If you haven't been paying attention, it may surprise you to know that Denver faces one of the rarer political events in our democracy: recalling a representative from office. It will not surprise anyone that the recall effort is associated with another of Denver Public Schools Board of Education members. This time, however, the effort is not aimed at Andrea Merida, the most polarizing of DPS' board members. It is directed at the Board's president, Nate Easley.
Unlike the attempt to recall Merida, the community of NE Denver seems to be energized around getting rid of Easley. Their reasoning is pretty simple: because of a personal conflict of interest, Easley does not represent his constituents effectively.
The issue of conflicts of interest is at the forefront of Colorado politics at the moment, what with the controversy surrounding recently elected Secretary of State Scott Gessler. Upon taking office, Gessler decided that his government paycheck would not allow him to adequately provide for his family. So, like any good Republican, Gessler will keep a part time job as an attorney practicing election law.
Easley's plight is similar, except that school board representatives do not get paid. Easley works as the Deputy Director of the Denver Scholarship Foundation, an organization intimately associated with the Denver school system. In fact, District superintendent Tom Boasberg has an active leadership role on the foundation, as does Boasberg's closet school board associate, Theresa Peña. Together, Boasberg and Pena could exert tremendous professional pressure on Easley, who needs a paying job to feed his family.
On the other hand, as Board president, Easley is directly responsible for Boasberg's employment status at DPS. He oversees the preparation of Boasberg's professional evaluation. He has significant influence in Boasberg's compensation package. In theory, Boasberg should think of himself as reporting directly to Easley as long as Easley is Board of Education president.
As is typical in DPS, however, the tail wags the dog. Easley operates like Boasberg's henchman. If Boasberg wants it, Easley delivers. Nowhere is this clearer than in far Northeast Denver, which Easley represents.
In November, Easley voted to support closing schools, opening new charter schools, magnet schools, all with significant community opposition in Montbello and Green Valley Ranch. According to community members, they reached out to Easley on the issues surrounding the plan, and he was unresponsive.
Specifically, Easley missed multiple meetings with groups of community members, which is never a good policy for an elected official. Community members also point out that Easley has failed to notice meetings whereat school board members have discussed public business and made policy decisions, which has just fueled the fire of distrust between Easley and those he represents. Parents cite a general lack of accountability with Easley, who, they say, does not respond to emails or phone calls.
Far NE Denver resident Donna Moore, told me, "That's what Easley was elected to do - meet with us and represent us on the school board. He can't be bothered to do that, so he's got to go."
Most galling to some community members, however, is the belief held by some that Easley used Denver Scholarship Foundation funds to hire someone to interact with the community of NE Denver. In September, a CU Denver student sent an email to a group of community members, stating that he was attending meetings on Easley's behalf and that he was being paid to do so.
"Isn't that money [DSF funds] supposed to be used to help send our kids to college?" asked Jackie Skalecke, a far NE Denver resident and parent of a child at Montbello High School.
At a meeting held last Saturday, approximately 40 community members were volunteering to lead signature gathering efforts on the precinct level in NE Denver. Packets of registered voters sorted by precinct were available, and spirits were high. Plans were made to begin contacting registered voters by phone to facilitate the collection of signatures beginning this weekend.
"It's a lot of signatures, but I know we can do this," Skalecke told a group of parents.
The petition to recall Easley was approved by the Denver Election Commission at 1:00 PM today, January 26.
People interested in seeking information about the recall effort or wishing to participate should email info@defensedenver.com.
Follow Christopher Scott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cscottrun4it
Do you have a board of directors to provide transparent oversight for your fundraising and recall efforts?
If yes, who are they?
Andrea Merida has stated that she supports your efforts and was scheduled on an agenda to speak on behalf of DeFENSE recently at a public meeting. How involved is she in DeFENSE?
Have you filed with Denver City Clerks?
You solicit for donations but donations for what exactly?
What efforts would my money be funding? A recall effort? Educational research? And who is the money going to?
If a Republican organization was working as hard as DeFENSE to hide who is involved in their organization, I'm certain that you would be working as hard as many of us to get answers to these basic questions yet DeFENSE refuses to answer any of them.
Where can I view your documentation of your fundraising efforts, since you are clearly fundraising?
I followed your email link and that's an impressive website and seems to be a very organized community effort. Has DeFENSE been around long and what do they think the odds are of being able to get enough signatures because I think I'd be willing to get involved if I had a better idea who I'm getting involved with, particularly since my life partner does not want to be targeted at work (highly sensitive job) if we become involved in this effort.
As for odds, they are never great in any recall effort. The more people come out, the better the chance that the effort will be successful. I believe those supporting the effort need over 5000 signatures. As I quoted Ms. Skalecke as saying, that's a lot of signatures. However, Easley has irritated the community enough to whip it into a frenzy, so who knows?
For my part, I have openly written that Easley needs to be removed from office. His demeanor and governance style are not what is needed at DPS at this time. I guess I have to say, the community's complaints seem right on to me.