Millot-Russo Email Communications February 5-9, 2010

Millot-Russo Email Communications
February 5-9, 2010
Friday, February 5
5:18 PM
RUSSO
Quick Update
chase is still giving me the runaround but i'm putting a check in the mail tomorrow for the
past two months --
no reason you should wait if the previous checks haven't gotten where they should.
more about blog stats, etc. as i can get them --
last but not least, i am taking down your post about the fix being in at the usde for reasons
i can better discuss on the phone than here --
please call me at XXX XXX XXXX if you want to discuss. it's part of a larger, ongoing
issue not at all targeted towards you or this post alone.
i appreciate your keeping this between us for the time being, though of course anyone
who's already read your post or who has an RSS reader or a google cache can still see it.
many thanks
/alexander
6:04 PM
MILLOT
Re: quick update
I guess we just hope no one has read it, because pulling it down might lead to
complications of its own.
Which reminds me of Ricky Roma (Al Pacino) to Williamson (Kevin Spacey)in Glen
Garry Glen Ross: "You never open your mouth until you know what the shot is."
I just put in a call to you, is there a time to talk tomorrow for an update on your
challenge?
I'll be at home working on K-12Leads all day - XXX-XXX-XXXX

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, reading, sec
The Washington Quarterly
Marc Dean Millot Pages 41 – 71. Abstract | Full Text PDF | Request Permissions · Cited By | Related Articles · buy now 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 federal educatio
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 DOE
By Kenneth Libby
From Dean Millot over at ThisWeekInEducation (Three Data Points: Unconnected Dots, or Warning?): I have now heard the same
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 Points: U
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
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's
playing 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.
Google Blogs Alert for: "Dean Millot"

Borderland › In Case You Missed It
By Doug Noon
Earlier today, Marc Dean Millot at TWIE, published a report, Three Data Points. Unconected Dots or a Warning? which seems to
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
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-transparency
I'm perfectly willing to write a post justifying my current post, and adding these factors to
the mix.
Dean
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
secret, and the fear that it 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.
Millot arrives in the same place, but from a different angle.
On January 22 senior Education Week reporter Michelle McNeil wrote "Transparency

Watch: Race to Top Judges to be Kept Secret". U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
has pledged to conduct an open, transparent competition for $4 billion in Race to the Top
funds.... But the Education Department is falling short on one key piece: letting the public
know who will judge the competition.
On January 28, American Enterprise Institute Frederick Hess commented on the

application review process in "You Call This Transparency?" [T]the Department of
Education never announced that judges had been selected, hasn't explained how judges
were selected or who did the selection... hasn't explained how conflicts of 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))
On February 5, Education Week reporter Dakari Aarons quotes Hess on how contestants
approached the process of drafting their applications. 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."
To this mix offered from Washinton, Millot simply reminded TWIE readers of
undisputed 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 might
be woried about transparency - the reports of various investigations of Reading First.
More important, Millot did not "call out senior government 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. 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 Beltway
insiders 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 government
officials 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 federal
departments 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. 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 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
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. He
chose to lead with a phrase designed to draw readers into his commentary. Neither
decision 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 be
addressed 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-- and
the 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 of
reading instruction). Eliza quotes Education Secretary Arne Duncan, on a Wednesday
press conference call, asserting: “Our new competitive grant programs like Race to the
Top 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 Obama
administration 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 to
80 “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 expertise
and 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 were
the 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 applications
on a 500-point grading scale. But perhaps it doesn’t 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/
In theory, the Obama administration’s Race to the Top (RTTT) program goes something
like this: States compete for an unprecedented $4.35 billion in federal dollars, and the
ones that win use the money to fund innovative school reform programs that will serve as
models for the nation.
In practice, the process of applying for RTTT is a messy one, with school boards, state
legislators, 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 about
how all of that happened and why...
I'm glad you said something about this - no one else really has pointed out the
connections between the DOE and philanthropy/NSVF in such a forceful manner. [I
worked 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'm
anti-market in public education). Regardless, I'm glad you're willing to talk about
regulating charter management organizations.
-XXXXXX
5:35 PM
MILLOT
When I get a bee in my bonnet....
Last draft, still on TWIE
of Education, and the implications for the administration of the Race to the Top (RTTT)
and Investing in Education (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 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 the
post up. The commentary neither charges government officials of wrongdoing nor its
broad relationships with parties interested in federal grants of conspiracy. Millot simply
pulls together several strands of conversation about RTTT and I3, and suggests Secretary
Duncan should respond early rather than late.
The substance of his concerns, the perception that the Department is acting in secret, and
the fear that it 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. Millot
arrives in the same place, but from a different angle.


purely advisory))
(Readers might also see concerns about transparency expressed on the National Journal's
Education Experts (January 25-31) and National School Board Associations (January 31)
blogs. )
administration."
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 street
is that several of the best-known school reform organizations are talking to states about
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 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 worried
about 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.
from interference by the department's political appointees. Tough love maybe, a plea
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
and Investing in Education (I3) discretionary grants programs, On first glance, 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 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. 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 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.


purely advisory))
TWIE readers might also review concerns about transparency expressed on the National
Journal's Education Experts (January 25-31) and National School Board Association
(January 31) blogs.
administration."
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
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 its
grantees. 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 to Education
Week on 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.
Let me touch on three issues of style raised in the blogosphere:
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.
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, published a repor
Points. ...
9:29 PM
MILLOT
kind of interesting
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
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 reasonable
compromise for everyone
As tempting and pyhrric short term flameout
Please 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 that
there'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. Is
that 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
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 yourself
in 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):
________________
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 I
could 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 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.


purely advisory))
TWIE readers might also review similar concerns about transparency expressed on the
National Journal's Education Experts (January 25-31) and National School Board
Association (January 31) blogs.
administration."
the pitch. The ask? A mere five percent. (TWIE columnnist John Thompson has
discussed the incorporation of organizations' services in state RTTT applications.)
Readers might also note that Andrew Rotherman, whose close relationship with the
To this mix offered by Washington insiders, Millot simply listed 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 its grantees.
Millot also offered a reason why some observers might be worried about a lack of
transparency - drawing on lessons learned in the not too distant past of Reading First.
Millot has some knowledge of that scandal; in 2006 he contributed a Commentary to

Education Week on the broad policy reasons behind its 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," the specifc charge Rotherham levelled
as Eduwonk. Millot 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. Judging from reactions on Rotherham's site,
readers generally disagreed with his inference, and took Millot's column at face value.
Aside from assembling existing 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 service monitoring fderal, state and
local 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 same
concerns as the Beltway insiders enough times from his unique set of contacts to suggest
that 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 officials
and the new philanthropy, considering it 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.
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" which
discussed how former Gates Foundation officials Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Innovation and Improvement Jim Shelton and Chief of Staff Margot Rogers were issued
waivers from the Obama Administration's ethical guidelines that would otherwise
prohibit them from against participating in Department of Education policy decisions
concerning the foundation.
Let me touch on three issues of style raised in the blogosphere:
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 Team
http://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, it’s 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 --

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 any
alternatives -- 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.
I'm going off email until tomorrow morning
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
for succumbing to pressure from Scholastic and Rotherham. Remember that you made
your decision about the path you were going to take on matters of education reform and
your relationship to the reform community the day you started your blog in its first
iteration so many years ago. And it was not a bad choice - the consequence of your
decision to take a contrary course is the blog that Scholastic found attractive.
In your shoes, if I could not get your contact at Scholastic to change his mind, I would
ask to take the decision up a level. I would say that I felt this intervention was arbitrary
and based primarily on a personal relationship rather than sound editorial judgment. I
dont know how much you've been paid over time, but I'd total it up as Scholastic's
investment, offer figures on your growth in readership etc, and other indicators of
penetration into the next generation of people who will be making purchasing decisions
on Scholastics's offerings. I would not hesitate to bring the Publishing Executive quote by
Kevin Hogan into the discussion. I would say that if your guy is so confident he is right,
he should have no problem with your request, and/or that this is a judgment call surely
he'd feel better about a decision for Scholastic that was based on as much input as
possible. I would end by saying that right now you've managed to keep this discussion
entirely in-house where it can be fixed, at the possible price of disappointing one guy, but
that you cant keep the lid on longer.
As a face-saving move, I would offer Millot up. I'd say we have an agreement for weekly
columns that ends in May. In the meanwhile you will move me from writing on what I
want when I want, to writing on topics you want, that you will review before publishing,
and that it will be limited in space and only be once a week.
I don't know your guy, but I might try to say "look at this from my (Alexander's)
perspective. The solution you want won't work for me, and for good reasons. Do you
really have so much invested in your decision that you cant back off? or take it up a
level? what's the downside of my proposal for you?"
10:58 AM
RUSSO
Re: Need to say....
dean --
thanks for your note and your thoughts.
it's upsetting to me as well, both on my own behalf and on yours.
i don't think there's anything substantively wrong with the post or

with the sourcing,
though i do think that -- like emails sometimes do -- it reads much

harsher than you meant it.
anyway, one thing that was raised this morning in a talk with
scholastic was doing a reality check to see if there's any real confusion or concern out
there about the blog in re scholastic -- that is, does anyone confuse the two or see
scholastic in a bad light because of the blog.
is there an industry insider, independent and well respected, who could tell us one way or
another whether there's any real reason for scholastic to worry? my contacts in this world
are slim -- steve pines, nelson smith, etc.
anyone you can think of who could attest to the non-problem here?
i could put a call into him or her, or make him or her available to scholastic for their
reassurance.
Thanks
/ Alexander
11:29 AM
MILLOT
Re: need to say
Sorry, I was deliberate in my choice of words. I did want to draw readers in. I did intend
to put a wake-up call into the public record. I edited it carefully. There's no point in
pretending otherwise.
To your main point:
As an interested party, I don't feel comfortable on making the suggestions you request. If
I suggest people who say this is ok, I look bad, if I suggest folks who agree with
Rotherham I'm adding to their credibility. Its just a bad idea to involve me in decisioms
about who might advise you on my work.
More important, I think it makes more sense to look at the "idea market's" )
Blogosphere's reactions....
I would note that Rotherman is an interested party himself, and seems to be the only
person who (over)reacted. He is an interested part following our coverage of the CMO
report. He is the one who put Scholastic's role into play - in effect trying to lock in your
contacts decision. The only folks picking up on the Scholastic angle are those who are
using it as an unwarranted interference by Scholastic. There are two possible futures to
this:
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
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 while
never 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
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 a
favorable 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 –
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.
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
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."
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.
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 are
going 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 fortitude
to 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
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

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 my
schedule.
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
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 Contract
Alexander:
Per our agreement: "you'll have complete editorial control"

By blocking me from publication at the site as of roughly 10:15 tonite during the six
months of our agreement, you are in breach of contract, i.e., you have unilaterally
terminated 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 Andrew
Rotherham'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 do
expect to be paid the $600 we agreed to.
Sincerely
Dean
From: Alexander Russo

Date: November 24, 2009 4:13:48 PM EST
To: Marc Millot
Subject: 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 weekly
column - my only condition is that we agree on a set term of six months, to give us both
enough time to see how it works.
RUSSO: i still can't pay you any real money but would be happy to pay you an
honorarium if that helped.\$200 a month?
/ar
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 you
post 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
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Millot-Russo Email Communications February 5-9, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Millot-Russo Email Communications

February 5-9, 2010

more about blog stats, etc. as i can get them --

Re: quick update

I'll be at home working on K-12Leads all day - XXX-XXX-XXXX

Fwd: Google Alert - "Dean Millot"

Cat out of bag?

Google Web Alert for: "Dean Millot"

Fwd: Google Alert - "Dean Millot"

Begin forwarded message:

Google Blogs Alert for: "Dean Millot"

Fwd: Google Alert - "Dean Millot"

Google Blogs Alert for: "Dean Millot"

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

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

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

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

On January 22 senior Education Week reporter Michelle McNeil wrote "Transparency

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

Other concerns re ED transparency on the net

Fwd: Where'd it go?

Begin forwarded message:

Dear Mr. Millot,

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

Last draft, still on TWIE

On January 22 senior Education Week reporter Michelle McNeil wrote "Transparency

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

Three issues of style:

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

no really, the last one

On January 22 senior Education Week reporter Michelle McNeil wrote "Transparency

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

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

Fwd: Google Alert - "Dean Millot"

Google Web Alert for: "Dean Millot"

I wonder if Shelton and have Weiss similar waivers?

Another Ethics Waiver

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

none for Joanne Weiss

Re: conflicts of Interest waivers

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

Re: Another Ethics Waiver

I know this is aggravating but

On January 22 senior Education Week reporter Michelle McNeil wrote "Transparency

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

Millot has some knowledge of that scandal; in 2006 he contributed a Commentary to

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

From an Interview with Scholastic Administrator Exec Ed Kevin Hogan

Scholastic Administr@tor Enters the

in Publishing Executive, November 2007

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

Re: Eduwonk comment?

"What happens if we cant work something out?"

Re: Need to say....

thanks for your note and your thoughts.

it's upsetting to me as well, both on my own behalf and on yours.

i don't think there's anything substantively wrong with the post or

though i do think that -- like emails sometimes do -- it reads much

Re: need to say

To your main point:

Which scenario is less advantageous to Scholastic: