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.