Why is Red Clay giving DCPA waviers on required monthly financial reports? Does Red Clay supersede state law?

Financial Reports

SY 2014 – 2015

Aug 2014

Sept 2014

Oct 2014

Nov 2014

Dec 2014

Jan 2015

Feb 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

Citizen Oversight Committee

SY 2013 – 2014 Minutes

Oct 2013

Dec 2013

Jan 2014

Feb 2014

Mar 2014

Title 14  Education ; Delaware Administrative Code /  Code 736 Local School District and Charter School Citizen Budget Oversight Committees

Title 14 Chapter 10

(a) Each school board member shall, before entering upon the duties of the office, take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the State of Delaware, and the laws of Delaware governing public education, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of school board member according to the best of my ability; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered or promised to pay, contributed, or offered to or promised to contribute, any money or other valuable thing as consideration or reward for the giving or withholding a vote at the election at which I was elected to said office, so help me God (or I so affirm).”

(b) The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the president or vice-president of the school board of the school district or in the case of a newly constituted board by a person appointed by the Secretary of Education to administer said oath.

So it appears Red Clay’s board turning a blind-eye makes them in violation of their oath of office.

DCPA is a mess because Red Clay’s board the legal charter oversight authority defaces state laws that governs them and charter schools. Even the vote back in May 2007 by the former Red Clay board whom a few are associated with charter school made an improper approval vote on DCPA. But I’ll admit the heart and soul now former founder and school leader Anita Roberson told a convincing story during that public presentation. But the DCPA board put the screws to her and perhaps she saw the power-play being pulled by the board as writing on the wall as what was to come!  

So why no monthly financial reports and who are the members of DCPA CBOC ???   


16 responses to “Why is Red Clay giving DCPA waviers on required monthly financial reports? Does Red Clay supersede state law?

  1. Publius e decere

    At least the school’s monthly financial reports appear current through June and they ran a surplus for all of last year. More than can be said for chronic-spending districts like CSD.

    Why don’t you give the Red Clay board president credit for the surplus and hold him accountable for the rest?



    • kilroysdelaware

      And how many outstanding invoices were held until new fiscal year, July 1. Where is their preliminary fy 2015-16 budget? Why is the hyperlink for the 2014 990 form not active? Also, look at 2013 990 page 8, Howard Johnson Executive Director Compensation $118,504 !!!!!!!! F’ing excessive. Look at net assets.


    • Publius e decere

      Someone should look into it. Why isn’t the Red Clay board president acting on this?

      Separately, I have heard that CSD is selectively refusing to transfer public dollars to some of the public schools attended by its residents. Now THAT is something someone should look into.


    • kilroysdelaware

      Sure Kenny should take notice. However, the Red Clay taxpayers funds / partially fund an administrative position to oversee Red Clay’s chartered schools. So my suggest is that person be fired for negligence of duty. Also, remind the super that he is responsible for his administrative appointees. What really suck is , we have a lawyer on the board and one would think her eyes would take notice of these legal infractions.


    • Publius e decere

      Will the Red Clay president act? Or just muddle and dither until he can blame someone?

      My guess is that the assigned employee has told upper management to close it down, but upper management has not taken on the responsibility. Leadership is accountable. Start at the top.

      Weak leadership provides weak oversight. Now that the board leader has read about it in the paper, what will he do? Hire an expert? Close it down like The Donald? Whine? Form a task force? As the WEIC co-chair his hands are tied. How lovely.

      You didn’t bite on my CSD comment. It is worth investigating. If it is true, board members should be reprimanded and censured, ideally recalled, followed by staff members being fired.



    • I’ve heard CSW has been selectively refusing to take certain students at their school, and that’s been going on for 17 years. How about we tackle that nut before we look at the perceived woes in CSD Publius…


    • Publius e decere

      Ask the Red Clay board president to investigate whether CSW is refusing to take certain students. Let us know what he finds.

      Ask the CSD board president to investigate whether CSD is refusing to transfer public money to choice schools. Let us know what she finds.


    • Why would I ask Kenny Rivera whether CSW cherry-picks students? All I have to do is look at the DOE School Profiles page to know that! Silly Publius, tricks are for kids.


    • And I find it hysterical you are talking about money. Do all charters return funds to the local district when a student leaves after September 30th? You hit the target, unfortunately the bulls-eye was on your own argument…


    • Publius e decere

      You keep pivoting off topic. Try to maintain focus.


    • Okay Mr. We were talking about Del. College Prep and you bring Christina into it. You are a walking hypocrisy…


  2. I can answer that, Publius. Cooke Elementary.


  3. Vice Chancellor Laster issued an opinion yesterday allowing the lawsuit against the Red Clay School District to proceed to trial. The lawsuit challenges the “get out the vote” tactics used by the School District in its last successful tax referendum. The opinion is long, dense, and full of legalese. But it says that some of the complainants’ allegations show violations of various state election laws and possible federal and state constitutional violations. The opinion is going to be a blockbuster about how school districts can act during referendum elections. It can be found on the “Delaware Courts” website under Chancery Court opinions.


    • Publius e decere


      In challenging Red Clay‘s electoral interventions as a whole, the Complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted under both federal and state law. Red Clay‘s motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

      The parties will proceed with discovery. Based on the materials submitted in
      support of the Complaint, it seems likely that there will be questions of fact that require a trial. Developments during discovery may prove that expectation incorrect, but the parties should consider whether it makes sense to devote resources to motions for summary judgment. Efficiency likely counsels in favor of a reasonably prompt trial that will enable the court to make factual findings and apply legal principles to the resulting record.
      Red Clay has the option of addressing the plaintiffs‘ contentions by returning to the electorate. This decision has concluded that the plaintiffs would not be able to state a claim for relief if Red Clay only engaged in certain types of conduct and avoided others, such as the Family-Focused Events and electioneering in close proximity to the voting rooms. If Red Clay called for a new special election and limited its electoral interventions, and if Red Clay‘s voters ratified the result of the February 2015 election by voting in favor of the tax increase, then this litigation would be moot.

      Shorter conclusion: No “parties”, no school or community events that day, no pulling seniors out of class, no “break time” for teachers to slip downstairs to vote, no hoary claims about how we will have no money to pay teachers, no Baltz Bear, no pizza, no use of the emergency call system for non-emergency politics, etc etc etc.

      It would be much easier … and visibly more neutral, to hold the elections at community centers, government offices and the like, rather than have these elections at the schools. Everyone working in the school (and having a pecuniary interest in the outcome) would have to wait until after work like the rest of the public and then have to drive “somewhere else” and park and stand in line while missing dinner — again, like the rest of the public.

      Chancery got it right. This is a clear case of selective asymmetric electioneering. Let’s erase the Etch-A-Sketch and run the game again — this time with unbiased umpires and an absence of performance-enhancing PR.



    • So… the court is finding there “may” be some inappropriate methods of holding referendums taking place? The cynical residents could in fact, have a point that our districts, up and down the state, AND throughout the country use propaganda and electioneering to get referendums passed. Where does that leave the residents who thoughtfully try and identify whats best for their children and community? Should they “believe” the advertising of the referendum or should they believe they are being Madoff’ed? Where and how does a district now dig out of that mistrust hole? It digs out by addressing the issues in a public, cost effective, VERY TRANSPARENT way. Deflecting, blaming, and scapegoating, will not mitigate the reality that the hole that’s been dug was dug by the districts. The public did not ask to be sold a bill of goods. The public asked that it’s institutions be conscientious, frugal and effective with the funds entrusted to them.

      I would also add that prior to any referendum proposal,
      1. The community at large should hold a mandatory poll for what it wants.
      2. The district should be audited by professionals who will have legally binding results. If they find too many junkets or inefficient contracts, unneeded staff, etc, the district will be compelled to address these before any request for more funds..
      3. The districts get ONE opportunity per year maximum for a referendum. ONE! No more, “Let’s ask for everything, see if they bite, if not, back up, re-formulate, claim you must pass it to protect “Our” children, re-vote 3 months later.” END THIS NONSENSE.
      4. Make the proposal accurate, community driven (not board meeting driven), and Realistic. No more package deals where the things the community wants are packaged with the pet project nobody but the super or board wants. We have enough of this with Congress. How’s their approval rating?