Moscow Charter School and the Sunset Clause

[DonaldH675@aol.com]

Dear Visionaries:
Recent comments about the elimination of the sunset clause prompt this 
letter.  I share with Rep. Trail a deep concern about the possibility of 
school vouchers in Idaho.  I am therefore committed to the concept of charter 
schools, which by definition are public schools, with oversight provided by 
the state and/or local sponsoring district.  The Moscow Charter School 
charter is held by the Moscow School District.  Charter schools operate with 
an organizational/curricular flexibility that, I believe, at this early stage 
of development, should be closely monitored by the public as well as state 
and local educators.  On February 12, 2001, I sent the following letter to 
Rep. Trail and Sen. Schroeder.  Following the letter please continue reading 
for an update on the issues addressed in the letter.  I apologize for the 
length of this email but the situation is complex and warrants, I believe, 
serious attention.   
RH

January 12, 2001

Dear Representative Trail and Senator Schroeder:

I know that you will soon be receiving letters and comments on the proposed 
changes to the "Sunset Clause" currently part of the charter school 
legislation.  Many people will urge you to present legislation that will 
eliminate it.  While I understand that the "Sunset Clause" represents a 
barrier in seeking financial backing for new building construction, I believe 
it is crucial to take a measured approach toward repealing it.  Among my 
reasons for this position are the following points:
1. Currently the Moscow Charter School attorney, Brian Thie, the Moscow 
Charter School Director, Mary Lang, and the Board of the Moscow Charter 
School are arguing (in the legal sense) that they are not a public school, 
but in fact a non profit corporation.  Thus, for example, they refuse to 
provide minutes of past board meetings, or public financial records upon 
request, since only members of the Board are "legitimate" members of the 
corporation, and have the right to see the minutes or other related public 
material.  It is hard for me to believe that this claim to corporate 
protection of privacy was the intention of the legislature in regard to 
charter schools.
The State Board of Education, not surprisingly, holds a different perspective 
than Brian Thie's and is working to clarify the issue.  Carolyn Mauer, Bureau 
Chief of Curriculum and Accountability, has been very responsive and 
courteous in trying to solve this problem.
2. Currently, the State Board of Education can only "recommend" that charter 
school board members avoid the appearance of impropriety. The rules that 
apply to boards of trustees don't necessarily apply to the governing board of 
a non-profit corporation. Therefore, many charter school boards include 
spouses of staff or employees - a situation that implies by its very nature 
at least a potential conflict of interest.  In the case of the Moscow Charter 
School, Mary Lang's husband, Joseph Thompson, and Jason Albrecht, husband of 
the 1st grade teacher are both on the board.  To further complicate matters, 
Katrina Dasenbrock, a former business partner of Mary Lang's, and current 
owner of the Educational Turning Points Opportunities Corporation is also on 
the board.  Ms. Dasenbrock holds a lease for a building on the newly 
purchased (anticipated) school site.  Ms. Dasenbrock and Mary Lang are 
currently working out the details of a new lease.  It is interesting to note 
that until the filing of the Annual Report in December 2000, Mary Lang was 
listed as the corporate vice president of Ms. Dasenbrock's day care.  The 
following link showing this connection is from the Access Idaho web site. 
http://www.accessidaho.org/apps/sos/corp/document.html?id=CORPARTICLE%23127433

&title=04+Feb+1999+-+INCORPORATION+%28EDUCATIONAL+TURNING+POINT+OPPORTUNITIES%

2C+INC.%29&page=1&subaction=print

This year's filing shows Mary is no longer being a board member:
http://www.accessidaho.org/apps/sos/corp/document.html?id=AREPORTS%23%23%23%23

00357545&title=22+Dec+2000+-+2000+ANNUAL+REPORT+&page=0&subaction=print

These points are troubling to me. They don't seem to reflect a board that is 
disinterested in the outcome of financial or personnel matters.

It is my sense that perhaps it would be helpful if the "Sunset Clause" was 
retained at least until the five year time period has elapsed.  While it does 
constrain building activities, it also provides time for a specific school to 
mature, faculty and administrators to stabilize, long range educational plans 
to be developed and implemented, and a reasonable time frame in which to 
demonstrate (and evaluate) a public record of responsible education and 
decision making.  

In reviewing the evaluative document [Program Report, Idaho Charter Schools 
Program Evaluation Report Year One] prepared by the Northwest Regional 
Education Laboratory for the Idaho State Department of Education in July 
2000, regarding charter schools, I am struck by the wide diversity of 
philosophies, local district support, and educational scope of Idaho's 
charter schools.  It seems probable that not all these schools will be 
operating five years from now.  Will the state have to bear some of the 
financial losses associated with school closure if the Sunset Clause is 
revoked prematurely?

Instead of removing the "Sunset Clause" I would instead suggest that you 
consider sponsoring legislation that will clarify ambiguities in the current 
statute so that Charter School boards, administrators, patrons, (and 
attorneys) are clear about their responsibilities.  It would also be most 
helpful if a clear line of oversight and accountability was established. At 
this time the state cannot revoke a charter because the local district 
issuing the charter retains that power.  On the other hand, the district 
issuing the charter has (to my understanding) limited administrative 
oversight of the charter school. Is it possible, aside from curriculum 
flexibility, that legal expectations for Charter Schools could be exactly the 
same as those standards for public schools? 

Thank you for taking the time to read this, I know the next few months are 
very busy ones for you.  If time allows, I would appreciate a respond to my 
concerns.  Meanwhile, I wish you both an interesting and rewarding 
legislative session.

Sincerely,
Rosemary Huskey
1033 Canyon Road
Moscow, Idaho 83843
email: DonaldH675@AOL.com

UPDATE:
On January 29, 2001 an attorney for the state board of Education issued a 
legal opinion that the minutes from charter schools are indeed public records 
and must be available for public scrutiny.   It was with a certain amount of 
irony, (after we actually had access to the Moscow Charter Bylaws) that we 
read in (Article 5 - Section 2 Books and Records of the Moscow Charter School 
Bylaws: "as a public school the corporation shall comply with the requirement 
of Title 9, Chapter 3 of the Idaho Code relating to public writings" ) and 
learned (what clearly the administrators, members of the board of directors, 
and attorney, must have been aware of all along) we did have a right to see 
the minutes.  Instead, it took us three months time, several written 
requests, countless telephone calls, and finally the involvement of the State 
Department of Education to gain this seemingly simple objective. The public 
can now read most of the minutes of the Moscow Charter School. (Some are 
still being reviewed by the school attorney to protect confidentiality.) They 
are available at the Moscow Charter School library.  As a public service, and 
to save others the time and money we spent gaining access to these records 
they have been scanned and placed on line at www. moscowcharter.com .  
It is my understanding that Katrina Dasenbrock resigned from the Board of 
Trustees following the January 30th charter school board meeting. 

My letter to Senator Schroeder and Representative Trail addresses just some 
of the issues that concern me about oversight and operation of charter 
schools.  Successfully meeting the educational needs of Idaho children 
requires a variety of approaches, and certainly charter schools should be 
among the options.  But until an established record (and I don't believe five 
years is excessive) of service and educational achievement is completed and 
professionally evaluated, I believe a cautious approach best serves the needs 
of our school children and provides the wisest use of our tax dollars. The 
ability to borrow money to finance a new school building is a much lower 
priority (at least to me) than many of the more pressing challenges facing 
charter schools in the state. 

Rosemary Huskey
1033 Canyon Road
Moscow