Unanswered Questions

1. When the bonds were issued, didn’t the board know the school would not be able to afford the second-year payment?

Isn’t that why there was so much discussion about refinancing, even from Blandford?
Why did the board not address this fact at the beginning?
Why didn’t the board do a thorough financial feasibility study?
Is the board covering up its responsibility? By blaming the administration?

2. What if the board had not begun construction when it did, at a time when it did not have permanent financing?

Wasn’t that decision a very risky one?
Why was it made, who is responsible for urging it to be made and why weren’t the stakeholders informed of the risk?

3. It appears that the “Blandford letter” is written by Jim Blandford, evidently a commissioned bond salesman, but also represents John Buck, who appears also to be a commissioned financial advisor for the bond and also an investor of the same bond. The letter states that Mr. Blandford was in the process of contacting the investors. In public meeting he was challenges about whether the letter, in fact, represented the investor’s wishes and he said one – John Buck.

Did the board act in good faith when it appeared to take the Blandford letter at face value? Did the board discuss the possibility that the Blandford letter is self-serving and that it might have been written only to protect the continuing business interests of a few people? If not, why not?

4. Why has the board not engaged in discussions with the investors, if only to confirm that the Blandford letter is as it appears and that the investors actually are all in agreement that they want the school to conform to the Blandford letter?

Is it because they want to protect their potential bond business in Idaho first? Shouldn’t they have let the investors in on the budget deliberations right at the beginning?

5. If you were an investor, would you want to be kept out of the solution?

Would you want to have the fabulous teachers and administrators and parents in a state of fear and panic?
Would you want the board to put their leader on leave just at the time when they needed her?
Would you want two additional board members to resign as a result of the new appointed board members dysfunction?
Doesn’t this lack of transparency and communication with the investor groups also increase the liability of the board?

6. Ms. Smith has reportedly designed a timeline of events so that everyone can better understand how the board got itself in this position.

Why has the board not allowed administration to show it?
Why do they not want to discuss the time-line with the stakeholders?
Is this responsible action? Or is it avoidance of blame?

7. The board has been called “dysfunctional” by its consultant, George Coburn. What has the board done to bring greater accountability to its actions?

a. Why does the board not want to be audited by the Idaho Charter School Network?
b. Why did the board delay for ten days giving documents that were requested by individuals under the Freedom of Information guidelines when it could have supplied them within hours?
Why did the board originally refuse to give copies of the Blandford letter as requested under the Freedom of Information guidelines?
That letter was and will be discussed in open meetings.
c. Is the board comfortable with the stakeholders contacting the Secretary of State about this issue?

8. Does George Coburn have a conflict of interest?

a. Wasn’t he recommended by then Chairman Herrold?

b. Hasn't Trustee Herrold spoken out against the teachers having too much say? Too much pay?

c. Didn’t Trustee Herrold sign a contract with him to be an independent consultant without board approval? Didn’t the board ratify the contract she had signed after the fact on Feb 22?
d. Didn’t Coburn’s role then change from independent consultant to employee of the school to design the budget and control the finances till the end of the year? Why wasn’t George Coburn’s job posted? Doesn’t this become a conflict of interest with Trustee Herrold because he now is employed by the school (at $2500/ week) without this position being put out to bid?
e. Is this a case of a self-serving board?

9. Is it acceptable behavior for board members to talk among themselves in small numbers and make decisions?

a. To delay giving stakeholders information?
b. To deny giving stakeholders information?
c. To place blame rather than accept responsibility?
d. Is that one of the reasons they don’t want an audit?

10. Why did the trustees want Ken Carroll to resign?

a. Did they not want him to bring up board accountability?
b. Is it because he wanted them to be transparent and communicate fully with the stakeholders?