Reader's Note: My blog began on June 6, 2007. You can find those entries in the Archive. Here, my latest entries begin at the top and descend by date. You can begin at the bottom of the page and move upward to the latest entry at the top, following the stories as they unfold.
|
Random Jottings to the Blogosphere
Summer afternoon; to me those have always been the two most beautiful words in the English language. |
|
|
July 30, 2008 We're off to the land of endless blue skies and silver water, but before we go I wanted to mention the disturbing revelations of the editorial Melissa Hale-Spencer wrote in The Enterprise last week. According to the editorial, a number of ugly references to women in the redacted report were made by the individual who complained of sexual harassment. I suspect Ms. Hale-Spencer was speaking for many in the community when she wrote that she felt "duped by the part of the report we now know applied to the complainant." My guess is that when the full report becomes public as Mr. Nelligan pursues a legal remedy to his situation the word "duped" will be insufficient to describe the reaction by the straight-shooters among us. Most likely "outrage" will be the word of choice, especially when we are made privy to the teachers' rebuttals to the charges of sexual harassment and the full interviews Dr. Michelle Paludi conducted during a cultural climate inquiry that is beginning to look like an undertaking which might have appealed to a certain group of judges in Salem, Massachusetts, circa 1692. One reason the full text of her interviews should be interesting is that they will give us some insight into how she chose to write her report. Was it simply an honorable summary or did the report reflect any biases on her part? Time will tell. So we're off on our sojourn. I'll have my laptop with me and if the mood strikes and I have something to say I'll keep posting. Stay tuned. And enjoy your summer. July 21, 2008 When the Guilderland School Board refused to intervene on behalf of the transferred teachers despite the outcry of community members--an outcry that continues in the local press, on the Internet and radio talk shows--the era of the 1960s was invoked by two board members. Essentially one board member referred to that era of protest as a giant civics lesson, as a way of underscoring how it was possible to protest and mind your manners. I imagine one could approach that complex wedge of Americana as though it were lived in accordance with the Beatles recommendation:
Wouldn't that be nice? Absolutely. The only problem is it wouldn't be true. Far more accurate is to quote the late journalist, David Halberstam, who described the 1960s as the era of "us against us." Still, a lesson may well be drawn from that time period, a lesson that might help illuminate the current hour in Guilderland. The decade got off to a roaring start on a cold January morning when JFK was inaugurated.
The energy and
optimism released by the Inaugural Address was greeted by the Soviets in a
somewhat less enthusiastic manner. They built the Berlin Wall and shipped
missiles to Cuba. I suppose this is a piquant reminder to those in
authority to remember that your words reach not only those who see things
your way, but those who do not.
Below, Dr. Martin Luther King, on August 28, 1963, the day he delivered what is arguably the most famous address in twentieth century American history. And, who, we ask ourselves, could possibly disagree with his dream?
We learned the tragic answer to that question on a Sunday morning less than three weeks later when a splinter group of the Ku Klux Klan blew up the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, killing four little girls. I recall seeing this on the news when I was young and wondering how grown-ups could do this to children.
Forty-five years later, I don’t have a good answer beyond a few incomplete thoughts: Change can be terrifying, probably because it involves so much loss, and terror all too often sours into anger, and angry people look to cast blame. Once they find a target the focus of their energies becomes to destroy it—no matter what the consequences. Perhaps this explains the expression, "Blind hatred." It is almost as if they believe that if they could just vanquish a perceived enemy then all would be right with the world. This doesn’t work—ever. And the hatred goes on.
. . .
The Civil Rights movement provided more than legal rights long denied to African-Americans. In fact, liberation movements in the United States often combined citizens with multiple causes. For instance, in 1851 at the Ohio Women's Rights Convention, the former slave, Sojourner Truth said: "Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the Negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon." The modern Civil Rights movement gave all Americans a new language of protest, and since the protests were broadcast on television the sit-ins and marches were easy to emulate. In October of 1967, after over two years of open warfare in Vietnam with little progress, 70,000 people marched on the Pentagon to express their displeasure with the war.
Ignoring the mounting opposition to the fighting in Southeast Asia, President Johnson sent in more American troops, and in the spring of 1968 a protest at Columbia University in New York City turned violent.
The Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement emboldened other groups of Americans who felt deprived of their rights. In 1968 and 1969 women protested at the Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
These women are on the boardwalk with posters of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Sojourner Truth. The reason the pageant was selected as a protest site was to make the point that women offered more to society than a quick walk across a stage in a bathing suit. However, the women's movement soon marched past cultural issues to legal ones. Though it sounds remarkable today, in those years, in a number of states, women who were gainfully employed were not permitted to apply for a credit card without a co-signer.
For decades, police in American cities routinely raided gay bars and harassed or arrested the clientele. In June of 1969, police officers entered the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, and this time some patrons resisted. What followed became known as the Stonewall Riots, and it stands today as the start of the gay liberation movement.
Still, there was always the war, and even after Richard Nixon replaced Lyndon Johnson in the White House, the fighting and dying went on. Protests increased, and yet the war did not end. On April 30, 1970, when President Nixon announced that the United States had invaded Cambodia, demonstrations broke out across the country. The National Guard and police were called to college campuses. At Kent State in Ohio, four students were shot and killed, two of them while they were walking to class.
In response to the shooting, 441 colleges and universities were affected, many of them locking their doors until the fall semester. Less than a week after Kent State, 100,000 people poured into Washington, D.C., to protest the killings and demonstrate against the war. Thirty-seven college presidents came to the capital to speak with President Nixon, but he refused to hear them out. More violence erupted, and the 82nd Airborne was summoned. One observer, looking at the troops, recalled thinking that this was no longer the preeminent democracy in the world, but a nation in the throes of civil war. President Nixon did have some advice for the student demonstrators: "Have a good time in Washington," he said. "And don't go away bitter." In no way am I suggesting that the current controversy in our community has reached the level of a nation turning violently against a war that no longer made sense, while its elected officials ignored their concerns and marshaled all of their forces to suppress that protest. I am suggesting that a school board is designed to reflect the will of the community. And that no hiding behind secret documents or alleging ignorance on the part of the electorate or refusing to give those who disagree with you a fair public hearing will accomplish anything but create angrier protests and drain away the dwindling faith people have in orderly process. If there is any lesson in that era it is that the exercise of arbitrary power by elected officials who refuse to listen eventually destroys their own moral authority, and by doing so, robs them of the consent of those they govern and painfully divides the community they serve, inflicting wounds that can take far too long to heal.
July 17, 2008 If you ever
doubted that Guilderland School Board President Richard Weisz is
passionate in his devotion to process, you should have been at the special
meeting on the muggy gray morning of July 14. In grave lawyerly tones, Mr.
Weisz treated his listeners to eighteen-minutes worth of his reverence for
“policies, rules and procedures,” and cautioned community members who
did not share his respect for these safeguards that they were inviting
“rule by mob.” Far be it from
me to dare question Mr. Weisz, but I would suggest that his devotion is of
recent vintage. I recall
another board meeting—this one in March—when it had become clear that
the district, after repeated denials, had handed out the private addresses
of our students to former local union leader, Chris Claus, an act the NYS
Committee on Open Government deemed, “contrary to law.” Naturally,
community members were troubled by the district’s behavior, and at that
March meeting, Mr. Weisz shut down the controversy by holding a vote in
complete violation of board policy—despite the strenuous objections of
Barbara Fratterigo and me. Assisting Mr. Weisz in that vote were Catherine
Barber, John Dornbush, Colleen O’Connell, and Gloria Towle-Hilt.
Apparently, the mob rule Mr. Weisz opposes is when the mob is not on his
side. One reason for
the controversy was that according to Mr. Claus the addresses were used to
help union-supported candidates in elections; one of them was Mr. Weisz;
the other two were Ms. O’Connell and Ms. Towle-Hilt. In addition, Mr.
Claus later supported Mrs. Barber, Mr. Dornbush and Judy Slack. Over three
election cycles the support doled out by Mr. Claus included a combination
of public endorsement to our teachers; mailings; phone calls; and in at
least one instance, a cash contribution. Mr. Claus is
the union leader that Matt Nelligan, Anne-Marie McManus and other members
of the social studies department criticized publicly. At the July 14
meeting, six out of the seven board members who voted against interceding
on behalf of the teachers owe their seats, in varying degrees, to Mr.
Claus. Not for a moment am I suggesting that this could have influenced
their vote. Besides, who is
the community to question the board? You have no right. You are a mob, a
taxpaying mob, perhaps, but a mob nonetheless. Don’t you understand?
Board members are not cut from the same base, self-interested cloth as you
or I. They possess no ego. Every decision they make is made without
passion or prejudice. You are lucky to have them. If you wish to elect
replacements, heed the warning that Mr. Weisz so generously offered at the
meeting: Be careful what you wish for. You could wind up with someone who
actually listens to you. Calm down, be
quiet. I know you’re upset, but as Mr. Weisz stated you wouldn’t be so
riled up if only you knew what the board knew. If you only had its
knowledge and vision you would never be dim-witted enough to suggest that
office gossip is still office gossip even if you call it a “culture
climate inquiry” and hire a Ph. D. for a gossip columnist. After all,
who wouldn’t support a job transfer based on the yackety-yak co-workers
trade in the restroom? “These
reports are no better than blogging,” you say? Please. Don’t be
ridiculous. The district paid Dr. Michele Paludi somewhere between five
and ten thousand of your tax dollars for her efforts. Most bloggers work
for free. What? Say it
ain’t so. You’re still complaining? You better stop or Mr. Weisz will
make good on his threats to conduct more inquiries and run for re-election
in May. Listen to me: none of this is the board’s fault. Can’t you
comprehend who is to blame here? The professional press, that’s who,
that nosy drooling mob with their notebooks, tape recorders, cameras and
microphones. Where do they come off with their highfalutin mumbo jumbo
about the public’s right to know? The board talks, they listen, and
that’s the news—end of story. As for their opinions—we should double
their taxes just for having them. Where do they get their nerve? How would
you like the Times
Union
editorial board to call you a coward simply because you ran away from
the people who elected you with the bogus explanation that your own policy
prevented you from hearing them out? Oh, you poor,
lost tax-strapped souls. I ache for you and pity you. In your feverish
desire to have these remarkable teachers returned to their beloved
classrooms and students you have no idea what disaster you are bringing
upon our district. You’re burning down villages, destroying our schools,
hurting our children, criticizing your school board and probably, when no
one is looking, knocking down old ladies instead of helping them across
the street. You are blinded by your ignorance. If only you could go to an
executive session where nobody has an ax to grind; everyone tells the
truth; and all mysteries are made plain. Don’t you
see? There are people in this world who would rather watch their house
burn down then admit they made a mistake and go back inside and turn off
the stove? And any of you
reckless enough to imply that these very people could be members of a
school board should be cast into the hottest pit of the netherworld,
where, for all eternity, you will be sentenced to hear Board President
Richard Weisz proclaim his reverence for “policies, rules and
procedures.” The
above also appears as a Letter to the Editor in the Altamont Enterprise. July 16, 2008
I came up with about 1,000 words on my reaction to the July 14 meeting of the Guilderland School Board. The truth is that if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it. I sent what I wrote to the Enterprise and I agreed with the editor that I wouldn't put it up here until Thursday when the paper comes out. So I will wait till then to post. I hope you find it worth the wait. Meantime, I'd just like to make a few comments. Let's begin with the above painting, Impression Sunrise: It was done in 1872 by the artist, Claude Monet. A critic who did not appreciate the work dubbed this style, Impressionism. It soon became a widespread, influential movement, partially because of the rise of photography and the belief that a photograph could more accurately capture reality. Impressionism, then, would turn to capturing the subjective experience of the world. It is a magnificent style of art. It is far less attractive when applied to the public arena. To listen to board members talk about their impressions of other people's impressions was as disheartening an experience I have had in some time. Listening to them I understood why so many disagreements wind up in court, where standards of evidence preclude gossip and dismiss self-appointed judges and misinformed experts as blabbering clowns. I would hate to see this whole mess wind up in front of a judge, though I can imagine that Mr. Nelligan and other members of the social-studies department would like a peek at the un-redacted report if for no other reason to clear all their names. Worst of all have been the phone calls, e-mails and the people stopping me in the supermarket to tell me how angry they are that their high-school age children will be deprived of these teachers. Here is something I hope the board remembers: taxpayers count. July 14, 2008 I know many of you have been checking in to see if I have something to say about the board decision at today's meeting. Unfortunately, I have a day job writing a book, but I will have something to say in the not too distant future. Thanks for checking. And stay tuned. From what I can tell by the e-mail and phone calls I'm receiving, none of this is over--not by a long shot.
July 12, 2008
See you bright and early Monday morning. I'm looking forward to hearing what the board has to say. So far, Superintendent McGuire has been alone in this decision. After the 8 am meeting I expect he will have a good deal of company. Enjoy the weekend. July 11, 2008 Three days ago the Times Union reported that John McGuire has been at the center of the community's ire before, when he was the superintendent of the Greenwich Central School District. At that time, McGuire "stripped the varsity football coaching position from high school history teacher Jason Slater," a move that created "an uproar" in the community. Today I learned from a Greenwich resident that this spring the school community had an answer to Mr. McGuire's move: the high school yearbook, the Cauldron, was dedicated to Mr. Slater with the following words: Mr. Jason Slater has been teaching United States History and Government at Greenwich since 2002. Mr. Slater is also actively involved in GCS athletics. He coached football at modified and varsity levels from 2001-2006. He also coaches the girls JV basketball program here at GCS. The students who have played for him will always call him coach. But Mr. Slater is more than just a list of coaching and teaching positions. He makes students his priority especially us 08'-ers. His door is always open to talk about school, life, and of course last nights game. Junior year, he organized our class trip to Washington D.C., to give us a first hand look at U.S. Government. The trip was amazing, and he even put up with our complaining as we drove home for thirteen hours--in a blizzard. Taking us on field trips, as well as showing movies, bringing in food and speakers ( and that one time we came up with our Native American names) are some of the ways that Mr. Slater spices up USH&G. Anyone who has ever known Mr. Slater as a teacher or coach (and even those who haven't) knows there is no end to his kindness, generosity, and commitment to coaching and teaching, For these reasons and many more, the Class of 2008 would like to dedicate this year's Cauldron to Mr. Jason Slater. So let's see: Mr. Slater was a beloved history and government teacher and coach, a man of generous spirit and intellectual vigor who always put his students and players first and gave unselfishly of his time, and Superintendent McGuire would appear to believe that he was not performing up to snuff. Somehow, it seems, this all sounds depressingly familiar.
July 10, 2008
I have been thinking about Watergate. For younger history buffs or those of us old enough to remember the scandal playing out in the news, the word itself calls to mind so much more than a break-in at the Washington, D.C., Democratic Committee headquarters. Of course, we can remember this image:
Yet the fact is that when people refer to Watergate they are often referring to a series of crimes or an ongoing abuse of power that began before Nixon was elected. The Pentagon Papers became associated with the scandal, and LBJ's misleading the nation about widening the Vietnam war. There were fund-raising irregularities, dirty tricks, cover-ups, and as I recall it seemed as though every ugly thing that had happened for years bubbled up to the surface of American life. Oh, and there was an oil crisis going on. What brought all this up has not just been following the controversy in the media of moving teachers between the high school and middle school or reading the blogs on the subject. Quite frankly, it appears that regardless of the position people are taking, mass insanity has descended on our community. I have found it especially troubling that many of the bloggers clearly work in our schools. Accompanying this backwash are allegations that have nothing to do with the teacher controversy; in fact, I have heard more gossip in the past week about our district than I heard in three years as a board member. Allegations of a crude remark passed in public; allegations of student records being destroyed; allegations of one staff member verbally assaulting another staff member in front of students; allegations of theft; and on and on. I don't know if these things are true; I can't believe that they all are. But it is no longer my responsibility to separate fact from fiction. What I believe is that whatever complaint our community has about the district--from taxes to block scheduling--is exacerbated by the teacher controversy, and I believe it will grow worse over time as this gossip bleeds into public view. In that sense, it resembles the Watergate scandal, bringing with it so much unpleasantness unrelated to the original controversy. And unless the board chooses to restore some order to the district, and the community, I fear that all of this will go on with no end in sight. July 9, 2008 Here's a sample of the e-mail I've been receiving: Peter:
Your coverage of these events and your insight are stellar. The new
Superintendent appears to be the root of this problem, although the
spectacularly bad judgment of the board is what has made residents angry.
Can you explain how the Superintendent can be removed? I think after all
of this plays out, that is going to be the least that district residents
will be expecting. Parents and students want heads to roll. It wouldn't be
bad if the entire board resigned, as well. I understand that this
would cause a massive disruption, but I doubt many residents will care at
this point. I appreciate the kind words about my coverage, but what I take away from this e-mail is a tone I've been hearing from friends and neighbors and just people who have been e-mailing or calling. It is the purest anger I've heard since moving to Guilderland, and it does not bode well for future confidence in the board or support for the school budget. By the way, for the sake of the truth, the board was blind-sided by this move. On the other hand, after Monday morning, when the board votes on whether to get involved in the superintendent's decision to play musical schools with our teachers, our entire community will know where every board member stands. Which brings me to the most frequent question I heard today: what do I think is going to happen at the Monday meeting? I have no idea, but I do have some theories. So today I'm going to write about a general aspect of what each board member faces: Will I be called a Micromanager? Or a Dronoid? This is a common feature of serving on a school board. Behold the Micromanager:
By definition a micromanager is a meddler, a person who tries to extend his or her control beyond the bounds of reason, guidelines, or law. The word is a pejorative: it is always used to express criticism or disapproval. To hurl the charge, "Micromanager!" at someone represents the high-art of name-calling. It certainly sounds better than denouncing somebody as a jerk, because it makes the accuser appear to be operating at a more mature level than a frustrated three-year-old. Yet in practice it's generally the same. For instance: Mom to Child: Eat your vegetables. Child: No! Mom: If you don't eat your vegetables then you won't get dessert. Child: Micromanager! That's the basic form, but it's not so simple when it comes to school boards. My guess is that on Monday morning a number of Guilderland Board members will vote not to consider the move of the teachers, claiming that this would make them "micromanagers." This, to a shrunken mind, would appear clever. After all, if you do vote to review the superintendent's recommendation then you are a micromanager. I believe the community will see such a move for exactly what it is--a flight from responsibility, the signature behavior of a Dronoid. As far as I know, the word "Dronoid" didn't exist until I made it up. Here's a picture and a definition.
Dronoiddro·noid [dro nòyd] (plural dro·noids) noun A term derived from a combination of the words, “Drone” and “Android.” It refers to Board of Education members who emit a boring, low-humming sound that is often confused with human speech and human thought. In popular usage Dronoid frequently appears with the modifier rubber-stamping Dronoid. In the strictest sense, this formulation is redundant, but it does capture the essence of an individual who is given to the knee-jerk agreement without thinking, researching, questioning, or dissenting. Dronoids are frequently cited as the reason behind bloated school budgets and exploding property taxes. However, on Monday morning a Dronoidial response by five members of the Guilderland School Board will wreck havoc with our teachers, harm our students and divide our community in ways that I find too painful to imagine. Update July 8, 2008 The Times Union put last night's meeting on the front page, and it is worth reading. The reporter, Scott Waldman, tracked down the Greenwich board member, Kim Fitzgerald, whom I'd heard on the call-in show. Ms. Fitzgerald recalled that while McGuire was superintendent in Greenwich, "he stripped the varsity football coaching position from high school history teacher Jason Slater." "The move," according to Fitzgerald, "caused an uproar and people flooded board meetings to voice their support for Slater." Understandably, Fitzgerald explains, the decision "made people in Greenwich feel powerless because they felt their voices were not heard." "This really divided our community, this decision," Fitzgerald said. "Nobody ever knew the reason why." Fitzgerald, says the TU, credited her landslide election victory to backlash against McGuire's decision. This is disturbing enough, the sense that someone who rules with such blatant disregard for the pain he causes the community he serves is better suited to running a penal colony than a school district.
Yet the most unsettling fact that Scott Waldman dragged into the light was: "Three middle school teachers were also reassigned to the high school. Patricia Hill, who retired from teaching at Farnsworth last month, said that move created extremely low morale among much of the middle school staff as well." So now not only does Guilderland face problems in the high school, but the middle school teachers, who have not been featured at the meetings and, to some extent, have been forgotten in this controversy, are also demoralized. It is only natural to ask: For whom do the schools exist? A few insiders--administrators and board members--who wield awesome power over our children? Or the community that nurtures and cherishes these children? By the way: WGY is running a poll on who everyone supports: the teachers or the administrators: Click here and vote. It's on the left hand side of the home page. So far 84 percent are behind the teachers, 16 percent for the administration. July 8, 2008 On some summer evenings you want to reach for a beer, but last, evening, when the Guilderland School Board returned from a four-hour executive session, I felt like grabbing one of these:
And why, you may ask, was I feeling unwell? A number of reasons. To begin: the board was in no mood to hear from the crowd, which I estimate at one hundred and fifty, and immediately adjourned to their private meeting. Then one by one people stood up and began to speak: I found some allegations by a Mr. McKenna, a Bethlehem resident, especially troubling. He said that Superintendent McGuire had removed two popular, longtime employees in other districts where he worked, much to the displeasure of community members. Earlier in the day, I had heard a similar story on a call-in show from a board member in Greenwich, and it was haunting to hear it again from Mr. McKenna, given the repetitive nature of some people's behavior. Then, as I waited for the board to return and walked among the crowd, I heard several comments from adults that were disheartening. The gist of their remarks was that if the superintendent and board were behaving with such reckless disregard for students, parents and teachers, why should the community fund their budget. Taxes were too high already, so they can just forget passing a budget. I would've dismissed this as the annoyance which is only natural waiting around with the media gaggle, but I had heard the same thing in some of the blistering e-mails I'd received. Will this anger be around in May? I don't know, but I wouldn't bet the ranch against it. Well, at last, the board returned and announced that they will be releasing the "Culture Climate Survey" or "Climate Culture Survey" or, as I sometimes think of it, the somewhat tattered "Joe McCarthy Handbook."
Only problem with this document is that all the names will be blacked out--redacted is the term of art--so whatever misbehavior is listed no one in the community will know who did what. This may be a legal requirement, but it also adds to the confusion and does nothing to establish who did what to whom. Sort of like throwing the guilty and the innocent into the same snake pit. Still, I might have made it through the evening without the hurly bag except the board had a really big announcement. Next Monday morning it will meet again to vote on whether the decision to move the teachers rises to a level that the board should address. For anyone who knows how a school board functions, specifically the Guilderland School Board, this is utter, intelligence-insulting, nausea-inducing, nonsense. The board has repeatedly addressed this very issue throughout its history. No vote required. At least the community will hear a discussion, and so the viewpoints of various members will finally become clear, and that, I imagine, will be good information to have going forward. But I am now convinced that if the board takes the easy way out and jettisons its responsibility by voting to do nothing, everyone who cares about education in our community, and the community itself, will be in for a long and bumpy ride. And that result will be the fault of the board--and the board alone. July 7, 2008 According to today's Times Union, the Guilderland School Board "will privately discuss the fate of two popular high school social studies teachers tonight -- while hundreds of angry students, alumni and parents are expected to be on the other side of the meeting-room doors." I wonder if this is what the board and superintendent are expecting:
One aspect of the Times Union story that caught my attention was the assertion by Superintendent McGuire that he and his "administrative team transferred the teachers as a way to reinvigorate the department." He added that moving Mr. Nelligan and Ms. McManus "was not punitive" but was because "These are the people who can do the job well," This drew my attention because it seems to fly in the face of his other explanations. On July 2, the Times Union reported that Superintendent McGuire "said the teachers' actions were 'inconsistent' with the departmental policy." On July 3, the Times Union reported that "a district 'culture inquiry' concluded that the two teachers were fostering a 'locker room' atmosphere among staff." Also on July 3, Channel 13 reported that the superintendent said the move was based on his view that "there was an environment in the high school that did not include respect and tolerance." These are just a few examples of what the superintendent has told the media. He appears to be revising his reasons by the day, and I'm unable to make sense of them. I do hope this is settled this evening, but it would be quite interesting to hear Superintendent McGuire explain the reasoning for his actions under oath. As for those of you who have been in touch about my opinion of tonight's outcome: I have no idea, though I'm not overly optimistic. In the Times Union story the superintendent seems to think it's a done deal. He opines that "it would be unusual for the school board to reverse the move." And board President Richard Weisz says the board's "job is easy. We have to do what is best for the kids." That should make the decision pretty obvious, but it certainly is vague in that lawyerly way. Of one thing I am sure--if the move stands, this drama is far from over. Stay tuned. July 6, 2008
Superintendent McGuire wrote a July 5 Letter to the Editor of the Times Union that strikes me as absolutely Orwellian, a stunning example of doublespeak. Here is the text of the letter interspersed with my commentary. I'm writing in response to Thursday's editorial, "School board cowards." I believe you are correct in acknowledging that school board membership can be the most challenging form of public service. Respecting that fact, I take strong exception to your mischaracterization of Guilderland Board of Education members regarding their conduct at their meeting Tuesday. Nice beginning. Not a whiff of Orwell. Not yet. However, I was curious about the superintendent's defense of the Guilderland School Board. From my experience serving with eight out of the nine members of the current board, they have always been able to defend themselves, and one member even has a record of writing a Letter to the Editor that positively dripped scorn. So I did wonder: Does Superintendent McGuire believe that he will soon need the board to defend him? In the next paragraph, Superintendent McGuire gets warmed up, writing, To set the record
straight, the board of education, consistent with their well-established
practice of welcoming public input, attempted to provide a forum for those
who wanted to address them either in a public forum or, for those speaking
on a personnel item, in executive session. l love the beginning, "To set the record straight." It reminds me of a great Orwellian T-Shirt I once saw:
What is so amusing is that after promising to do a little straightening out Superintendent McGuire proceeds to bend reality into a pretzel. He suggests that the Guilderland School Board only discusses personnel matters in executive session. This is not the case, and anyone claiming otherwise is a) ignorant of the facts; b) lying; or c) auditioning for the role of Big Brother. The next paragraph is a real doozy. Superintendent McGuire writes: In providing these opportunities, first public comments then executive session, the board was shouted down by many of those in attendance. Having attempted to provide for public comments twice, without audience cooperation, the board adjourned into executive session. . . Note the picture below; I assure you, this is not the board meeting:
Now, as I mentioned, I was there, along with approximately four hundred other community members, and I heard only a handful shout out comments, one of which was the highly ominous, "Please speak up, we can't hear you." Furthermore, in a touch of the Orwellian, Superintendent McGuire would have readers of his letter believe that it was in the face of a howling mob thirsty for blood that the board retreated into executive session. Here is the truth: The board voted to go into executive session with the claim that it does not listen to personnel matters in public. This is not wholly true, but it is the board's prerogative. The board could have suspended its rules and listened. The board chose not to, which was its right. The board's procedure was beyond reproach. Its judgment is another matter. Upon adjourning to executive session, Superintendent McGuire writes, the board-- respectfully
listened to the perspectives of 19 students, graduates, parents, teachers, and
community members. The board extended the time typically allocated for
executive session, to accommodate those wishing to be heard. I
have no doubt this is correct; there are many good, decent people on the
board, and I imagine it was difficult to know exactly what to do when a superintendent
backs them into a corner filled with so much community disapproval. What I
find disturbing is the next part of the letter, where Superintendent McGuire
states that during the executive session . . . Several of
those presenting to the board took the opportunity to apologize for the
behavior of the public meeting audience, which had made proceeding with the
public session impossible. Here, Superintendent McGuire reaffirms the myth that the board was driven from the room, and he uses what was said in executive session to support his claim. As a former board member I was always told that by law what was said in executive session was privileged. My understanding of the legal complexities involved may be imperfect. Perhaps there is an exemption for a superintendent writing a Letter to the Editor. Finally, and mercifully, Superintendent McGuire concludes: As an
educator and a parent, I was saddened to witness what might have been a
positive experience in civil discourse compromised by those who chose to
disrupt rather than participate in the dialogue. To lay the responsibility for
this on board members who tried valiantly to facilitate a mutually respectful
public forum, is simply wrong. Those who chose to disrupt? So let's see: A small group of people out of hundreds made a public airing of differences impossible? It's hard to imagine anyone with a functioning brain stem swallowing such poppycock. And I especially like the characterization of the board "who tried valiantly." How flattering. And understandable--a superintendent under fire buttering up his board. In my view the goal of the board adjourning to executive session was to prevent the taxpayers at home from watching the proceedings on television. I may be wrong, and it would be easy to prove me so. All of the speakers after the board left the room were filmed by the camera. A record exists, and it would be a simple matter to play it on our public access station. That way, the people could decide.
July 5, 2008
A quick post about our young people who have become involved in trying to see that Anne Marie McManus and Matt Nelligan are returned to their classes in the high school. The young men and women seem to be current students and recent graduates. What they have done on such short notice on the Internet is wonderful, as is their commitment and the courage and eloquence they exhibited at the board meeting. Our entire community owes you a debt of thanks and should be proud of you. So should your parents. I know I am, and so up above I have tipped my hat to each and every one of you.
P.S. A number of my blog readers have requested that I post links to some stories about what's going on and one of the Web sites that the students put up (you can find others on Facebook and Myspace). July 1 Teacher's Reassignment Controversial July 2 Board Walks Out on Public United for McManus and Nelligan July 4, 2008
Happy 4th! On this day of that celebrates American freedom, it might be a good idea to get a couple of things straight regarding the decision of the Guilderland School Board not to listen in public to what hundreds of our community members had to say about the transfer of Mr. Nelligan and Ms. McManus to the Middle School. According to the Enterprise board President Richard Weisz stated that "It's disappointing when people confuse adhering to rules and processes with rejecting viewpoints." Mr. Weisz is exactly right. After all, he is a bright, affable fellow and a talented lawyer. And he also tells the Enterprise that "People are not willing to give institutions the benefit of the doubt while they let processes work out." Again, this is true, and it is a very clever slice of rhetoric, It takes the historical mistrust that Americans have always had of centralized government, the mistrust that led to today's celebration, and applies it to the Guilderland School Board. Perhaps that mistrust for the board is rooted in different realities. For one, as a former member of this district's board, I can tell you that on Tuesday the board could have easily suspended its rules and listened to the public. It would have been a simple motion and vote. In fact, in the past they have listened to these kinds of presentations--for instance, when a coach's contract wasn't renewed and when a gym teacher was recommended for tenure by the administration and parents came to object to the teacher's behavior. In neither case was the board sued for allowing the community to speak. And the fact that the district might get sued for something that might be said, I believe, is specious reasoning. In today's litigious society it seems as though institutions can get sued for just about anything. Does it follow that we should then close down all our schools? It is my personal view that some on the board--including Mr. Weisz--did indeed want to hear the hundreds of community members. However, I suspect, some on the board and maybe even the superintendent himself did not want the larger community at home watching the meeting on television to hear what the people had to say. Once the board walked out for good, the live TV coverage ended.
Why? In my opinion, a couple of factors may be involved. First, some people are rather intolerant of having their judgment questioned, and in my experience I found this to be particularly true of certain board members and administrators. And secondly, this kind of displeasure has the potential to spill over to budget votes, a distinct possibility given what some folks were shouting out at the meeting. The greatest tragedy about the meeting on Tuesday, from my perspective, is that the community at large, namely, the taxpayers, did not get a closer look at the operation of the district they are funding. I doubt that my perspective is shared by every board member and administrator. One final reality that may partially explain the distrust is that Mr. Nelligan is claiming his situation is rooted in his conflict with former union leadership. That leadership supported six out of the nine current board members. This support was made up of a combination of things, not all of them for each candidate but including in various combinations: public endorsement to our teachers; mailings; phone calls; and in at least one case, a cash contribution. It should also be noted that those mailings utilized private district addresses that were handed out, according to the NYS Committee on Open Government, “contrary to law.” (Read about it here in the Enterprise) Perhaps this current wave of distrust is much less general than some might think. Perhaps it goes to the heart of the board and the administration's behavior, both in the unfortunate past and the painful present. July 3, 2008 How tragic. Two excellent high-school teachers, Anne Marie McManus and Matt Nelligan, transferred from the social-studies department they cherish based on a “climate study.” That term strikes me as an upscale managerial synonym for “McCarthyism,” which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as using “methods of investigation and accusation regarded as unfair. . . with insufficient regard to evidence.”
As any social studies teacher worth his or her salt will tell you, Senator Joe McCarthy used his despicable version of the climate study—televised hearings—to charge whole sections of the government, including the Army, with being Communists and Soviet spies; and today McCarthy’s corrosive antics still stand as one of the most shameful chapters in American history. McCarthy proved nothing except that being a colossal moron was no impediment to winning an election; that the United States could produce a demagogue in love with his own morally outrageous pronouncements; and that it was easy to smear people with innuendo and rumor. In the end, McCarthy was roundly discredited—fittingly enough, on TV, where Joseph Welch, the lead attorney for the Army, answered another of McCarthy’s unfounded charges by saying: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” (Click the link to listen.) Whether McCarthy ever had a sense of decency is an open question, but he did take his loss of status rather hard and proceeded to drink himself to death. So. How did Ms. McManus and Mr. Nelligan wind up on a forced march to the Middle School? I heard rumblings about this climate study a while back, but the Board of Education was not informed about the process or the outcome, never a good sign, for it excludes the very people who are elected to speak for the community. It has been my experience as a board member that when a superintendent bypasses or misleads the board he has a plan or has acted in a way guaranteed to infuriate a good many taxpayers—for instance, as happened two years ago, handing out private district addresses to the local union for an election—an act that the NYS Committee on Open Government has deemed “contrary to law.” (Read about it here in the Enterprise.) Anyway, in April, a group of social-studies teachers wrote a letter to the Enterprise in which they outlined their view of the unhealthy cooperation between local union president, Chris Claus, and district administrators. Reading the letter in the paper, I grew concerned and set up a meeting with our superintendent, John McGuire. I knew the conflict between Chris Claus and some of our teachers had a complicated background, and since Superintendent McGuire had only been with the district for less than six months I thought it might be helpful for him to hear about it. I told the superintendent what I knew of the history, not placing any blame, just recounting the stories I’d heard. I mentioned that if the climate study had focused on any of the letter writers it would be advisable to solve whatever problems arose in a quiet, judicious manner, since any heavy-handed response to such popular and remarkably successful teachers, who had consistently produced some of the finest Regents results in the Capital Region, would create a gale-force blowback. Since climate studies are highly questionable as a method for making ground-level labor decisions, my concern was that the whole mess would wind up in court, where the district would waste a barrel full of tax dollars, and every incident that had ever occurred in the high school, regardless of how trivial, would be rehashed and magnified in the press. This is not necessarily the most productive scenario in a community already concerned about its tax bill. In retrospect, I should have known I was wasting my time speaking with the superintendent. In my three years on the board, I cannot recall a superintendent ever changing his mind in response to the advice of a board member. In fact, I had heard such advice given, not always by me, and, as if by reflex, immediately dismissed. Whether dismissing the advice represented the superintendent’s best judgment or the knee-jerk negativism not uncommon to the insecure or the resistance of administrators who tremble at the idea of progress or simply the mammalian instinct for marking territory, I cannot say. Still, while I take some small comfort in making the effort, I regret that it did not head off this unfortunate situation. Just how unfortunate became clear at the July 1 meeting of the Guilderland School Board. Hundreds of students, past and present, teachers, former teachers, parents, newspaper and TV reporters jammed into the meeting room until they were three deep along the wall and some of the crowd had to move to the cafeteria in order to comply with the fire code. They were angry, and they wanted to be heard, and they began to call out, “We are the public! What is a culture climate study? Can we see it? We’re going to beat your budget in May and vote you off the board!” Cheers and applause echoed in the room, but when speakers approached the microphone to address the board and began discussing Mr. Nelligan and Ms. McManus, they were informed that personnel issues could not be discussed in public, and the board walked out. It also stopped the television coverage. I was glad, at least, that ultimately the board decided to listen in private to what community members had to say. After all, the final decision rests with them. And as they were conducting their private inquiry, young men and women began to address the empty seats at the board table and the hundreds of people who remained in the room, discussing how they felt about losing these teachers. The speakers had many interesting and amusing things to say: someone suggested that perhaps the administration and the board might benefit from a civics class. Less amusing were the comments I heard from a few current and former employees, who basically asked if the superintendent and board had any idea how it appeared treating teachers like something that should be scraped off their shoes. As a former board member it was a disturbing question to hear; I had spent three years listening to administrators tell me how crucial teacher morale was to the success of our students, and this seemed as demoralizing a question as one could ask. Worse, I was told that it was a question many teachers were asking themselves. But what I will take away from that evening was not this question or the overwhelming size of the audience or the determined climate in the room or the impassioned words of praise the students had for Mr. Nelligan and Ms. McManus—how they had showed them a more vigorous way of interpreting the world and bequeathed to them intellectual skills to carry into the future. No, my enduring image of that evening is something else entirely—it is waves of young people wearing suits or summer dresses or bright T-shirts and shorts or their CVS uniform polos approaching Mr. Nelligan and Ms. McManus, many of them crying as they hugged their teachers, holding onto them, really holding on, as only young people in that strange shadow land between childhood and adulthood can—both fiercely and shyly—understanding that these two teachers, who had been so important to their lives, now needed them, and so the young men and women cried and held on to their teachers, not wanting to let them down or let them go, certainly not on this summer evening, not ever.
The above appears as a Letter to the Editor in the Enterprise. May 24, 2008 The New York Now program on WMHT turned out to be an interesting discussion of the problems New Yorkers are facing with respect to paying for public--that is, government--schools. From my perspective one of the great issues is deciding which parts of the budget can be cut in order to make room for rising costs, much in the way that families scale back so as to accommodate rising energy and food costs. Government entities, like schools, are reluctant to take this tact--in my view, because they always have a method for meeting increased expenses, asking the taxpayers to pony up. This will become increasingly difficult over the next few years, given the fiscal anemia of New York State, and so it should be an interesting moment in the history of public education.
It looks like it's going to be a beautiful weekend, and so if you miss the show I will post a link to it here, or just put up the video next week.
Enjoy the sunshine.
May 22, 2008 So we have had the election, and it turned out as I expected, but of course it is more fun to win than to lose. Thank you for all of the e-mail, and as I said an election is nothing but a pause in a conversation, which then continues all the way until the next election. Turnout was low, and while that is not what I had hoped, to some degree it is verdict on the job the board has done, both in the area of education and controlling taxes.
Some of you have asked if I will continue writing this blog, and at the moment that is the plan, though I will probably settle on regular days for posting. One upside to the election is that I will be able to be more frank here, and I'm looking forward to that.
Also,
I was interviewed for a couple of hours by Susan Arbetter for her public
affairs show, "New York Now." According to Ms. Arbetter, her
show will focus on "the outsize power of the unions and how that
affects school budgets and property taxes." The piece should be about
15 minutes, and I have no idea what part of our interview she will use or
what portions of our meetings might be included. You can find the schedule
at this link: http://www.wmht.org/newyorknow/
May 18, 2008 Well, the vote is almost here. These last few days seem to move by in dream time. Day dissolves into night, and you wonder where the hours have gone. I hope everyone had a nice weekend. And please come out to vote. However it turns out, at least you have had your say.
See you soon
. May 15, 2008 Sorry I've been away from here, but I've been out speaking with people. This is the most interesting part of the job. Learning a lot, and it's always wonderful to hear how many people follow the school board. Indeed, I'm hearing some anxiety about taxes, and the current gas/grocery situation. The Times Union did a story on it that's worth reading.
Many of you have expressed support in the face of the nasty personal attacks in the letters that appeared in the Enterprise. Thank you, but please don't be concerned: First of all, I just glanced at them because the letters are nothing but a distraction.
And the letters have a lighter side. After they appeared, one of the letter-writer's neighbors invited me out to their neighborhood and personally brought me around to their friends and neighbors. And another of the letter-writer's neighbors called and requested a lawn sign.
Hope all are enjoying the spring weather. I am, but not nearly as much as meeting all of you. And I appreciate you taking the time to talk. May 8, 2008 One of the most interesting events I've ever seen happens every year before the Guilderland School Board election, a televised Candidates Night. It is sponsored by the PTA Council, and it is among the most noteworthy contributions made to our community. The show is recorded and played over and over again in the two-week run-up to the election. It is an extraordinary demonstration of local democracy in action. Any resident who wants to know about the people determining the direction of their school district and the amount of their property taxes can take a nice long look at them. Add that to the interviews in the Enterprise and you get a good idea of where people stand.
This was true the other evening: No one watching would have been the least bit confused about who had the backing of our local union. (I wasn't one of those.) It was also quite clear who had a grasp of the issues and who did not. Speaking in vague generalities about new opportunities for our students is the giveaway, because that's what everyone likes to hear, and how you pay for them is far less attractive.
Last night, there was some inside baseball--board conflicts reconfigured to resemble issues--and though these attacks were directed at me I'm not sure they did much to lessen people's anxiety about our property-tax burden, the current financial atmosphere in New York State, and the price of fuel and food.
Below is a draft of my opening statement. And I hope you take the time to watch our discussion on Channel 16. It should be a good show. * * * Before I begin I’d like to thank the PTA Council for inviting us, and all of you in the media center. A televised Candidates Night is a remarkable opportunity, and a crucial one for those of us who believe in the importance of open government. So again, thank you. So when people express their wish for quiet, I reply: How much would that quiet cost our children, our taxpayers and employees? In the case of health insurance, the answer is $1 million dollars. And I thought the price was too high. And eventually, so did the board. Out in the parks and walking the neighborhoods for the last two evenings. Watching our youngsters playing baseball was distracting--they were having so much fun: I could've stayed around until dark. One thing that is always striking when you go through the parks is how many parents and grandparents come to watch and cheer and coach. I imagine this is going on all over the United States in the spring, and I compare it in my mind to the bean-bag throwing of the presidential race. What do we truly value? That's a good question. Visit our parks and you'll find out.
It has been great talking to so many of you home and thanks for taking the time. I appreciate your suggestions and hope that you will pursue them by voting. I promise to raise them with others during the campaign.
I'd like to write more but I'm preparing for Candidates Night. It will be on Channel 16 tonight at seven. Tune in. The PTA Council sponsors the event, and it is a remarkable opportunity to see how candidates think on the issues.
I've got to run, but here's a corny joke for the budget season: Joe says: "There are more important things than money." Jim replies: "I'll buy that."
May 3, 2008
I love this picture of JFK campaigning in River Falls, Wisconsin. Here was a man--young, wealthy, handsome and so full of grace--getting out and talking to people, trying to find out what was on their minds and telling them what was on his. For me, this picture is a quintessentially American moment frozen in time, reaching back beyond the 1960 presidential election to the Founders, who had this crazy idea that a nation, and her communities, should be run with the consent of the governed.
Of course, as the saying goes, "I'm no Jack Kennedy," but yesterday I was out in the park for opening day of baseball and over at the high school to watch our young women play lacrosse, and it was wonderful meeting so many proud parents and grandparents.
I'm always struck by how many people follow what is going on at our school board meetings, and I was glad to meet a number of you who regularly read this blog. One thing I learned talking to folks is that so many of them understand the critical choice our community faces in our upcoming school-board election (Tuesday, May 20). As so many of you pointed out having a board controlled by our local union and recently retired employees appears to violate the idea that a school board should speak for the entire community, that the 70 percent of our people who don't use the school deserve a fair shake.
I happen to agree with this view and that it is in our best interest to set aside narrow interests and see ourselves as members of a larger community, with diverse needs. That we must keep in mind the magical sound of childhood laughter and those lovely curious faces we see riding past on the big yellow buses, but also those older weathered faces we see inspecting the flowers in their gardens and remind ourselves that these elderly folks, the people who built our community, are most likely trying to make ends meet on a fixed income. They also provide an invaluable economic service to our schools. They send in their tax dollars, but do not use the services. Without them, we would be lost.
I'm off to attend our neighbor's son communion, and then it's back to the campaign, rain or shine. Whether I win or lose this election, it has been a pleasure talking to all of you, and thanks for taking the time to share your ideas. May 2, 2008 Well, the board came to its senses and approved a plan for permitting candidates to meet the community at the schools once the children have gone home for the day. I truly didn't understand the objections, though Catherine Barber and John Dornbush, two of the union-supported candidates, continued to advocate for shutting this down. To me that is the opposite of open government, and I do hope we are able to discuss this impulse to stifle discussion and openness in more detail as the campaign moves forward.
Speaking of the campaign: I've been out and about talking to many of you, and I appreciate the conversation and the suggestions. However the election works out, the best part of the campaign season is meeting the community and widening the discussion about our schools and the financial challenges we will face in the future.
A nice letter appeared in the Enterprise, written by an old friend of mine, Joe Siracusa. It was meant to be flattering, and it was, but it was also vaguely embarrassing. He e-mailed me a copy, and I'll post it, but I've never quite gotten used to reading about myself in the newspaper. At least here, on this site, I know people only come to read if they choose to. Newspapers just fly out into the world.
My Friend, Peter Golden
April 29, 2008 Three weeks ago, at our meeting, a board member asked: "What does leafleting have to do with democracy?" Tonight, at our meeting, I hope we're able to answer that question
Of course, the gentleman below might have had something to say on the subject:
Here we have Tom Paine, known as a handy fellow with a leaflet and rather impatient with tyranny. I look at this picture and ask myself: Will there ever be a statue of a school-board member outside a school? A museum? Or even a comedy club? I wouldn't bet on it. Well, maybe the comedy club.
The result of not allowing school-board candidates to leaflet at school events in the evening is to keep new people from meeting the community and having a real chance to win an elected seat on the board. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Especially because the schools belong to the entire community. I'm not so sure it's a wise move to transform a board into a private society.
What's striking is that all of this is going on while a woman and an African-American compete for the Democratic nomination for President. What progress that represents.
Yet what would our headline be?
Welcome to the Guilderland School Board. We Go Backward
I guess you can make this stuff up, but who would want to.
Our meeting starts at 7:30. Stay tuned. April 27, 2008 We are moving into school-board election season, and I will be blogging about it on most days. It should be quite a race. Our local teacher's union, unhappy with independent, fiscally-conscious voices on the board, is running a slate of three candidates against me--Catherine Barber, John Dornbush, and a retiring teacher's aide, Judy Slack. If they win, six out of the nine members of the Guilderland School Board will be union-backed candidates, including two recently retired school district employees--a development that I believe should give taxpayers pause. What's interesting is that the local union does not really represent the views of the majority of our teachers. The Albany Times Union wrote about the split and it's a story worth reading. I promise that in the coming weeks there should plenty to read here. So stay tuned. April 19, 2008 Posting tomorrow's blog today because I think I'm on leaf-raking duty tomorrow, and because things are becoming, as Alice liked to say, "curiouser and curiouser." Found this on the TU blog. Sounds like AG Andrew Cuomo is getting serious and plans on following this issue all the way down the rabbit hole. Following Comptroller
Tom DiNapoli’s announcement yesterday that he’d removed That’s in addition to the hundreds of schools districts and thousands of local government entities that Cuomo wants information from on the benefits they provide to lawyers and other professionals who may not qualify as full-time employees. In the case of the five lawyers from the Girvin & Ferlazzo law firm cited by DiNapoli, all worked on a very part time basis, the comptroller found, but were each reported to the state as having worked the equivalent of a full year.
Cuomo said that in many cases, attorneys are showing up on multiple BOCES and school district payrolls, and at least some did no actual legal work. I have received a number of calls about this, since Jeffrey D. Honeywell, and his law firm, Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. represent our district. All I can say at this point is that we will be discussing it in the very near future. I'll keep everyone updated on the blog. Have a great weekend. Hope you will not be raking leaves unless you enjoy it. Do I enjoy it? Guess. April 18, 2008 You can't make this stuff up. Here, in abbreviated form, is what the NYS comptroller had to say about our district's current lawyer, Jeffrey D. Honeywell, and his law firm, Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. |
