posted by Mike Madison at 3:41 PM /
I think it is only appropriate (after last month's events) to provide an entry for comments following Monday night's school board meeting. I was amazed at the number of residents that appeared to speak in support of Mr. Grogan and Coach Wagner. They included parents, coaches, students, teachers, residents and many others. They spoke in a common voice, and many spoke quite emotionally about their positive experiences with these men. A far cry from the rumor, innuendo and half truths that were spewed by just a few people last month, including a Board member.
I was shocked to learn the facts not only about Coach Wagner, but from Coach Wagner himself. I was also amazed to hear from the assistant coaches and the Aqua Club officers themselves, who to a person all stated that none of the unhappy parents ever brought their issues or concerns about Coach Wagner to them. As both a lawyer, and more importantly a tax payer and a parent in Mt. Lebanon, I was appalled that my colleagues in the bar (the women who spoke out against Coach Wagner last month were attorneys) and my neighbors would raise allegations from Coach Wagner's past in a public meeting that had previously been fully investigated and determined by appropriate officials to be without merit. Conveniently, they left those final details out of their public comments, and unfortunately the rules of evidence do not apply at school board meetings.
Perhaps the most spot-on comment on Monday came from a well-spoken gentleman, who accurately pointed out that the few malcontents that show up at the school board meetings represent the incredibly small minority, and that the majority of the residents don't show up because we are generally satisfied with the staff, the administration and the operation of the district. He also correctly noted that it probably makes sense for a few more of us satisfied customers to show up now and then just to say, "Good job."
Labels: school board
16 Comments:
I'll start the comments rolling with an observation that has nothing to do with the swim coach or the athletic director. I know nothing of those issues.
The vocal minority in any political system -- local, national, or international -- are sometimes squeaky malcontents. They are also sometimes (and sometimes even simultaneously) right, and they usually deserve a careful hearing. Protecting the voice of the "malcontent" minority is a bedrock principle of American politics and governance, and we should not quickly or lightly dismiss it.
I also think that it is an error to assume that a majority of those who not appear, or do not speak, nonetheless approve of the incumbents, the administration, and all of their current policies. There is simply no way to know, one way or the other. The issue isn't what the silent majority thinks. The issue is what members of the board and the school administration should assume, in the absence of reliable information. I think that they should assume nothing, and that they should take nothing for granted.
I think that the burden falls on the board and the administration to regularly renew and reexamine their arguments that all that they do is in the best interests of the children, parents, and taxpayers of the community. It is not for the children, parents, and taxpayers to stand watch over their representatives on a daily or weekly basis and speak loudly every time they observe something that they object to. Many, many people have neither the time nor expertise to do that. Many who do have judged other worthwhile causes in their lives to be more important. And as we read regularly on this blog, many who have time or expertise or interest do not speak out and object because, justifiably or not, they fear retribution -- by coaches, teachers, administrators, employers, and/or neighbors.
Kudos to Mr. Franklin for his comments. I could not agree more whole-heartedly.
Although I do very much agree with Mr. Madison that there certainly is, and should be, a place in our political system and society for a vocal minority and the "squeaky malcontents"... but I disagree that it was appropriate of Lebo's malcontents and minority to address their personal issues/ agendas in a school board public hearing. Given that many of their comments were slanderous and weak assertions at best. The public forum did not allow for due process and only resulted in an attempted character assassination of two known members in the school system.
The school district has entrusted the school board to represent them in overseeing the day to day adminstration of our school system. The school board and those before them have hired administrators to oversee and manage a staff and faculty. One has to ask is it appropriate for anyone to bring up any allegation in a public forum with or without merit about a member of the school system. I would think that their are processes in place and simply applying good ol' fashioned common sense... you would think people would contact the person they have issues with directly if they had an issue. Most "issues" can be worked out... resolved... explained.. and even cleared up when communication happens. So many times people unfortunately hide in their annonymity of blog comments as their way of venting their concern or by writing annonymous letters... without seeking any resolution... the appropriate and common sense way. It is my understanding that personnel issues are not a matter of public discussion at board meetings. It seems that those malcontent lebo minority members could of voiced their opinions to the athletic director and or coach prior to the board meeting. They could of spoken to board members. This would of allowed a chain of events involving fact finding to the merit or lack therof of their claims. What is disappointing is that a member of the board and a few malcontent folks side stepped this and made their own conclusions in a public forum. One has to then ask why? For what purpose? Why did they not talk to members of the school system... why did they not exercise discretion in trying to bring forth their concerns... why did they make such claims without the people involved even being aware of the concerns... why did they make conjecture for the public without the opportunity for the people involved having an opportunity to confront the witnesses against them? Mr. Madison you are a law guy... the political system that you speak of that allows "squeaky malcontent" a voice also has safeguards in place to protect the innocent... to protect from slander... from libel... to provide a person with an opportunity to be free of agenda driven character assasination attempts at a local school board meeting... or am I wrong? Just because someone asserts it that so maketh it true.
But what really bothers me... is not all this legaleeeeeeze... but the sense of decency that some people lack. What the issue really should be about is the unfortunate damage that was done unjustifiably. The people that you refer to Mr. Madison as the same group of folks who "justifiably or not, they fear retribution -- by coaches, teachers, administrators, employers, and/or neighbors." This group of people are fathers, mothers, husbands, wifes, sons, daughters, etc. They have ties to the community... many times their kids go to our schools... they socialize in their neighborhoods... and to me, I disagree that a small minority of local lebo malcontents have a right to a "careful hearing" in the forum that they presented their concerns. Should they be heard... absolutely... should fact finding take place... absolutely... should our kids receive the best... absolutely... shoe the truth be known... absolutely... but if we are so concerned with giving the vocal minority a voice... empowering squeaky malcontents... who is protecting the good guys? If the malcontents are concerned about the budget, or about the safety of our schools, or about facility issues, or about curriculum that is one thing to address in public... but i feel that talking bad, without fact... without due process, without contacting the people involved first, without having a sense of decency is unfair to someones child... to their spouses... and ultimately to that persons reputation.
TRUE STORY: A few years ago, a candidate for MTL Commissioner e-mailed a political operative a question about creating some campaign materials. The candidate asked about the appropriateness of using a studio COPYRIGHTED family picture in the materials. The operative suggested the picture could be used, particularly if the COPYRIGHT symbol was cropped out. He concluded his advice by saying "besides - who will know?" (I have the e-mail.)
The operative is a lawyer, both are respected in the Community and both continue to be active in Municipal affairs.
My point: There is a huge amount of stuff that goes on in the Community that few know about, but just because few know about "it", doesn't mean "it" is unfounded.
That being said, Mt. Lebanon is far from being a Community of last resort - it is a great place to live and KUDOS to those who care enough to make it better!
I can't resist making the following observation: The comment above that urges citizens dissatisfied with personnel issues to take up those issues through (nonpublic) channels, where presumably complaints will be fully and fairly reviewed without prejudice or retribution, was posted . . . anonymously! Sometimes commenters make my points more eloquently than I ever could!
As the momentarily-designated "law guy," I'll also note that you can't logically extend free speech rights only to people who are pre-selected for having sound arguments. Free speech means that people have the freedom -- socially and legally -- to say wrong things as well as right ones. If people say harmful, untruthful things, then they can be sued for defamation (though people in public positions have a more difficult legal case to make than "ordinary" citizens do) AND the objects of what is said can also -- as happened in this case -- talk back.
Speech and counter-speech doesn't restore the status quo or remedy every slight. Lawsuits are time-consuming, expensive, and usually unsatisfying even when you win. And none of this comment is directed at the specific swim coach/athletic director issue, about which I know nothing. But some discomfort is sometimes the price we all pay for enjoying the benefits of living in a mostly free society.
Mike:
First, simply being employed by the school district does subject you to personal attacks at public meetings. I think this holds true regardless of whether they are true or not. When a professor may have screwed up at Pitt, they don't hold a press conference in Oakland and air this individual's dirty laundry for all to hear. Unfortunately, that is precisely what happened to Messrs. Wagner and Grogan. As one speaker put it on Monday, last month's speakers "hijacked an agenda item" and dragged two men through the mud.
Regardless of whether you suppport these men or not, what happened was wrong,and no one - and I mean no one - should be subjected to a similar public attack in their line of work.
As for whether or not the few last month spoke for many more remains to be seen. However, I would note that no one appeared on Monday to criticize the Board for renewing Mr. Grogan's contract. Don't you think someone would show up to argue the other side? Just one?
Also, Mt. Lebanon - perhaps more than any other municipality, city or state, provides its residents with an unbelievable level of access. The venues for residents - both happy and unhappy - to voice their opinions are plentiful. Our residents have a monthly opportunity to raise issues regarding the schools, the general administration of the township, traffic, parking, the parks, historical preservation, economic development, zoning, and countless other aspects of life in this community. In fact, I would argue that Mt. Lebanites are regularly encouraged to speak up, rather than discouraged from voicing an opinion.
And finally Mike, I must take issue with your comment that certain folks in our community do not have the time, knowledge or expertise to speak up. I concur that we all don't have the time to read about and address certain issues (even though that's a somewhat lame excuse if you truly care about things like taxes, schools, etc.) Nonethelss, I would concur that it's a simple fact of life. However, I must take issue with the presumption that taking a role in your local government requires some specialized expertise. That's simply not true. There is no specialized knowledge required to express your opinion about how your kids are treated in school or whether you feel our elected officials are doing their job correctly. Just like their is no owner's manual for raising children, there is no special skill required to engage in the democratic process, particularly at this level. As I've said many times before on this blog, those who have been elected to serve the residents of Mt. Lebanon are just like all of us. Some are self-employed, some are lawyers, some are former athletes,some are accountants, some are financial planners, some are homemakers, some are retired. None, however, have a graduate degree or a doctorate in school district administration or municipal management. My point is simply this, if something strikes you as wrong, speak up using the proper forum. I have sent countless emails to our commissioners, the school board and the municipal manager. Sometimes, I just want to ask a question and other times I want to raise a gripe. And I can assure you that one each occassion my question, comment or complaint has been been appropriately reviewed and I have always received a response. Not once have I been made to feel stupid or out of touch. I've never felt threatened or feared for the well being of myself. Or my family. I would suggest that if you are truly afraid of retaliation, you have likely selected the wrong forum. I can also assure you that if you are truly being wronged there are more than an enough folks in this town who will speak up for you.
Dave -- First, a clarification of your own last comment. I think that your first sentence was meant to read:
"First, simply being employed by the school district does NOT subject you to personal attacks at public meetings." [I added the NOT, which I think you meant to do.]
To the merits:
On your last point, Dave, I mostly agree: My experience, too, is that there are plenty of venues for communication in Mt. Lebanon, and folks on the School Board, the Commission, and in the municipal and school administrations have been uniformly responsive when I have engaged them.
As the number of anonymous commenters on this blog remind us, however, some proportion of the local population doesn't agree. Some proportion is afraid to speak out. They cite fears of retaliation and ostracism. Are those fears justified? I'd like to say "no," but it's hard for me to put myself in their shoes. Is that proportion of the population large? Small? Representative? I can't tell. But the group clearly exists, and the retaliation concern is there, justified or not.
But my point was that not *everyone* has the expertise, time, and/or the interest level to speak up locally. Your point was different -- that certain people *do* have sufficient expertise, time, and/or interest. Again, I agree with you. Everyone does not, but some people do. The question, though, is whether the Board should be comforted by the silence of those who don't communicate, or whether *on its own initiative* the Board should be regularly reflective about the wisdom of its actions. I think that the latter applies. These folks are volunteers, and citizen politicians, and they deserve our gratitude for their service. They are nonetheless politicians, and they've been handed our trust, and they need to keep earning that trust whether or not they are specifically challenged to do so.
Thanks for the editing. Your were correct in adding the NOT. Frankly, I noticed a few more typos on a second read today. I guess no more blogging on the Blackberry . . .
Here's a part of this story that has not been addressed. Why is it that Dan Remely and Mark Silhol go along with everything that Mark Hart presents? This is alarming to me to think that we have two board members that are not thinking for themselves.
It is very apparent that Mr. Hart has an issue with the AD...unfounded in any presented facts...Given the large number of citizens present at the meeting on Monday all in favor of the swim coach and AD, I have to wonder if Mr. Silhol and/or Mr. Remely have changed their opinion and would they now vote differently?
I pay close attention to the voting records of the board. Theses two gentlemen always vote with Mark Hart.
Two things.
First to anon 9:21...Dan and Alan did vote with Mark on this issue but I understand it to be for completely different reasons. I am not one that knows if Mark has personal issues with the AD, his comments at the last meeting were certainly aimed more at the actions of the AD than were the comments of Alan Silhol or Dan Remely. These two guys cited the fact that the Jan Kleins of the district and the facilities guy (dont remember his name off hand) dont work under contracts at all. It was their goal to get the AD position to NOT be a contract position at all. It is my understanding that this, and the fact that the contract was approved with a new Superintendent never having met the AD, was the reason they voted against renewing the contract. Honestly, I think they were a little shocked at Mark's comments. If you listen even closer to the June meeting, you will find out that Mark missed a number of meetings that dealt with the swimming coach/AD issue.
Somebody else had posted about the fact that Mt Lebanon mostly encourages resident input. I would again suggest looking up the June school board meeting and see how inviting that gauntlet was. This is not even in reference to the parents that spoke out against the AD contract. Residents were ridiculed and demeaned no matter what topic they chose to speak about. When immediately after your comments, the Board President says to you, "Thank you for that dissertation", your comments are completely disregarded and the focus becomes something else entirely.
I'll still go and I will still comment but I can't wait to get some of those people off of there.
*CitizenA*
Thank you for not resisting a few additional observations. It is always a good thing when people take the time to reflect :)
With all due respect, maybe I was not making my point clear enough. I think you interpreted my comments from a much too cynical standpoint. Again it is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that it is our school board's policy to not discuss personnel issues at the public meetings. I would gather that this is practice and policy for a myriad of reasons. One of course would be to protect the reputation of those wrongfully slandered... one would be to provide fact finding before basing conclusions purely on speculation. As the "legal guy" I think you could probably write a disertation about freedom of speech. I also contend that with that "freedom of speech" comes a responsibility. I am sure you have talked to your classes about how it is not appropriate to yell fire in a crowded firehouse... or that some forms of speech are not appropriate. As I was taught in my law 101 class speech is not an unlimited freedom... neither is any of our basic freedoms in the bill of rights. Their are limitations... consideration is given to the manner in which the speech is given. Anyhow so I don't go too far off on the merits of speech... the essence of my point was not that people don't have the right to complain or be upset... but to make public comments which apparently were not shared by all of the community and to state them as fact (although seems as if they were based on opinion) seems misleading to me. I think if you re-read my long annonymous blog comment you will see that, in fact, I feel that the lebo malcontent have every right to address concerns at open board meetings about a whole range of things... but i do not find it appropriate for them to defame a persons character for personal reasons. What suprises me also is how cynical you are about public servants and this ongoing theme of "prejudice or retribution" you feel our community public servants adhere to. I also do not buy the idea that it is alright for people to inappropriately slander others just because they are in he public eye. These people are fathers, mothers, sons and daughters... there is a thing called common sense... good manners... being professional and having a sense of decency. Going back to the witch hunts of days gone by... historically whether it be in salem or mccarthyism... is there a line Mr. Madison... is there a line where the courageous malcontents have gone too far?
I wasn't at the first of these board meetings, so I don't know what was said or how it was said. If this summary of the meeting and this summary are even close to being accurate, however, then I don't see the defamation by the parents, and I don't even see the falsity of their statements, even if I can see the discomfort of the coach.
As for this line -- "I am sure you have talked to your classes about how it is not appropriate to yell fire in a crowded firehouse... " -- well, no, actually, I never have, and I would only consider doing that if I needed to get a laugh. The idea sometimes floated is that it's wrong to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but that's wrong. In fact it's perfectly acceptable to yell "fire" in a crowded theater; in fact, it's *imperative* to yell "fire" in a crowded theater -- if the theater is really on fire. It is unethical and perhaps legally wrong *falsely* to yell fire in a crowded theater. But the person doing the yelling must make the error on purpose; if the yeller had a good reason to believe that the theater was on fire, then yelling fire is still fine. When buildings are at risk, we don't want to punish people who bring danger to our attention.
Let me explain via a hypothetical:
Suppose that the school district hires a new classroom teacher, who comes to the district from another area. The district checks references, which are all positive. The teacher's performance after being hired is excellent. A parent, however, surfing the Internet one night, discovers that this same teacher was convicted of a felony several years earlier. There is no confusion about identity; it is the same person. The parent brings the conviction to the attention of the school principal, who for some reason chooses to ignore the information. The parents refers the superintendent to the principal, that is, likewise does nothing. The parent, frustrated, raises the matter at a board meeting; the board and the community are shocked that the district's hiring procedures are so slipshod, and appropriate remedies are issued. Was this hypothetical parent right to bring the matter before the public board meeting? I'd say yes -- even though the teacher and perhaps the teacher's family would be made mighty uncomfortable by the whole affair.
I should also make it clear, since my earlier comment was badly misunderstood by Anon, that I do *not* buy the theory that retribution and ostracism by coaches, teachers, unions, public officials, and/or neighbors is really as significant a problem as some anonymous commenters believe it is.
It is clear, however, that some people do not speak by name, or do not speak at all, because of various fears. It is also clear that even if retribution is not at issue, then some people do not speak because they fear disrespectful treatment at the hands of some board members.
Just a point of clarification, Silhol, Remely and Hart did NOT vote the same on the TIF issue (in response to allegations that they "always" vote the same).
They did not vote the same on retaining Dr Pam Pulkowski's assistant superintendent position either.
Article 4 of the Teacher Contract Extension says:
“Any criticism by a member of the administration or by a member of the Board of a teacher shall be made in confidence.”
The public is not restrained from criticism. I didn’t hear criticism when a teacher missed 60 days of instruction last year and the Jefferson parents complained.
Drug use was edited from June’s board meeting. The public was denied the whole story on July 9th. Bob Williams published it in the July 18th Almanac and told the whole story of the edits on page A3; read it and talk to Magistrate Blaze and see why he says we will have a dead kid if we don’t correct our school’s drug problem
Posted on behalf of the undersigned, with his permission:
Citizen A is spot on. The school board should have delayed all action regarding the position of Athletic Director pending the arrival of the newly appointed superintendent.
Some Board members seem to have an affinity for "tinkering " with the Athletic Department.
Several years ago they created the position of Assistant Athletic Director. The board did not explain the reasoning behind their decision when residents questioned it,other than they decided the Athletic Department could support it.
What is interesting are the behind the scene machinations.
The head football coach,Christopher Haering, let it be known that he had offers from other districts, and that the financial considerations were better than that of his current position. In order to retain the football coach, the board appointed Coach Haering as the Ass't AD. Coach Haering is also a teacher in the district.
The Board and the Administration divided Haering's teaching and Ass't AD responsibilities, a half day in each position. The Board also added an annual $10,000 "stipend". His teaching salary, for the 2007/8 school year, $89,619, equally split between the two departments. The $10,000 "stipend" is still in effect. The Ass't AD For Middle School Athletics, his new job description, is paid close to $45,000 plus the $10,000 "stipend".
Haering also earns over $10,000 in EDR [Extra Duty Remuneration] as head coach and for supervising the assistants, bringing his total Athletic Department compensation to a figure close to $65,000.
In addition to Messers. Grogan and and Haering, there is an ass't and associate AD, earning $38,842 and$38,805 respectively. The combined salaries for the AD and ass't AD"s, in round numbers is $235,000and , plus fringe benefits of 20/25%.
Bill Matthews is correct in questioning as to why the AD released the parent's letter to the swimming coach. this was a poor decision. It brings to mind a similar controversy of a few months back.A basketball player E-mailed his coach regarding team play. The contents did contain mild profanity, and perhaps it was a violation of department regulations. This was private communication between a player and his coach, an internal document, again it begs the question, why was it made public? The player suffered his share of embarrassment as did his family.
About the same time this was on the talk shows and in the newspapers, several members of the team were involved in a party where alcoholic beverages were available and precipitated a visit from the MLPD. More fodder for the talk shows and the newspapers. The Administration and the Athletic department were quick to point out that the district was not responsible for student behavior off campus and after school hours. Several of our neighboring districts were quick to point out that varsity athletes signed an ethics pledge requiring exemplary conduct on and off campus, 24/7. Those who violate the the pledge are subject to disciplinary action. Why doesn't the MTLSD Athletic Department require the same of it's athletes.
With the best AD, Ass't AD's that money can buy, should we not expect a greater degree of professionalism in the operation of the Athletic Department?
W.C. Schmeltzer
Post a Comment
<< Home