Citizen Schmuck and his Cabal

[Moses]

This is a microcosm of the gang that has taken over our country-- in numerous localities, states, and the federal government and all its branches:



 
October 20 -26, 2005  

All shook up
Feisty and rebellious, D-11 president Sandy Shakes explains her wild ride and defection from the pro-voucher crowd.[/size]

by Cara DeGette

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Two years ago, Sandy Shakes was elected to the District 11 Board of Education. She was on a slate of "pro-reform" candidates with an agenda that only became clear over time. That she defected is no secret. This is her account of why she turned, what's happened since -- and what likely will happen if new so-called "reformers" are elected Nov. 1. Supporting documents can be read in full online at csindy.com.

It all started with what seemed an innocent phone call.

Sandy Shakes was considering a run for the local school board. It made sense; a former schoolteacher of 29 years, she had all kinds of insider knowledge about what was right and what was wrong with the way the city's largest district was being run.

A pal suggested she give Steve Schuck a call. The wealthy Colorado Springs developer had a great interest in public education, Shakes was told, and might have some campaign money to toss her way.

Shakes called. She was warmly received. Teacher, wife of a district judge, sister of Penny Whitney, who was married to Craig Whitney of Whitney Electric Company -- Sandy Shakes certainly had the right pedigree.

The two agreed to meet.

Shakes, now 53, was invited to join the club. The chosen four, running for four open seats on the seven-member board, included Shakes, former local NAACP president Willie Breazell and private investigator and U.S. Army reservist Craig Cox. Eric Christen, a swaggering newcomer to the Springs who most recently had worked as a union buster in California, rounded out the team.

One of Shakes' biggest worries about running for public office was the required begging for campaign cash; she says she was delighted to be informed that she wouldn't have to worry about that. Nor would she have to concern herself with organizing, mobilizing volunteers or generally dealing with the messiness of running a political campaign.

The group of four, she was assured, would make headlines with its innovations to improve education. Schuck was a major player in the controversial national movement to install voucher systems in public schools, and the new board members, under his direction, would get coaching from hired gun John Gardner, a former school board member in Milwaukee who had pushed through a voucher program there. (See page 25 for more on Schuck's behind-the-scenes dream team.)

"They kept saying, 'Colorado Springs is in the foreground. Everyone is going to be watching what is happening here,'" Shakes says.

Glossy color mailers went out by the reams. The four candidates were painted as über-educators, champions of choice, true patriots with the combined superpower to fix all that was ailing. Opponents were stained in big, ugly brushstrokes as anti-education, anti-choice, anti-children.

In all, $150,000 was spent, a record for a local school board race. The other eight candidates, with their rudimentary photocopied brochures and grassroots campaigns, didn't stand a chance.


'You better watch out'

The day the new majority was to be sworn in, Shakes, Christen, Breazell and Cox were summoned to a meeting at the Radisson hotel near the airport. Technically, Shakes notes, it was not a quorum -- which requires public notification under Colorado's Open Meetings Law -- because the elected officials had not yet been sworn in.

But Shakes says the group took the opportunity to privately sort out, beyond public view, who would take on which board offices. She was to become president. The other three would be elected by "secret ballot" to other assigned leadership posts on the seven-member board. Shakes was handed a short statement, prepared by Gardner. At the top it said, "Statement by Sandy Shanks [sic], District #11 Board President."

The instructions were clear. At their first public meeting, after she was named president, Shakes was to read the screed and clear the room immediately. Four new sheriffs were in charge.

"The message [to any possible detractors] was very clear: 'You better watch out,'" Shakes says.

That night, Schuck was in the audience. So were Shakes' husband, her kids, longtime friends and former colleagues. She did as she was told. She was sworn in, became president, read the statement and thwacked the gavel down. Meeting over. No discussion. Spectators glared in disbelief.

Later, the four new board members met -- this time, in violation of the Open Meetings Law --at Old Chicago restaurant and bar in downtown Colorado Springs.

Shakes says everyone was slapping each other on the back, saying, "Oh, ho, ho, didn't we get them good?"

Shakes says she felt sick.

"It was horrible," she says. "It was one of those things like, 'Oh, my God, what have I gotten myself into? I thought I was just running for the school board.' I knew it was wrong and it was just bullying, and that's just not my style.

"But I just love it!" she laughs, recalling the statement that had been prepared for her. "They couldn't even spell my name right."


Ripe for a takeover

With 30,000 students, D-11 is the seventh-largest district in Colorado. It also is increasingly urban, and enrollment has dipped in recent years as the city's core population has aged and more families with school-aged children have moved to the far suburbs.

Leadership has been spotty, often replaced by a cheerleader mentality. Test scores -- which have become official meters of student success -- have been less than impressive. With the exception of a bond measure that passed in 1996, the district has not successfully convinced voters to approve tax hikes for the schools in more than 30 years.

Under these conditions, Shakes says, D-11 is ripe for a takeover by politicos who adopt the mantle of "reform" -- who play heroes, riding in on white horses to fix what they claim is a public school system in shambles. The local daily has adopted the description, routinely referring to them as "reformers."

But, Shakes maintains, people would be wise to question the true intent of the sort of "reforms" these activists have in mind.

In the extreme, she points out, Christen aggressively opposes government involvement in education in any form. In fact, he has signed a proclamation supporting ending government funding for education, sponsored by the Fresno, Calif.-based Alliance for the Separation of School & State.

"He wants to get rid of public education in any way, shape or form and privatize all education," Shakes says. "And he's on the school board!"

Shakes describes Cox as less strident than Christen, but with a decided mean streak of his own.

"Capitalism and competitiveness is what it's all about [for Cox]," she says.

Breazell, in Shakes' opinion, truly does have a desire to improve education, especially for minority students.

"Unfortunately," she adds, "I think he's chosen the wrong avenue to accomplish his goals."



'The bane of their existence'

The for-profit, free-market approach to education is just one driving force for reformers of the sort in District 11. Another is an obsessive desire to destroy teachers' unions, "the bane of their existence," as Shakes says.

Besides ensuring teachers' job security and competitive pay, unions usually back Democratic candidates in partisan elections, which, Shakes says, just enrages the newcomers to the D-11 board.

Ultimately, she says, it's about power and control.

"If [pro-voucher advocates] can get control of, say, 5 percent of public education dollars, then they've got billions of dollars. And what better way to do it than to go where you don't have to have compliance, without restrictions?"

Of course, Shakes knows this agenda because she once was in the club. She grew more and more wary, however, over a peculiar irony: The group she belonged to constantly was screaming that public school districts need to be held accountable. Yet, by operating in secrecy, the members refused public accountability for their own actions.

One telling example of their strategy comes from a Nov. 24, 2003 e-mail from Dan Njegomir, former editorial page editor of the Gazette. Then working as an adviser to the four new board members, Njegomir counseled the following: "Resist the urge to [publicly] discuss vouchers at all ... When there is a specific policy you can indulge to help with implementation of vouchers -- to be discussed as time goes by -- implement it without fanfare ..."

Says Shakes: "There's nothing wrong with what they're doing, if it's done without an agenda. It's totally appropriate to question what public schools are doing -- but not if you set it up so the end results are going to support what you want to happen.

"Make no mistake. This is not about reform. This is about a scam to take public funds and work it into private pockets," she says. "And what's outrageous is they are playing the heartstrings of the poor and minorities [as the chief beneficiaries]."

[Rest at link]

[Moses]

Citizen Schuck
Developer Steve Schuck and his war on teachers’ unions, anti-sprawl elitists and the ugly side of politics.
by Cara DeGette




Comment on this Story

FEBRUARY 1, 2001:

Steve Schuck has made and lost fortunes, and then made them back again.

The Colorado Springs developer looks outside the window of his 12th- story corner office in the Holly Sugar building downtown, and when he sees residential neighborhoods and strip malls marching across the landscape, he smiles.



Photo By I.K. Nelson

Fourteen years ago, Schuck spent two years and millions of his own money running for governor of Colorado and lost the Republican primary. It still bothers him.

He served as chairman of the Independence Institute, a Golden-based group of free-market wonks who perceive the government as bloated and inherantly inefficient. In 1996, Schuck resigned the chair to pursue his latest obsession: vouchers. Schuck's initial attraction to the school choice movement was based on his fundamental philosophy and ideology opposing government-run programs. But that argument now, he believes, is irrelevant. Instead, Schuck says, it's about children.

Schuck believes that most of the social pathologies that plague us today are the result of the self-indulgent, narcissistic, hedonistic influence of the '60s and '70s. He's a self-described "straight square" who doesn't drink, has never touched a joint, and exercises like a wild man.

More importantly, he's a keen storyteller, and when he starts talking, you can bet that famous names will start to drop. For instance, on the 10th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down, then-president George Bush joined the leaders of the free world at The Broadmoor hotel to commemorate the occasion. Gorbechev was there, so was Thatcher and Schmidt and Mulrooney and Mitterand.

After the event, the president and Barbara stopped over at Steve and Joyce Schuck's place for a couple of hours and they had a little fund-raiser for Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Schuck doesn't know the new president, George W., very well but he's known the family for years, all the way back to Neil Bush's involvement in Silverado Savings & Loan, which, for Bush, ended in scandal. And actually, Schuck knows the old man better than either of the sons.

But none of that really matters.

"My point is," Schuck closes the story, "I've spent enough time with celebrities and so-called important people, but I've never been as inspired as the time I have spent with the people in the school choice movement. They are the most selfless, dedicated, concerned, caring people I've ever encountered."

In an effort to win over influential skeptics, many of them minority leaders, Schuck and other school choicers sponsor field trips to the Milwaukee school system, which has become the poster child of the voucher movement. There, they show off the benefits of how the voucher program works in that community.

Last year, Schuck converted Nita Gonzales, an influential Chicano activist in Denver who runs an alternative school. When he took Gonzales on the 36-hour whirlwind tour he knew she would be a tough sell, and before they left, she practically accosted him in the terminal at Denver International Airport for attempting to sway her strong opinions opposing vouchers.

Schuck just asked her to keep an open mind.

While in Milwaukee, Schuck watched as Gonzales went through the drill, complete with 10 stops to visit schools and talk to the people who were teaching and learning in them.

He knew he had her when Gonzales asked one of the facilitators, a welfare mother and grandmother, how she became a supporter. The woman responded, "I may be black and I may be poor, but I ain't stupid. Why would I send my kid to school?"

Gonzales' entire body language changed. When they got back to DIA, Schuck said, "Nita just puts her arms around me, gives me a big kiss and says, 'You know, you're a pretty nice guy.' And I said, 'Nita, why is that such an epiphany?' and she said, 'Well, you're from Colorado Springs.'"

Schuck knew what Gonzales was implying, the typical assumption that having a Colorado Springs zip code means you're a religious right wacko. So, he told her where he worships.

"I said I go to temple, I'm Jewish." And Gonzales could hardly believe it. Now, Schuck and Gonzales are friends. And she is a voucher convert. "She's an apostle, and it had nothing to do with me; it had nothing to do with what I said; it had to do with what she experienced when she was there," Schuck said.




The revolution

Indy:Voters in Colorado have overwhelmingly rejected vouchers, most recently four years ago when they canned Amendment 17. So why do you keep pushing them?

Schuck: They won't reject it when we're done. The very people who have been absent, AWOL, during these battles are the beneficiaries and they will be increasingly engaged. The next voucher battle in Colorado will not be led by Steve Schuck or [wealthy pro-voucher Denver businessmen] Ed McVaney or John Saeman. It's going to be led by some poor single mother whose kid is stuck in some god-awful school in DPS or District 11 or District 2, where nine percent of the kids are functioning at grade level.

Indy: Will that woman be hand-selected by you?

Schuck: No, that will be someone who will emerge from this army as a leader.

Indy: So why are you so obsessed with vouchers? Your kids are out of school; you don't really have anything to personally gain.



Photo By I.K. Nelson
Schuck has offered to send students from Adams Elementary to private schools.

Schuck: It has nothing to do with myself. I mean, it has everything to do with myself. I am an unabashed patriot. I believe that there is something special about America, that we are blessed and that it is divine, that we are the beneficiaries of divine intervention and that we have an absolute obligation to protect what is so unique about this country and its values.

Indy: But why vouchers?

Schuck: Because Thomas Jefferson told us, and he was right 200 years ago, an educated populace is absolutely essential for the survival of our Republic. When half our kids can't read or write and are essentially dysfunctional, there is no chance for a democracy to survive, no chance at all. Red China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the rogue nations, don't have to bother with nuclear weapons -- all they have to do is allow our public education system to continue serving us as poorly for the next 20 to 30 to 40 years as it has for the last 10 to 20 to 30 years.

Indy: What about the argument that what we need to do is roll up our sleeves and get to work and improve the system that is already in place?

Schuck: That is empty, shallow rhetoric that has no action component to it at all. That is the same commentary that we've heard for the last 20 to 30 to 40 years and nothing has happened and nothing will happen or get any better absent pressure from the outside. I don't care about the system; the system isn't why we're in business. It's the kids who come first, and I don't care how those kids are educated as long as it is done well.




Off to school

Schuck does not question teachers' dedication, but he blames teachers' unions for the breakdown of the educational system across the country. "The minute unionization became the predominant interest of the teachers, the minute they became organized, they became part of a process that was not focused on education but rather focused on self-interest," he said.

Schuck is also a vocal critic of District 11, and opposed the hiring of Superintendent Norm Ritter last year for the sole reason that Ritter was an academic, not a businessman. Schuck says that he would tackle the job himself, and do it for a dollar a year, but only if the school board would give him the authority to establish an entire new culture in the enterprise. But that won't happen, in District 11 or anywhere, he says.

In December, Schuck announced a plan to personally pick up the tab to send students from one of the lowest-achieving and poorest elementary schools in District 11, Adams Elementary, to a private school of their choice. Schuck will pay up to 90 percent of tuition cost at private schools, up to $2,500 a year. Parents must be willing to accept the requirements, including that they be involved in their child's education. In addition, Schuck will pay for tutoring help to those kids who remain at Adams Elementary, but their progress must be measurable or the funding stops.

Indy: How many Adams parents have accepted your offer?

Schuck: We have no formal process worked out yet; we don't have all the mechanics defined. On the basis of two newspaper articles we've had contacts from parents representing 130 kids, roughly half of those from Adams, roughly half [from] other schools, including District 2. I suspect that the word will spread.

Indy: Is there a cap on how much you're going to spend on the Adams voucher program? Where are you getting all this money? Is it falling out of the sky?

Schuck: As a practical matter there's no limit. There's a limit to the amount of money I have, but I have foundations that have agreed to pick up whatever I can't so there's plenty of backup.

Indy: Your own voluntary Adams program also requires that parents and students comply with tough standards. So how would you ensure all kids have the same access to excellent education?

Schuck: The whole point of this is to save the kids at Adams, not to push vouchers. I trust parents a hell of a lot more than the bureaucrats. And for those parents who don't want to take advantage of private school tuition, they too will benefit because the school, in its attempt to survive, will fight to keep its customers. It will fight even harder to keep its prized clientele. There is nothing complicated about it, there is no hidden agenda, there is no mystery to this thing -- it is the marketplace at work pure and simple.

Indy: You have become a huge fan of what Milwaukee has done and one of their major assertions is that it was modeled to best suit Milwaukee. With that in mind, what kind of special program do you envision in Colorado?

Schuck: That is the right question to ask but you're not going to like the answer. I don't have a clue and I'm not supposed to have a clue. I'm not a professional educator and don't profess to be one or know anything about how to deliver education. There are people, however, who are qualified, who are the experts, who are running our school system now who will figure it out when they have to.

Indy: What do your wife and children think of about your passion for vouchers? Does it drive them nuts?

Schuck: I'm an obsessive-compulsive. Everything I do, I do to the extreme, so the extent of my commitment is of no surprise and hardly anything new. Joyce was never in favor of my running for office; she felt there were better and more effective ways I could accomplish my efforts than being in elected office. I felt otherwise, and time has proven her to be right and me to be wrong. I can do more of consequence for more people in need in a shorter period of time, that will have longer and more lasting benefits, as a private citizen than I could even have as an elected official.




It still hurts



Scott Larrick
The American Dream: Schuck Community’s Springs Ranch development

In 1986, Schuck ran against then-Senate Majority Leader Ted Strickland, who went on to lose the general election to Democrat Roy Romer. After spending millions of dollars of his own money and campaigning for two years, Schuck, who owned most of the Otero Savings & Loan buildings in the state, returned home to Colorado Springs and learned that he had lost his fortune as well. He and his wife Joyce were literally evicted from their Broadmoor mansion. They went out, rented a house, and Schuck started over.

Indy: Do you ever intend to run for another office?

Schuck: Nah.

Indy: Are you still sore about your defeat?

Schuck: Does it still hurt? Yes. Any time you're rejected in public ... . Let me put it a little differently. Unlike the typical candidate for office who is part of the political process and does this for a living and who has politics as a profession, I approached politics as a way to serve, to truly serve in the sense of a clergyman or a physician. I approached it in sort of a pure sense, which to most cynics in the system was laughable, and I have come to accept that I was naïve and terribly idealistic, which made my defeat that much more painful.

Indy: And then you lost your fortune.

Schuck: The confluence of timing couldn't have been worse. It was almost as if someone designed it so that I would get the worst of everything. I lose the election, the 1986 federal Tax Reform Act gets passed, and I didn't even know what it was at the time, but it devalued every piece of real estate in America 30, 40, 50 percent. I come back to find out every piece of real estate that I owned was worth less then the debt we had against it, and in some cases I had signed that debt personally. I was insolvent. I was broke, I was as it's been described in the paper, $10 million below broke. I had to make $10 million just to get broke.

Indy: So a decade later you're back on top. How'd you do it?

Schuck: There's an old adage on Wall Street that the greatest fortunes are made during bad times, not during good times. I'd done it and lost it twice before so I knew I could do it. We went for approximately 10 years, from 1986 to 1996, without a vacation. We never went anywhere, nowhere. I worked seven days a week and was totally focused on rebuilding. [The late Denver Cable magnate] Bill Daniels provided the resources, and frankly some moral support when I needed it desperately. There were some fine people here who stuck with me even when they couldn't get their paychecks covered. I'm deeply indebted to a whole lot of people for allowing me the opportunity to truly live the American Dream -- to make it, to lose it, to make it back, lose it again, and make it back. Only in America.




Dream houses for all

When Schuck was running for governor, he was criticized for accepting and spending millions on his campaign -- at the time breaking records for the amount spent on a gubernatorial race in Colorado. Much of that money came from developer and real estate special interests, and though Colorado was in the midst of an economic downturn, the Democratic then-Gov. Dick Lamm told Schuck that a developer could never get elected governor of Colorado. Schuck was also as blunt-talking a politician as he is a citizen, which got him into trouble.

Indy: You called Grand Junction ugly. And politicians aren't supposed to use that word, period.

Schuck: I never said Grand Junction was ugly. What I said was the situation in Grand Junction was ugly. I said if you want ugly come with me to Grand Junction because the people are losing their homesteads.

Here's how the Grand Junction situation came about: Dennis Champine was the mayor of Aurora at the time and endorsed my candidacy. [Then- Denver Post reporter] Neil Westergaard suggested the reason Dennis supported my candidacy was because he was the mayor of a city that developed the same kind of ugly houses as did Colorado Springs, and that somehow, by implication, we were soul mates for that reason. I asked the reporter why he used the term ugly, and he referred to the fact that the governor, Dick Lamm, had described Colorado Springs and Aurora as being ugly, with monopoly board-type houses and ticky-tack houses and what today is called sprawl. My response was, how dare anybody call that ugly! The people living in those houses don't consider those ugly -- it's their dream.

I would say the same thing again, and if I went down on my sword again, so be it. It was the right thing to say and the right point to make. With some rare exceptions, I don't think that the political system has any appetite for candor and directness and for honesty.

Indy: During the campaign you insisted that you were a politician who couldn't be bought. As a developer, are there any politicians that you can buy?

Schuck: The answer to your question is, absolutely yes. But the better question to ask is, would I buy them? The answer to that question is, absolutely no. I don't want to buy anyone who can be bought. I don't want good personal favors; I want good public policy.




Controlling City Hall

At the time Schuck made his "ugly" reference about Grand Junction, he also said that there is nothing wrong with a little sprawl. Colorado, 14 years later, has got a lot of sprawl.



I.K. Nelson
Schuck says smart growth is a "nebulous, meaningless term."

During his unsuccessful effort to pass his 1996 voucher proposal, Amendment 17, Schuck co-authored an opinion piece on Judaism and school choice, and warned that proponents were in a David vs. Goliath battle with teachers' unions and administrators who would spend millions of dollars to fight substantive reform. The measure went down in flames.

Last year, Schuck joined developers across the state and switched roles to become Goliath: They raised more than $6 million to defeat Amendment 24, which would have forced communities to plan for growth. Schuck and others called the proposal draconian and "too extreme for Colorado."

Indy: Do you think sprawl is ever ugly?

Schuck: It doesn't matter. If I think it's ugly then I don't have to live there, but the people who do move there don't think it's ugly, so who in the hell am I to decide for other people what is and is not ugly?

Indy: Shouldn't people who live in Colorado be able to, if they are offended by cookie-cutter houses as far as the eye can see, have a say in the aesthetics of the surroundings?

Schuck: Is this Lake Wobegon? You are imposing your values and your aesthetics on those who can only afford something that doesn't meet your standards. So what are we going to do, are we going to outlaw the poor? If you want us to be able to do more with the same number of dollars, then go pound on City Hall for adding so much cost to the ultimate end product. We can't afford to put in the trees and other aesthetic amenities and still develop a product that people can afford to buy.

Indy: The dearth of affordable housing in Colorado Springs has been identified as a massive problem for eight years now. What should the city be doing to enable developers to build houses that are affordable for the poor and working class?

Schuck: That is hypocrisy at its zenith for those same elected officials that continue to permit bureaucracy to grow, and rules and regulations to proliferate, that add nothing to the health, safety and welfare of the community, to also claim that they want affordable housing.

It's hypocritical of the so-called environmentalists who want so-called smart growth to criticize the new subdivisions that are the most affordable and say they are representing the interests of the people. They are representing their own middle- and upper middle-class tastes and they have no interest in the poor and meeting the needs of the poor. They talk about strip malls and big boxes on top of each other and my guess is that [nature photographer and Amendment 24 proponent] John Fielder doesn't spend a whole lot of time inside Wal-Mart. But the people who live in Woodmen Hills and Springs Ranch do, so what would you have us do, build Cherry Creek Mall and put Lord & Taylor and Bergdorf Goodman and Neiman-Marcus in the middle of Springs Ranch? I don't think so.

Indy: What, if anything, should our elected officials do to address this affordable housing problem?

Schuck: Talking to [developers] about it is a red herring. We can't create affordable housing. It's the exact same principle as public education: If you want affordable housing, give housing vouchers to the poor who you want to help. One is, you disperse the housing instead of congregating it. Two, you give dignity to the recipients instead of stigmatizing them, and three, you don't create tomorrow's slums.

Indy: Why isn't it happening here?

Schuck: It's not happening anywhere. A politician is not going to respond to the dispersed interests of poor consumers when, in the alternative, they can enrich wealthy capitalists who will reward them with generous financial contributions. If I as a builder of subsidized housing am going to make millions of dollars and get the people elected who support that kind of thing, I'm going to be helpful to the elected official. If I am a poor, single mother looking for reasonable housing and I get a $500 housing voucher, I'm not going to make a very generous contribution to the politician. And so the answer to your question is, it's pure politics.

Indy: Is there such a thing as smart growth?

Schuck: Honestly, it's a political buzzword that means something different to every person who hears it or says it. I don't attempt to define it because it's a nebulous, meaningless term.

Indy: But isn't there at least the need for a vision to shape how our community should grow?

Schuck: Sure, and if the city's new comprehensive plan was a vision statement there would be a hell of a lot less concern about it. But in every respect it's a regulatory document. It stopped being an exercise in vision a long time ago.

Indy: I thought you developers had better control over City Hall.

Schuck: I love that! I love that! You guys control them! Spend a day with me trying to deal with City Hall. Control them? Hah. I wish. Actually I'd be incredibly disappointed if I could, and I'm proud of the fact that nobody can. I come from the middle of New York City and if one of my buddies with whom I grew up listened to this discussion they'd be laughing uncontrollably because they're all a bunch of cynics. We've had great leadership in this community, but I do fear, however, that we are gravitating more and more toward the Denver model of having politicians instead of public servants. I can remember when they were self-deprecating and I wish desperately I could turn the clock back.

Indy: Isn't that a result of all this fabulous growth? Colorado Springs is not a small town any more.

Schuck: Yes, I think that's a negative, unfortunate result of growth. I would concede that, but I think we should resist it and fight it for as long and hard as we can. I would hope that we could be larger in population numbers and geography and still retain the special character, almost the purity that we had for so long.

[Moses]

Footnote

Mann slate wins with vow to keep schools public

By Ed Sealover and Shari Chaney Griffin
Colorado Springs Gazette
November 2, 2005

Once again, Colorado Springs School District 11 voters swept a slate of candidates into office Tuesday. This time, however, it was not a slate promising radical reforms.

Sandra Mann, Tami Hasling and John Gudvangen — three candidates who praised the district and vowed to fight efforts to spend public money on private schools — won handily. The victory amounted to a reversal of the results of 2003, when four candidates espousing massive changes took the vote before one — Sandy Shakes — switched sides after the election.

D-11 voters also lifted a revenue cap to allow the board to issue $131.7 million in bonds that had been approved last year. The bond will build two elementary schools and an addition at Doherty High School and will pay for maintenance and repair projects at other schools.

Unofficial vote totals showed Mann with 28,384 votes, Hasling with 24,481 and Gudvangen with 23,213. Albers was fourth with 19,766.

The board results pave the way for two more years of 4-3 votes, as the winning trio is likely to team most of the time with Shakes on issues. Craig Cox, Eric Christen and Willie Breazell remain a vocal minority seeking more choices for parents such as charter schools, vouchers and consolidation of district administration.

Election-watchers attributed the sweep to get-out-thevote efforts of teachers.

Several said it appeared, too, that a campaign designed to link losing candidates Carla Albers, Reginald Perry and Bob Lathen to the controversial Christen succeeded.

Mann said she felt the community sent a message saying it supports public education in District 11 schools. During the campaign, her backers accused Albers, Lathen and Perry of wanting to destroy public schools.

Gudvangen described the results as: “Good for us, good for Colorado Springs.”

The D-11 race unfolded like none other in local history.

Outside groups and candidate donors pumped more than $710,000 into the race. Meanwhile, groups like the El Paso County Republican Party and Planned Parenthood endorsed school board candidates for the first time.

The biggest spender in the race was a new committee called RISE that took in more than $451,000 and ran a barrage of ads extolling Gudvangen, Hasling and Mann. Some ads praised them as candidates who wanted to end the bickering between factions on the board, while others accused the Republican threesome of wanting to destroy public education with the backing of outside billionaires.

Lathen, who gathered with Republican leaders to watch the results trickle in at the City Auditorium restaurant, said the ads overshadowed the reform messages he put out.

“I think the negative campaigning was overwhelming,” he said. “They had more money to spend, they mobilized the teachers union, so they had a lot more soldiers.

“I’ll wake up in the morning without any regrets about the way we ran our campaign.”

Mann, Gudvangen and Hasling outlined their immediate goals.

Hasling said she wants the board to work on a strategic plan to create a common vision for the district. After that, increasing parental involvement will be key, she said.

Mann said she hopes all of the board members will work together to boost morale in the district and show the staff it is a valuable part of the district.

Gudvangen said he wants to look at how best to serve students in the district and do it with civility.

The results were part of a trend against the conservative voting pattern that normally defines El Paso County. Bond questions also passed in Falcon School District 49 and Peyton School District 23-JT, and a two-woman reform slate in Harrison District 2 was able to capture just one seat on the board.

Also, for the first time in several years, Republican get-outthe-vote efforts failed. About 160 volunteers spent four days before the election knocking on doors in 169 of D-11’s 179 precincts, party activist Chuck Broerman said.

At the Blue Star restaurant south of downtown, there was a festive atmosphere, with music playing and a crowd of people in the bar. People cheered when results showing Mann, Gudvangen and Hasling ahead came on a big-screen television screen. Meanwhile, the crowd at the City Auditorium, which included three Republican legislators from the area and a number of party activists, grew gradually quieter throughout the night. Debates over whether the GOP slate would take two or three of the open seats turned into jaw-dropping shock as Mann, Hasling and Gudvangen never lost their early lead.

Albers, Lathen and Perry stressed repeatedly that the election was about them and not about Christen, a self-styled reformer whose combative style has overshadowed some of the measures he’s pushed.

Perry denied ever meeting the man, despite ads linking him to Christen. After the results came in, he lamented a campaign of “fear and mischaracterization” run by RISE.

Christen said two weeks before the election that the results would show whether he had become a drag on the ideas he’s pushed. He did not return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday night.

Mann, Hasling and Gudvangen will be sworn in Nov. 21.