|The Broken Arrow Ledger Censorship Page
| I think a comprehensive letter could be created to give to Bob Lewis and other media outlets if they continue.
- Jim Sisney, in email to Stephanie Updike, 8/10/2008
So, a lot of general preliminary impressions were printed, both in news stories and editorials. But when information that was inconsistent with the railroaded-superintendent story started
coming out, the reporting stopped. Where is the editorial stirring up public outrage over the money SISNEY has cost us? The Ledger fussed about Gerber's $14,000 bonus for doing his
job. How does this compare with the 200,000+ we have paid to Sisney for NOT doing his job and because of Sisney for all the legal costs HE inflicted on us? Where is the Ledger's
indignation about this?
** crickets **
What will the Ledger proclaim when the audit results are made public? What if there were no criminal activites? What if there was no massive cover-up scheme? Sisney was careful to always
use a disclaimer ("in my opinion", "suggest issues"). Readers don't always see these disclaimers, and tend to jump to conclusions, which Sisney was counting on. "The press is more than
happy to print mud-slinging by those in positions of public trust." - Jim Sisney, July 15, 2008, as quoted in the board members' Counterclaim.
The Ledger knowingly assisted Sisney in providing readers HIS conclusions to jump to. That was irresponsible, even if the editor was merely duped. It's worse if the editor knew the truth, which
I doubt. Will the Ledger set the record straight when the answers come out? Or just quietly let it go unreported, like the judge's ruling last Friday [update: Ledger reported this a week afterwards,
on July 9, 2010], the board members' side of the story as related in their counterclaim, the evidence that is available now that disproves Sisney's claims, Sisney's complete lack of support for his
accusations, and the evidence that Sisney intentionally conspired with board members and citizens to mislead the public, intimidate board members into doing his will, and, failing that, destroy
the reputations of innocent people?
|The Broken Arrow Ledger Reports Jim Sisney - a few samples
"It was refreshing for me to see new Superintendent Jarod Mendenhall waive the ridiculous fee ($90) charged by his predecessor to a taxpayer for open records." - William Swaim, BA Ledger
Editor, "Things looking up for school district", 7/8/2010
You want to talk about ridiculous, Mr. Swaim? What's ridiculous is the Federal lawsuit Sisney filed against the District. It never stood a chance, and everybody knew it. HE WAIVED HIS
HEARING! There was NO possibility of the judge awarding him anything. The only way Sisney would have gotten anything at all would have been if the board had not offered him a hearing, and
then all the judge would have done would be make the board give him his hearing! This involves a lot more than a $14,000 bonus, and lot more than a $90 pest fee. Why no righteous
What's ridiculous is Sisney adding the District to his defamation case, on the grounds that the District breached his contract. He already admitted in his federal deposition that the District fulfilled
the requirements of his contract! The District did everything right in firing Sisney, whether you like it or not. His breach of contract charges don't stand a chance. This is costing us MORE money.
Where's your righteous indignation?
What's ridiculous is Ritze and Reynolds trying to get out of testifying - for heaven's sake, Ritze is even on Sisney's witness list! If Ritze is so sure Sisney was railroaded, and Reynolds is so sure
BA Schools is hiding massive corruption (computers seized! subpoenas issued!), why won't they testify for the good of all? Where's your TRANSPARENCY battlecry?
What's ridiculous is the Ledger printing FOUR - yes FOUR - articles about a Sisney conspirator harassing the school district having to reimburse the district for all their trouble, and articles and
editorials about paying Gerber a $14,000 bonus for doing his job, and saying NOTHING at all about our having to pay Sisney for 8 1/2 months of NOT doing his job. Where's your righteous
indignation? What about the CHILDREN?
What's ridiculous is the Ledger proclaiming general accusations with no investigation into whether they have any validity, printing old events as if they're news, dredging up non-issues, dressing
them up for the gullible public, and presenting them as more evidence of our incompetent and/or evil-intentioned administration, in an attempt to misdirect the public's opinion. Where's your
What's ridiculous is the Ledger falling silent on any news that threatens the now utterly debunked "whistleblower superintendent railroaded by corrupt board members" storyline.
Things started looking up for the school district on October 6, 2008. It will be another great day when the Ledger starts reporting objectively.
Jolie wrote on July 8, 8:13 PM
Two articles and two editorials about charging a fee for providing copies of information to Beth Snellgrove and yet the Ledger has yet to even once report on the very important and much larger
significant fact that Jim Sisney testified under oath in his December 22, 2009, deposition that he had no evidence or could even state one instance of any laws broken or wrongdoing on the
part of AA, the district, or the three board members he sued or any material reason, only his 'feelings' that told him that the board was acting on bias when they chose to suspend and
terminate his employment. Why is the Ledger not informing its readership and writing editorials on these very pertinent facts available in court documents, which the Ledger provided links to
but no reporting on the facts within them or analysis of that information in the context of the controversy connected to it? Instead it chooses to make a huge issue out of this requested fee by
Gerber, ignoring the elephant in the room: the fraud that Sisney committed when he went to the press and courts stating he had evidence of corruption and illegal activity and was being
railroaded by three board members.
We had a incompetent, corrupt superintendent working at Broken Arrow not too long ago. His name is Jim Sisney, not Gary Gerber.
It would be refreshing and surprising if the Ledger staff acted like unbiased journalists for a change and did their job properly.
[Comment was not published by the Ledger]
| ...and a couple of tasty rants from 612...
|Broken Arrow Ledger, "Sisney believes cover-up of criminal acts taking place", 1/16/2009 (excerpts):
Former Broken Arrow Public Schools superintendent Dr. Jim Sisney said he believes criminal activities involving the expenditure of public money have taken place in the school district since at least the
1990’s and a massive cover-up scheme is now under way to keep this information from being disclosed.
“In my opinion, the information I’ve found, the documents I’ve collected and the conversations I’ve had suggest issues that rise to the level of criminal behavior,” Sisney said.
“Again, in my opinion, current and former employees and those outside the district were potentially involved and a massive cover-up is now taking place to keep this information guarded from the public.”
Sisney said he is convinced “this is not an oversight or sloppy administration but, rather, carefully calculated actions that violate statutes and board policies.” He said he believes these actions constitute
both misdemeanor and felony offenses.
The former superintendent said the biggest surprise he had was “the multiplicity of the issues that got at taxpayer money and the strong orchestration taking place” to keep these issues from public view.
“I think it is highly significant that to this date, there has never been an agenda item on open bidding requirements, even though I told (school board attorney) Doug Mann two days after he was hired that I
wanted to call a special meeting for school board discussion of this subject,” he said.
|From Sisney's federal lawsuit:
The scheme was used to avoid the Competitive Bidding Laws of Oklahoma.
from seeing the light of day. As part of the ongoing scheme, Superintendent Dr. Jim Sisney was fired in retaliation for threatening to investigate and expose the scheme that had gone on for several
From Sisney's deposition:
Q. What personal knowledge do you have that those three board members wanted you gone as part of a continuation of the criminal scheme?
A. A large pattern of factual events.
Q. What's the criminal scheme?
A. Make money.