Tony Hopson's usurpation of power at Jefferson High

Here's the latest on the district's disenfranchisement of Jefferson High School's parents.

Jefferson PTSA member Nancy Smith recently received an e-mail from Tony Hopson saying that recommendations regarding the Jefferson Community Advocacy Board made by the Jeff PTSA  "...went beyond 'feedback' and was actually more of a 'revamping' of JCAB."

He further wrote:

"At this point, Cynthia [Harris --Jeff principal] is ready to proceed with the implementation phase of JCAB, and would like to get the first meeting scheduled ASAP.  As stated in the document, 3 members of the original Core Team will be part of this implementation team (Alvin Manus, Deanna Wesson, and Tony Hopson) as well as a representative from the JHS PTSA and the Site Council."

So it appears Hopson is thumbing his nose at the traditional representatives of Jefferson High, and intent on forcing his own three-member majority onto the five member JCAB implementation team.  One of those, Alvin Manus, is on record favoring the charterizing of Jefferson High. 

According to an e-mail written by Jeff PTSA member Nicole Breedlove,

"Again this is not surprising given the number of charter schools that the School Board has approved in recent years, and given that PPS and the Portland Schools Foundation were awarded a grant from the Gates Foundation that would, among other things, close existing schools and increase the number of charter schools in the district.  If the goal of the JCAB were really to increase fundraising and community/parent involvement at Jefferson, which everyone agrees is necessary, then Hopson and Harris would not be refusing to make changes to the JCAB agreement that would make that intent clear."

As I said in my original post, this is nothing less than a coup to overturn the legitimate power structure at Jefferson High School.

Comments

[Wacky Mommy]

I would have to agree with your take on this.

[Mary]

Me Three!

[Disgusted Beyond Words]

Thank you Terry for raising this issue.

It is absolutely DISGUSTING the way this school district and its board has disrespected the families and students of Jefferson, over and over and over - and most especially over the last 2 to 2 1/2 years.

After hundreds testified and signed petitions against the design-team outcomes - which were not design-team outcomes at all, but Vicki's pre-determined Gates promises - the board still rambled ahead.

The district REFUSED listen to or involve Jefferson families in its redesign, even after REPEATED requests and promises to do so. Let's be honest, it's completely understandable why the majority of students/families in the neighborhood don't choose Jeff; and this school board put their stamp on it all. Vicki Phillips and the Portland School Board (minus Ruth Adkins) have a lot to answer for now and when they meet their maker.

The district and Jefferson administration have also treated the Jeff PTSA and Site Council members, along with parents, volunteers, students and families, worse than garbage over and over and over - ignoring, demeaning and dismissing them at every turn, along with continuing to make one undesired decision after the other behind their backs - all while these good folks are volunteering in good faith and working their butts off to provide the best education possible for Jeff students.

While PPS and its board have thumbed their noses REPEATEDLY at HUNDREDS of Jefferson families and taxpayers, they have increased power at Jefferson for ONE individual, Tony Hopson, board member of the schools foundation who awarded himself the grant to make this possible.

Tony Hopson is not even a primary stakeholder; not a parent, not a teacher, not a staff member, not a student, not a site council member, not a PTA member - simply an alumn with promises of big dollars. So what? We're all alumns of high schools; that doesn't give any of us the right to go back and dictate policy while its families, students and parents are not only excluded but demeaned, used and shunned.

Well, guess what PPS, Portland Schools Foundation, Gates etc? Jefferson children are NOT FOR SALE and its families have had enough; this crap has gone on too long and has gone too far!

The school board has sat back and done NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, even though the JCAB agreement is immoral, unethical and violates its own policies and state/federal laws!

It's way past time for a formal investigation into JCAB and this entire Jefferson design-team process (including the way it's been misrepresented), along with any other actions necessary to halt the inequitable "mess at Jeff" and treatment of its families.

And the school board has only itself to blame when it all hits the fan.

[J.S.]

DBW,
You are right on about the Jefferson situation. However, I wouldn't be so easy on Ruth Adkins. The JCAB agreement is a recent development, and I don't recall her speaking out about it any more than the other school board members. Do you think any board member, including Ms. Adkins, would be as silent if a self-appointed "community advocacy board" led by a charter school administrator was weasling its way into their school?

Not a single school board member is doing their job when it comes to Jefferson. They can't possibly think that the 4 academy reorganization plan or the JCAB proposal are supported by the community, or that ANY school would succeed as a result of such experiments. There has been a lot of talk in recent years about needing to shutter a PPS high school soon, so I suppose if Jefferson closes it increases the chances that the school board member's own high schools will be safe. It's the only logical explanation except for outright ignorance of what is happening. And I don't think most of the school board members are that ignorant, as much as they may TRY to ignore the situation and their role in it.

I pray that the school board members have to answer for their actions or lack of action much sooner than when they meet their maker, and hopefully in court where Vicki Phillip's lies, PPS's pr spin machine, and Tony Hopson's reputation as the Savior of Portland's Black children won't be able to cloud people's perception of the FACTS.

[howard]

Without Hopson's support, Jeff closes in a year or two. He is a legitimate and sincere stakeholder in the Jeff H. S. community. He is an alum, an administrator of a junior h. s. charter feeding Jeff and his Self Enhancement Inc. runs after-school programs reaching hundreds of students in the Jeff cluster.

He also has a knowledge of PPS decisions that weakened Jeff since the 1960s. A couple years ago Hopson wrote in an Oregonian op-ed.: "Four poor choices put Jefferson high where it is today.

PPS built Adams High School in 1969 with an eye toward desegregation. Hundreds of students were steered away from Jefferson and transferred to Adams. Relationships formerly held between families and the Jefferson cluster dissolved. Adams closed in 1981 but the relationships were lost to Jefferson.

In 1974 PPS began the Jefferson Dancers program to
entice kids back. A good idea in theory, it failed in practice. Soon the program was composed of
non-neighborhood dancers. Though Jefferson had a
minority population of 70 percent, the team had only 5 percent.

Seeking desegregation PPS rewrote the area boundaries around Jefferson in 1980. Kids who lived only a few blocks from schools in the Jefferson cluster had to be bussed across town for classes.

In 1980, PPS relaxed its school transfer policy. As
Jeff was already struggling, additional parents and
students were inspired to leave the Jefferson cluster.

Since PPS has failed in multiple instances, I'm inclined to go with Hopson.

[Mary]

DBW,

I agree with everything you say, but it's easy to get on a blog and bluster; what are you actually going to DO about it? You mentioned court; are you planning to file suit?

[Steve Buel]

Howard, anything that happened in 1980 was done at the request of The Black United Front and Ronnie Herndon and Rev. John Jackson. Hopson was there too. He would have been 100% for any developments which passed the school board as was the entire leadership of the Jefferson community. Maybe you got your dates mixed up. Basically the work the board did in 1980 and 1981 revived the African-American community in the NE and was eventually destroyed by the gangs moving in about 1986. How do I know. Herb Cawthorne and I wrote the plan in my house and we used all of Ronnie's stuff as the basis for it. You are probably referring to the desegregation plan previous to 1979 -- but the 1980-81 plan rescinded much of it.I think you are probably right that Adams had done a lot of damage to Jeff by that time. One of the things the plan Herb and I wrote did was build Tubman Middle School so that it would strengthen the neighborhood concept in the NE. As bad as the school district has been since Prophet left the real destroyer of these schools was the gangs.

[J.S.]

Howard,
It's utterly absurd to suggest that Jefferson or any school will close without one particular community member's support. (Unless that influential community member would actively sabotage the school if not given control over it. Is that what you mean?)

Jefferson is not Hopson's school. It is a neighborhood school whose purpose is to educate the students who live in the community. Until the district starts to value the educational needs and desires of the neighborhood's students and families, and stop catering to a handful of so-called community leaders Jefferson won't succeed.

It's the Jefferson families the district should be working with not Tony Hopson and other so-called leaders. Mr. Hopson said as much himself a few years ago. In 2000, Tony Hopson was quoted by the Willamette Week as saying, "So we always get phone calls and find ourselves having to speak on behalf of a community when we really can't. I mean, I can only speak for Tony, and I can speak on behalf of Self Enhancement Inc., but I cannot speak for the Northeast community, nor can I speak for Jefferson High School."

Apparently, Mr. Hopson has changed his mind since that interview took place, and now has even actively gone against the wishes of Jefferson families by supporting Vicki Phillip's latest reorganization of the school and signing an agreement with her and the Jefferson principal to establish Mr. Hopson's own self-appointed community board for Jefferson. If he is such a legitimate and sincere stakeholder of the school why did he do nothing to communicate with Jefferson students and families when he was serving on Vicki Phillip's design team for Jefferson? The evidence is clear, Tony Hopson has his own vision for Jefferson (small separate academies, uniforms, etc.) just like Vicki Phillips did, and he doesn't give a flip what the schools real stakeholders want.

I have no problem with you or anyone who is "inclined to go with Tony Hopson". But Tony should either work with Jefferson stakeholders to implement a community-supported plan for the school, or he should implement his own vision at his own school not try to take over Jefferson to make it his.

I agree with the issues you raised that have caused problems for Jefferson, but those are only a few of the harmful PPS policies that Jefferson families and community members have been raising with the district for years. If Mr. Hopson is so all-seeing and all-powerful, then why hasn't he solved all those issues before now? As much as he and PPS like to think so, Tony Hopson is not, and should not be, the answer to Jefferson's woes. He has been influencing Jefferson behind the scenes for years. If he cares about Jefferson students so much, he should be doing what some Jefferson parents, students and community members have been trying to do all along - holding the school board accountable for changing the policies and practices that have drained enrollment and educational opportunities out of the school. No more experiments on our children's school. We want the same things that all parents want for their students in high school - strong educational coursework, interesting electives, fair and consistent discipline rules, help for struggling students, extra challenges for high-achieving students, effective teachers, good communications between school and parents, and preparation for college and work. It's not too much to ask from a public school, and we don't need Tony Hopson to give it to us. It's the school board's responsibility to provide the direction and the resources to make it happen with the involvement of school staff, teachers, administrators and families.

Steve,
Your explanation of Jefferson's problems reveals your one-track mind-set and your ignorant and incomplete picture of the current situation. Please stop spreading half-baked irrelevant theories from the past about our school. A few gang members weren't responible for the current state of the school, just like Tony Hopson isn't responsible for saving it. It's midguided simplistic perceptions like that which have kept the school down. Enough!

[Steve Buel]

J.S. it is hardly half-baked to say the impetus that came out of the work the community did in 1981 was highly damaged by gang activity starting in 1986 which had a tremendous effect on the community in the NE. I didn't comment on the current situation which is quite different but was only commenting on Howard's perceptions. Either you need to take a real look at the history of that area or get a little less defensive. What has happened to the schools in the inner NE since Matt Prophet left as the superintendent has happened, in my opinion, for basically the same reasons as the problems in North Portland and the outer Southeast.

The people on the school board and the people controlling who gets on the school board could care less about the schools in areas of the city other than the ones which they favor (Wilson, Lincoln, and parts of Grant and Cleveland). In 1981 the school board had people on it who were knowledgable and oriented toward the African-American community. With 3 1/2 votes it was possible to put into practice the ideas of the community which is what happened. (When you don't know history you don't know who your friends are.) That was the last time by the way that a majority of the board was not drawn solely from the upper middle class in Portland. But it is more than lack of knowledge and attitude. The upper middle class fears people on the board who are not of their ilk, who they can't control. They want the priorities as their schools and also worry about losing resources to schools in working class neighborhoods who obviously need them more.

There, of course, is the paternalism factor also. It is pretty obvious that people who do not live in these communities, don't have children in the schools in these communities, don't work in these communities, and don't have friends in these communities would have little wisdom about addressing the problems existing in these communities. Yet the school board, The Portland School's Foundation, Stand for Children, and The Oregonian continue to believe they know what is best. At least their upper middle class friends keep telling them they do. Pretty soon they believe it and also see dissent as getting in the way of their true priorities. Hence, it is best swept under the rug. It was the same in 1980 until Ronnie kept standing on the directors' desk and refused to get off.

[howard]

I appreciate all the comments on my post. To clarify, it is my sincere belief that the Jefferson Community Action Board spearheaded by Tony Hopson Jr. with sincere and full support from PPS, the community parents and students is key to the survival of Jeff which now has about 600 students down from around 1,800 when it was Portland's most populous and a top performing high school.

I continue to suggest that primary blame for Jeff's decline is attributable to PPS and Jeff administrators as well as school board members during those years. With the addition of city and county politicians who failed to counter the growing gang problems in several areas of Portland and Multnomah county.

[Terry]

Let me remind commenters on this post that to use terms like "top performing", as Howard did in his reference to Jeff its glory days, is not necessarily helpful. As I've written umpteen times before, school "performance" is based largely on student test scores. The schools with the best students are always the "top performing" schools, especially when you get past third grade.

It also bears repeating that school administrators are hired by district administrators. If they don't do well at "underperforming" schools like Jeff, we know who's responsible. There's no excuse for placing incompetent principals like Leon Dudley at Jefferson.

That said, Jefferson's test scores haven't been all that bad considering where its incoming students started. Let's give credit where credit's due.

As for Tony Hopson, the school he runs at SEI is, like all charter schools, tiny. In fact, the school's website boasts of its small class sizes and its ability to work with individual students. If that's what it takes to educate disadvantaged kids, then Jefferson's small size should not be a threat to it's survival. What beyond that does Hopson bring to Jefferson? Uniforms? Calling a school an "academy"? Give me a break!

[marcia]

I just found this scary quote over at Susan Ohanian's site. Does it apply here?

"I believe that the only way to make a major improvement in our educational system is through privatization to the point at which a substantial fraction of all educational service is rendered to individuals by private enterprises. Nothing else will destroy or even greatly weaken the power of the educational establishment � a necessary pre-condition for radical improvement in our educational system."

—Milton Friedman

[howard]

Terry: When quotong someone it is only fair to quote that person fully. Limiting the quote to an unpopular two word phrase is bad form. It is even worse form to use that to insert other buzzwords such as "underperform".

I would not entirely blame district administration in cases where ineffective school administrators were highly popular in the community.

I stand by paragraph 1 of my prior post.

[Steve Buel]

The idea of who is responsible for a school doing poorly, the district administration or the principal has to be asked in the light of what it means to be a principal in schools these days. The main idea is to make sure your test scores elevate consistently (kind of like a growing economy) and that the district administration is not embarrassed by any problems in your school. The principal job has become one of applying national trends to increase test scores. You can't be criticized if you are using the recommended "best practices" etc. Well, we were down a little in reading but we have this new program which is addressing that. What a miserable, uncreative job being a principal has become (though it is somewhat better at the high school level).

When you contrast this to 20+ years ago when the principal's job was to make sure the school worked well it begs an interesting question. It seemed to me that years ago there were a lot of principals who became principals in order to increase their influence on education in general. You could influence the entire school, not just your classroom. (That was my motivation in getting a principal's certificate in the mid 80's.) But now you can't do that. You apply the new "methods" you are told to apply. And put up with a lot of increased scrutiny -- particularly if you are unlucky enough to be in a fairly poor neighborhood where getting those good test scores is darn near impossible.

So what is the motivation for becoming a principal now? Two I can see. 1) You get a lot more money. 2) You don't have to put up with the difficulties of kids in the classroom -- you get away from the kids.

So what kind of real educators would be attracted by these two reasons? That is the type of educators we are getting as leaders in public education. Can you see the problem here?

I had an interesting conversation with a long experienced principal (of the old school) who substituted in for an on-leave principal for a little less than a year in a hard middle school. I half-jokingly asked her if she had straightened out the problems in the school. She answered, "Steve, they won't let me." They won't either. Not under the present system.

[Mary]

As a former teacher, I am sad to have to back up everything Steve is saying about principals nowadays. I spent 15 years in the classroom in the 80's and 90's. I saw the trend Steve is talking about starting in the late 80's. Principals and vice-principals who acted as though their most important job was to be sure to collect that paycheck every Friday, and to spend as little time as possible with students and teachers. I remember one principal who, when he had an appointment with a teacher, would deliberately leave his office, or even leave the building, to avoid it. Same guy also walked out on a faculty meeting because he was unwilling to hear a discussion of disciplinary issues. This was just ONE guy; there are many others. I could go on for megabytes, but I won't.

Interestingly, it was (from my point of view) the men who started the trend; I didn't see the women "catching up" in this regard until about 10 years later.

To meet a principal nowadays who is actually interested in the education of children is a rarity. PPS doesn't have that many, partially because they will not promote those who demonstrate this quality. It got a LOT worse under Steve Goldschmidt, who actively discouraged principals from supporting teachers in any way. By the time VP fired him, it was too little, too late.

This is just one more issue about PPS that needs a MASSIVE overhaul.

[blueteeth]

Has anyone talked to a lawyer about whether a legal action may lie in connection with the Jeff situation?

[Himself]

I just found this scary quote over at Susan Ohanian's site. Does it apply here? (Milton Friedman quote snipped to avoid convulsive cursing on my part.)

Milton Friedman and his acolytes, which include Republicans as well as the mainstream of the Democratic Party since the Carter administration, are the destructors of New Deal liberalism and the imperative for civic responsibility that came with it.

It is shocking to me that so many Democrats don't realize the degree to which their party has shifted to the protocapitalist (a.k.a. neoliberal) right in economic policy. It sickens me to hear supposed liberals, like our own Amanda Fritz, blithely defending libertarian code words like "school choice" without any sense of irony.

[Steve Buel]

Himself, what also shocks me is that the Democrats buy into the school testing lock, stock and barrel. They aways talk about the need to "fully fund" NCLB, not get rid of it.

[marcia]

They also aren't questioning the merit pay issue, either. I had a few good Democrats at Blue Oregon arguing with me over Obama's education plan this past week.

[Himself]

I had a few good Democrats at Blue Oregon arguing with me over Obama's education plan...

Supporters of Obama will argue that the sun shines out his keister.

I remember arguing with an old friend back in the '90s about Bill Clinton and his victory over organized labor with "right to work" in Arkansas. She couldn't wrap her mind around the fact that this was anti-labor policy and her man Bill was behind it.

Obama is dangerous in the same way the Clintons are: they are centrists posing as liberals, which has the effect of shifting the entire debate to the right. Those of us who believe in unions, collective responsibility and a social safety net are increasingly marginalized as the society created from the ashes of the Great Depression is torn asunder in the name of "free trade", "free choice" and the selfish pursuit of short-term, self-serving financial gain.

[marcia]

Thanks, Himself. That explains alot. But what is a good Democrat to do? The suggestion at Blue Oregon was to back whomever is the Democrat's choice to avoid another Republican, then work from there. (Sorry, Terry...I know this is way off topic.)

[Himself]

But what is a good Democrat to do?

Vote for Nader? (ducking....)

[Terry]

I don't care if it's off topic, Marcia, as long as it's interesting. And so far it is. Other bloggers would call it an "open thread."

Too many on Blue Oregon are partisan Dems, the kind that vote for anyone with a 'D' appended. Not me. I'm issue oriented, AND I've advocated a non-partisan state legislature. On the other hand, if it comes down to a choice between Obama, or even Hillary, and someone like Guiliani, I'll go for the Dem (even if Nader is running.)

I wrote a post a couple of years ago entitled "Why I won't vote for Hillary Clinton", but that was about the primary, not the general election.

[Himself]

I'm with you Terry. I'll vote for whichever D gets the nomination. But I can't get behind any of them in the primary.

As for "what is a good Democrat to do?" That's for each person to decide. I believed Nader's candidacies served to pull the Dems to the left, even if just a little bit. At the very least he reminded Democratic candidates that there is a progressive constituency out there.

Another perfectly legit strategy is to support the most progressive Democratic candidate out there, even if they don't have a chance (Kucinich?). Same basic idea, but from within the party. (I haven't been registered D since 1984, when I caucused for Cranston in my then-home state of Iowa, so I'm just a spectator and commentator until November.)

[G.P.]

There needs to be an external review of the individuals and organizations who served on the Jefferson design team who have received approval for contracts, charter schools, or leases since serving on Vicki Phillips Jefferson design team and supporting the reorganizaiton proposal (NWREL, NAYA, SEI, De La Salle, etc.). Many of the other members of the design team were PPS employees and therefore also weren't in a position to oppose the superintendent's plan.

For example, Tony Hopson (SEI director, and board member of the Portland Schools Foundation) signed the "Jefferson Community Advocacy Board" agreement with Vicki Phillips in May giving himself significant influence over the school. He was also on the board of the Portland Schools Foundation in 2004 when the Foundation awarded his organization (SEI) a "parent and community involvement" grant for a Jefferson Community Governance project, similiar to one of the inappropriate dealings that design team member Sam Brooks was being investigated for last month.

State to look into Minority Entrepreneurs
The Oregon Department of Justice will open a review to find out whether deals struck between Minority Entrepreneurs and Sam Brooks or his company were inappropriate
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
RYAN FRANK
The Oregonian

Last fall, more than 90 people showed up at Portland's urban renewal agency urging more aid for minority communities to confront gentrification and a dearth of construction jobs.
Within weeks, S. Brooks and Associates won a no-bid, $40,000 city contract to search for a new diversity director. It was a typical role for Sam Brooks, a government contractor and minority-business advocate who walked in both circles for two decades.
Brooks is chairman of the nonprofit Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs. In his personal business, he has done work with the city of Portland, U.S. Department of the Interior and his own nonprofit.
On Tuesday, the Oregon Department of Justice decided to open a review to find out whether deals struck between the nonprofit and Brooks or his company were appropriate, said spokeswoman Victoria Cox. The review, prompted by questions from The Oregonian and a recent Willamette Week story, could lead to a formal audit.
Between Brooks' personal business and the nonprofit, he has garnered more than $12 million in government aid and contracts the past decade. He was recently elected chairman of the Portland Business Alliance, the city's chamber of commerce, which raises his profile even higher.
Brooks' supporters say his connections help in his mission to reduce discrimination. Critics suggest that he uses his nonprofit for personal gain.
A look at the charity shows that Brooks and members of his nonprofit, the Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs, have benefited from the nonprofit's work. Two years ago, the nonprofit sold land on North Vancouver Avenue to an investor group, which included Brooks, for $2.55 million.
A decade ago, Brooks and his wife bought land on Northeast Alberta Street from his nonprofit for $88,332, a below-average rate when compared with sales nearby. That land is now worth $1 million to $2 million, according to brokers and recent sales.
The nonprofit twice paid Brooks, its board chairman, a salary even though its bylaws outlaw it. In 2005, the nonprofit turned to Brooks' company to do payroll for a contractor.
The money involved is relatively small. But the state Department of Justice and U.S. Internal Revenue Service generally discourage self-dealing between a nonprofit and its board members. Nonprofits are supposed to use contributions for public good, not to benefit board members. "We discourage them because they look bad," Cox said.
Brooks' deals with his nonprofit might be OK if they were done on reasonable terms, in the nonprofit's best interests and with the board's knowledge. So far it's been hard to tell. The nonprofit's attorney wouldn't share records. Since April, Brooks has not returned more than 10 interview requests by phone or e-mail.
"I can tell you, Sam is not enriching himself at the expense of OAME," said Michael Sandoval, a lawyer who's worked for Brooks and his nonprofit.
"A community builder"
Brooks, raised in segregated rural Tennessee, fell for Portland after his Navy ship docked at Swan Island for repairs in 1968. "Something told me that it was a place where a person who could deliver and stand alone could make it," Brooks said in a 1991 interview in The Oregonian. "It looked like a place where a man could do things."
Brooks spent 10 years at the Oregon Employment Department. His civic life took off after he started S. Brooks and Associates, a staffing and executive search business, in 1981.
He and friends brainstormed ways to encourage minorities to start new businesses. In 1987, Brooks created the Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs to do just that.
Brooks is a natural entrepreneur and community advocate. He's confident and gregarious, ready with a handshake and a smile. Friends have spotted him sweeping his parking lot at 5:30 a.m.
He attracts 50 or more for his nonprofit's monthly networking sessions. "You're in business to make a profit," he tells them. "And if you're not making a profit you're going out of business."
State Sen. Avel Gordly, a Portland independent, said, "I've always seen him as someone who is a visionary, someone who is a community builder."
The nonprofit began with eight members, later growing to 600. It offers office space to startups, networking sessions, a trade show and small-business loans.
Real estate
At times, Brooks' work for his charity also had benefits for him and the nonprofit's members.
In the 1990s, Brooks became a key advocate for a revival on Northeast Alberta Street, which had been run down by drugs and crime.
In part at his urging, the city expanded its Northeast Portland urban renewal efforts to cover Alberta Street -- which included the Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs' offices.
With Alberta showing early signs of a turnaround in the mid-'90s, the Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs set out to sell the property.
Sandoval, the attorney, said the nonprofit needed cash. Brooks advertised the 1997 sale just to members of the nonprofit, board member Rudy L. Trujillo recalled. A restricted pool of bidders means the sale price wouldn't have been tested on the open market. "That would appear to be a very limited audience," Cox said.
Brooks and his wife turned in the only bid for the land at 1130 N.E. Alberta St. They paid $88,332 in January 1997.
Sandoval said the Brookses paid more than market value but wouldn't disclose any appraisals that may have been done around the time of the sale. "There was no money made on that one," Sandoval said.
Records show the Brookses paid $3.76 per square foot of land. Six other properties sold along that stretch of Alberta Street in 1996 for an average of $12 a square foot, according to a title company's search of sales.
Comparing real estate values is more art than science, taking into account a parcel's size and zoning and the size of buildings on the land. But if the Brookses had paid the average rate, the price would have exceeded $250,000.
Today, Brooks' company is headquartered at the site. Given Alberta's turnaround, the property's value has shot up. In the past year, five properties on Alberta Street have sold for an average of $102 a square foot. At that rate, Brooks' property would sell for $1 million to $2 million.
James Posey, a contractor and advocate for minority construction firms, says Brooks structured the Alberta Street deal for his own benefit. "It always tends to work in his bailiwick," Posey says.
In 2005, the nonprofit got into a financial bind when its bank asked to have a line of credit repaid, said Jorge Guerra, the nonprofit's former director.
To raise money in November 2005, the nonprofit sold its headquarters, between North Vancouver Avenue and Williams Avenue, for $2.55 million to Cascade Holding Group LLC, an investor group made up of the nonprofit's members.
Sal Kadri, a board member at the Portland Development Commission who invested $150,000 in the purchase, said the property was first advertised to the nonprofit's members, like the Alberta Street sale.
Kadri said the price matched an appraisal done for the sale. Five years before, a property appraisal done for the Portland Development Commission pegged value at $2.3 million.
Brokers say it's difficult to find comparable sales nearby because the nonprofit's land is so large. As a comparison, six commercial properties on these streets sold, on average, for higher rates in 2005 based on price per land and building size, according to the title company's search.
Outside of property sales, the nonprofit paid Brooks, its board president and chairman, $34,687 in 2005 and $64,000 in 2003. But the nonprofit's bylaws say: "The officers shall serve without compensation." Sandoval says the board can override the bylaws and noted that Brooks has donated thousands of hours.
In 2005, the Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs turned to Brooks Staffing, a division of S. Brooks and Associates, to help a contractor who owed money to the nonprofit.
On his company Web site, Brooks wrote that his staffing company "made money because they did charge a normal markup! OAME's loan was paid back!" But Sandoval, the attorney, says both Brooks' company and the nonprofit lost money.
Fred Carter, one of the nonprofit's board members, said the board talked about the deal. When asked if the board sought competitive bids to ensure Brooks' company's rates were reasonable, he said: "I don't know and don't care. . . . I support Sam -- period -- because he's always been upfront and honest on all issues."
Ryan Frank: 503-221-8519; ryanfrank@news.oregonian.com

©2007 The Oregonian

[Hope]

Here'a an article about Sam Brooks's new Young Men's Academy at Jefferson
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=118004832783292200