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!)

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.

The District Belongs to the Voters

I have a lot of bosses. On teacher appreciation day, the District usually makes a visit to each classroom to extend a "Thank you" to the teacher.

After they leave my room, I usually explain to my students who they were, "Mrs. Likert is my boss, and Dr. Howell is her boss, and the Board Member is one of Dr. Howell's bosses."

There is a chain-of-command in most organizations. What makes a School District somewhat unique is that ultimately the "boss" is the voting public. (In a business, the owner/stockholders are the final bosses.)

Happily, eight residents of the Lowell Joint District have filed to run for the open positions on the Lowell Joint School Board. I'm happy about that.

The Whittier Daily News posted an article that lists the candidates:

Eight candidates, including incumbent Darin Barber, have filed for three open board seats at the 3,000-student Lowell Joint School District.


Half of the candidates hail from Los Angeles County and half live in Orange County, as the district serves students in both counties.


In addition to Barber, who was initially appointed to the Lowell Joint board in 2003, the challengers in the Nov. 2 election are:


Doug Cox of La Habra, a programs manager and parent;
Kevin M. De Mera of La Habra Heights, a businessman and parent;
Gene N. Dunford of Whittier, former Lowell Joint trustee and commercial banker;
William (Bill) Hinz of La Habra Heights, educator and business owner;
Patrick G. Rockenbach of Whittier, process manager and parent;
Melissa A. Salinas of La Habra, local businesswoman and parent; and
Anastasia Shackelford of La Habra, math teacher.


"I know most of them, and this is a good field of candidates," said Barber, 41, of La Habra, who is an attorney and former school teacher.


Read more:Eight join race for three open Lowell Joint school board seats - Whittier Daily Newshttp://www.whittierdailynews.com/ci_15762461#ixzz0xMfaXJM5

The Long Beach Press Telegram published a good summary article  here.

I'm happy that so many have stepped forward to become informed and involved. One of my favorite sayings is this: "To criticize is easy -- to do better may be difficult." A tip-of-the-hat to those who have stepped forward to be considered for public service. 

Mr. DeMera was present at the demonstration held by concerned teachers, parents, and students at the early summer negotiation at the District office. He was there to listen. I appreciated that.

Mr. Rockenback has a web-site where he posted this:

We need to work closely with the dedicated group of teachers that have already helped the district to consistently improve its API scores over the past few years. It is evident from the recent interactions between the teachers and the board that there is a lack of trust and this must be addressed before we can all move forward.

The good news is that there are eight people interested in taking on the challenge. The better news is that we don't have to pick just one person as there are three openings on the board. This is a perfect opportunity to build a new board with diverse experiences and differing opinions on the direction for the future.

Over the next few months I will be sharing my vision for the future and I hope to earn one of your three votes on November 2nd.

Current negotiations aren't going well, but perhaps that will change after the November election. 

Bosses have bosses, and ultimately, the future of the District lies in the hands of its voters -- the true bosses.

Go Lowell Joint! Go voters! (Lowell Joint needs you to stand up and be counted.)

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.

"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?