D.C. teacher firings prompted by bad math

[Anonymous]

"I was incredulous to learn in your...presentation to the Council on the contract, you asserted that a surplus is available to fun the proposed salary increases based on preliminary information," Gandhi writes. "I am at a loss to understand why you did not consult with me directly or with any of my DCPS financial staff about the viability of the proposed package prior to your public announcement."

from the City Paper blog

So what do y'all think happened here? Novice mistake by Rhee or Gandhi trying to cover his ass or both?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:From:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2010/04/15/gandhi-tells-rhee-that-34m-surplus-does-not-exist/

There was a surplus but it was more than off-set by overspending by the central office. Also:

"In fact, Gandhi asserts that there not only is no surplus, but Rhee did not consult with the CFO's office prior to announcing a contract agreement. In other words, Gandhi says that Rhee signed a deal she didn't know how to pay for."

The Washington Post Editorial Board is going to have to be awful creative this time.

Hater. Hater! HHAAATTEERR!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a point-by-point explanation of why the Rhee-haters are wrong about this, just as they're wrong about quite literally everything:

--
Do you think you can participate in an adult conversation or debate without placing labels on people who disagree with you.

Yep, it is interesting how a person with legitimate criticisms of the school chancellor is dismissed with the label "Rhee hater." Someone asked on another thread why there is so much vitriol directed at Rhee. It doesn't help to dismiss your opponents as some kind of freakish "haters" who have no grounds for criticism.

To be fair, in that vein people should please also stop using the term "Rhee apologists" in their posts.

[Anonymous]

And here is the Rhee response to the Ghandi letter, it appears that there is still an open debate about what happened and how reasonable her reliance was on the information provided to her by Ghandi's office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/rhee_letter_gandhi.pdf?sid=ST2010041506193

[Anonymous]

Let the finger pointing begin. Ghandi has been around awhile and won't let Rhee through him under the bus. Interesting how we haven't heard a peep out of Fenty.

[Anonymous]

This whole situation is just incredibly depressing. I really want to be able to trust the folks who are running the DC government. Now it seems clear that at least one major player (Rhee or Gandhi) is incompetent or a liar or both--and maybe both of them are.

[jsteele]

As best as I can tell, here is what happened:

1) Dines told Rhee there was a surplus due to using the wrong figures for teacher salaries. However, it's not clear if Dines meant that there was a surplus in that line item, or a surplus in the overall budget.

2) Rhee, to her credit, told Dines to go back and check his figures.

3) Dines replied back with the essentially same story that there was a surplus.

4) Based on emails obtained by Bill Turque, as late as March 31, Rhee was still not comfortable with Dines' numbers.

5) Rhee is now using an analysis supplied by Dines on March 29 as justification. Rhee is probably correct in this regard, but is a bit disingenuous since her emails show that she was not satisfied with that analysis. It looks like she moved forwarded on the basis of an analysis that even she didn't believe. I'll give her credit for having good instincts about Dines' numbers.

6) Just speculation, but that fact that Rhee has managed to come up with an additional $29 million overnight (literally overnight) suggests that she had a fallback plan in the case that her suspicions of Dines' numbers were correct. If that's the case, I'll also give her credit for that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
6) Just speculation, but that fact that Rhee has managed to come up with an additional $29 million overnight (literally overnight) suggests that she had a fallback plan in the case that her suspicions of Dines' numbers were correct. If that's the case, I'll also give her credit for that.

I hope you're right about that. I found it suspicious that she came up with this so fast. But maybe you've got it right. Maybe she was really prepared. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out as everyone rushes to produce their version of events. It certainly is a circus!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole situation is just incredibly depressing. I really want to be able to trust the folks who are running the DC government. Now it seems clear that at least one major player (Rhee or Gandhi) is incompetent or a liar or both--and maybe both of them are.

A pox on both their houses. Rhee has shown the tendency to have a tenuous relationship with facts (although as Jeff points out, she may have been misled/appropriately suspicious in this situation). Gandhi appears to be made out of teflon - that he completely avoided responsibility/repercussions for the DC Tax Office scandal is just astonishing. He may have a great relationship with Wall Street, but I wouldn't trust his management skills any more than Rhee's.

[Anonymous]

I am a longtime DC resident, and I supported both the Mayor and Rhee in the beginning, but now, apart from their arrogance, I just CANNOT believe a thing they say.

[Anonymous]

I lost my faith in Fenty after he won the primary, which made him mayor elect, and flipflopped the very next day if I remember correctly on school control. The electorate never got a chance to vote on Fenty's platform because he hid it from the public. It was intellectually dishonest and not in the spirit of a democracy and actually, since it was premeditated, a type of fraud. Rhee is a liar. She told the Post she recused herself from the decision to fire the Oyster principal, then stood before the community and told us that she stood by her decision to fire the principal.

[Anonymous]

I also supported Fenty and was optimistic about Rhee, but now am fed up with the way DCPS is being run. Rhee was also less than truthful when asked about the Hardy principal possibly being removed. She claimed she had no plans to change the leadership of the school and 2 weeks later it was announced she was moving him to a non-existant position. Her testimony before the council also contradicted statements made to the Hardy community and PTA. I'm surprised no one has called her on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I lost my faith in Fenty after he won the primary, which made him mayor elect, and flipflopped the very next day if I remember correctly on school control. The electorate never got a chance to vote on Fenty's platform because he hid it from the public. It was intellectually dishonest and not in the spirit of a democracy and actually, since it was premeditated, a type of fraud. Rhee is a liar. She told the Post she recused herself from the decision to fire the Oyster principal, then stood before the community and told us that she stood by her decision to fire the principal.

Yes, this was quite upsetting. I had spent a long time agonizing over whether to vote for Fenty or Cropp and finally went with Fenty in the primary, which for all intents and purposes, is the DC mayoral election. Then he announced that he wanted to take over the school system before the general election -- so technically he ran on a platform and voters could choose but the reality is that he was basically already mayor of DC and never gave people a chance to vote on the takeover. Still, I was willing to be convinced that it was a good idea. And I think I may be convinced that having a chancellor is not a bad idea but Rhee is the wrong person for the position.