Below the Belt

In response to an objection letter that was sent to the JCPS School Board to be included in the minutes of the 9/1/20 JCPS Board meeting, Board member Chris Kolb sent the following reply:

It will be very difficult for anyone in JCPS to take seriously any communication that is in any way authored or signed by Gay Adelmann. In addition to being kicked out of both the PTA and AROS, Ms. Adelmann has now gone from begging JCPS to be the public face of the pro-revenue campaign to drumming up opposition to that very same campaign. This inconsistency alone is enough to disqualify Ms. Adelmann from being a serious participant in this or any discussion. In my view, Ms. Adelmann has little concern for JCPS or its students. Rather, her number one priority is whatever will help keep her name in the headlines.

Both the revenue and student assignment issues have been thoroughly vetted by an incredibly broad array of community stakeholders over the last two years. There have been numerous opportunities for public input. I have personally offered to meet with the Alliance several times and I have yet to receive a formal invitation from the Alliance except for a last-minute email this past week. At this point, I will not take part in any meeting in which Ms. Adelmann is a participant.  It is very difficult for me to imagine how investing over $50 million in West Louisville and giving families in West Louisville more choice will have anything but a positive impact on students and families that live in West Louisville.

I know the board is very open to modifying our public comment format, and we are looking into that at the moment. However, there is a significant inconsistency in the primary criticism in your email. You state that you are concerned that JCPS is not hearing you. However, the current method of soliciting written statements that are read by board members and the superintendent and then included in the public record is, if anything, a more effective way of ensuring that public input is noted and available for review by media, citizens, and JCPS personnel. One may worry that board members and JCPS staff do not take note of the written statements. I assure you that this is not the case. However, even if it was, this could just as easily happen in the speaker input format you are requesting, especially over zoom where you could be muted by a board member without even knowing you had been. Is it possible that Ms. Adelmann is merely concerned that she is not a visible speaker on the JCPS youtube broadcasts of board meetings? The inconsistency in your email leads me to believe this may be the case.

I remain open to meeting with any community group or community members as long as the meeting does not include Ms. Adelmann, whose presence can only detract from serious consideration of the issues at hand.

Sincerely,
Christopher Kolb, Ph.D.
Vice-Chair and District 2 Representative
JCPS Board of Education

Because your reply email was filled with so many inaccuracies, please allow me to respond to each of your fallacies line by line:

“It will be very difficult for anyone in JCPS to take seriously any communication that is in any way authored or signed by Gay Adelmann.”

“Anyone in JCPS?” Don’t you mean white and powerful bureaucrats, like yourself? I was the eighth person whose signature appeared on that letter. Do you mean to tell me that “anyone in JCPS” should refuse to consider the concerns of the seven Black women and men who signed that letter before me, and the numerous others who came after me, simply because of your biases toward me?  

“In addition to being kicked out of both the PTA” …
I was actually pushed out of the 15th District PTA Board in 2017, after spearheading the rally where I and dozens of others successfully called for the district’s wildly unpopular Superintendent Hargens to step down. I was advocating on behalf of vulnerable students in the district and pushing back on unethical and fraudulent activities witnessed at several West End schools. At the time of the rally, I had the support of six of the seven board members for this action, including Dr. Chris Kolb, especially considering his campaign promise to remove Dr. Hargens was what explicitly what earned him the Dear JCPS endorsement. With a fraction of the funds and political capital of the powerful Humana-heir Board Chair, David Jones, Kolb took out the incumbent in a historical race that the powerful teachers’ union wouldn’t even touch.

and AROS,
I was also not “kicked out” of AROS. I withdrew Dear JCPS from AROS after it became clear the organization had been compromised and therefore was incapable of ever being moved into authentic social justice work without a leadership change. The final straw came after AROS members organizations were instructed that their support for the tax increase must be “unconditional” and that we should “lay low” despite the majority of members wanting to move forward with a pro-public education “counter” campaign to the tea party petition, while leveraging support for West End and Black students and families. This was the genesis behind the Coalition for the People’s Agenda, which is forming outside of AROS.

“Ms. Adelmann has now gone from begging JCPS to be the public face of the pro-revenue campaign” …
I am not “begging” JCPS to be the face of anything. A revenue marketing proposal, submitted by local grassroots stakeholders, and led by Latasha Harrison and myself, in response to the district’s RFP for a tax marketing campaign. The district accepted a proposal from a firm outside of Louisville, unfamiliar with how mobilized our community has been in support of an equity agenda. Those behind the local campaign proposal continued to implement their winning strategy at the grassroots level, believing there was still time to bring voters around with the right messaging. Administrators, infiltrators, astroturf groups and business elites have gone out of their way to create walls that prevent these voices from being heard. I have not begged you or anyone to do anything other than to listen to the voices of our most impacted community members, and to heed their warnings that the district’s strategy is likely to fail if they don’t change course quickly, and earn the votes of those they claim to intend to serve. (This is also not the first time Kolb has wrongly accused me of “begging.” See screenshot.)

“to drumming up opposition to that very same campaign.”
I am not “drumming up opposition.” I am relaying it. I am amplifying it so you can do something to EARN their votes before it’s too late! People in opposition already existed, and the district taking their votes for granted will only cement their “no” votes. Not to mention, the district’s poorly conceived strategy to prevent AROS organizations from running their proposed pro-public education campaign since May, handed voters currently in opposition (or on the fence to the tax increase) over to the tea-party organizers to continue to solicit their ‘no” votes. The Stand with JCPS proposal, which was derailed by AROS, would have positioned itself as the “pro-public’ education option and allowed us to gather signatures, email addresses and influence a bloc vote with leverage. If anything, I am “drumming up” those who do not feel supported by the district, who are already a “no” vote, and instead of demanding their vote, I am asking them, what can JCPS do to EARN your vote?” You should too. 

“This inconsistency alone is enough to disqualify Ms. Adelmann from being a serious participant in this or any discussion.”
How better to avoid being held accountable than to refuse to meet with your critics.

We have always been in support of the tax increase, as long as the district demonstrates its commitment to racial equity. On the evening before the tax petition deadline, Dear JCPS rolled out the pro-public education pledge that they and other grassroots groups had been fine-tuning, after it was derailed by AROS. As an ally to groups who had NOT come out in support, we simply added the additional question so those opposed or still on the fence could support the pledge to stand with vulnerable students, while electing to add the tax increase to the ballot in order to buy more time. (Not to sign the tea party petition as you implied.) This action also signaled our objections to interference from district hit-men forcing AROS members to comply with “lay low, unconditional support” of the tax increase when the impacted community was not yet in favor of the increase. Member organizations never agreed to these terms and even if we had, we certainly would have anticipated it would have included a disclaimer that said, “except in the event of a pandemic and a movement for black lives.” If you had been listening to groups like the Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, Louisville PTO, and West Louisville Neighborhood Associations, you would know that was always their stance, too, and you would stand in allegiance with them, as Dear JCPS has. Regardless, as an elected official, it is disgusting you would suggest any taxpayer and concerned citizen should be disqualified from this or any public discussion.

“In my view, Ms. Adelmann has little concern for JCPS or its students. Rather, her number one priority is whatever will help keep her name in the headlines.”

My number one priority is seizing this window in history to dismantle structural and systemic racism in JCPS. Why is it not yours?

“Both the revenue and student assignment issues have been thoroughly vetted by an incredibly broad array of community stakeholders over the last two years.”

Not so fast. On August 5, the JCPS Open Records attorney informed Dear JCPS,

“The full Student Assignment Plan document has not been analyzed through the REAP.  Various Student Assignment processes were analyzed through the REAP at public Student Assignment Advisory Council Meetings.” 

Yet, during the 9/1/20 board meeting, Dr. Pollio told Board Member Marshall that the current plan HAD been through the REAP. The way the administration responded to his question was not only disrespectful, it was inaccurate. Just because some people would rather dismiss our concerns than provide an adequate response, doesn’t make them invalid.

There have been numerous opportunities for public input.
How many since COVID? Since the movement for Black Lives? Since NTI? This response is dismissive and disrespectful to constituents. Even the public comment form was turned off back in June.

“I have personally offered to meet with the Alliance several times and I have yet to receive a formal invitation from the Alliance except for a last-minute email this past week.”

That’s interesting, because as a Kentucky Alliance Board Member, that invitation was never extended to us as a group. However, I recognized that your bias toward me would taint the message and prevent you from being able to hear what is actually being said (as you have demonstrated so well, thank you.) This is why I informed other Coalition members and Kentucky Alliance officers that if we wanted to get our message to you, it would have to come from someone else. I guess this is why you only received an invitation to the committee meetings last week. 

“At this point, I will not take part in any meeting in which Ms. Adelmann is a participant.”
You mentioned that.

“It is very difficult for me to imagine how investing over $50 million in West Louisville and giving families in West Louisville more choice will have anything but a positive impact on students and families that live in West Louisville.”
No one questions that. But is “a positive impact” enough? The answer is no and you know it. This response is tone deaf and reeks of elitism. 

“I know the board is very open to modifying our public comment format, and we are looking into that at the moment.”
How long should concerned stakeholders have to wait? How long have you known these important issues would be on the agenda? And now that they are here, what are you doing to make those big, bold changes you dream of? Evaluating mascot names? Or making sure our most vulnerable families’ needs and concerns are met? How can they be, when they can’t even be heard? This pattern is consistent with all the other ways you have managed to suppress public discourse in order to push these votes through.

“However, there is a significant inconsistency in the primary criticism in your email. You state that you are concerned that JCPS is not hearing you. However, the current method of soliciting written statements that are read by board members and the superintendent and then included in the public record is, if anything, a more effective way of ensuring that public input is noted and available for review by media, citizens, and JCPS personnel.”
What is the inconsistency? Prior to COVID, speakers’ written notes could be included with the minutes IN ADDITION to having their concerns SEEN AND HEARD by board members and the public. Are you seriously suggesting “having fewer of these options is somehow better?”

“One may worry that board members and JCPS staff do not take note of the written statements. I assure you that this is not the case.

You didn’t take note of this written statement. But even if some Board members do, they can’t hear the pain in our voices, they can’t see our body language, but more importantly, the community can’t  

However, even if it was, this could just as easily happen in the speaker input format you are requesting, especially over zoom where you could be muted by a board member without even knowing you had been.”
“Someone could accidentally mute you, so why bother even trying to show up to be heard?” Is that seriously the best argument you can come up with? 

“Is it possible that Ms. Adelmann is merely concerned that she is not a visible speaker on the JCPS youtube broadcasts of board meetings?

This sounds like projection, Dr. Kolb. As chair of the revenue committee, is it possible that you are concerned that any threats to this historical and necessary tax increase could be in jeopardy?

The inconsistency in your email leads me to believe this may be the case.”
Again, you have failed to demonstrate any inconsistencies, but instead your lack of understanding of the Coalition’s nuanced strategy. This is more gaslighting, deflecting, and discrediting.

“I remain open to meeting with any community group or community members as long as the meeting does not include Ms. Adelmann, whose presence can only detract from serious consideration of the issues at hand.”
You mentioned that. What are you afraid of, Dr. Kolb?