PTA Thread Re: local PTA involvement in discriminatory actions

In October, 2012 we met with the regional PTA regarding the actions of the PTA and SSC at Sierra Madre Elementary School in the collection of data and actions that we consider discriminatory. After the meeting we heard nothing else. In the spirit of reminding the regional PTA of their obligations, or lack thereof, we present a thread for others to let them know you can never, ever forget to follow up. 

When you stand alone against a group, they get the attention and solutions based on their numbers. For the targeted family, you must stand alone, and resolve to continue your pursuit of truth and equity because, we promise, it never comes without persistence.

*********************************
*********************************

We have been given a document by PUSD flunkie Steve Miller clearly stating that the PTA President met with Honowitz, PUSD Board Member, in January 2011, and it is confirmed by email and inference that the PTA Webmaster/E-Communications at said meeting. 

OK. It exists. They had a meeting, they discussed our child. They did it without our being there, and Elizabeth "Bucking" Blanco talked with them and upper cabinet before they met. Everyone knew what was going down.

If you want to know who these Sierra Madre people are, do the research. We won't confirm it, but we sure as hell won't deny it either. And, new documents from PUSD and their attorneys show they are still harassing us and trying to stop our child from attending school here. 

Why? 

Well, the complaint was filed against us the day after they found out our child was going back into the general education program. Oh, I'm sure that was a coincidence. It was paired with a meeting in which they wanted to tape record us in a meeting with the principal, Esther salinas, and an upper cabinet administrator as mediators. 

Really?

Since when does a family- mine- get invited into a highly charged meeting in which they are accused, without any legal representation- to meet with two administrators, and an attorney? It was a set-up, a turkey shoot. 

We don't hide who we are, but why do they? 

I don't even have a recognition of who most of these people are. I haven't met them. I haven't talked to them, and I haven't spent time with them in any capacity. I don't know them, and sure as hell don't care about them either way.

What I do know is that they have done their best to interfere in the education of my youngest child. Maybe the lawyer/ graffitti cop thinks that autism leads to a life of tagging urinals and park benches. Maybe his faded Lily Snow-White spouse needs to get herself a real job and stop acting like the queen bee of the block, Mrs. Kravitz. 

************************
************************

Re: local PTA involvement in discriminatory actions

9/23/12 Mary Brandenburg  

to Carol, Colleen, Brian, me

Hello again Ms. Kocivar,

I'm resending this email, this time with the attachment I forgot to add. I've also cc'd others that may be able to help in resolving this.

Attached you will find the cover letter to the parent petition of removal of my son. I obtained this, and much more, after numerous public records requests. 

If you look closely at this attachment, you will see that this cover letter was sent by a school site PTA Board member to a PUSD Board of Education member, who they later met with in a public forum, sans us- child's parents. These hostile parents, led by two school site PTA Board members in correspondence with the Board of Ed member, had my son under surveillance, violated his confidentiality, and harassed/bullied him out of school- because of his autism, and behavioral manifestations of his disability.

GIven the PTA statement on inclusion and diversity, I would expect some direct effort on the part of the California PTA regarding this situation of disability discrimination, which was led by school site PTA board members. Instead, as you can see in this email thread, all I've seen is stalling and ignoring.

Regards,

Mary Brandenburg

******************************************************************************

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Mary Brandenburg 

Hello Ms. Kocivar,

I'm forwarding this thread to show you the amount of time, and number of contacts I've made to ultimately resolve nothing regarding what happened to my son, a child with a disability who was petitioned out of school by parents at Sierra Madre school in Pasadena Unified.

The circulator and sender of this petition was a school site PTA Board rep, and I've shared the Public Record docs with the previous PTA contacts I've tried to make in trying to find some accountabiltiy in this situation. I began contacting the CPTA December 2011 as you can see below.

I see that you'll be speaking with one of the senior administrators involved in our son's situation/cover up: Alice Petrossian at the 2012 Leadership Summit in San Diego. I'm sure you could speak with her regarding this, but who knows how open she'd be to speak of this since she left before it all broke.

I'm very disappointed so far in the support our family has received from the local and regional PTA. I'm hopeful that you can show me otherwise.

Thanks,

Mary Brandenburg

******************************************************************************

Date: Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Subject: Re: local PTA involvement in discriminatory actions

To: Lynn Miyamoto <c>

Cc: Danelle Jiron <d>

I'm resending as I have not received a response. I have waited months for an acknowledgement of PTA's stance re: this type of discriminatory behavior from people representing the PTA. 

These PTA parent reps played a significant part in my son's denial of an education, and I can't even get a simply apology- let alone some steps to insure that bigotry, discrimination and harassment against a child with a disability does not come directly from PTA parent leaders.

At what point is someone going to take this one on? Is there another avenue I should take within the state/national PTA leadership?

Mary Brandenburg

******************************************************************************

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Mary Brandenburg wrote:

Hi,

I  never heard back re: discussing the involvement with local PTA Board members and discriminating against a child with autism. I'm cc'ing Danelle as she's the local rep for the PTA, and I had originally contacted her.

Since our last contact, more has come to light through our Public Records requests. We now have documentation supporting that:

• Parents involved knew that my son had a disability

• Parents actively conspired to remove my son from his home school

• Parents created false statements in order to do so

• At least 2 local PTA Board members acted as parent leaders and disseminators of information re: my son and his removal

• The petition full of hateful and defamatory statements was sent by a person representing herself as a PTA Board member to the Pasadena Board of Education member. 

• The District has no investigative process for community members, including PTA, involving their actions while on school property involving students. (I'm requesting a Board policy be adopted to address this).

• A Board of Ed member and the former Superintendent held a public forum with these parents, including the PTA parent leaders, to discuss my son and his disability, at the District offices. The District's position re: my son was discussed, including pacifying the parents' re: their request to remove my son.

It also has become painfully clear that nothing will be done to hold any of these people accountable as the District denied an external investigation, and that the senior administrative staff involved have left the District.

One thing the Board of Education dictated to the Superintendent when denying the investigation was that the hostile school environment at Sierra Madre School needs to be addressed. Since this statement was made in February, nothing has been done.

Because these PTA parent leaders were never held accountable, and because the District has no process to investigate their actions- it appears to this large group of people that what they did was fine.

Not even a simple apology has been offered by a single parent involved. Not even a single attempt by the school PTA to show our family support, let alone welcome after the group effort to remove my son. So my son remained segregated from the rest of the school the entire year. So much for a school community.

I do not want to believe that the PTA condones this type of discriminatory behavior, but I have seen nothing showing otherwise.

Mary

******************************************************************************

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM, mary brandenburg wrote:

Hi,

Any word on Laura's availability to meet?

Thanks,

Mary

******************************************************************************

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Lynn Miyamoto <cm> wrote:

Let me find out Laura's availability

Lynn Miyamoto

******************************************************************************

-----Original Message-----

From: mary brandenburg 

To: Lynn Miyamoto 

Sent: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 10:55 am

Subject: Re: local PTA involvement in discriminatory actions

Hi, 

We're generally available weekdays after 3:30, and most weekends.

Does that work for you and Laura?

Mary

******************************************************************************

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Lynn Miyamoto <c> wrote:

Laura Kieffer and I thought it might be best to talk in person. I apologize but I had some family issues over the holidays and I just got my daughter off for her semester in Paris. Can you give me several times to see if it meets with our schedules. 

Lynn 

Sent from my iPhone

***************************************************

On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:40 PM, mary brandenburg <m> wrote:

Hi, 

I'm just following up on things. 

Yesterday we presented our situation to the Board of Education requesting an outside investigation. We did not name the PTA members, as we didn't want to violate any confidentiality. We can explain how the PTA Board members figured in to the whole scenario.

Here's a link to the meeting. We were item Q on the agenda.

http://pusd.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=12&clip_id=410

Please keep me posted on things, ok?

Thanks,

Mary Brandenburg

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:43 PM, mary brandenburg wrote:

Hi,

I tried calling you today, just realizing it's the beginning of a holiday weekend. Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I'll be around next week at my home number xxxxxxxxx. 

When you get a chance to discuss the situation, please give me a call, ok? 

Thanks again for following up with me.

Mary

******************************************************************************

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:20 AM, mary brandenburg wrote:

Hi Lynn,

Thank you for responding so quickly. I'll try getting in touch with you today.

Mary

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Lynn Miyamoto <c> wrote:

Dear Mary

Thank you for your e-mail. I left you a message in hopes that we can discuss this more at length. You can reach me at my work telephone number: xxxxxxxxxx or on my cellphone which is xxxxxxxxx

Sincerely yours,

Lynn Miyamoto

******************************************************

-----Original Message-----

To: president <president@pta1.org>

From: mary brandenburg

Cc: laurakieffer <lm>; education <erg>; communityconcerns 

Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2011 9:47 pm

Subject: local PTA involvement in discriminatory actions

Hello,

I'm trying to file a complaint regarding the discriminatory behavior of some of our local school PTA Board members. 

It has taken months to get the public documents involved in the situation, and the District Superintendent just recently provided us with the petition a PTA board member circulated to remove my son from school. 

My son is a special needs student who was harassed and bullied by a group of parents who didn't understand autism, and associated behaviors. These parents gathered at the school to "discuss" my son and his disability, collected and shared confidential "data" while working in his classroom, then circulated a petition for his removal- without a single person ever discussing any concerns with us. 

This group of parents, led by PTA Board members, arranged for two of the parents to file false assault reports with the local police department. These reports were based on gossip and hearsay circulated by the parents (the charges were dropped by the police, based on no evidence). But the damage was already done. When the police went to the school to follow up on the parent reports, the District determined that my 7 year old son was a "danger", and he was segregated from his peers. My son was denied access to eat, play, and learn with his peers, instead forced to sit in a hallway on the floor........and this change of program was what was offered as his new "plan for success". 

The school culture at Sierra Madre Elementary has been poisoned by the leadership of this group of elite parents, including those representing the PTA. The District has indicated that they can only control the staff hired by them, not the PTA, not even the school site council. We are dealing with the District's lack of action with the Board of Education. We have the public documents from these PTA parents which support what I've said here.

What can be done to ensure that something like this doesn't continue, nor ever happen again to another child? Lack of understanding, experience, or of knowledge, does not excuse the group expression of hatred directed at a child they are supposed to be advocating for.

Thank you in advance,

Mary Brandenburg

*******************************************************************

The Day of the Masks

Introduction

Why the Masks? The masks worn by the supporters of the Brandenburg family symbolize the anonymity which we have been forced to face on a daily basis since October, 2010. Because of Ed Honowitz and his refusal to disclose the anonymous bullies who he met with on January 11, 2011, our family lives in a constant state of fear and agitation because we do not know which of our school community neighbors we can trust. 

Absention VS. Recusal

As a delegate to the good ole boy club, CSBA (California School Board Association) you really should know the difference between Absention and Recusal, but you seem to be confused by the terms. Many people have difficulty differentiating between censor and censure, so it is understandable, I suppose. Still, since you ARE a delegate to the CSBA, maybe I can help you clear up the difference between recusal, and absention. You see, Mr. Ed, Absention is a term in an election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote or, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Absentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively. On the other hand, Recusal or to recuse oneself means to remove oneself from participation in a decision so as avoid a conflict of interest. Removal means to leave the room; for example, a judge who recuses herself does not sit on the proceedings and influence the proceedings.

Our family was there the day of the deliberation and the vote. We sat outside the room, watched Mr. Honowitz enter, and leave with the rest of the vote. He was present for the vote, and influenced the vote with his presence. So, how, exactly, did Mr. Honowitz recuse himself? To believe that the presence of Board Vice President Honowitz could sit in on a vote that was brought about partly due to him, and not influence its outcome with his presence is truly remarkable. 

Mr Honowitz, was it recusal, or an abtention? Oh, and don’t worry, I won’t tell the CSBA that you don’t know the difference.

Request to Consider: Censure of Ed Honowitz

Part 1: Violation of Bylaws

We assert that Board Member Ed Honowitz violated the following Board Byaws

(1A) Violation of Bylaw 9271: Code of Ethics; 

Board Members have a responsibility to the Community, to other members of the Board, and to the Superintendent. We assert that Board member Honowitz violated the Code of ethics in his duties to all three subgroups named.

1. Honowitz violated his responsibility to Community 

• Thinking always in terms of "Children First."

On a number of occassions Mr. Honowitz violated his ethical responsibility to the Sierra Madre Community. Mr Honowitz did not affor all children equity; that is some children first, some children not at all.

• Understanding that the basic function of the School Board Member 

is "policy making" and not administrative.

Mr. Honowitz overstepped his role by organizing a meeting with a group of parents in order to guarantee the child would not return to school He was advised by both Kathy Onoye and Liz Blanco that he should not meet with the parent group.

• Refusing to "play politics" in either the traditional partisan or in 

any petty sense. 

Mr. Honowitz saw an opportunity to win over a large group of parents and staff by stepping in and removing what was alleged to be a disruptive child from school. This was done in order to secure political supports and favors from the parent group, many of whom had political clout and status.

• Representing at all times the entire school community. 

Mr. Honowitz refused to meet with the Brandenburg Family. Some members of the community are represented, and some are not. Honowitz showed bias against, and failed to provide equal access to, the Brandenburgs.

2. Honowitz violated his responsibility to other Board Members 

• Recognizing that authority rests only with the board in office 

 meetings, and that the individual member has no legal status to 

 bind the Board outside of such meetings. 

Mr. Honowitz established, organized, and executed a meeting regarding a special education student, excluding all members of the Board except for himself, excluding all administrative staff from the district office, and which has left the BOE tangled up in a legal mess for the last two years. 

3. Honowitz violated his responsibility to the Superintendent 

A Governing Board Member should maintain desirable relations with the 

Superintendent of schools and staff, by: 

• Giving the Superintendent full administrative authority for properly 

 discharging the Superintendent's professional duties, and by also 

 holding the Superintendent responsible for acceptable results.

• Referring all complaints to the proper administrative office and by 

 discussing them only at a regular meeting after failure of 

 administrative solution. 

By meetng with the parent group and superceding the authority of the former superintendent, Honowitz breached ethical guidelines in regards to the authority of the Office of the Superintendent. In doing so, he has overstepped the professional duties of the office of the Superintendent, and brought a legal challenge to the district that has caused difficulty for both the exiting, and current superintendents. It was a disrepectful show of power on Honowitz’s part, and brought legal challenges, and discredit to the office of the Superintendent.

4. Honowitz  Breached the Code of Ethics by violating Federal Law

It is the policy of the Governing Board that all of its members shall abide by federal and state law that are applicable to members of the Governing Board, as well as to Board Policies or Bylaws.

Board member Honowitz violated the Brandenburg child’s right to due process, by refusing to allow his side of the story to be told, and violating his rights to confidentiality as stated in IDEA and FERPA.

Honowitz withheld documents during a federal investigation of the Office of Civil Rights, and withheld documents during an investigation by PUSD for Uniform Complaint, both filed by the Brandenburg Family.

Furthermore, Mr. Honowitz Interfered with the appeal process of a federal agency by withholding evidence as requested through a PRA by the Brandenburgs, by hiding the evidence until the statute of limitation for appeal had expired.

(1B) Violation of Bylaw 9011: Disclosure of Confidential/Privileged Information; 

Confidential / privileged information which is produced for, or which comes out during, closed sessions of the Board shall not be divulged or released unless a majority of Board members agree to release the information, subject to applicable laws regarding closed sessions. 

On March 3, 2011, Ed Honowitz reported to the Pasadena Star News/ Mercury News that he recused himself from the vote. In so stating, Honowitz not only disclosed his vote (Recused) which is a violation of vote disclosure, but also disclosed information that was not made public. At no time was a statement released by the BOE granting Mr. Honowitz permission to disclose any information regarding the vote taken, nor any disclosures regarding the decison to deny the investigation. 

(1C) Violation of Bylaw 9321.1: Closed Session Actions & Reports. 

The Board shall reconvene in open session before adjourning and report closed session actions, the votes or abstentions thereon, and other disclosures required by Government Code 54957.1. 

On February 28, 2012 President Renatta Cooper reported , “The board voted in closed session to deny  the Brandenburg request for several investigations, however, the board has directed the Superintendent to continue to work with the Brandenburgs to address their specific concerns......

At no time did President Cooper report the votes, nor the absentions of closed. This is a violation of the disclosure clause of Government Codee 54957.1

On March 3, 2011, Ed Honowitz reported to the Pasadena Star News/ Mercury News that he recused himself from the vote. In so stating, Honowitz not only disclosed his vote (Recused) which is a violation of vote disclosure, but also disclosed information that was not made public by Board Member Cooper; Ms. Cooper did not disclose any recusals, nor abstentions.

Part 2: Violation of Protocols

We assert that Board Member Ed Honowitz violated the following Board Protocols

(2A) Violation of Board Protocol 6: Board Member Response to Complaints; 

Principle 

c. Board members need to stay within their function and not attempt to personally “fix” the problem.  There are staff members whose job it is to remedy or deal with 

community, student and staff issues and concerns. 

Board Member Honowitz took sides, and refused to meet with the Brandneburgs. He personally attempted to fix the situation by supporting the removal of the Brandenburg child from public education, and then passed that infrmation on to parents at the meetion of January 11, 2011.

d. The board is potentially the “court of last resort” and members who have been too involved early in the situation may have to recuse themselves if they cannot be impartial, or be perceived as impartial. 

Honowitz did not recuse himself from proceeding and had input and prescence in all discussions regarding the investigation of the Brandenburg’s allegations. At this time he was in possession of a number of documents which he withheld until after the BOE voted to deny the Brandenburg’s request for an outside investigation.

Protocol / Agreement 

a. The board will consider its judicial review responsibility, and staff and student confidentiality rights and due process issues. 

b. The board will use empathetic listening skills when approached by a member of the community or staff with questions or concerns. ...... Confidential information will not be divulged, as students and district personnel have legal and due process rights that must be honored.....  

Honowitz denied the Brandenburg child due process rights by withholding evidence in the form of a number of documents, and refusing to allow the child’s side of the issues be explained. Honowitz allowed a number of allegations to be leveled at the Brandenburg child, and allowed the parent group to meet and discuss the child, though the child had had been absent from school for three months, and posed no threat to anyone. Honowitz withheld a letter which contained a veiled threat directed at the child by an adult. Honowitz allowed a discussion to take place which identified the child, and violated the child’s right to confidentiality as outlined in IDEA and FERPA.

(2B) Violation of Board Protocol 9: Board role in Public.

  

Principle 

 b. Board members have been elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the district.  The board shall ensure that the district is responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community. 

c. Board members represent the board in what they say and do and will set an example of professionalism. 

If this is to be believed, then by the actions of Ed Honowitz, Pasadena Unified School District and Sierra Madre Elementary School advocate withholding documents during uniform complaints and Federal invstigations, violating student confidentiality, providing equity to students as long as they don’t have disabilities, supporting the allegations of mobs as long as they are led by members of law enforcement, and providing information to the media that compromises the integrity of the superintendent and the integrity of the other members of the Board of Education.

Mr. Honowitz has withheld documents during two investigations, disclosed priviledged information to the press, allowed confidential information to be disclosed regarding a disabled child, and overstepped his role as a public servant by substituting one of an educational leader- which he is not. His role is policy, not admistration. 

Protocol /Agreement 

a. Board members will strive to educate the public about their role as public servants, entrusted with the education of all the children in the district. 

d. Confidentiality will be maintained in communication with members of the public regarding matters prescribed as confidential by state law and board by-laws.

Please refer to Part 3.

Part 3: Violation of FERPA

We assert that Ed Honowitz violated student confidentiality protections as outlined in The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records........

(3A) Violation of Confidentiality

By meeting with the Sierra Madre peer parents three months after the Brandenburg child had left the school, thus beyond the parameter of what would be described as an emergency - and then disclosing, and accepting documents that discussed personal and educational information, made accusations which were not supported by evidence and which denied the child due process, and which was done with the common knowledge of who was being discussed, regardless of naming the child specifically

(3B) Violation of Family right to amend records

By denying the Brandenburg family access to records which Honowitz was withholding from he Brandenburgs thus denying the Brandenburgs their right to request that records be amended

(3C) Violation of family’s access to school records.

By refusing to meet with the Brandenburgs to discuss the documents or any matters related to the January 11, 2011 Meeting.

Conclusion: 

We the Brandenburg Family, and supporters and friends

1. Request for Censure of Board Member Honowitz

2. Request PUSD revote on the Brandenburg’s request for an external investigation which was denied on 2/28/12 based on the witholding of evidence by Ed Honowitz. 

3. Request for Recuse of Ed Honowitz and Renatta Cooper in this discussion and votes due to the wrongful reporting by Ms. Cooper, and the witholding of evidence by Mr. Honowitz. It is not our intention to criticize, nor to seek a censure of Ms. Cooper on the erred reporting item. However, because Ms. Cooper’s error could warrant a formal action, it is our belief that her participation in these matters may demonstrate a conflict of interest.