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...

A New School Year: A Kite in the Wind...

A kite in the wind… that’s my personal metaphor for the new school year.

You might ask, “How’s that working for you, Don?”

And I might answer with a sigh.

I see the wind: the superintendent continues her “spinning” ways, for example… at the “Welcome Back” BBQ she mentioned that if the current budget crisis continues, we could end up with a state appointed administrator who would cost the district $150,000!

I did the math. At a board meeting last year, the Los Angeles budget guru gave the formulae for the cost of a state appointed administrator: 80% of the district’s superintendent’s salary.

$165,000 x 80% is $132,000 not $150,000.  Simple math, simple fact, and simply not $150,000.

It made me think: If that simple number is being erroneously presented as fact, what other numbers are?

(What new “dots” have shown up on your radar?) The wind continues to blow.

Here’s another dot on my radar:

The state rejects our district’s budget and tells us to refigure it without the COLA. The district recalculates the budget and the only thing they do is take out the COLA… it still gets rejected. Of course it does! But now the district can say, “We tried twice!”

 (The second try was not a try, it was a ruse!) At least that’s what it looks like to me… up in the sky… trying to maintain a kite-like perspective.

Is the district administration so bereft of ideas that all they can do is continue to blame the economy and the teachers’ union? (And misrepresent fiction as fact!)

Here’s an idea:

Have the superintendent take a “temporary” pay cut to $50,000 a year. Not only would that demonstrate her commitment to share the economic pain, but it might make it difficult to find someone willing to work for 80% of $50,000 which is… see if you can do the math!

(Or… take a cut to $1 a year… it’s been done before… who would take the job for 80 cents?)

The only problem with this scenario is that, unlike the temporary pay cut that the teachers took, I doubt if the superintendent would be willing to make it permanent, like she’s asking the teachers to do.

Another “aha” moment for me: I suspected the Memorandum of Understanding which made the last two years of temporary cuts temporary would mean that my pay would be reinstated with a restored step and column. The district would never say so, but that’s just what happened.

Of course teachers are being warned not to spend their reinstated salary increases, because a new contract will probably be negotiated that involves retroactive pay cuts to the beginning of this school year. (Actually, the pay cuts will be retroactive for two years… because what was promised to be temporary will become permanent… in violation of the MOU.)

Forthrightness, honesty, clarity… too much to ask? No.

Too much to expect? Yes, as long as the School Board continues to allow this wind to blow unchecked.

In the mean time…. Class sizes are up, budgets are down, and teachers are being asked to do more with less… with more less to come.

Good kite flying weather.

Sigh.

You call that bargaining?

Many Lowell Joint Staff showed up in support of their negotiating team at the beginning of summer. We wanted the appointed Mediator to know that LJSD teachers were very concerned about the negotiations. Our presence was felt and appreciated by our negotiating team, heard by the Moderator, and apparently ignored by the Superintendent and her "negotiating" team.

According to a letter published to teacher union members, the District continued to move in the wrong direction.

My wife is from New York. One morning her and a neighbor were out for a morning exercise walk before work. Passing a fellow walker, my wife said, "Good morning!"

He said, "You call that walking?"

After hearing about the results of the negotiating sessions, I was left with the same sinking feeling: District, you call that bargaining?

More of the same, then it gets worse.

C'mon!

A week or so later on FaceBook, a friend (and fellow teacher from another district) noticed that I was going to participate in a "Wear Black on the First Day" event. His response was "Good luck with that."

What ensued was a thought provoking exchange where my more pragmatic friend explained to me that I was dealing with a different kind of animal... one that doesn't really care about maintaining good will.

I had to admit... he was right. There are certain people who don't play "fair." These are people, who in an argument, know no boundaries. They are ruthless.

Recently an interesting quote showed up on my iGoogle home page:

“I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it.”   William S. Burroughs

Burroughs was a non-conformist and not necessarily in a good way. He was also a genius.

I do care if people dislike me, but some people don't seem to care. They may make "good" bosses because of emotional distance. They may help restore short-term fiscal health, but at what cost to the long-term health of the organization?

Eliyahu Goldratt, developer of a management systems paradigm called The Theory of Constraints, argues that long-term health of a company is best achieved by finding Win-Win solutions for all stakeholders in the enterprise. When management wins and workers lose, then nobody wins.

Families, staff, and District Management must work together to find and implement win-win solutions.

But that won't happen if one of the stakeholders doesn't negotiate in good faith. That's short-sighted and demonstrates poor leadership.

Recently the CEO of HP was fired by his board for violating company ethics. The Houston Business Journal reported this:

"Questioning about the circumstances of Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd's resignation continued on the second weekend after his departure in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint."

"The consensus in Silicon Valley is that Mr. Hurd was despised at HP, not just by the rank and file, but even by HP’s top executives," Nocera wrote.

The Times columnist suggests that the sexual harassment claim merely gave the board the pretext for doing what it wanted to do, get rid of Hurd without provoking an outcry on Wall Street where he was extremely popular for turning around the company's finances.

Hurd was "extremely popular (on Wall Street) for turning around the company's finances..." but "...despised at HP, not just by the rank and file, but even by HP's top executives." 

Hurd disregarded some of the stakeholders in his organization. Evidently, he didn't care. (And, he may be laughing all the way to the bank after being fired, after all, his severance package was something like 17 million dollars plus stock options.)

I'm realistic enough to understand that people like that exist, but I find it disheartening to find them operating at the helm of an organization I'm associated with. 

This is new to Lowell Joint, and it's unsettling.

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.

Majoring in the Minors: CPN... A sad sample of misguided priorities.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

As I noted in an earlier post, I believe that the District has proposed adding language into the current contract that would disallow the use of Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN) before or after a contractual holiday.

You might think I'm exaggerating when I talk of Majoring in the Minors, but I'm not. A good example of this is the recent case of Mrs. Herman, a third grade teacher at El Portal. Mrs. Herman had scheduled herself to compete in the Paris Marathon during Spring Break. Her doctor suggested that she should allow several days to acclimate, and as a result Mrs. Herman used her two contractual CPN days to arrive early enough to acclimate prior to competing. So what's the problem?

The Superintendent decided that this was an opportunity to invoke disciplinary action! So she did.

A letter was written admonishing the teacher, and the letter was placed in the teacher's personnel file.

But Mrs. Herman is not easily intimidated, bullied, or mistreated. She filed a grievance. (Not allowing evil to triumph sometimes requires that we learn what are rights are, and how to stand up for them. Go Mrs. Herman!)

Mrs. Herman also responded to the Superintendent's letter with one of her own, which was also placed in the personnel file.

In the end, the Superintendent agreed "to remove the formal discipline notice and Ms. Herman's accompanying response from Ms. Herman's personnel file effectively this date, May 24, 2010."

This all transpired just before the District supplied their final contractual offer before declaring impasse. In that new "offer" --  new language was added trying to codify the Superintendent's stamp of disapproval regarding the use of CPNs. Majoring in the Minors... at the expense of employee good will.

At the bottom of this post, I'll supply the text from all three pieces of correspondence. Mrs. Herman was willing to share them with us in hopes that this too will help us "connect the dots" and bring into focus some of the problems haunting Lowell Joint... behind closed doors.

Before the letters, how about a bit of irony...

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." -- Thomas Jefferson

On the two days in question, I believe the Superintendent was on vacation, so she could spend some time with her husband, whose Spring Break did not line up with Lowell Joint's.

(Per her contract, she has vacation days that can be used at her discretion: no questions asked.)


"When people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

* * * * * *
In reverse chronological order:

"Decision of Principal, Department Head or Next Level Supervisor:
     On May 24, 2010, the parties met to consider Teresa Herman's appeal and request to have the formal discipline notice and her accompanying response removed from her personnel file. In question was Ms. Herman's use of Compelling personal Necessity (CPN) on April 8 and 9, 2010, for travel to Paris, France, in order to compete in the Paris marathon. At issue was the interpretation of Article XXIII, Section F(1) of the Lowell Joint Education Association (LJEA) Contract regarding Personal Necessity that states: 'Personal Necessity Leave may be utilized by a unit member who has sufficient unused sick leave credit for circumstances which cannot be dealt with during off-duty hours and that are serious in nature, that is which cannot be expected to be disregarded and/or which necessitate immediate attention... Each unit member may use two (2) days of leave, under this provision, per year for personal reasons other than concerted activities. This day shall be deducted from the unit member's sick leave, and the reason for absence shall be Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN.)'
     It is Ms. Herman's contention that she was not in violation of the above referenced Article. It is the District's contention that while CPN days may be used for personal reasons, given that the days are entitle as Personal Necessity days, the personal reasons for the use of CPN days must fall within the description of Personal Necessity days as included in Article XXIII stated above, and that vacation days do not comply with the description as stated in the LJEA Contract. There, Ms. Herman's use of CPN days for vacation time was a violation of Article XXIII.
     During the conference on May 24, 2010, the Superintendent shared three areas that were of concern: (1) Ms. Herman's principal, as her direct supervisor, had approved the use of the two CPN days prior to April 8, 2010, knowing that Ms. Herman was planning to leave early for France. (2) While the District had not proposed deducting salary for the use of two work days, the Superintendent has determined that under the previous superintendents(s) Article XXIII, Section F(1) was not consistently interpreted and applied. (3) While Ms. Herman and the Superintendent have differing views as to the interpretation of the definition of a CPN day, it is clear that both LJEA and the District need to work together to further define the use of a CPN day and both parties need to be diligent in education the unit members and the administrative team regarding contract language.
     Therefore, the Superintendent agrees to remove the formal discipline notice and Ms. Herman's accompanying response from Ms. Herman's personnel file effectively this date, May 24, 2010."

***********************
Reading between the lines (where I added bolding above), I see that not all previous Superintendent's agreed with Dr. Howell's interpretation, and that -- by golly -- we need to add language to the contract (Further Define), so that Dr. Howell's interpretation will prevail! And be taught! And be adhered to! (Grrrr....)

***********************


"May 6, 2010

Dr. Patricia Howell
Lowell Joint School District
11019 Valley Home Avenue
Whittier, CA 90603

Re: Use of Compelling Personal Leave

Dr. Howell:

This letter is written to inform you that my use of Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN) leave on April 8 and 9, 2010, was not in violation of the current collective bargaining agreement and does not constitute cause for disciplinary action. There, your recent letter I received on April 29, has no place in my personnel file.

Your contention that my use of Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN) leave on April 8 and 9, 2010, was in violation of the current collective bargaining agreement represents your misunderstanding of the collective bargaining agreement.

The District's contractual agreement with the Lowell Joint Education Association (LJEA), Article XXIII, Section F(1), states the following concerting Persona Necessity (PN) and Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN) days: 'Persona Necessity Leave may be utilized by a unit member who has sufficient unused sick leave credit for circumstances which cannot be dealt with during off-duty hours and that are serious in nature, that is which cannot be expected to be disregarded and/or which necessitate immediate attention. A leave of absence for personal necessity may be granted to a unit member, for no more that twenty (20) days in each school year. Additional leave may be grated at the discretion of the Superintendent. Such leaves shall be deducted from a unit member's accumulated sick leave benefits for those situations necessitating the unit member's absence from duty. Each unit member may use two (2) days of leave, under this provision, per year for personal reasons other that concerted activities. These days shall be deducted from the unit member's sick leave, and the reason for the absence shall be Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN.)'

The language is very clear. Your contention fails to recognize a unit member's right to 'use two (2) days of leave per year for personal reasons other than concerted activities.' You further fail to recognize that 'the reason for the absence shall be Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN).'

Your assertion, per our conversat6ion on April 29, in the presence of Kim Likert, my school site administrator, and Tom Hollister, my representative from the California Teachers' Association, that CPN days were to be used for private matters such as psychological counseling and the like, implies that the collective bargaining agreement allows you to determine the scope of what is 'compelling, personal, or necessary' for any and all unit members. Clearly, such determinations are outside your purview. The CPN box checked serves as all that is required as a  reason. Please note that while it is not necessary for me to obtain the approval of my site administrator to take CPN days, as you know, my principal was aware of my plans, and substantiated my course, and validated my right to utilize my CPN days.

Furthermore, your practice of asking site administrators why teachers are taking CPN days, as you admitted to in our conversation on April 29, is emblematic of how you endeavor to overstep the boundaries stated in the collective bargaining contract. Frankly, it smacks of bullying and intimidation and undermines the professional relationship otherwise enjoyed by the teachers and site administrators of Lowell Joint.

Allow me to explain how this practice of yours is playing out across the district. When one of my colleagues heard last week about how disciplinary action was the topic of my conversation with you last Thursday afternoon, she responded with, "'I was planning to take my CPN day to attend a church function next month. I guess I should call in sick instead." Dr. Howell, is that the kind of work environment you wish to create? The fall-out of your management style is an unhealthy work environment. Teachers in Lowell Joint are feeling intimidated into reporting they are sick, instead of exercising their right to use CPN days, as afforded by the collective bargaining agreement. Be aware of that.

Your letter states: 'Your conduct is also in violation of Board Policy 4219.21 - Professional Standards. The policy states: ""The Board of Trustees expects district employees to maintain the highest ethical standards, follow district policies and regulations, and abide by state and federal laws. Employee conduct should enhance the integrity of the district and advance the goals of the educational programs. Each employee should make a commitment to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfill his/her responsibilities and should focus on his/her contribution to the learning and achievement of district students. The Board encourages district employees to accept as guiding principles the professional standards and codes of ethics adopted by professional associations to which the may belong."

Your proclamation is puzzling to me. To my mind, training for and completing a marathon exemplifies goal setting and self-discipline, two of the character traits addressed in our District Character Education Program. I proudly teach these character traits and endeavor to reflect them in my professional and personal life. I recognize and take very seriously my responsibility to lead by example, and to that end, I was proud to share my experience of running the Paris Marathon with my students. I dare say, they shared my pride and were genuinely happy for my accomplishment. One student shared as we discussed my fitness goals and progress toward them, 'You've gotta go, Mrs. Herman. You've trained hard for it and it is your dreams.'

Your letter further states: "your duties as a professional education and your responsibilities to the students in your classroom are of utmost importance. As a teacher you are expected to serve as a role model for students in the district. Knowing that El Portal Elementary School and the District have been stressing the importance of student attendance every day, it is disappointing that you would knowingly miss two days of school for your own personal vacation time. This misconduct constitutes ground for discipline under Education Code Section 44939, and justification for withholding compensation under Education Code Section 45055."

Your hurtful accusation and question of my integrity begs the questions:


How do you then justify the District's proposal for the elimination of instructional days for the 2010-2011 school year, when such a proposal knowingly denies all students of Lowell Joint School District of education days?

How do you account for the fact that a Lowell Joint School District Board member took her child out of school early in recent years to head for a European vacation, and was congratulated and encouraged by District Administration for such an educational endeavor?

Why do you assume that my Compelling Personal Necessity was for my "own personal vacation time" when in fact an arrival time two nights prior to the Paris Marathon was necessary for adequate rest and adequate time to adjust to the vast time difference? Such preparation was vital to a healthful and successful completion of the marathon. French law mandates that all marathon participants provide a medical release form signed by a medical doctor in order to take part. I received this approval from my physician, with the understanding that I would have adequate time in Paris prior to the race to rest and adjust to the time difference. It should be noted here that these facts are again, outside your purview and only addressed here to respond to your false assumption.

Have you reviewed my Lowell Joint School District Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness on file as you attacked my Profession Standards? They speak for themselves.

How do your practices of question site administrators about teachers' use of CPN days and intimidating teachers into being fearful of exercising their right to CPN days "enhance the integrity of the District?" You cited Board Policy 4219.21 - Professional Standards. Ironically, I believe you need to question your own behavior, as District Policy clearly refers to all District employees, not just teachers.

As you attack my right to take my CPN days, have you, at all, considered the fact that I worked a full day, each Saturday and Sunday, at my school site, for three consecutive weeks to prepare for our visit by the committee evaluation our school for the California Distinguished School Award? My colleagues and I wanted to make sure we were presenting our school in the most favorable light possible as we applied for that prestigious award. The extra time that was required was given freely by each of us. As professionals, we recognized the need to go the extra mile in order to earn this honor that bodes so well for Lowell Joint. We are so pleased and proud to be recognized as a California Distinguished School.

Your accusations are hurtful and unfounded.

The education Code Section you cite reads: "Except as otherwise provided in this code no warrant shall be drawn in favor of any teacher, unless the officer whose duty is to draw the warrant is satisfied that the teacher has faithfully performed all the duties prescribed."

You believe, as discussed in your letter that "the use of a CPN day must fall within the description of a PN day" does not line up with the contractual agreement. Quite simply, Dr. Howell, if CPN days needed to fall within the description of PN days, the CPN provision would not exist. To that end, when I checked the box "Compelling Personal Necessity" on my leave report, my report was complete and in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. The "Brief details" referring to items 'a' through 'h' under this policy refer to Personal Necessity. Compelling Personal Necessity is clearly delineated in both the collective bargaining agreement and the Lowell Joint School District Leave Report. Disciplinary action and/or a letter in my personnel file are inappropriate. I have and continue to perform all duties of my position in accordance with the LJEA contract, Board Policy, and the Education Code regulations, including properly utilizing CPN and PN days.

Sincerely,

Theresa Herman
Teacher"

(The letter was cc'd to the principal, the LJEA co-presidents, Tom Holister - CTA rep, and all members of the school board. I hope they read it.)

******
A bit more irony?  Dr. Howell not only holds a Clear Administrative Credential, but she holds a teaching credential: Authorized Subject?... wait for it... Physical Education (by examination), with a supplementary authorization in Introductory Mathematics. C'mon!

Holder of a PE authorization, disciplining a marathon runner? She can't validate the endeavor? Really?

******

My hands are tired so I'm not going to retype Dr. Howell's entire two-page letter. The majority of it is quoted in Mrs. Herman's letter. I'll just give you the final two paragraphs:

"You are directed to perform all duties of your position in accordance with the LJEA contract, Board Policy, and Education Code regulations, including properly utilizing CPN and PN days."

"Your failure to comply with these directives could result in disciplinary action. Moreover, the District does not intend to impinge upon your right to participate in activities protected by law; however, your conduct as described above is not protected by law and should not be repeated."


******
Grrr...!!!

******

Nothin' better to do than sniff out such non-violations? Really?

Let's Major in the Majors! And remove the "clarifying" language re: CPNs from the current "offer"! 

PS: Special thanks to Mrs. Herman for standing up for what is right, for allowing us to peak in behind closed doors, and for completing the Paris Marathon! Yowza.

Majoring in the Minors... CPNs.

Once upon a time, a decade or so ago, I had a boss who was fond of saying, "Let's not major in the minors." It's another way of saying, Let's make sure we are focused on what is of major importance, not on what is of minor importance.

I think a case in point is the issue of Compelling Personal Necessity days. The current contract allows teachers to take two days off a year for reasons of Compelling Personal Necessity, aka CPN.

Here's how the current contract reads: (Page 53)

"1. Personal Necessity Leave may be utilized by a unit member who has sufficient unused sick leave credit for circumstances which cannot be dealt with during off-duty hours and that are serious in nature, that is which cannot be expected to be disregarded and/or which necessitate immediate attention. A leave of absence for personal necessity may be granted to a unit member, for not more than twenty (20) days in each school year. Additional leave may be granted at the discretion of the Superintendent. Such leaves shall be deducted from a unit member's accumulate sick leave benefits for those situations necessitating the unit member's absence from duty. Each unit member may use two (2) days of leave, under this provision , per year for personal reasons other than concerted activities. This day shall be deducted from the unit member's sick leave, and the reason for absence shall be Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN). Other personal necessity leave under this policy shall be granted in the following situations:"

Then the categories for Other Personal Necessity are listed: Death of a Member of the Family, Illness in the Immediate Family, Accident of an Emergency nature, Danger to Home or Property of Unit Member, Paternity Leave, Funeral, Examination for Selective Service, Court Appearance, Graduation Ceremony of an Immediate Family Member, and Weddings of Immediate Family Members.

Here is what the Superintendent wants to change the contract to:

Something along the line: Compelling Personal Necessity cannot happen on a day proceeding or following a holiday or vacation. (Really?) 

Who would want to open that can of worms? Who would want to be so invasive into a worker's use of Sick Leave, when the current contract includes the language in order to give some Personal leeway? Who?

Someone who wants to major in the minors. Someone who wants to ignore all the personal sacrifice given by workers without pay for the good of the students and District. Someone who wants to be penny wise and pound foolish. Someone who discounts the value of the good will of their workforce. That's how I see it. And it's sad, but indicative of a management stance that needs to be altered.

Is this really an issue the District wants to raise a flag and die on? (School Board... do you need to advise your Superintendent and your bargaining team?)

This is of MAJOR importance? This is worth aggravating your self-sacrificing teaching staff over? (Really?)

It's insulting to me that the District would feel compelled to make this a contractual matter. I think it falls in the category of majoring in the minors. Teachers recently gave many extra hours, weekends, and money to help Lowell Joint win Distinguished School Awards. None of the teachers submitted a bill to the District. Teachers who feel valued often behave in self-sacrificing ways.

When I worked in business, there was something called, Compensatory Time Off. It was a matter of "You scratch my back: I'll scratch yours." It was a matter of helping each other get done what needed to get done and then repaying an unofficial debt. It was a way of saying, "I value you and your sacrifice."

It helped build morale. It built camaraderie. It demonstrated appreciation. It also gave my boss some unofficial flexibility: some employee good will. My boss couldn't always reward us financially, but he did reward us with the next best thing: time off. Some, if not most of this activity was "off-the-books." The company practiced a bit of "Don't ask. Don't tell." Why?

Because we were majoring in the majors, not the minors. Majors like getting the job done, respecting each other, valuing each other, and rewarding each other in meaningful ways, even if it meant bending some rules.

Why? Because in the arena of human cooperation: that's just good leadership.

Life at the DO

The following is a guest post from Melissa. She couldn't leave a comment, so she sent me an e-mail. With her permission, I share it with this reading community.

Thank you, Don, for the post on the definition of a Superintendent. I tried to post this reply on your blog, but don't have any of the accounts listed.

As you may know I worked at the D.O. p/t from Nov 07 to June 09 as Rosie's Asst. Unfortunately, as I read all of the posts from the teachers and you, I am sad to hear that it wasn't only at the D.O. that morale was so bad, but that it has affected our teachers and staff at our schools so pervasively, as well. The stress level at the D.O. when I was there was palpable! We were all on pins & needles, and no one would speak out but for some, quietly, for fear of retribution. I have learned this sadly hasn't changed. It was virtually impossible to give your best there under such conditions no matter how hard you tried! This just shouldn't be, not when our kids are involved! Honestly, though I was there to help my family financially, I was so relieved to have been laid-off! It makes me angry that this is happening to our wonderful district with so many dedicated teachers and staff that have created and fostered this incredible district that has kept so many through the years moving to our area or transferring schools just to be able to attend us!

As examples, leaders, and mentors to our children, we must be able to make their school environment one that as a family continues to promote the joy of learning and discovery, but how it's so difficult to do in the midst of stress, strain, and frustration! I truly believe that with my experience working directly in the Supt's office, and being involved in the PTA at EP and now at Macy in various positions, and as a business owner, not to mention plenty of time on my hands right now, I can be a voice that stands against the injustices and help force a turn-around, taking back our great district and making right the wrongs that have gone on for too long now! We need to change the long-term effects as well as deal with the short-term issues by challenging and changing the manner in which we are currently governed. I hope to have the opportunity to lend my time and voice to this imperative task!

Thank you for your voice, Don.

Blessings...

Melissa Salinas
Macy Parent

(Thank you Melissa for providing a window into "Life at the D.O." It's not a pretty sight.)

More family talk and Deja-vu (Impasse)

Family Talk
After the Board meeting last night (June 7th), two of the negotiators from the 2007 union team were talking. One recalled, that during those negotiations, the other had likened Dr. Howell to an evil step-mother invading our family and giving rules where they weren’t needed or appreciated, coming into the family without any past history, and making unnecessary changes without getting to know the family.

This was done in a face-to-face negotiations session. The words were uttered in the heat of the moment, but they didn’t seem to have an effect.

Why not?

Perhaps because to the Superintendent: we are more like a business than a family to her.

Does any of this sound familiar? Maybe some of us are just starting to see what’s been there all along. Maybe the public is just becoming aware of what’s been happening behind closed doors.

Trust is built, a little at a time. Trust is lost in large lumps.

Deaj-vu
Another speaker at the June 7th Board meeting noted that although many of the negotiators on the union side have been negotiating with the District for years, it’s only recently that impasse has become a typical (two-time) outcome. When was the last time the negotiations went to impasse before Dr. Howell’s tenure began? Way back in 1983. Wow.

Have financial times always good between then and now? I doubt it. The State’s economy fluctuates.

But the union and District leadership negotiated fairly, agreements were reached, and impasse was avoided.

Until… the family-style leadership began to be transformed into a business-styled leadership. A family certainly has a financial side, and families need to be fiscally responsible, but families do business differently than businesses.

Who does LJSD want to become? A business run by a boss, or a public school district led by a Board of Trustees and Superintendent with a business head and a mother’s heart.

2007, 2010: Deja-vu all over again?

Connect-the-dots.

PS: Not all step-mothers are evil. Some are wonderful! Just sayin’!

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!

Arbitrary and capricious behavior!

In a recent post I noted that "Repeated indignities large and small seem to be a recurring theme in Lowell Joint." And that, “Perhaps the current negotiation process is only high-lighting a larger problem?”

Some teachers are waking up in the middle of the night angry. Why?

Because we feel betrayed, lied to, and mistreated. Our sense of justice has been violated. Some of us feel that tyranny is seeping into our professional lives. What is tyranny? It is “oppressive power exerted by government,” in this case our District leadership. So what are we to do?

The Declaration of Independence provides us with a model for dealing with tyranny.

"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 colonists decided provide a set of examples of the behaviors they interpreted as injurious, usurpataious, and tyrannical.

So, let me give you an example from our current LJ history:

The recent "complete" minutes of the Board meeting of June 7, 2010 contained a section on a recent dispute about a layoff notice. One teacher was laid-off by the District and another one wasn't. The one who was laid off protested and filed a complaint. She didn’t think she was being treated fairly by the District. The two parties went before a judge, with the Superintendent representing the District's layoff decision.

The judge ruled in favor of the protesting laid-off teacher.

In addition to the fact that the District got the issue all wrong, the judge also commented on the manner in which the District pursued its aims. In the judge's summation concerning the District's position presented by the Superintendent, the judge noted that the District behaved in a manner that was "capricious and arbitrary."

The judge also stated that the District's misapplication of reasoning and policy was a "guise" for circumventing the clear intent of the law.

One of the major complaints in the current cycle of contract negotiations is the apparent high-handed inflexibility being demonstrated by the District's negotiating team led by the Superintendent.

It's almost like the District is being "capricious and arbitrary." It's almost like the District's performance at the bargaining table has simply been a "guise." It's almost like there is a recurring theme of indignities large and small, of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute tyranny. This time, a judge stopped the injustice and tyranny. (Woohoo!)

Hopefully, this is an indicator of a new trend. Hopefully, the District noted that "capricious and arbitrary" behavior in matters of contract law will come to light and justice will prevail. And hopefully, this incident will serve as another Connect-the-dots moment for the reader.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you’d like to see the document… “Complete minutes of each Board meeting are available in the Superintendent’s Office for review.” (Sure wish they were available as a PDF on the District’s main web-site… but they are not.)

I’ll provide a few paragraphs from the judge’s ruling below, just to provide context. Quotes are from Exhibit A in the LJSD Board Meeting minutes of June 7, 2010:

“Nancy Beezy Micon, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings, heard this matter on April 26, 2010, in Whittier, California.”

“Superintendent Howell’s use of tie-breaking criteria number ten to determine Respondents’ relative qualifications for a potential assignment was improperly applied. Tie-breaking criteria are not to be used to determine a person’s qualifications for an assignment. The use of criteria ten as a basis to determine competency is inherently unfair since the person currently holding the potential assignment is likely to have more years of service in the subject matter or field. The majority of employees who have the same first date of paid service are not being compared for potential assignments. The criteria are intended to be used to rank seniority based on the needs of the District. In this case, the wording of tie-break criteria number ten was vague and it led to the application of tie-breaking criteria number ten in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious.” (Page 6)

“A senior teacher has a right to have competence determined with a view to courses and programs. A senior teacher has a right to have a competency determination focused on his or her specific training and experience as they relate to the duties of a position. A school district may not, in the guise of determining whether a teacher is competent, promote some policy that is not focused on that question.” (Page 9 and 10)

It's about dignity!

Reading the headlines this morning, my attention was caught by a story from Associated Press about Chinese workers committing suicide. Wow.

So I read the article. Here are some highlights:

Title: Foxconn to give Chinese workers another pay raise

"TAIPEI, Taiwan — Foxconn workers in China will get another pay raise in coming months, on top of an increase that just took effect in response to recent worker suicides, the company said Sunday."

"Less than a week ago, the maker of iPads, iPhones and other electronic gadgets for international companies had raised workers' pay by 30 percent at its plants across China."

"This wage increase has been instituted to safeguard the dignity of workers," said Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou in the statement. "We are working diligently to ensure that our workplace standards and remuneration not only continue to meet the rapidly changing needs of our employees, but they are best-in-class."

"Labor activists accuse the company of having a rigid management style, an excessively fast assembly line and forced overwork. Foxconn denies the allegations, but it has been under great public pressure to improve conditions at its Chinese operations."


Remuneration (salary plus benefits) is about dignity. I feel bad for the ten workers in China, who were so frustrated and hopeless, that suicide was the option they took. I feel bad for their co-workers and families.

The company's ultimate response was to improve conditions (and install safety nets!)

What was the impetus to the change? ..not just the deaths (the ultimate protest), but the company "...has been under great public pressure to improve conditions..."

Public pressure can move companies, even those with a "rigid management style."

In the West, our problems pale in comparison with many parts of the world, but one thing is consistent: we are all people. When workers are faced with a lack of options, a lack of meaningful negotiations, and are met instead with inflexibility and injustice, then frustration grows.

It's not always about higher wages, but it is always about dignity, honesty, forthrightness, and trust. When management behaves in ways that undermine worker dignity, then unrest grows.

Repeated indignities large and small seem to be a recurring theme in Lowell Joint. Perhaps the current negotiation process is only high-lighting a larger problem?

Let's connect some dots and see what develops!