Attack of the Narcisse Clones

Narcisse Links Board Actions to Drugs and Sex

On his semi-irregular television show last week Jon Narcisse contends that the only way to make sense of some of the school board's school construction decisions is to assume board members' were "burying their faces in a plate of cocaine" and trading votes for sex, apparently with staff.

Is there any limit to what he will say to get attention?  And why does he always bring up sex?  Sexual misconduct is a constant theme of his rhetoric.  Weird.

Media Pig

Don't ever believe Jon Narcisse when he says he is the only school board member who cares for the students and teachers.  Here is the latest case in point.

Before last Tuesday's school board meeting the board met in what is called an exempt session to discuss teacher salary negotiations (under the terms of the Iowa collective bargaining law all such meetings must be private).  This was an important meeting.  The board faces tough decisions with a tight budget and retracting economy.  You would think Jon Narcisse would want to attend that meeting.  He didn't.

Was he unable to attend because of a previous commitment, illness or other good excuse?  (I would mention a job commitment, but hey, you know).  Nope, none of these things.  When the board emerged from their meeting there was Jon yapping away in the hallway surrounded by the media.

Jon Narcisse doesn't care about kids or teachers.  He only cares about himself.

Narcisse: Board Members Committed Crimes and Received Payoffs

I have received a copy of an extraordinary e-mail sent this morning by Jon Narcisse to Dick Murphy and copied to all school board members, Superintendent Nancy Sebring, district legal counsel Beth Nigut, and, of course Jon Neiderbach and Steve Deace (WHO hasn't cut him loose yet?).  The e-mail is a public document.  I have received permission from one of the recipients, not necessarily from whom you might think, to post the e-mail here.

In the e-mail Narcisse makes his usual litany of complaints and allegations (the fact that they've all been disproved doesn't stop him from repeating them). Then he goes on to compare, once again, the actions of the school board to CIETEC and the actions of Archie Brooks and Ramona Cunningham.  Then he says this, "Now they are where I believe you and others engaged in the current racketeering of the District are headed."  Racketeering is a crime usually reserved for members of the Mafia.

And he encourages the board members to become friends with Brooks and Cunningham "so that when the day comes you too are sentenced you have friends on the inside."

Since he obviously thinks the other school board members are headed for jail, he must think they have engaged in criminal conduct.  He goes on.

He accuses the school board of "criminal malfeasance" and says the public is becoming "aware of the crime" and what is now considered incompetence will soon be revealed as "corruption."

As if hasn't already, here is where he goes way over the top.  Narcisse implies that school board members have been receiving illegal cash payments for their actions when he remarks "I hope the brown packages you and others have received contained lots of cash and not just praise...."  He hopes, he says, they weren't doing if "for free."

Now, Mr. Narcisse, if you have evidence of a crime it is your duty to report it to the proper authorities.  In fact, if you don't the failure to do so is in itself a crime.  But beware, it may also be a crime to file a false report.  Take a look at Iowa Code Section 718.6.

 

Narcisse Nonsense

I've learned that Narcisse e-mailed Superintendent Sebring last weekend asking for data regarding 2005-2006 ITBS scores.  Not a surprising thing for a board member to ask for, but there is a catch.

Narcisse was asking her for data that she has just provided to the board at the previous Board meeting (January 20).  It has always been rumored that he doesn't read the materials he receives as a Board member, and now there is proof.

Of course Narcisse would never admit this so he lambasts her for refusing to provide data instead.  

Nancy Suby-Bohn Puts Narcisse in his Place

Read the attached the e-mailfrom Nancy Suby-Bohn (posted with permission).  She really knows how to put Narcisse down. 

Of course, he is too arrogant or crazy to realize how stupid he looks to the general public.

-Marc Ward

Is this what you want in a School Board Member?

Jon Narcisse has once again demonstrated why he is unfit to be on the School Board.  Last Thursday he sent this e-mail to a high school student in our district.  Speaking to a student using such crude language (scroll down about 3/4's of the first page) may have shock value, but it is disgusting and inappropriate.  Surely there is a better, more appropriate way to make the point than to resort to the gutter.

School Board members should be better than this.

Narcisse is not Going to Change

His claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Narcisse is not going to change.  The most recent indication of this is his appearance on Jan Mickelson's radio show last Wednesday.

He just couldn't wait to lambaste the District for the alleged rape that supposedly occurred at East High on Tuesday.  He called it an "indictment" of the District's safety efforts and said he was "livid" that such a crime was "even a possibility at our schools."  (Note to Jon:  It's a "possibility" almost anywhere.)

The next day the Register reported that "Des Moines police say surveillance footage and witness accounts have so far failed to support a 16-year-old girl's claim that she was raped in a restroom at East High School."

Jon, your conduct is once again unconscionable.  No one, but especially a school board member, should shoot off his mouth before the facts are known.  You just can't resist the opportunity to criticize the District.  It's pointless to tell you to knock it off and start acting responsibly because you can't.

Narcisse must be defeated for re-election next year.

Jon Narcisse Just Doesn't Get It

Amazing.  Just when I thought it was time to go on hiatus for the rest of the calendar year (the school board does little in November and December), Narcisse shows up in the Register again.

As you may have read in Thursday's Register, Narcisse refused to participate in the Board's closed session last week regarding possible legal action against TOK because "he did not want to be restrained from discussing the issue in other public forums."  Leaving aside the fact that he should not have disclosed the topic of the closed session, his responsibility to the community is to make informed decisions on their behalf.  By refusing to attend the closed session he is breaching his duty to the community to make fully informed decisions.  If this were a private board he could be liable to his shareholders for breaching the duty of care.  For more on this topic, see my business blog at www.iowallcblog.com.

The only topic the Board could discuss was whether or not to bring legal action against TOK.  The Legislature wisely recognized that public bodies should not be required to discuss possible litigation in open session.  This protects potential defendants from embarrassment if litigation is not initiated and protects the Board from premature disclosure of their litigation strategy and theories.  Ultimately litigation will be public by a vote of the Board in open session and the filing of the lawsuit.  How will Narcisse make an informed vote on the matter?

Narcisse will likely run for re-election next year.  Why vote for a guy who refuses to do his job.  His board seat might as well be empty.

If Data Abuse Were a Crime, Narcisse Would be a Lifer

In a recent e-mail Narcisse makes a big deal about the fact that all of Des Moines's high schools are "schools in need of assistance" under the abomination known as No Child Left Behind.  Guess what? One hundred percent of West Des Moines's high schools (Valley and Valley Southwoods) are also 'schools in need of assistance."

Does this suggest that Valley is a bad school?  Of course not.  It underscores the fact that NCLB is a bad law and such designations don't mean much.

He also makes a big deal out of the fact that Des Moines has 3.66% of the number of public schools in Iowa and 16.18% of the number of schools designated as "in need of assistance."  The problem is that Des Moines schools are larger than other schools in Iowa.  So its percentage of buildings is small, but its percentage of students is large. Des Moines has about 15% of the total number of students.  When viewed in this light, the number of schools designated as "in need of assistance" is about what you would expect.

Also, Des Moines is a much more diverse district than other school districts in Iowa.  Minorities in Iowa are a very small percentage of Iowans, low single digits.  Des Moines's percentage of minority students is about one-third. 

No Child Left Behind looks at subgroups within schools.  If a school has a subgroup that doesn't meet expectations, for instance, minority students in 4th Grade, the school is considered "in need of assistance."  Most Iowa schools outside of Des Moines are very homogeneous, do not have significant minority populations, and therefore will not be designated as "in need of assistance" due to the performance of one subgroup in one grade.

The bottom line is that Narcisse continues to distort data to create a false crisis.  Don't listen to him.

David Leach and Jon Narcisse: What a Pathetic Twosome

And to think I was concerned I wouldn't have enough to write about.  In a guest column in Monday's Des Moines Register, David Leach (see my early posts about him) comes to the defense of Jon Narcisse.  His woeful attempt is full of empty, unsupported assertions.  Let me respond to a few.

He writes that Narcisse was only guilty of "missing a meeting never announced, not reviewing bills he was never shown, and running ads in his newspaper that the school district submitted."  How is it that of the seven board members only Narcisse missed the meeting?  If it was unannounced how did the others, the school administrators, the private citizens in attendance, and the media, know about it?  Same question regarding the bills:  How was it that only Narcisse didn't have access to the bills?  And the Board's own policies make it clear that it is the responsibility of the board members to make sure that the rules that apply to them are followed.  Leach's column is an indictment of Narcisse's incompetence as a board member and his lack of fitness for the job.

Leach goes on to assert that Narcisse was free to release confidential employee information because "there is no confidentiality law that prohibits the reporting of criminal evidence."  Again, Leach actually does Narcisse a disservice by conceding that he did indeed release confidential information.  Like Narcisse, Leach provides no proof that the information revealed a crime.  If it did, Narcisse has a duty to take it to the Polk County Attorney.  That fact that he hasn't reveals the lie inherent in his claim.