District Attorney David Prater Reports on Porter Investigation

David Prater, Oklahoma County District Attorney
District Attorney David Prater's office released the results of his investigation into the allegations made by the Oklahoma City School Board against Dr. John Q. Porter. The DA's investigation cleared Dr. Porter of all allegations of criminal wrongdoing by Dr. Porter. DA Prater's statement reads,

"The evidence uncovered during the investigation failed to prove that Dr. John Q. Porter committed any crimnal act. In fact, an number of documents discovered in possession of the school district tended to exculpate or explain away most of the allegations made against Dr. Porter."

While this statement would give support to those who feel that Dr. Porter has been exhonorated and the victim of a "palace coup" as I have alledged elsewhere in the blog, a report on interviews done with 19 administration employees and board members, including former board president Cliff Hudson, paint a picture of a superintendent who acted as a "bully" and tended towards paranoid behavior. One example of this is a report by school board member Gail Vines who said that Porter told him that people in the school administration offices were "ratting on" him. Porter also, some claimed, instructed his employees never to use e-mail or written notes to communicate with him insisting on phone or personal conversations. Porter, himself, claimed that there were "moles" in the administration who reported on him to Cliff Hudson among others.

In the end, the Dr. Porter's supporters and detractors will probably read into this report what they want to read. I am more inclined to feel that Dr. Porter's resignation was a "necessary evil" due to the fact that any hope of a good working relationship between him and the board was impossible.

I also think this strengthens my claim, one shared by many in the district, that the next superintendent should be an "insider" whom we know and whom we feel has credibility. At the least it can be said that Dr. Porter felt isolated having come from a far different environment, and it would seem that his management style in the administration building did not allow him to build kind of ethos he needed to lead the district and make the changes we all know need to be made to lift our district to a higher level.

Dr. Porter and Bill

The famous Chandos portrait assumed to be of William Shakespeare

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater Continues Investigation of John Porter

I guess it comes from being an English teacher, but, as I read the article I linked above, I kept hearing the lines from William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, "The evil that men do lives after them;/The Good is oft interred with their bones."

Nice to be able to show how the Bard still lives.

School Foundation Explains Its Role in Porter Settlement

The Oklahoma City Public Schools Foundation issued a communique explaining the part it played in the financial settlement with former Superintendent John Q. Porter. Evidently, there has been some concern that the money used to "pay off" Dr. Porter was taken out of Foundation scholarships and grants.

Below is the text of their letter:

Dear Principals and Teachers,

In the past few days and weeks, you have undoubtedly been reading many stories and hearing many reports about the serious issues between the Oklahoma City Public School District and former Superintendent John Q. Porter, as well as about the settlement of those issues and the role that Oklahoma City Public Schools Foundation played in the settlement. Since those public announcements, we have fielded many questions about the Foundation’s role in the process, and we want to give you the facts on the Foundation’s involvement.

The Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that is governed by a Board of Trustees; it is not a part of the School District nor is it governed by the School District. However, the Foundation’s entire reason for existence is to support the Oklahoma City Public School District – our mission is to facilitate collaboration between the community and the schools and to improve the quality of education for all students in the District.

Foundation programs, such as, Great Idea Team Grants, Student Scholarships, Arts Education Grants, National Board Scholarships, Stars of Education, Student InCENTives, or any other Foundation programs have not been affected in any way by this settlement agreement.

Donations received by the Foundation, both in the past and in the future, will continue to fund these vital educational initiatives for the educators and students in the Oklahoma City School District.

The Foundation did not specifically solicit donors to help the District fund the settlement agreement. During the week of January 7, several private donors approached the Foundation to ask whether the Foundation could play a role in facilitating a settlement between the School Board and the superintendent. Those donors assured the Foundation that they would fund any amounts needed for the settlement process that were in excess of amounts the School Board could pay, and the donors further assured the Foundation that these donations would be over and above the regular gifts that they give to the Foundation.

As stated in the Foundation’s press release, no donations or pledges previously made to the Foundation for other purposes were used to assist the District in finalizing the settlement. Only new monies that were donated specifically to fund the settlement process were used.

We hope these facts will answer any questions that you may have had. We are honored to serve the teachers and students of Oklahoma City Public Schools. We look forward to continuing opportunities to work with you in the future. Please contact us at (405) 879-2007 or at ocpsf-mj@swbell.net or ocpsf-rh@swbell.net if you have any further questions.

Very truly yours,

Mary Marks Jenkins,Executive Director
Robyn Hilger, Partners in Education Director

Porter and the School Board as Tragedy

Tragic Mask

I had hoped for some type of conciliation between Porter and the board. I imagined a scenario where wrongs would be righted, lessons would be learned, and all would be reconciled one with another.

I knew the scenario was almost impossible, and it was: the board settled with Dr. Porter and he, along with school board President Cliff Hudson, resigned. The outcome I hoped for only really happens in comedies. What happened was a tragedy, but that doesn’t make it all bad if we understand what a real tragedy is.

In literature, a tragedy, and I’m talking about those found in the works of Sophocles and Shakespeare, often comes about because good people do bad things because they are human and therefore flawed. I believe that in this case, we had many people, basically good, who made bad mistakes. The school board made the decision to hire Dr. Porter believing that he would be able to continue the progress begun with the MAPS for Kids project. Dr. Porter came in and made decisions based on flawed assumptions of board policy. He also made enemies unnecessarily because of his personality and management style.

Both can be blamed for their errors, but I believe both parties acted in good faith. Both exercised the best judgment each had. Both suffered the kind of fall that happens in a tragedy. Those of us given the awesome responsibility of educating the children who are our students must pick up the pieces and go on.

So, where do we go from here? In a classic tragedy two things happen which may provide us a model for how we must respond: recognition and catharsis. In a tragedy, those involved recognize their faults and take responsibility for the situation those faults have created. School board members, administrators, principals, teachers, and school patrons must recognize how we got here and how we can move forward. Ignoring the lessons taught by a tragedy catch one in a tragic cycle.

We must also rid ourselves of the angers and animosities this situation may have created. That’s what catharsis means: cleansing and renewal. We will have new leadership in the district. We should not saddle that person with our old divisions. Instead, we must take upon ourselves the responsibility of being agents of healing and change, For Our Children’s’ Sake.

Dr.John Q. Porter Resigns

Not a good day

After just 207 days on the job, Dr. John Q. Porter has accepted a settlement from the school board and the Oklahoma City Public Schools foundation and has turned in his resignation. The Foundation is a non-profit organization that works in partnership with the school district to improve educational quality.

My sources tell me that the money was raised by members of the community who feared that the Porter v. Board fight would imperil the upcoming March 4th vote to extend the life of a penny sales tax to help improve the Ford Center so that the Seattle SuperSonics will relocate to Oklahoma City. The sales tax was originally approved by voters to help improve schools in Oklahoma City, both in the OCPS district and the surrounding innerurban and suburban districts.

The source told me that those interested in the Sonics relocating had commissioned a poll to see how big a problem the situation with Dr. Porter was creating for the vote. Judging from the size of the settlement, $255,000 from the foundation and over $71,000 from the school board, I guess their polling data looked pretty worrisome.

I post my reaction to this ending, clearly not the "Win-Win" outcome for which I hoped and prayed, later. School Board President Cliff hudson also resigned from his position. So right now, this looks as though it is a "Lose-Lose" for everyone, except perhaps for the incompetent principals and administrators of our district.

Link to Oklahoman article

Porter, Hudson resign

Education Week Reports on Porter Situation

The situation with Dr. Porter has been reported in the education journal, Education Week by one of their reporters, Lesli Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell interviewed me and quoted some of my thoughts on the situation.

You can read Ms. Maxwell's article here:
Education Week Article

Dr. Porter Situation Made the Washington Post

This article discusses Porter's employment in the Montgomery County, Maryland school district as well as his situation in Oklahoma City.

Washington Post Article

Is the Case Against John Q. Porter a Matter of Personalities?

Oklahoma City School Board President Cliff Hudson

When one examines the allegations against Dr. Porter presented by Mr. McCampbell, the investigative attorney hired by the board, one sees that the allegations bascially fall into two categories: financial and personal. The financial allegations deal with reimbursement expenses Dr. Porter submitted which the board counsel considers unjustified and a large contract for a reading program Dr. Porter ordered without seeking competitive bidding. The rest deal with complaints by administrators and principals about how Porter has treated them.

The State Department of Education has affirmed that the reading program contracted by Dr. Porter is a "sole-source" program meaning that Dr. Porter entered into the contract in good faith believing that he was acting rightly. He can't be accused of "bid rigging" or graft in this matter. In other words, the dispute is a procedural one, not one of wrong doing.

The reimbursements have already been dealt with in this blog and in other venues. Porter can explain most and has accepted fault for the others. But again, the matter is one of policy and procedure invovling a man who has been in the district less than a year. In other times and places these have been matters of a reprimand at the worst and not an outright dismissal.

To me, that leaves only the matter of Porter's treatment of those he has been given the responsibility of directing. One person, in an anonymous interview on one of the television stations, spoke of Porter getting angry and using profanity against him. Other principals have spoken of being confronted by Dr. Porter in a demeaning manner.

Here is a man brought into the district for one main reason: save the MAPS for Kids project. The problems at the new John Marshall High School. This was brought about largely because of the MAPS for Kids committee boneheaded rush to open New JM when it was half finished. The principal and the staff where woefully unprepared to deal with the problems associated with bringing students from two widely different racial and socio-economic groups together in such a facility. Dr. Porter's first move was to deal with John Marshall, and by all indications, the moves he made were the right ones.

The problems in the district are not isolated in John Marshall. Porter has also confronted problems of long standing in our district. In doing so, he has created enemies, needlessly perhaps, but often necessary.

The problem of personalities is not solely within the schools and sub-ordinate administration. There are rumors that some board members dislike of Dr. Porter for their own personal reasons. One in particular is said to have soured on the superintendent because the member felt that Dr. Porter was "insincere" in his support near and dear to the member's heart.

This leads me to believe that the financial issue have less substance to them than we have been led to believe and that the case against Porter is a subjective one.

Can we practice the "3 R's"?

I'm not optimistic about the John Porter situation working out well. I've been told by those in the know that his fate is sealed, and he will be fired on February 6th. One source told me not to even bother calling the members of the board to voted for Porter's suspension Friday, "You'd be wasting your breath."

I hope not because I think that we should try to practice these "3 R's" in this matter:

Reprimand: Where wrong has been done, a reprimand should be issued with directions on how to do better in the future.

Repay: Pay back anything claims not supported by district policy. Direct that these policies will be strictly monitored and enforced in the future.

Reconcile: This is not "Forgive and Forget". We must learn from past mistakes and resolve to do better. But we get the focus off ourselves and turn it to the real reason why we are in this business: our children.

Perhaps even a 4th "R" should be include: Respect. Let us remember that all the people involved in this are bascially good people. Our school board members, including Cliff Hudson, are true "citizen-servants" who give of their time and resources for practically no pay and often much criticism. Dr. Porter has given his life to education and believes that children deserve our very best efforts. People may disagree with him about the means, but no one can dispute his intentions or his goals.

Why Wasn't Porter Told?

Oklahoma City Public Schools Superintendent John Porter speaks to the media Thursday at the Waterford Marriott in Oklahoma City. By NATE BILLINGS, THE OKLAHOMAN

One question that has come up, largely by those defending Dr. Porter, is why wasn't he told that some of the expense reimbursements he had submitted were excessive or not allowed by district policy.

This question was covered today in The Sunday Oklahoman in a story written by Wendy K. Kleinman and Jeff Raymond. Tammy Carter, the district's legal counsel, says that it's likely that the others involved in the reimbursement process likely felt they couldn't tell Dr. Porter his requests were wrong. Tammy sates, "Think about your boss — do you really think that you would have the authority to tell your boss, ‘I'm not going to OK your travel expenditures?' " {Sunday Oklahman, 13 Jan. 2008)

I know Ms. Carter. She is a good lawyer who has served the district well. The AFT has at times had to work for employees who have gotten into trouble, and Tammy has typically been fair and willing work with us where that is possible.

I do, however, have slightly different take on this. It would be wrong to blame subordinates for the faults of their supervisors. Dr. Porter himself says in this report that he does not blame others for his situation. However, I would hope that somebody might have been willing to give good advise to Dr. Porter. Sure, you don't want to tell the boss, "You're wrong" unless you want to risk your job. But you can say something like, "You know, boss, you might want to check some of these items out. I'm not sure they are going to fly with district policy." This would be particularly helpful with the new kid on the block.

Again, as I have repeatedly said, this doesn't look like a case of a man wanting to defraud. It looks like a man who made errors. The question is, do those errors rise to the level of the need to dismiss him. Do we gain more by this than we do by a reprimand, a replayment, and a reconciliation? That is what the school board will have to decide.

Sunday Oklahoman article "Why were receipts approved?"

OKC School Board Reaffirms Porter's Suspension

Friday, the School Board met again to reaffirm Dr. Porter's suspension. They had to have a "do-over" because their the first meeting violated the state's "Open Meetings Act". However, District Attorney David Prater saw nothing in the Board's actions that warranted prosecution.

According to an article by Jeff Raymond and Bryan Dean, reporter for The Oklahoman:

Prater said the language on the board's agenda Monday regarding the executive session did not spell out that board members were discussing Porter as required by an attorney general's opinion. . . . .

Prater said Monday's meeting more closely met the definition of a special meeting, which requires 48 hours' notice.

"I don't think this action rose to the level of a criminal violation regarding any attempt to conceal or hide the action the board was trying to do at that time,” Prater said.

[The Oklahoman, 12 Jan. 2008]

As I said earlier, I trust David Prater implicitly. If he feels this is a technicality, then that settles it for me.

School board affirms Porter action

Allegations Against Dr. Porter

A Matter of Money?

I found this list of the allegations the OKC School Board has against Dr. Porter. They come from a blog written by Mark Shannon of the local radio station KTOK. The summary includes an explantion of the charges by Robert McCampbell, a former U.S. Attorney hired by the school district to investigate Dr. Porter. Following this, there is a summary of Dr. Porter's response to the allegations.

Allegations Against Dr. Porter

Dr. Porter has offered to make resitution for expenses not allowed by district policy. He claims that he did not have anyone to advise him that he was making unjustifiable claims. If this procedure is a result of a "palace coup" as I have stated in a previous entry, Porter might not have had colleagues willing to steer him in the right direction since they would have a vested interest in seeing him fail.

One thing I have repeatedly stated is that Dr. Porter does not seem to have tried to conceal his actions. Every teacher knows there are many ways to hide the fact that you skimming money. Every teacher knows that handling money of any kind in a achool is always a risk. Many teacher refuse to sponsor any type of school activity because they invaribly involve money. I get the "heebee geebees" when I have to collect funds for things like National Honor Society dues or field trip bus fare.

If Dr. Porter was intentionally grafting money, that would be one thing. But it seems to me that all the allegations dealing with money cited by Mr. McCampbell are reimbursements which McCampbell considers either excessive or unjustified. If that is true, this seems to me to be a correctable error, not a reason for dismissal.

Agents of Change/Agents of the Status Quo

Time to Leave the Status Quo Behind

Some people have asked me why I am even bothering to support Dr. Porter at all. Of course, I advocate that Dr. Porter and the Board come to a mutual reconciliation that will certainly involve some form of reprimand and payback. This I term atonement.

But this does not answer the question as to why I feel it would be a mistake to fire Dr. Porter. This very issue was discuss at our last meeting of the officers of the American Federation of Teachers, my union. We came up with 3 main strengths we feel Dr. Porter has:

1. He has sought the advice of teachers. It's funny that this should be so unusual, but this hasn't happened with many past superintendents in our district. Dr. Porter has the radical idea that those who deal with students directly might know something of what is needed in our schools. This may be one reason why certain principals have sided against him. (Interestingly enough, my principal, a very competent leader, is supporting him.)

2. He has gone after incompetent principals. As stated below, he has said that 20 to 25 percent of the principals in our district are not doing their job. He has not minced words about this when dealing the the principals themselves. Neither has he spared teachers, but he is the first we know to publically acknowledge our problems with our principals.

3. Most importantly, Dr. Porter has been an agent of change. Our district must change if it is to get better. We need someone who has the courage to seek change if this is to happen because it hasn't happened with the last few leaders we have had. Change causes pain. Change agents are considered divisive. They gain enemies.

What we are seeing, in my opinion, are the Agents of the Status Quo pushing back against Dr. Porter. They are comfortable with the way things have always been done. They go to work day after day feeling that they are doing their jobs. But they simply keep the routine going. As someone said of them, "They are unaware that they are unaware."

Our message is simple. We have a failed system in our district. We have good teachers and many good principals and administrators, but they are all working within a failed system. Our question is, when will we ever have a chance to get it right if we allow the Agents of the Status Quo defeat the Agents of Change?

New Information Regarding Dr. Porter's Suspension

A Palace Coup in OKC?

I have received new information considering the situation behind the move to oust Dr. John Porter from the position of Superintendent of the Oklahoma City Public Schools.

This information has led me to believe that what we are seeing is nothing short of a palace coup. I have known for some time that Dr. Porter's selection as superintendent dismayed certain holdovers from the previous administration of Supt. Bob Moore. These individuals, particularly one man, felt they should be the ones put in charge of the Oklahoma City School District after Moore left for Texas. Their ranks grew as Dr. Porter began to make changes in district policy and personnel. In particular, some of the Regional Administrators felt that Porter was demanding radical changes in their behavior. Porter's confrontational style of management made them determined work for his removal.

Their ranks began to swell as Porter then began to demand accountability from building principals telling them to "improve the product of their work" or risk being fired. Porter made statements acknowledging that 20-25% of the principals in the district were incompetent and needed to be replaced.

Our district must change in order to improve. No one can claim that we can keep doing what we've always done and make improvements. We must get rid of those unable or unwilling to do their jobs. This includes teachers as well as administrators. Incompetent teachers make all of our jobs more difficult and should be weeded out.

But even a school with a solid teaching corp can be thwarted by an incompetent administrator, one who fears disciplining unruly students and their enabling parents, one who is too lazy to guide and motivate struggling teachers, one who uses "divide and conquer" methods to manage staff. The teachers of this district have waited too long for a superintendent who is willing to confront these principals and make the changes necessary to correct the situation.

The Oklahoma City School Board is meeting on Friday to revisit this issue. They have had to do so because the meeting at which they suspended Dr. Porter seems to have been in violation of the state's Open Meetings Law. I urge them to use this meeting to examine new evidence which has come to light in this case. I urge them to seek reconcilition with all those involved.

OKCPS School Board Under Investigation

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater
The twisting and turning saga of Dr. Porter has taken a new twist. Now the school board is being investigated for possibly violating the Oklahoma state Open Meetings Law. Our DA David Porter was made aware of the possible violation by The Oklahoman.

I know David. He is a good, fair man. He will handle this fairly. It once again shows me that there has been enough mistakes on both sides that they should try to come together in a spirit of reconciliation and humility. For the kids' sake!

City board faces test

Let the School Go On

Let's Get Going!

I remember a old spiritual with the title "Let the Church Go On". I don't remember much of the lyrics other than the title phrase, but I recall the thrust of the song was that whatever problems we may have with one another in the church, the important thing is for the church to go on, keep moving forward.

I wish we could do that with our present crisis we are having in the Oklahoma City Public School District. Cannot we let the schools go on?

Rally for Dr. Porter--A Need for Atonement and Reconciliation

For Our Children's Sake

Last night at the Fairview Missionary Baptist Church there was a meeting and rally for Dr. John Q. Porter. About 600 people attended. Rev. Reed, the Fairview pastor, hosted the meeting. According to an article in The Oklahoman " 'We are all calling for his reinstatement. We are going to, as a community, work towards that end because his concern is children, not the politics,” the Rev. John Reed said" (The Oklahoman 1.9.08). I have much respect for Rev. Reed. He has been a big friend to labor and education.

I fear that if the Board fires Dr. Porter the harm caused in the community will last a long time. I think that we should work for reconciliation. Dr. Porter has shown that he is willing to acknowledge his mistakes. I think we should find the appropriate atonement for those mistake and, for our children's sake, move on.

Porter backers fight for his job