Just when we thought it was safe to go outside again (See John Stanford: Real Estate Agent?, John Stanford: Employment Agency?, and any of the other Stanford reports I’ve put online ), public education’s #1 whore dropped another bombshell. My mouth fell open when I saw the Seattle Times headline: “Business may give Stanford a raise” (Dick Lilly, January 9, 1998). (The article can apparently no longer be found on the Seattle Times website, but I found it under a new title here.)
As usual, the details are classified. School Board President Barbara Schaad-Lamphere reportedly confirmed on January 8 that certain business leaders are “thinking along those lines . . . We’ve been approached and we’re having discussions.” She also revealed that privately funded Stanford-subsidy discussions have been going on for about a month. “We are delighted that business and the Seattle community are supportive of John Stanford,” Lamphere was quoted as saying. Funny nothing was mentioned about this during the January 6 Stanford crisis.
What’s wrong with this picture? Circle the words “the Seattle community.” Many Seattle teachers and parents are fuming.
Through Dick Lilly’s fine reporting, we also learn that Mayor Paul Schell is aware of the negotiations and thinks they’re a great idea. “During his recent campaign, Schell frequently praised Stanford and the direction he has given the schools.” I wish someone would tell us teachers what direction we’re going in!
The article notes that superintendents are sometimes given paid seats on local corporate boards as an incentive. Check this out: “When the Seattle School Board extended Stanford’s contract a year ago, it agreed to try to find corporate board seats for him. Nothing has turned up yet, though.”
How can this be? Stanford would have us believe that his phone is ringing off the hook with job offers from across the country, yet no local corporation wants him?
Comments Lilly, “It’s not clear that money is key to Stanford.” It isn’t? What are you looking for, Dick, a sign from God?
Lilly also notes the business community’s beefed up support of Seattle schools since the first days of Stanfordmania. “Before Stanford took over, the emphasis was on providing the district with management expertise.” What a revelation! No wonder Seattle School District’s financial operations and personnel department were such shining models of efficiency and honesty before Stanford came along to make Seattle great!
The day after Dick Lilly’s sloppy article appeared, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer waded in with another lemon. (“Private donors offer to boost pay of Stanford,” Ruth Teichroeb, January 10, 1998). Here we go again...
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
1) The alleged donors are “anonymous,” of course.
2) Alliance for Education president Robin Pasquarella was quoted as saying donors recognize that it will ultimately take “a really strong expression of support from the community,” rather than money, to keep Stanford on board. First of all, why should the community support Stanford when he’s never supported the community? Second, Pasquarella wouldn’t comment on the “size or form of the offers.” Of course. Third, Pasquarella is the idiot who sent Seattle Schools budget hawk Linda Jordan a letter stating that a performance audit would likely cost $1 million during the last schools levy campaign. (Try, $200,000, Robin.)
3) “When contacted last night, Stanford would not say what he will do if such an offer is made.” Let me guess — he’s going to decline a pay hike because he’s in it for the kids!
4) Teichroeb informs us that Stanford gets a $9,000 annual car allowance in addition to his $150,000 salary and $36,000 annuity. I thought a car allowance was supposed to help pay for gas, not buy a new car! And if Stanford only shells out $1,000 per year on car expenses, what happens to the other $8,000? Salary, annuity, car allowance, $10,000 bonus, book-writing leave, $400,000 book advance — what other little extras will the media reveal some day? (See #10)
5) In reference to the alleged Stanford-subsidy talks, School Board President Barbara Schaad-Lamphere said “It’s a confidential personnel matter.” Of course. Similarly, Stanford said, “This is between the business community and the board.” In other words, “Teachers, parents, and other taxpayers butt out!”
6) “Stanford said he has heard about moves to boost his pay, but has not had a formal offer and doesn’t know details.” Uh-huh.
7) Stanford: “I really don’t work for money. I’m here for the children.” (Do any netsurfers know of an animated winking eye I might download and insert here?)
8) Stanford reportedly stressed that he hasn’t groveled for a raise. Of course not; he apparently got one when he renewed his contract!
9) Stanford: “If I want to make more money, I can go and make more money.” Please do. (Incidentally, there are probably numerous teachers who could go work for Boeing for a lot more than what they make teaching in Stanford’s world-class schools system.)
10) Stanford’s sidekick Don Nielsen, commenting on an “effective ‘insurance policy,’” which might help pacify Stanford: “The taxpayers should be pleased by this because if we can keep John Stanford longer, everyone will benefit.” We’re all smiles, Don.
11) Mayor Paul Schell: “We’ve got a school superintendent who’s worth probably three times what they’re paying him. I don’t think we’ll keep him forever.” Yikes! We’ve got a mayor who’s three times as stupid as I had imagined! Stanford probably won’t live forever if he’s mortal, as some of us suspect. Get a clue, Paul.
12) Graham Hill Elementary School PTA member Bridget Anderson: “It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he took a salary increase and kicked it over to the district.” Oh, really? When did Stanford every donate ONE PENNY to the children he claims to love???
The article did include a few sensible statements. Allen Glenn, dean of education at the University of Washington, worried about the precedent that is being set for the eventual successor to Stanford’s throne. (Will he or she expect a $400,000 book advance inspired by mindless media gushing?) Seattle University education professor David Marshak deemed it inappropriate for private sources to pay public servants. He also asked the obvious: If Stanford has committed to staying, then why offer him more money?
Finally, Marshack speculated that Stanford’s shenanigans might fuel an anti-levy backlash at the voting booths on February 3.
And yet Stanford gets away with such ploys and blunders time and again! Is it any wonder Big Business loves him?
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism - 
