PFAE

10/13/2026

NATIONAL ACTIVISM OR LOCAL PRIORITIES?

We know what Michelle White brings to the conversation. She has been very clear about where her priorities lie.

Her longstanding advocacy with Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety, her opposition to school resource officers, and her public position against requiring teachers to notify parents when their children request to be treated as a different gender at school.

She has criticized Super PAC influence in local education, while the national advocacy movement she supports includes Everytown Victory Fund, itself a Super PAC.

As this video demonstrates, her views on school resource officers differ sharply from Dr. Bishop's perspective on their impact in GPPSS.

Our local police chiefs have recommended SROs as a top school safety priority. These officers are mentors, trusted adults and the first line of response when a crisis threatens our students. But their service goes well beyond responding to emergencies. They build relationships with students, support school staff and become part of the culture of our schools and the communities they serve.
School resource officers are not simply armed security. They are members of our school communities who work every day to build trust, support students and keep our schools safe.

Michelle White has made her position clear. So have our police chiefs and school administrators. Our schools need decisions grounded in student safety, parental involvement, and the experience of the people responsible for protecting and educating our children, not a political lobbyist.

10/13/2026

The October PFAE Newsletter is now available for viewing and download!
Inside, you will find our endorsements for the upcoming election, information about the candidates, early voting information, and updates about the GPPSS.

10/09/2026

“I think we should stop spending so much money on lawyers.”

Trustee Colleen Worden told the Grosse Pointe News that in September 2024. Since then, the Grosse Pointe Public School System has paid $876,448 to outside law firms.

That number comes from the district’s own check registers, the monthly payment lists posted with Board agendas. Three months of registers are missing from the district website, so the real total is higher.

Since January, when the registers began listing what each payment was for, more than $211,000 has gone to Board general legal work and Board policy work alone. Much of it is work the Board created for itself.

From October through March, the Board rewrote Policy 8.05 to limit donations from outside political groups, using an undefined phrase, “political influence organization,” that in practice reaches only one local group. During that time, the district’s policy lawyers at Clark Hill were not paid at all from January through May. Then on June 26, the district paid them $98,669 in a single check covering work back to October 2025. For about eight months, none of it showed up in the public record.

That’s not the standard these trustees set two years ago. In October 2024, when the district said legal bills typically lag about a month, Trustee St. John said she wanted to make sure the district wasn’t paying lawyers “and not knowing how much we had paid them,” and offered to file a FOIA request to see the invoices. Trustee Worden asked, “who is looking at the detailed billings?” Today the lag is eight months, the bills are larger, and no one on the majority is asking those questions anymore. That should worry every taxpayer in this district.

Speaking of FOIA, this year the district has paid lawyers more than $50,000 just to handle public records requests. When we asked for information, we were told records the district used to publish would now require a FOIA request. If that information were online again, residents could look it up and the district could skip the legal bills.

Then there’s the police camera agreement, which gives public safety access to school cameras in an emergency. The Board approved it in November 2025 after a revised resolution and three amendments on the floor. It was reworked again, and Grosse Pointe Woods didn’t sign it until last month. Nearly a year for a safety measure few people would argue with, and every draft needed legal review.

All of this comes out of the general fund, the same budget that pays teachers, paraprofessionals and classroom support. Every dollar spent on outside lawyers is a dollar that never reaches a student.

Someone needs to get to the bottom of why these bills are so high, and soon. That means reporting legal costs at every meeting, putting the monthly financial reports and check registers back on the agenda, and keeping those records easy for residents to find. It also means having trustees who will keep asking these questions when the answers are inconvenient. A board where no one pushes back has no one checking the bill. That’s why independent voices on this Board matter.

Sources: GPPSS check registers, January 2025 through August 2026; Grosse Pointe News, September 19, 2024; GPPSS Board of Education meeting video, October 8, 2024; GPPSS Board minutes, November 24, 2025.

09/28/2026

BANNERS ON FENCES

The GPPSS Policy Committee is introducing changes to the rules governing banners and signs on district fences. The proposal would add new requirements, including that organizations be “affiliated with GPPSS,” along with additional approval requirements for banner design and location.

The proposed changes will be discussed tonight at the Policy Committee meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the Grosse Pointe North Library.

The discussion on Banners on Fences does not make sense as currently presented.
It appears the district is revising front-facing materials and imposing new requirements without actually revising the governing Board Policy or Administrative Guideline, specifically Policy 8.09 and AG 8.09.

The existing policy gives the Superintendent authority to approve banners. What appears to be happening is that the district is incorporating an interpretation of that authority into materials, effectively creating a quasi-policy without changing the policy itself.

PfAE believes that if this is going to be the district’s policy, then it should be clearly stated in Board Policy 8.09 and AG 8.09, debated publicly and adopted through the normal policy process, not simply embedded in front-facing literature.

We support limiting exterior fencing to district-affiliated organizations because it clarifies which groups are affiliated with our schools and what our schools support. But “affiliated” needs to be clearly defined so everyone understands who qualifies and the same standard applies to everyone.

The district also needs a clear distinction between banners placed on exterior school fencing and sponsorship signage inside athletic facilities. That is very different from restricting longstanding commercial sponsorships that help fund athletics and other student programs.

Does the Superintendent intend to restrict sponsor banners inside athletic facilities? If so, the Board should understand how much revenue our athletic programs could lose and why that loss is justified.

And where does this stop? Are sponsorship signs, advertisements and program materials supporting our performing arts programs next?

The policy needs to clearly distinguish between exterior school fencing and the valuable community partnerships that have supported athletics, arts and student activities for years.

A district form should reflect Board policy. It should not create it.

09/25/2026

SEPTEMBER 21 MEETING

For many weeks, the teacher contract has gone nowhere. Trustee Worden seemed more consumed with defending her misrepresentation of her role in the camera MOU process than creating negotiating parameters that could lead to a resolution with the GPEA.

At the September 21 Board meeting, the equation changed simply because the numbers changed.

Trustee St. John was absent. President Derringer was recused from collective bargaining discussions. The faction that has controlled so much of this Board’s business no longer had its normal leverage.

After CFO Agrusa’s budget presentation and public comments, Trustee Cotton called for the remaining members to return to closed session to further discuss collective bargaining. The Board had already met in a closed session on collective bargaining before the regular meeting. Trustee Hull questioned the urgency of going back into another closed session that night. Cotton pressed the issue, and the Board returned to closed session.

We don’t yet know what that conversation yielded because it was in closed session, but it was the first visible effort we have seen of the Board moving forward without majority rule and with backing from all trustees.

As for the urgency Hull questioned, the district supplied an answer last night. It released a memo telling teachers to continue performing EPED duties without pay until the contract is resolved.

The Board sets the parameters for negotiations. Its majority approved four-year agreements for other employee groups while offering teachers a two-year deal. The two-year deal is likely more appropriate, but even that is harder given the dollars committed to other bargaining units. That decision made these negotiations harder, and teachers are now being asked to keep doing this work without pay while they wait. The delay also makes it harder for the district to retain and recruit the people our students depend on. The Board majority cannot treat the lack of a contract as someone else’s responsibility.

With Trustee Cotton leaving the Board at the end of his term, September 21 also showed why the next Board's composition matters to everyone.

Three seats are open. We have candidates’ backgrounds, public statements, answers to questions, and their records in this community from a variety of sources. Plenty of information is available to decide what kind of Board we want going forward.

What we don’t need is another automatic majority bloc. We need independent voices and people who bring educational, business and Board experience to the table. Incumbent Ginny Jeup, Walt Fitzpatrick and Jake Howlett each bring different backgrounds and experience for voters to consider, and all three can think for themselves and vote independently.

We have also seen a disconnect between this community's concerns and the national debates Michelle White is advancing into our school system, particularly around parental rights. We don’t need national politics imported into Grosse Pointe. We have enough work to do here.

September 21 showed that we can get that work done when one faction isn't controlling the table. Don't appoint a trustee who will just go along with a majority for the sake of harmony and to further their political activism.

09/24/2026

09/21/2026

There is a GPPSS Board meeting tonight, and one thing that stands out is how little actual business is before the Board.

That follows last week’s meeting, when the only real business before the board was the MOU with Grosse Pointe Woods.

Most notable: there is still no teacher contract before the Board. That means another week begins without a contract for our teachers. There is, however, a closed session scheduled regarding collective bargaining.

It is our understanding that Trustee Colleen Worden is leading the Board’s role in negotiations with the teachers union and setting the Board’s direction with the administration. We hope the community receives a meaningful update soon on where negotiations stand.

There are also several presentations tonight, including an update on the 2025 bond. We hope to hear specifically what projects have been completed, what is coming next, and what the plan is for future bond issuances. Major work was promised at Trombly, Elworthy and Parcells. The community deserves an update on the timing and scope of those projects.

Finally, we hope there is follow-up regarding the email Trustee Worden said she has from former Superintendent Dr. Andrea Tuttle concerning Worden’s meeting with the Grosse Pointe Woods police chief. We expect that document and the circumstances surrounding it to be clarified.

Tonight’s regular Board meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at Brownell Middle School.

09/16/2026

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

We now know that President Clint Derringer gave Trustee Colleen Worden permission to involve herself in the negotiation of an MOU.

That raises a very basic governance question:

By what authority?

GPPSS’s own bylaws state that “The Board acts as a whole.” They further provide that individual trustees do not possess the powers of the Board and may not act on its behalf unless the Board has specifically delegated that authority.

The bylaws do provide a legitimate mechanism for assigning work to Board members: the Board may create a standing or ad hoc committee, with the President appointing its members.

That did not happen here.

There was no committee created to negotiate this MOU.

There was no Board action specifically delegating negotiating authority to Trustee Worden.

There was no recorded Board vote authorizing President Derringer to transfer that authority to her.

President Derringer’s title does not appear to give him independent authority to confer the powers of the Board upon another trustee. His own duties beyond those specifically listed in the bylaws are duties “authorized by the Board.”

So saying that Trustee Worden saying she acted because President Derringer gave her permission does not answer the question.

It creates another one:

Who gave President Derringer the authority to give her that authority?

If the Board wanted Trustee Worden involved, it had mechanisms available to do so. It could have formally delegated authority. It could have established an appropriate committee and defined its role.

It did neither. The transparency and good governance is completely absent from this Board majority.

That is why the question remains:

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

09/15/2026

THEY DENIED TRUSTEE INVOLVEMENT. THE EMAILS DOCUMENT IT

At the August 17 Board meeting, Trustee Cotton asked:
“Are there any trustees involved with negotiating that access with the Woods?”

Trustee Worden questioned why a trustee would be involved. Dr. Bishop answered:
“To my knowledge, they wouldn’t be. That’s why they weren’t a part of this process.”

The public was left with a clear answer: trustees were not involved.

The September timeline and emails document otherwise.

WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS

WOODS OFFICIALS OBJECTED TO THE MOU LANGUAGE.
Chief Kosanke met with Dr. Tuttle to review the MOU and clarify his concerns. He then sought a discussion with Worden, the author, about improving the agreement.
This was not a police chief randomly choosing a trustee. Kosanke wanted disputed language amended and was directed toward the trustee who helped draft that language.

DERRINGER AUTHORIZED WORDEN’S INVOLVEMENT

On January 14, after reorganization, now President Derringer directed Trustee Worden to contact Kosanke for what he called a “clarifying conversation,” language that could avoid the use of the term, negotiate, since she has no authority to negotiate on behalf of the district.

They spoke for approximately 20 minutes about disputed provisions, including who could access the cameras and the tier-one and tier-two restrictions.

WORDEN PROPOSED A MEETING TO WORK OUT THE DISPUTED LANGUAGE

After the call, Worden wrote that Kosanke’s concerns could “likely be resolved quickly through a collaborative discussion.”

She proposed another meeting with Kosanke, legal counsel, administration, and Derringer so the issues could be “worked out.”

Discussing disputed provisions, considering possible resolutions, and arranging a meeting to work out the language is participation in the NEGOTIATION process.

Calling it a “clarifying conversation” does not change the substance.

BISHOP RECEIVED THE WRITTEN ACCOUNT

Dr. Bishop was copied on Worden’s February 9 email documenting the conversation, the disputed provisions, and the proposed meeting

That is impossible to reconcile with his later statement that trustees “weren’t a part of this process.”

THE EMAIL WORDEN NEVER PRODUCED

At the September meeting, Worden claimed Tuttle had sent her an email saying she did not want to speak with police and perhaps Worden should.

Jeup immediately asked for a copy. Worden agreed to provide it.
No copy appears in the records reviewed.

Worden also admitted that she rejected Tuttle’s alleged suggestion because she believed administration should handle the matter. She said she ultimately spoke with Kosanke only after Derringer gave her permission.

By Worden’s own account, her involvement was authorized by Derringer—not by the unproduced Tuttle email.

Kosanke’s January 9 email also confirms that Tuttle had already met with him about the MOU. The missing email cannot be used to imply that Tuttle refused to communicate with Woods police.

THE CONTRADICTION

The documents establish that:
Worden held a meeting solely with Chief Kosanke.
Worden did so at President Derringer’s direction.
Worden discussed Woods officials’ objections to the language.
Worden proposed another meeting to work out those objections.
Bishop received correspondence documenting her involvement.
The full Board was not included.
When Cotton asked directly, the public was told trustees were not part of the process.
The September timeline and emails do not support that answer. They contradict it.
The complete documented timeline, quotations, and source links are included in the comments.

09/11/2026

PFAE ANNOUNCES ITS 2026 GPPSS BOARD ENDORSEMENTS

Ginny Jeup • Walt Fitzpatrick • Jake Howlett

Pointers for Academic Excellence is pleased to announce its endorsement of Ginny Jeup, Walt Fitzpatrick, and Jake Howlett for the Grosse Pointe Public School System Board of Education.

Each candidate participated in an extensive questionnaire and panel interview process addressing the important issues facing our schools. We greatly appreciate the time, preparation, and thoughtfulness demonstrated by every candidate who participated.

PFaE believes Ginny, Walt, and Jake each bring valuable experience, independent judgment, and a sincere commitment to students, educators, and the entire Grosse Pointe community.

We look forward to sharing more about the candidates, their backgrounds, and our endorsement process in the coming weeks.

This endorsement was made independently and without coordination with any candidate or campaign.