millot-russo email communications february 5-9, 2010

8/14/2019 Millot-Russo Email Communications February 5-9, 2010

1/41


2/41

Yes I will keep any conversation to myself.

9:29 PM

MILLOT

Fwd: Google Alert - "Dean Millot"

Cat out of bag?

Google Web Alert for: "Dean Millot"This Week In Education: Millot: Three Data Points. Unconected Dots ...Tags: business, development, education, image, innovation, marc-dean-millot, millot, newschools, points-unconected, re

The Washington QuarterlyMarc Dean Millot Pages 41 71. Abstract | Full Text PDF | Request Permissions Cited By | Related Articles buy now

Remainders: Diversity concerns linger at selective high schools ...Marc Dean Millot argues that the USDOE may have political conflicts of interests involving RttT. Want to review federa

grant ...

9:33 PM

MILLOT


Begin forwarded message:

Google Blogs Alert for: "Dean Millot"Schools Matter: Millot Asks About Conflict of Interest in Duncan's DOEBy Kenneth Libby

From Dean Millot over at ThisWeekInEducation (Three Data Points: Unconnected Dots, or Warning?): I have now heard

three independent credible sources - the fix is in on the U.S. Department of Education's competitive ...

Schools Matter - http://www.schoolsmatter.info/Big Education Ape: Substantial Increase or Funding Cliff? The ...By coopmike48

Millot Asks About Conflict of Interest in Duncan's DOE - From Dean Millot over at ThisWeekInEducation (Three Data

Dots, or Warning?): I have now heard the same thing from three independent cre... 3 hours ago ...

Big Education Ape - http://bigeducationape.blogspot.com/

10:00 PM

MILLOT

more on my post

Alexander


3/41

We have a post on eduwonk, noting you cant link to my TWIE post.

http://www.eduwonk.com/2010/02/hogwarts-on-the-hudson.html#comments

I think the response to eduwonk goes my/our way - especially important in that he'splaying on the home field.

My view is that you should put it back up. If you read this closely you will see that I

haven't accused anybody of anything.

I've pointed out that there's something going on in the field/hinterlands that could

undermine confidence in the Department.

I've noted facts that this has parallel with the past. These facts are not accusations, but

they certainly might lead folks to worry about the fairness of the grant process

I've urged the Department to deal with now by simply stating whatever it should be

doing to assure that actual and/or potential conflicts of interest play no role in these

competitions

I've asked those with relevant evidence - either way - to post it.

As far as I'm concerned, I've been a responsible columnist. I'm not a reporter, I'm a

commentator. And the blogosphere isn't just a one way information route, its a forum for

conversation for the unempowerd.

If the Administration isn't ware of the perceptual problem, its been brought to its

attention. It can deal with it with a bit of transparency. My request for responses and the

ensuing debate will help readers determine a) if this perception is widespread, if it has

any basis in fact, and if it's implications have been appreciated by the department and

dealt with responsibly and responsively.

My own view on eduwonk is that he has not read the post closely, and is reflecting a kind

of nervous paranoia - attacking an accusation I haven't made, and then the messenger,

editor and publishers concern, when he should be addressing the substantive issue.

Frankly, his approach simply exacerbates the perception I wrote about.

10:02 PM

MILLOT


Frankly, I think this will drive a lot of traffic to the site. The question is whether they are

led to a blank spot or the post. If you keep the post off, you look lioke yopu've bowed to

pressure yopu have not yet received.


4/41


Google Blogs Alert for: "Dean Millot"Borderland In Case You Missed It

By Doug NoonEarlier today, Marc Dean Millot at TWIE, published a report, Three Data Points. Unconected Dots or a Warning? which

deleted. Millot reported: I have now heard the same thing from three independent credible sources ...

Borderland - http://borderland.northernattitude.org/

10:28 PM

MILLOT

Hess is heading in the same direction as I.....

And no great friend of mine by the way....

"To help with the time-intensive applications for the Race to the Top, states called in

high-powered backup.

[States are] using their Rolodex and calling on providers who are thought to be popular

with the administration, observed Frederick M. Hess, the director of education policy

studies for the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank that espouses free-

market principles. They are turning to the consultants to help them loop in initiatives

and providers who are reputed to be good at X, whether that is turnarounds or data

systems or the rest of it.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/02/10/21mtr_stim-marketplace.h29.html"First, the Duncan claim of "greater transparency than ever before" is just hyperbole. For

instance, when contacted by Education Week and asked to share the names of the RTT

judges or even the location as to where they were being trained, the department refused.

More to the point, none of the stuff Duncan alluded to in yesterday's call has actually

happened yet. At this point, it's all prospective transparency. When the department does

follow through on these promises, in April or so, that will be terrific and will start to

provide crucial protection against political arm-twisting, aggrieved members of Congress,

and public skepticism.

Beyond that, however, it's critical to recall that the promised measures will all be after the

fact and that none of them actually entails any transparency regarding the RTT process.

As far as the actual real-time process, the Department of Education never announced that

judges had been selected (until Education Week's Michele McNeil broke that news),

hasn't explained how judges were selected or who did the selection, never explained

where the 19 priorities themselves came from, hasn't explained how judges are to weigh

seemingly conflicting criteria or apply the point system, hasn't explained how conflicts of


5/41

interest were determined, and hasn't explained how much the secretary will choose to be

bound by the review process (important because this is a discretionary program, so the

reviews are purely advisory)."

http://www.frederickhess.org/2010/01/you-call-this-transparencyI'm perfectly willing to write a post justifying my current post, and adding these factors to

the mix.

Dean


6/41

Saturday February 6

11:06AM

RUSSO

Re: Hess is heading in the same direction as I.....

Thanks for your updates

I'm on a little winter trip otherwise I would have called already

Please be assured that this isn't really about you or the substance of your post Issues of

transparency and accountability have been raised by several folks including hess and

edweek

If you can hold off until then ill be back at my desk on Monday and will have more

information then

alexander

3:10 PM

MILLOT

Millot's Post

There's a draft post by this name, with links on TWIE

It might be best to post this and my original post separately, but serially.

Late Friday afternoon TWIE columnist Marc Dean Millot posted the piece attached

below. It raised concerns about real or perceived conflicts of interests at the Department

of Education, and the implications for the administration of the RTTT and I3

discretionary grants programs, and seemed likely to generate a great deal of interest and

traffic. I decided to pull the post until I could review it for content and context. The brief

disappearance of Millot's post has been noted in several edu-blogs; from Andrew

Rotherman at Eduwonk, to Kenneth Libby at SchoolsMatter.

________________________________________________________________________

________________

Having reviewed the reporting on the subject and Millot's submission, I'm leaving the

post up. The substance of his concerns, the perception that the Department is acting in


7/41

secret, and the fear that it is for the benefit of insiders are corroborated by two reportersfrom a reputable newspaper, and a policy-wonk who doesn't generally side with Millot.

Millot arrives in the same place, but from a different angle.

On January 22 seniorEducation Weekreporter Michelle McNeil wrote "Transparency

Watch: Race to Top Judges to be Kept Secret". U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncanhas pledged to conduct an open, transparent competition for $4 billion in Race to the Topfunds.... But the Education Department is falling short on one key piece: letting the publicknow who will judge the competition.

On January 28, American Enterprise Institute Frederick Hess commented on theapplication review process in "You Call This Transparency?" [T]the Department ofEducation never announced that judges had been selected, hasn't explained how judgeswere selected or who did the selection... hasn't explained how conflicts of interest weredetermined, and hasn't explained how much the secretary will choose to be bound by thereview process (important because this is a discretionary program, so the reviews are

purely advisory))

On February 5,Education Weekreporter Dakari Aarons quotes Hess on how contestantsapproached the process of drafting their applications. To help with the time-intensiveapplications for the Race to the Top, states called in high-powered backup. [States are]using their Rolodex and calling on providers who are thought to be popular with theadministration."

To this mix offered from Washinton, Millot simply reminded TWIE readers ofundisputed relationships that Duncan and his senor staff have had with "providers

thought to be popular with the administration." He also offered a reason why some mightbe woried about transparency - the reports of various investigations of Reading First.

More important, Millot did not "call out senior government as corrupt." He pointed outthat these relationships raise reasonable questions about actual, potential or perceived

conflicts of interest in the implementation of discretionary federal grants programs likeRTTT and I3. He noted that in the course of his business with providers, developers

members of the media beyond Washington he'd heard the same concerns as the Beltwayinsiders enough time to suggest that the Secretary should address them head on.

Some chafe at this as an attack in and of itself, but discussing the relationships of political

appointees with organizations that might benefit from their decisions as governmentofficials is entirely legitimate. Yes, it is very hard for top political appointees not to have

potential conflicts. But the answer is not to pretend they don't exist. In most federaldepartments this is handled as a matter of course with: full disclosure of relationships,

identification if those relationships where actual or perceived conflicts are likely, andrecusal from substantial decisions involving those relationships. McNeil, Hess and

Millot, are pointing out that the standard operating procedure doesn't seem to apply here.Rather than accuse anyone of anything, Millot called for Secretary Duncan to head thisoff now, by admitting that he and his team have potential conflicts of interests withregard to their roles in grant making, recognizing that those conflicts are widely


8/41

perceived by potential grantees, and explaining how grant decisions will be insulated

from interference by the department's political appointees. Tough love maybe, but no

accusation.

Two stylistic issues: Millot did not disclose the various people who shared their fears that

"the fix is in," no more than Hess disclosed the names of those using their Rolodexes. Hechose to lead with a phrase designed to draw readers into his commentary. Neitherdecision is rare in the business of news commentary, let alone straight reporting. In short,

Millot's pugnacious, but as far as I can see, this is a straight commentary that should beaddressed on its merits.

3:33 PM

MILLOT

Other concerns re ED transparency on the net

http://education.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/whats-the-best-use-of-new-gran.php

Hess: Yesterday, however, Eliza Krigman posted on this blog Secretary Duncan's

emphatic response to questions about the transparency of the whole RTT process-- andthe concern that, clumsily or arrogantly executed, it may set back the good and useful

ideas it seeks to promote (much as Reading First's frailties ultimately did in the case ofreading instruction). Eliza quotes Education Secretary Arne Duncan, on a Wednesday

press conference call, asserting: Our new competitive grant programs like Race to theTop and the Investing in Innovation fund include greater transparency than ever bef...

http://www.jbs.org/education-blog/5901-race-to-the-top-transparency-is-missing

Another troubling aspect is that U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pledged to

conduct an open and transparent competition for the RTTT funds. In typical Obamaadministration fashion, there has been no transparency. In fact, there is quite a bit of

downright secrecy.

The Department of Education (DOE) made no secret of their plan to hire between 50 to80 peer reviewers to vet the hundreds of expected grant applications. The DOE selected

60 of these judges without disclosing what the requisites were for the job, or the expertiseand experience of those chosen. Nonetheless these reviewers were then sent to a training

session, with nothing being reported about the nature of the training received, what werethe priorities, etc. Even their compensation has been kept a secret. But worst of all, the

DOE will not release the names of the judges who are expected to score the applicationson a 500-point grading scale. But perhaps it doesnt matter because the final say on who

wins is still in the hands of Arne Duncan.

http://schoolboardnews.nsba.org/category/race-to-the-top-rttt/


9/41

In theory, the Obama administrations Race to the Top (RTTT) program goes somethinglike this: States compete for an unprecedented $4.35 billion in federal dollars, and theones that win use the money to fund innovative school reform programs that will serve asmodels for the nation.

In practice, the process of applying for RTTT is a messy one, with school boards, statelegislators, teacher unions, and others seeking input into a process that, in many states,has been anything but transparent.

3:35 PM

MILLOT

Fwd: Where'd it go?


Dear Mr. Millot,

Have you made any public statements about what happened to your post from yesterday,"Three Data Points. Unconnected Dots or a Warning?" I'd be interested in hearing abouthow all of that happened and why...

I'm glad you said something about this - no one else really has pointed out theconnections between the DOE and philanthropy/NSVF in such a forceful manner. [Iworked on a project about NSVF - the DOE is really operating more and more like them.Questions should definitely be asked.]

I really enjoy reading your work - and we have very different views on some things (I'manti-market in public education). Regardless, I'm glad you're willing to talk aboutregulating charter management organizations.

-XXXXXX

5:35 PM

MILLOT

When I get a bee in my bonnet....

Last draft, still on TWIE

Late Friday afternoon TWIE columnist Marc Dean Millot posted the piece attachedbelow. It raised concerns about real or perceived conflicts of interests at the Departmentof Education, and the implications for the administration of the Race to the Top (RTTT)


10/41

and Investing in Education (I3) discretionary grants programs, and seemed likely togenerate a great deal of interest and traffic. I decided to pull the post until I could reviewit for content and context. The brief disappearance post has been noted in several edu-blogs; from Andrew Rotherman at Eduwonk to Kenneth Libby at SchoolsMatter.Reactions ranged from outrage that TWIE would publish such unwarranted attacks to

outrage that TWIE would succumb to pressures protect the evil-doers.

Having reviewed the reporting on the subject and Millot's submission, I'm leaving thepost up. The commentary neither charges government officials of wrongdoing nor itsbroad relationships with parties interested in federal grants of conspiracy. Millot simplypulls together several strands of conversation about RTTT and I3, and suggests SecretaryDuncan should respond early rather than late.

The substance of his concerns, the perception that the Department is acting in secret, andthe fear that it is for the benefit of insiders are corroborated by two reporters from areputable newspaper, and a policy-wonk who doesn't generally side with Millot. Millot

arrives in the same place, but from a different angle.

On January 22 seniorEducation Weekreporter Michelle McNeil wrote "TransparencyWatch: Race to Top Judges to be Kept Secret". U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncanhas pledged to conduct an open, transparent competition for $4 billion in Race to the Topfunds.... But the Education Department is falling short on one key piece: letting the publicknow who will judge the competition.

On January 28, American Enterprise Institute Frederick Hess commented on theapplication review process in "You Call This Transparency?" [T]the Department ofEducation never announced that judges had been selected, hasn't explained how judgeswere selected or who did the selection... hasn't explained how conflicts of interest weredetermined, and hasn't explained how much the secretary will choose to be bound by thereview process (important because this is a discretionary program, so the reviews arepurely advisory))

(Readers might also see concerns about transparency expressed on theNational Journal'sEducation Experts (January 25-31) and National School Board Associations (January 31)blogs. )


On this last point, TWIE readers might remember my own post of January 5 "RTTT:Brand Name Groups Seek State Set Aside $$. The as-yet unconfirmed word on the streetis that several of the best-known school reform organizations are talking to states aboutincluding them in their RTTT applications. The big six are KIPP, TFA, New Leaders for


11/41

New Schools, New Schools Venture Fund, Charter School Venture Fund, and the New

Teacher Project. A setaside for these national organizations will improve states'

chances of being funded and make their RTTT programs work better. Or at least that's

the pitch. The ask? A mere five percent. (TWIE columnnist John Thompson as

discussed the details of these organizations role in state applications.)

One might also note that Andrew Rotherman, whose close relationship with the

Department of Education officials managing the RTT and I3 grant programs, the new

philanthropies and their grantees noted above, is undisputed, disclosed on January 30 that

he "worked as a thought partner with a number of states, including Louisiana, to help

them prepare their applications." Although he may "have have no stake in any particular

outcome," it's likely that clients thought his ties would not hurt their chances.

To this mix offered by Washington insiders, Millot simply reminded TWIE readers of

undisputed relationships that Duncan and his senior staff have had with "providers

thought to be popular with the administration," specifically the new philanthropy and its

grantees note above. He also offered a reason why some observers might be worriedabout a lack of transparency - from lessons learned in the not too distant past of Reading

First. He did not say this was a repeat, he only pointed out the parallels.

More important, Millot did not "call out senior government officials as corrupt." He

pointed out that these relationships raise reasonable questions about actual, potential or

perceived conflicts of interest in the implementation of discretionary federal grants

programs like RTTT and I3. Millot's day job as editor the of private information service

K-12Leads and Youth Service Markets Report, brings him into contact with school

improvement providers, developers, and local education of media across the nation.

Millot noted that he'd heard the same concerns as the Beltway insiders enough times to

suggest that the Secretary should not see the debate as solely a matter of the Capital's

local politics.

Some chafe at Millot's discussion of the relationship between key Departments officials

and the "new philanthropy" as an attack in and of itself, but discussing the relationships

of political appointees with organizations that might benefit from their decisions as

government officials is entirely legitimate. Yes, it is very hard for top political appointees

not to have potential conflicts. But pretending they don't exist is hardly prudent or

responsible. In most federal agencies this is handled as a matter of course with: full

disclosure of relationships, identification if those relationships where actual or perceived

conflicts are likely, and recusal from substantial decisions involving those relationships.

Along with McNeil and Hess, Millot is pointing out that the standard operating procedure

doesn't seem to apply here.

Rather than accuse anyone of anything, Millot called for Secretary Duncan to head this

off now, by admitting that he and his team have potential conflicts of interests with

regard to their roles in grant making, recognizing that those conflicts are widely


from interference by the department's political appointees. Tough love maybe, a plea


12/41

maybe, but no accusation. Moreover, Millot ended his post by asking readers to offer

their perspectives and evidence that might resolve the matter one way or another.

Three issues of style:

First, Millot did not disclose the various people who shared their fears that "the fix is in,"no more than Hess disclosed the names of those using their Rolodexes to improve their

chances of winning an RTTT grant.

Second, Millot did not say he thought the fix was in, but that others do. He chose to lead

with that phrase because it captured the essence of the concerns he heard from his

contacts - their sense that it might not be worth applying for grants because the winners

have already be selected, or that the only way to win is to work with groups who they

would not work with otherwise and who have no real claim to scaleable results.

Third, he chose to lead with the phrase because it might draw the "short attention span"

blog reader into the commentary. By all accounts he was right.

None of Millot's choices are rare in news commentary - Millot's role at TWIE - let alone

straight reporting. In short, Millot remains pugnacious, but as far as I can see, this is a

reasonable commentary, with a plausible logic, based on facts, and grounded in a broader

context of doubt, that should be addressed on its merits.

5:35 PM

RUSSO

Re: When I get a bee in my bonnet....

Ok thanks

Let me take a look

And run it up the flagpole

Alexander

9:12 PM

MILLOT

no really, the last one

Sorry, I'ver taklen too much of my own time from K-12Leads production as it is



of Education, and the implications for the administration of the Race to the Top (RTTT)

and Investing in Education (I3) discretionary grants programs, On first glance, seemed


13/41

likely to generate a great deal of interest and traffic. I decided to pull the post until Icould review it for content and context. The brief disappearance of the post has beennoted in several edu-blogs; from Andrew Rotherman at Eduwonk to Kenneth Libby atSchoolsMatter. Reactions ranged from outrage that TWIE would publish suchunwarranted attacks to castigations for succumbing to pressures that protect evil-doers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having reviewed Millot's submission along with reporting on the subject - especiallyover the last two weeks, I'm leaving the post up. Millot simply pulls together severalrecent strands of conversation about RTTT and I3, and suggests Secretary Duncan shouldrespond early rather than late. His commentary neither charges government officials ofwrongdoing nor its broad relationships with parties interested in federal grants ofconspiracy.

The substance of his concerns, the perception that the Department is acting in secret, andthe fears of many that this is for the benefit of insiders are corroborated by two reporters

from a reputable newspaper, and a policy-wonk who doesn't generally side with Millot,and others.


On January 28, American Enterprise Institute Frederick Hess commented on theapplication review process in "You Call This Transparency?" [T]the Department ofEducation never announced that judges had been selected, hasn't explained how judgeswere selected or who did the selection... hasn't explained how conflicts of interest weredetermined, and hasn't explained how much the secretary will choose to be bound by thereview process (important because this is a discretionary program, so the reviews arepurely advisory))

TWIE readers might also review concerns about transparency expressed on theNationalJournal's Education Experts (January 25-31) and National School Board Association(January 31) blogs.


On this last point, TWIE readers might remember my own post of January 5 "RTTT:Brand Name Groups Seek State Set Aside $$. The as-yet unconfirmed word on the streetis that several of the best-known school reform organizations are talking to states about


14/41

including them in their RTTT applications. The big six are KIPP, TFA, New Leaders for

New Schools, New Schools Venture Fund, Charter School Venture Fund, and the New

Teacher Project. A setaside for these national organizations will improve states'

chances of being funded and make their RTTT programs work better. Or at least that's

the pitch. The ask? A mere five percent. (TWIE columnnist John Thompson has

discussed the details of these organizations' roles in state applications.)

Readers might also note that Andrew Rotherman, whose close relationship with the

Department of Education officials managing the RTT and I3 grant programs, the new

philanthropies and their grantees noted above, is undisputed, disclosed on January 30 that

he "worked as a thought partner with a number of states, including Louisiana, to help

them prepare their applications." Although he may "have have no stake in any particular

outcome," it's likely that clients thought his ties would not hurt their chances.

To this mix offered by Washington insiders, Millot simply reminded TWIE readers of

the well-known relationships that Duncan and his senior staff have had with "providers

thought to be popular with the administration," i.e., the new philanthropy and itsgrantees. He also offered a reason why some observers might be worried about a lack of

transparency - from lessons learned in the not too distant past of Reading First. Millot has

some knowledge of that scandal; in 2006 he contributed a Commentary toEducation

Weekon the broad policy reasons behind the failure of process. Millot did not claim this

was a repeat, he only pointed out the parallels. More important, Millot did not "call out

senior government officials as corrupt." He pointed out that these relationships raise

reasonable questions about actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest in the

implementation of discretionary federal grants programs like RTTT and I3.

Aside from assembling these lines of discussion into a coherent argument for public

concern, Millot added his own experience with a set of stakeholders his colleagues have

not covered. Millot's day job as editor of the private information service K-12Leads and

Youth Service Markets Report, brings him into contact with school improvement

providers, program developers, and local education media across the nation. Millot heard

the same concerns as the Beltway insiders enough times from his different set of contacts,

to suggest that the Secretary should not see the debate as solely a matter of the Capital's

local politics.

Some chafe at Millot's discussion of the various ties between key Departments officials

and the new philanthropy as an attack in and of itself, but discussing the relationships of

political appointees with organizations that might benefit from their decisions as

government officials is entirely legitimate. Yes, it is very hard for top political appointees

not to have potential conflicts. But pretending they don't exist is hardly prudent or

responsible. In most federal agencies this is handled as a matter of course with: full

disclosure of relationships, identification of those relationships where actual or perceived

conflicts are likely, and recusal from substantial decisions involving those relationships.

Along with McNeil and Hess, Millot is pointing out that the standard operating procedure

doesn't seem to apply here.


15/41






maybe, but no accusation. Moreover, Millot ended his post by asking readers to offertheir perspectives and evidence that might resolve the matter one way or another.

Let me touch on three issues of style raised in the blogosphere:

First, Millot did not disclose the various people who shared their fears that "the fix is in,"

no more than Hess disclosed the names of those using their Rolodexes to improve their

chances of winning an RTTT grant.


with that phrase because it captured the essence of the concerns he heard from his

contacts - their sense that it might not be worth applying for grants because the winnershave already been selected, or that the only way to win is to work with groups who they

would not work with otherwise and who lack a sound evidentiary claim to scaleable

academic results.

Third, he chose the phrase to draw the "short attention span" blog reader into the

commentary. By all accounts he was right to do so.


straight reporting. In short, Millot remains pugnacious, but as far as I can see, this is

reasonable commentary, with a plausible logic, based on facts and experience, and

grounded in a broader context of doubt that should be addressed on its merits.

Readers, have at it.

9:12 PM

MILLOT


Google Web Alert for: "Dean Millot"NCLB Outrages (Susan Ohanian Speaks Out)Here is a brief autobiographical statement from Marc Dean Millot, ... Earlier today, Marc Dean Millot at TWIE, publish

Points. ...

9:29 PM

MILLOT

kind of interesting


16/41

Straight off the web:

http://www.usoge.gov/directors_corner/pledge_waivers/Rogers_waiver.pdf

Waiver of former Gates executive Margot Roger's ethical prohibition from dealing with

matters concerning that philanthropy.

I wonder if Shelton and have Weiss similar waivers?

and what exactly was the written justification for them relied on by the Department's

Ethics Official?

and whether this might raise eyebrows from the transparency crowd

9:36 PM

MILLOT

Another Ethics Waiver

http://www.usoge.gov/directors_corner/pledge_waivers/Shelton_waiver.pdf

see also: http://www.judicialwatch.org/ethics-waivers - not that many under Obama (17)

none for Joanne Weiss

February 7

8:32 AM

MILLOT

Re: conflicts of Interest waivers

Perhaps the most important implication of Shelton's and Rogers' waivers is that in early

2009 the department deemed its relationship with Gates to b e so deep and pervasive, that

the two officials could (Millot 2/10/10: not) be practically separated from decisions

involving Gates and still do their jobs, and that the White House agreed. Two of only 17

waivers throughout the Obama Administration.

This Seattle PI article sheds some light on the expectations and extent of partnership, and

its influence on the substance of RTTT applications


17/41

Gates' largesse sways government

spending

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411523_gates26.html

Aside:

So... Is Rotherham on his way to becoming this administrations Edward

Kame'enui?

10:35 AM

RUSSO

Re: Another Ethics Waiver

I know this is aggravating but

I need you to back off a little longer dean I'm trying to generate a reasonablecompromise for everyone

As tempting and pyhrric short term flameoutPlease help me out

Alexander

11:26 AM

MILLOT

I'm waiting

Alexander:

I said I'd wait and I'm waiting, do not worry about that.

I see no harm in giving you sufficient ammo to show your Scholastic taskmaster thatthere's just no principled basis for holding back my column. That this amounts at least in

part to Rotherham's pique about both of us with the Toch report - among other things. Isthat personal connection he has with AR really worth even modest shit on his employer?

Whose interests is he protecting?

Use what you want in my draft text for your discussion and/or post. I'm not hitting the"publish" button - this is your site, not mine. I'm a guest and have no interest in adding to


18/41

your sweat. I'm simply improving my "Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement" here

by putting evidence together supporting my post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement

I have to respond to this sometime Monday or be the fall guy. I know you've put yourselfin my shoes and see that I cant accept the latter .

Latest (Im doing this as much for myself while I'm focused on the matter, as for you):

________________



of Education, and the implications for the administration of the Race to the Top (RTTT)

and Investing in Education (I3) discretionary grants programs, On first glance, it seemed

likely to generate a great deal of interest and traffic. I decided to pull the post until Icould get up to date on the topic, and review it for content and context. The brief

disappearance of the post has been noted in several edu-blogs; from Andrew Rotherman

at Eduwonk to Kenneth Libby at SchoolsMatter. Reactions ranged from outrage that

TWIE would publish such unwarranted attacks to castigations for succumbing to

pressures that protect evil-doers.

Having reviewed Millot's submission along with reporting on the subject - especially

over the last two weeks, I'm leaving the post up and unchanged. Millot simply pulls

together several recent strands of conversation about RTTT and I3, and suggests

Secretary Duncan should respond early rather than late. His commentary neither charges

government officials of wrongdoing nor its broad relationships with parties interested in

federal grants of conspiracy.

The substance of his concerns, the perception that the Department is acting in secret, and

the fears of many that this is for the benefit of insiders are corroborated by two reporters

from a reputable newspaper, American Enterprise Institute policy-wonk Frederick Hess

(who Millot would hardly consider an ally), and others.


On January 28, American Enterprise Institute Frederick Hess commented on the

application review process in "You Call This Transparency?" [T]the Department ofEducation never announced that judges had been selected, hasn't explained how judgeswere selected or who did the selection... hasn't explained how conflicts of interest weredetermined, and hasn't explained how much the secretary will choose to be bound by the


19/41


20/41

Aside from assembling existing lines of discussion into a coherent argument for publicconcern, Millot added his own experience with a set of stakeholders his colleagues have

not covered. Millot's day job as editor of the private service monitoring fderal, state andlocal grant and contract RFPs, K-12Leads and Youth Service Markets Report, brings him

into contact with school improvement providers, program developers, and local education

media across the nation with a direct interest in RTTT and I3. Millot heard the sameconcerns as the Beltway insiders enough times from his unique set of contacts to suggestthat the Secretary should not see the debate as solely a matter of interest to a small coterie

of policy experts in the Capital.

Some chafe at Millot's discussion of the various ties between key Department officialsand the new philanthropy, considering it an attack in and of itself, but discussing the

relationships of political appointees with organizations that might benefit from theirdecisions as government officials is entirely legitimate. Yes, it is very hard for top

political appointees not to have potential conflicts. But pretending they don't exist ishardly prudent or responsible. In most federal agencies this is handled as a matter of

course with: full disclosure of relationships, identification of those relationships whereactual or perceived conflicts are likely, and recusal from substantial decisions involving

those relationships. Along with McNeil and Hess, Millot is pointing out that the standardoperating procedure doesn't seem to apply here.

In this regard, it is relevant to note Associated Press reporters Libby Quaid and Donna

Blankinship story of October 25 "Gates Largesse Sways Government Spending" whichdiscussed how former Gates Foundation officials Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Innovation and Improvement Jim Shelton and Chief of Staff Margot Rogers were issuedwaivers from the Obama Administration's ethical guidelines that would otherwise

prohibit them from against participating in Department of Education policy decisionsconcerning the foundation.






maybe, but no accusation. Moreover, Millot ended his post by asking readers to offertheir perspectives and evidence that might resolve the matter one way or another.

Let me touch on three issues of style raised in the blogosphere:

First, Millot did not disclose the various people who shared their fears that "the fix is in,"

no more than Hess disclosed the names of those using their Rolodexes to improve theirchances of winning an RTTT grant.


with that phrase because it captured the essence of the concerns he heard from hiscontacts - their sense that it might not be worth applying for grants because the winners


21/41

have already been selected, or that the only way to win is to work with groups who they

would not work with otherwise and who lack a sound evidentiary claim to scaleable

academic results.

Third, he chose the phrase to draw the "short attention span" blog reader into the

commentary. By all accounts he was right to do so.


straight reporting. In short, Millot remains pugnacious, but as far as I can see, this is

reasonable commentary, with a plausible logic, based on facts and experience, and

grounded in a broader context of doubt that should be addressed on its merits.

Readers, have at it.

1:26 PM

MILLOT

From an Interview with Scholastic Administrator Exec Ed Kevin Hogan

Scholastic Administr@tor Enters the

Blogosphere: Executive Editor Kevin

Hogan on Adding a Popular Blogger to

His Teamhttp://www.pubexec.com/article/scholastic-administr-tor-enters-blogosphere-

executive-editor-kevin-hogan-adding-popular-blogger-his-team-83070/2

HOGAN: People are free to leave comments, anonymous or not, on the blog page. Russo

handles any moderating that needs to happen. Also, its important to note that Alexander

is his own editor, and his blog is completely independent from the opinions of the rest of

the magazine staff or of Scholastic at large.

in Publishing Executive, November 2007

9:36 PM

RUSSO

Eduwonk comment?

i'm still waiting for a response from scholastic, dean --


22/41

however i'm getting less and less optimistic that we're going to be able to work something

out that works for everyone.

help me think like them, if you're willing, -- why would they consider restoring the post,

from a bottom line perspective?

what exactly happens for them that's all that bad if they refuse to consider anyalternatives -- momentary bad press?

11:17 PM

Millot

Re: Eduwonk comment?

"What happens if we cant work something out?"

I go online Monday evening at any one of a number of edublogs and explain precisely

what happened: that you explained to me that you were ordered to pull the column by

your liaison at Scholastic who was influenced by Rotherham, that you would not have

done this on your own, that I have every respect for you and your efforts at TWIE, but

have been put in a corner where I can't let Rotherham's actions and charges go

unanswered. And that it is a shame Eduwonk was able to influence some functionary in a

way that damaged the credibility of Scholastic's investment in a unique web-based asset

for no principled reason, and put you in a unnecessary ethical dilemma. I note the

interview in Publishing Executive that I sent you describing your editorial control. Next

day, I offer the draft I wrote to you putting my post in the context of the larger debate on

transparency etc.

It generates sufficient buzz to draw the attention of Ed Week - there are so many angles

that make it interesting. Comments run more my way than Rotherman's, your guy's or

Scholastic's. Scholastic becomes part of a debate on a subject it has nothing to to with

otherwise, and cast in a negative light. The debate comes to the attention of the press

people at Scholastic who your guy works for/with. Someone asks your guy about his

actions. At a minimum his judgment is called into question. He's taken a bullet for

Rotherman and undermined the value of TWIE to Scholastic... why?

Is that scenario sufficient to discourage your contact from persisting with his obstinancy?

I don't know. You explain to your guy that you have no power to stop this train of events,

that transparency is a hot issue, that Rotherham will draw interest, and that I've been

placed in a position where I have no choice but to go forward, and will make every effort

to place decision responsibility with your contact. Maybe its just a story that blows over,

but he is likely to be questioned, and he doesn't have a strong editorial basis for his

position. Is he willing to incur the personal risk for such a low pay-off (making Andy

happy) and no real benefit to Scholastic? The cost benefit analysis says your guy should

change his mind.


23/41

I'm going off email until tomorrow morning


24/41

Sunday, February 8

9:30 AM

MILLOT

Need to say....

Alexander:

I want you to know that this incident is incredibly painful to me. I have every respect for

your entrepreneurship and basic integrity. I think you are on the bleeding edge of online

news, and especially in public education news. I admire yoiur efforts to create a viable

business model.

I understand that Rotherman has put you in an impossible situation. You cant put my post

back up on your own without risking the enterprise you've worked so hard to build. You

cant leave my post off without my explaining it, and the result will damage your

credibility as an independent editor running an independent blog. You can't stop me and

you can't stop this guy at Scholastic.

I have read and reread my post and simply cannot concede to Rotherham's charge that

I've accused Department officials of corruption. I cannot control the inferences of

readers, nor can I stop folks with a personal interest in undermining my (and your)

credibility. I can control what I write, and there is no place where I state that I believe the

fix is in. I point out a set of undisputed facts and say the Secretary should address them

directly. I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of here. I've done nothing wrong.

We all reach points in our lives where principle and practicality come into conflict. I

decided a long, long time ago that my life won't mean much to me if I don't stick to my

principles. I've accepted the consequences. It has not been easy, but I sleep well at night.

I'm not about to change now.

You are a budding journalist and editor - positions where a reputation for principled

judgment matters. You are also a guy with practical responsibilities - bills, obligations, a

spouse, career expectations. I can't pass moral judgment on your decisions. You have to

decide between two unfavorable but distinguishable outcomes.

I will say this. Whatever happens here, you will never be part of the club we've both

taken on. It is unfortunate that you've come to this decision point now, but it would have

come sooner or later. Its not about me, its about you. You will not be rewarded by them

for backing down. If anything, you will encourage their efforts to marginalize you still

further. At the same time, your allies and disinterested third parties will think less of you


25/41


26/41


27/41

If its put back up, with my proposed draft from you however edited, responsibility for

pulling this becomes yours, not Scholastics. Rotherham never said he called anyone

there, he simply started a rumor to that effect. Your post will quash that rumor. End of

story.

If its not put back up, I make it clear that Scholastic did pull the plug. Then there is/might

be a story.

Which scenario is less advantageous to Scholastic:

The first, which goes nowhere unless Rotherham decides to really push it, and in the end

revolves around whether theres a substantive case against the post? (tell me one reporter

who will run with that story?

The second, which will last no longer than any oother story, but probably will be a story

because it covers the longstanding debate between you and Rotherham, the CMO paper,Scholastic's unusual decision, the independence of sponsored blogs, etc, etc. And the fact

that I have more of an incentive to make it a story than Rotherham. Whatever the odds of

there being a story they are much higher in the case of scenario two.

11:39 AM

RUSSO

Re: Need to say....

thanks --

i understand your position and will try and find some outside

observers on their own.

and i understand your wanting to get attention and make a point -- i

do it all the time and knew that you would, too.

however, your post made it seem like you were making the first and

only warning bells about this, which was unnecessary and inaccurate -- you now know

that many others had said the same thing.

anyway, it's funny that our positions are reversed here -- you're more

focused on the media angles, and i'm trying to get some steam going on the money /

business implications, which seem to have much more traction internally.

/ alexander


28/41

12:37 PM

MILLOT

Re: Need to say....

On my choices in writing, your point may or may not be correct, but's just not relevant to

the substantive question. If the my warning bell was not the first, then who cares if I add

another bell? On that basis, there's no point in pulling the story. If it is the first bell, we

come back to the points that there no accusation from me, there's nothing new about

anonymous sources, and identifying the sources should be less important than the

underlying fact pattern that might lead some to think the fix is in.

This tack is a classic Rotherham move: the expression of shock that charges might be

leveled by folks who fear being punished if they did come forward. At the same time,

and out of public view, reaching over someones head to squelch the threat. All whilenever addressing the substantive point raised in the first place. Recall eduwonkette for

example. Or your own situation now and with edweek.org. These tactics are not exactly

within the rules laid down by the Marquis de Queensbury by which gentlemen will

resolve their differences

I'm focused on the media angles because first, in the end, your business is a media

business. From a long term business perspective, your reputation is your most important

asset. It takers years to build and can be wrecked in a minute. The short run cash

implications are clearly important, but every solution creates new problems, and your risk

is a solution that hurts you in the long run. I know there is no long run if you are killed in

the short run, but if you live through the short run you might still have a problem. You

need to think two moves ahead.

Second, as a policy medium, the blogosphere is a highly combative envirobment. Some,

like Andy, follow the law of the jungle. He's effective. I dont ignore that. Yopu dont

either.

Bottom line there is no distiction here between media and business in a media business.

We didnt make the rules, but we have to navigate with them. At this point all decisions

you face are judgment calls.

12:35 PM

RUSSO

Re: Need to say....

right -- i get the media stuff as well or better than anyone.

but scholastic isn't a media business. it sells books and services to


29/41

schools -- that's all i'm trying to say

meantime, still waiting for some sort of response from scholastic

about an explanatory note and/or revised version of the post.

will check in again in a couple of hours.

12:57 PM

MILLOT

My Next steps

Alexander:

On your first point, Scholastic should have decided to invest in you to establish afavorable impression with the generation of educators you reach. That general theme is

why they invest in District Administrator for example. They have put that at risk.

On your second point, I am not willing to let this drag on and leave the impression that

I'm at fault here.

I am getting ready to put my response plan into effect, and have responded to the email I

forwarded to you from XXXXXX (see below).

I will copy this email to a wider range of interested bloggers/reporters later today.

On paper it says nothing more than to expect something soon. Yet, given the culture,

these folks will be modestly excited about even this tempest in the teapot and expecting

something....

The next step is up to Scholastic. It can be scenario one or scenario two.

Dean

3:45 PM

RUSSO

still no response

checking in as promised, dean -- but no real news.

i've been doing lots of temperature taking among media and industry types


30/41

lots of aggravation directed at andy but i'm not getting a clear or

strong response re upset at scholastic.

4:06 PM

MILLOT

Re: still no response

tell me how much time you want today before I take this into my own hands.

You and contact need to be clear on my deadline.

no one gets pissed off in any meaningful way against scholastic.

they end up feeling sorry for you, but a little less sure that you can deliver on any

promises you might make. Not because of you, but because you will be seen as less of

your own man than before this

all the damage to scholastic is a matter of opportunity cost. If you are worth less their

asset is worth less.

I'm afraid that understanding this is beyond your contact's capacity, it is very likely

within the capacity of hus boss.

In your shoes I would take my contract out and get very clear on my rights, and very

clear specifically on whether he is the final say or merely your POPC (sic PPOC). If the

latter I would not ask to go over his head, I would tell him I am going over his head,

starting with the firms GC

4:17 PM

MILLOT

P.S.

If I have to follow through with my plan, we ought to be clear on what happens next.

I don't want to be "fired," and I can't "resign" without conceding error on my part.

You will have to decide to "fire" me or keep me on. If you fire me, that becomes part of

my story about the pressure you are under.

If you keep me on be perfectly happy to write about topics you direct that designed not to

upset anyone, but still useful to readers.


31/41

I think you'd look better if we parted ways at the end of our six month agreement. I think

it would be easier on you and be something to concede to your contact. I might start

edbizbuzz back up, or join another blog as guest columnist.

4:27 PM

RUSSO


it's up to you -- your call not mine.

you seem pretty clear about your course of action and time urgency.

as for me, i'm not sure what i'm going to do -- still mulling that over.

/ Alexander

4:32 PM

RUSSO

Re: P.S

would you really want to keep writing for the blog after all this?

if that's the case, then you should consider a different course of action re your next steps.

i've been assuming that you would want the relationship to end if this didn't go as you

desired.

4:38 PM

MILLOT


Midnight

4:39 PM

MILLOT

Re: P.S

.

no that is up to you


32/41

I'm the injured part here

4:43 PM

RUSSO

Re: P.S

not the only one, dean.

5:02 PM

MILLOT

Re: P.S.

very true, and if I could avoid making you collateral damage I would, but TWIE is your

company not mine, which leaves you with the spoils such as they are. I didn't make up

the rules here. I would probably have accepted the same terms with Scholastic as you, but

fate has it that you are the guy who did rather than me.

If you honestly believe this is going to take you down whatever you do, you should do

the Hail Mary, go upstairs, go head to hed with whoever signed the contract, and at least

die with your principles intact.

6:12 PM

MILLOT

Why would you want me to stay on?

Why would I want to stay on?

Selfish reason - reinforces that I've done nothing wrong. I

Less selfish reason - because I'm part of this and together we can choose between courses

that protect me but hurt you (MILLOT: 210/02) no) more than necessary, and those

that protect me but hurt you more than they had to.

I think we are agreed that I did nothing wrong here. I think you understand that because

pf this, I'm not going to accept outcomes that suggest I did. I think we are also agreed that

you are going to take the bullets here. But this "end game" can be better or worse for you.

You want a story that leaves you with a better argument than "I did what I had to do to

keep my job."


33/41

You need to start forming your "best alternative to a negotiated agreement" with your

contact. It may offer you a better path out.

Why would you want me to stay on? I can help you maintain your dignity, and serve as

an example that while you bent with the wind, you didn't betray your principles.

Leaving me on board leaves you bloodied, but unbowed. Firing me leaves you

emasculated.

Under the first scenario, you conceded only as far as you had to.

Under the second, you did what you werte told to keep your business. Even if I resigned,

it would be perceived as a formality to avoid being fired.

6:45 PM

RUSSO

Re: Why would you want me to stay on?

as i explained on the phone, your post did have some artless and unnecessary elements --

overheated language and loose ends left flapping -- that's part of this that i'm not sure you

fully appreciate.

if you knew it was going to be that hot i wish you'd checked in with me about the post

ahead of time, or that i had insisted on reviewing your posts ahead of time.

i'm not sure frankly how i'll feel about your role in taking the blog down if it ends up

happening that way --

imagine how you'd feel if our roles were reversed and this was your business and i'd done

something that mucked it up, intentionally or otherwise.

/ Alexander

7:53 PM

MILLOT


Alex:

I said earlier that it wasnt up to me to judge people in these situations. But you've asked

me how I'd feel, so I'll tell you. You may not like it, but you asked.


34/41

I would not be happy about the situation. I would be in shock. I would not be in the best

position to think straight. I would go to my closet friends for support and advice. I would

exhaust myself with physical activity to calm my mind.

I have run large enough organizations and groups to have gone through what you aregoing through more than once. I have the scars to prove it. I didn't ask for one of the

situations. But these are the times when you find out what kind of person you really are;

these are the ones you'll replay for the rest of your life.

I am sorry to say that few are "stand up guys." Most peoples principles crumble when

faced with an economic threat. The more money at stake the faster they crumble. The

folks with a family I understand. The ones without kids I dont.

In your place, I hope I would place the blame where it belongs - with my contact, the

contractual terms and the consequent risk I'd accepted, and Rotherham. I hope that I

would not find solace in rationalization and blame you. I hope I would have the fortitudeto protect you as someone working for me. I hope I would not see you thrown under the

bus by my action or inaction. I hope I would defend your reputation to the death. I hope I

would use whatever contractual ploys I had to take this upstairs. I hope I'd go down

fighting. I'd hope I'd walk away from the contract rather than bow on principles I

consider important beyond money. I hope I'd think my product was good enough to take

up elsewhere. I'd hope if I did walk, you'd stick by me. I hope I'd let you know all this

from the moment the problem hit my desk.

I hope I'd do this, and I think I would do this because I've done it before. My honor is

worth more to me than any amount of money, and I don't have children whose future is

more important than even that. This is nonnegotiable.

I honestly did not think the post would be controversial, nor did I in the least see

Rotherman coming at it as he did. Frankly, he's the exception that proves the rule. If he

had been fishing, this piece would still be on the site, and the commentary would be

running more or less as it has: A bunch of people who like it because they don't like this

department or its policies, a modest number who accept it as I intended it, and - if

Rotherham had come on later, a few who twist its meaning.

I do not agree with your views on the writing. I see them, at best, as marginal post hoc

arguments you are grasping at to make sense of a mind-blowing shit storm from nowhere.

It's not a good idea to be moving from your first comments to me - about its not being

about me, and then, as you are on the verge of being beaten into submission, changing

your mind. I'll accept your statements as the result of torture. The fact is my stuff on the

CMO report, Imagine and GCACS was far more aggressive. If you were really worried

about my style in general, you had plenty of warning. Now its a problem.

Its probably more truthful to admit that if you'd never taken Rotherham on you'd never be

in this position - and that decision precedes my arrival on the scene by some time. You


35/41

have wanted to be edgy, you are edgy, you built a business because you've been edgy,

and people like you edgy. Now you're really on the edge, looking over the precipice. You

were going to hit this point sometime, sometime unexpected. It happens to be now. It

happens to be about this post that I wrote. Now you have to consider if edgy is a life

strategy you want to stick with, or whether you should put on the grey flannel suit like

your "successful" college classmates. The moment of truth.

That's what this has turned into in the space of 48 hours. Blame wont help anyone. The

only productive thing here deciding whether to give in or fight, and based on that

decision figuring out your best next move.

I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but you asked and I respect you enough as a man to

be as straight with you as I can.

Dean

8:20 PM

RUSSO


thanks, dean.

there are some interesting insights in there, even if i don't think I agree about the overall

characterization.

i am at this moment at least feeling relatively calm about the situation -- not particularly

fearful or uncertain though i have no idea what will happen.

you're not the only one with battle scars, remember, though maybe we've taken different

lessons from our experiences.

i do wish that you could get past the notion that everyone else played a role in getting to

this point but you, but i can live without that -- in fact it's a helpful reminder of our

differences.

-- alexander

8:39 PM

MILLOT



36/41

So, do you have a reason to want more time (e.g,. a plan for tomorrow, the expectation

of a call, etc?

If you have a good reason, I don't want to be uncooperative.

If you don't see any way the post will go back up as is, I might as well stick to myschedule.

8:44 PM

RUSSO


the post's not going back up as is -- funny idea

and i've gotten no response re alternative solutions.

you are as always free to do what you want.

i'm not sure what i'm doing next, but it's not anything i'm going to

determine tonight.

8:53 PM

MILLOT


OK, I'm going ahead as scheduled. I've explained the gist of my approach towards you.

Should I consider myself fired?

9:18 PM

RUSSO


if you're going forward at this point i think you'd be resigning in protest, or ending your

relationship with the blog. quitting? firing yourself?

9:26 PM

MILLOT


37/41


I will not resign in protest, nor will I formally end the relationship.

I'd like to stay on, I think you are a good man placed in a bad spot and will say as much.

You will have to end the relationship.

You control access to the editorial side of the site.

If/when you block my efforts to post, you've terminated me.

Would you prefer to go through that formality?

9:44

RUSSO


you can do whatever you want, dean, but you can't make me agree with you or accept

your terms.

that's not how it works.

9:50 PM

MILLOT


Ok, I guess I'll post my explanation on TWIE at midnite.

10:36 PM

MILLOT

Breach of ContractAlexander:

Per our agreement: "you'll have complete editorial control"


38/41

By blocking me from publication at the site as of roughly 10:15 tonite during the sixmonths of our agreement, you are in breach of contract, i.e., you have unilaterallyterminated it.

The totality of communications on my guest blogging all found one email page constitute

a legal contract.

That is how it works.

I'm sorry you've been forced into this by your contact at Scholastic as a result of AndrewRotherham's call and pressure.

I bear no grudge towards you.

For the record, I have put in three months of work without dispute from you and doexpect to be paid the $600 we agreed to.

Sincerely

Dean


From: Alexander RussoDate: November 24, 2009 4:13:48 PM ESTTo: Marc MillotSubject: Re: New EdSector Report on CMOs

excellent. amazing. i'm very excited.six months is great.

are you up to doing something weekly?you can of course do more if it suits you.

it's you, me, and a teacher named john thompson.you'll have complete editorial control, and clear branding.you can insert an icon or head shot if you'd like- just nothing too commercial.

i'll send you an invite to join the blog right away./ar

MILLOT: You've just offered me an outlet for it, so yes I'll take $200/mo for a weeklycolumn - my only condition is that we agree on a set term of six months, to give us bothenough time to see how it works.


39/41

RUSSO: i still can't pay you any real money but would be happy to pay you anhonorarium if that helped.\$200 a month?/ar


40/41

Monday, February 9

11:55 PM

RUSSO

bruised pride & acute victimhood

dean --

publishing private emails and discussions to try and make me look bad (and exonerate

yourself)?

please don't do this -- it might not be legal, it's certainly not ethical, and (assuming youpost the full text)

doesn't really make you look that good, either.

in any case, it seems really naive and ungrateful to take a scorched earth approach like

this.

i've been a public supporter of yours when few others were, despite all your history, and

yet for your bruised pride and righteous victimhood you're going to give rotherham an

even bigger win than getting a single blog post removed.

you try and make it seem to yourself like this is about some higher issue, but it's really

just ego and refusing to acknowledge your role.

anyway, i'm going to start calling you "no fault" millot

/ar

12:35 PM

MILLOT

Re: bruised pride & acute victimhood

I received your message

12:45 PM

RUSSO


41/41


your nonresponse is a case in point

inability to respond to probing questions re assumptions, role, actions.

12:51

MILLOT


alexander

I believe you are good man in a bad place who made the best decisions he could

these have changed nature of our relationship

it is no longer appropriate to respond to you in this format

dean

12:58 PM

RUSSO


this is arbitrary and evasive nonsense, dean -- don't try and make it seem like more than

that.

you've focused almost exclusively on my and others' roles and doings -- conveniently

ignoring your own role and the larger context.

though cloaked in other trappings, this seems rigid and emotional --

i wish i'd started talking to you about it earlier -- that would have been a good man thing

to do.

are your friends and loved ones happy with what you're doing here?

/ar

millot-russo email communications february 5-9, 2010

Documents