October10, 2007
Dear Dorsey:
I see now that you are quite desperate since you only wanted to “respond
briefly” to my allegations of fraudulent inducement and fraud on the factum concerning your bogus “contract,”
but you were willing to write five or six pages in an ad hominen attack on me, Dr. John Trotter, MACE, and CEP. Your “understanding[s]” and Camelot’s “suggest[ions]”
are not only pure speculation but unmitigated lies. I know that you were hoping
that your strong suggestions that I have engaged in some “criminal” activity may scare me into muteness on your
fraudulent contract; however, you need to tell your Amsterdam-Brussels-Milan-Rome-Tokyo-Zurich-London law firm that this little
guy in Clayton County does not scare easily. Let me state this very clearly so
that we not be able to misunderstand me: I have not in the past received, nor
am I presently receiving, nor have been promised in the future to receive any benefit or benefits of any kind, directly or
indirectly, from a quid pro quo concerning any alternative education program from any person who has ever walked on this Earth
or from any business/organization. Let me state this in terms which I am
sure that you will not be able to misunderstand: If you publish another libel
against me in any manner or form, I will not hesitate to sue you and possibly your Fourth Largest Law Firm in the World in
the courts of Clayton County where you and the Firm have purposefully availed yourselves.
(You told Dr. Trotter and me that you have a large bonus coming to you at the end of the year from the Firm, and if
you are in any way still employed by the Firm, then your libelous actions will implicate the Firm.) I suggest that if you have irreparably damaged your relationship with the Clayton County Board of Education
(and I believe that you have), then you need to tend to your business and not attempt to smear me. I was just looking at the June 16, 2007 board minutes and saw where Ericka Davis specifically
and four other board members via their votes slandered and libeled Dr. Trotter at the board meeting, claiming that he was
banned from board meetings in Atlanta (this never ever happened) and that a part-time Clayton Magistrate Judge had issued
a 100 yard Temporary Restraining Order (TPO) against Dr. Trotter relative to Yolanda Everett.
This also never happened. That is why the Sheriff or his people evidently
had to go back to the Judge in the middle of the night and get the misguided Judge to go along with another charge which was
summarily and completely dismissed on February 6, 2007 and filed in the
Clerk’s Office on February 7, 2007.
I say this to you to let you know that I will not be as magnanimous as Dr. Trotter has been. Because you think that something happened does not mean that it happened.
Any lawyer worth his or her salt knows the difference between apparent conflicts-of-interest and actual conflicts-of-interest. Working in a large law firm, you faced and perhaps still face that nearly every day. But, you were willing to cross the line and simply smear me, Dr. Trotter, and two
organizations to apparently try to deflect serious questions concerning your relationship with this school board. (Now, you have unjustifiably smeared a company/vendor with unfounded speculations based upon “suggest[ions]”
from one of its competitors. This, I would think, has set up a major liability
for the school board if this vendor happened not to be recommended merely because the Superintendent became afraid to do so
based upon your libeling them in your recent diatribe to school board members.)
For the record, I voted against the “in house [sic] legal counsel” on August 6, 2007, and when the school
board met again on Friday, August 9, 2007 to grant Dr. Duncan a substantial raise because the salary in your “contract”
was significantly higher than her salary (and the superintendent is supposed to be the highest paid employee), I voiced my
concern that the employment of you was a violation of O.C.G.A. 20-211[a]. This,
I believe, was significantly before the second RFP was even issued. No, Dorsey, I think that you got this mixed up as well. I
have been challenging your “contract” from the very beginning – long before any disclosure clause ever appeared
in any RFP. I will address each of your vicious lies and innuendos, Lord willing,
before this epistle is through. Now, however, let me address some facts which
you, having passed the Bar in Georgia, should know.
You as a lawyer cannot invoke the Priviledge.
Only the client can invoke Attorney-Client Priviledge, not the lawyer. If
you were legitimately the Board of Education’s lawyer (which you are not), only the client, the Board of Education as
a whole, could invoke the Priviledge. But, let’s assume that you did have
the right to invoke the Priviledge in your recent correspondence, it certainly did not work too effectively, as I heard Steve
Holmes call Dr. Trotter on Thursday evening and tell him what all was in your correspondence.
(A school board member-colleague told me on Monday that at a central office employee told her about the letter.) This is the same Steve Holmes whom you told to the school board in executive session
was the person who sent the RFP document to you with the disclosure already in it. I
think that Mr. Holmes denies this and says that it was you who insisted on it. And,
your instant letter certainly is a completely different story from what you said in executive session and later repeated to
me (in front of Ms. Strong) that the document already had the disclosure in it when Mr. Holmes sent it to you. In your recent letter, however, you apparently want to twist the facts and portray your “work”
in this matter as noble and high-minded. You state that after reviewing “Federal
procurement law” and “[b]ased on Camelot’s suggestions that CEP had issued improper benefits and gifts,
I [you] recommended that the Purchasing Department add a provision to the RFP requiring responsive bidders to disclose lobbying
activity.” So, which version is true, Dorsey? The one offered in executive session or the one that you just spun in your recent letter? Let’s talk about the disclosure: What I did suggest (not
“demand,” as you say in your letter) at the pre-bid conference (and I think that the entire meeting is on tape)
was that I was not worried about who in the community might have been involved in lobbying for any vendor; what I said was
that our Board Policy on conflict-of-interest for board members should be implemented instead of the disclosure about citizens
of the community. I said at the meeting that board members are much more powerful than people in the community. I think Lonita Collier’s subsequent e-mail reflects what I said.
By the way, did Lonita Collier, the Director of Purchasing, ever even see the RFP?
I ask this because of Rod Johnson’s micromanaging concerning the RFP. I
had at the time and still have emails reflecting Rod’s inordinate involvement in the RFP process. One of the emails goes like this: “Deanna, I still cannot
reached [sic] Rev. Johnson by phone, [sic] however, I strongly advise against him having any type of contact with any of the
vendors that submitted proposals for Alternative Education. Per the conditions
of the RFP, all communication and correspondence should be channeled through
me. Please communicate this to Rev. Johnson or ask him to contact me with any
questions he may have. Thank you[,] Lonita
Broome Collier 770-689-9716.” (At
this pre-bid conference, I mentioned these emails from and about board members getting involved in the vendor/proposal process. Listen to the tape.) Doesn’t this email seem strange? Why would ole Rod want
the RFPs on July 12, 2007? Dr.
Pulliam already had recommended CEP as the Alternative Education Program to the school board on June 4, 2007. The SASS Committee, chaired by Yolanda Everett,
had already passed on CEP unanimously on June 18, 2007. What was Rod up to? On June 22, 2007, Rod called me in a somewhat excited manner and insisted that I meet with him and Ericka
at the Dwarf House in Hapeville concerning the Alternative Education Program. Dr.
Trotter was with me at the time, and I asked Rod if it was O. K. with him if Dr. Trotter came with me. We actually pick up
Rod at the Jail and drove together to Hapeville. At the meeting, Rod and Ericka
kept pushing for Camelot to be added to the Alternative Education Program along with CEP.
I thought that this was strange. But, Rod and Ericka kept insisted that
it was necessary because Camelot was threatening to sue. I think that it was
at this meeting or another subsequent meeting when I told Rod that the superintendent would have to recommend such action. I told him board members could not add Camelot without the recommendation from Dr.
Pulliam. But, Rod was “hot to trot” (so to speak) for Camelot. I think that it was in or about the same time of these goings-on that fellow board
member David Ashe told me that the Sheriff (for whom Rod had recently started working at the Clayton County Jail) had called
him and lobbied for Camelot to receive favorable consideration. Along the same
time, Dr. Trotter told me that State Representative Darryl Jordan had told him that he had been to the Clayton County Jail
and saw Rod and David Reed (political activist who was apparently pushing for Camelot) and Kevin Thomas (Chairman of the Clayton
County Democratic Party who was also an apparent advocate for Camelot) go into a room and close the door. Rod kept pushing for Camelot, even after Dr. Pulliam’s recommendation of CEP on June 4, 2007 and
after the SASS Committee’s unanimous vote on June 18, 2007, but before the action of the Appropriation Committee (chaired
by Rod) on CEP on June 30, 2007. During the intervening time, Rod shared
with me that Kevin Thomas was threatening to run his wife, Michelle Thomas, against him for the position of Clerk of the Superior
Court. Also, Rod had earlier explained to Dr. Trotter and me at the Grand Buffet
Restaurant in Fayetteville on May 31, 2007 that he did not want to go along with Goode Van Slyke as an architectural firm
because he felt that this firm would give money to David Reed and that this money would be used to fund candidates against
him and others. Dorsey, I called you on Friday afternoon, June 27, 2007, after I checked with Deanna about the agenda for the Appropriations Committee
for the upcoming Monday (June 30, 2007).
Deanna told me that the Alternative Education Program was listed on the agenda “for discussion.” I told you on the phone that I felt that Rod was messing with the process.
(In fact, you suggested to me that I do an “ll60 hearing” against Rod instead of going to the courts. In fact, Dr. Trotter got on the phone with you and discussed his history with the
1160 law.) At that point, I knew for a fact that Rod was up to his old games. The CEP vendor had already been recommended by Dr. Pulliam and had passed the SASS
Committee unanimously and should only be going to the Appropriations Committee for an up or down vote concerning the money. Rod had the agenda originally set for “Alternative Education Program”
and, according to Deanna, had “for discussion” relative to it. After
I expressed my concerns in the sternest fashion, Rod apparently changed the agenda, and CEP was voted in the affirmative,
with Ericka abstaining (8-0-1). My concern was for the action to take place as
quickly as possible so that the alternative school could get up-and-running in the 2007-2008 school year as soon as feasible. I have been harping on strong discipline well before I took a seat on this board. In fact, discipline was the center piece of my swearing-in speech. Never once before the process was complete did I ever mention the name of any alternative school program
in any board meeting or executive session. I did visit one of CEP’s facilities
on a fact-finding tour and was impressed. Several people on the current board
also visited one of their facilities, and I noticed in the board minutes of December
5, 2005 where Ericka Davis had Ms. Luvenia Jackson to stand up and give a lengthy and extolling report about CEP. After Ms. Jackson gave a very glowing report about the virtues of the program, Ericka
Davis said: “You guys have any questions?
I think probably the reason why we don’t have a lot of questions is that we had a lot of Board members…how
many have been able to go to see the CEP program and how well it works? Five
of us so far. They love it and are very pleased with it and have come back and
reported to the other Board members. Does anybody want to talk about the experience
for the public? I know Luvenia read a lot of it but it might be nice for you
to at least express why you endorse it. Yes, Ms. Hunter, you know you are the toughest critic on this Board.” Ms. Hunter also extolled the virtues of what she saw in the program.
In February of this year, several citizens and I visited the program. Included
in this group were Dr. Glenn Dowell and Dr. John Trotter. Both of these tough
critics also came away very impressed with the program. It looked like a program
which we could use in Clayton County
for the betterment of discipline. However, I knew that a RFP process had to be
implemented so that all vendors could get an equal shot at a contract with the school system.
I observed the protocol, but when the process was over and it looked like Rod and Ericka were trying to undo the process
by pushing for Camelot (for the Sheriff or for Kevin Thomas or for whomever), I, as a board member, was not going to stand
by idly and watch Rod and Ericka hijack the process at the Appropriations Committee (the Board eventually met as a Committee
of the Whole at the June 30, 2007 meeting concerning this matter). It was
with this background keenly in my mind that I suggested (not “demanded”) that the more appropriate disclosure
was whether any board members were being compensated by any vendor. Now,
Dorsey, you know the rest of the story – at least on that matter, but I am not through.
I am just getting started. Now, let’s look at your clear and classic
conflict-of-interest and see what the American Bar Association says about it.
Dorsey, you ought to know that concurrently you cannot be both an attorney-employee
who is subordinate to the superintendent and also a general counsel to the board of education which is the superordinate to
the superintendent. There often comes the time when the board of education seeks
to end the employment of the superintendent, your boss. This puts the person
who tries to play both roles in an untenable position. In the ABA Model Rules
of Professional Conduct (as delineated in Rules and Standards: Compendium of
Professional Responsibility, 2003 edition), Rule 7.1 says that “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation
involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict exists if: (1) the representation of one client [school board] will be directly adverse to another
client [superintendent]; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients [superintendent]
will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client [school board], a former client or a third
person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.” The Rules and Standards
go into more details about conflicts but this should suffice. Interesting enough,
when I talked to Richard Belcher with WSB-TV this past week, he told me that he had already run your situation past a representative
with the State Bar of Georgia and that the representative was in agreement with my opinion that your situation presents a
classic conflict-of-interest. Now, if the school board is determined to retain
your Amsterdam-Brussels-Milan-Rome-Tokyo-Zurich-London-Miami law firm, then the school has the right to vote on a contract
for this firm to be the General Counsel of the school board. (I would not advise
my colleagues to do this, especially in light of the Davis-Pulliam BadLandDealGate.
This, along with the ExpensiveWorldwideLawyerGate, probably will not set well with the citizens of Clayton
County.) Right now, there is no contract
in place with this firm. (Perhaps this is why the Central Office apparently is
jerking around Dexter Matthews President of the Clayton County
NAACP, in his Open Records request for a copy of a contract.) However, this past week, Ericka Davis sent us an email dated October
2, 2007 stating that she had received a letter from “David Long[-]Daniels” wherein the Firm admitted
“an error in the billing” (Davis’s words) to the tune of $14,000.00. (Isn’t that the same amount of money that the Firm was paid to work against
Dr. Trotter?) Since when did Ericka become the “executive director”
(to use the language of O.C.G.A. 20-2-211[a]) of the board of education? The
executive director of the Clayton County Board of Education is Dr. Gloria Duncan. Why
was Ericka just now sending her fellow board members a copy of the letter that Mr. Long-Daniels had sent to her on September 10, 2007 (22 days later)? Ericka
Davis has no more status or power as a board member than her colleagues except to help set an agenda, to preside at our meetings,
and to appoint members to committees which only the full board can create. According
to you, Ericka Davis was going back and forth on The Tale of Two Contracts, which is the problem. The superintendent, Dr. Gloria Duncan, is the professional who should have been dealing with you about
any “contract.” Now, you have some anemic explanation that this “contract”
which Ericka was apparently so proud on October 1, 2007 to say that she had sent to the board members on August 3, 2007 (albeit
it on a Friday at 5:44 PM and not included in our package, by the way) and this same “contract” which Yolanda
Everett so effortlessly asked Deanna to send to all of us board members and staff members apparently to demonstrate that all
of us had indeed received the “contract” which I had stated was not the same “contract” (and I am
still stating this) was nothing but a “rough draft.” Good try, Dorsey. We truly are not imbeciles in Clayton County
like you apparently think that we are. No, the “contract” which was
sent to us via email was presented to us by Ericka Davis as your “proposed contract” and any person or board would
be reasonable in its reliance upon that presentation. This “contract”
was created on July 30, 2007 and was actually not even mentioned in Rod
Johnson’s motion on August 6, 2007 which was seconded, as usual,
by Yolanda Everett. Your name was not even mentioned in the motion. Nevertheless, either you or you and Ericka Davis or the Galloping Ghost of Jone-buh significantly
and substantially changed the “contract.” In fact, the computer date
on the bottom left corner of this altered “contract” was August 7, 2007. It was not even in existence on August
6, 2007. No, it was not a “few minor typos” which you
were correcting. Heck, there are still lots of typos in the document. You even use the pronoun “her” two times to describe yourself (but I am sure that you were
probably just cutting and pasting anyway). Can you and Ericka explain why your
signatures were on another “contract,” a contract which probably no other board member had seen except you and
Ericka – and perhaps ole Rod? This looks to me to be a clear case of fraudulent
inducement and fraud on the factum. Why were you even dealing with Ericka
Davis concerning any “contract” and not the superintendent or the board as a whole? This is not Ericka Davis’s proper role, even though she seems to think that it is. I know that Rod Johnson, on a number of occasions, told Dr. Trotter and me that “Ericka’s gotta
have the lawyers [referring to Greenberg Traurig].” At a number of meetings,
Rod reiterated this to Dr. Trotter and me (Saturday morning at Golden Corral on Tara Boulevard on May 19, 2007; Thursday evening
at the Grand Buffet Restaurant in Fayetteville on May 31, 2007; Tuesday afternoon at Sonny’s Barbeque on Mt. Zion Boulevard
on June 12, 2007 [Rod’s daughter was with him at this meeting]; and on other occasions).
Let’s now address who was trying to be Mr. Personnel in the Clayton County
School System. On July 10, 2007,
Greenberg Traurig presented its report about the Bad Land Deal to “Erica [sic] Brown Davis, Chair” and to “Members,
Clayton County Board of Education.” After the meeting, Rod wanted me to
meet him at the Highway 138 QT. We later went to the Clayton County Jail parking
lot. I called Dr. Trotter, and he joined us there. Then, Rod suggested that we go to the Lovejoy Chick-fil-A, which we did.
At this meeting, Rod kept saying that Brian Miller and Ronnie Watts were in the “kill zone” (a term which
he often bandied around during this period). I mainly listened to Rod’s
chatter, but Dr. Trotter let Rod know clearly that he thought that this action (Rod kept saying, “They gotta go.”)
would be a major mistake, not unlike the situation with Victor Hill in January of 2005.
I also told Rod that I disagreed with that approach. However, Rod kept
insisting that these two men in particular had to go. I kept telling Rod that the board had voted on the land deal and this
action would not be fair. Later, at a public school board meeting, I stated clearly
that “no one” was going to be fired over the land episode. (I even
apologized privately and publicly to Ronnie Watts for the “bad deal” which he had endured relative to the land
deal.) As a board member, I cannot recommend personnel one way or another, but
I can let my thoughts be known publicly, which I did. At several meetings (usually
in various restaurants), Rod made promises to people about jobs in the school system, as if he was the new dictator in charge. (I can give details of meetings (like Ruby Tuesday’s at Lovejoy at lunch on
July 19, 2007 and Ruby’s Tuesday’s at Fayetteville
at night on July 20, 2007) but I will refrain from doing so for now. He also point blank refused to consider giving (remember that he was acting like he
was the Great Dispenser of Jobs in the Clayton County Public Schools at this time) a job to Mr. Eddie Scott, a job for which
he is eminently qualified. Mr. Scott is the husband of Board Member Sandra
Scott who at the time was in political conflict with both Ericka Davis and Rod Johnson on school board issues. Rod would respond to my inquiry about a job for Mr. Scott: “We
can’t give her [Sandra Scott’s] husband [Eddie Scott] a job. She
[Sandra Scott] has to act right. She’s acting like a fool.” The last time he simply dismissed the notion of Mr. Scott securing a job in
the Clayton County Public Schools was on Friday, July 20, 2007 at lunch
at the Piccadilly Restaurant in Riverdale. Dr. Trotter and I were eating lunch
there when he called me or Dr. Trotter (I cannot remember which one of us he called).
We told him that we were at Piccadilly and invited him and Jonathon Newton to join us.
They arrived a few minutes later. We talked about the upcoming Ad Hoc
Personnel Committee meeting that night. We called Steve Holmes to see if the
agenda had been posted in time to have the Board meeting as an official Committee as a Whole.
Steve told us that Deanna had forgotten to post it on time the day before. The
Committee met but not action was taken. Therefore, the Board met on Monday, and
Dr. Pulliam resigned at this meeting. It was at this meeting that Rod and Jonathon
escorted a fellow whom I did not know to be Dr. Duncan’s security detail and driver.
It wasn’t until later that I found out that this man had apparently been terminated earlier from the Clayton
County Public Schools. He was with Rod and Jonathon the next morning when the
three showed up at the Central Office on the first day that Dr. Duncan was in office.
Rod and Jonathon apparently went right into the Cabinet meeting. Rod was
apparently seen carrying his organizational chart in and out of offices, including Dr. Duncan’s office. (A more detailed account than I care to give here is in The Clayton News Daily, “Whistle Blower Report: School board still meddling, micromanaging,” August 24, 2007, pp. 1, 2.) When I began questioning who authorized the hiring of the security guard/driver
and who authorized his pay without board approval, he was apparently told that his services were no longer needed, but not
before nearly $2,000.00 of the public’s money was squandered.
On September 25, 2007, Dr.
Trotter and I went to the Central Office. Dr. Trotter went to pick up his Open
Records request of Dorsey Hopson’s “contract.” (He requested
a copy of this “contract,” but had been in Brazil
and did not return until the previous night’s board meeting.) I was there
to pick up the legal billings which I had requested. We dropped by to see Dr.
Duncan, and she invited us into her office. Dr.Valya Lee, the Chief of Staff,
stepped into the office, and we chatted for a while. Dr. Trotter asked Dr. Lee
if she was glad to get her office back. (Earlier, there had been rumors that
Ericka Davis had called Dr. Duncan and demanded that Dr. Duncan move you into that office which has traditionally been the
office of the Chief of Staff or the Deputy Superintendent. Dr. Trotter and I
had seen Dr. Duncan before he had gone to Brazil and Dr. Trotter
asked if that was a true rumor. Dr. Duncan confirmed that it was true. [I think that the speaker phone had been on and others had heard Ericka loudly demanding this office for
you.] At that time, Dr. Trotter reiterated to Dr. Duncan that you worked for
her, being an employee under O.C.G.A. 20-2-211[a]. I was with Dr. Trotter when
we saw you in the parking lot after we left this earlier meeting. Dr. Trotter
asked you: “Dorsey, you don’t mind being a 211 employee, do you?” Dr. Trotter explained to you that you could not be both an employee and a general
counsel to the school board at the same time. At the time, however, Dr. Trotter
had not seen your “contract.”) Dr. Lee gleefully responded that she
indeed loved having her office back. It was Dr. Trotter, not me, who even discussed
the subject of Eddie Scott and a job as a Book Coordinator. (Ms. Scott
had already told me that Steve Holmes had called their house, talking to Eddie about a Book Coordinator’s job. Earlier, she had told me that the school system’s Human Resources Department
had not even looked at his resume concerning a purchasing job, the same type of job that he had in the U. S. Army.) Dr. Trotter felt strongly that Mr. Scott was not being treated fairly, and he even voiced to Mrs.
Scott that he felt that Mr. Scott had a claim under the First Amendment for a violation of his association rights. He felt that Eddie Scott was being discriminated against because of his association with Sandra Scott,
a political foe of Rod Johnson and Ericka Davis. (Dr. Trotter had in his possession
emails from Ericka Davis wherein she demonstrates her apparent distrust toward the the Scott Family. More on this later.) It was in this context that Dr. Trotter
participated in a conversation on the subject of Eddie Scott securing a job in the school system. Dr. Trotter was not in any way “demanding” a job for Mr. Scott.
In fact, he lightly suggested that it would be a good idea because he felt that Mr. Scott had a good First Amendment
claim. Dorsey, it is entirely alright for a relative of a school board member
to secure a job in the school system as long as the mandates of O.C.G.A. 20-2-58.1 are followed. (By the way, did Ericka conspicuously
read the entire law when Rod’s wife, Celeste Johnson, was given an anomalous promotion as she did on October 1, 2007 when one of the school board member’s spouse was given a job for which
he is eminently qualified? What is good for the goose is also good for gander.)
However, it is not alright for a few board members to block the securing of a
job by a citizen just because these board members don’t like the politics of the relative on the school board. Just because someone’s relative serves on the school board does not mean that
that person’s rights can be trampled upon. On Friday, September 28, 2007, Dr. Trotter rode with me to the Central Office. I went into see Deanna to pick up the August 6, 2007
board minutes. Meanwhile, Dr. Trotter saw Dr. Valya Lee standing in the door
of her office suite. He and she talked briefly at that location and subsequently
went into her office. (I think that she had just ended a meeting with Sid Chapman
and a GAE woman staffer concerning CCEA/GAE/NEA’s permission to enter into all of the schools and other facilities in
Clayton County during the school day
during the month of October.) I only briefly stepped into Dr. Lee’s office
while the two were talking, and I left just as briefly. But, after I received
your scurrilous and specious letter wherein you try to build a case against me with vicious and unfounded lies and innuendos,
I began to put the pieces together as to where you even think that you could deign to say that I ever “demanded”
a job for anyone. In fact, Dr. Trotter says that he broached the subject of Mr.
Scott and a job at this meeting with Dr. Lee. I was not in the room, but I am
sure that Dr. Trotter did not “demand” a job for Mr. Scott. I am
sure that it was a friendly inquiry. So, I am confident that it must have been
from these two encounters that you did a global leap in desperation just to try to contrive a case against me instead of answering
the serious ethical questions that I have put before this board concerning your two “contracts.” (For the record, on the September 28, 2007 friendly
encounter that Dr. Trotter and Dr. Lee had, Dr. Duncan was not even in the building that day.)
Now let’s review just a few of Ericka Davis’s egregious micromanaging emails.
Ericka Davis seems to have no compunction about sending out demanding and sarcastic
emails to staff members of the Clayton County Public Schools. For example, on
February 28, 2007 at 9:23 AM
from her edavis@gba.ga.gov email address, she wrote to Debbie Bass: “Debbie: My church, Siloam Church International[,] [a
Fulton County church, I am quite sure]
is hosting an Education Workshop [on] the 3Rd [sic] and 4th Saturday in March. We will be doing test prep for the CRCT on the 3Rd [sic] Saturday because we have quite a few
educators in our church[,] my Pastor’s [sic] wife who is nationally certified and has her doctorate in Educational Administration. I need for Teaching and Learning to present the same presentation that was done for
Dixon Grove [a Clayton County church, I am sure] on the 4th Saturday in March at 10 [sic] am [sic][,] and I will
be piggy[-]backing on your presentation with one of my own called Parenting with a Purpose:
Strategic Planning for your child’s future [sic]. I need for
Ken Sanders to come or someone from his shop to talk about the high school testing and requirements and someone from Special
Ed. My church is a little larger than Dixon Grove[.] so [sic] I am hoping [that]
this is a good opportunity to educate parents and students. Please let me know
if this can be worked out. I am hoping Dr. P [sic] can drop in too.” Sounds like Ericka Davis is the Commander-in-Chief, heh? Barking orders to staff members to do work for her Fulton County
church on the weekend is hardly the role that she is supposed to play as a board member.
I also doubt that the citizens of Clayton County
want their tax dollars spent in Fulton County. On Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at
10:43 AM (probably during her coffee break), she blisters Dr. Barbara M. Pulliam, Ms. Luvenia W. Jackson, and Mr. Derrick
L. Williams: “I do not know if staff is tying me to the decisions that
are being made up there [sic] when they talk to people but I want it to stop. I
come to the central office [sic] other than Yolanda, [sic] the LEAST [sic] of all of my colleagues. Whatever you all are doing with the [Name Redacted] situation, somebody in writing TODAY [sic] had better
make it clear that I have no involvement in her daughter’s records or the decisions made about it.” She also does not mind getting involved in personnel decisions.
On her edavis@gsfic.ga.gov email
address, she recommends to Superintendent Pulliam “an all female firm” to address “crisis communication.” This was on January 16, 2007,
the night that she slandered and libeled Dr. Trotter and the night that he was arrested.
She probably wrote this on another coffee break. On January 27, 2007, Ms. Davis chastised Dr. Pulliam for not notifying her that she had decided
to stay with the Jonesboro Police Department for security instead of changing to the Sheriff’s Department. Perhaps this explains Sheriff Hill’s presence at the January
9, 2007 school board meeting – and perhaps his swift personal presence to direct his officer to falsely arrest
Dr. Trotter on January 16, 2007.
On June 24, 2007, at 4:18 PM,
Ms. Davis upbraided Camille Barbee in Communications: “Camille: Wow [sic] how [sic] IRONIC [sic] that this open records [sic] request comes on the same day [that] Dr.
Pulliam and I were emailed a letter from the Camelot people. Go figure. Can this be more obvious. [sic] Camille[,]
is there any reason why you would notify staff of an open records [sic] request beyond the cabinet level? Why include principals?” Besides the nasty emails, some
are revealing. For example, she basically commiserates with Sid Chapman of CCEA
because I came first with The Teacher’s Bill of Rights, and in emails to other staff members, she essentially writes
about slowing it down. On May 17, 2007,
at 3:42 PM (probably on another coffee break), she intoned to Sid: “You guys need to start pulling together a slate for next year.
Barbara [I presume Dr. Pulliam] is now working to please JT [I presume that this is John Trotter] and some other unsavory
characters. Do not trust HE (I presume that this is School Board Attorney Harold
Eddy] either.” In the pitiful email that Ericka Davis sent to Dr. Barbara Pulliam on Thursday, March 1, 2007 from edavis@gba.ga.gov at 10:02 AM (I am sure during another coffee break), labeled
“High” in “Importance,” she goes into great detail about not getting accepted into “DST”
[I presume that this is Delta Sigma Theta]. Toward the end of this fairly
lengthy email, Ericka Davis wrote: “I do find it ironic that this got all
the way to the Stone Mountain[-]Lithonia Chapter[,] and my mom received an email from a friend who is an AKA who heard [that]
I was at the rush because 2 [sic] Deltas on her job were talking about the Chair of the Clayton County School Board being
there. All that notoriety and not getting picked.
Now that is interesting[,] isn’t it?” I hope that Ms. Davis
did not turn against Dr. Pulliam simply because she had an ax to grind with her. I
have heard, from a reliable source, that Dr. Pulliam did indeed help Ericka and her daughter secure Jack and Jill status. My problems with Dr. Pulliam were always pedagogical in nature, not pettiness. I could cite email after email to demonstrate the petty micromanaging which Ericka
Davis has been exercising since she has been Chairperson of this school board. I
have access to boxes and boxes of emails. But, let me return to the Scott Family
like I said that I would. Why would Ms. Davis be “disturb[ed]” by
“rumors” that someone may have helped a young man of Clayton County
to receive a “scholarship”? Is this something to be “disturb[ed]”
about? I would think that we should rejoice at such a possibility. No, this “disturb[s]” Ms. Davis, especially when this upstanding young man might be the son
Eddie and Sandra Scott. Ms. Davis wrote to “Derrick C[.] Manning”
on Monday, July 2, 2007: “Derrick: I have heard some disturbing rumors. Did [sic] someone assist Sandra Scott’s son [to] get a scholarship in [the]
central office [sic]? Was the football coach at Morrow High fired because of
her? Ericka” First of all, from the poor syntax used by Ms. Davis (a communications
specialist with the State of Georgia), I really cannot tell
if the scholarship to which she refers is a scholarship to the “central office” or what? I presume that she wants “in central office [sic]” to modify “someone,” not “scholarship.” If this is the case, then is she saying that she is upset that someone might have
lent a helping hand to one of our finest youngster? Does she really intend to
display such a base and nasty attitude as a member of a board of education which is dedicated to serving young people? The true fact of the situation, I believe, is that the young man earned a football
scholarship to a midwestern university. But, even if he had been assisted, are
these“disturbing rumors”? I wonder if Ms. Davis has even been giving
a “helping hand” in securing her various jobs with the State of Georgia
by any local politicians whom she knows and perhaps whom she may have also helped. Just
wondering. On Thursday, July 19, 2007,
at 12:31 PM, Ericka Davis wrote to “Collier, Lonita S[.]” She wrote that she had a “most disturbing” “rumor” about Mr. Eddie Scott and the
“buyer’s position” which had been approved by the school board that she wanted Lonita Collier to address. Ms. Davis, again perhaps thinking that she is the CEO of the Clayton County Public
Schools, wrote: “But[,] I have also heard that Sandra Scott contacted you
about her husband getting the job. Is this true?” So, the Ericka Davis Inquisition continues…What right does she think that she has to making inquiries
of staff members? Perhaps the same “right” that she thinks that she
has to negotiate on her own about a “contract” with you, I suppose. In
the letter of October 2, 2007 to her colleagues on the school board, she
informs us 22 days after the letter of September 10, 2007 sent to her
from Greenberg Traurig that she, not Dr. Duncan or the Board of Education as a whole, had received correspondence from “David
Long[-]Daniels of Greenberg and [sic] Traurig” about rates, including a “monthly rate.” She said in this letter that the monthly rate was included in the letter attached (September 10, 2007). The only thing that I see
in the September 10, 2007 letter from Long-Daniels to Ericka Davis is
“33,000.00 Applied to the monthly retainer.” I certainly hope that the Amsterdam-Brussels-London-Milan-Rome-Tokyo-Zurich law firm
has not received and does not receive $33,000.00” per month as a monthly retainer from this public school system. Anything over $25,000.00 without specific approval from the whole board is expressed
prohibited. In fact, this firm should not be getting another penny from this
school board because (1) the supplemental work that was approved at the July 10, 2007 school board meeting was only for “this
matter,” referring to an investigation into some peculiar personnel matters (which investigation has for all practical
purposes ended since the targeted personnel have exited the system); (2) the firm never even responded to the RFQ which was
promulgated for “supplemental legal service”; and (3) your changed (altered) “contract” is wholly
without merit (and therefore you do not have “sole discretion” to hand out supplemental legal work). This altered “contract” had in it a provision
which was fraudulently added for you to personally have “sole discretion” on choosing outside legal counsel. Good try, Dorsey. In Clayton
County, that dog won’t hunt. That
sophomore sophistry is better played in the Atlanta Public Schools from whence you hail. Dorsey,
adding substantive and significant changes to a contract and then you and Ericka Davis signing this altered contract is very
serious. I, and the citizens of Clayton
County, do not and will not take this lightly.
One more thing concerning Ericka Davis’s high-minded concern about Ms.
Scott’s husband: Can you ask her if she had this same high-minded concern
when Vice Chairman Rod Johnson’s wife, Celeste Johnson, received a significant and anomalous promotion to a county office level job, despite the outcry from more qualified educators? Dorsey, I have many documents, emails, contemporaneous notes, etc. which I will be glad to share with SACS. If anyone is guilty of violating any SACS Standards in the Clayton County Public Schools,
it is Ericka Davis and Rod Johnson. Dorsey, one more matter: I know that it is a crime for a school board member to engage in assault and battery against a citizen
at a school board meeting. Is this also a violation of a SACS Standard? Just wondering. Finally, Dorsey, you
had better think twice before you ever publish a libel against me again. Otherwise,
I will be seeing you in the courts of Clayton County.
Sincerely:
Norreese L. Haynes
Clayton County
Board of Education, District 8
.
