Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 10:08:23 AM MST
This diary is serving to host a chain of emails specifially between School Board Member Jeanne Kaplan,Michael Bennet, Tom Boasberg, Theresa Pena and the rest of the school board. This is to expose the notion that the calls for an audit of the 2008 DPS banking derivative investment are being driven by 'politically motivated board members' - which the email chain below will prove to be factually wrong. In fact it appears Tom Boasberg's and Theresa Pena's opposition to providing an audit is politically motivated to protect themselves and Michael Bennet.
I have redacted the names and emails of everyone except former Superintendent Michael Bennet, current Superintendent Tom Boasberg, school board President Theresa Pena, and Jeanne Kaplan - however the names of the other board members are in the public record.
Everyone reading this diary on other sites will be redirected here to see the full list of emails.
The purpose of the emails is to get information on details of the finances pertaining to the Bank Derivative investment by the board in April of 2008.
The time line of these emails begins a full 15 months before there was even a primary and more astoundingly, 7 months before Michael Bennet was appointed to the Senate.
| wade norris :: Bennet - Boasberg email trail on the Banking Derivative Swap
From: (Jeanne Kaplan)
Sent: Mon, Jun 2, 2008 4:31 pm
Subject: Judge's Ruling about funding
How much money will we be short with the reversal of Gov. Ritter's funding plan? What programs/schools will that affect?
What is our fall back plan?
Sent: Sun, Oct 12, 2008 10:44 am
Subject: Executive Session
Good Morning All -
I am hoping that part of our Exec Session tomorrow will include a financial update. If that is not part of the plan, may I request that we add that, please?
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2008 5:14 pm
Tom - can we have a quick update on District finances after or before tomorrow's meeting, including, estimated costs to date of what has been happening? Thanks.
From: Boasberg, Tom
To: Pena, Theresa
Cc: Bennet, Michael ;
Sent: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 4:22 pm
Subject: FW: DPSRS-PERA merger memo
Attached please find the final report of the dispute resolution panel regarding the methodology/pricing of the merger with PERA.
The panel had three members, one appointed by us and one by pera, with the third actuary recommended20by PERA and accepted by us.
The recommendation is generally very good. The panel recommends one of the three actuarial methodologies that DPS suggested. This methodology is similar to the methodology recommended by DPSRS but with one important modification that makes it consistent with one of our three proposed methodologies. The panel does not fa vor the methodology that was our first recommendation (in large part because of the vociferousness of pera's objections to it) but that is not a major concern since all three of our proposed methodologies (including the one recommended by the dispute resolution panel) produce roughly the same result. The key here is that the panel has rejected pera's attempts to extract a $20 million a year subsidy from dps to pera.
Pera did put pressure on the panel to recommend a different solution that is not consistent with the statute - establishing dps as a wholly separate division in=2 0pera - and the panel does recommend that approach as its first choice. The advantage of the separate division is that, since we would remain wholly separate, there would be no chance of subsidy from us to pera or vice versa. The panel notes that the law would have to be changed for this approach to go forward. Of course, the separate division does nothing for us - it would mean no change from today and pera has said they would seek to impose a price on us for any portability.
It is no surprise that, in light of the dispute resolution panel's recommendation in favor of the dsprs/dps favored methodology, pera is now seeking to back out of going forward with the merger. Pera is now saying that they favor the separate division approach.
We will sit down with pera and other interested parties to discuss and will apprise you of next steps.
#5 (one and a half months before Michael Bennet was appointed Senator)
From: (Jeanne Kaplan)
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:11 AM
To: Boasberg, Tom; Pena, Theresa's External;
Cc: Bennet, Michael
Subject: Re: DPSRS-PERA merger memo
Tom - I can't open the attachment, but is it still relevant? What is happening=2 0with the merger, since the papers indicates it is off? Also, can we get an update on our bond situation, please? Have we lost a lot of money? If so, how much? Are there ways to stop the bleeding? When will programs/salaries/ etc. be affected?
From: Boasberg, Tom
To: Jeannie Kaplan-
Cc: Pena, Theresa's Bennet, Michael
Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:04 pm
Subject: RE: DPSRS-PERA merger memo
Thanks. think the attachment is of limited relevance at this point. I think that we are going to try to spend some time at our board meeting this month talking about all these topics so we will have a chance to discuss in some detail .
To: (theresa pena)
Sent: Mon, Feb 9, 2009 8:21 pm
Subject: Lunch meeting
I am a little miffed as to why we canceled lunch this week. I did not realize you were looking for topics to discuss because as usual I have a long list of things I would like for the Board to talk about. These are not just my ideas but from other Board members as well. I have tried to combine and synthesize some thoughts.
A few items:
1. Policy of school closures so we aren't repeating Rishel and Knight (even though they may have been the correct decisions, we spent so much time and angst over our other school closures, it doesn't make sense to me that we don't have a policy going forward on how we are going to make these decisions).
2. Where is the IB coordinator position? What criteria are there? Who is writing this? Who is on the committee to hire?
3. CGCS report highlighting PD - a discussion on where is our PD, is it working, how are we measuring, accountability for all the PD money we are spending
4. Smiley story
5. Decision on which KIPP program is going into which building
6. $$ where are we really with the PCOPs refinancing and bond sales?
7. How are we working with our schools to go along with school sharing? What kinds of help, advice are we offering?
8. Where is the parental involvement piece in the SPF?
9. CALENDAR - when are we going to look at early release/late start so we can put out an official calendar?
10. #'s on dropouts
11. #'s on AP - kids taking; kids passing
12. Enrollment projections and concerns with our new schools.
There are just some of the topics I have been concerned with and have heard other Board members share their concern, so while I know not everyone wants to spend time discussing, I think we need to remember we are here to benefit our kids and families. Many of these items would involve work from the staff. We could just start talking.
Anyhow, that's my two cents. I think we actually have a lot on our plate at this time.
#8 (the first email after the Primary)
----- Original Message -----
From: (Jeanne Kaplan)
To: "TOM BOASBERG" ,
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 12:52:10 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Tonight's Conversation
I am hoping that tonight will be the beginning of a conversation about the future financial reality of DPS. As you probably know, I have been working with a group of people to try to figure out best next steps in this dire economic time. Several of the working group will be at the work session, and they are going to present some data.
Again, I think this should be the beginning of a conversation about what we are facing. The truth is we owe our constituents and our kids and our employees the reality of the future.
Cc: TOM BOASBERG ;
Sent: Mon, Apr 19, 2010 1:07 pm
Subject: Re: Tonight's Conversation
If you are referring to the PCOPS transaction, we have had multiple presentations on the issue dating back three years and this will be the 3rd conversation the BOE will have had in the last three months. The work session is not the appropriate place for "working groups" to present data and I will object to this strategy. It is extremely inappropriate for you to bring "your group" because you clearly have an agenda and it is destructive and does not serve the interest of DPS nor our employees or students. If you have legitimate questions then I would encourage you and "your group" to meet with the appropriate DPS personnel.
We have very important issues that this Board must address. Tonight we have very important presentations on math and ELA and both will be shorter because you have insisted on another public opportunity to play gotcha with our superintendent and his team. I'm extremely disappointed that our Board has not been discussing relevant issues that we are elected and entrusted to discuss: the Denver Plan, curriculum, ELA are three important ones. I will become much more public with my displeasure if you keep this up.
This an email to me, the writer explaining that last email from Ms. Pena. 'pera' is the pension program PERA and pcops is PCOPS - the swap.
Subject: Re: emails ?
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 21:24:52 -0600
The last one I sent u resulted in us NOT being allowed to present. Set for May . Only one person permitted to talk . It was on pension pera not pcops. Always happened at end of very long meeting . No open dialogue . No explanations data or accountability from Boasberg . All they have ever had to do was allow public dialogue. Never would.
Denver Public Schools,
New York Times,
Squarestate.net is owned by Open Communications Colorado, LLC. and is not responsible for the opinions expressed outside of our own.