Since Debi Shimmin was elected to the school board, she's apparently gained additional informational resources or new insights into district operations and problems. Shimmin ran for office as a District Office/ Sprenger favorite daughter, but apparently now that she's been elected, she's working to think for herself. This ticks off some Robinson-supporters and/or Robinson suck-ups who now are throwing a big-time temper tantrum and organizing a recall.
This remind me of the "mob" getting someone elected, and then rubbing out that person because the elected official began to believe they actually should do what's best for the community vs. the special-interest bidding of the "mob."
CARES, the group behind this recall, apparently just cares about getting it's own way. Another sad day for the Lebanon Community School District.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
"Lebanon-Express" aims to please...
"...It's not just advertisers. Tick off your sources, and they stop talking. It's exacerbated in a small town, as there are a very limited number of sources," per Dennis Dugan in a comment on this blog.
So we need to realize, when we read the Express, that reporters won't ask tough questions of regular "sources" because that might make them mad, and then they will refuse to talk to the reporters in the future.
This is a cop out: The sources need the paper as much as the paper needs them. I say, "Go ahead! Piss them off!" Then if they refuse to comment for future stories, just write that they refused to comment! They would look petty and manipulative, as some of them no-doubt are!
How would they look if these were actual (they are not) quotes in Express stories"
"Jim Robinson refused to comment when asked about proposed school district budget changes."
"Steve Kelley refused to comment when asked about the high school lockdown last week."
"District Office administrator Ticked-off Tommy refused to comment on reports he was angry after the last board meeting."
"Polly put-off declined to talk to an Express reporter, saying she was mad about last week's story on the school district."
These power-brokers in Lebanon NEED the Express as much as the Express needs them. This may also be true of advertisers, now that I think of it.
So the bottom line here is: Read The Express with 5 grains of salt -- Know that reporters and the editor are most likely careful to print stories that favor the current power brokers. The stories are not likely to be objective, thoughtful accounts of events or issues facing this community.
So we need to realize, when we read the Express, that reporters won't ask tough questions of regular "sources" because that might make them mad, and then they will refuse to talk to the reporters in the future.
This is a cop out: The sources need the paper as much as the paper needs them. I say, "Go ahead! Piss them off!" Then if they refuse to comment for future stories, just write that they refused to comment! They would look petty and manipulative, as some of them no-doubt are!
How would they look if these were actual (they are not) quotes in Express stories"
"Jim Robinson refused to comment when asked about proposed school district budget changes."
"Steve Kelley refused to comment when asked about the high school lockdown last week."
"District Office administrator Ticked-off Tommy refused to comment on reports he was angry after the last board meeting."
"Polly put-off declined to talk to an Express reporter, saying she was mad about last week's story on the school district."
These power-brokers in Lebanon NEED the Express as much as the Express needs them. This may also be true of advertisers, now that I think of it.
So the bottom line here is: Read The Express with 5 grains of salt -- Know that reporters and the editor are most likely careful to print stories that favor the current power brokers. The stories are not likely to be objective, thoughtful accounts of events or issues facing this community.
Some clarifications...
Shimmin's email -- I stand corrected by Dennis as I missed the sentence in Coonrod's story about his obtaining the e-mail through a public records request. And if it's true, as reported by LT, that Sherry forwarded the e-mail to Kelley, when the email concerned a complaint about Kelley from one board to another, then Sherry's action was despicable.
If a colleague or friend sent you an e-mail complaining about a person who is supposed to answer to your authority, would you forward it on to that person without the consent of the sender? This is divisive and something that just does not happen among mature adults. It might happen if an employee complained to their boss about another employee, though even then it wouldn't be great policy. Is that how Sherrie sees herself as board chair? The boss of other board members? This shows a serious lack of judgment by Sherrie, in my opinion.
How many LHS administrators-- I personally support having at least three administrators at the high school. My point was that it was a controversial issue, and DO staff knew that but disrespected the community and board members by not seeking board approval before starting the hiring process.
And yes, the hiring process was not hidden and board members could have initiated an objection. But relationships are so poor between the DO staff and the majority of our school board, that this was unlikely to happen.
Again, nothing will change until the disrespectors (Robinson and Kelley, and there may be others there as well) leave this district.
Board's role-- I agree that the role of a school board is not to micro-manage district operations. When a board can hire a superintendent who listens and does not disrespect board members or the community, the board needs to back away and let this superintendent run the district according to board-approved policies. But at this point, the majority of board members don't appear to trust that the DO staff has the best interest of this community at heart.
Rubber-stamping hiring decisions -- Interesting point, Dennis, that board members ARE supposed to rubber-stamp hiring decisions by the superintendent. I am wondering, if this is the case, why it's legally require that school boards approve hirings? If the role is simply to rubber-stamp, it would seem the board would not be involved in the process at all.
Since it is apparently the role of the board to vote on hiring decisions, it certainly is implied that there is an over-seeing role for the process and candidates selected. If not, why would the board be required to approve all hirings?
Bullying Debi -- I never expected Debi ever to vote against DO positions, so I have been impressed she appears to make up her own mind. I don't see her as among the rubber-stampers when she does agree with a district position, but when she changes her mind radically between board meetings, I do think it's likely she was bullied into changing her mind by the Robinson supporters.
Lebanon-Express -- I think Larry Coonrod does some of the best reporting I've seem in the Express, and often writes a more balanced story than appears in the D-H. Overall, in the many years I've lived here, the Lebanon paper has seemed to be a mouthpiece for power people in the community, whoever they are at the time. In other words: Muckrackers they aren't. But it may need to be that way for their survival...you tick off your advertisers and you might be out of business. So boosterism may be a sad reality for any small local newspaper.
If a colleague or friend sent you an e-mail complaining about a person who is supposed to answer to your authority, would you forward it on to that person without the consent of the sender? This is divisive and something that just does not happen among mature adults. It might happen if an employee complained to their boss about another employee, though even then it wouldn't be great policy. Is that how Sherrie sees herself as board chair? The boss of other board members? This shows a serious lack of judgment by Sherrie, in my opinion.
How many LHS administrators-- I personally support having at least three administrators at the high school. My point was that it was a controversial issue, and DO staff knew that but disrespected the community and board members by not seeking board approval before starting the hiring process.
And yes, the hiring process was not hidden and board members could have initiated an objection. But relationships are so poor between the DO staff and the majority of our school board, that this was unlikely to happen.
Again, nothing will change until the disrespectors (Robinson and Kelley, and there may be others there as well) leave this district.
Board's role-- I agree that the role of a school board is not to micro-manage district operations. When a board can hire a superintendent who listens and does not disrespect board members or the community, the board needs to back away and let this superintendent run the district according to board-approved policies. But at this point, the majority of board members don't appear to trust that the DO staff has the best interest of this community at heart.
Rubber-stamping hiring decisions -- Interesting point, Dennis, that board members ARE supposed to rubber-stamp hiring decisions by the superintendent. I am wondering, if this is the case, why it's legally require that school boards approve hirings? If the role is simply to rubber-stamp, it would seem the board would not be involved in the process at all.
Since it is apparently the role of the board to vote on hiring decisions, it certainly is implied that there is an over-seeing role for the process and candidates selected. If not, why would the board be required to approve all hirings?
Bullying Debi -- I never expected Debi ever to vote against DO positions, so I have been impressed she appears to make up her own mind. I don't see her as among the rubber-stampers when she does agree with a district position, but when she changes her mind radically between board meetings, I do think it's likely she was bullied into changing her mind by the Robinson supporters.
Lebanon-Express -- I think Larry Coonrod does some of the best reporting I've seem in the Express, and often writes a more balanced story than appears in the D-H. Overall, in the many years I've lived here, the Lebanon paper has seemed to be a mouthpiece for power people in the community, whoever they are at the time. In other words: Muckrackers they aren't. But it may need to be that way for their survival...you tick off your advertisers and you might be out of business. So boosterism may be a sad reality for any small local newspaper.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Who should be "embarrassed"?
The newspapers have printed stories, and letters-to-the-editor, quoting community members lamenting how "embarrassing" it was when the school board initially declined to vote on whether to hire high school principals to refill two of three vacancies in academy principal slots at the high school.
Apparently some people took this as a personal slap at these candidates, and at the district and community members who worked to select them.
Here's what I wonder: Did anyone clear refilling these positions with the board before rolling ahead? I never read that the board decided to refill two vs. three of the vacant positions, but I could have missed it. Did the board vote not to return to a one-principal model to oversee the high school? There has been talk in the community about whether it makes sense to have so many administrators at the high school, especially given projected budget shortfalls.
What would be embarrassing is if DO staff bulldozed ahead on hiring without consulting the board, which then balked when asked to refill these positions.
Obviously the DO knew this was a controversial issue, or they would have pushed to refill all three vacancies vs. just two. When there is a controversial issue in a functional school district, top administrators solicit board approval before moving ahead.
I have wondered whether anyone discussed filling these positions with the board prior to rolling ahead and initiating the hiring process. What would be embarrassing, though not unexpected, would be for the superintendent to again assume he knows best and again disrespect board members and hire principals with a request that the board "rubber stamp" the decision to fill two of three positions.
If boards are not supposed to thoughtfully approve hiring administrators, why is it their approval must be given before hirings are final and "legal"? Are they supposed to just "rubber stamp" these decisions?
Apparently some people took this as a personal slap at these candidates, and at the district and community members who worked to select them.
Here's what I wonder: Did anyone clear refilling these positions with the board before rolling ahead? I never read that the board decided to refill two vs. three of the vacant positions, but I could have missed it. Did the board vote not to return to a one-principal model to oversee the high school? There has been talk in the community about whether it makes sense to have so many administrators at the high school, especially given projected budget shortfalls.
What would be embarrassing is if DO staff bulldozed ahead on hiring without consulting the board, which then balked when asked to refill these positions.
Obviously the DO knew this was a controversial issue, or they would have pushed to refill all three vacancies vs. just two. When there is a controversial issue in a functional school district, top administrators solicit board approval before moving ahead.
I have wondered whether anyone discussed filling these positions with the board prior to rolling ahead and initiating the hiring process. What would be embarrassing, though not unexpected, would be for the superintendent to again assume he knows best and again disrespect board members and hire principals with a request that the board "rubber stamp" the decision to fill two of three positions.
If boards are not supposed to thoughtfully approve hiring administrators, why is it their approval must be given before hirings are final and "legal"? Are they supposed to just "rubber stamp" these decisions?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
One small piece of PIE
There is one piece of the Sand Ridge/PIE issue that I haven't seen mentioned: If Jay Jackson and his employees can get and stay on top of their paperwork requirements, the LCSD gets 15% of all money paid to this charter organization to educate district students and has no expenses for educating these students itself beyond minor administrative costs. So this is a potential money-making deal for the district.
Instead of focusing on how Sand Ridge will now receive 85% vs. the prior 80% of funds that funnel this way for educating students, I'm thinking that maybe a 15% rake-off by LCSD is excessive if legal paperwork pieces are completely in a timely manner and submitted as required so the district does not need to devote administrative time to bird-dogging this process.
There certainly seems to be bad blood between district administrators and Sand Ridge/PIE folks, and given Robinson's history of disrespecting others, I doubt his hands are clean. But it does sound like Jay Jackson and his crew need to find a way to get and stay atop state paperwork requirements.
Another small piece of PIE: I am recalling (I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong) Jay Jackson is paid $35,000 annually. So working for not-much-above minimum wage doesn't excuse not doing one's job, but good grief. Does he have a second job to support himself?
Instead of focusing on how Sand Ridge will now receive 85% vs. the prior 80% of funds that funnel this way for educating students, I'm thinking that maybe a 15% rake-off by LCSD is excessive if legal paperwork pieces are completely in a timely manner and submitted as required so the district does not need to devote administrative time to bird-dogging this process.
There certainly seems to be bad blood between district administrators and Sand Ridge/PIE folks, and given Robinson's history of disrespecting others, I doubt his hands are clean. But it does sound like Jay Jackson and his crew need to find a way to get and stay atop state paperwork requirements.
Another small piece of PIE: I am recalling (I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong) Jay Jackson is paid $35,000 annually. So working for not-much-above minimum wage doesn't excuse not doing one's job, but good grief. Does he have a second job to support himself?
Monday, May 19, 2008
What is "Rubber-Stamping"
Rubber-stamping is trusting that someone you respect is correct, and not examining issues yourself when you are elected as a board member to do just that.
Some Robinson lovers thought they were going to get another rubber stamper when they supported Debi in our most recent school board election, and are now upset that she appears to think for herself.
It seems every time Debi, who seems to be a bright and thoughtful woman though I've never spoken with her personally, deviates from the Robinson view (and she agrees with the Robinson crew often), nasty letters to the editor appear in the local paper because she is not the rubber-stamp some thought they elected.
I would bet money (and I never bet money) she gets hateful phone calls and emails from some folks as well. What a badgering she must deal with whenever she examines the evidence and happens to agree with Josh and Rick! My hat is off to her, though I personally voted for Kathy Benzo in that race.
So Debi is NOT a rubber-stamper. And those who wanted her to be one are having a fit.
Some Robinson lovers thought they were going to get another rubber stamper when they supported Debi in our most recent school board election, and are now upset that she appears to think for herself.
It seems every time Debi, who seems to be a bright and thoughtful woman though I've never spoken with her personally, deviates from the Robinson view (and she agrees with the Robinson crew often), nasty letters to the editor appear in the local paper because she is not the rubber-stamp some thought they elected.
I would bet money (and I never bet money) she gets hateful phone calls and emails from some folks as well. What a badgering she must deal with whenever she examines the evidence and happens to agree with Josh and Rick! My hat is off to her, though I personally voted for Kathy Benzo in that race.
So Debi is NOT a rubber-stamper. And those who wanted her to be one are having a fit.
Disrespect of "legal" advice
(This post started as a response to Dennis' question about my last post, and I'm not sure this answers his question but maybe it does.)
Since the majority of the board members distrust Robinson, it follows they will distrust his legal counsel. It seems the district's legal counsel has history of working with and seemingly-for Robinson, vs. for the elected school board which is responsible for governing our district. In addition, the "district" legal counsel's positions are proven wrong time and again in legal arenas. So, they seem to see their client as Robinson and not those governing the district, and they apparently give some bad advice -- some "illegal" advice.
With Robinson gone, and a quality legal firm hired that has no ties whatsoever to board members or to the district administration, I believe Rick, Josh and Debi would be more inclined to listen.
Attorneys work to represent their clients and help them attain their goals within the law: The current legal firm appears to be confused about who the client is -- the client is the district's governing body, not Jim Robinson.
Whenever the district, following this firm's advise, is challenged in court, it seems the district position is found "illegal."
Kim Fandino being told she couldn't communicate directly with board members was ruled "illegal" when challenged through the legal system. On the other hand, it might be the legal firm was not consulted on this matter, and Robinson did this "illegal" action on his own.
But surely they were consulted before the contracting out of custodians several years ago -- judged to be done "illegally" by the legal system.
We need a new administrative staff, and maybe we do need a clean slate of board members before healing can begin, but let's not forget to hire new legal counsel and please...not someone selected by LT and her/his merry band of "legal" experts.
Since the majority of the board members distrust Robinson, it follows they will distrust his legal counsel. It seems the district's legal counsel has history of working with and seemingly-for Robinson, vs. for the elected school board which is responsible for governing our district. In addition, the "district" legal counsel's positions are proven wrong time and again in legal arenas. So, they seem to see their client as Robinson and not those governing the district, and they apparently give some bad advice -- some "illegal" advice.
With Robinson gone, and a quality legal firm hired that has no ties whatsoever to board members or to the district administration, I believe Rick, Josh and Debi would be more inclined to listen.
Attorneys work to represent their clients and help them attain their goals within the law: The current legal firm appears to be confused about who the client is -- the client is the district's governing body, not Jim Robinson.
Whenever the district, following this firm's advise, is challenged in court, it seems the district position is found "illegal."
Kim Fandino being told she couldn't communicate directly with board members was ruled "illegal" when challenged through the legal system. On the other hand, it might be the legal firm was not consulted on this matter, and Robinson did this "illegal" action on his own.
But surely they were consulted before the contracting out of custodians several years ago -- judged to be done "illegally" by the legal system.
We need a new administrative staff, and maybe we do need a clean slate of board members before healing can begin, but let's not forget to hire new legal counsel and please...not someone selected by LT and her/his merry band of "legal" experts.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
"2 cents"
"2 cents" had some interesting thoughts on the LT blog: Thank you to the anonymous reader who asks for views here, and to the anonymous who recently asked where I am, and my apologies for disappearing again from the Lebanon educational blog scene due to life demands. Again, I'd encourage any rational folks concerned about the Lebanon Community School District to create blogs dedicated to the topic if they are better at making time for blogs than I seem to be.
I think Rick, Josh and Debi were elected as change agents by a community that was tired of the Robinson Rubber Stamp crew. I see LT now calls them the "Terrible Trio," so I guess I will lower myself to her level for a moment and dub Sherrie and Chris "The New Robinson Rubber Stampers."
It's interesting that the Rubber Stampers are in the minority now, with some of their supporters calling for a recall. Let's see.. Where have we seen this before in the district!?
Now I have "lowering-myself-to-LT's-level" out of my system, I will drop the new nickname: It probably is unfair as surely there have been times Chris and Sherrie voted against Robinson's wishes, though it does seem they are among his loudest cheerleaders. LT's blog is destructive and divisive, so I agree with 2-cents there, and I want to avoid falling into that role myself.
My knee-jerk reaction is that I don't think it makes sense for all board members to resign, as "2 cents" suggests. But maybe I should ponder that option more. It's unlikely to happen, for one, and then who would replace them? Would the people who were INDEED true rubber-stampers, who Rick and Josh replaced on the board, come back to do Robinson's bidding, and maybe even reinstate his contract extension after all?
I think a fresh start with power to heal is more likely to come from a fresh crew in the DO rather than a fresh crew of board members. I think a new superintendent with new administrators behind her/him is more likely to prompt healing and moving forward than new board members Robinson then works to control, which would send us back to the same old merry-go-round.
I think Rick, Josh and Debi were elected as change agents by a community that was tired of the Robinson Rubber Stamp crew. I see LT now calls them the "Terrible Trio," so I guess I will lower myself to her level for a moment and dub Sherrie and Chris "The New Robinson Rubber Stampers."
It's interesting that the Rubber Stampers are in the minority now, with some of their supporters calling for a recall. Let's see.. Where have we seen this before in the district!?
Now I have "lowering-myself-to-LT's-level" out of my system, I will drop the new nickname: It probably is unfair as surely there have been times Chris and Sherrie voted against Robinson's wishes, though it does seem they are among his loudest cheerleaders. LT's blog is destructive and divisive, so I agree with 2-cents there, and I want to avoid falling into that role myself.
My knee-jerk reaction is that I don't think it makes sense for all board members to resign, as "2 cents" suggests. But maybe I should ponder that option more. It's unlikely to happen, for one, and then who would replace them? Would the people who were INDEED true rubber-stampers, who Rick and Josh replaced on the board, come back to do Robinson's bidding, and maybe even reinstate his contract extension after all?
I think a fresh start with power to heal is more likely to come from a fresh crew in the DO rather than a fresh crew of board members. I think a new superintendent with new administrators behind her/him is more likely to prompt healing and moving forward than new board members Robinson then works to control, which would send us back to the same old merry-go-round.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)