Ultimate Responsibility for the Spectacle

Many who attended the most recent meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 board of education on October 22 were witness to a spectacle.  The spectacle consisted of heated verbal exchanges between board members, teachers and the superintendent.  On the surface, the arguments were about a proposed parent survey and the teachers being extremely concerned that parent comments on these surveys would be used to adversely affect their employment.  Apparently, the teachers were told that the survey could endanger their jobs.  This was never the case nor do I believe it was the intent of the school board (see my previous post for background information regarding the parent survey).  The deeper argument, however, was not about a parent survey but was really about whether the board should assert its legal responsibility and authority to direct the management of the school district.

In small part, the spectacle was caused by a superintendent (Mr. Gegenheimer) who apparently chose to blindside the board of education and set them up for a fall rather than come to them with his concerns regarding the survey (an interesting action from someone who constantly reminds the board about the chain of command and being given the professional courtesy of not being surprised by an issue).  As I discussed in my previous post, the parent survey was discussed and drafted through a collaborative effort of six members of the board of education (Mr. Hannon was absent) along with Dr. Palaniuk and Mr. Gegenheimer at a special meeting on October 15.  The discussion of the survey took about an hour and a half of a two hour meeting.  At the end of the meeting, there was a general agreement that the survey was ready, barring any last minute changes, to be approved at the upcoming regular board meeting.

In the time between the special meeting on October 15 and the regular board meeting on October 22, Mr. Gegenheimer apparently had time to consult with nameless "college professors" and the school district's attorneys, all of whom supposedly had reservations about the survey.  Yet, Mr. Gegenheimer did not share this information with the board until the spectacle on October 22 had begun.  Instead, he apparently went to the teachers' union representatives on October 20 and cast the survey in a negative light (a role which he replayed at the regular meeting).  Additionally, whether on their own initiative or at the direction of the superintendent, building principals reportedly took the survey to teachers in their respective buildings.  And, apparently, when Mr. Gegenheimer learned that union representatives and teachers took issue with the survey and were planning on coming to the regular board meeting in protest, he failed to mention anything to the board of education until the regular meeting had begun.

I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer had a responsibility as the board's administrator to come to the board with his concerns rather than take those concerns to the teachers and potentially misrepresent the board's intent to the teachers.  I believe his conduct both prior to and at the regular meeting on October 22 was insubordinate and has significantly damaged the board's, or at least my own, ability to trust Mr. Gegenheimer to administer and implement the mandates and directives of the board, something that a superintendent is legally required to do.

The ultimate responsibility for the spectacle, however, rests squarely on the shoulders of the board of education.  After all, the board of education hires and evaluates the superintendent.  If we choose to continue to employ a superintendent who acts in what I believe to be an unprofessional manner and apparently is threatened by a board of education that is taking baby steps to assert its legitimate authority after years of abdication of that authority, then we as a board should not be surprised by what results from that choice.  You see, when a board of education abdicates its role and authority, the superintendent steps in to fill the void and does not only his or her job but also the job of the board of education.  Many superintendents welcome this.  After all, it increases their power.  But, in the process it harms the district (and, as a result, the students).  School districts function much more effectively when the board of education and the superintendent each do their own job.  In addition, the voters who elect the board members to the board of education probably do so thinking that the board members will take an active role in directing and overseeing the management of the district.

I was surprised by some aspects of the spectacle but not by the events leading up to the spectacle.  For years, I have been convinced that Mr. Gegenheimer is one of the most unprofessional people I have met and that many of his actions are detrimental to the best interests of our school district.

Mr. Gegenheimer has a track record of treating parents, community members, staff and board members in a similar unprofessional manner.  Time and time again, those who have the "audacity" to express disagreement or criticism of him or his administration are met with personal attacks, attempts at intimidation and retaliation.  Teachers fear for their jobs.  Parents and community members stop coming to board meetings.  The entire district suffers.  Unfortunately, there are all too many people in our community who know what I am talking about.  I have been witness to a number of these instances (some of which have been directed at me personally), and I have been told about many more.  It was due to behavior such as this that I voted in April 2012 (see here) against renewing Mr. Gegenheimer's contract.

The day-to-day operations of our school district should be managed by someone who knows how to lead in a professional manner, someone who treats everyone with respect whether they agree or disagree with him or her.  Everyone should feel welcome at our board meetings and should feel comfortable voicing their opinions in public without fear of maltreatment or retaliation.  Mr. Gegenheimer has proven to me that he is not that person.  Unfortunately this view is not shared by some of my fellow board members.  One wonders what exactly it will take to convince them.

My Apologies to Mrs. Crouch

Those of you who were witness to the spectacle that took place at the recent Minooka CCSD 201 board of education meeting on October 22 should step back and calmly consider what happened.  The spectacle consisted of heated verbal exchanges between board members, teachers and the superintendent regarding a proposed parent survey.  But, the spectacle also consisted of a superintendent, Mr. Gegenheimer, throwing one member of the board of education, Mrs. Kristan Crouch, "under the bus" with some members of the board of education not objecting.  In fact, at one point, Mr. Gegenheimer asserted that Mrs. Crouch was "the problem."  An assertion that Mrs. Crouch was understandably shocked to witness (as was I), and responded to by telling Mr. Gegenheimer he was being "unprofessional" (which he was).  Actually, she was being nice.  In my book, "unprofessional" is a somewhat tame adjective to describe his actions.

First a little background may be in order. As part of a decision to implement a Strategic Plan, the board of education decided to conduct an anonymous survey of parents to obtain input into how parents felt that District policies could be improved in order to improve the educational experience for their children.  The board also decided to conduct an anonymous survey of its teachers/staff in order to determine teacher/staff morale and receive input on how District policies could be improved in order to improve working conditions for them. During two open meetings specifically held to discuss the Strategic Plan, there was much discussion on how to implement these two surveys, how to obtain the highest level of feedback from both parents and teachers/staff, and the types of questions that would be asked on these surveys.

At the second such meeting on October 15, the majority of the discussion was focused on the parent survey. It was hoped that this survey could be finalized and distributed to parents at the upcoming Parent-Teacher conferences since a large majority of parents attend one or more Parent-Teacher conferences. The teachers were going to be asked to hand out the surveys at the end of the conference, and parents would fill them out and place them in a receptacle in order to maintain anonymity. There were to be no markings on the surveys that would identify classrooms or teachers. The only identifier was to be that different colors of paper were to be used at each building so that results could be looked at by building.  At no time were teachers going to be asked to discuss or spend time on the parent surveys during their conferences.

Now, back to the events of the board of education meeting on October 22. There was some talk of who drafted the parent survey.  This talk was pointless and only served the purpose of attempting to castigate Mrs. Crouch.  Someone had to do a first draft of the survey.  Unfortunately for Mrs. Crouch, she was assigned the job of writing the first draft of the parent survey (which made sense to me since she is a parent with children currently attending Minooka 201 schools).  As an aside, Mrs. Allen was assigned the task of writing the first draft of the teacher survey (which also made sense to me since she was a teacher for 27 years).  Mrs. Allen, you better hold off on that survey, lest you become the next target.

Here is where the apology comes in (or part of it at least).  I was the one who suggested that Mrs. Crouch write the first draft of the parent survey.  So, Mrs. Crouch, I apologize for suggesting that you write the first draft of the survey.  In my defense, my intention in doing so was to make sure that our newest board member had a chance to contribute.

So, let's go back to the subject of who wrote the first draft of the survey.  Who cares?  It is not relevant, unless you are trying to throw someone "under the bus."  It takes forever to draft anything by committee, so it made sense to have one person take the first crack at it and present it for comments and editing.  Once Mrs. Crouch presented it to those of us at the special meeting, including five other members of the board (Mr. Hannon was absent) and Mr. Gegenheimer and Dr. Palaniuk, it became our survey.  Every one of us at that meeting had something to say about the survey.  We spent an hour and a half editing the survey, changing the wording, deleting some questions, adding some questions.  By the end of the meeting, it was no longer a product written by one person, but a product of the attendees of that meeting.  At the end of the meeting, there was general agreement that the parent survey was ready, barring last minute comments, to be approved at the next regular meeting of the board of education.  Mrs. Crouch was charged with taking the comments and edits that we had all agreed upon, revising the survey and sending it to Mr. Gegenheimer.  Mrs. Crouch made the changes and emailed the revised survey ("our survey") to Mr. Gegenheimer on October 17.  Mr. Gegenheimer forwarded the survey by email to the rest of the board and Dr. Palaniuk without any comment other than the following: "Dear Board, Attached you will find the survey. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision."

Because, in my view, the proposed parent survey was a product of that meeting and every board member present as well as Mr. Gegenheimer and Dr. Palaniuk contributed and had a chance to raise objections to any particular question or the survey as a whole, it was "our survey."  And so, for me, Mr. Gegenheimer's attempt to castigate Mrs. Crouch and throw her "under the bus" was malicious and cowardly.  In addition, the failure of many of my fellow board members to defend Mrs. Crouch and chastise Mr. Gegenheimer for his actions is also at best an act of cowardice and at worst an act of malice (as if she had it coming).  Mrs. Allen, to her great credit, in response to Mr. Gegenheimer's charge that Mrs. Crouch wrote the survey, stated that "we also all talked about it and agreed upon it."

Here is where the remainder of the apology comes in.  I attempted to explain to those present that the proposed parent survey was not the work of some "lone" board member, but rather a product of collaboration of the board, Mr. Gegenheimer, and Dr. Palaniuk.  (That we failed to include the teachers in this collaboration was a collective failure not a failure of one individual).  What I failed to do, however, was to explain to the teachers present that contrary to what was presented to them both before the meeting and at the meeting, Mrs. Crouch was never "out to get them."  Truth be told, Mrs. Crouch is one of the most ardent supporters of our classroom teachers.  So, it would be a tragedy if the teachers or anyone present came away from that spectacle with the wrong impression.  Again, I apologize, this time for a sin of omission rather than one of commission.

In the end, the spectacle was a display of cowardice and, potentially, malice.  I hope we are teaching our children better than this.

[Edited to provide background information.]

Mutual Respect

There are two main groups of people that make up the management hierarchy of a school district in Illinois.  The board of education and the administration (superintendent and his or her team of principals and other administrators).  Under Illinois law (see here for certain relevant provisions of the Illinois School Code), the school board is charged with the overall administration of the district but really has four main functions: approving the budget and the tax levy (with recommendations and input from the superintendent), approving the textbooks and courses of study (again with recommendations and input from the superintendent), hiring and evaluating the superintendent, and directing the overall management of the district through policy and strategic plans.  The superintendent (along with the rest of the administration) is charged with the day-to-day management of the district in accordance with board policy and directives.

In order for this system to work, each group needs to respect the legitimate obligations and authority of the other group.  Obviously, I am a board member and so come at this with the perspective of a board member.  I respect the administrators' authority to do their job as far as the day-to-day management of the district, but in return I expect that the administrators respect the board of education's authority to do its job (especially regarding what I believe are the four main functions of a board of education).  In return, I also expect the administrators to respect each individual board member's right as an elected official to advocate for his or her positions and to either agree or disagree with other board members or administrators.

In addition, each board member should respect the right of other board members, as fellow elected officials, to agree or disagree with their fellow board members and/or administrators without being subjected to harassing, intimidating or otherwise disrespectful treatment.  Whether board members agree with one another's position or not, board members should always stand up for their fellow board member's right to express an opinion without being subjected to disrespect by either a fellow board member or an administrator.  In short, in order for a board member to earn their right to advocate for their position, they should defend the right of other board members to advocate for their position regardless of whether they ultimately agree or disagree with one another.  (The oath that all board members take actually addresses this when it states, in part: "I shall encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow board members and others who seek a hearing before the board, while respecting the privacy of students and employees.")

Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting

The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is Wednesday, October 22, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m. Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.

Common Core: The More You Know, The Less You Like

An interesting thing is happening.  The more Americans learn about Common Core, the less they like it (see here, here and here).  At this rate, it won't be that long before Common Core is in the dustbin of history (you can read my prediction for the Common Core here).  Unfortunately, in the meantime, it will do untold damage to our children's futures.

The Most Recent Budget Vote

At the recent Minooka CCSD 201 school board meeting on September 24, the board considered the district's proposed FY 2015 budget (see here).  My thoughts regarding this proposed budget are detailed in a previous post (see here).  I made a motion to approve the budget with the following modifications: (1) the expenditures in the Education Fund be revised to match the projected revenue in that fund (still more than a $1 million increase from the previous year); (2) the expenditures in the Operations & Maintenance Fund be revised to match what they were in 2014 (still representing a more than $300,000 deficit); and (3) that the expenditures in the Tort Fund be revised to match the projected revenue in that fund.  Adopting a budget with these revisions would still have left the district in a position of deficit spending but would have represented a significant move in terms of controlling expenditures and reducing the deficit over time.  The motion "died for lack of a second."  Subsequently, it was moved and seconded that the proposed budget be approved as presented, and, after some discussion, the board voted to approve the proposed budget by a 4 to 2 vote (Hannon was absent).   Those voting "yes" were Skwarczynski, Clucas, Allen, and Satorius.  Those voting "no" were Crouch and Martin.