Hypocrisy Masquerading as Honesty

More than 70 teachers, staff, and community members attended the October 18th Board Meeting. As members exited the closed session at 7:30, they were greeted by 70 plus chanting, picket carrying, unhappy employees who lined corridor leading to the multi-use where the meeting was held. Again, the Board chose not to reorder the agenda, making the teachers wait over an hour to arrive at the public portion (Items not on the Agenda), where five speakers had signed up to speak. Five times three minutes: 15 minutes... relegated to the meetings end... because employee and community input is not valued; although, the Board pretends it is. Here are the notes I spoke from:

Hi, it's me again.

The last Board meeting began with a resolution for Character Education month.

Mrs. Averill felt that honesty needed to promoted. And it was.

How nice.

But after all, this is Lowell Joint where honesty is valued?

Or is it?

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs and virtues that one does not actually have.

Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. (Wiki-pedia)

Deception?

After welcoming the public and presidents at the last meeting...

You proceeded to cut short one of the public speakers; although there were only two.

I thought you said we were welcome?

Perhaps you meant to say,

"You're welcome just as long as you sit and play nice. Be seen, but not heard... the grown-ups are talking."

And who was it you gaveled? Your own Teacher of the Year.

She's the best of the best... and you can only give her three minutes?

Maybe that's not too surprising, since not long ago you did the same thing to the president of the CSEA.

That too smacks of hypocrisy.

You pretend to welcome us, but you are unwilling to listen to us.

You might protest, but I simply point to the minutes from the last meeting...

There was a slight change in language...

"…public opinion will be limited to 1/2 hour…”

Not satisfied with a three-minute per person cap... someone suggested to the board that a 30 minute cap was a good idea.

Just in case?

The previous language was good enough for decades... but no longer.

Recently CSEA voted against an offer made in negotiations.

One member was appalled at how much language had changed.

Language that had little or nothing to do with a salary schedule or compensation.

Why was it changed?

Just in case?

The previous language was good enough for decades... but no longer.

A recent newspaper article quoted the Superintendent as saying, "We know how the teachers feel..."

We are skeptical of your language changes... we feel repeatedly hoodwinked.

Little language changes... buried in the notes... or contract... or where else?

We feel lied to.

And you should understand.

What other posturing has been done in the contract, in the minutes, behind closed doors, etc.?

I feel manipulated!

And you should understand why.

 You say you value and appreciate teachers,

But you install language to limit our voice (per person),

and you install language to limit our voice collectively (30 minutes).

If this is how you treat us in public...

should we expect that you'd treat us any differently at a negotiating table?

November is coming, and with it some new board members.

Hopefully, they will bring with them a new era in Lowell Joint characterized by genuine honesty.

We're tired of hypocrisy masquerading as honesty.

We're tired of manipulation masquerading as transparency.

But then... you know how we feel.

And, you know why.

Before and after the meeting I spoke with several parents, candidates, fellow staff members, and even the two presenters from LACOE. November is coming... 

Will there be an October miracle? A fair contract? Let's hope so.

Regardless of the contract issues, the voters of Lowell Joint finally have some choice for new blood, new representation, new behaviors, and a new future. The issues of Lowell Joint run deeper than contract negotiations, but then... November is coming...

What do I dream of?

At last night's Board meeting (10/4/10), I took advantage of the opportunity to direct my remarks to those seeking the office of School Board Member since many candidates were in attendance. After the meeting, I was able to converse with several of them. Here is a copy of my speech:

I dream of…

Of a time when teacher input is respected and regarded at board meetings, not relegated to the end of the meeting and restricted by a timer.

Of a time teachers can concentrate on teaching and not contract negotiations.

I dream of Monday Night Football instead of Monday Night Board meetings, because I can trust that those who ran for office are providing the public service they promised.

I dream of…

Of a time when Board Members voice an opinion instead of a party line.

Of a time when Board members can give an informed personal report on the school they represent because they’ve talked with parents, teachers, students, and staff, in addition to remarks prepared by the site principals.

Of a time when Board members understand that Distinguished School Awards have more to do with an experienced teacher’s practice and sacrifice than with a Superintendent's ambition and mandate.

Of a time when the Lowell Joint Board Members begin a Superintendent replacement search, instead of rewarding an unpopular incumbent with a long and luxurious contract extension.

I dream of…

Of a time when the District Office is once again considered a resource and service center instead of a source of requirements, restrictions, and obstructions.

Of a time when the Superintendent is more likely to cut her own luxurious car allowance rather than cutting the noon duty aides salary by 26% to a near minimum wage level.

I dream of when Lowell Joint's Superintendent and Board are not blaming the budget crisis, but are rising to present challenges with inspired leadership, innovation, and fairness.

I dream of…

Parents who are well-informed enough about who will best represent their neighborhoods on the School Board and get out to the polls to make that a reality.

Of a time when new blood on the Board is common and business as usual is a thing of the past.

Board Members and Board Candidates...

What do you dream of?

I dream that some of you will make some of my dreams come true.

Thank you.

A Root Cause of Many Problems...

Below is the text of a speech I gave at the school board meeting tonight. Several others also spoke to various issues revolving around the current contract negotiations and the lack of progress.

Before I became a Special Education teacher, I spent a decade or so as a Systems Engineer. I even got training in solving organizational problems using a method called Theory of Constraints.

This last Sunday I used my training in Theory of Constraints to analyze several recent conflicts in the District. I was looking for commonalities that might inform me regarding the current contract negotiations conflict.

Here’s what I determined via the analysis:

High level decisions must be made by the Superintendent, such as teacher selection, teacher discipline, and fair resource distribution. The expectation is that the decisions will be fair and equitable. The expectation is that the superintendent’s decisions will be legal, impartial, and agenda-free. Those decisions should be unbiased, fair, without malice, and consistent. In a nutshell, those decisions need to be trustworthy or worthy of trust.

The common, underlying conflict beneath the three scenarios I examined was this: the current superintendent's decisions are not always trustworthy. They were less than impartial, not always legal, sometimes biased and sometimes unfair. The decisions were only reversed after they were persistently challenged by a teacher or a group of parents. The decisions were only changed when a judge, the law, or a vocal group of parents forced the change.

How can this generalized analysis assist in the current conflicts including the current contract negotiations?

We cannot sit idly by and trust what the superintendent says. She has demonstrated repeatedly that she does not deserve that trust. Perhaps some combination of inexperience and lack of expertise may have hampered her, but she is also hampered by apparent personal ambition, a drive to win-at-any-cost, and a leadership style that is not inspirational, but confrontational.

Her behaviors in contract negotiations are simply another instance of her dysfunctional leadership. 

Dr. Howell has retreated from erroneous positions only when others stand up to her, present the facts, and allow impartial arbitrators review those facts. The contract negotiations are heading into fact finding. Perhaps the truth will come out, and she will retreat.

My message is this: we have got to stop trusting Dr. Howell, especially in the area of personnel issues. The contract is ultimately a personnel issue. We need to question her, double-check her facts and logic. We cannot afford  passive acceptance of her half-truths.

The scenarios I examined demonstrate that Dr. Howell is untrustworthy. She is unyielding in her decisions until a higher authority censures her. Her inexperience and lack of knowledge might be forgivable if it were mixed appropriately with honesty, forthrightness, and humility, but it is not. 

We must become vigilant and vocal, so that we can override the erroneous recommendations and decisions that are being made by the current superintendent.

I am here tonight to raise my voice against the erroneous recommendations that the superintendent is bull-headedly offering as a pretense for negotiating a fair contract.

I see a pattern of misinformation and abuse: do you?

Thank you for listening.

(Thank you for reading!)

"She speaks for us," said Gayle Rogers.

Some time ago I posed some questions to the School Board about the dysfunction I see in the Lowell Joint family. (See “A Story About a Family.”)

The kids wonder about Dad:

Why doesn't Dad stand up to Mom and make her be nice and play fair?
Is Dad afraid of Mom?
Is Dad too unconcerned to find out what's really going on?
Or is Dad in cahoots with Mom?
Does Dad really believe everything Mom says and none of what we say?
Mom is hurting us, and Dad won't do anything about it?

Some time after that meeting, the Superintendent informed the Teachers’ Bargaining Team that she wanted to meet again (Meeting #5).

We were hopeful. We hoped that the Board might have instructed the Superintendent to come to the bargaining table with a new, more meaningful offer.

But… that. did. not. happen.

And we were disappointed.

What happened Dad?

At the close of the June 21st Board meeting, Gayle Rogers noted the current crisis is not because of the Superintendent. It is because of the economy. Gayle said this about the Superintendent, “She speaks for us.”

So when the Teachers’ Bargaining Team returned to the bargaining table, expecting some new offer, the Superintendent came back, apparently PER THE BOARD’S INSTRUCTIONS, with no offer to compromise.

DAD IS IN CAHOOTS WITH MOM!

Oh, rats.

One speaker at the June 21st Board meeting noted that, “Poop in a sack stinks. If you put the poop in a box and gift-wrap it, it’s still poop, and it still stinks!”

Thanks for nothing “Dad.”

So what’s our hope now? The neighbors! (This blog is a note to the neighbors.)

The parents and voters of Lowell Joint are busy, but hopefully not too busy to ask questions, insist on answers, and make their voices heard -- as individuals, as voters, or as candidates.

Too often, the Board and Superintendent provide a biased spin of information depending on the audience. Only if the “neighbors” begin to compare notes, will the truth be found out. Macy parents may hear one spin, Olita another…. You get the picture.

If you attended the Rancho graduation, you "got" to hear about seven minutes of Mr. Najera’s spin on the situation in the District. (And who was the bad guy in his spin? The teachers.) The last three minutes of Mr. Najera graduation speech was about graduation. The first seven minutes were an improper use of a public trust to advance a biased spin.

Many in the audience were incensed. The unsuspecting were fed biased information without an opportunity for a public rebuttal.

(What was the Board’s public spin on the speech: it was wonderful! (At least that’s what was said at the June 21st Board meeting. But then again, there was no public protest -- by parent, teacher, or administrator.)

Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Beware of spin-doctors (even of me!)

Each of us need to connect-the-dots.

The dots I connected recently point to a School Board directing a Superintendent not to negotiate in good faith, and that saddens me.

But it also informs my course of action.

How about you?




 

Who said what? June 21st Board Meeting

At the June 21st Board meeting, a dozen or so attendees braved the speaker’s podium to share their concerns, cares, and opinions. Before the meeting, 20 or so teachers picketed in the area of Whittier Boulevard and Valley Home.

What are the teachers and support staff so concerned about? (School’s out, it’s Monday night, why are they coming to a Board meeting?)

Here are some names and some of their thoughts. (Names are mostly spelled right. Add a comment if I got something wrong. Thanks.)

Leslie Mangold (Meadow Green, 3rd grade teacher): Concerns over the increasing rift in negotiations.

Note: Comments made at an earlier Board meeting by a board member have incensed many of the classified employees in the district. The comments implied that the classified employees should carry more of the weight of needed cuts because they were less essential. (This is one reason board members seldom speak after comments from the audience, because their words – and beliefs – sometimes get them in trouble.)

Teena Serrano: Rancho-Starbuck (front office): In part, Teena informed the Board that she and many of her co-workers (non-teachers), consistently put in extra hours to make sure that the school site continue to function. She and her co-workers work above and beyond the call of duty!

Unknown: Another classified employee informed the Board of the many cuts the classified employees have endured over the past years: cutting of hours, cutting of benefits, cutting of jobs, etc. Classified employees have done their part in controlling costs.

Marilyn Durrazo (Meadow Green, Kindergarten teacher): Disappointment over...

MaryJane Barger: Disappointment at the lack of meaningful negotiations on the part of the District. The District called for a resumption of talks, the union complied, and the District just repackaged the same offer, for the 4th time. (Five meetings: one offer.) She noted that the union came with a one year offer with deeper cuts than the District had asked for, but the District was unwilling to consider anything but a three-year deal. The District came to the table and informed the teachers’ union, that the Board had directed the District’s team to offer no compromises.

Monica Redell (RSP instructional assistant): Concerns over paying people a fair wage for the work they do.

Martha Leonard (Macy Parent): Martha repeated her concern over a lack of fiscal leadership by the Board and Superintendent over pay. She asked the Board again, “What pay cuts are you personally taking to show good faith towards solving the fiscal problems?” 

Jeannie Nichols (El Portal primary teacher): She asked the question: Why is the District still not bargaining in good faith?

Teresa Herman (El Portal, 3rd grade teacher): She asked Mr. Najara, “You said you’d review the budget line by line… have you?” She noted that the District’s budget projections have been overstated 13 of the last 14 times. She knew the numbers, did they? Mrs. Herman was awake during the budget presentations tonight while two (of five) board members nodded, fighting sleep and boredom? She was awake, and they needed to be too!

Ronnie Mayer (CSEA president): Concerns over change in the philosophy of the District, especially in regards to classified employees. (Ronnie was cut off by the gavel, but finished her prepared remarks in a second three-minute segment donated by another speaker.)

Nancy Rogers (Jordan, 4th grade teacher):  Nancy raised concerns over the Board’s determined course to impose permanent solutions via permanent pay cuts, when the Board continually acknowledges that the problems we face are temporary.

Kelly Aldacoa (Macy teacher): What kind of the district is the Board building? One where tyranny runs rampant?

Marikate Wissman (CTA co-president): Concerns over negotiations, or lack there-of earlier in the day.

Margaret Palmer (Olita Kindergarten teacher): Concerns over the lack of true leadership being shown by members of the Board, who are more likely to ignore problems (head-in-the-sand) than to find meaningful solutions.

Don Evans (El Portal, RSP): I spoke first about the shameful and degrading enforcement of the three-minute rule. It was rude and disrespectful. Additionally, it demonstrated the District’s true avoidance of meaningful dialogue. I provided the Board a copy of the main part of a Memorandum of Understanding signed last year by the Superintendent that assured that “in no event” would a teacher earn less in 2010-2011 than they would have had not the teachers voluntarily taken a temporary freeze in the salary schedule. That this was true was evidenced by the line item in their own “Approved Actuals” report presented earlier in the evening. A Board, which preaches Character Education and Honesty, is guilty of attempting to renege on their written, signed contract. That’s hypocrisy! (And maybe illegal.) ---- Then the bell rang --- and I said, “Go ahead, hit the gavel.” (But they didn’t, and I walked away.)

Ronnie Mayer (Part two): Ronnie noted that the Board’s repeated actions against the classified employees have greatly undermined morale. Despite all the Board has done, employees have continued to show up and perform their duties as true professionals, quite often above and beyond contractual limits. These employees deserve respect, not disrespect.

My apologies for mistakes in content and/or the spelling of names. If I got something wrong, let me know. Especially if you think I missed the point of what you said! This post is more of second-draft. If you have improvements, let me know.

Final Thoughts: The employees of Lowell Joint continue to provide award-winning performance for the students and the families of Lowell Joint. The recent Distinguished School awards simply document a reality that has been in place for decades. The above-and-beyond level of service is predicated on the professionalism and goodwill of the work force. That goodwill is being undermined by repeated indignities (both personal and fiscal) being imposed by the Board of Trustees and its Superintendent.

Ultimately, it is the participating public that needs to provide the pressure needed to keep Lowell Joint the jewel it has been for decades. Those who give of their time and talents volunteering on campuses, in PTA committees, may also need to consider serving at a higher level of the organization. 

Applications for running for the School Board are due… very soon! 

(Mrs. Averill announced her resignation at the end of the June 21st board meeting. The meeting closed with Mrs. Averill presenting a gift to Mrs. Rogers, who announced last month that she was not seeking re-election.) 

Three of five seats are up for election. Will the voters have a choice? I hope so.



 

Shameful Behavior: The Three-Minute Rule and the Gavel of “Shhh!!!!”

The June 21st Board of Trustees meeting was an interesting, though long affair.

The meeting began on time at 7:30 with an overflow crowd of District staff and some parents attending.

The meeting began with well wishes from Jan Averill who said how glad she was to have so many attending, despite busy summer schedules.

How ironic that the District staff had closed many of the normally open rooms to keep people in the audience from getting themselves chairs to sit on: for over two and a half hours.

How ironic, that though an overflow crowd was expected, no attempt was made to provide a sound system to aid the hearing of those in the room, in the hallways, or in the lobby. Not even the microphone on the speaker’s platform was operational, nor a microphone for the Board President. How ironic? How shameful! (Perhaps it borders on intentional and sinister.)

Perhaps you think I’m overreacting? Well, I was informed that a district custodian was stationed in the main hallway with directions from the district, not to allow chairs to be brought out for those attending to use. How welcoming? (Or not.) How shameful. (How hypocritical! “Glad to see you… please remain standing…”)

Probably 95% or more of the audience was there to speak to Item 9 on the Agenda: Other Topics. (One set of parents, Mr. and Mrs. Bakis did question why the district was starting school so early this year, and why the District was making Thanksgiving a whole week of vacation.)

After waiting patiently for over 1 ½ hours the “welcomed” public was allowed to speak to Item 9: Other Topics. How welcome were the opinions, cares, and concerns of these Lowell Joint “family” members? The Board chose this night to enforce the three-minute-rule via a three-minute timer and a gong (I mean gavel.) Really?

I understand the need to keep the long-winded under control. I understand the need to keep a long meeting from getting epic. I understand Robert’s Rules of Order. What I don’t understand is how a school board that says, “We value you; You are important; You are appreciated;” could, through its actions, say, “Shut up. Sit down. We’ve heard enough. Your words aren’t worth more than three minutes: exactly!”

Researchers tell us that most people fear public speaking more than they do death, yet this night a dozen people had prepared remarks, come early, signed up to speak, waited their turn, only to be cut-off as they were in the process of making closing statements. REALLY???

Who would do that? Why would they do that? If actions speak louder than words, then the Board made clear that they are not interested in hearing from their “family” of employees, both classified and certificated. From their position of elected authority, they repeatedly issued a loud “Shhh…” via the sound of a bell and a gavel.

How bad was it? Mrs. Averill imposed the three-minute gavel on Mrs. Mayer, the president of the classified union, who had more than a dozen unit members standing while she made her remarks. (12 x 3 would be 36 minutes, but Ronnie was given three. She only needed six. She was reading her speech.)

The district is calling for “civility” in our exchanges, yet they gave an institutionalized “Shhh” to the head of one of the unions? It was shameful, and I said so when my turn came to speak.

Another member of the audience turned in a request to speak and then granted her minutes so that Mrs. Mayer could complete her remarks. She did so in less than three additional minutes. Could the board not give six minutes to the head of a bargaining unit with so many of the unit members in attendance? Really? (How unwise. How shortsighted. How rude. How uncivil.)

In another post I’ll share a bit about what each of the dozen speakers said, because it will not show up in the “In the Know.” Why not?

Because the Board demonstrated that it is not interested in any other opinion other than its own, nor is it interested in listening to the other stakeholders in the district, at least not to the workers.

What stakeholders will they listen to? The voting public! The informed and questioning public!

(And I’ll bet that they are a lot less likely to impose a three-minute rule on them when they speak at a Board Meeting. Just ask the Bakis family: they asked questions, they got answers, and they did not get the gavel.

The gavel was reserved for others. The gavel-of-shame was wielded to quell the speech of those who also asked questions, but got no answers. Who shared concerns, but got no response. What did we get? The gavel.

(We didn’t even get rollover minutes from the many who spoke in less than three-minutes.) AT&T gets it. Why doesn’t our Board?

Shame on them.

On a happier note: Back to the Bargaining Table

The District (Dr. Howell) e-mailed the Teachers' Bargaining Team requesting a meeting on June 21st to negotiate. (LJEA said, "Yes!")

Woo-hoo!

A flier was put out by LJEA saying,

"Thank You for Your Support at the Board Meeting!!"


"The district has invited LJEA back to the bargaining table on June21st!! Let's all think Positive!"



Although the In the Know barely acknowledged the 100 or so teachers, parents, and grandparents that showed up at the Board meeting, it appears we made some impact.

Special thanks to those who spoke. Here's a list of those who spoke under: "Items Not on the Agenda." If you see them, ask them what they spoke about... (Sorry if I missed anyone.)

Don (Ponce/Potts?) parent (sorry about the last name)
Kelly Aldecoa
Margaret Palmer
John Dobson (grandparent)
Marsha Leonard (Macy parent)
Marikate Wissman (co-president LJEA)
Don Evans (RSP teacher El Portal) ;-)
Alison (teacher/parent)
Susie Toice (Meadow Green parent)
Shelly Pimper (Co-president LJEA)
Cindy Dember (Macy teacher... who also announced her retirement!)

Together, Everyone, Achieves, More: Go TEAM!

A Story About a Family

(This is the "story" I told at the June 7th Board Meeting, under "Other Topics.")

Last time
At an earlier Board meeting I spoke about “butchery masquerading as bargaining and deception masquerading as good faith.” I had us look at the numbers: the heart of the contract -- the proposed, unfair salary schedule.

Then I waited... and looked for change...

And nothing came...

So on June 7th, I was back again.
Why am I back?
Because...
The Contract: It's Personal.
It's a family matter.
A speech didn't bring change, maybe a story will...

A Story About a Family
Some say that Lowell Joint is like a family, and it is.
Some say it's run like a dictatorship, and that it has been for decades.
But in the past... it was run by a Benevolent Dictator, a dictator with a big heart.
But things seem to have changed and so...
These days the kids in the family are upset.
The family is dysfunctional... and there are rumblings/speeches/stories.

Tight Times
Tight times put stress on families, but sometimes they just highlight what's been going on for years.
Most family struggles surround two topics: kids and money.

Kids
Hmmm... What do kids want and need?
Kids want two things: fairness and safety.

Kids want Fairness
More chores and less allowance? That's not fair!
Pretending to be nice in front of the neighbors: students and parents. That's not fair!
Having to make small talk instead of real talk when we pass in the hallway. That's not fair!
And for our birthday present? A manual from the DMV?

Kids want Safety
We get scolded by Mom for missing chores, while Mom wasn't there to do hers? That's not fair!
Mom makes us change bedrooms because we don't do what she says.
Some of the kids just disappear... Exiled? Laid-off? Forced resignations?
And I hear Mom got a lawyer to help rework the family contract! Oh, no. That can’t be good.

Money is tight
Money is tight, but Mom controls the purse-strings.
No money for our allowances, but Mom and her Directors get raises!
Mom makes charts and speeches and blames the State economy... but what’s really going on?

What can the kids do?
So the children complain to Dad: “Dad, Mom's being unfair and mean!”
So Dad says, "Okay, I'll talk to Mom" but nothing changes.
The allowance schedule stays the same.
And behind close doors... things don't change... the tyranny continues…

So the kids wonder...

The kids wonder about Dad
Why doesn't Dad stand up to Mom and make her be nice and play fair?
Is Dad afraid of Mom?
Is Dad too unconcerned to find out what's really going on?
Or is Dad in cahoots with Mom?
Does Dad really believe everything Mom says and none of what we say?
Mom is hurting us, and Dad won't do anything about it?

The kids wonder about Mom
Why does Mom hurt the kids behind closed doors and act like every thing's okay?
Why does Mom parade the kids in front of the neighbors and pretend every thing's okay?
Why don't I trust Mom to tell the truth or listen to others?
The kids wonder about ourselves
Will we be punished for complaining?
What will happen to us when no one is looking?

Maybe I need to tell the neighbors what's going on...
What did that DMV manual say? In the back...

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

The King practiced tyranny, so the colonists made a list for all to see!
A list of abuses published on the world-wide-web for all to see?
Would people connect-the-dots?
Would the tyranny stop then?

Don, Why not just give up or shut up?
Because...
It's a family matter.

Because...
The Contract: It's Personal.

Because if a speech and a story don't change things...
...maybe a public list will.

Maybe then we call all connect-the-dots and see what's really going on in the Lowell Joint family.

“To criticize is easy, to do better, may be difficult.”

Life is a process of on-going improvement.
I’m a problem solver, but I’m not sure what the problem is, and
I’m afraid the problem may be bigger than the current contract...

The future is just ahead, so let’s change it!
NEGOTIATE FAIRLY!