Over the four years that this blog has existed, the feedback that I have received regarding it has been overwhelmingly positive. Many people have called, texted or stopped me on the street to tell me that they read my blog regularly and it helps to keep them informed about Minooka CCSD 201. There are a few people, however, who believe that my blog is inappropriate and that I should take it down.
To those that suggest that I take it down, you should not expect that to happen any time soon. This blog will remain as long as I am a member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board and probably long after. You see, I believe there is a fundamental disagreement between myself and those that think this blog is inappropriate.
Let's start with the fact that Minooka CCSD 201 is a public school district. And as a public school district, it is financed with public money (your tax dollars). It is my belief that when you finance an institution with public money, that institution should be subject to public scrutiny and public oversight. That, my friends, is the reason that there is a school board elected by the voters of the district to oversee the district, an Open Meetings Act to ensure that the public is aware of and can attend the proceedings of the school board, a Freedom of Information Act to ensure that the public has access to public documents held by the school district, and a Public Records Act to ensure that public records created by the school district are preserved and cannot be destroyed.
As an elected official, I believe that it is my obligation to ensure transparency and provide the public with as much information as possible (while still abiding by the privacy laws that exist). I believe that public servants spending public money should invite and encourage scrutiny and not be afraid of it. We are, after all, doing the public's business on behalf of the public. If we are doing that to the best of our abilities, then we have nothing to fear from transparency and public scrutiny. And, if we fear transparency and public scrutiny, then that is the first sign that perhaps we are doing something that we should not be doing.
Unfortunately, public institutions do not always provide adequate transparency or desire public scrutiny. To the extent that this blog provides more transparency, invites public scrutiny, and increases public awareness of the inner workings of Minooka CCSD 201, then I consider it a success.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Update Regarding Reprimand of Superintendent
At our last regular board meeting held on November 19, the Minooka CCSD 201 school board voted unanimously (Mr. Hannon was absent) to reprimand Superintendent Al Gegenheimer for unprofessional conduct and directed the board's attorney to draft a letter of reprimand (see newspaper article relating to reprimand). Last night at a special meeting, the school board adopted the letter of reprimand to be placed in Mr. Gegenheimer's personnel file by a vote of 5-1. Those voting "yes" were Mrs. Allen, Mrs. Crouch, Mr. Martin, Mr. Satorius, and Mr. Skwarczynski. Mr. Clucas voted "no." Mr. Hannon was absent. Hopefully, we can all move forward in a more positive manner.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Update Regarding Lunch/Recess Policy and Snack Policy
This past Wednesday, November 19th, at the Minooka CCSD 201 school board meeting, I brought forward the following motions (see newspaper article regarding these proposed policies):
First, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding lunch times and a second recess for grades 1 through 4. This was the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). For background information regarding why I believe a slightly longer lunch/recess period and a second recess will benefit our students in grades 1 through 4, please see the information at the following links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. As this policy requires a second and third reading for approval, it will need to be voted on again at two future meetings.
Second, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding snacks in the classroom and snacks provided by the PTO. This was the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). I believe this policy will benefit all of our students. Our school days are fairly lengthy and students go for long periods between the beginning of the school day and lunch time and also lunch time and the end of the school day. You might ask yourself whether you snack throughout your day. I typically have a snack between breakfast and lunch and another between lunch and dinner to keep my energy level up, and young children have a much higher need for calorie intake than I do. Obviously the snacks would have to comply with our food allergy policies. Again, as this policy requires a second and third reading for approval, it will need to be voted on again at two future meetings.
Each of these motions passed with a unanimous vote (with Board Member Kevin Hannon absent).
Also, some people in attendance at the November 19th meeting asked about the material that was being discussed regarding achievement gaps. Click here for the Assistant Superintendent's report. The achievement gap data is on the pages marked 21 through 41.
First, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding lunch times and a second recess for grades 1 through 4. This was the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). For background information regarding why I believe a slightly longer lunch/recess period and a second recess will benefit our students in grades 1 through 4, please see the information at the following links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. As this policy requires a second and third reading for approval, it will need to be voted on again at two future meetings.
Second, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding snacks in the classroom and snacks provided by the PTO. This was the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). I believe this policy will benefit all of our students. Our school days are fairly lengthy and students go for long periods between the beginning of the school day and lunch time and also lunch time and the end of the school day. You might ask yourself whether you snack throughout your day. I typically have a snack between breakfast and lunch and another between lunch and dinner to keep my energy level up, and young children have a much higher need for calorie intake than I do. Obviously the snacks would have to comply with our food allergy policies. Again, as this policy requires a second and third reading for approval, it will need to be voted on again at two future meetings.
Each of these motions passed with a unanimous vote (with Board Member Kevin Hannon absent).
Also, some people in attendance at the November 19th meeting asked about the material that was being discussed regarding achievement gaps. Click here for the Assistant Superintendent's report. The achievement gap data is on the pages marked 21 through 41.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Special Meeting of Minooka 201 School Board
The Minooka CCSD 201 school board will be holding a special meeting on Wednesday, November 26, 2014. The meeting agenda is available here. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. As always, members of the public are welcome to attend.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, November 19, 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.
Last Tuesday (November 11th), I requested that three items be put on the agenda for this meeting:
First, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding lunch times and a second recess for grades 1 through 4. You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "g." This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). For background information regarding why I believe this policy will benefit our students in grades 1 through 4, please see the information at the following links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Second, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding snacks in the classroom. You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "h." This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). I believe this policy will benefit all of our students. This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Third, a motion to reprimand the Superintendent for insubordination and unprofessional conduct and to call for the Superintendent to make a public apology to the teachers, the school board, and Mrs. Kristan Crouch (a board member). This motion will be discussed in executive session (see item "H" on the Regular Meeting Agenda) and motioned under action item "I" on the Regular Meeting Agenda ("Action as a result of Executive Session"). As a result, the board will not consider this item until the very end of the regular Board Meeting. For background information regarding why I believe this motion is necessary, see my previous posts here, here, here, here, and here.
Last Tuesday (November 11th), I requested that three items be put on the agenda for this meeting:
First, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding lunch times and a second recess for grades 1 through 4. You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "g." This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). For background information regarding why I believe this policy will benefit our students in grades 1 through 4, please see the information at the following links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Second, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding snacks in the classroom. You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "h." This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). I believe this policy will benefit all of our students. This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Third, a motion to reprimand the Superintendent for insubordination and unprofessional conduct and to call for the Superintendent to make a public apology to the teachers, the school board, and Mrs. Kristan Crouch (a board member). This motion will be discussed in executive session (see item "H" on the Regular Meeting Agenda) and motioned under action item "I" on the Regular Meeting Agenda ("Action as a result of Executive Session"). As a result, the board will not consider this item until the very end of the regular Board Meeting. For background information regarding why I believe this motion is necessary, see my previous posts here, here, here, here, and here.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
A Little Background May Be In Order
My previous post may have raised more questions than it answered. Perhaps some background is in order to answer some of those questions. (I hope that this background will answer some of the questions raised by Mr. Folsom in his rather eloquent comment to my previous post).
My recent FOIA request did not turn up any emails in which the superintendent, Mr. Al Gegenheimer, directly addressed to Mrs. Kristan Crouch or any other current member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board any concerns that he might have had with the proposed parent survey. (By the way, I hope you have all taken the time to read the survey and have the same reaction that others have had: "What is the issue with this survey? I don't see it.") As I recall, Mr. Gegenheimer did not express any concerns regarding the proposed parent survey at the two special board meetings where we discussed the Strategic Plan and the Parent Survey (September 17th and October 15th) other than the following: (1) he was concerned that, by making the survey anonymous, we would not get reliable feedback (such concern was largely dismissed by those who felt, as I did, that an anonymous survey would be the only way to get honest feedback from the parents), and (2) he was concerned that we needed to have the survey ready to hand out at parent-teacher conferences since that would ensure the largest number of parent responses.
However, we now know from the emails, that Mr. Gegenheimer did share some concerns about the survey with a former member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board, Mr. Don McKinney. For me, the fact that Mr. Gegenheimer would not disclose his concerns regarding the proposed parent survey to the current members of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board while at the same time seeking the input of former member Don McKinney is particularly troublesome for the following reason. Mr. McKinney resigned in March 2014 under the cloud of a facebook post in which he sought to disparage the young female volleyball players in our district by calling them by a slang term for female homosexuals. Mr. McKinney, who is the superintendent at Nettle Creek school district in Morris, Illinois, was reprimanded by his own district and issued an apology to Nettle Creek parents for the facebook post (see here and here). Why would Mr. Gegenheimer choose to ask this particular person for his opinion about the work of the current board?
Mr. McKinney, to my knowledge, has never apologized to Minooka parents or Minooka volleyball players. Perhaps that was because Mr. Gegenheimer went to great lengths to ensure that Minooka parents did not speak out regarding the facebook post at our board meetings. Mr. Gegenheimer even went so far as having Barb Erickson, one of the school district's attorneys (whose name you may recall seeing on one of the emails from the previous post), attend the public comment period at the very next school board meeting. I wonder what exactly her role was going to be since parents and community members do not lose their right to free speech at school board meetings (in fact, it is specifically protected at such a public forum). She left right after the public comment period. She did not say a word, but I'm sure that she had an intimidating effect on any parent who may have thought about speaking up about Mr. McKinney's abhorrent behavior and feared that doing so would get them into legal trouble.
In his comment to my previous post, Mr. Folsom also wondered whether Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct with regard to the parent survey was typical or exceptional. Unfortunately, based on my experience, this type of behavior is par for the course. Mr. Gegenheimer’s unprofessional conduct has been going on for years—at least since I was elected to the Board in April 2009. I previously chose not to blog about his conduct or blog about the conduct of some of my fellow board members who have never spoken up to stop Mr. Gegenheimer's behavior and by continuing to support him have, in effect, encouraged it. As mentioned in a previous post, it was due to similar unprofessional behavior that I advocated to my fellow board members in April 2012 that Mr. Gegenheimer's contract should not be renewed. Not only did the board vote 5 to 2 to renew the contract, but they gave Mr. Gegenheimer what can only be considered a "sweetheart deal" at the taxpayers' expense (see here and here). Of the five members who voted to renew Mr. Gegenheimer's contract, only Mr. Jim Satorius, Mr. Al Skwarczynski, and Mr. Kevin Hannon are members of the current school board.
So, why have I not previously spoken out about Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct or the complicity of some board members in enabling his conduct? In the past, I thought that I could get policies passed that would benefit the students and the teachers if I used diplomacy, tact and negotiation. I thought that I could use reasoning to convince the other board members when something was in the best interests of the district.
Recently, it seemed that my patience was starting to bear fruit. In February 2014, the board brought in Mr. Jeff Cohn, a representative from the Illinois Association of School Boards to conduct some board self-evaluation sessions. After the first session in February, the board brought Mr. Cohn back again in June for another board self-evaluation session. As a result of these meetings, the board decided to come up with a strategic plan for the district, something that has not been done as long as I have been on the board. Special meetings were held on September 17th and October 15th to work on drafting the Strategic Plan. I was very encouraged that the board was working together as a team to form a Strategic Plan and get parents, teachers and the community involved in having a collaborative relationship with the school board in order to try to improve the educational experience for our children. The board was finally taking baby steps to do its job after years of abdicating its authority to Mr. Gegenheimer.
The board spent taxpayer money and expended much time and effort in bringing in Mr. Cohn, in creating the Strategic Plan, in discussing the importance of a parent and teacher survey, and in creating the parent survey. (As an aside, the administration had already "jumped the gun" on the teacher survey by sending it out without authorization or input from the school board. Mr. Gegenheimer didn't seem concerned about the "validity and reliability" of this survey. In fact, this survey was apparently designed for an inner-city high school, and there are many questions on this survey that have little relevance to Minooka teachers (see, for example, questions 11, 19, and 20)). So, Mr. Gegenheimer's apparent conscious decision to undermine and ridicule the board, pit the teachers against the board, and blame and attack a board member (Mrs. Kristan Crouch), effectively destroyed all of the board’s efforts. Precious time and taxpayer money went completely to waste through the orchestrated and seemingly malicious efforts of Mr. Gegenheimer.
So, the question remains, why did I choose this episode to lay bare the inner workings of Minooka CCSD 201? It is blatantly clear to me now that I can no longer remain silent about Mr. Gegenheimer's actions and conduct. I can handle the personal attacks against myself that have been going on for years. I have a very thick skin, and very few things short of actual combat rattle me. I, however, will not countenance such blatant disrespect and sabotage against the school district and the school board, much less such personal attacks against one of my fellow board members. My conscience and my ethical duty to the students, teachers, parents, taxpayers and my fellow board members of District 201 simply do not allow it.
My recent FOIA request did not turn up any emails in which the superintendent, Mr. Al Gegenheimer, directly addressed to Mrs. Kristan Crouch or any other current member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board any concerns that he might have had with the proposed parent survey. (By the way, I hope you have all taken the time to read the survey and have the same reaction that others have had: "What is the issue with this survey? I don't see it.") As I recall, Mr. Gegenheimer did not express any concerns regarding the proposed parent survey at the two special board meetings where we discussed the Strategic Plan and the Parent Survey (September 17th and October 15th) other than the following: (1) he was concerned that, by making the survey anonymous, we would not get reliable feedback (such concern was largely dismissed by those who felt, as I did, that an anonymous survey would be the only way to get honest feedback from the parents), and (2) he was concerned that we needed to have the survey ready to hand out at parent-teacher conferences since that would ensure the largest number of parent responses.
However, we now know from the emails, that Mr. Gegenheimer did share some concerns about the survey with a former member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board, Mr. Don McKinney. For me, the fact that Mr. Gegenheimer would not disclose his concerns regarding the proposed parent survey to the current members of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board while at the same time seeking the input of former member Don McKinney is particularly troublesome for the following reason. Mr. McKinney resigned in March 2014 under the cloud of a facebook post in which he sought to disparage the young female volleyball players in our district by calling them by a slang term for female homosexuals. Mr. McKinney, who is the superintendent at Nettle Creek school district in Morris, Illinois, was reprimanded by his own district and issued an apology to Nettle Creek parents for the facebook post (see here and here). Why would Mr. Gegenheimer choose to ask this particular person for his opinion about the work of the current board?
Mr. McKinney, to my knowledge, has never apologized to Minooka parents or Minooka volleyball players. Perhaps that was because Mr. Gegenheimer went to great lengths to ensure that Minooka parents did not speak out regarding the facebook post at our board meetings. Mr. Gegenheimer even went so far as having Barb Erickson, one of the school district's attorneys (whose name you may recall seeing on one of the emails from the previous post), attend the public comment period at the very next school board meeting. I wonder what exactly her role was going to be since parents and community members do not lose their right to free speech at school board meetings (in fact, it is specifically protected at such a public forum). She left right after the public comment period. She did not say a word, but I'm sure that she had an intimidating effect on any parent who may have thought about speaking up about Mr. McKinney's abhorrent behavior and feared that doing so would get them into legal trouble.
In his comment to my previous post, Mr. Folsom also wondered whether Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct with regard to the parent survey was typical or exceptional. Unfortunately, based on my experience, this type of behavior is par for the course. Mr. Gegenheimer’s unprofessional conduct has been going on for years—at least since I was elected to the Board in April 2009. I previously chose not to blog about his conduct or blog about the conduct of some of my fellow board members who have never spoken up to stop Mr. Gegenheimer's behavior and by continuing to support him have, in effect, encouraged it. As mentioned in a previous post, it was due to similar unprofessional behavior that I advocated to my fellow board members in April 2012 that Mr. Gegenheimer's contract should not be renewed. Not only did the board vote 5 to 2 to renew the contract, but they gave Mr. Gegenheimer what can only be considered a "sweetheart deal" at the taxpayers' expense (see here and here). Of the five members who voted to renew Mr. Gegenheimer's contract, only Mr. Jim Satorius, Mr. Al Skwarczynski, and Mr. Kevin Hannon are members of the current school board.
So, why have I not previously spoken out about Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct or the complicity of some board members in enabling his conduct? In the past, I thought that I could get policies passed that would benefit the students and the teachers if I used diplomacy, tact and negotiation. I thought that I could use reasoning to convince the other board members when something was in the best interests of the district.
Recently, it seemed that my patience was starting to bear fruit. In February 2014, the board brought in Mr. Jeff Cohn, a representative from the Illinois Association of School Boards to conduct some board self-evaluation sessions. After the first session in February, the board brought Mr. Cohn back again in June for another board self-evaluation session. As a result of these meetings, the board decided to come up with a strategic plan for the district, something that has not been done as long as I have been on the board. Special meetings were held on September 17th and October 15th to work on drafting the Strategic Plan. I was very encouraged that the board was working together as a team to form a Strategic Plan and get parents, teachers and the community involved in having a collaborative relationship with the school board in order to try to improve the educational experience for our children. The board was finally taking baby steps to do its job after years of abdicating its authority to Mr. Gegenheimer.
The board spent taxpayer money and expended much time and effort in bringing in Mr. Cohn, in creating the Strategic Plan, in discussing the importance of a parent and teacher survey, and in creating the parent survey. (As an aside, the administration had already "jumped the gun" on the teacher survey by sending it out without authorization or input from the school board. Mr. Gegenheimer didn't seem concerned about the "validity and reliability" of this survey. In fact, this survey was apparently designed for an inner-city high school, and there are many questions on this survey that have little relevance to Minooka teachers (see, for example, questions 11, 19, and 20)). So, Mr. Gegenheimer's apparent conscious decision to undermine and ridicule the board, pit the teachers against the board, and blame and attack a board member (Mrs. Kristan Crouch), effectively destroyed all of the board’s efforts. Precious time and taxpayer money went completely to waste through the orchestrated and seemingly malicious efforts of Mr. Gegenheimer.
So, the question remains, why did I choose this episode to lay bare the inner workings of Minooka CCSD 201? It is blatantly clear to me now that I can no longer remain silent about Mr. Gegenheimer's actions and conduct. I can handle the personal attacks against myself that have been going on for years. I have a very thick skin, and very few things short of actual combat rattle me. I, however, will not countenance such blatant disrespect and sabotage against the school district and the school board, much less such personal attacks against one of my fellow board members. My conscience and my ethical duty to the students, teachers, parents, taxpayers and my fellow board members of District 201 simply do not allow it.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave . . .
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" --Sir Walter Scott, Marmion
Click here to read an interesting series of emails that were obtained from Minooka CCSD 201 through a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. These emails pertain, of course, to the recent board meetings on October 15th and October 22nd and the controversy surrounding the proposed parent survey (see previous posts here, here and here; click here to see the proposed survey). What jumps out at me from the emails, which are emails to and from Superintendent Al Gegenheimer, is the sheer duplicity of the messages (showing one face to the board and another to the administration and his confidants).
For example, in an email to one of the school board attorneys, Barb Erickson, in which he attaches the first draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer writes "If it was funny, it would be laughable." However, the very next day (Friday, October 17) when forwarding the board of education a revised draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer has nothing more to say than "Attached you will find the survey. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision." Barely a minute later, Mr. Gegenheimer forwards the same email to a Richard Dombrowski (who, to my knowledge, has no connection to Minooka CCSD 201) with this to say: "Here it is. It would be laughable if it was funny."
A little later that same day, there was an email exchange with Mrs. Kathleen Cheshareck (Principal of Walnut Trails Elementary School) that went like this:
"Hi Al, Did Kristan [referring to board member Kristan Crouch] develop the survey or is it a published one? thanks, Kathy" (Kathleen Cheshareck)
"Kristin [sic] did. It is pitiful. It would be laughable if it was funny." (Al Gegenheimer)
"Validity and reliability???" (Kathleen Cheshareck)
"None at all! It's a joke (that isn't funny)." (Al Gegenheimer)
Two days later (Sunday, October 19), Mr. Al Skwarczynski (board member) sent an email to Mr. Gegenheimer which stated "I would like to see the last three open ended questions separated. Since there is room on the page, each question needs to have space directly under it for a response." In response to Mr. Skwarczynski's email, Mr. Gegenheimer merely stated "Thanks Al!" The next day (Monday, October 20), I emailed Mr. Gegenheimer regarding the agenda for the meeting on October 22 stating "It seems that two items are missing from the meeting agenda: (1) the adoption of the strategic plan; and (2) approval of the parent survey." The response from Mr. Gegenheimer was: "I will get it revised and posted. Thanks!" Again, at no point when he was emailing either of the two board members regarding the survey did Mr. Gegenheimer state or even imply that he had concerns about the survey or that he thought the survey was laughable, a joke, pitiful, or that it had absolutely no validity or reliability.
On the morning of October 22 (the day of the regular board meeting), Mr. Gegenheimer sent the proposed parent survey by email to Don McKinney (a former Minooka CCSD 201 board member who resigned from the school board earlier this year and is the current superintendent at Nettle Creek) with this to say: "Sorry that I didn't get this to you sooner. Please look it over and let me know your thoughts. Please call me today, if possible. Thanks!" Mr. McKinney's response stated: "I would agree that this survey is filled with bias. On top of that, everything the board needs to know can already be found in the 5 Essentials Survey data. This think [sic] is ridiculous."
At the very least, this is a rather interesting series of emails. As I have stated in my previous blog posts, I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer was insubordinate and unprofessional in the manner in which he conducted himself regarding this entire incident. For me, these emails just further that impression. You can, of course, draw your own conclusions.
Click here to read an interesting series of emails that were obtained from Minooka CCSD 201 through a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. These emails pertain, of course, to the recent board meetings on October 15th and October 22nd and the controversy surrounding the proposed parent survey (see previous posts here, here and here; click here to see the proposed survey). What jumps out at me from the emails, which are emails to and from Superintendent Al Gegenheimer, is the sheer duplicity of the messages (showing one face to the board and another to the administration and his confidants).
For example, in an email to one of the school board attorneys, Barb Erickson, in which he attaches the first draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer writes "If it was funny, it would be laughable." However, the very next day (Friday, October 17) when forwarding the board of education a revised draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer has nothing more to say than "Attached you will find the survey. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision." Barely a minute later, Mr. Gegenheimer forwards the same email to a Richard Dombrowski (who, to my knowledge, has no connection to Minooka CCSD 201) with this to say: "Here it is. It would be laughable if it was funny."
A little later that same day, there was an email exchange with Mrs. Kathleen Cheshareck (Principal of Walnut Trails Elementary School) that went like this:
"Hi Al, Did Kristan [referring to board member Kristan Crouch] develop the survey or is it a published one? thanks, Kathy" (Kathleen Cheshareck)
"Kristin [sic] did. It is pitiful. It would be laughable if it was funny." (Al Gegenheimer)
"Validity and reliability???" (Kathleen Cheshareck)
"None at all! It's a joke (that isn't funny)." (Al Gegenheimer)
Two days later (Sunday, October 19), Mr. Al Skwarczynski (board member) sent an email to Mr. Gegenheimer which stated "I would like to see the last three open ended questions separated. Since there is room on the page, each question needs to have space directly under it for a response." In response to Mr. Skwarczynski's email, Mr. Gegenheimer merely stated "Thanks Al!" The next day (Monday, October 20), I emailed Mr. Gegenheimer regarding the agenda for the meeting on October 22 stating "It seems that two items are missing from the meeting agenda: (1) the adoption of the strategic plan; and (2) approval of the parent survey." The response from Mr. Gegenheimer was: "I will get it revised and posted. Thanks!" Again, at no point when he was emailing either of the two board members regarding the survey did Mr. Gegenheimer state or even imply that he had concerns about the survey or that he thought the survey was laughable, a joke, pitiful, or that it had absolutely no validity or reliability.
On the morning of October 22 (the day of the regular board meeting), Mr. Gegenheimer sent the proposed parent survey by email to Don McKinney (a former Minooka CCSD 201 board member who resigned from the school board earlier this year and is the current superintendent at Nettle Creek) with this to say: "Sorry that I didn't get this to you sooner. Please look it over and let me know your thoughts. Please call me today, if possible. Thanks!" Mr. McKinney's response stated: "I would agree that this survey is filled with bias. On top of that, everything the board needs to know can already be found in the 5 Essentials Survey data. This think [sic] is ridiculous."
At the very least, this is a rather interesting series of emails. As I have stated in my previous blog posts, I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer was insubordinate and unprofessional in the manner in which he conducted himself regarding this entire incident. For me, these emails just further that impression. You can, of course, draw your own conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)