Jeter's charter-bill quotes attributed to wrong man

I owe Rep. David Lewis, R-Hartnett, an apology.

My recent front-page article on a charter-bill amendment introduced by Rep. Charles Jeter and a follow-up blog post  (now revised)  indicated that Lewis had spoken in favor of that amendment. I just learned from the Associated Press that the comments attributed to Lewis referring to a hostile work environment were in fact made by Jeter, a Mecklenburg Republican.

Lewis

Lewis emailed me to say the quotes were wrong.

"While I,  along with 64 other members,  did vote for the Amendment, I have never commented publicly on the subject,"  he wrote.  "I do agree largely with Rep. Jeter's argument that the public is not harmed by withholding the charter teacher's name while fully disclosing everything else.  I only bring this to your attention because I am proud of my efforts to increase transparency whenever possible and this article, which has been picked up by periodicals statewide, implies I vocally supported and helped carry the amendment which seems to be contrary to that effort."

I've been covering issues related to charter school salaries and compliance with the state's Public Records Law since March.  When political reporter Jim Morrill told me about the amendment,  I checked the legislative records,  did a phone interview with Jeter and wrote the story.  I added quotes from the AP article,  believing they had a second voice speaking strongly to the issue.  After I forwarded Lewis'  email to the AP, they confirmed that Jeter's remarks had been erroneously attributed to Lewis,  who did not take part in the debate.

Lewis forwarded a 17-minute audio clip of the debate,  which provided some interesting details.  Several representatives,  including Jeter and Rep. Rob Bryan,  R-Mecklenburg,  said they'd like to see future discussion of removing even more personnel information from public view,  either for charter employees and/or for teachers in traditional public schools.  Jeter's argument is that salary rosters such as the Observer publishes for employees of school districts,  public universities,  city,  state and county governments create strife when the same is done for charter schools because charter teachers are not on the state pay scale.  In charter schools  --  and in many Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools that are involved in merit pay programs  --  teachers with similar experience and credentials may earn different salaries.

In introducing the amendment,  which simply states that names of charter school employees are not subject to public disclosure,  Jeter said that  "Charter school teachers are not state employees.  Charter school teachers do not get to participate in the state pension plan."

Two legislators noted that charter boards actually decide whether their employees participate.  One of them suggested  "displacing"  the amendment to get clarification,  but Jeter declined,  saying the pension issue is not critical.  "Teachers' names should not have to be published for ridicule,"  he said.

Cunningham

Two Democratic women,  Rep. Carla Cunningham of Mecklenburg and Rep. Verla Insko of Orange,  suggested that disclosing pay by name reveals whether female teachers are being paid equally for equal work.  Jeter responded that names are not always gender-specific.  Bryan added that  "just like in private business,  people bring discrimination claims all the time and that information can be discovered,  so I think that's really a non-issue." 

It's now up to the Senate and House to reconcile their different versions of the charter bill,  which addresses several issues other than disclosure of names.  Gov. Pat McCrory has threatened to veto the whole bill if the amendment shielding names remains.

However it's resolved,  it looks like we can expect more efforts next year to scale back the amount of public information that's subject to public review.

Charter name ban: Think it through

A parent recently emailed me with concerns about a soon-to-open charter school in Charlotte.  She's considering enrolling her child,  she said,  so she has been asking questions about staffing,  attending board meetings and researching the new director.  Material she found from the two charter schools where that director worked previously led her to doubt whether the new school's board had made a wise hire and accurately represented the director's experience.

I'm not including specifics because I haven't had time to verify this information.  But my first step was obvious:  Email the two N.C. charter schools where the director worked and ask for details of her work history,  including her titles, dates of employment and whether she resigned or was dismissed.

Under a charter bill passed by the state Senate on June 17,  that information would be indisputably a matter of public record.

Under the amended version the House passed last week,  that's far less clear.

Jeter

There's no indication that Rep. Charles Jeter,  the Mecklenburg Republican and charter school parent who introduced the amendment,  and the 64 other House members who voted for the amendment want to block parents and reporters from getting this kind of information.  Instead,  Jeter said he wants to stop newspapers from requesting and publishing names and salaries of charter school administrators,  teachers and other staff,  as the Observer and at least one other N.C. newspaper have done recently.

But the amendment doesn't limit itself to certain types of requests or certain categories of employees.  It simply says that names of charter school employees  "shall not be open to inspection,"  apparently putting names into the same category of confidentiality as job evaluations.

I asked public records and personnel experts at the UNC Chapel Hill School of Government how this might play out.

"It appears to prohibit the release of the name of an employee,  presumably for any purpose. That seems to be a broader limitation than what might have been intended,"  said Professor and Associate Dean Freyda Bluestein,  after reading the amendment and consulting with a colleague.

Most charter schools name their administrators on their web sites,  and some name their full faculty.  Employees often make presentations or are included in announcements at charter school board meetings,  which are public and whose minutes become public records.  Would this kind of disclosure be forbidden?

"It seems to me that it might prohibit the release of the name for any purpose, as I mention in my email,"  Bluestein responded.

The bill that passed the Senate on three readings and the House on the first two puts charter school employees under the same personnel privacy protections and disclosure requirements as other public schools.  That spells out 11 personnel items that must be made public for each employee,  including name, employment date, terms of contract, current position, salary  (including benefits,  incentives and bonuses) and information about promotions, demotions, transfers and disciplinary actions.

The amended version that passed the House on third reading removes names from that list.

That creates another puzzler:  If someone  --  whether a journalist,  parent or prospective employer   --  requests the public information for an individual employee by name,  can the school release it?  And if so,  are they required to do so?

"I suppose technically,  if you somehow had the list of names already and asked for their salaries, (or any other type of information that is public under that statute),  they might be required to provide the salaries and other information since this would not involve the school actually making the names open to inspection (since they were provided in the request),"  said Bluestein.  "I'm not sure exactly how this would work as a practical matter,  if enacted."

Bear in mind that this legislation came about because of confusion about what the law requires.  Even charter leaders who said they thought public disclosure was appropriate hesitated to release information in the face of mixed messages from state staff.  If something as basic as publicly naming the director of your school is potentially breaking the law,  I predict some of the public money going to charter schools is going to be spent on legal advice.

Here's hoping that as the Senate and House reconcile the two versions of the bill,  they think this through carefully.