Following are Steve Schoeberle's remarks to the Burke County Board of Education on June 30th. Steve was allotted three minutes, but was abruptly cut off by "our dear leader" before he was able to finish. Please take a look -
“The Clayton County Public Schools are at a serious and historical crossroads. The path chosen in the coming days, weeks and months must be guided by responsible decisions focused solely on the needs of students.” These are the last 2 sentences of SACS CASI’s August 28, 2008 report to the Clayton County, Georgia Public Schools as it revoked their accreditation. I come here today to ask you to do 2 things: 1. stop the superintendent search, because you already have a qualified superintendent, and 2. find someone with a proven record of success to deal with SACS CASI, because your special counsel apparently is lacking such a record.
I guess that April 26, 2008, dawned like any other day in Jonesboro, Georgia. I don’t know if any of the school board members realized that the actions that they took that day would be the educational equivalent of walking off of a cliff. However, you have the benefit of the hindsight that they did not.
On that fateful day, over the objections of the governor’s 2 liaisons and SACS CASI itself, that board hired your special counsel’s client with a contract negotiated by your special counsel that included extra-legal “emergency” powers. Your special counsel was quoted as saying that his client was looking forward to making things better for the children of Clayton County.
On June 16, 2008, your special counsel was hired by the Clayton County Public Schools to work, like here, specifically on the accreditation issue. He was quoted as saying, “We would like to think SACS has no intention of intentionally harming the children of Clayton County. We believe they truly want to see things cleaned up in the school system, and they will be hard pressed to argue that things have not been cleaned up, once they get our report.”
Hard pressed, SACS CASI was not, except maybe by the weight of the report! 2,300 pages (the equivalent of nearly 5 reams of paper) including minutes, press releases, agendas, proof of board training sessions and letters of support from community members. Upon submission, your special counsel was confident in retaining full accreditation. However, on August 28, 2008, SACS CASI, apparently not being as impressed with your special counsel’s work as he was with it himself, issued its report finding that the system had failed in 8 of 9 areas to make sufficient progress. For whatever reason, your special counsel apparently made no quotes to the press after the SACS CASI report was released. I’ve done the math. One hit in 9 attempts is a .111 batting average. It’s not only below the Mendoza line, but its not enough to get out of A ball, let alone to get to “The Show”. So, why are we paying your special counsel major league money?
For any of you who want to read about Clayton County’s experience, you can access it at Clayton News Daily – Online. Their experience is instructive as to what our experience is likely to be. We’re at a crossroads today, and it’s time to get serious. You found out the hard way on June 3, with some tears, I understand, that being able to drop a few Latin phrases, argue that a statute doesn’t mean what it clearly says, or forget that May has 31 days isn’t going to cut the mustard.
I’ll leave you with 2 quotes. The first is George Santayana’s and is fairly well-known: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I have found a second anonymous quote that I like even better: “History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time.” I urge you to listen the first time.
Steve Schoeberle
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Troublemakers in the front row?
I don’t know if Mr. Jones had any concept of how upset people were about the proposed public comment policy before Tuesday’s special called board meeting. Like many Americans, I have been following the events in Iran. Like many Burke Countians, I have empathized with the Iranians as I have compared the actions of Iran’s despots to our own school board majority.
I have been complaining about the abridgement of Constitutional rights for some time – beginning with all of the iterations of the Media Policy. So when I began receiving phone calls asking me if I had read the new Public Comment Policy a few weeks ago, I was at a loss as to how to address those concerns – this board majority and their advisors are intractable. All I have had the energy to say is that hopefully a new majority will revise the policy in December, and restore the public’s right to be heard at that time. A cop-out, I know.
The various and sundry negative actions taken by this board majority are overwhelming. Simply overwhelming. And my battery has been on “low” (temporarily)
It takes a village . . ..
Luckily for Burke citizens, we have Mr. Stephen Schoeberle, a lawyer more talented than I, energized to continue the fight for our civil liberties, and we have outspoken citizens like Caroline Avery who will actually challenge the powers that be to closely examine policies. I believe the actions of these individuals may have been the impetus for Mr. Jones to re-examine the public comment policy and recommend that the proposed policy be revised.
Because I have been observing this board for some time, I am privileged to be aware of all of the talented, tireless Burke citizens who are trying to effect change. People from all walks of life are involved in the issues the board has brought to bear – factory workers, professionals, house husbands and wives, business people -
I often think about the sacrifices these folks make and wish that everyone knew who these “unsung heroes” are. I’ll tell you that they are at just about every board meeting. Or they are watching on streaming video. They are writing letters to the Editor, they are discussing their concerns with each other.
Like me, they are ready to take our school system, our constitutional rights and our county’s reputation back from this group.
Pay Cuts. No fun.
I hope those who read this understand that I am not cavalier about pay cuts. My husband and I have endured and are enduring plenty of pay cuts. It really is not fun.
Although the State budget has relegated the board to adopt a budget which includes pay cuts, the board’s poor stewardship of our money has only exacerbated the shortfalls and the size of the pay cuts.
In my opinion, the Central Office is top heavy. In my opinion, this majority has run people off and replaced them with outsiders at higher salaries. In my opinion, we have one Associate Superintendent too many. In my opinion, we have too many lawyers.
The school board majority’s incompetent leadership has prevented staff from speaking freely, destroyed morale and has created conflict after conflict. The board majority would do well to listen to Hippocrates who wrote “. . . make a habit of two things – first to help or at least to do no harm.”
The bottom line is that the school board needs to get back to the business of allowing the administration to run the schools, and to ASSIST and GUIDE the administration where they see that there are potential problems. Not continue to distract the administration during these already difficult times by continuing to pursue their agenda to remove the superintendent.
I can’t imagine the backlash that will occur if the board chooses to buy out the superintendent’s contract in light of the cuts that school personnel are taking. Making such a decision would be unconscionable.
Troublemakers on the front row? I think we know where the “troublemakers” sit, and it isn’t in the audience.
I have been complaining about the abridgement of Constitutional rights for some time – beginning with all of the iterations of the Media Policy. So when I began receiving phone calls asking me if I had read the new Public Comment Policy a few weeks ago, I was at a loss as to how to address those concerns – this board majority and their advisors are intractable. All I have had the energy to say is that hopefully a new majority will revise the policy in December, and restore the public’s right to be heard at that time. A cop-out, I know.
The various and sundry negative actions taken by this board majority are overwhelming. Simply overwhelming. And my battery has been on “low” (temporarily)
It takes a village . . ..
Luckily for Burke citizens, we have Mr. Stephen Schoeberle, a lawyer more talented than I, energized to continue the fight for our civil liberties, and we have outspoken citizens like Caroline Avery who will actually challenge the powers that be to closely examine policies. I believe the actions of these individuals may have been the impetus for Mr. Jones to re-examine the public comment policy and recommend that the proposed policy be revised.
Because I have been observing this board for some time, I am privileged to be aware of all of the talented, tireless Burke citizens who are trying to effect change. People from all walks of life are involved in the issues the board has brought to bear – factory workers, professionals, house husbands and wives, business people -
I often think about the sacrifices these folks make and wish that everyone knew who these “unsung heroes” are. I’ll tell you that they are at just about every board meeting. Or they are watching on streaming video. They are writing letters to the Editor, they are discussing their concerns with each other.
Like me, they are ready to take our school system, our constitutional rights and our county’s reputation back from this group.
Pay Cuts. No fun.
I hope those who read this understand that I am not cavalier about pay cuts. My husband and I have endured and are enduring plenty of pay cuts. It really is not fun.
Although the State budget has relegated the board to adopt a budget which includes pay cuts, the board’s poor stewardship of our money has only exacerbated the shortfalls and the size of the pay cuts.
In my opinion, the Central Office is top heavy. In my opinion, this majority has run people off and replaced them with outsiders at higher salaries. In my opinion, we have one Associate Superintendent too many. In my opinion, we have too many lawyers.
The school board majority’s incompetent leadership has prevented staff from speaking freely, destroyed morale and has created conflict after conflict. The board majority would do well to listen to Hippocrates who wrote “. . . make a habit of two things – first to help or at least to do no harm.”
The bottom line is that the school board needs to get back to the business of allowing the administration to run the schools, and to ASSIST and GUIDE the administration where they see that there are potential problems. Not continue to distract the administration during these already difficult times by continuing to pursue their agenda to remove the superintendent.
I can’t imagine the backlash that will occur if the board chooses to buy out the superintendent’s contract in light of the cuts that school personnel are taking. Making such a decision would be unconscionable.
Troublemakers on the front row? I think we know where the “troublemakers” sit, and it isn’t in the audience.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Happy Father's Day!
I’d like to take a break from all of the local unpleasantness to wish all of the fathers (and single mothers who do their best to fill the father role) a wonderful day!
Simply put, I have the best dad in the world. Happy Father’s Day, Dad!
Today is my husband Joe’s birthday. Joe is a wonderful father and step-father. As his dad once told me, Joe is a “straight arrow.” I totally depend on Joe and my life would be a wreck without him.
Joe is currently in Bolivia – first to La Paz, and then to Santa Cruz de la Sierra. So, Joe –
Happy Birthday, Happy Father’s Day and I love you! Tell Evo to relax and give the donkeys in Santa Cruz some extra pets for me.
Simply put, I have the best dad in the world. Happy Father’s Day, Dad!
Today is my husband Joe’s birthday. Joe is a wonderful father and step-father. As his dad once told me, Joe is a “straight arrow.” I totally depend on Joe and my life would be a wreck without him.
Joe is currently in Bolivia – first to La Paz, and then to Santa Cruz de la Sierra. So, Joe –
Happy Birthday, Happy Father’s Day and I love you! Tell Evo to relax and give the donkeys in Santa Cruz some extra pets for me.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
So, we made these signs . . . .
I had the opportunity to travel to Raleigh on Wednesday with the NCAE to attend a rally called by Governor Perdue to encourage the legislature to provide adequate funding for education.
I did not know what to expect when I pulled up to the First Baptist Church Wednesday morning at 6:01 am, but I knew that if I was travelling with a bunch of teachers, I was perilously close to being left behind. (Ever notice how the clocks at the schools are 5 to 10 minutes faster than your car clock or your watch?). Anyhow, the bus was still parked, and I was able to board with my two tins of brownies and 4 protest signs.
We were met on the bus by Sandra Hatley, Kay Duckworth and Juleigh Sitton. Sandra and Kay are reps for the NCAE, and Juleigh is Gov. Perdue’s liaison in the western part of North Carolina. It was revealed that we would head to Raleigh, stop off at the NCAE office and gather with other teachers, parents and concerned citizens and then walk to the Old Capitol Building to listen to Gov. Perdue speak. After that, we were to meet with Bev’s “Teacher Advisor,” eat lunch in the legislative building, meet with Hugh Blackwell and then attend a legislative session. Juleigh did not attend the rally with us – she met us at the bus to give us the “lowdown” on our agenda.
Getting back to my expectations – I must admit I was expecting more of a picketing/protest kind of episode than the lobbying effort that we were expected to engage in. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but state budgets in general are such partisan issues, I was not “girded” for engaging in any kind of partisan lobbying. (I am never prepared for partisan stuff – I am all over the place on partisan issues). But, I was prepared to lobby for fewer cuts to the education budget – regardless of how that could be accomplished – so that is the attitude I stuck with.
So, we were ushered into this stately old room in the capital with other concerned folks – we wore red to symbolize the blood-letting that had (or may) occur with the current cuts in the education budget. And, we had the signs. We had two varieties – one that said “Cut Testing Not Teachers” and one that said “Cuts in Education Never Heal.” These signs were manufactured by several coworkers and me the previous day (thanks Kim, Linda, Ruth and Jeff.).
The Governor walked in and immediately noticed the “Cuts in Education Never Heal” sign and remarked that she really liked that one. She proceeded to speak about the importance of education to the NC economy (agree) and to ask us to meet with our legislators to convince them to vote to raise taxes to support education. (uh – not agree so much). She mentioned that the only folks voting against raising taxes were the Republicans.
After the Governor spoke and gave us our charge (she did a great job, by the way) we were ushered into a room to speak to her “Teacher Advisor.” We were told that the Governor was aware of the “excitement” (my word, not theirs) in Burke County, and that they were keeping up with the situation. We received sympathy and a promise to get back to Ms. Hatley regarding newly introduced legislation that might affect the tenure of malfeasant school board members.
After lunch we met with our congress person, Hugh Blackwell. Mr. Blackwell was very receptive to our concerns about the NC school budget situation, and pointed out the differences in the Republican approach versus the Democratic approach. He indicated that since the Democrats were in charge, they did not need the Republicans' vote to raise taxes – but they wanted to spread the impending “blame” for raising taxes to both parties for future elections. He also explained how budget committees seemed to work (no rhyme or reason for their decisions) and that there were alternatives to raising taxes that the Democrats would not consider. Like Governor Perdue, Mr. Blackwell made sense as well.
I left that meeting being really glad that I was not a Senator or a Congress person. Both sides see legitimate solutions to address the budget deficit that NC has been saddled with. “Tax and spend” or “cut, cut, cut” – both involve figurative blood shed. Both visions are clear and yet convoluted.
We will have to wait and see how the state budget plays out in the coming months. In the meantime, we must keep an eye on our own local school board. Add this state issue to the impending expenditures of our local board, and it doesn’t look great for Burke County.
My plea is that in the next election we try to elect a board majority that is reasonable, that doesn’t see the need for exhausting the diminishing fund balance in favor of out-of –town lawyers, and that focuses on educating the children. Please, please keep that in mind when you consider your vote this November.
To see the signs, click on this link:
http://www.news14.com/content/top_stories/610823/perdue-rallies-with-teachers--calls-for-more-money/Default.aspx
I did not know what to expect when I pulled up to the First Baptist Church Wednesday morning at 6:01 am, but I knew that if I was travelling with a bunch of teachers, I was perilously close to being left behind. (Ever notice how the clocks at the schools are 5 to 10 minutes faster than your car clock or your watch?). Anyhow, the bus was still parked, and I was able to board with my two tins of brownies and 4 protest signs.
We were met on the bus by Sandra Hatley, Kay Duckworth and Juleigh Sitton. Sandra and Kay are reps for the NCAE, and Juleigh is Gov. Perdue’s liaison in the western part of North Carolina. It was revealed that we would head to Raleigh, stop off at the NCAE office and gather with other teachers, parents and concerned citizens and then walk to the Old Capitol Building to listen to Gov. Perdue speak. After that, we were to meet with Bev’s “Teacher Advisor,” eat lunch in the legislative building, meet with Hugh Blackwell and then attend a legislative session. Juleigh did not attend the rally with us – she met us at the bus to give us the “lowdown” on our agenda.
Getting back to my expectations – I must admit I was expecting more of a picketing/protest kind of episode than the lobbying effort that we were expected to engage in. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but state budgets in general are such partisan issues, I was not “girded” for engaging in any kind of partisan lobbying. (I am never prepared for partisan stuff – I am all over the place on partisan issues). But, I was prepared to lobby for fewer cuts to the education budget – regardless of how that could be accomplished – so that is the attitude I stuck with.
So, we were ushered into this stately old room in the capital with other concerned folks – we wore red to symbolize the blood-letting that had (or may) occur with the current cuts in the education budget. And, we had the signs. We had two varieties – one that said “Cut Testing Not Teachers” and one that said “Cuts in Education Never Heal.” These signs were manufactured by several coworkers and me the previous day (thanks Kim, Linda, Ruth and Jeff.).
The Governor walked in and immediately noticed the “Cuts in Education Never Heal” sign and remarked that she really liked that one. She proceeded to speak about the importance of education to the NC economy (agree) and to ask us to meet with our legislators to convince them to vote to raise taxes to support education. (uh – not agree so much). She mentioned that the only folks voting against raising taxes were the Republicans.
After the Governor spoke and gave us our charge (she did a great job, by the way) we were ushered into a room to speak to her “Teacher Advisor.” We were told that the Governor was aware of the “excitement” (my word, not theirs) in Burke County, and that they were keeping up with the situation. We received sympathy and a promise to get back to Ms. Hatley regarding newly introduced legislation that might affect the tenure of malfeasant school board members.
After lunch we met with our congress person, Hugh Blackwell. Mr. Blackwell was very receptive to our concerns about the NC school budget situation, and pointed out the differences in the Republican approach versus the Democratic approach. He indicated that since the Democrats were in charge, they did not need the Republicans' vote to raise taxes – but they wanted to spread the impending “blame” for raising taxes to both parties for future elections. He also explained how budget committees seemed to work (no rhyme or reason for their decisions) and that there were alternatives to raising taxes that the Democrats would not consider. Like Governor Perdue, Mr. Blackwell made sense as well.
I left that meeting being really glad that I was not a Senator or a Congress person. Both sides see legitimate solutions to address the budget deficit that NC has been saddled with. “Tax and spend” or “cut, cut, cut” – both involve figurative blood shed. Both visions are clear and yet convoluted.
We will have to wait and see how the state budget plays out in the coming months. In the meantime, we must keep an eye on our own local school board. Add this state issue to the impending expenditures of our local board, and it doesn’t look great for Burke County.
My plea is that in the next election we try to elect a board majority that is reasonable, that doesn’t see the need for exhausting the diminishing fund balance in favor of out-of –town lawyers, and that focuses on educating the children. Please, please keep that in mind when you consider your vote this November.
To see the signs, click on this link:
http://www.news14.com/content/top_stories/610823/perdue-rallies-with-teachers--calls-for-more-money/Default.aspx
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Under Pressure
I can’t imagine what it must be like to be Rob Hairfield. As I have written before, Mr. Hairfield has the intellectual capacity (unlike Buff, Norman and Sain) to analyze and fully understand the issues before the board – he understands the economic and political implications of the decisions the board majority makes. Mr. Hairfield is no dummy. Unlike Mr. Buff and his disciples Norman and Sain, Mr. Hairfield does not appear to be an ideologue bent on destroying the school system.
Rightly or wrongly Mr. Hairfield seems to be motivated by his own indignation at the way the school system was run. Of the four majority members, he may be the most sincere in his desire to “improve” the school system. Although many in the county (including myself) disagree with his assessment of the school system – Mr. Hairfield has actively caused change in the school system. For instance, Mr. Hairfield told my father a while back that he had brought Rick Sherrill to Burke “to clean up the schools.” Now as misguided and potentially catastrophic as that vision is, I do think Mr. Hairfield is sincere.
My own impression of Mr. Hairfield is that he is a grouchy, stubborn guy who is stuck in the early 1960’s – he respects discipline and authority. (He was a graduate of Oak Ridge Military Academy in 1963). He reportedly spent much of his adult life in the military – in the “old school” military. Where men were men and there was no tolerance for those who crossed the line socially; racial equality and women’s liberation were foisted upon that populace (we're talking the Navy) and shoved down reluctant throats. When I think of Mr. Hairfield, I am often reminded of Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” – “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” Yada yada yada (yawn.)
In many ways, Mr. Hairfield just does not “get it,” (i.e. bringing Mr. Sherrill back to Burke County) – and many of us do not “get" him. And although Mr. Hairfield seems to carry a perpetual chip on his shoulder toward those whom he perceives as the “elites” in the county, he himself was raised by a family that is by all accounts upper-class and gracious.
Unfortunately for him, Mr. Hairfield has also made the mistake of colluding with Norman, Buff and Sain in the past. As the old saw goes, when one sleeps with dogs, one wakes with fleas. (I have personal experience with this because I often sleep with dogs – real dogs, not figurative ones like the ones I reference above.)
Anyhow, we already know that Mr. Hairfield has the propensity to exhibit a sense of humor that we in the 21st century do not appreciate. So, the question is – what will the 3 Horsemen of the Apocalypse do to threaten Mr. Hairfield so that he will change his vote for replacement school board member?
I can just hear it now: Mr. Buff: “Now Rob, I don’t know what you think you’re pullin’ here – but you had better change your vote to a vote for Aulgur at the next meetin’ – or there will be hell to pay!” (Not sure what that “hell” might be, but because Mr. Hairfield has allowed indiscretions to sully him in the past, I bet there might be some unturned stones out there. And being the political animal/”Hand of God” that Tim Buff is, my guess is that he has been taking notes on all of his cohorts for quite some time.)
So to echo Mr. Buff, my question is: “Mr. Hairfield, do you have what it takes? Do you have what it takes to withstand the intimidation and bullying you have to go through in this job? Do you have the courage to stand up for your principles?”
Mr. Hairfield, I am not happy with many of the decisions you have made – I think your emails are inexcusable. But I have always acknowledged that you are a clever person and possess analytical and logic skills that Buff, Sain and Norman will never have. Now you will have to withstand the test of the Grand Inquisitor Bully Buff and his two minions.
I’m pulling for you.
The following is a comment posted by "Anonymous." It was so impressive I moved it to the blog entry. So, Anonymous - thank you!
The three bully goats Buff at the bridge waiting to see how the question is answered by the troll. Talk about a 'grim' fairy tale! So many songs and stories come to mind about standing for something or falling for anything, redeeming oneself, and just having one shining moment as a step in the proper direction OR stepping down and aside so another with the smarts can act on behalf of those without a voice who should be the main focus---the kids.
Sir, you have the perfect opportunity show the community whether one error in judgement made without thinking has been dealt with and can be moved on from OR if you truly are going to be yanked back under control of others who have much less sense and concern for your well being and the future of the school system. Make the right thing happen. Have your own voice, and for Pete's sake, address all...old, young, teachers, administrators, students, parents, county officials, lawyers, outsiders,insiders, red, yellow, black, white, and all combinations of the above with the exact same respect that your mother and grandmother deserve from you. Don't care if you like it or not. It's in the rules. Fake civility if you have to, but be charming, courteous, listen, appreciative, and ALWAYS end an encounter feeling as if you've met someone and left them a better person (both of you better people).
Leadership is not about controlling or being controlled; it is about managing, providing security, listening, creating a place where input is valued, and when the tough stuff has to get done, there is accountability all the way up to the top that almost all the group can buy into.
We've failed miserably recently. AYP's All Your Promises=broken All Your Parents= beside themselves with anger All Your Peers = baffled that Burke could get into such a mess and worst of all, Any Young Person looking for hope and encouragement has been lost in the political battle, and the scores that are being posted for the 'game' don't mean a hill of beans because there is a major logic problem.We have to become Advocate Youth Partners (all of us) to get community, school, parents, home, church, industry, higher education, vocational training, political situations allll working together or there will not be a community much longer. There will be drop outs, lost jobs, and many negative things that you've seen coming and already addressed.
Not just one person has the power to stop things by standing up for what is right and against being bullied into taking a stance for or against something. Everybody has a voice. Pressure can be suppressive to hold things down, or it can launch things to the moon.
Time to get behind something and see what can happen when enough bright folks reach for the stars...
June 15, 2009 1:30 AM
Rightly or wrongly Mr. Hairfield seems to be motivated by his own indignation at the way the school system was run. Of the four majority members, he may be the most sincere in his desire to “improve” the school system. Although many in the county (including myself) disagree with his assessment of the school system – Mr. Hairfield has actively caused change in the school system. For instance, Mr. Hairfield told my father a while back that he had brought Rick Sherrill to Burke “to clean up the schools.” Now as misguided and potentially catastrophic as that vision is, I do think Mr. Hairfield is sincere.
My own impression of Mr. Hairfield is that he is a grouchy, stubborn guy who is stuck in the early 1960’s – he respects discipline and authority. (He was a graduate of Oak Ridge Military Academy in 1963). He reportedly spent much of his adult life in the military – in the “old school” military. Where men were men and there was no tolerance for those who crossed the line socially; racial equality and women’s liberation were foisted upon that populace (we're talking the Navy) and shoved down reluctant throats. When I think of Mr. Hairfield, I am often reminded of Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” – “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” Yada yada yada (yawn.)
In many ways, Mr. Hairfield just does not “get it,” (i.e. bringing Mr. Sherrill back to Burke County) – and many of us do not “get" him. And although Mr. Hairfield seems to carry a perpetual chip on his shoulder toward those whom he perceives as the “elites” in the county, he himself was raised by a family that is by all accounts upper-class and gracious.
Unfortunately for him, Mr. Hairfield has also made the mistake of colluding with Norman, Buff and Sain in the past. As the old saw goes, when one sleeps with dogs, one wakes with fleas. (I have personal experience with this because I often sleep with dogs – real dogs, not figurative ones like the ones I reference above.)
Anyhow, we already know that Mr. Hairfield has the propensity to exhibit a sense of humor that we in the 21st century do not appreciate. So, the question is – what will the 3 Horsemen of the Apocalypse do to threaten Mr. Hairfield so that he will change his vote for replacement school board member?
I can just hear it now: Mr. Buff: “Now Rob, I don’t know what you think you’re pullin’ here – but you had better change your vote to a vote for Aulgur at the next meetin’ – or there will be hell to pay!” (Not sure what that “hell” might be, but because Mr. Hairfield has allowed indiscretions to sully him in the past, I bet there might be some unturned stones out there. And being the political animal/”Hand of God” that Tim Buff is, my guess is that he has been taking notes on all of his cohorts for quite some time.)
So to echo Mr. Buff, my question is: “Mr. Hairfield, do you have what it takes? Do you have what it takes to withstand the intimidation and bullying you have to go through in this job? Do you have the courage to stand up for your principles?”
Mr. Hairfield, I am not happy with many of the decisions you have made – I think your emails are inexcusable. But I have always acknowledged that you are a clever person and possess analytical and logic skills that Buff, Sain and Norman will never have. Now you will have to withstand the test of the Grand Inquisitor Bully Buff and his two minions.
I’m pulling for you.
The following is a comment posted by "Anonymous." It was so impressive I moved it to the blog entry. So, Anonymous - thank you!
The three bully goats Buff at the bridge waiting to see how the question is answered by the troll. Talk about a 'grim' fairy tale! So many songs and stories come to mind about standing for something or falling for anything, redeeming oneself, and just having one shining moment as a step in the proper direction OR stepping down and aside so another with the smarts can act on behalf of those without a voice who should be the main focus---the kids.
Sir, you have the perfect opportunity show the community whether one error in judgement made without thinking has been dealt with and can be moved on from OR if you truly are going to be yanked back under control of others who have much less sense and concern for your well being and the future of the school system. Make the right thing happen. Have your own voice, and for Pete's sake, address all...old, young, teachers, administrators, students, parents, county officials, lawyers, outsiders,insiders, red, yellow, black, white, and all combinations of the above with the exact same respect that your mother and grandmother deserve from you. Don't care if you like it or not. It's in the rules. Fake civility if you have to, but be charming, courteous, listen, appreciative, and ALWAYS end an encounter feeling as if you've met someone and left them a better person (both of you better people).
Leadership is not about controlling or being controlled; it is about managing, providing security, listening, creating a place where input is valued, and when the tough stuff has to get done, there is accountability all the way up to the top that almost all the group can buy into.
We've failed miserably recently. AYP's All Your Promises=broken All Your Parents= beside themselves with anger All Your Peers = baffled that Burke could get into such a mess and worst of all, Any Young Person looking for hope and encouragement has been lost in the political battle, and the scores that are being posted for the 'game' don't mean a hill of beans because there is a major logic problem.We have to become Advocate Youth Partners (all of us) to get community, school, parents, home, church, industry, higher education, vocational training, political situations allll working together or there will not be a community much longer. There will be drop outs, lost jobs, and many negative things that you've seen coming and already addressed.
Not just one person has the power to stop things by standing up for what is right and against being bullied into taking a stance for or against something. Everybody has a voice. Pressure can be suppressive to hold things down, or it can launch things to the moon.
Time to get behind something and see what can happen when enough bright folks reach for the stars...
June 15, 2009 1:30 AM
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
I'm just sayin' . . .
This is an interesting link:
http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org/abcs/servlet/abcIGetPDFRpt?pRptType=1&pYear=2007-2008
Essentially, no county in NC "made AYP."
Burke County's percentage of targets met was 87.1%
That is 30th among 119 NC school districts ("LEA's" - Local Education Agencies).
Guess what rank Burke County held in "per pupil" spending based on 2006-2007 data?
That would be 95th out of 115 schools if you count child nutrition expenditures, and 98th out of 115 if you don't.
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/resources/data/statisticalprofile/2008profile.pdf
So, it seems to me we should be praising someone who is doing so much with so little, not trying to find a reason to terminate his employment.
http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org/abcs/servlet/abcIGetPDFRpt?pRptType=1&pYear=2007-2008
Essentially, no county in NC "made AYP."
Burke County's percentage of targets met was 87.1%
That is 30th among 119 NC school districts ("LEA's" - Local Education Agencies).
Guess what rank Burke County held in "per pupil" spending based on 2006-2007 data?
That would be 95th out of 115 schools if you count child nutrition expenditures, and 98th out of 115 if you don't.
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/resources/data/statisticalprofile/2008profile.pdf
So, it seems to me we should be praising someone who is doing so much with so little, not trying to find a reason to terminate his employment.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
The Puppet Master
When self-importance leads to self-preservation, strategy dictates that one provides the public with a substitute target for their outrage: enter the Puppet Master Buff, and his marionettes/sacrificial lambs(?) Ms. Norman and Ms. Sain.
Oh well, I am sure it is God's Will.
Simple Ironies: Tim Buff
During his campaign, Mr. Buff was asked about how Burke County was doing in educating its students. He also was asked "What is lacking in our school system?" You will also recall that he called on all Burke County Citizens to "Buy in Burke"... In the NH article dated 10-31-07, he makes a point to emphasize that "we can improve on our employee promoting and promote from within when it's at all possible." He noticed "it seems like we have a little bit of a problem with hiring from Burke County." He wanted to "improve our employee promotion and our employee hiring practices." Oh, ok... so hiring Schwartz and Sherrill is your idea of hiring from Burke County? How many other out of county hires have there been?
In the same article he felt that "as far as administration, I think the lines of communication need to be much improved." He was then asked "Is it necessary for school board members to get along?" to which he responded: "Absolutely. That body needs to function as a team. We need to be able to have trust and confidence in each other. It gets out of balance and you get a board that's not pulling in the same direction. It's most important for a board to get along.
"When asked in a News Herald article dated 11-03-07 what his favorite song was, he responded "Thank You for Giving to the Lord." He went on to explain that "the things that I've done, I've never done for recognition but because it betters our community."
At the candidate forum, Mr. Buff stated "the school board should have unbiased accountability and do what's right for the students and support the students and become involved in the schools." (NH article dated10-23-07).
So I guess we support our students by telling them they can't speak at the BOE meetings, or telling them what they can and can't speak on or even better by having them removed by law enforcement at a public meeting? Perhaps a more professional board might have thanked the students for their interest and participation in the school system, maybe even explained to them that because of time restraints they couldn't hear public comment from all of the students signed up to speak, or even offered to stay after the meeting to shake their hands and hear what they have to say? And where is the "unbiased accountability"?
I have trouble even typing this one... When asked "What will you do to restore respect to the board and the school system?" he responded "continue to be accountable to the school system and the community; to be accountable and open and above board." (NH article dated 10-29-07)
So your idea of accountability is refusing to explain the reason you fired David Burleson except for stating that "it is God's will and you just need to get over it.”
In the excitement of the election results, Mr. Buff exclaimed "I'm just excited about a board that can work together." (NH article dated 11-29-07)
When named chairman, he "asked the board to do something he called 'unorthodox'. The board joined hands to pray for guidance and the support of each other. (NH article dated 11-03-07) I guess that prayer went unanswered...
His theme was reconciliation?
Remind me never to invite him to row in my canoe...
On November 9, 2007, the News Herald interviewed Chairman Buff on the future of the school board. The Headline: "Buff: Burleson's job is safe" In it he states "neither he nor other board members he knows of have any intentions of getting rid of Burleson or anyone else in the Central Office..... Buff said he wouldn't have voted to renew Burleson's contract twice if he wanted to get rid of him." As for rebuilding relationships, he said "I think you'll see the board will have respect for each member... The real challenge will be in reaching out to those people who did not support him and the other newly-elected members and working with them..... Buff said he and the other new members ran on being a voice of the people." On building trust with the community, "He intends to uphold that and represent the community as whole and not special groups."
I thought he was just implementing God's will?
Was he really supposed to listen to the electorate?
At that fateful February 18, 2008, BOE meeting (which may play prominently in any upcoming lawsuits) Mr. Buff challenged John Ervin (rather angrily) about any "adversarial relationship" with Mr. Burleson; he stated "If anyone had a political agenda, I would like to see it because I did not have one. ....Mr. Burleson was a great superintendent and that I agree with most everything Mr. Burleson recommends but just because I may not agree with everything he does not make it an adversarial relationship."
So do we really need to even find Mr. Burleson's evaluations? Don't we have former Chairman Buff on record just one year ago stating that Mr. Burleson is doing a great job?
by Tim Rooks
Oh well, I am sure it is God's Will.
Simple Ironies: Tim Buff
During his campaign, Mr. Buff was asked about how Burke County was doing in educating its students. He also was asked "What is lacking in our school system?" You will also recall that he called on all Burke County Citizens to "Buy in Burke"... In the NH article dated 10-31-07, he makes a point to emphasize that "we can improve on our employee promoting and promote from within when it's at all possible." He noticed "it seems like we have a little bit of a problem with hiring from Burke County." He wanted to "improve our employee promotion and our employee hiring practices." Oh, ok... so hiring Schwartz and Sherrill is your idea of hiring from Burke County? How many other out of county hires have there been?
In the same article he felt that "as far as administration, I think the lines of communication need to be much improved." He was then asked "Is it necessary for school board members to get along?" to which he responded: "Absolutely. That body needs to function as a team. We need to be able to have trust and confidence in each other. It gets out of balance and you get a board that's not pulling in the same direction. It's most important for a board to get along.
"When asked in a News Herald article dated 11-03-07 what his favorite song was, he responded "Thank You for Giving to the Lord." He went on to explain that "the things that I've done, I've never done for recognition but because it betters our community."
At the candidate forum, Mr. Buff stated "the school board should have unbiased accountability and do what's right for the students and support the students and become involved in the schools." (NH article dated10-23-07).
So I guess we support our students by telling them they can't speak at the BOE meetings, or telling them what they can and can't speak on or even better by having them removed by law enforcement at a public meeting? Perhaps a more professional board might have thanked the students for their interest and participation in the school system, maybe even explained to them that because of time restraints they couldn't hear public comment from all of the students signed up to speak, or even offered to stay after the meeting to shake their hands and hear what they have to say? And where is the "unbiased accountability"?
I have trouble even typing this one... When asked "What will you do to restore respect to the board and the school system?" he responded "continue to be accountable to the school system and the community; to be accountable and open and above board." (NH article dated 10-29-07)
So your idea of accountability is refusing to explain the reason you fired David Burleson except for stating that "it is God's will and you just need to get over it.”
In the excitement of the election results, Mr. Buff exclaimed "I'm just excited about a board that can work together." (NH article dated 11-29-07)
When named chairman, he "asked the board to do something he called 'unorthodox'. The board joined hands to pray for guidance and the support of each other. (NH article dated 11-03-07) I guess that prayer went unanswered...
His theme was reconciliation?
Remind me never to invite him to row in my canoe...
On November 9, 2007, the News Herald interviewed Chairman Buff on the future of the school board. The Headline: "Buff: Burleson's job is safe" In it he states "neither he nor other board members he knows of have any intentions of getting rid of Burleson or anyone else in the Central Office..... Buff said he wouldn't have voted to renew Burleson's contract twice if he wanted to get rid of him." As for rebuilding relationships, he said "I think you'll see the board will have respect for each member... The real challenge will be in reaching out to those people who did not support him and the other newly-elected members and working with them..... Buff said he and the other new members ran on being a voice of the people." On building trust with the community, "He intends to uphold that and represent the community as whole and not special groups."
I thought he was just implementing God's will?
Was he really supposed to listen to the electorate?
At that fateful February 18, 2008, BOE meeting (which may play prominently in any upcoming lawsuits) Mr. Buff challenged John Ervin (rather angrily) about any "adversarial relationship" with Mr. Burleson; he stated "If anyone had a political agenda, I would like to see it because I did not have one. ....Mr. Burleson was a great superintendent and that I agree with most everything Mr. Burleson recommends but just because I may not agree with everything he does not make it an adversarial relationship."
So do we really need to even find Mr. Burleson's evaluations? Don't we have former Chairman Buff on record just one year ago stating that Mr. Burleson is doing a great job?
by Tim Rooks
Thursday, June 4, 2009
When a Dog isn't an Animal
In law school professors warn students about those cases where everything seems perfect – your client has been wronged, is blameless – there is case law or state or federal statutes directly “on point,” and you have direct, incontrovertible proof of the defendant’s commission of that wrong. So, your professors warn you, these are the cases that tend to bite young lawyers in the derriere. When lawyers catch their first “slam-dunk” case, it is often inevitable that reality will quickly set in – and sometimes that slam dunk results in the “slamming” of the young attorney. These early “slam dunk” cases are the stuff of lawyer “war stories” – buy a couple of lawyers a couple of beers, and they’ll compete with each other telling stories about who made the biggest fools of themselves before which judge in which court.
Lawyers learn pretty quickly that clients present facts that tend to portray them (the client) in the most favorable light. Often clients do not understand that their attorney has to know the complete truth (as the client sees it) to effectively defend them. Clients tend to omit significant details – dates, people and actions mainly. Usually defense attorneys don’t want to know the client’s motives (the real motives) – although the plaintiff’s attorney will do everything they can to divine those motives. Seasoned attorneys know when they have an actual, “bonified” slam-dunk. Attorneys know when they have the opposite of a “slam dunk,” too. The technical term for that kind of case is a “dog.”
I think that Mr. Hinson probably knew pretty early on that he had a “slam-dunk.” Not sure what Mr. Schwartz thought initially, but I am guessing that after his first meeting with the “Litigation Committee,” he figured out quickly that he had a case of the canine variety.
So, in spite of the reports that the judge actually commented as to the nature of the board’s actions (any supposition that the judge was skeptical of the motivation of the board’s decision must be made at one’s own peril), the judge simply ruled on whether the plaintiff (Mr. Burleson) had met the two most important prongs that must be met to justify the grant of a preliminary restraining order. (There are actually 4 prongs, but the last two, “balance of harms” and whether the injunctions are in the public’s interest – were treated as kind of non-issues in this case).
Those two prongs are: 1) whether the claim is likely to prevail on the merits when the issue goes to trial and 2) whether the damage suffered by Mr. Burleson can be adequately compensated by money damages.
As to “prong one”: In spite of Mr. Schwartz attempts to persuade the judge of what the statute in question really meant, the Judge had done his own homework - consulting a UNC-CH Professor at the NC School of Government to comment on the legislative history of the statute. (I think the judge probably noted that the statute was pretty darn clear when he read the complaint - that the contract is valid under that statute – but as a seasoned lawyer/judge, Judge Doughton wanted to be sure that he wasn’t missing anything - see the first couple of paragraphs above about how lawyers learn that sometimes “if the case looks like a slam-dunk it probably isn’t”.)
Anyhow, Mr. Schwartz insisted that he was involved in the drafting of the statute, and that he knew what the legislators intended – and went on to disagree with the Professor’s comments as supplied to the judge. Judge Doughton listened patiently to Mr. Schwartz. And then when Mr. Schwartz finished his repetitive conclusions as to why the statute had a different meaning other than its plain meaning, Judge Doughton replied something to the tune of “Well, if that was what you meant when you drafted the statute, why didn’t you write it that way?” ‘Nuff said.
So, to satisfy prong one the Judge appeared to apply the plain meaning of the statute – supported by his own research on the legislative history of the statute – to determine that the plaintiff, Mr. Burleson, would most likely prevail in a trial on the merits in the future.
Next, prong two: are the damages compensable by money damages? This issue is a bit stickier, but not much. True, just about anything can be quantified these days. Non-lawyers are often under the assumption that everything is quantifiable –and that every wrong committed can be compensated by money. However, there are some things that demand a remedy in equity. In spite of the attempts by Mr. Schwartz to convince the judge that money would be an adequate remedy should Mr. Burleson prevail at trial, the judge didn’t buy it.
I’m sure there are lawyers who can clarify this better than I, but American citizens are entitled to procedural Due Process when any of three things are threatened – those things are life, liberty or property. In North Carolina, there is substantial case law indicating that a public employment contract such as the one between Mr. Burleson and the Board of Education, is a “property right.” There is a history in the common law to recognize contracts as a “property rights” as well. So, an injunction is necessary to protect Mr. Burleson’s property rights in his contract so that the issue can be tried on the merits, and not summarily taken away by the board.
So, long story short – prong 2 was satisfied as well.
I enjoyed listening to the judge’s questions of the attorneys. I also winced when the judge corrected both sides on their use of phrases such as “the law says” or “this statute requires. . . .” I thought those particular comments from the lawyers were perfectly sound – but the judge didn’t. More than a few times he’d say something like “Isn’t that why I am here? To determine what the law says?” or, he’d say something like “the school board does not interpret the law, I do.”
I did feel some sympathy for Mr. Schwartz. He was handed a “dog.” Although I am sure he is counting his fees and smiling all the way back to Raleigh, it never feels good to have to work with so little. And with the ever deteriorating emotional state of the board majority, coupled with the tendency to dig in like a mule when plans go awry rather than gracefully admit defeat, I fear that Mr. Schwartz will be counting those fees for some time to come.
Note to all of you Law Review types:
This is a publication for the masses - to argue finer points of the law, write your own article!
To correct blatant misrepresentations of the law, please comment (nicely) below.
Lawyers learn pretty quickly that clients present facts that tend to portray them (the client) in the most favorable light. Often clients do not understand that their attorney has to know the complete truth (as the client sees it) to effectively defend them. Clients tend to omit significant details – dates, people and actions mainly. Usually defense attorneys don’t want to know the client’s motives (the real motives) – although the plaintiff’s attorney will do everything they can to divine those motives. Seasoned attorneys know when they have an actual, “bonified” slam-dunk. Attorneys know when they have the opposite of a “slam dunk,” too. The technical term for that kind of case is a “dog.”
I think that Mr. Hinson probably knew pretty early on that he had a “slam-dunk.” Not sure what Mr. Schwartz thought initially, but I am guessing that after his first meeting with the “Litigation Committee,” he figured out quickly that he had a case of the canine variety.
So, in spite of the reports that the judge actually commented as to the nature of the board’s actions (any supposition that the judge was skeptical of the motivation of the board’s decision must be made at one’s own peril), the judge simply ruled on whether the plaintiff (Mr. Burleson) had met the two most important prongs that must be met to justify the grant of a preliminary restraining order. (There are actually 4 prongs, but the last two, “balance of harms” and whether the injunctions are in the public’s interest – were treated as kind of non-issues in this case).
Those two prongs are: 1) whether the claim is likely to prevail on the merits when the issue goes to trial and 2) whether the damage suffered by Mr. Burleson can be adequately compensated by money damages.
As to “prong one”: In spite of Mr. Schwartz attempts to persuade the judge of what the statute in question really meant, the Judge had done his own homework - consulting a UNC-CH Professor at the NC School of Government to comment on the legislative history of the statute. (I think the judge probably noted that the statute was pretty darn clear when he read the complaint - that the contract is valid under that statute – but as a seasoned lawyer/judge, Judge Doughton wanted to be sure that he wasn’t missing anything - see the first couple of paragraphs above about how lawyers learn that sometimes “if the case looks like a slam-dunk it probably isn’t”.)
Anyhow, Mr. Schwartz insisted that he was involved in the drafting of the statute, and that he knew what the legislators intended – and went on to disagree with the Professor’s comments as supplied to the judge. Judge Doughton listened patiently to Mr. Schwartz. And then when Mr. Schwartz finished his repetitive conclusions as to why the statute had a different meaning other than its plain meaning, Judge Doughton replied something to the tune of “Well, if that was what you meant when you drafted the statute, why didn’t you write it that way?” ‘Nuff said.
So, to satisfy prong one the Judge appeared to apply the plain meaning of the statute – supported by his own research on the legislative history of the statute – to determine that the plaintiff, Mr. Burleson, would most likely prevail in a trial on the merits in the future.
Next, prong two: are the damages compensable by money damages? This issue is a bit stickier, but not much. True, just about anything can be quantified these days. Non-lawyers are often under the assumption that everything is quantifiable –and that every wrong committed can be compensated by money. However, there are some things that demand a remedy in equity. In spite of the attempts by Mr. Schwartz to convince the judge that money would be an adequate remedy should Mr. Burleson prevail at trial, the judge didn’t buy it.
I’m sure there are lawyers who can clarify this better than I, but American citizens are entitled to procedural Due Process when any of three things are threatened – those things are life, liberty or property. In North Carolina, there is substantial case law indicating that a public employment contract such as the one between Mr. Burleson and the Board of Education, is a “property right.” There is a history in the common law to recognize contracts as a “property rights” as well. So, an injunction is necessary to protect Mr. Burleson’s property rights in his contract so that the issue can be tried on the merits, and not summarily taken away by the board.
So, long story short – prong 2 was satisfied as well.
I enjoyed listening to the judge’s questions of the attorneys. I also winced when the judge corrected both sides on their use of phrases such as “the law says” or “this statute requires. . . .” I thought those particular comments from the lawyers were perfectly sound – but the judge didn’t. More than a few times he’d say something like “Isn’t that why I am here? To determine what the law says?” or, he’d say something like “the school board does not interpret the law, I do.”
I did feel some sympathy for Mr. Schwartz. He was handed a “dog.” Although I am sure he is counting his fees and smiling all the way back to Raleigh, it never feels good to have to work with so little. And with the ever deteriorating emotional state of the board majority, coupled with the tendency to dig in like a mule when plans go awry rather than gracefully admit defeat, I fear that Mr. Schwartz will be counting those fees for some time to come.
Note to all of you Law Review types:
This is a publication for the masses - to argue finer points of the law, write your own article!
To correct blatant misrepresentations of the law, please comment (nicely) below.
Who needs Blanche Dubois?
Irrationality.
Emotional Instability.
Narcissism.
Time for -
Simple Ironies: Tracy Norman
Everyone knows about the Tracy Norman "moving out of district" controversy, but her explanation was comical. She stated that her move out of district "was temporary because she didn't change her voter registration or driver's license." (NH article dated 10-16-07). I didn't know residency was defined by what your voter registration and driver's license says...actually, I thought it was the other way around...
Forget the map issue, not going there...
Let's just get right to the "agenda" and Mr. Burleson... read the February 18, 2008, BOE minutes. You will recall that John Ervin challenged the board on their "adversarial relationship" with the superintendent. Tracy "challenged those who felt there was an adversarial relationship between some board members and Mr. Burleson to come together and work together until the next election. She continued by stating that if at that time they still were not happy, then they should vote for change at the next election." Sounds like her current position..."If you don't like what I do, vote me out."
At that same meeting, Tracy requested "the support of the other six board members in having the book (The Kite Runner) pulled from the schools of Burke County. In the audio portion of that meeting, Tracy is heard to suggest that the book review procedures in the BOE Policy Manual be disregarded, and that the book be immediately pulled from the schools. Ok, so the board's policy manuals and procedures don't apply to you and your friends, Tracy ?
Disregarding the fact that she might ultimately sit in judgment of the book in any appeals process set forth in the Board's policy manual, she openly stated "that she didn't feel the redeeming value of the book outweighed the negative impact." That's like a judge saying before the trial.."I think your client is a liar and the scum of the earth, but go ahead and call your first witness counselor."
This is indicative of an underlying belief by her, apparently, that the only person who matters is her, and that the rules don't apply to her (whether it be requirements to live in district; whether it be to update the address on your driver's license within 60 days of any move; whether it be the 1st amendment and right of people to challenge her decisions; whether it be the books she dislikes but other's don't; whether it be an injunction issued by the court; whether it be a letter telling her she can’t trespass at a county-owned building; whether it be limiting the discussion in closed sessions to the stated purpose of the closed sessions; whether it be calling a closed session properly and in accordance with the NC Statutes (which only Mr. Schwartz seems to know how to do properly);...... or whether it be the fact that like it or not, fair or unfair, right or wrong, SHE has become a distraction to the board and to the business of the board, and SHE and her controversies, the manner in which she conducts a meeting, and her decision making have made HER bigger than the school system and the education of our children. And so, I suppose, having taken some psychology classes at Drew University and having been one class short of a major in sociology, it would make sense that only a person as self-absorbed as her can fail to see that she needs to resign, remove herself from the spotlight, for the betterment of the system she was elected to serve....
by Tim Rooks
Note: Mr. Rooks wrote this piece before Ms. Norman's latest adventure at the Central Office Wednesday night.
Emotional Instability.
Narcissism.
Time for -
Simple Ironies: Tracy Norman
Everyone knows about the Tracy Norman "moving out of district" controversy, but her explanation was comical. She stated that her move out of district "was temporary because she didn't change her voter registration or driver's license." (NH article dated 10-16-07). I didn't know residency was defined by what your voter registration and driver's license says...actually, I thought it was the other way around...
Forget the map issue, not going there...
Let's just get right to the "agenda" and Mr. Burleson... read the February 18, 2008, BOE minutes. You will recall that John Ervin challenged the board on their "adversarial relationship" with the superintendent. Tracy "challenged those who felt there was an adversarial relationship between some board members and Mr. Burleson to come together and work together until the next election. She continued by stating that if at that time they still were not happy, then they should vote for change at the next election." Sounds like her current position..."If you don't like what I do, vote me out."
At that same meeting, Tracy requested "the support of the other six board members in having the book (The Kite Runner) pulled from the schools of Burke County. In the audio portion of that meeting, Tracy is heard to suggest that the book review procedures in the BOE Policy Manual be disregarded, and that the book be immediately pulled from the schools. Ok, so the board's policy manuals and procedures don't apply to you and your friends, Tracy ?
Disregarding the fact that she might ultimately sit in judgment of the book in any appeals process set forth in the Board's policy manual, she openly stated "that she didn't feel the redeeming value of the book outweighed the negative impact." That's like a judge saying before the trial.."I think your client is a liar and the scum of the earth, but go ahead and call your first witness counselor."
This is indicative of an underlying belief by her, apparently, that the only person who matters is her, and that the rules don't apply to her (whether it be requirements to live in district; whether it be to update the address on your driver's license within 60 days of any move; whether it be the 1st amendment and right of people to challenge her decisions; whether it be the books she dislikes but other's don't; whether it be an injunction issued by the court; whether it be a letter telling her she can’t trespass at a county-owned building; whether it be limiting the discussion in closed sessions to the stated purpose of the closed sessions; whether it be calling a closed session properly and in accordance with the NC Statutes (which only Mr. Schwartz seems to know how to do properly);...... or whether it be the fact that like it or not, fair or unfair, right or wrong, SHE has become a distraction to the board and to the business of the board, and SHE and her controversies, the manner in which she conducts a meeting, and her decision making have made HER bigger than the school system and the education of our children. And so, I suppose, having taken some psychology classes at Drew University and having been one class short of a major in sociology, it would make sense that only a person as self-absorbed as her can fail to see that she needs to resign, remove herself from the spotlight, for the betterment of the system she was elected to serve....
by Tim Rooks
Note: Mr. Rooks wrote this piece before Ms. Norman's latest adventure at the Central Office Wednesday night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
