AMPS

I’m going to start by revisiting some things from part 1.

On Tuesday. April 7 Wisconsin voters will chose between Tony Evers and Rose Fernandez for the post of State Superintendent of Public Instruction. I’m backing Evers for reasons explained at a little more length in that post, but mostly because I believe he understands the big problems with school finance and an accountability system built on the nearly useless WKCE, knows what needs to be done, will work for changes and and has the skills and experience to be effective (I’d still like to see more urgency from Evers, but you can’t have everything).

The contrasts of qualifications and policies between Evers and Fernandez are stark. Fernandez has also asked voters to judge the candidates by their campaigns. I’m happy to make that part of my considerations, and in the process found that the central narrative of the Fernandez campaign bares little relation to reality.

This is the story of how Fernandez led a “grassroots’ parent-student-teacher coalition” of the Wisconsin Coalition of Virtual School Families (WCVSF) against the mighty “WEAC and the education bureaucracy” and won.

This post uses lobbying reports to show that the pro-virtual school lobby work in which Fernandez was a major player far exceeded the efforts of WEAC and others who Fernandez and her allies have painted as the Goaliths in the story.

You can debate who won and lost in the battles over the licensing, funding, auditing and capping of enrollments for charter schools, but to a great degree Fernandez and her allies did get what they wanted in the end (I’d say to some degree the citizens of Wisconsin lost, but most of that is another story).

Where the Fernandez campaign breaks with reality is by portraying the WCVSF as a “grassroots’ parent-student-teacher coalition.” It isn’t. It is part of a well-funded network of AstroTurf front groups serving the interests of virtual school profiteers and privatizers out to destroy much of the good that public education does for students and the community.

Both Cory Liebmann, Jay Bullock, and especially the One Wisconsin Now and their FiveMillionForFernandez project, have done much to poke holes in the self-serving Fernandez myths (click on the links to get caught up). In part 1, I added some connections to AstroTurf groups in other states, like the Ohio Coalition of eSchool Families, Florida Coalition of Virtual School Families and Missourians for OnLine Education to show that Fernandez’s WCVSF was hardly a local do-it-yourself enterprise.

Now I want to look at the lobbying reports and some of the politics involved in the passage of the virtual school law that is at the center of the Fernandez campaign biography. In the version I’m documenting, there is no David against a Goliath; it is more like Muhammad Ali versus Joe Frazier, two heavy-weights, with the advantage in size going to the Fernandez team.

To refresh memories, the basic story is that after an appellate court ruling on a suit brought by the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) found that the Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA) was not in compliance with state charter school laws on in-district students and teacher licensing, Sen. John Lehman and Rep. Brett Davis put forth competing bills to address the situation. The Davis bill (AB697) changed little except creating exemptions for virtual schools. The Lehman bill (SB396) required larger roles for licensed teachers with virtual schools, and introduced new accountability audits, and — based on the reasoning that virtual schools had fewer expenses and that much of what the state was paying just fattened the bankroll of companies like K-12 inc (which operates WIVA) — cut funding to half the level of other charters. On a side note, I think that Lehman’s cut may have been extreme, but the idea was right, educational tax dollars should not be the source of windfall profits. At this point the AstroTurf (and I’ll be honest some genuine grass roots) came into play. Smelling an opportunity, the “I hate unions,” “I hate WEAC,” “I hate public education,” gangs joined in (or more accurately given the players from the start, continued their involvement). Behind closed doors the lobbyists went to work (details below). In the end, Lehman and the Democrats won some small things on audits and licensed teachers, but basically threw in the towel. Governor Doyle added a last minute cap on enrollment and what was primarily the Davis bill in terms of funding and much of the Lehman bill on other things, became law (AB870). In this showdown, much of what the WCVSF “won” was money for K-12 and other corporations. [Forgive and please correct me if some details are wrong, the story is convoluted and I made an honest effort to get it right.]

Some version of the public story is what the Fernandez allies would like remembered. Nobody involved (and I mean nobody, that includes all the Democratic lifers in office, on staff, or working as lobbyists or for “strategic communication” firms) wants to have the role of lobbyists in this or any other story examined. Only the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and One Wisconsin Now seem interested in shining a light on that aspect of our system.

Well I got out my little flashlight and went looking. The short version of what I found was that in the months of January to June 2008 when this story played out, the total amount of hours and dollars spent lobbying in favor of virtual schools was more than double the amount spent lobbying against it.

I looked at the hours and dollars spent by organizations lobbying in favor of or against AB697 (the Davis bill), SB396 (the Lehman bill) and AB870 (the compromise that passed). Click on the bill numbers to access the lobbying reports that served as the basis for the calculations below. Excluded were organizations that did not record hours or dollars, or registered both for and against (Wisconsin Council of Religious and Independent Schools) or with a “?” (MMSD).

The first table shows the efforts of those favoring the Davis bill and opposing the Lehman.

Fernandez and her corporate allies spent over $175,000.

Only three organizations opposed the Davis bill and supported Lehman’s.

Fernandez’s WCVSF alone outspent WEAC on these bills, and when combined with her profit-seeking buddies, the total dollars on her side was 220% of the total dollars spent in opposition.

Things are less dramatic with AB870, but still worth looking at. Here are the two charts.

The first thing to note is that Fernandez’s organization reported no role in the compromise she has touted as her great victory. None.

Beyond that, the efforts are about even, with the Fernandez allies now including the Wisconsin Association of School Boards and total expenditures in favor about 12% greater than WEAC’s effort against.

The grand total on the three bills is $191,561 on Fernandez’s side versus $98,445 against. Of the total on Fernandez’s side, $91,o16 came directly from corporations seeking profits (there is every reason to believe that the majority of the funding for WCVSF came from these same corporations).

Who lobbies also matters. The WCVSF lobbyists were Christopher C. Mohrman of the politically connected law firm Michael Best & Friedrich LLP and Richard Chandler, former Wisconsin secretary of revenue and state budget director under Tommy Thompson. Joining Mohrman as a lobbyist for K12 Inc., was his old boss in Tommy Thompson’s Commerce Department, “uber lobbyist” William J. McCoshen (for an old AMPS post featuring McCoshen, see here), other employees of his Capitol Consultants Inc, and one of K12’s in house lobbyist. KC Distance Learning’s team consisted of Timothy Elverman and Michelle Mettner asscoiated with Broydrick & Associates, the largest lobbying firm in Wisconsin. Like many of the lobby powerhouses, Broydrick seeks connections on both sides of the aisle, Elverman appears to work the Democrats and Mettner the Republicans; ideology has no place in their work. Connections Academy brought Peter Christianson and Thomas Fanfara of the giant law firm Quarles & Brady to the team. Bryan Brooks and Michael Rogowski of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek Government Affairs LLC were the lobbyists for Insight Schools. Rogowski held many GOP positions, including Executive Director, of the State Republican Caucus. Brooks also has heavy GOP connections. This is a strong team.

Somehow, I don’t think that a Fernandez bio that read, “Fronted a well-funded and well-connected corporate lobbying effort that spent almost $200,000 to defeat a counter effort by teachers and educators of less than half that size, and succeeded in securing profits by over-funding virtual schools” would have the same appeal.

WEAC also expended considerable resources. There is no question that WEAC is a major force in Wisconsin politics. I wish the game were played differently, that big money wasn’t so important in elections, that lobbyists of all stripes had less influence, that the gravy train between campaigns, the Capital and lobbying didn’t run so regularly. That isn’t going to happen anytime soon, so while working for reform, I think it is a good thing that teachers have a major voice in politics. I don’t always agree with WEAC (or MTI or the NEA or the AFT), but on the whole I much prefer them to the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, All Children Matter, Americans for Prosperity, Wisconsin Institute for Leadership or the Coalition for America’s Families.

At the center, this is about misrepresentation. Evers doesn’t pretend to be what he isn’t, Fernandez’s entire public career is based on false representations.

That Fernandez’s misrepresentations take the form of an undeserved mantle as a “grass roots” activist makes this personal to me. I do volunteer (no compensation) grass roots activism with few or no real resources to do the work with.  I don’t have national networks funding the work.  The AstroTurf efforts like those Fernandez fronted make this work harder and offend me, even those involving WEAC.

Don’t forget to vote for Tony Evers on Tuesday (and Shirley Abrahamson, Arlene Silveira and Brenda Konkel if you can).

Thomas J. Mertz

Updated (see below in italics)

On Tuesday, April 7th, Wisconsin voters will chose between Tony Evers and Rose Fernandez for the post of State Superintendent of Public Instruction. For a myriad of reasons having to do with experience, knowledge, recognition of key problems with state finance and accountability measures, the proven ability to work with a wide variety of stakeholders, a string record of working to improve the public schools where the vast majority of our youth will continue to be educated — I’m backing Tony Evers.

In her campaign, Fernandez has belittled experience and knowledge, and attacked those who have been in the trenches working everyday to maximize the opportunities of Wisconsin’s children.

The contrast with Fernandez in both qualifications and policy is huge. There is also a enormous disparity between the version of events portrayed by the Fernandez campaign that thrust her into the public eye and the actual reality of what took place.

In defining her narrative, she has continually constructed an image of herself as an outsider, a “mom on a mission.” Her campaign has made much of her role in the passage of a bill, that after a legal ruling that threatened virtual charter schools, was able to rewrite the rules on licensing, accountability and preserved funding levels. The short version of this chronicle is that Fernandez, with a scrappy band of fellow parents, “took on the educrats and the powerful teachers union and won.”

For example, her website biography reads in part: “As the leader of a grassroots’ parent-student-teacher coalition, Rose has taken on the education establishment…and won.” A recent press release included this version:

In recent years when public online charter schools, otherwise known as virtual schools, were threatened by a WEAC- and DPI backed lawsuit, Rose Fernandez led the counter attack. In 2008, together with her fellow coalition members, she mobilized a legislative, legal and public relations strategy that saw WEAC and the education bureaucracy crushed by a rare feat in Madison, a bipartisan legislative compromise-in an election year, no less.

The same release also says: “How a person campaigns says a lot about how they will behave if elected.” I agree with this, that’s why I think it is worth giving the central claims of the Fernandez campaign a thorough examination.

Cory Liebmann, Jay Bullock, and especially the One Wisconsin Now and their FiveMillionForFernandez project, have been doing great work along these lines (click on the links to get caught up). From their work it is clear that far from being an outsider, Fernandez is well connected to the right wing, anti-public education establishment, both nationally and in Wisconsin.

I’ve got a slightly different take and a few things to add.

I want to start with some information about the Wisconsin Coalition of Virtual School Families (WCVSF) and related organization in other states. A review of IRS records makes it clear that the WCVSF is something other than a local grassroots group.

Liebmann recently posted on his efforts to obtain an IRS form 990 for the organization (all non profits are required to make these available). I’m not sure what year or years he was after or obtained, but I was able to find the 990s for 2005, 2006 and 2007 online.

There is no donor information, but there are some things of interest. First, no lobbying expenses are reported (and the Wisconsin Lobbying database for these years contains no entry for the WCVSF). As a 501 (c) organization there are limits on lobbying efforts and expenses (more so for 501 (c)(3), than a 501 (c)(4), but I’m not clear which 501 (c) version WCVSF is operating under, presumably a 501 (c)(4). There was lobbying activity in 2008, but I can’t find that 990. This lobbying is the topic of Part 2.

In fact, the vast majority of expenses are for “consulting,” with no further details about who was consulting, who were paid which legal fees, and little about the purposes for such expenses. In 2005, $56,327 of a total of $78, 003 in disbursements were for consulting; in 2006 it was $86,478 of $122,658. In 2007 there were $59,123 in legal fees, with $42, 140 paid for consulting out of $118,761 total expenses.

Interesting expenses and relatively strong fund raising considering how few virtual school families there were in the state (see here for the enrollments in various years)

In describing their “Statement of Purposes Accomplishments” for 2007, the WCVSF told the IRS:

Maintained a website to communicate with interested citizens regarding advancements and advantages of virtual education and distance learning opportunities. Conducted an ongoing media campaign. Provided interested parties with regular updates via email and the website.

All at a cost of $52,010. The same language appears in 2006 when the cost was $113,781, and the 2005 filing contained the additional word “built” and a cost of $70,558.

Here is where things get interesting. That same language appears on the 2007 Indiana Families for Virtual School IRS filing, as well as the 2005 and 2007 Florida Coalition of Virtual School Families forms (the 2006 is ever so slightly different), the 2005 Ohio Coalition of eSchool Families report, the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 Arizona Coalition of Distance Learning Families 990s vary the language only slightly, the same can be said of the 2005, 2006, 2007 Arkansas Coalition of Distance Learning Families paperwork, the 2006 and 2007 Missourians for OnLine Education reports, and the 2006 and 2007 paperwork for Pennsylvania Families for Public CyberSchools filings.

One might suspect that these organizations are linked. One would almost certainly be correct.

One might also suspect that rather than being grassroots organizations, these are in fact AstroTurf front groups for companies seeking profits via taxpayer supported virtual schools or people wishing to undermine support for traditional public education. One would almost certainly be correct.

Updated

I took another look at the 990s for the various front groups and found more to report.

The accountant on all the 990s I checked — including the three from WCVSF — is one Joseph O’Brien of Non-profit Accounting Services of Scottsdale Arizona. The 990s for all I checked — including the three fromWCVSF — also list the organizational books being kept by “the Treasurer” at 2340 E. Beardsley Rd..Ste 100 Phoenix, Arizona. This, despite the fact that in the case ofWCVSF the treasurer is listed as a Robert Reber, with a Madison PO Box.

The address where the books are located is shared by “strategic public affairs and global issues management firm” the DCI Group. The DCI web page says they:

…use a campaign-style approach to help corporations, trade associations, and nonprofit organizations address their most critical communications and public policy challenges.

SourceWatch notes, ” The firm has been linked to several industry-funded coalitions that pose as grassroots organizations” and links them to Feather Larson & Synhorst DCI (who have been involved in Madison and Wisconsin school politics), doing PR for the repressive regime in Burma and much more, even garnering some extremely positive accolades from Karl Rove.

Clearly these are not local, independent parent groups, they are tools of corporate interests. Rose Fernandez is a tool of corporate interests.

A few more clues to the connections. Beyond the nearly identical IRS filings, there are also some connections among the websites. Birds of a feather, flock together.

About half of these organizations are registered via a masking proxy via “OneAndOne” web hosting out of Pennsylvania (as is the case with WCVSF).

Some other clues are even more interesting. They are registered by a Tim Vickey of Level 671. The charter advocacy organization, National Coalition for Public School Options also use his services and he has links to DCI/New Media, (now the Aderfo Group, an infamous right wing PR, lobbying and AstroTurf firm).

No direct links to Fernandez here, and some of this could be dismissed as circumstantial, but when combined with the reporting of Liebmann and One Wisconsin Now, it should be clear that the WCVSF families and the similar organizations in others states aren’t a bunch of underfunded parents stumbling against the powers that be. The parents may be sincere, but the expertise and direction is coming from some of the best in the business.

Stay tuned for part 2, which will look at lobbying reports to show that the WCVSF was hardly a lonely David going up against the mighty Goliath (there is also an old, related post here).

Thomas J. Mertz.