"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.
Is there evidence of the existence of ANY emails in which Mr. Gegenheimer directly addressed to Ms. Crouch his concerns with the survey? At any time before he approved its distribution to the parents, did he engage, with regards to her proposed draft, in ANY constructive form of dialogue with Ms. Crouch or the remainder of the board? Did he attempt to gather the opinions of the teachers before publishing it?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Mr. Gegenheimer's apparent behavior presents two immediate causes for concern. First, he sets an inadequate example of leadership for those he directs. Is this the petty attitude and unprofessional conduct in which he expects the district's faculty and staff to engage? Second, and arguably worse, he presents to the children a poor example of proper adult behavior. Is this the manner in which the parents and teachers would prefer the children in the district to learn to comport themselves with respect to their peers and superiors?
If the correspondence shown is accurately representative of the facts of this situation, then, in my own estimation, Mr. Gegenheimer owes Ms. Crouch a public apology. Preferably, it would be scheduled as the first item in the Public Recognition portion of the Regular Meeting agenda, when there is the largest available audience of parents, teachers, children, and the public (in general) to hear and benefit from his explanation for his poor choices and how, in the future, he plans to compensate for his inadequate communication skills. It is particularly important in this situation for him to remedy any mistrust he may have engendered within the teaching staff for the board, and its members, regarding the purpose or process of the survey. Indeed, it appears that, by his omission of facts and purposeful inaction, it may have been his intention to actively foster such mistrust between the groups to further his own position and agenda.
If this sort of behavior is typical, rather than exceptional, from Mr. Gegenheimer, the board should carefully consider their relationship dynamic with him. This situation calls to mind a familiar adage: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." An effective leader removes obstacles to progress and engenders trust and open conflict resolution to develop positive outcomes. An effective follower takes an active role in accomplishing assignments and communicating honestly with peers and leadership to support fulfillment of the responsibilities and goals of the group. An effective saboteur gets "in the way" by pursuing a separate agenda and actively fomenting distrust and/or conflict among the members of a group. Ideally, the Superintendent should behave as a leader. If he is unwilling or unable to shoulder that responsibility effectively, he should at least follow in a constructive manner. I leave it to the board to decide to which role, as described, the actions and words of Mr. Gegenheimer most closely lend themselves.
As a taxpayer and voter within this school district, I find it an unacceptable situation if the Superintendent conveys so insubordinate and contemptuous an attitude toward ANY member of the board. In this situation it should be incumbent upon the board to further investigate and, if necessary, remind Mr. Gegenheimer of his role and responsibilities and the expectations of his position. Under no circumstances should the board demonstrate a willingness to allow this manner of behavior from any member of the district administration. Certainly, the Superintendent is entrusted with a certain level of responsibility and autonomy. However, it would set a dangerous precedent should the board permit the Superintendent to bear such false or incomplete witness against a member of the board, especially in a public meeting. If members of the Board are unwilling to encourage discipline and professionalism within the district, then it is incumbent upon the voters within the district to find and support new candidates who are so willing.