“Welchert and Britz, and Manolo and certainly never Kenney … were never paid anywhere near $339,500″ The $339,500 figure is the total budget for Stand in Colorado for its first year, including its two paid staff members. Stand started its work in Colorado in April and, according to the parent I quoted in the story, its members did not begin working on the activities leading to their DPS endorsements until August and September. Stand has two separate entities here, one a c3 and one a c4, the political arm. The campaign filing for the political arm lists a total of $1,622.29 in in-kind contributions to date to the three candidates they’ve endorsed. You may assume that the entire $339,500 is going to the endorsements but I have to deal in facts.

“I’m not sure but their billings for any given race .. probably in the neighborhood of $10,000″ … Welchert and Britz were heavily involved in the 2007 elections of Pena, Hoyt and Jimenez and are among the top expenses listed for the three in many of the combined nine campaign filing reports for the three. For example, in the report filed by Bruce Hoyt on Nov. 1, 2007, he lists $7,500 to Welchert and Britz. This is one of the three candidates in one of the three reporting cycles for which a total of nine documents are required. I would therefore submit that your guess of $10,000 is likely incorrect. You can check these public documents at the Denver City Clerk’s office.

“I’m guessing you couldn’t track down a principal … ” Your guess is incorrect. The principal who exchanged emails with Brad Jupp, which you refer to in your prior comment, declined to speak to me. He did, however, walk over to speak to Christopher Scott, the candidate who has been so critical of Stand. You might assume the two had some relationship or somehow worked together. I do not. I do not get to write my assumptions, I deal in facts.

“Why don’t you put the question directly to Jeane Kaplin?” I did interview Jeanne Kaplan and she is quoted in the story.

“Why? What makes a school board race worth $340,000?” I at no point stated Stand was putting $340,000 into the board race and, indeed, the evidence points to the contrary. The why? Stand has come to Colorado would be, based on my research and interviews, to become involved in more than a single board race. In none of the four states in which they are currently located have they limited their work to a single board race in a single city.

I believe I’ve responded to your main points with fact. I appreciate your interest in this story but, as your comments are at times disrespectful and based largely on guesses and assumptions, I think it’s time to bring this exchange to a close.

Actually, this is not the case. Welchert and Britz, and Manolo and certainly never Kenney never worked full-time on a school board race, and more importantly were never paid anywhere near $339,500. All of them worked as, at best, part-time, contract consultants. I’m not sure, but their billings for any given race was probably in the neighborhood of $10,000 — certainly after mail and media costs. And in at least one instance, there were gross overcharges for the value of services rendered (sorry, I couldn’t restrain the snark).

If you still can’t see the distinction between the hiring of campaign consultants and an organization with full-time staff and a $340,000 budget, you might want to volunteer for the next campaign that grabs your fancy. We’re talking about a greater than an order of magnitude of difference, and certainly a huge change in the sort of money at play. And you probably know that Johnny Merrill, the first Stand director, was a campaign pro, which you neglect in your analysis. And you have side-skirted the issue of DPS providing parent contact information to Stand, and the use of school facilities and time for organizing pitches. I’m guessing you couldn’t track down a principal that was involved in these pitches, who believed that they acting at the behest of DPS. Why don’t you put that question directly to school board member Jeane Kaplin? Did some principals provide assistance, including parent info, to Stand, in the belief that they were following district direction?

Maybe folks that have had to comply with campaign finance laws and restrictions have a greater sensitivity to these issues, but you are clearly underplaying the quantitative and qualitative changes in both the stakes and the ante in DPS school board races. You can poor mouth these factors in any detail, but it doesn’t negate the clear and simple facts. And you have asked the biggest question. Why? What makes a school board race worth $340,000? Why are people spending a half a year organizing, and hundreds of thousands of dollars? Ego? Vanity? Ideology? Those questions and answers, they wouldn’t try a reader’s patience and interest…

“Who funded the expansion of Stand into Denver?” Stand is funded in Colorado by the Daniels Fund, Donnell-Kay Foundation, ECA Foundation, Piton Foundation and individual donors. Its budget in Colorado is $339,500, which pays the staff of its executive director and an organizer, along with other activities.

“EdNews and Stand share funders, not disclosed above” EdNews receives funding from Daniels, Donnell-Kay and Piton and has for the past two years or so. Funders have absolutely no say in story selection, reporting, writing or editing – nor have they ever attempted any. In the 15 years or so I spent in print journalism before coming to Ed News, and the six months since, I have never had an editor attempt to slant a story to a particular political point of view and I would not work for any organization that tried to do so.

We typically disclosure our funders in any story in which the funders are named. For example, a story about a study paid for by the Piton Foundation would – and should – carry a disclaimer that EdNews also receives funding from that source. In this story, I did not name the funders because I did not find them to be particularly surprising or controversial – most are large well-known foundations that typically give to education-related causes and that have given to other parent advocacy groups such as Padres Unidos and Metro Organizations for People.

In retrospect, this may have been a mistake since some, including Mr. Green, have lately begun to characterize these foundations as “pro-charter groups.” I would direct those with questions to a tool used by journalists – check the foundation’s IRS 990 form at http://www.foundationcenter.org. The Piton Foundation, for example, lists contributions to groups as varied as La Clinica Tepeyac, Aurora Public Schools, Denver Public Schools and, yes, West Denver Prep and other charter schools.

“Stand met with DPS principals during work time …” Stand is both a 501(c)3 group and a 501(c)4 group. The c3 status means it is a nonprofit, as are Padres and MOP, and as such is not prohibited from parent education and organizing on school time. The part of Stand that has c4 status means that, unlike Padres and MOP, it endorses candidates and therefore is not to supposed to be conducting political work on school time. The Stand emails to principals don’t make a clear distinction between the two, which is what prompted some principals to complain to DPS. The district’s attorney responded with a memo on political do’s and don’ts for DPS employees during school and work time.

“Stand is the only group with full-time, paid, political organizers … ” Perhaps but this is not the first election in which that is the case. Welchert and Britz, Manolo Gonzalez-Estay before and after joining Welchert and Britz, David Kenney – all are professional political consultants who have been involved in DPS school board races during the eight years I covered the district for the Rocky Mountain News. These are all men with more extensive political experience than Stand’s director, Lindsay Neil, despite her four years lobbying on behalf of the Colorado Children’s Campaign.

“The clear intent of Jupp, in an April 15 email, to principals …” There is an brief email from Jupp to a DPS principal who raised questions about the political nature of Stand. Jupp’s reply is to ask the principal to call him after 6:30 p.m. I don’t see clear intent there, except that Jupp perhaps is complying with the directive not to talk about a political question on work time.

Finally, this is a lengthy story and making it any longer would surely try a reader’s patience and interest. I have to make decisions about what to include, based on my investigation. Just because something is not included in a story does not mean I did not check it out. But I also do not pretend to have all the information on any particular topic and would gladly listen to anyone who would like to add to this story.

The story doesn’t even touch on the real money funding Stand’s organizing. Stand is the only group with full-time, paid, political organizers working on school board races in Denver. School board races! (affect Allen Iverson famed “Practice! Practice! tone for full dramatic impact). That is a real, dramatic change in the dynamics of formerly low-profile, and purely local school board races. And EdNews isn’t reporting that significant, seismic shift. DPS is becoming politicized to a degree never before seen. And this report doesn’t reflect the clear intent of Jupp, in April 15 email, sent to a principal who was concerned about the political agenda being focused through DPS, or the list of 36 schools targeted by Stand for organizing, apparently produced by DPS. Forest for the trees, people…