
|
February 29, 2008 |
guest column | Comments (113 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 29, 2008 3:40:55 AM
Argh. Yes, that is our policy. Kevin didn't tell me he was going to cross-post over at PK.
This post was submitted and published much earlier this evening, but I future-posted it for a few hours later explicitly so it wouldn't immediately stomp on the Novick post.
I'll leave the discussion as to the content to others.
Posted by: Blog Host | Feb 29, 2008 6:18:49 AM
I did a lot of research on this before I bought my WW. I found that invoice is around 30% with no dealer holdbacks or rebates like car manufacturers give. I doubt many are getting 30+% off WW's unless it was a old unit that has sat for a period of a long time. I found that 20% 25% is more of the good deal. The more higher priced WW's will get bigger discounts in relation to the lesser priced ww's. http://morewrite.com/
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 29, 2008 6:40:01 AM
It was an original primary work when submitted. I'd missed that requirement when I submitted it, though, and posted it to my blog several hours later. My bad! Nevertheless, the other version has been deleted, leaving this as the sole one in existance.
Are you really questioning whether the Merkleys filed any paperwork with the school?
The question is whether there is more than Rob Kremer's word for it that there was an alleged application filed. Beth Slovic claims that's what happened, but apparently single-sourced it with just Rob Kremer.
But Canter's already admitted they showed interest, did he not?
Expressing interest/curiosity is not the same thing as filing an application. If it were then I'd be the proud, but very broke, owner of a whole fleet of new cars that I've seen on car lots in just the last month.
Posted by: TorridJoe, Have You No Shame? | Feb 29, 2008 7:21:05 AM
If Hillary Clinon's campaign rallied around a story like this about Sen. Obama, the blogosphere skies would open up and the righteous sword of whup ass would smite everyone from Ickes to Penn to Chelsea. Torrid Joe would be drawing blood like the Conan Barbarian (with whom he shares several traits). And yes, Torrid Joe is a "member" of the Novick campaign in every meaningful way. I pray the rest of the Novick crew doesn't follow suit.
Here's some facts that I challenge either TJ or WW to dispute in this forum (or any other Novick supporter foolish enough to follow Torrid Joe's lead).
Fact #1 -- The Merkley's son never attended a charter school.
Fact #2 -- Many charter schools require you to fill out a brief form in order to get a tour, allow your child to spend a day there, etc.
Fact #3 - To launch this story using one very tainted source about the possibility that the Merkleys briefly considered a charter school as an option for their flesh and blood is beyond the pale for even alternative newspapers. Most of the story is filled with teachers Slovic rounded up to give the requisite charter school quotes on the eve of the OEA endorsement convention.
Fact #4 - WW has now twice engaged in unbelievably questionable and amateurish journalism to support their candidate, Steve Novick. I happen to love WW in-part because they are usually yellow in favor of my candidate (and I am voting for Novick in this race, but it's not an easy choice), but I am guessing Mr. Meeker and Mr. Zusman would not appreciate an objective analysis by a scholarly journalism review panel on either this story OR the Merkley landlord story which was bungled by everyone at WW from Zusman to Stern to the dupe of an intern they assigned the story.
Fact #5 - Reporters following the Novick-Merkley race know that the initial and best sources for the hits against Merkley have come primarily from the Republicans. The initial calls about Merkley's vote on the House "support the troops" resolution were made by Smith-connected operatives. The landlord story was researched by Smith, not Novick. The charter school story came from Kremer. There is no Republican tracker assigned to Novick, but a full-time Smith tracker (not officially hired by him) assigned to shadow Merkley. No story has been written to date on why Smith is expending so much energy to ensure that Steve wins the primary. If Steve is truly the best candidate against Smith, why are they trying to help him?
Fact #6 - Rob Kremer has held himself out as someone trustworthy enough to hold public office in the field of education. I can't think of an area where respecting confidentiality is more important than the field of education. To date, no one has written a story about this egregious violation of privacy by a very public person. (In addition, every parent and student at this charter school should ask if their privacy will be thrown under a bus if the school finds it useful at a later time.)
Torrid Joe, you lose credibility when you embrace crap like this. It diminishes everything else you produce, and that is truly sad.
Posted by: Dan E. | Feb 29, 2008 7:31:58 AM
Sooo...it's perfectly fine for WW to be shamelessly biased against republicans, but heaven forbid they make a choice in a democratic primary? Suddenly they have abandoned all journalistic integrity?
I've read the WW ever since college...and that's been many moons ago. I wish they weren't so biased against my party, but hey, it's their paper, not mine. And I don't have to read it if it becomes too much of a burden for me. But I have ALWAYS respected their reporting. It's very well done, and they do their homework. So they made a choice - big deal. Maybe if your candidate was better, it would have been more difficult for them, or they would have waited. But don't blame the media for Merkley's clear-cut hipocricy.
Posted by: Rose Wilde | Feb 29, 2008 7:51:23 AM
What's the big deal about being interested in a Charter School? Even though I agree that charter schools can be a threat to public education, most communities do have a population of students who will not succeed in the options provided by the mainstream schools and even the alternative schools available. Having a few, specialized charter schools in a medium sized town like Eugene, is a god send.
I'll reveal my bias, however -- my mother is the director of Network Charter School in Eugene. I know she's a life long advocate for public education, and completely aware of the equity issues, but I'd say the entire community understands that the kids at NCS need this school to make it to graduation.
So, maybe Merkley's got a kid with learning or social needs that weren't being met in his community school?
It would be different if he sponsored legislation that allowed too much investment in charter schools, siphoning resources from the neighborhood and mainstream schools.
No one in Eugene is upset about charter schools. Right now they're up in arms about the school choice policy for public alternative schools.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Feb 29, 2008 8:29:10 AM
This article, going up pretty late and in the wake of a positive Novick story, seems to lack its own beef IMO.
It's not as if this is a "negative Novick" story, or as if Novick or his campaign is responsible for Kremer's Republican dirty tricks.
The fact is that Jeff and Steve are still two great candidates, either of whom would be a great replacement for the Lord of the Smith. I for one can't wait for the primary to end so that I know which of them to send my contributions to.
Posted by: MCR | Feb 29, 2008 8:30:15 AM
Calm down...I think it's evident that Merkley did apply to the charter school. It's somewhat evident that WW has a bias toward Novick. It's rather clear that teachers unions hate charter schools, as do most advocates of a strong public school system. So, there you have it.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Feb 29, 2008 8:35:41 AM
Sooo...it's perfectly fine for WW to be shamelessly biased against republicans, but heaven forbid they make a choice in a democratic primary? Suddenly they have abandoned all journalistic integrity?
Making a choice is one thing. Nothing wrong with prefering Merkley for his legislative experience, or Novick for his outsider/reformer stance, for example. Writing unverified swiftboat pieces is another matter. It would be just as bad if they wrote stories falsely claiming that Smith was a Mormon with several wives or something.
Posted by: paulie | Feb 29, 2008 8:43:30 AM
Until there is a second source revealed to clearly show that Kremer's statement is absolutely accurate this is a non-news column. Those familiar with Kremer's tactics (the OEA) will take the column and the source with a huge grain of salt.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 29, 2008 8:50:43 AM
Paulie, given the timing (impending OEA endorsement meeting) and the fact that Beth Slovic apparently shopped this around with at least a few local teachers (members of OEA) as her editorial makes plain, I disagree that it's a non-news column. Slovic's pieces appear to be aimed at influencing the primary election by influencing a major endorsement, all while seemingly masquerading as an impartial journalist. We wouldn't tolerate that from FOX News. Why should we tolerate it from Willy Week?
Posted by: Jack Sullivan | Feb 29, 2008 8:57:36 AM
This is a non-issue. He didn't send his kid to a charter school. He and his wife filled out a form. Big deal.
Hillary Clinton sent her kid to a private school, and it didn't stop the NEA and AFT from endorsing her campaign.
I'm sure that OEA will focus on what Novick and Merkley have done for Oregon's schools and Oregon's children - not a form that Jeff Merkley may have filled out.
Posted by: darrelplant | Feb 29, 2008 9:14:41 AM
It's particularly noteworthy in light of what Kremer said on his blog when Novick announced for the Senate race.
Is it? Kremer said that Novick didn't have a chance against Smith in the piece you reference, and he calls him a socialist.
Are you trying to imply that the GOP is attacking Merkley through the GOP house organ Willamette Week in order to get Novick elected in the primary so Smith can crush him, ha, ha, ha, ha?
Do you think Kremer has some sort of special prognostication skills that can determine the outcome of the elections?
For all you know the GOP really is more scared of Novick and just hasn't told you and is hoping for a reaction along the lines of "WW and Novick are colluding with the GOP!!!!!"
Of course, that would require a bit more subtlety than the GOP (or the Democrats) have really shown in recent years.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Feb 29, 2008 9:17:29 AM
Is this the same Beth Slovic who wrote the trenchant piece of investigative journalism that used Photoshop to experiement what Jeff Merkley would look like with a Jon Tester flattop?
Honestly, the WW being what it is, it's not clear to me Novick gains anything by their biases for him. My guess is 90% of its readers grab it for the concert schedules and to laugh at its personals and escort service ads. Nothing to worry about.
Posted by: Rob Kremer | Feb 29, 2008 9:30:46 AM
Interesting discussion. I just wrote a post on my blog responding to some points.
For the record, I have no axe to grind with either Merkley or Novick, other than to oppose either of them in the general election.
And as I say on my blog - Merkley is not necessarily being hypocritical by applying to enroll his kids in a charter school. If he now supports charters, there is no hypocrisy.
Only if he still opposes them is it hypocritical. As far as I know, he hasn't answered that question, and until he does, I would have to assume his actions do his talking for him, and he supports charter schools as currently established in Oregon law.
Now, is it newsworthy that the Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, running for the U.S. Senate, a one-time opponent of charter schools, now supports them?
I think Willamette Week think so.
Posted by: JHL | Feb 29, 2008 9:36:10 AM
I gotta say... I don't really see a story here.
Who says Merkley can't support a super-strong public education system while at the same time exploring the best opportunities for his own family?
Isn't that kinda like saying, "Merkley supports OHP expansion... but has private health insurance!"
If I support the USPS monopoly on first-class letter mail, am I a hypocrite if I FedEx a package? Can I support funding public transportation... and then own my own car?
The Willamette Week has no sense of what does and what does not constitute "interesting." The fact that Rob Kremer convinced them to write this is laughable.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 29, 2008 9:37:20 AM
Hey Rob, how about producing a copy of the alleged application? I notice in your post that you avoid that issue entirely. Surely that wouldn't be because it doesn't exist... right?
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 29, 2008 9:42:39 AM
JHL, I don't disagree. But here's the thing... massive pixels have been used up by progressives all across this nation complaining about Faux News' "journalistic ethics." Don't we become part of the problem rather than part of the solution if we turn a blind eye to apparently similar examples elsewhere? Maybe you've never complained about Faux News. But I have and many thousands of others have too. As progressives, I'd like to believe that our own ethical standards are higher than our counterparts on the Right. N'est pas? Or is Nader more or less right in his criticisms of both parties?
Posted by: RuMo | Feb 29, 2008 9:48:25 AM
Isn't that kinda like saying, "Merkley supports OHP expansion... but has private health insurance!"
No. This is a better analogy. "Merkley opposes OHP...but has filed an OHP application for his family."
Posted by: Jack Murray | Feb 29, 2008 9:50:00 AM
Kevin, just to make sure we're on the same page here, JHL and paulie are agreeing with you when they say "I don't see a story here". They're referring to the WW story, not your post about the WW story.
That being said, I think the story here is the continuing pusillanimity of the WW news team in throwing our liberal leaders under the bus. Why are they doing this? Because we've run out of conservatives to pick on, apparently.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Feb 29, 2008 10:05:01 AM
Yes, yes, whom to believe: The decades old Pulitzer Prize winning alternative weekly newspaper, or the guy who sits in his garage all day making those oh-so-soothing rain sticks.
Like the rest of you, I'll be struggling with this choice for awhile.
Posted by: Becky | Feb 29, 2008 10:18:05 AM
I know Rob Kremer personally (at least did until my falling out with Sizemore), and he always struck me as one of the good, honest guys on the right (I'm not aware of any unsavory "tactics" Rob has used in his skirmishes with the OEA - but I am aware of the sort of "tactics" that the OEA uses in its efforts, so I think we all need to recognize the realities of policy battles and separate smart strategizing from dishonest/dishonorable "tactics"). I really don't see Rob making something like this up. So it's probably true.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that it is shoddy journalism on the part of WW to publish as fact a story that has no second source or concrete evidence, particularly when it has demonstrated a bias that could explain its decision to set aside the rules that guide legitimate journalism. For a paper that seems to want to be viewed as a legitimate news source, WW's occasional tabloid approach does it no favors.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 29, 2008 10:20:26 AM
Either "TJ Have You No Shame" is Kevin indulging in more sockpuppetry, or they simply regurgitate Kevin's arguments--but I'm a little confused. WHERE have I commented on this story at all, much less "embrace" it? I mean, WTF?
I commented on the meta portion (why Kevin's contribution was accepted--and remains here, in violation of BlueO policy), and I commented on the concept that the Merkleys filing paperwork is in question...given that the campaign doesn't deny it:
A spokesman for the Merkley campaign, Matt Canter, did not deny Merkley and his wife Mary Sorteberg submitted a charter school application on behalf of their son.Typically if the allegation is false, the first thing a campaign does is...deny it. Why would they refuse to do so here? In any case, I never said they filled out an application; I said they filed paperwork--which as was explained, could have taken other forms such as a request for a tour, etc.
Talk about diverting the conversation! The MSM raises a point about Merkley in one of its stories which the campaign doesn't deny, a Merkley supporter abuses the privilege of using BlueO for a guest column (which BlueO ed staff approved despite there not being much of any relevancy within)--and suddenly it becomes torridjoe pushing a story against Merkley? Don't you think it's a little odd that of ALL the bad news coming out for him the last couple weeks, this story would be the ONE ITEM I didn't write about at LO?
I've also never heard the argument before, that the GOP's ability to find lots of things to criticize Merkley on is a POSITIVE thing for Jeff. As for ignoring Novick, his primary opponent has tried the same strategy for much of the last six months...but seems to have given that up this week as well. Welcome to the primary, Jeff!
Posted by: Urban Planning Overlord | Feb 29, 2008 10:35:53 AM
If neither Merkley nor Novick support charter schools, a reasonable response by those opposed to public school monopoly and mediocrity short of a voucher program, they've just chalked up another reason for me to vote for Gordon Smith in November.
It's sad if we have to replace a Senator beholden to right-wing special interests with a Senator beholden to left-wing special interests.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Feb 29, 2008 11:01:14 AM
Yes, yes, whom to believe: The decades old Pulitzer Prize winning alternative weekly newspaper, or the guy who sits in his garage all day making those oh-so-soothing rain sticks.
Nigel Jaquiss won a Pulitzer Prize. Beth Slovic has been a lousy journalist since well before this story was published.
This whole story is just dumb. God forbid that Merkley should be a responsible father and look into all the options for the future success of his child.
Posted by: Mark Schwebke | Feb 29, 2008 11:18:34 AM
It's rather clear that teachers unions hate charter schools, as do most advocates of a strong public school system. So, there you have it.
Teachers unions do not hate charter schools, that's just more right-wing nonsense. As long-time President of the national AFT, the late Al Shanker initiated the idea for charter schools in 1988 and set off a movement that has spread to 25 states. What AFT disagrees with is siphoning off scarce public school dollars for private charter schools set up basically to keep these schools non-union. It's a union-busting tactic pure and simple.
Albert Shanker introduced the notion of charter schools to the nation in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Shanker saw the creation of charter schools as a boon to improved education for all students. These schools would be created by groups of teachers, or parents with teachers, who wanted to develop a new curriculum or teaching strategies to improve both instruction and student learning. The groups would petition the district for the opportunity to bring this about. The school board would grant authority to groups of teachers to carry out particular innovations for a limited period—three to five years—and the goals, objectives, and responsibilities of both the district and the teachers would be articulated in the charter. Program monitoring and evaluation would be core elements of the charter school program, and renewal of the charter would be dependent on the information developed through such evaluations. Over time, the successes of these charters would set in motion a "cycle of curriculum improvement and renewal" and would influence the manner in which educational services were delivered to all students in the district.
If implemented properly, charter schools not only could increase parental choice, free teachers and administrators from bureaucratic red tape and encourage innovation, but they also could add value by increasing student achievement by at least as much as was expected in the traditional school setting. Since that 1988 speech, charter schools, albeit of a very different kind, have become a part of the education landscape, supported by state and federal legislation. Today, more than 2,100 schools, serving over 500,000 students, are operating in 37 states and the District of Columbia. In many instances, the original notion of teachers as innovators and education entrepreneurs to advance learning has been transformed into a rhetoric of reform by choice and competition—with improved student achievement taking a back seat to parental and student satisfaction.
The only comprehensive report available to the public that uses the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to compare student achievement in charter schools with achievement in other public schools. In that report, NAEP results are reported exactly as they would be in an official NAEP report, including all data qualifications used by NAEP regarding statistical significance and data reporting standards.
In addition to the 2005 NAEP student achievement results, the report also includes 2003 NAEP findings.
In one area, the 2003 results appear to differ from a recently released, federally funded study by Sarah and Chris Lubienski at the University of Illinois, which analyzed public, private and charter school student achievement using the 2003 NAEP math scores.1 For eighth-grade math in 2003, the study reports a five scale score point advantage for public schools, but it was not statistically significant. The Lubienski study found a 0.5 scale score point advantage for charter school eighth-graders over public school eighth-graders, which grew to a 2.4 scale score point advantage after controlling for demographics and location, although neither difference was statistically significant. Our results appear to differ because the Lubienski study weights each school equally and small charter schools scored higher; when the results are reported for students rather than schools, as we do, public schools have the same five-point advantage.
Another analysis reported some findings identical to those in the study, but in a selective manner. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, using the NAEP Data Explorer (the same data source used in the report), presented only a few comparisons between charter and other public schools.2 The conclusions they drew are not consistent with NAEP reporting standards. According to the Alliance:
Fourth graders attending charter schools are making notable strides in math and particularly in reading. African-American, Latino, and low-income charter students registered larger reading gains than their fourth-grade peers in non-charter public schools.
As the study shows, charter school students in 2005, on average, scored the same or lower in almost every comparison with public school students. Math scores for both charter and other public schools rose from 2003 to 2005 by approximately the same amount. In reading, the increase in average charter school scores between 2003 and 2005 was larger than the public school increase over the same period, but the average charter school score was lower than in other public schools. It is important to note that “gains” or “increases” do not refer to the progress of individual schools or students. One sample of schools and students in 2005 is compared to another sample of schools and students in 2003. Consequently, the statistical significance is crucial in determining real change. The change in charter school scores overall, for low-income students in math and for racial/ethnic groups in both subjects, are not statistically significant.3 The change in reading from 2003 to 2005 for low-income students is the only statistically significant change for charter schools.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 29, 2008 11:49:30 AM
Teachers unions do not hate charter schools, that's just more right-wing nonsense. As long-time President of the national AFT, the late Al Shanker initiated the idea for charter schools in 1988 and set off a movement that has spread to 25 states. What AFT disagrees with is siphoning off scarce public school dollars for private charter schools set up basically to keep these schools non-union. It's a union-busting tactic pure and simple.
Thank you, Mark! That is the crux here.
Even if Merkley had sent his kid to a charter school or even a private parochial school like the ones I attended growing up, it would be utterly irrelevant to whether and to what degree he has supported both public school funding and public employee unions like the AFT.
Posted by: joel | Feb 29, 2008 12:16:54 PM
There is nothing intrinsically either right-wing, libertarian, or Christo-fascist about the idea of charter schools. I know perfectly reasonable, rationale, Democratic-voting people who have been involved in efforts to create charter schools.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Feb 29, 2008 12:34:34 PM
UPO sez: "It's sad if we have to replace a Senator beholden to right-wing special interests with a Senator beholden to left-wing special interests."
I believe there are other choices on the ballot, Overload, both in the Dems primary and a certain Non-affiliated fellow.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 29, 2008 12:36:09 PM
Hmmmm.... It seems to me that Rob Kremer may have violated Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). When I worked at Lewis & Clark College, the FERPA rules were drilled into our heads over and over.
Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):* School officials with legitimate educational interest;
* Other schools to which a student is transferring;
* Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;
* Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;
* Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;
* Accrediting organizations;
* To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;
* Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and
* State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.
Posted by: Harry | Feb 29, 2008 12:48:18 PM
"TJ, have you no shame?" (who is not TorridJoe) writes:
"Fact #6 - Rob Kremer has held himself out as someone trustworthy enough to hold public office in the field of education. I can't think of an area where respecting confidentiality is more important than the field of education. To date, no one has written a story about this egregious violation of privacy by a very public person. (In addition, every parent and student at this charter school should ask if their privacy will be thrown under a bus if the school finds it useful at a later time.)"
--------------
Rob's response from his blog:
"I was the source of the story for Willamette Week, and over on their site, I’m getting hammered by some commenters who think I somehow did something unethical by “revealing” that he applied to Arthur Academy.
I don’t think so. I never thought it was that big of a deal. And this is not secret information. He applied back in 2004, and I was actually very pleased that we obviously had a convert to the movement. We didn’t get the school opened that year because our facility fell through, so the Merkley application was never processed. If we had opened the school, his application would have been in the lottery with all the others."
----------
Bottom line:
Merkley's application is public info.
Just like Merkley's salary as a public employee.
And TorridJoe's (though maybe slightly harder to locate).
And lotsa other information that is public.
But not Kari's salary he pays himself, since his is a private enterprise.
But to address the real issue (not the food fight between Novick-poeple and Merkley-people), Jeff and his wife considered any and all venues to further their child's education, just like Bill&Hill did with Chelsea, and everybody else does with their children.
Choice is good. Make the choice that's best for you.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 29, 2008 12:51:11 PM
Merkley's application is public info.
No, student applications are NOT public information. Seriously, call up the U of O and ask to see a kid's college application -- they'll laugh at you.
Posted by: Timmy | Feb 29, 2008 1:06:14 PM
I don't think Kremer did anything other than tell WW that Merkley had applied to the school. How he came to know this I don't know, but the sequence was:
-Kremer tells Nigel
-some months later WW asks Merkley campaign, they confirm.
How could this be a FERPA violation? It's not as if Kremer released a student file or anything like that. Bottom line it was a rumor, confirmed.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 29, 2008 1:15:05 PM
Without knowing the particulars of what exactly was released, it's hard to know whether there's a FERPA violation or not.
If I was Rob Kremer, I'd just be thanking my lucky stars that it's generally considered a poor campaign strategy to go around suing people.
FERPA is very, very strict. Football coaches, for example, can't even describe a player's injury without consent from that player. Some "directory information" can be released without consent (but with notice), and this may fall under that - but usually applications are well inside FERPA.
When I worked at the college, we'd often say, "Really? We can't even say X under the FERPA rules? That's ridiculous!" Very, very strict.
Given how non-intuitive the FERPA rules are, I wouldn't be surprised that a political hack like Kremer might accidentally stumble into a FERPA violation when trying to screw with a candidate.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 29, 2008 1:15:39 PM
I just realized that I haven't disclosed on this post yet. My company built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak here only for myself.
Posted by: Miles | Feb 29, 2008 1:27:02 PM
This whole story is just dumb. God forbid that Merkley should be a responsible father and look into all the options for the future success of his child.
I totally agree Nick. Which is why I find it so strange that Merkley partisans are desperately trying to deny that he did, in fact, express interest in sending his son to a charter school. The whole "Beth Slovic only had one source so it's probably not true" schtick is just weird.
What's also weird is the Merkley campaign's splitting of hairs, that Jeff and his wife inquired about the school, "check(ed) it out", but "never seriously considered sending their son there." This is a Bill Clinton "didn't inhale" defense. Whatever. I just wish Merkley had said "Yes, we looked into the charter school as one possible option for our son, and decided not to send him there."
Sometimes the best way to make a non-story into a story is to protest too loudly.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 29, 2008 1:31:13 PM
Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record.
How does this apply to the Merkley child? He was not a student of the school, and as far as I can tell no information from his "education record" was released (only that the record existed). The form itself is not an education record, although transcript or other academic info on it certainly might be.
If all that's holding back the lawsuit is the potential for the Merkley campaign to engage in poor strategy, I'd still be worried if I were Kremer. :)
Not releasing health information such the athletic injury example would be under HPPA just as much as FERPA, I'd think.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 29, 2008 1:32:04 PM
Posted by: Timmy | Feb 29, 2008 1:06:14 PMI don't think Kremer did anything other than tell WW that Merkley had applied to the school. How he came to know this I don't know, but the sequence was:
-Kremer tells Nigel
-some months later WW asks Merkley campaign, they confirm.
What leads you to believe that they confirmed anything?
Think about this for a minute. Beth Slovic said (twice!) that Matt Cantor "did not deny" the allegation. Without a direct quote it's hard to say what she bases that assertion on. But let's assume that Cantor declined to give an answer at all and Slovic interpreted that to be "did not deny," which would technically be true.
Since when does a refusal to answer equal confirmation? It doesn't and never has... anywhere outside of dictatorships. There are very good reasons why our legal system makes the opposite assumption with a refusal to answer. It's because it's the only FAIR conclussion a refusal to answer will logically support.
I'm not saying Cantor refused to answer. I really don't know what he said because Slovic didn't quote any of it. But her assertion that his "did not deny" equals a confirmation is not morally, ethically, legally or logically tenable.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 29, 2008 1:32:38 PM
"Sometimes the best way to make a non-story into a story is to protest too loudly."
...for instance, by writing a column about it on the state's largest political blog. :)
Posted by: Marc Abrams | Feb 29, 2008 1:33:44 PM
Kevin --
"Right wing talk show 'Kremer & Abrams?'" Have you ever listened? Last time I noticed, it was a left v. right talk show on a right wing station. But hey, what do I know? I'm only "& Abrams."
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 29, 2008 1:36:45 PM
I can attest that BlueOregon contributor (and former DPO chair) Marc Abrams is definitely not right-wing.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 29, 2008 1:38:01 PM
Miles: The whole "Beth Slovic only had one source so it's probably not true" schtick is just weird.
You may not have any use or respect for journalistic ethical standards, in which case you're probably fine with what Faux News spews on a regular basis.
Some of us have an ethical compass and we're no more prepared to surrender it to you than we are to Dick Cheney.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 29, 2008 1:39:48 PM
What leads you to believe that they confirmed anything?Think about this for a minute. Beth Slovic said (twice!) that Matt Cantor "did not deny" the allegation.
She also said the Merkley campaign CONFIRMED it. Where did she say that? In direct response to YOU, in the first link you cite above:
Kevin, if your mother told you she loved you, I would question that. Kremer told me something. I asked the Merkley campaign. His spokesman confirmed it. Funny how that works.
??
Posted by: Pat Malach | Feb 29, 2008 1:40:34 PM
"Some of us have an ethical compass"
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .
Y'otta take that act on the road Kevin.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Feb 29, 2008 2:15:15 PM
It's the same thing we saw when I diaried over at LoadedO about Merkley's non-support of same sex civil marriage, or certain tax reforms. He PERSONALLY explained his positions to me, and his supporters spent days screeching that I was wrong, or lying, or whatever. Or even (my favorite -- thanks Jeff Alworth!) that I hadn't told him I was going to write a blog diary about it and therefore I was somehow in the wrong.
The whole time neither he personally, nor anyone representing his campaign, came forward and said I made a single mistake.
Seriously. Dudes, own his record and run on it. It is what it is. So he tried to get his kid into a charter school? It's a fact! Deal with it. You have rationalized far worse things already in this campaign.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 29, 2008 2:43:08 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 29, 2008 1:39:48 PM
She also said the Merkley campaign CONFIRMED it.
Great! Then she shouldn't have any problem backing it up. Neither of her pieces even approach backing it up.
Talk is cheap. Some talk the talk and some walk the walk. So far Beth Slovic's walk is limited to one conservative source who may have violated the law in divulging what he did. Of course if no application exists then he'd not be guilty of breaking any laws because no confidentiality was breeched.
Either way, Beth Slovic clearing this up by substantiating her allegations would be appropriate and welcome.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Feb 29, 2008 2:47:08 PM
Hello?!!
She also said the Merkley campaign CONFIRMED it.Great! Then she shouldn't have any problem backing it up. Neither of her pieces even approach backing it up.
His campaign CONFIRMED IT. It's a DONE DEAL. NEXT?!
Posted by: Pat Malach | Feb 29, 2008 3:12:12 PM
How many different names do you post under on these local political blogs, Kev?
I know of at least four.
Maybe you could check that fancy ethical compass of yours and get back to us with an answer.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 29, 2008 1:20:47 AM
I thought Blue Oregon's policy was that it had to be an original primary work to be a guest column. If I knew I could be a contributor and simply crosspost stuff from my own blog, I'd have signed up a while ago.
Are you really questioning whether the Merkleys filed any paperwork with the school? Is that a denial? Or just obfuscation? If you want to debate whether the application to a charter school is meaningful, that's worth discussing. But Canter's already admitted they showed interest, did he not?
This article, going up pretty late and in the wake of a positive Novick story, seems to lack its own beef IMO.